Poland’s rapid response to change in higher education makes it a hidden gem

Author: Dr. Andrew Tuson MAUA,
Study Tour Coordinator, Consultant and Interim Manager,
Association of University Administrators

The Association of University Administrators conducts Study Tours annually to investigate an overseas higher education system. A report is written of the team’s findings. We are grateful to the Leadership Foundation for their support of the forthcoming report.

This year, the Study Tour was in Poland and like previous tours it had the following objectives:

  • To undertake a fact finding mission and produce a report on the Polish higher education system which incorporates analysis of similarities and differences and considers ways of sharing best practise;
  • To enable participants to gain an international perspective on aspects of higher education decision making, policy and practise;
  • To allow tour participants the opportunity to challenge their existing notions about higher education and undertake research in a non-UK environment.

Poland is a hidden gem in Europe, with more history, science and culture to offer than is commonly realised. For example, Polish mathematicians originally broke the Enigma cipher, work that shortened the war and saved countless lives. (Bletchley Park extended their work to later versions of the cipher and made it work on an industrial scale).

Initial desk research revealed a number of interesting and distinctive features of Polish higher education. For example. Polish higher education has a large recent private higher education sector that has played an important role in widening participation. Poland’s system has also undergone vast change in recent years. The system has played a key role in supporting Poland’s transition towards democracy, entry to the European Union and alignment with the Bologna Process. As such the focus was on three overarching themes:

  • Quality assurance;
  • Student demand, including internationalisation and the rise of the Private Sector;
  • Governance, including the student voice.

Three cities were the focus during our visit on the 10-17 May 2015: Warsaw, Poznan and Krakow. We visited between a number of public (Warsaw University of Technology, Adam Mickelwicz University and the Jageillonian University) as well as private providers (TEB/WSB, Vistula, Collegium Da Vinci and Kozminski). We were also received by the Polish higher education ministry and the PKA (the Polish Accreditation Committee).

The report will likely be published by November, but for now here are some initial impressions.

  • There is a clear and pressing issue of demographics in the sector. Since 2006 the student population has declined from about 2 million to just under 1.5 million. The situation will bottom out in 2025.
  • The Polish QA body, the PKA, runs about 1000 reviews a year. Unlike the UK, external examiners are not used by HEIs; rather external academics look at samples of work as part of the PKA review process.
  • Internationalisation is a recent consideration (there are only about 45,000 non-Polish students in the system), and the drivers appear to be not as commercial as would be the case in the publically funded UK HEIs. There are a lot of students from the Former Soviet Union in Polish universities (Ukraine and Belarus account for half of their non-Polish students).
  • The democratisation of public university governance with key officers (e.g. Rector) being elected; in the communist era the post-holders were appointed. Students are required to be represented in key governance committees including some that make financial decisions, by law. This applies in both private and public universities.

From a leadership perspective, it is remarkable how Polish higher education has responded to so much change. It had to expand rapidly, introduce and regulate a large private sector and upgrade its infrastructure. How Poland builds its capacity to respond to future challenges will be of interest going forward.

For more information on the team and where we visited. Please read our tour blog which can be found at auapoland2015.blogspot.co.uk.

Our next Study Tour will take place in the Netherlands on Tuesday 10 – Friday 13 November 2015. To find our more please visit AUA’s website www.aua.ac.uk.

Butterflies and education reform

by Katherine Forestier

Katherine Forestier is an international associate of the Leadership Foundation  and co-directed the International Leadership Development Programme (ILDP) visit to Hong Kong and Guangzhou in November, 2013

“Adding wings to caterpillars does not create butterflies. It creates awkward and dysfunctional caterpillars. Butterflies are created through transformation.”

Stephanie Pace Marshall’s quote not only captures the drive for transformation behind University of Hong Kong’s (HKU) new four-year curriculum, but the ambition of Hong Kong’s wider education reforms that it is responding to.

The butterfly analogy made a huge impression on the UK participants in the recent International Leadership Development Programme held in Hong Kong and Guangzhou, co-directed by Professor Jim Yip, director of special projects at the University of Salford.

During the programme the group witnessed the outcomes of more than a decade of carefully planned and interlocking reforms that are now affecting every level of education in the former British colony – from what children should learn from pre-school onwards, to the phasing in of new four-year undergraduate degree programmes that from 2012 is replacing the old, three-year English model.

And in Guangzhou they saw a no less ambitious a transformation, in the form of new campuses emerging from bare ground for newer universities such as Guangzhou Polytechnic Normal University (GPNU) and Guangzhou Maritime Institute (GMI). These are playing a key role in extending access needed for China to achieve its target of expanding its higher education enrolment rate from 24.2 per cent in 2009, to 40 per cent by 2020.

The scale of the Hong Kong reforms, how they are being led at policy and institutional levels, and some inevitable tensions, became evident during meetings with policy makers and academics at the cutting edge of change.

What was notable to the ILDP participants was that in each of the visits, the focus of discussion returned to education – what it should be, and how this could be delivered, assured, and measured. Universities were seen to have run with the policy decision to increase undergraduate courses from three to four years and were now enjoying the luxury of time to give students a more rounded learning experience akin to American liberal arts traditions.

Despite the challenge of having a double cohort of students proceed through the system between 2012 and 2015, they are also making impressive use of the physical spaces built to accommodate the extra year of students. This was seen most dramatically in Hong Kong University of Science and Technology’s state of the art library, with its varied learning spaces and blending of arts, sciences and nature in its design, digital and physical collections, exhibits, and inspirational sea-cum-mountain views.

Gwyn Edwards, director of HKU’s new Common Core Curriculum, shared some insight into the thinking behind the extra year. It could quite easily have been limited to the remedial function of bringing students up to speed in academic subjects after they had left school one year younger in the new academic structure, at age 17 to 18 rather than 18 to 19 – adding wings to that caterpillar.

Instead, it had been grasped as an opportunity to transform the curriculum, in the spirit of the wider education reforms that aim to enhance the critical and creative thinking, and global outlook of young people.

Under the new structure, the fact that students are starting university one year earlier has not been a major issue, because of the time lost under the previous model in preparing for multiple public examinations instead of the single Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education now phased in. In addition, students under the new system are showing early signs of being better motivated and prepared for university in the learning skills and attitudes the new school curriculum helps them develop.

At HKU, aims of the reforms were well understood by its pro vice-chancellor, Professor Amy Tsui, whose academic background is in curriculum studies, and was charged with leading the change.

ILDP HK visit

ILDP4 participants and programme director Jim
Yip (left) at Victoria  Harbour, Hong Kong 

The compulsory Common Core Curriculum, along with English and Chinese language learning, account for about 12 per cent of HKU’s new curriculum, while the extra year also enables the majority of students to participate in exchanges and other study abroad experiences, and credit-bearing experiential learning projects.

A multidiscipline approach is at the heart of the new curriculum, at HKU and other universities. For HKU’s Common Core, students can choose from more than 160 courses across four interlinked Areas of Inquiry – Scientific and Technological Literacy, Humanities, Global Issues, and China: Culture, State and Society – and are expected to take at least one from each.

Academics in Hong Kong face similar pressures to their UK counterparts in balancing teaching and research. So when the call for proposals for Common Core courses was launched, many predicted only a handful would be submitted. Instead, Edwards received 240 for the first 60. Academics, he said, had welcomed the opportunity to teach something that they were genuinely interested in, beyond their discipline, “exploring issues of profound significance to humankind”.

In Hong Kong, discussions are refreshingly frank. No one hides the challenges faced, and the fact that work is still in progress in achieving educational aims of the reforms. Many parents remain unconvinced and continue to send their children overseas, for school and undergraduate education, confirmed in data on the increasing number of Hong Kong students studying in the UK.

Hong Kong China
The visit took place at a time of noticeable tension over Hong Kong’s political future and accelerating integration with China – what could be summed up as its biggest identity crisis since the change of sovereignty in 1997. This is reflected in public angst about the crowds of shoppers from mainland China buying up everything from luxury apartments to the city’s supplies of baby milk formula.

Universities, meanwhile, are questioning just how many mainland students they should recruit and how to ensure they can happily integrate with their local and international peers. The current limit for non-local students is 20 per cent for publicly-funded undergraduate places, but at postgraduate level there are no quotas and the ratio is much higher than that. The challenges in building genuine intercultural understanding and friendships as an outcome of internationalisation were as evident in Hong Kong universities as the UK.

While Hong Kong’s higher education is now irrevocably linked to China through the mainland presence in Hong Kong and expansion of Hong Kong universities through research centres and new branch campuses across the border, key differences remain. Delegates saw policies being implemented that arose, in general, from extensive consultation and collaboration, between policy-makers, educators and the wider community, something one UK participant noted was easier in a small system.

In contrast, in China the GNPU and GMI plans for growth and reform closely mirrored the top-down National Plan for Medium and Long-term Education Reform and Development (2010-2020), in both curriculum priorities – moral education comes first – and targets for growth.

Participants talked of being inspired by what they had seen, in particular the focus on student learning and the broader curriculum in Hong Kong, and the burgeoning growth of both economy and higher education in mainland China. This was contrasted by what was described as a narrower, linear, more functional approach in England, and funding concerns.

One participant noted that Hong Kong did not need to worry about funding issues, given its budget surplus. Yet the reforms have had a long gestation, with the first soul-searching born out of the Asian financial crisis in 1997. Planning for that costly fourth year was not interrupted by further economic crises when the SARS infection ground Hong Kong to a halt in 2003, nor during the recession sparked by the global financial crisis of 2008.

Where there is a will for a new purpose in education, there may be a way. Or as Edwards cited, the butterfly can only fly if it dares to leave the safety of its cocoon.

For more on LF’s international work visit: www.lfhe.ac.uk/international

Georgia on my mind: A distinctive experience


by Dr Paul Gentle

I was fortunate to be able to visit several higher education institutions in and around Atlanta, Georgia last week, in the generous company of a cohort of Top Management Programme 31 delegates. The programme was led by Dr Tom Kennie & Professor Robin Middlehurst. I was most struck by Georgia Gwinnett, a public undergraduate, teaching-only college whose mission is to be a 21st century access institution. It was newly-built and launched in 2006 with 118 inaugural students, now providing a liberal arts education to almost 10,000. The campus provides beautifully-designed buildings and sports and leisure facilities which are well-used by students. Given Georgia Gwinnett College’s mission to engage large numbers of students whose parents did not experience higher education themselves, tuition fees are far from prohibitive, and are limited to a full-time year equivalent of under $3,500 – just over £2,000.

Visiting on a Friday (often a quiet day on US campuses) gives a tangible sense of the engagement and inspiration demonstrated by Georgia Gwinnett’s students. It is immediately obvious that the college and its organisational culture is built on clear and focused educational principles:

  • Harnessing innovation in learning technology to support student success
  • Providing an integrated educational experience in which service learning and other extra-curricular activities play a key role and are actively managed by the College
  • Engagement by all faculty in teaching and mentoring as a hallmark of the institution

There is a deliberately-stated intention to act as a model for innovation in education and administration. All on-campus services and facilities that are not directly linked to delivering the curriculum are outsourced, and the college was designed in this way from the outset.

The founding president, Dan Kaufman, and current president Stas Preczewski, are both former senior officers from West Point Military Academy, and they have applied their experience and vision to creating and sustaining an institution which breeds success – the opening sentences of the prospectus declare ‘Failure is not an option.’

As one dean at Georgia Gwinnett put it, teaching staff are selected on the basis of ‘passion for teaching, and liking students’. Faculty are actively involved in student support, and are expected to be available for students with tutorial needs outside class hours. Every course handbook has the mobile number of the teacher printed clearly on the front cover, and this college-provided phone is meant to elicit a fast response. In addition to providing academic support for students in class and across the campus, there is also a 24-hour online tutoring service for every major undergraduate programme offered on campus.

Despite a short history, Georgia Gwinnett has build a strong reputation quickly, and is already ranked in the top 10% of colleges nationwide for academic challenge, student/faculty interaction outside of the classroom, and for active and collaborative learning. It has also achieved remarkable results for student retention, performing at least ten percentage points higher than the average for state colleges in the United States for first year retention. For a non-selective institution, this pays tribute to the supportive and challenging learning environment offered to students. It also reflects the practice of having maximum class group sizes of 25, and a compulsory attendance requirement.

The power behind the rapid growth of Georgia Gwinnett’s numbers lies in word of mouth: where live-transforming examples of student success affect families, this also impacts on communities, and ultimately, Gwinnett County and beyond. The most frequently reported aspect of student feedback is consistently about one aspect: the quality of the teaching staff. The key message which is now well established in the community is ‘Faculty here will help you make it through’.


There is a clear purpose for Georgia Gwinnett, that of inspiring students to contribute to society. This links to the value of service, and is intended to ensure that the college contributes to the long-term civic growth and sustainability of Gwinnett County and its hinterland. Importantly, the current ethnic mix in the County corresponds to the predicted balance for the United States as a whole by 2040 . This is roughly 35% African-American, 35% white and 25% Latino. Georgia Gwinnett sees itself as an overt prototype of higher education for the 21st century, and is attracting considerable interest from its peers. Not only was it the first new four-year college founded in Georgia in more than 100 years; it was also the first four-year public college created in the United States in the 21st century.

Leadership is a key factor in the organisation of the college. It was set up deliberately without academic departments or departmental chairs, in order to avoid silo mentalities. Deans therefore manage within a model of distributed leadership, in which clusters of colleagues work together across academic programmes and thematic areas of responsibility overseen by associate deans.

In the week when I visited Georgia Gwinnett with a group of leaders from across the UK, the college had just succeeded in securing accreditation for its degree programmes for a further ten-year period, with feedback from the accrediting body which was entirely positive. One aspect which was found to be an outstanding example of leadership practice concerned strategy: Georgia Gwinnett’s strategic plan is a dynamic reality, constantly being updated and enacted. The accrediting body had never before seen this happen before in a higher education institution!

My thanks to Tom Kennie and Robin Middlehurst for setting up such a comprehensive programme of visits, and for all their inspiring work on TMP over the last 14 years

Paul Gentle is the Leadership Foundation’s Director of Programmes and from autumn 2013 will lead Top Management Programme 32 onwards. To find out more about TMP visit: www.lfhe.ac.uk/TMP

China – West Dual Carriageway

hong_kong_pol98 China

by Hannah Phung

As our International Leadership Development Programme (ILDP) for Hong Kong and mainland China comes under the direction of our new Hong Kong Associate, Katherine Forestier and Professor Jim Yip, I’ve had my eyes opened to the complicated higher education relationship between the two powerhouses of Asia and their ambitions.

Of course the relationship has always been complicated, just read Chris Patten’s East and West – subtitled China, Power, and the Future of Asia. Traditionally Hong Kong was known as ‘the Gateway to China’. I would now like to offer a different metaphor and call it ‘The China – West Dual Carriageway’. When I was researching the higher education relationship between the two there was much going on but the main points are:

  • Hong Kong was ‘returned’ to China in 1997 but it was not included in China’s Five-year plans until the 12th version running 2011 – 2015. This now gives Hong Kong a strategic role to play in the mainland’s development
  •  In 2011 the National People’s congress officially approved an agreement between China’s southern Guangzhou province and Hong Kong to co-operate across the border as a ‘world class’ economic region

These developments allow Hong Kong greater opportunities to grow into the mainland and greater access to funding and resources, especially for scientific research, an area in which China is looking towards Hong Kong to support their development.

But opportunities come with their challenges. Hong Kong has always seen itself as independent and its universities are autonomous. How does it balance that with the mainland and its one party control? I know there are UK universities who have links with Chinese universities and the debate is not new, but it is on-going and Hong Kong universities are better placed than most to explain the reality.

Partnerships and links with China is one of the interests for learning more about the region. Another is the students. With predictions that fewer young Britons will want to go to university – for example, at a recent conference UCAS suggested that by 2020 there would be 50,000 fewer UK home university students. This means that UK universities and higher education colleges will continue to recruit from overseas and with China as a prime target.

Chinese parents work tooth and nail to send their one child to a university where they are taught and encouraged to question, reason, justify and think for themselves.The recent issues with UKBA give other nationals the impression the UK no longer welcomes overseas students (indeed, on a recent programme for Saudi Arabia I organised a student said to me “they [British people] are not interested in us, only in our money.”) This is perfect for Hong Kong’s universities as they move up the rankings: they provide a perfect compromise – Western ethics in their style of teaching and at mainland China’s door step. This is not just my speculation, but a prediction in our recently commissioned research report ‘Horizon Scanning: what will higher education look like in 2020?

Hong Kong and China are the vanguard of higher education development in South East Asia, indeed we are doing more leadership work with that part of the world. In the long term (in our ever changing world it may not be that long), I don’t think it will be about students, I don’t think it will be about partnership or deep level partnership, I think it will be role reversal. The meetings and connections that we make possible through ILDP will give you an insight into the thinking and doing that it is going to make it happen.

Hannah Phung is the Leadership Foundation’s international projects manager.

Places are still available on the autumn 2014 run of ILDP more information here.

Arab countries in transition

mena blog pic 20913

by David Lock

Under the UK’s Presidency of the G8 for 2013 the Deauville Partnership with Arab Countries in Transition conference was hosted in London on 16 September. The purpose of the conference was to highlight opportunities and the steps being taken to enable Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia and Yemen, (countries in transition, either in response to uprisings or to avoid them) to develop strong economies and start to meet the expectations of their people. I attended and now share some of the issues and what the Leadership Foundation will be doing to enable UK HEIs to play a part in addressing the challenges.

Foreign Office Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, Alistair Burt, opening the conference said: ’The changes that we have seen in the Middle East and North Africa since 2011 have been momentous and,… when taken together, they constitute the most significant international development so far of the 21st century.’
He said that the underlying motivation for the uprisings that swept the region had been ‘the demand for legitimate rights and respect for individual dignity; including the prospect of finding a job and of citizens being able to ply their trade without state interference. Meeting the high expectations of the people is a complicated and challenging task, and it is one that a fragile security environment makes even more difficult.’

From his remarks and the inputs and discussion which followed it is clear that an economic response is paramount. It is estimated that up to 100 million jobs will need to be created across the Middle East and North Africa during the next decade. The private sector will be critical in fuelling the growth needed to create those jobs by providing the investment. However, issues that are vital for achieving a sustainable long term future, such as furthering women’s economic empowerment, the development of entrepreneurism, the development of renewable energy, agribusiness, tourism, banking and finance and the creation of transparent legislative structures will require a response from all sectors of society, including higher education.

In March the Leadership Foundation signed an agreement with the Association of Arab Universities (AArU) to provide leadership development programmes for its members, which included universities in the transition countries. Together with Cardiff Metropolitan University the LF has undertaken scoping exercises in 4 of the transition countries and run pilot leadership programmes. Under the new agreement these will be extended to the 18 other countries with universities in membership of AArU and the range of themes will be extended.

As well as strategic leadership, investment in enabling more women to become effective leaders, developing capacity for producing graduates that are more entrepreneurial, embracing employers as more significant stakeholders and, taking a longer term view, encouraging more young researchers to develop leadership skills, will be an important contribution to achieving the aims of the countries concerned.
Universities in the UK are good at all these things. The partnerships that can grow from participating in the leadership development activities at an early stage could place UK universities in a strong position as the fruits of the Deauville initiative ripen.

The details of the LF’s activities with AArU in 2013-14 will be determined in Jordan in October. The LF is strongest when it works in partnership with its member UK universities. I would welcome the views of LF member universities on ways in which they would like to partner in this work.

David Lock is the Leadership Foundation’s director of international. Contact him at david.lock [at] lfhe.ac.uk 

Leadership in Saudi Arabia: women’s perspective

IMG_0230 IMG_0224

By Rebecca Nestor

In June of this year I was privileged to work with a group of sixteen high-achieving women students at the University of Dammam, Saudi Arabia, on a new five-day programme to support their personal and leadership development. I adapted and customised a programme from one devised for male students delivered by Leadership Foundation associate Glyn Jones in 2012*. The programme aimed to provide a supportive group learning experience leaving participants with insight into their individual personality type and personal leadership style and understanding of high-performing teams, how organisations work, leadership principles, influencing, networking and organisational change. The programme was part of the University of Dammam’s contribution to the current government’s efforts on improving women’s access to the professions.

Dammam gave the Leadership Foundation a high-quality brief, including feedback on the 2012 programme and how they wanted to see the young women’s programme take shape. Just as importantly, they put me in touch with Dr Mona Al-Sheikh, who teaches medicine and is also in the University’s medical education unit. Dr Al-Sheikh proved to be a great partner in the development of the programme. We talked via Skype and exchanged emails while I was adapting Glyn’s design. She gave me some excellent background on the prospective participants, from which I learned that they had been selected not just by their tutors but also by their peers, using criteria including morality and helpfulness as well as their academic performance. And they were, I was told, very enthusiastic about the programme and excited about the opportunity it represented for them. Mona encouraged me to focus the programme on helping participants to understand their own potential and to work together – so plenty of activities, team-based exercises, and personal reflection, processes that she explained would be relatively unlikely to form a part of their normal university studies.

With no previous visits to Saudi Arabia to inform my planning, I wondered what the participants’ previous experience of leadership would have been. In a segregated society, what role models would these young women have seen and how relevant or appropriate would my leadership background feel to them? How could we talk about women’s leadership in ways that respected Saudi culture, Islamic values and my own principles?

The answer turned out to be threefold. First, I drew on my experience of women-only personal development programmes and made community-building a key part of the design. The group started with personal timelines, focusing on important events in their personal lives; they worked in pairs and small groups, returning to the small groups several times throughout the programme so as to build a supportive network; and they practised giving and receiving feedback to each other. As part of this community-building, I shared my own experiences of leadership at community level and to some extent opened up my own life to their scrutiny. One participant said at the end that she had shared things with others on the programme that she had never previously discussed outside her family. Secondly, we discussed and articulated our values explicitly during the programme, both in leadership stories and in the practical activities (see photos). This enabled a focus on the morality of leadership, and of Islamic leadership, which seemed to me to resonate powerfully with participants. And thirdly, my colleague Mona acted as a role model herself, discussed other women leaders, and brought in female leaders in days 4 and 5 of the programme so that participants could hear their stories through the frame of the ideas we had discussed in days 1-3.

I’ve learned a lot from the experience. My cultural antennae have been sharpened, which can only help my consultancy skills; I took some risks in design and delivery, and the programme benefited from it; and on a personal level, visiting Saudi Arabia (albeit only for a few days) was an amazing learning experience for me, and I loved getting to know the women in our programme and understanding a little about their lives. I had a couple of delightful social gatherings, including a trip to the mall, and was the subject of traditional Arabic generosity and hospitality.  I got some great advice on how to fix my hijab properly (though I fear making it stay in place is something that only comes with more practice than I had time for). The photo shows me in the abaya or long gown which was a present from Mona, and with my hijab in place thanks to help from the students.

Reflecting on the relevance of this experience for leaders in UK higher education, I’m struck by the power of drawing on one’s own personal experience, and how this helps engage with others with whom one might have thought one had little in common.

*The 2013 run of the Dammam programme for male students took place in Greenwich, London 26 – 30 August and was led by Glyn Jones. 

Rebecca Nestor is the Director of Learning For Good Ltd, and is an associate and regional co-ordinator of the Leadership Foundation

Global Mindset

global mindsets pic 30413

by Dr Mark Pegg

I live near the international headquarters of GE Healthcare. As a good employer, GE actively engages with the local community. Each year, they meet me (in my role as governor at my son’s school) and a group of teachers from local secondary schools to share what they seek from the graduates of today. It is still surprising to the teachers to discover that GE particularly looks for good communication skills and the ability to work effectively in multi-disciplinary and multi-cultural teams as much as they seek high academic attainment in science. Academic talent is not in itself any use to GE unless these graduates are able to collaborate across global teams and draw strength and inspiration from them.

Working with the National Centre for Universities and Business, multi-nationals like GSK and PwC tell us at the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education that too few UK graduates have a global mindset and the UK is especially bad at helping them acquire one: with deleterious implications for personal growth and employment prospects.

So what is a global mindset, why is it important and, if it is, how can you get one?

What businesses say they need from a global mindset sounds to me like the requirement for a good university experience. Most of the businesses I work with regularly, large or small, must sell their services overseas – export or die. They want graduates who possess an openness in thinking, a wider perspective, an awareness of diversity across cultures and societies, an ability to see common patterns across countries: graduates willing to adopt best practice from wherever it comes.

This ought to be easy for the UK to achieve, where 45% of the UK population are university graduates. With net inflows of international students, they study in multi-cultural environments and have the power of the world wide web to assess global learning. It seems a little surprising a global mindset is not being rapidly acquired.

The power of the English language is the most likely factor, at once a gateway and a barrier to a global mindset. It gives the UK a global reach way beyond its size, but encourages a complacency that comes from speaking English as a first language. Learning a foreign language is the best way of knowing more about another society and culture, but studying other languages is something too few UK graduates sign up for. The UK has one of the lowest take ups of the EU’s ‘Erasmus’ initiative to encourage transnational academic exchanges.

The answer to this deficit starts with nurturing awareness in early years learning and probably lies outside the current core curriculum and examination structure. With teachers and senior leadership teams in primary and secondary schools, preparing children and their parents by helping showing how openness to global thinking and ideas is not only good for world peace and global understanding, but also good for greater cultural awareness that will help them find, create and develop jobs in the knowledge economy of the future.

Success here would mean undergraduates arrive at university with more receptive, open minds, and an expectation to build a global mindset eagerly into their required course of study. They will be more open to the enthusiasm and awareness of university faculty, who should seize the opportunity to build this into all they do – as much for their own job satisfaction as for the personal growth of their students .

Building a global mindset is a core part of what any world class universities should want to achieve – as part of an education that prepares all their graduates for life.

Mark Pegg is the chief executive of the Leadership Foundation