Openness and Globalization in Higher Education

Oh and now it is my honor to talk about a check as you know Chuck has just retired from the presidency of MIT after 14 years of extraordinary leadership dr vest is now a life member of the MIT cooperation among many many other important commitments and rolls one of the news article about the president invest had the headline it says vest era seven no bells dr. vest is engineer a scientist a humanist and an educated or I was trying to use just a word or two to describe him the two words I can come up with our visionary and innovate or Chuck is one of the most thoughtful colleagues and one of the most humble college presidents I have ever met now let me brag about his accomplishments by first dimension in just a few of his awards he’s a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences is a member of the National Academy of Engineering he has received six honorary doctorates he received Arthur bouquet award from the national academy of engineering the bouquet award honors statesmanship in the field of technology as well as active involvement in determining science and the technology policy he received the president’s award from Accreditation Board of engineering tent and Technology and he has received in many many national in the international awards dr. vest is a tireless national leader and a spokesperson for the importance of partnership among academia government and industry he is a former chair of AAU the American Association of American Universities he is also a former vice chair of the Council on competitiveness he has been a member of PCAST the President’s Council of Advisors on science and technology advising President Clinton and the president dr. Vesta has mentored in many leaders of higher education including many university presidents nationally and internationally he’s a worldwide leader and spokesperson of internationalization and echo and the collaboration dr. vest is a passionate leader and eloquent advocate for gender ratio and a cultural diversity in higher education he is president and a chair of the national consortium of graduate degrees for minorities in engineering and science Chuck has just published a book called pursuing the endless frontier I highly recommend that you read it dr. Wes has made a lasting impact impact on science and technology as well as the humanities and a society this impact will continue with an endless frontier so I I think I talk as long as he speech now I’m actually not a speaker today I just got excited to introduce our speaker and so we were looking forward to his lecture on the openness and the globalization in higher education you know dash the L at the age of Internet terrorism and opportunity here is president invest it’s a great honor to have been asked to serve as the Clark Kerr lecture there’s no one whose legacy and higher unders in higher education or in our understanding of higher education in the 20th century exceeds that of Clark Kerr his shadow looms large over the American educational landscape his understanding of the emergence of the multi versity as he famously termed it in the nineteen sixty three God can lecture at Harvard crystallized our view of the tectonic changes that occurred in u.s. research universities at mid century of all the things that have changed since curves 1963 God can lecture I suspect that the extent of internationalization of our faculties and graduate student populations in science engineering and management is one of the most dramatic this change is matched or exceeded by the role of new information technologies

connect and inform us instantaneously throughout our campuses and around the world these two important aspects of the essential these are two important aspects of the essential openness of American universities I have come to believe that the openness of American campuses in many dimensions is one of the most important defining characteristics openness describes the state of our research universities at the beginning of the 21st century and it establishes a remarkable field of opportunity and responsibility in the globalization of higher education going forward but today our openness is also threatened largely because of our national struggle to come to grips with the reality of terrorism my purpose here is to share some thought about the interconnections of such seemingly disparate themes as the age of the Internet terrorism and global opportunity and responsibilities of university’s faculty and students of my generation and certainly those who are you take for granted the open flow across the borders of our campuses in our nation of students faculty scholars scientific and scholarly information educational knowledge and tools a nearly unanimous opinion undoubtedly is that the openness of our national borders especially of our campuses two talented men and women from other lands is a major factor in our academic excellence our cultural richness our economic success and in a strategic sense our national security at MIT we are very proud of the Nobel laureates who teach and work on our campus those who received their prizes in recent decades were born in the United States India Germany Italy Mexico and Japan similarly the recent laureates from the University of California were born in the United States Taiwan Poland France Hungary Germany Austria and Norway in a similar manner universities like the University of California and MIT have prided themselves in being meritocracy the benefit from and provide opportunity to talented students from across America’s broad spectrum of cultural economic and racial backgrounds as a private institution mit would add geography to that list and so with the University of California though of course within the constraints of an institution designed to serve California citizens first and foremost we also would take as a given but scientific and scholarly knowledge should pass freely back and forth across our campus boundaries science thrives in unfettered communication among scientists everywhere has always had an international culture indeed the conduct of science requires criticism and testing testing of the repeatability of experiments by other scientists scholarly pursuits more broadly require access to knowledge and artifacts and are strengthened by criticism and exploration for different vantage points one need only look back to the history of the Soviet Union to understand that science even when practiced by brilliant people cannot flourish in isolation historically the openness of scientific and technological knowledge has been challenged in two ways by issues of classification or voluntary withholding of knowledge that may endanger national international security and by concerns that arise regarding potentially valuable intellectual property and proprietary knowledge when University researchers interact with the private sector but for the most part great universities come down on the side of the open flow of knowledge within their campus and across their boundaries to the world beyond sometimes in what we deemed to be the national interest we do conduct classified work in special segregated units like you sees do e laboratories or mi T’s Lincoln Laboratory of course we generally have strong rules to ensure open publication of results of our campus research and we demand that all students have access to all campus research finally we certainly assume that our courses are open to all qualified and appropriately registered students furthermore through text book publication various electronic means we frequently share the formal content of our classes with others we are painfully aware that in September 2001

international terrorism arrived on our shores with the horrific attacks on the world trade center in the Pentagon the contemporaneous tragedy in the fields of rural Pennsylvania to establish context for what I want to say about this let me turn the clock back to March March fifteenth of 2001 when the u.s Commission on national security in the 21st century co-chaired by former senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman released a report in chillingly prescient language heart Rudman Commission stated the combination of unconventional weapons proliferation event with the persistence of international terrorism will end the relative invulnerability of the US homeland a catastrophic attack a direct attack against American citizens on American soil is likely over the next quarter century the US scientific and educational communities are aware that that report also stated but second only to a weapon of mass destruction detonating in an American city we can think of nothing more dangerous than a failure to manage properly science technology and education for the common good over the next quarter century the interplay between the issue of terrorism and the management of science and education for the common good became all too real in the fall of two thousand one just a few months later just three weeks after the attack on New York and Washington i participated in previously scheduled seminar on science policy together with other academics technologists and bipartisan group of current or former congressman before we began our meeting the chair went around the table and asked each of us to share a few immediate thoughts regarding the terrorist attacks in his characteristically concise and insightful manner former defense secretary and Stanford professor bill Perry responded that he had just two things to say first that there would be a very forceful military response and second that gardening our civil liberties would need to be a strong priority in the months ahead and this is precisely how things have played out the federal government had thrust upon it daunting responsibility to protect the lives of people in the United States but to do so within a new complicated environment far different than that of the Cold War years during which much of our national security policy was shaped protecting citizens is of course a fundamental responsibility our government productive consideration of the ramifications of terrorism defense for our universities or the conduct of effective dialogue with federal officials must begin with recognizing this federal responsibility this new world of homeland and international security also presented opportunities to the research university community to serve the nation through security-related rd MIT is engaged in such service in a variety of ways as is the University of California but the academic community also realized very quickly that reactions to these all too real dangers would inevitably pose conflicts with some of the most deeply-held of our values and indeed with the fundamental methodology of science immigration policy and access of international students and scholars to our campuses and to scientific meetings would surely come into question restrictions on publication and open scientific dialogue about topics of potential use by terrorists would be proposed and safeguards and restrictions on the use on our campuses of potentially dangerous materials especially biological agents would be established indeed each of these concerns became very real in the months following 911 the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act in late October 2001 and various executive orders affected both immigration policy and raised the issue of limited access to what were termed sensitive areas of study a student an exchange visitor or Sivas program that tracks the basic information about foreign students and scholars was upgraded and expanded at a highly accelerated pace international students scholars and visitors to the US were subjected to new reviews interviews delays and much more frequent denials of visa applications you’ll define terms

like sensitive but unclassified appeared more frequently in federal research policy and contracts the bioterrorism and response Act of 2002 established a framework for protecting certain pathogens referred to as select agents for misuse the editors of a large group of important journals in the life sciences establish self-policing mechanisms to restrict publication of information that in their view might be key to the development of unusually dangerous mechanisms bio terrorist attacks so the issue before us became and remains how can our nation and our universities be both secure and open the goal we in the research universities have had to pursue and must continue to pursue is the establishment of sound federal policy in this regard these complicated issues however are not without precedent in 1947 as our federal research policy was developing on the foundation of the famous Vannevar bush report science the endless frontier and on the subsequent work of William T golden concerns about security in the face of Soviet threat and spread of communism led President Truman’s scientific research board to eloquently state the following strict military security in the narrow sense is not entirely consistent with the broader requirements of national security to be secure as a nation we must maintain a climate conducive to the full flowering of free inquiry however important however important secrecy about military weapons may be the fundamental discoveries of researchers must circulate freely to have full beneficial effect security regulations therefore should be applied only when strictly necessary and then limited to specific instruments machines or processes they should not attempt to cover the basic principles of fundamental knowledge beginning just two years after that and extending into the 1950s we faced the terror herbal intrusions and excesses of the McCarthy era house on American Activities Committee whose history we know all too well nonetheless federal science policy proceeded forward with a reasonably straightforward framework of military classification of certain scientific and technological matters especially those associated with nuclear weapons most classified work was conducted in federal weapons laboratories but some such work was conducted on various us campuses in 1980 concerns about critical defense related technologies leaking to the Soviet Union became a matter of high-profile concern to the Department of Defense in the Congress universities were seen as prime targets for espionage and disclosure of technological knowledge that our atmosphere adversaries would want to use against us even the national academies suspended bilateral exchanges for a period in 1982 an executive order broadened the authority of the government to classified defense relevant information but the order stated that basic scientific research information not clearly related to national security may not be classified there was much debate about the interpretation of this sentence and great uncertainty about how it would be applied the answer soon came as an optics researcher I remember vividly the community’s discussions about a meeting of the spie the Society of photo-optical instrumentation engineers in San Diego in August 1982 talks were withdrawn under government pressure with less than ten days notice of presentation time by the time the meeting moved around more than a hundred and fifty technical papers on cryptography had been withdrawn a debate raged and numerous groups addressed this matter the National Academy of Science the national research council appointed a panel to study the issue they concluded security by secrecy would inevitably weaken us technological capabilities and that it is not possible to restrict international scientific communication without disrupting domestic scientific communication but this panel did however recommend the controls be devised for what they called gray areas during the same period dr. Richard de Lauer became Undersecretary of Defense for research and engineering de Lauer took great

interest in this topic and exerted quietly effective leadership especially by co-chairing together with Donald Kennedy then president of Stanford what was called the DoD University forum largely on the basis of their work moved to elucidate the category of sensitive but unclassified was dropped and de Lauer issued a memorandum to the Armed Services and DARPA emphasizing the university research should either be classified or unclassified period de Lauer’s efforts and a member and memorandum became the basis for President Ronald Reagan’s September 1985 national security decision directive 189 and so called NS DD 189 it stated that it is the policy of this administration that to the maximum extent possible the products of fundamental research remain unrestricted that where the national security requires control the mechanism for control of information generated during federally funded fundamental research in science technology and engineering colleges and universities and laboratories is classification each federal agency is responsible for a determining whether classification is appropriate prior to the award of research grant contract or cooperative agreement and if so controlling the research results through standard classification procedures and be periodically reviewing all research grants and contracts or cooperative agreements for potential class asian no restriction may be placed upon the Contras upon the conduct or reporting a federally funded fundamental research that has not received national security classification except as provided in applicable us statues in nineteen after 1985 the issue the general issue of export controls in academic settings more or less lay dormant for over a decade but by the late 1990s it was gathering steam again universities began to be told that the conduct of basic research that utilized satellite systems and in some cases certain computer systems were off-limits to foreign students and to collaborative efforts with other countries even close friends like Japan if non-us citizens worked on projects who came into contact with certain specialized equipment the knowledge they gained was considered to be what’s called a deemed export of sensitive technology and they were either barred from the contract or required to pass certain new security reviews quiet but essentially fruitless discussion between university leaders and federal officials ensued and in several instances universities including my own turned down such contracts rather than to accept these restrictions on their students now not all threats to scientific and technological openness are based on national security concerns during the 1980s and early 90s many manufacturing based US corporations found themselves unable to compete well in global markets Japan in particular had eclipsed us in the ability to manufacture goods with high quality efficiency and throughput and with short product cycle times Japanese engineers and businesspeople learned a lot about us products and innovations but they also develop business processes factories and approaches to total quality management but strongly outperformed us somewhat predictably there was pressure again to raise the ramparts through classical trade protectionism but also through shielding our technological innovations because MIT had had long-standing good relations with many Japanese companies we came under strong criticism in 1989 the house government operations committee subcommittee on human resources held a very contentious hearing during which mi then mit president Paul Gray was roundly criticized in essence for giving away America’s crown jewels of Technology through exchange activities with Japanese companies and scholars in 1992 a well-known u.s. senator promulgated a graphic image entitled the circle of shame it depicted technological knowledge being passed from MIT to Japanese students only to be developed by them into products marketed to damage the US economy the US intelligence community was increasingly focused on

international industrial espionage universities across the country were criticized for their increasing populations of international and especially asian students there were strong pushes to bar international students from certain university research programs of course much of that economic threat was very real Japanese policies did not result in a level playing field for our automotive and consumer electronics industries but Japan also had at that time the advantage of building new industries and so-called green field factories unencumbered by aging plants and equipment tired management practices and executives who had grown unused to serious competition ironically in the end the u.s. learned a great deal about management and quality from Japan well there’s no way to quantify this I suspect that we gain more value from these management innovations than they did from learning about our technology indeed by the early nineteen ninety these universities were criticized with some good reason for not having been ahead of this curve in teaching their business and engineering students about total quality management and new approaches to product development in the first place in any event the openness of our University survived these stresses more or less unscathed subsequently many of our large industries transform themselves into efficient and high-quality manufacturers the entrepreneurial sector led us into the strong economic growth of the late 1990s most of the criticism about international students and connections then abated predictably however following the collapse of the dot-com economic bubble national paranoia about leaking technological knowledge and mild xenophobia recurred in fact it was and is more a case of policy schizophrenia both before and after 911 the dominant reason for rejecting students applying for visas to study in the US has been so-called immigrant intent that is the government was afraid that these prospective students would stay in the US after they completed their studies on the other hand many policymakers simultaneously decried the fact that increasing numbers of international students who had studied here were returning to their countries of origin to contribute to the development of their economies and universities rather than two hours thus for five decades the international population of our graduate programs particularly in science engineering and math and management has grown steadily science has had a strong culture of international cooperation and communication throughout this period as an industry higher education and research have increased their global reach and international interactions but periodic episodes of federal interference with scientific communication and concerns about international students have occurred they were driven both by Cold War security concerns and by commercial concerns that tended to be counter cyclical to the strength of our economy with this historical context let me return to the current debates issues and accomplishments regarding universities and national security in the post 9-11 hero the most visible issues have revolved around the policy and practice of granting visas to foreign students planning to study in u.s. colleges and universities since the fall of two thousand one this has been a complicated mixture of legitimate concerns overreaction bureaucratic foibles risk aversion antiquated sia systems good intentions bad policies heart-rending personal experiences and finally slow but steady improvement as a nation I believe we have done great the hopefully still reversible harm to both our image and reality because we substantially pulled back the celebrated American welcome mat it was suddenly withdrawn and then slowly rolled back in the general direction of the prominent position yet occupied in past decades personally I don’t feel a lot safer at night because of all this the effects are real between 2003 and 2004 the number of international students applying to us graduate programs fell by thirty two percent in one year and the number of such students actually admitted to graduate programs declined

by eighteen percent now this major shift is not fully understood although unhappiness with US policy and perceived attitudes is clearly a major factor in this sudden shift competition from universities and other parts of the world economic factors and even fear of moving around in a troubled world all undoubtedly played some part as well universities in other parts of the world see a clear opportunity to take advantage of this situation while we are obsessed with trying to guess which applicants might someday to us are more return home to start an entrepreneurial business others say in effect the US doesn’t want you come here where you’re welcome for example several outstanding European universities are rapidly shifting their instructional language to English to better appeal to students from other parts of the world this perception also had effect on our faculty recruiting despite the frustrating nature of these matters many people of goodwill in corners of the State Department Department of Homeland Security and the White House understand the damage being done and have worked hard to keep the nation both secure and open systems have slowly improved times required for security reviews have been reduced more personnel been hired to interview and process applications in consulates around the world while he was Secretary of State Colin Powell issued instructions that gave visa processing priority to students and scholars more recently the time period during which an international student or scholar can leave or re-enter the country without having to reapply for a visa has been extended in the manner that it could be for as much as four years once they have received what’s termed visa mantis clearance so the systems are becoming smoother and more efficient although some problems do continue to exist this is important progress but it certainly has not completely restored our global image or reality as open and welcoming international participation in scientific meetings held in the u.s. is declined because some scientists dislike what they believe to be negative attitudes and undue complexity or because visa applications could not be processed in time international collaborative efforts are suffering for the same reason it remains a serious problem but there are deeper trends that I worry about even more these have to do with restrictions on research and scientific communication some are mind-boggling consider the action of the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control or OFAC in 2003 OFAC addressed the publication and American scientific journals specifically those of the I Triple E of papers by authors who receive in countries we consider to threaten our interests or harbor terrorists their interpretation of the law was that our journals could publish papers by such authors but they could not edit them or send them reviewers comments because the editing of manuscripts would constitute commerce with those countries this is truly in the spirit of Alice in Wonderland eventually OFAC did reverse the I Triple E ruling but uncertainties about the generality of this ruling remain 0 fact currently is refusing to grant a license to MIT architecture students to travel to Cuba as part of an architectural studio course closely related to OFAC and Export Control regimes and far more widespread is the increasing appearance of national security based restrictive clauses in university based federal research contracts typical restrictions include invoking a clause from the Federal Acquisition regulations act or far that absolutely prohibits publication of research unless approved by the government ad hoc restrictions to require non-standard agency reviews of publications restricting involvement of foreign nationals in the research or requiring special security reviews of them and limiting distribution of data or reports even though they are not classified such restrictions are clearly at odds with the bright line of classification spelled out in NS DD 189 as discussed that NS DD 189 was adopted in 1985 however in the fall of two thousand one the president’s national security advisor dr. rice reiterated in a letter to former secretary of defense Harold Brown that it remained the operative policy of the government this puts

University squarely on the line it is our choice to accept or reject contracts that include such restrictions it is essential in my view that we be certain that on our campuses contracting officers carefully scrutinize contracts for such clauses and that we have specific processes for review and decision about whether to accept them frequently universities have pushed back carried the discussion higher in the sponsoring agencies and generally have succeeded in getting such clauses removed in the few cases where this is not possible some institutions including MIT have ended up rejecting contracts whereas some others have accepted them I personally think that the default for university should be to reject such clauses they are a slippery slope that could lead us to serious erosion of basic values of openness in US universities and could harm the fundamental process of scientific inquiry I believe that we best serve our nation by adhering to these values and processes it also is my view that we teach our students by how we react to the sometimes difficult situations in summary there these are complicated times as we try to balance very real security concerns against the critically important openness of our institutions and of scholarly and scientific activities there’s been some respectful and productive dialogue between our community and the federal government but we are not out of the woods continued vigilance and change will require will be required if we are to maintain the world leadership of our institutions now even as we face and resolve the thorny issues of balancing security and openness to sustain our campuses is great magnets for the best and brightest from around the war modern information and communication technologies have fundamentally altered what it means to be an open scholarly or educational community at the same time India China and other countries making strong investments to bring their research universities to world class status strong forces and great opportunities are extant in higher education how the use of so-called educational technology play out what will be the nature of globalization of higher education will the age of the Internet and what lies beyond it fundamentally reshape our education and research our residential universities dying dinosaurs or models to be propagated further my personal assessment of these matters is made in the context of two admitted biases first I remain hopelessly in love with the residential University Clark Kerr small diversity teaching is fundamentally a human activity and it is difficult for me to envision anything better the magic that happens when a group of smart motivated energetic young men and women live and learn together for a period of years in an intense university environment second years ago I read a book by Princeton’s Gerard O’Neill in which he looked back over the centuries at what futurists of each period had predicted and then he compared their predictions with what turned out later to be the realities the primary lesson from this study was that the rate of technological progress almost always dramatically was under predicted but that the rate of social progress is almost always dramatically over predicted I’m afraid I share this view what I envision therefore is a way in which a relatively stable and conservative set of institutions such as our universities will develop enormous synergies through the use of ever-expanding technological tools indeed it is beginning to happen in profound ways already computers of course have had strong influence on higher education since the 60s starting out as a specialized tool in science engineering and math and then propagating across the humanities arts and social sciences as well as to business law and medicine during the late 90s following the development of the world wide web and accelerated by ever decreasing prices of storage and processing higher education everywhere began to see information technology as a transformative force this coincided with the dot-com era and the world of business so attention turned rather immediately to how universities could teach larger numbers of students at a distance and how they could realize financial profits by doing

so journalists critics many of our own faculty concluded that the classroom teaching in lecture format was doomed economies of scale could be garnered and many people many more people could afford to obtain advanced education by digital means for-profit distance education was assumed to be the emerging coin of the realm profit-making arms of major universities like favim.com at columbia were formed a new providers such as Phoenix University were founded the Western Governors Conference established distance education program as a collective effort of public universities in their states University faculty and administrators across the country wrestled with ownership of intellectual property when a professor’s course was made available electronically the model that was proposed over and over was basically find the best teacher for each subject record his or her lectures and sell them in digital form there is an appealing logic to this proposition but I very much believe that there and I very much believe that there is a role for this kind of teaching tool but frankly the image of students every in the world sitting in front of a box listening two identical lectures is one that repels me it struck me as odd that many of the same critics who decried the lack of personal attention given to students on our campuses seemed eager to have this model adopted nonetheless the dominant proposition was at university should project itself beyond its campus boundaries to teach students elsewhere but in the meantime other things were happening increasingly effective computer-based tools for language acquisition are being developed online journals were published computer simulations were used in subjects ranging from fluid mechanics to theater stage design studio style instruction with heavy use of computational tools began to be used as murray gell-mann likes to say the sage on the stage was being replaced by the guide at the side multiple institutions shared large scientific databases massive search engines made information available to anyone with a web browser in from informal electronic learning communities formed both within and among our universities distinguished architects for example sitting on multiple continents used video and web interaction to judge architectural studios in US universities in other words information technology usually through increasingly large accumulations of modest local activities was transforming much of what we do on our campuses more importantly still information technology was bringing the world to the students on our campuses as well as projecting our activities outward at the Andrew W mellon Foundation bill Bowen and his colleagues developed ideas about how to empower large numbers of scholars and institutions through a combination of Technology and economy of scale that in 1990 coalesced in the establishment of JSTOR JSTOR makes available digital copies of scholarly journals in the liberal arts and humanities for modest annual fee scaled to institutional size currently JSTOR includes over 400 scholarly journals from almost 300 publishers and serves 2300 institutions it helps individual scholars conducting Advanced Research at major universities but it also enables small liberal arts schools with modest very modest resources to collectively or individually mount courses in areas of the humanities for which they could not afford to have the appropriate library collections in 2001 the mellon Foundation launched a second major venture art store but use a similar a similar approach to build a huge carefully developed archive of high-quality digital images of great works of art by 2006 art store will include five thousand images in my view JSTOR was a particularly important development in bringing the power of the internet and of sharing large digital archives to humanistic scholars and students in a wide array of colleges and universities I think it pointed the way toward a new type of openness in higher education now 1997 I prepared for that inevitable duty of any university president leading a capital campaign our

resource development staff had organized a dozen dinners in a duffel in a dozen different cities for prospective donors and thoughtful alumni which I would hold dialogues about mi T’s future at each dinner literally the first question asked of me was what is MIT going to do about information technology and distance learning my answer was always some variant of I don’t know but the answer soon came from our faculty our Provost Bob Brown had appointed a task force to explore the question building on the earlier work of our Council and educational technology frankly our bias going into this exercise was clearly toward some sort of profit-generating production production of educational modules on up-to-the-minute engineering and scientific topics it would be a particular interest to our alumni and to high-level engineers and managers and corporations with which we have research partnerships this committee worked diligently exploring various concepts and models and even studying the business plans of more than 25 for-profit distance learning organizations they concluded that in the context of our kind of advanced higher education distance learning would be complicated highly competitive and unlikely to turn a profit this sowed the seed of a beautiful idea why not just make the detailed educational materials broadly available on the web free of charge from this beginning the MIT OpenCourseWare or ocw initiative was born with generous financial support from the melon and Hewlett Foundation’s the Institute pledged to make available on the web free of charge to teachers and learners everywhere substantially complete teaching materials from virtually all of the roughly 2,000 subjects that we teach on campus for most subjects these materials include a syllabus course calendar well formatted and detailed lecture notes exams problem sets and solutions lab and project plans and in a few cases video lectures the materials have been cleared for third-party intellectual property and are available to users under Creative Commons license so that they can be used distributed and modified for non-commercial purposes this is a new open form of publication it really is not teaching it certainly is not the offering of courses or degrees it’s an exercise and openness a catalyst for change and an adventure it is an adventure because it is a free-flowing empowering and potentially democratize using activity so we do not know in advance the uses to which it will be put currently materials for 1100 courses are mounted the OCW site which typically has 20,000 unique visitors per day has forty-three percent of its traffic from North America twenty percent from East Asia sixteen percent from Western Europe and the remaining twenty percent of the users are distributed across Latin America Eastern Europe the Middle East the Pacific region and sub-saharan Africa international usage is growing rapidly roughly fifteen percent of ocw users are educators almost half of their usage is directly for course or curriculum development one-third of the users are students complementing a subject they are taking another institution or simply expanding their personal knowledge almost half of the users are self learners an Arizona high school teacher motivates and supervises group study of MIT ocw computer science materials within his after-school artificial intelligence club a group of then unemployed programmers in Silicon Valley used MIT ocw materials to master advanced computer languages upgrading their skills when the job market became tight an educator at al-mansour University College in Baghdad is utilizing MIT ocw aeronautics and astronautics course material in his air traffic control research the computer science department of a university in leg on Ghana is updating its entire curriculum and is using ocw material to help benchmark and revise their courses an underground university based largely on ocw educates young men and women who because of their religion are forbidden to attend the universities in one

country it has over a thousand students heavy use is made of ocw by almost seventy percent of on our own campus to review courses they’ve taken in the past two reinforces the classes they’re currently taking or to explore other areas of study opencourseware seems counterintuitive in a market driven world but it represents I think the intellectual generosity but faculties of great American universities have demonstrated in many ways over the years in an innovative way it expresses a belief that education can be advanced around the world by constantly widening access to information and pedagogical organization and by inspiring others to participate MIT ocw is starting to catalyze other participants in a movement to deploy and use well organized open course materials universit√† a network of 840 schools in spain portugal and latin america has translated the materials from over a hundred ocw courses into spanish made them available on their website the People’s Republic of China has established core china open resources for education and that work of a hundred universities with more than 10 million users course goal is to enhance the quality of higher education in China by translating MIT ocw and other course materials into Chinese and also by sharing Chinese courses globally Rai University in India has established a very substantial activity called right course where Japan and France have ocw efforts underway here in the US the University of Michigan Utah State University Johns Hopkins School of Public Health tuft universities health science and fletcher school diploma see all of established ocw efforts here I use the term ocw to denote substantial comprehensive carefully managed easily access searchable web-based collections of teaching materials for entire courses presented in a common format in this emerging opencourseware movement it is not only teaching materials that are shared we’ve also implemented and actively encouraged the sharing with other institutions of the software know-how and other tools developed by our experience on the horizon in science and engineering is the use of web-based laboratories the concept is simple but the ramifications could be profound most experimental apparatus today is controlled by computer and therefore could be interfaced with the world wide web and operated from anywhere students can conduct experiments across campus from laptop in their dorm rooms but just as easily a student can run the experiment from the other side of the world such control the distance is well developed in certain areas of research like the operation of telescopes but its use in routine education is just now being explored our faculty have developed a program initiative called I lab with financial support from Microsoft through the web students can operate experiments and things like transistor characterization heat exchanger dynamics vibration response of structures polymer crystallization dynamics and dynamic signal analysis professor hazers del Alamo who spearheaded I lab is working now with colleagues and three universities in sub-saharan Africa to utilize it and also to develop their own contribution to web lab experiments and education day-to-day communication and data transfer among scholars and researchers is now totally dominated by internet communications large accessible scholarly archives like JSTOR and arts core are growing heavily subscribed the new program established by Google was several the major university libraries around the world will add richly to this the use of OpenCourseWare is developing us Asia and Europe to paraphrase the columnist tom friedman the earth is getting flat I believe that openness and sharing of intellectual resources and teaching materials not closely controlled point-to-point distance education is the most important emerging ethos in global higher education in my view a global method versus D is a rising that will accurately characterize higher education globally a decade or two hints in much the same way that Clark curves multi versity accurately characterized our

universities forty years ago like the computer operating system linux knowledge creation and teaching at each university will be elevated by the efforts of a multitude of individuals and groups all over the world it will rapidly adapt to the changing learning styles of students who have grown up and computationally rich environments but the biggest potential winners are in the developing world this will happen because nation after nation is committed to enhancing and expanding higher education and because there are global efficiencies and economies of scale to be had by sharing high quality materials and systems that are collectively too expensive for each institution to develop independently it will happen because this kind of sharing is not prescriptive it’s not paternalistic and it need not be politically or culturally Laden because each individual university professor or learner is free to use only those parts of the material he or she chooses may adopt adapt modify or add to it in fulfillment of local needs pedagogy in context campuses will still be important and universities will still compete for resources faculty students and prestige but they will do so on a digital platform of shared information materials and experience and experience that will raise quality and access everywhere the age of the Internet presents remarkable opportunities for higher education research in this country and around the world the rise of such a meta versity globally shared teaching materials scholarly archives undergirding campuses everywhere both rich and poor could well be a dominant democratizing aspect of the coming decades even as we develop the meta versity and other forms of digitally empowered global education we must maintain the openness of our campuses here in the United States our openness to international students scholars and faculty members as well as the openness of scientific inquiry and communication must be balanced against natura national security concerns in the face of terrorism but the lessons of history confirm that openness is the great contributor to security of our nation and world in the long run and must be preserved thank you very much you