This is for the benefit of those who don't subscribe to
ST:
Straits Times Interactive
Oct 22, 2005
Finances, not freedom, worried Warwick University
By Sandra Davie and Ho Ai Li
IT WAS money, not a feared deficit of academic freedom, that
scuttled Warwick University's hopes of setting up a campus
here.
The British university finally broke its silence on its aborted
plan yesterday and suggested that much of the opposition by its
academics was centred on the proposed 'governance and financial
structures' for the second campus.
Warwick spokesman Peter Dunn would not elaborate on what exactly
these sticking points were, only that the concern over academic
freedom was just one and not the 'key' issue in the final
decision.
'If it was, would we be talking further to EDB?' he asked,
referring to the Economic Development Board, stressing that the
'deal is by no means over yet'.
He said the Warwick management will be in Singapore next week to
meet EDB officers, to work out 'Plan B', but stopped short of
giving further details.
'Plan A did not have the backing of the academics, so we are
putting together Plan B.'
In a statement, Warwick vice-chancellor David VandeLinde said the
university firmly believes that Asia is key to any international
vision for Warwick. And its culture and geography make Singapore an
ideal setting for Warwick's key Asian presence.
'The university also feels that it is unlikely to receive a better
invitation to raise its international profile,' he said.
Expensive plan
NO DOUBT, Warwick's Singapore proposal is ambitious and would be
expensive.
Earlier reports estimated that the campus for 10,000 students would
cost £85 million (S$257 million).
Of this amount, the EDB would put in £10 million of grant money and
a £37.75 million loan, and the shortfall would come from
Warwick.
More recent estimates are higher.
In a feasibility study released early this month, building costs
are put at around £152 million over three phases, with facilities
such as libraries and computers costing another £130 million. This
excludes research funding.
The report did not say how much EDB was prepared to fund, but
suggested that it was 'unacceptable'.
The economics of the deal led many Warwick academics to conclude
that the Singapore venture would be a risky one, fraught with
implications for the university's reputation if it failed to
achieve an impressive footprint here.
This concern was also coupled with fears that Warwick may end up
stretching itself too thin at home base.
It was thus argued that it would be better off husbanding its
resources entirely for the British campus.
Some of the Warwick professors who went on the record said as
much.
Professor Malcolm McCrae said he did not doubt that for some of his
colleagues, the issue of academic freedom was important.
But it was not his perception, he said, 'that issues around the
question of academic freedom were the main reason'.
Apparently, Warwick did try to convey its doubts over the
commercial viability of the second campus to the EDB.
But according to Prof McCrae, in the end, 'the reassurances that
were provided by the Singapore end...were just not sufficient to
tip the risk versus benefit equation'.
His colleague in the economics department, Prof Andrew Oswald,
agreed that academic freedom was only one of many
considerations.
To him, the main dilemma was whether Warwick should concentrate on
being a world-class research university in just one location.
'International students should come to our site, not the other way
around,' he said.
