Research universities increasingly function as a key hub institution of the knowledge economy – from Stanford University’s role in Silicon Valley to MIT’s role in greater Boston’s Route 128 high-technology complex, from the University of Texas in Austin to the rise of the North Carolina Research Triangle, not to mention Carnegie Mellon’s role in Pittsburgh’s regeneration. But what are the world’s leading centers for university research?

To get at this, my MPI team and I used the recently released Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) to chart the locations of the world’s leading 500 research universities by the city and metro region where they are located. The map below, by the MPI’s Zara Matheson, shows the geography of academic research centers across the world.

The U.S. is home to four of the top five centers: Boston-Cambridge in first place, followed by Los Angeles, New York City, and San Francisco. Other leading U.S. research centers among the top 25 include: Chicago (6th), Durham-Chapel Hill (11th), Pittsburgh (13th), Trenton-Central New Jersey (14th), New Haven (17th), Ithaca (18th), San Diego (19th), Philadelphia (20th), Seattle (21st), Madison (22nd), and Baltimore (23rd).

But a number of foreign centers rank quite high. London (5th), Paris (7th), and Zurich (8th) all rank ahead of San Jose/Silicon Valley (9th). Cambridge, England is 10th, Munich 12th, Stockholm 15th, Oxford 16th, and Tokyo 24th. Toronto, where I teach, ranks 28th.

For the time being, the U.S. remains in the lead, but foreign centers appear to be gaining ground. And this trend may be accelerated by the mounting budget problems facing many states and research universities as well as cutbacks in research funding and growing anti-immigrant sentiment in some quarters of the United States. Great Resets like the current one have given rise to significant shifts in the locus of scientific research talent in the past. And this was a large part of the reason the United States eclipsed Europe on this front during the last Great Reset.

But what’s even more striking about the map is the degree of geographic concentration on the East and West Coasts of North America, Western Europe, and just a few spots in Asia and Australia/New Zealand. The concentration of the knowledge and scientific assets in just three major mega-clusters – the East Coast/Great Lakes, West Coast of North America, and in Europe – is astounding. And it is likely to reflect significant geographic advantages in research and knowledge-generation for them.

It’s a given that scientific talent is highly mobile. But distance still plays a role. All other things equal, it is both easier for and more likely that leading scientists and researchers will move within these clusters - say between Boston and New York, or even Chicago and Toronto; much the same is true among, say, L.A., San Francisco, and Seattle. And collaboration within them is surely easier as well. This kind of proximity creates considerable short- and long-run advantages both for the universities and research centers within the cluster and the cluster as a whole.

This would seem to imply that ongoing efforts to upgrade research universities, attract top scientific talent, and build world-class research environments in China, India, the Middle East, and other parts of the world are likely to face significant uphill battles. And that established mega-clusters are likely to enjoy significant advantages into the foreseeable future.

We are seeing a strong emphasis, greater than ever before, on the importance of quality of place. A community’s arts and culture offerings are a critical part of its identity and authenticity. For many communities, their local college or university serves as a central hub for cultural creativity.

As the third feature in our series, Creative Capstones, we interviewed Jo Moore, administrator of Presidential Lecture & Performance Series at Texas Tech University, to discuss Lubbock, Texas, and how the university is helping to grow and develop an authentic, unique arts scene on the Western Texas Plains.

Creative Class Group (CCG): Tell us about Lubbock. What makes it a special community?

Jo Moore: In a word, the people are what make Lubbock, Texas, a special place in which to live. I moved to the Lubbock area from Dallas, Texas, 17 years ago. From the reactions of my friends and colleagues, one would have thought I was moving to the desolate, uncultured, wild West. While the glitz of the Dallas cityscape, landscaped beauty of its manicured parks, and culinary significance is not as apparent in Lubbock, a natural raw beauty borne in the energy of the wind and splendor of the sunsets eclipse the manufactured glamour of the metroplex. There is an energy, an elemental quality to this region with its wide open spaces and endless blue sky that is unspoiled by high density living. The beauty of West Texas has to be seen to be believed.

A comfortably sized city of 218,000 citizens, Lubbock’s unemployment rate is low, as is the cost of living. There is a real sense of community in a city this size and a character all its own. A pioneering spirit and congenial hospitality characterize Lubbock, nicknamed the hub of the plains, economically centering  a 25-county region. An ease in networking and a palpable camaraderie are present in the business community at large and, in particular, throughout the arts community.

CCG: What about Texas Tech?

Moore: Lubbock is also home to Texas Tech University, founded in 1923. With a current enrollment of 28,000, Texas Tech bears the distinction of being the largest comprehensive higher education institution in the western two-thirds of the state of Texas. Even though Texas Tech is a major research university, it retains the sense of a smaller liberal arts institution, providing a myriad of academic and cultural activities accessible to the Lubbock community.

CCG: How would you characterize Lubbock’s art community?

Moore: Lubbock’s art scene is vibrant. There is a distinct hum, not only across the Texas Tech University campus, but in the redevelopment of downtown. In the first official State of Texas Cultural District Designation, the Texas Commission on the Arts designated the Lubbock Cultural District as one of seven cultural districts in Texas in September 2009, encouraging Lubbock to use arts, culture, and entertainment for the purpose of economic and community development. The district is anchored by key cultural facilities including the Louise Hopkins Underwood Center for the Arts and Lubbock Memorial Civic Center to the north; American Wind Power Center to the east; the Buddy Holly Center and Depot Entertainment District to the south; and to the west is Texas Tech University with its museum, Ranching Heritage Center, nationally recognized public art collection, Maedgen and Allen Theatres, galleries, and the City Bank Auditorium and Coliseum.

CCG: How has the area’s art scene changed over time?

Moore: Cultural activities have expanded over the years to not only include those theatrical, musical, and artistic opportunities available on the Texas Tech campus, but to the Lubbock Arts Festival, the National Cowboy Symposium and Celebration, First Friday Art Trail, Flatland Film Festival, performances by the Lubbock Symphony Orchestra and Ballet Lubbock, 4^th on Broadway, Celebrity Attractions Broadway Series, Lubbock Music Festival, Fiestas del Llano, concerts at the United Spirit Arena, and the Local Artist Color Studio Tour. Lubbock is home to over 25 art organizations and over 250 individuals that identify themselves as full-time working artists, including world famous ceramic artist James Watkins and sculptor Eddie Dixon.

CCG: How is Texas Tech supporting the arts in Lubbock?

Moore: Central to Texas Tech’s support of the arts is the newest college on campus, the College of Visual and Performing Arts, which is home to the Presidential Lecture & Performance Series. In the late 1960s, arts faculty members and administrators began talks about establishing an arts college. In 1972, Texas Tech’s unique interdisciplinary Ph.D. in fine arts degree was launched, which eventually led to the establishment of the College of Visual & Performing Arts, which formally opened its doors for business September 1, 2002. The college consists of the School of Music, the School of Art, and the Department of Theatre and Dance, which in past years had all operated under the auspices of the College of Arts and Sciences. The college enrolls over 900 undergraduate and 250 graduate majors and hosts hundreds of non-majors each semester in many arts courses. Additionally, hundreds of exhibits and performances are mounted each year for the enjoyment and cultural enrichment of Texas Tech students, faculty, staff, and the Lubbock community alike.

Texas Tech University is an ardent supporter of the arts on several additional levels. The museum was founded as the West Texas Museum in 1929, shortly after Texas Technological College was chartered in 1925. Today, it is a major general museum with collections in the arts, humanities, and the sciences numbering over five million objects. The museum is the working laboratory for the Center for Advanced Study of Museum Science and Heritage Management, which trains graduate students in the philosophies, theories, and practices of the museum profession and awards master’s degrees. Significant additions to the Texas Tech Museum have occurred over the past 31 years including the establishment of the Ranching Heritage Center, the construction of permanent interpretation and research facilities at the Lubbock Lake Landmark, the building of the Diamond M Wing to house the Diamond M Fine Art Collection, and the addition of the Helen Jones Auditorium and Sculpture Court Wing.

Barely a decade old, the Texas Tech University System’s Public Art Collection and Program has been named one of the top 10 university public art collections in the nation by Public Art Review magazine. Texas Tech allocates one percent of the estimated total cost of each new construction project that exceeds $500,000 for the acquisition of public art. Another one percent is set aside for landscape enhancements, resulting in MSNBC deeming Texas Tech one of the “Top Five Prettiest Campuses in the United States.”

CCG: Describe the Presidential Lecture and Performance Series. Who has participated? Is it free to the public? Why does Texas Tech support this program?

Moore: Since its premier season in the Fall of 2006, the distinguished Presidential Lecture and Performance Series has dazzled audiences with such exceptional performances and lectures as that of Paul Taylor Dance Company, Santa Fe Opera, Sarah Vowell, Duke Ellington Orchestra, Dizzy Gillespie All Star Band, Jeannette Walls, Pilobolus Dance Theatre, and Richard Florida. The 2010-2011 season boasts such notables as Garrison Keillor and The Second City. Enriching the cultural landscape of the South Plains with programs that are distinctive and diverse is a personal mission of mine as series administrator which mirrors not only that of the Presidential Lecture and Performance Series, but also that of the College of Visual and Performing Arts. Bringing leading scholars and artists together with Texas Tech University’s distinguished faculty, students, and staff for the purpose of exchanging expertise, research, and talents is also central to the mission of the Presidential Lecture & Performance Series.

The College of Visual & Performing Arts Presidential Lecture & Performance Series serves to enhance the intellectual and cultural climate of the Texas Tech University campus and surrounding community. A primary component of each event the series hosts is that of outreach and engagement. Through a combination of master classes, seminars, book signings, and receptions, a strong academic connection is fostered for Texas Tech students, faculty, staff, and the community at large. These kinds of activities support the primary purposes of this series – to enrich the academic experience for Texas Tech students, to enhance our academic programs, and to provide outreach opportunities between campus and community. Unique lectures, discussions, and performances that inspire and stimulate intellectual debate support key priorities of Texas Tech’s strategic plan: promote student success, strengthen academic quality and reputation, expand and enhance research and creative scholarship, and further outreach and engagement. Tickets to the series are free to students and nominally priced to the public to encourage frequent attendance and accessibility to the series’ events held on campus.

CCG: I understand Texas Tech is offering a new graduate course, “Creativity and the Economy.” Tell us about the new class. Why did the university create the course?

Moore: Mary Cain Fehr, Ph.D. serves as assistant professor, curriculum and instruction, College of Education and as associate director, Teaching, Learning, and Technology Center. Her class has been re-titled “Creativity in the Curriculum.” This course will be offered in the Curriculum Studies program in the College of Education at Texas Tech University. Students who enroll might be future teachers, leaders, and policy makers in education, as well as future economists.

I asked her why she created this course and her answer follows:

“I created this new graduate course because I believe it’s crucial that we take the time to look critically at the importance of fostering creative thinking and problem solving in young people, as a means of preparing them for their futures and building a strong future for our economy. We must evaluate existing school curricula and practices to determine if we are nurturing creativity or extinguishing it with convergent thinking and standardized testing. Are we discouraging students from thinking independently and creatively by focusing to such a large degree on test preparation and “the one right answer?” Are we encouraging creativity in classes outside of the arts, such as math, science, and social studies? I believe that the economic growth of China and India is due, in part, to some recent creative thinking and it’s a wake-up call for us. Our nation will not prosper with a future workforce of well-practiced test-takers. We need citizens who have been encouraged to extend their thinking into unknown realms and take a few risks. I believe this is how we will remain economically competitive and dynamic as individuals and as a country. “

To keep up with the changing creative economy and its new demands, communities, organizations, and educational institutions have to develop and embrace new strategies to better train, educate, and prepare workers.

As the second feature in our series, Creative Capstones, we interviewed Michael G. Novak, CEO of  the School of Design in Monterrey, Mexico (CEDIM) to discuss how the school is developing new models to train future designers and innovators. CEDIM recently launched its Master of Business Innovation.

Creative Class Group (CCG): Describe CEDIM and its history.

Michael Novak: From its beginning in 1978, when CEDIM started as a School of Design in Monterrey, México, it was clear for their visionaries’ founders that design and innovation would play a relevant role in our future society. Today, CEDIM is recognized for its innovative educational model which integrates design and innovation as the competitive strategy for the business in the new global economy.

CEDIM is generating an insightful problem-solution approach in their students’ skills through real projects related to industries, creating new value and economic prosperity with human dimension. CEDIM can be described as a design, innovation, and business educational platform where new professionals and creative people are launching new ideas for a better living in the world.

CCG: How has the school helped to shape Monterrey’s design and innovation cluster?

Novak: From the perspective of the international economic trends where knowledge, technology, entrepreneurship, and innovation are at the center of the model for economic growth, and considering that México is investing less than one percent of the GDP in its innovation efforts, where 97 percent of enterprises are SME’s (small and medium enterprises) and almost 80 percent of them are going out of business before their second year of activity, CEDIM is launching the MBI program. This program will provide entrepreneurs with the knowledge and skills  to pursue sustainable development in their organizations and adapt to market demands by practicing innovations within their processes and products, being capable to succeed in today’s globalized competitive environment that is growing in Mexico’s economic landscape.

CCG: Describe the new Master in Business Innovation program.

Novak: The Master in Business Innovation aims to provide an understanding of the continuous, market-oriented development of innovative ideas and their implementation in the market. The program’s structure allows students to continue to work, since the program only requires attending one weekend a month, completing a course within two weekends, which is two months for one course.

The curriculum aims to work on the personal or company’s innovation case for a significant learning experience, providing immediate return of investment, as one’s company is the topic of study. The program staff is integrated by internationally successful business and innovation specialists from all over the world, who will provide international leadership, entrepreneurial experience, and expertise in developing innovative business strategies during the master’s degree studies.

CCG:  Why is it a relevant graduate program for the changing creative economy?

Novak: New ideas are the most important asset for success in today’s business around the globe. There we can see a creative economy in which a revitalization process in new product creation is at the heart of the new business paradigm.

We created this program with the intention to prepare people with a new way of thinking and doing, where the primary input is their individual talent or skills. People that are able to generate new ideas are taking action to turn them into new products and services; able to connect and work with partners, clients, and other significant players in your network; and able to identify opportunities in the marketplace and use business skills to turn ideas into products and profits.

CCG: Why did CEDIM develop the program?

Novak: This is the initial program that launches CEDIM into the postgraduate studies level. The discussion was centered in the way that CEDIM will be addressing creativity as a catalyst for society’s economic prosperity and well-being. Several ideas were discussed about how design and innovation had been historically solving our daily problems and about how business gurus are paying attention to creators of new ideas within any organization that can be the difference between mediocre performance and competitive advantage.

CCG: How will MBI graduates shape Monterrey’s future economic prosperity?

Novak: The Global Challenge is a unique opportunity for Monterrey’s private enterprises to contribute to local economic growth under the international new business practices. Graduates will create and/or reframe their own businesses to create fresh experiences and compelling business models, challenging industry methods by creating new products and services which at the end will better serve their clients, create new jobs, and generate a new culture of doing business.

For more information about CEDIM and the new Master in Business Innovation, visit: www.cedim.com.mx.

Seems appropriate with Valentine’s Day around the corner to ask: How many of you personally have or know people who have met their spouse, partner, wife, husband, significant other in college? This is certainly one way Mighty EDU transforms lives.

According to the National Marriage Survey, college is still the place where 25 percent of men and 15 percent of women meet their first spouse, a steep decline from 50 years ago but still impressive. And, these stats omit second marriages, faculty hook-ups, admin nuptials, and, not to forget, the occasional faculty and student knot-tying. When I look at my own closest friends, roughly 42 percent of them were connected via a primary (e.g. same college) or secondary (e.g. study abroad program) college experience.

Hmm, maybe it is time for single folk to forgo Match.com and enroll in a class to learn and be struck by Cupid’s arrow as they stroll across campus this lovely spring.

In University and the Creative Economy, Richard Florida and colleagues build an economic development case around a region’s ability to capitalize on innovative technologies and research being produced at universities. Silicon Valley and Research Triangle are exemplary models. What if a region does not have this ability? Appropriately, they suggest a region work on developing the capacity to absorb university output through campus-industry partnerships. Otherwise, valuable intellectual property goes elsewhere. Or, worse off, and probably more common, it disappears into a black hole of uncommercialized ideas and patents.

Now, for regions that have universities but neither the current ability to absorb, nor the means to create a working capacity, is there an additional solution? Is it time for the universities to build their own infrastructure to absorb and commercialize their own creativity? Maybe this is the crossroads where higher education and economic development policy can tango?

How about new policies that substantially invest in universities absorbing their own innovative output when a region is not equipped? Incentivize the universities to transform economy by building infrastructure to commercialize the talent and academic ingenuity they harness. Maybe University Hospitals is a viable model in health care, but expand into other industry development aligned with a university’s output. Maybe we can learn from Chinese university-run businesses. Let’s equip universities, as my grandma used to say, with the whole “kit and caboodle” so a region can benefit.

What’s the risk in doing so?

Nowadays, you cannot talk about higher education without the conversation including economic development. Published economic impact studies indicate that campuses are major contributors to their economies. Look at these figures:

• Canada’s Universities – $30 billion
• Duke University – $3.2 billion
• Harvard University – $5 billion
• Michigan’s University Research Corridor – $14.5 billion
• UC San Diego – $7.2 billion
• University of Toronto – $5.4 billion

This week, the University of Dayton (UD) purchased NCR Corp.’s former world headquarters for $18 million. The location will house the university’s world-class research institute and provide space to work on projects that will stimulate commercialization, business growth, and local job creation. In a region that has endured substantial job loss, UD continues to be a vital economic engine and key contributor to the economic future of Dayton.

While these examples demonstrate major economic contributions by campuses, do they impact economic development policy for a region, state, or nation? Do such stories and economic studies influence policymakers to direct new investment in, to take David Miller’s term, campus entrepreneurship? If you have examples, please share.

Happy Holidays!

An intense debate has gripped Pittsburgh and the higher education universe since Mayor Luke Ravenstahl announced a plan to tax tuition at colleges and universities located in the city. The Mayor is looking to use the schools in a small way to attack a large budget deficit and argues that the tax is such a small part of a family’s cost for higher education that it won’t affect anything (the old “tax” the rich idea – “it is so small it won’t affect them”).

The tax proposal would really hit elite research universities such as Carnegie Mellon and U of Pittsburgh with their higher tuition rates. But is the Mayor attacking the goose that lays the golden eggs? Pittsburgh’s higher education cluster is a strength  that has anchored the city for decades and helped prevent it from becoming Detroit. Why not tax the Steelers?

Today (December 16) is the vote, and according to some commentators, early reports of easy passage may be untrue. The universities have protested mightily and it appears they may be changing some minds.

Higher education plays a central role in America’s entrepreneurial and innovative strength, sustained economic growth, and increasing standards of living. The sector is undergoing great stress right now and the events and policies in leading centers such as Pittsburgh and California (where some old school protesting of tuition hikes are taking place) will tell us a great deal about what is to come. Where do you think this is all going?

Because enrollment is trending upward across the country, especially with community colleges seeing double-digit growth in many states, this news becomes fodder to perpetuate a belief that “higher education benefits in a recession.” Is that the real story?

Even in states that have made higher ed a priority, funding for public colleges and universities is inevitably cut or, in the best case scenario, held flat during a serious economic downturn. And, certainly, there are no new public dollars to invest in a recession. How is this a benefit to higher ed? Furthermore, private institutions have seen their endowments drop over 20 percent on average. Harvard saw a whopping 30 percent decline in its endowment, which translates to a loss of tens of billions of dollars. Benefit?

So, what’s the story then? “People benefit from higher education in a recession.” Higher ed is the central place people turn to in an effort to invest in their life, personally and professionally, and transform their future. Fortunately, colleges make adjustments to preserve academic integrity during a recession, accommodating the numerous people who are making the investment in their education at this time.

Do you think this particular enrollment boom is a decade in the making and indicates a massive transition from a manufacturing job-based economy to a creative economy?

This Thursday, the University of Oregon and Oregon State will play the “Civil War” game with the highest stakes ever – the winner goes to the Rose Bowl. But for non-jocks there’s a more interesting competition, which a story in last week’s Oregonian covered: the bragging rights in academia.

For 100 years until about 10-15 years ago, this was a settled question. The U of O was the academic flagship and OSU was the backwater agriculture school. But things have changed and now it depends on who you ask. U of O is still the state’s leading humanities, arts, and science institution. But OSU brought in twice the research funding that U of O did last year.

OSU got stronger in engineering, attracting high-tech companies like HP to Corvallis. OSU built the Hatfield Marine Science Center to do research in Newport on the Oregon Coast. Oregon State became a Sea Grant University to match its Land Grant status and hit the jackpot last summer when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced it’s moving its Pacific Marine Operations Center to Newport – potentially making it “Woods Hole West.”

What makes this interesting is the shift that may be taking place in academia. While the “old school” schools like U of O rested on their laurels, other public institutions like OSU went off in new directions.

Or in my hometown, Portland State University was long held down by the rural-dominated legislature which, encouraged by U of O and OSU, set enrollment caps and forbid campus housing to keep PSU a commuter school. One of the results was that, in the 1960s, faced with state rules that no public university could duplicate programs offered by another, PSU launched its first Ph.D. programs in areas like Systems Science and Urban Studies. These were the dregs the other schools didn’t want at the time, but that are now hot.

Here’s a bit from the Oregonian story. Unfortunately they didn’t put the chart that was in the print version online:

While neither university is considered among the world’s best, they’re both good schools with plenty of bragging rights, says David Longanecker, president of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, which works to improve college access and success in 15 states.

“In most states, the ‘university of’ school is considered the uppity institution, and the ’state university’ is considered the institution of the people,” Longanecker says. “It’s less clear in Oregon. They really seem to be head-to-head competitors.”

What sets OSU apart is its more than $250 million in research funding in 2008-09. It was No. 87 in the nation for research funding in 2006, according to the National Science Foundation. UO came in at No. 157.

Still, UO outranks OSU on the annual U.S. News & World Report rankings and has the edge on some other measures, such as fund-raising and graduation rate.

OSU is known for its marine science, agriculture, engineering and geoscience programs, among others. UO’s distinguishing programs include natural sciences, architecture, business and education.

Do others notice this happening elsewhere? Consider UC Davis, long the poor country cousin of Berkeley and UCLA but now gaining respect academically. Are the big traditional universities staying stodgy and losing out  to more nimble schools?

Business Week economist Michael Mandel has produced a terrific chart comparing college costs to the earnings of young college graduates (25- to 34-year-olds) from 1991 to 2008 (below).

While the lines track one another for most of the 1990s, they began to diverge by the late 1990s, and the gap has grown considerably over the past decade. Mandel finds that college costs in real terms are up by 23 percent since 2000, while real pay for young college grads has fallen by 11 percent.

Money quote:  “This can’t go on. It’s just not possible.”