As noted by the report on the HECTIC (Higher Education Consultation in Technologies of Innovation and Communication) Workshop (Brussels, September 2001), a “paternalistic view of learners as everlasting children needing protection, pre-established structure and continuous support in order to be able to learn is often behind resistance to innovation.” The increasing number of part-time and mature students registered at UWI should certainly give us pause if we have tendencies to espouse such a view.

The report goes on to note that the recent move by MIT to makes its course contents freely available on the Internet should once and for all undercut the idea that “content is king,” and emphasize the idea that “the creation of a stimulating learning context becomes more of a strategic asset for universities than the availability of attractive contents.”

This is not to say that content is immaterial, but the essence of excellence in education is to equip our graduates with enthusiasm for their discipline and the inclination and ability to acquire new knowledge as needed – quickly, effectively, and with discrimination. We must envision ways in which we can encourage our faculty to enthusiastically embrace this latter position, and reshape their curricula to express this.

The University must never lose sight of its essential role in promoting free scholarly research. Critical analysis of and commentary on both the society (local and global) and our accepted certainties must be encouraged, both in the sciences and in the humanities.

The strong talk about supporting “relevant” research and focused “flagship” research programmes may raise concerns, but it is not incompatible with academic freedom.

As noted by Professor John Goddard in his comments on the University of Turku, Finland, at the Research Conference on the Business of Higher Education, we must be able to see “the local environment as a resource for the University and the University as a resource for the community.”

We must create a mechanism through which there can be formal linkages between industry and academia, and also between various cultural and social organizations and academia, in order to promote development and innovation in industry as well as documentation, analysis and deeper appreciation of our scientific, cultural and social heritage.

Efforts in the Faculty of Pure and Applied Sciences have so far yielded collaborations in particular projects, but, unfortunately, have not resulted in a widespread and generalized change in relationships between industry and academia. Perhaps UWI should collaborate in the establishment of some formal advisory boards made up of selected representatives from particular areas of activity in the society and from academia in order to identify areas in which collaboration could lead to mutual benefits, and to promote the implementation of such collaboration.

Moreover, we must institute employment policies which will allow the realization of more vigorous collaboration between UWI and critical institutions in the local milieu, and such advisory boards could advise on this matter also.

Such collaborative ventures could conceivably include offering tailored courses or programmes, targeted research, or technical services. A strengthened MIAS and the Natural Products Institute, working closely with the Departments and Centres in the Faculty of Pure and Applied Sciences, could assist greatly in making such collaborations viable, but Departments could independently forge associations, so long as they remain compatible with the delivery of their core functions.

Similar entities for the commercialization of academic expertise might be considered for other Faculties.

An important cultural change that would have to be achieved in order to make this successful would be to get individuals to see themselves not as independent agents but as employees of the University who gain exposure and prestige by virtue of their association with the institution, and so also gain additional income, which they should willingly share with the institution in lieu of the intangible gains, as well as the tangible use of time, facilities and profile of the University. They would, in return, receive institutional backup when problems arise with timely delivery of output or proper accounting. In the past, such failures have reflected badly not only on the individuals involved but also upon the institution as a whole.

In the early days of UWI, bright and energetic young men from Britain came to the colonies, where there were many real problems to be solved, in order to break new ground and make significant contributions, as well as names for themselves. They usually maintained connections with and received support from the metropole, and some achieved considerable success.

Today, even while acknowledging the relatively small pool of very successful locally grown personnel, perhaps the model should add