Tarmo Soomere

1. I fully support Tallinn University of Technology’s mission to advance science, technology, and innovation while serving as a leading provider of engineering and economic education and thereby fostering an innovative and sustainable Estonia. I firmly believe it is essential for the university to be an internationally recognized leader in engineering and technology while also actively serving society. Currently it is particularly important to address the challenges of the digital age and contribute to the well-being and security of society as a whole.
2. The university has undergone several significant changes over the past decade, many of which have taken both academic staff and students out of  their comfort zone. These changes have manifested in various ways, extending from an increase in the university’s budget to greater international recognition of several disciplines.
   In recent years, the university’s management has been guided by a philosophy of inclusiveness and well-considered decision-making, which has fostered a harmonious working environment and provides a strong foundation for sustainable development. This policy must certainly be continued.
3. To paraphrase Lewis Carroll, in a rapidly changing world it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. To get ahead, you must run even faster than before. Estonia, along with Tallinn University of Technology, has secured a position at the forefront on the global stage. Unlike 30 years ago, it is now less obvious which direction should be prioritized to stay at the forefront.
   Various solutions may be equally effective, but more decisive actions are certainly needed in several areas. Even if the decisions are not ideal, postponing them is often a worse option.
4. The most significant challenge, and at the same time, the greatest threat to the Estonian higher education system, is the universities’ modest contribution to their third mission – serving society. It has mostly remained theoretical, confined to paperwork and slogans. When presenting the final report on the analysis of the Estonian research and innovation system¹ to the Research and Development Council, the authors bluntly stated that the Estonian universities have simply failed to fulfil their third mission.
   The situation has improved, though it is still far from ideal. I believe it is essential for Tallinn University of Technology to take the lead in this area by systematically fulfilling the objectives of the third mission and actively contributing to its realization in a way that ensures its benefits are understood by policymakers, entrepreneurs, and the general public, and inspiring other institutions in the higher education sector to follow suit.
   I understand that it is not easy to support society with one’s own resources in a difficult economic situation. I also acknowledge that these are not merely economic decisions, but fundamental ones, and implementing them requires a significant shift in the mindset of many. It may be difficult, but not impossible. It also seems that the time is right for this. However, it is highly likely that both the public and decision-makers will respond positively to such a stance, by providing support in various forms, from targeted support for specific fields of study to sponsorships or bequests to the university – similar to practices observed at many universities in developed countries.
5. A fundamental discrepancy in the Estonian higher education landscape is that the cost of engineering studies per student is lower than that of most other disciplines. By “engineering studies," I am referring to a broad spectrum of disciplines whose graduates, whether directly or indirectly, carry out engineering tasks.
   Engineering education is inherently expensive. If you want something that is both cheap and good, you will need to buy two: one that is cheap and one that is good. I understand that renegotiation of the funding for higher education is a difficult and politically sensitive issue, but it is necessary for the overall competitiveness of both Tallinn University of Technology and Estonia. However, it is highly likely that the need to increase funding for engineering education will gain both political and economic support through more focused and impactful contributions to society.
6. The leading researchers at Tallinn University of Technology, such as Linda Hollebeek, compete with the best in global science. Although all kinds of ratings are often misleading, they can occasionally be useful. To the best of my knowledge, no other researcher from Tallinn University of Technology is currently ranked among the top 1% of the world's most cited researchers according to the Web of Science database. The number of researchers from Tallinn University of Technology appearing in other similar rankings, such as the top 2% most cited researchers in SCOPUS or those featured on the research.com portal, is disproportionately small compared to the university’s scientific potential. This enables universities with far more modest potential to present themselves in a more favourable light than Tallinn University of Technology.
   I would like to stress once more that George Box’s golden rule of statistics: “All models are wrong, but some are useful” clearly applies to these types of rankings. It is not the specific ranking that matters, but something entirely different. A persistent lag in the rankings brings about a steady fall in the university’s attractiveness, which, in turn, typically leads to a gradual decline in the quality of both students and academic staff.
   We need to do more than just halt this process; we must reverse it. This requires time, and the issue cannot be fixed with hasty measures. Some progress has been made in this direction (e.g., rewarding authors of articles published in Q1 journals), but there is a long way to go, with many opportunities for improvement.
   Among the challenges the university is facing, there are four key areas that must be addressed in the coming years.
7. Significant progress has been made in enhancing energy efficiency and optimizing space use. However, the impression persists that space and other material resources are still not being used optimally. Considering the growing trend of remote work and rising heating and electricity costs, a thorough inventory of the premises may be required to evaluate the university’s actual need for office and laboratory space.
8. When the university structure was reorganized about ten years ago, the goal was to ensure that units at the same level would be of roughly similar size. The goal was achieved in many respects. However, in the course of the reorganization, a very strong School of Engineering was established, almost imperceptible in size, but with an impact equivalent to that of much smaller units. This issue requires prompt and decisive action, yet careful planning, to maintain the positive working environment, while moving towards the goal of establishing units of similar size.
9. The role of the university’s colleges has changed significantly over the years. In the past, the university received separate funding for the management of the colleges, aimed at reducing regional disparities and promoting equal learning opportunities. This policy has changed. It is logical for the university to reassess its approach to colleges – not with the goal of closing them, but by transforming them into attractive, need-based learning centres that may not necessarily offer education in all disciplines or at every level or in every form of higher education.
10. The current round of rector elections is marked by the withdrawal of several strong potential candidates even before the election process has begun. On the one hand, this clearly shows strong support for the reappointment of the current rector. On the other hand, it raises a number of questions. I would like to present a slightly different perspective on this, drawing partly from Prof. Hendrik Voll’s Facebook post.
    Assuming the role of rector or vice-rector presents a significant challenge, not only by limiting personal research opportunities but also by jeopardizing the future of the entire current research group, especially given the intense competition for research grants. Therefore, it is quite understandable that some successful researchers are choosing not to run for rector. This decision appears to have a considerable impact on this particular election round. This, in turn, means a much more limited choice.
    Although this kind of choice can result in great outcomes, it is essential to minimize the decisions that narrow down the options. This can be achieved by clearly defining the concept of tenure. In its current interpretation, it is hardly distinguishable from a “ordinary” professorship. The core principle of tenure is significantly greater job security, ensuring that one can temporarily assume the role of rector or vice-rector or transition to the private sector while retaining the guarantee of returning to the same position and continuing work with one’s research group. If such regulations and practices become standard, I am confident that the pool of potential rector candidates will expand significantly, and the elected rector will have no difficulty in assembling a strong team of vice-rectors.

¹ Makarow, M., Arnold, E., Mercury, L., Tracey, I., Tsipouri, Mulligan, D., Schmid, M., Vock, P. 2019. Peer review of the Estonian R&I system. Final report. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, https://doi.org/10.2777/030204

Tarmo Soomere 
12 March 2025