 Roshni Nidu, how has higher education changed recently on a global scale? I think on a global scale one of the biggest changes is higher education has come to be seen as a global commodity. So it's become much more business-like. Some of the aims of higher education, which was about developing citizens, contributing to the common good, developing expertise has now been complemented by the view that higher education is a global commodity, that both countries as well as universities can gain income from selling higher education to people who can afford it. And for me that's a very problematic development in higher education globally. So in your view what role or function does higher education then move towards? Do you think this trend will continue? I think it will, unless we governments and citizens can do something about it because I think it's dangerous to erode some of the most crucial functions of higher education. If we all work to the logic of money then we lose some of the most important aspects that make us democratic societies. So I think I'm not against competition in beneficial competition in higher education but I think the type of competition that we have at the moment is leading to consequences that are not good for higher education and not good for society. So in your view should universities then focus on education for employability or rather wall themselves off from market driven demands? I think universities have a lot of different functions in society and we have to acknowledge that. So universities do educate for employability as well. We educate doctors and scientists and we need those people in society but at the same time you also need to educate for criticality, for citizenship, for what is it to be a human being in a democratic society and universities don't have to choose one or the other, they can do both. So in your view are there any advantages and which advantages might there be of international competition between universities? I think that in some very few cases there are some small benefits of international competition. Sometimes universities in the public sector may be compelled to work in different ways to focus more on their students but I think the disadvantages outweigh the benefits. So rankings actually produce effects in universities that are very very negative. Universities start trying to get Nobel Prize winners, they try to do well in the rankings which doesn't mean the same as doing well in teaching or doing well in research and social justice, equity, rankings don't measure those important aspects of higher education and they then become less important to universities who want to play well and do well in the ranking game. So then how can universities contribute to the common good? I think firstly universities by developing international collaborations that really benefit both countries. So if universities are linking up with low income countries instead of basing the source of power where the money is or where the money comes from, the problems that higher education wants to help solve the contributions that it wants to make needs to be mutually agreed by both countries. And I think also reclaiming higher education as a critical space, as a space that can call truth to power that can really tackle some of the most important issues that other organizations and society are not tackling. Consultancy agencies or pharmaceuticals, their research is very very different. It is in order to make profit whereas universities can do something else that's for not just the national good but the global good as well. Denmark is a nation of only 5 million people. The economy is relatively strong and education is valued. What do you believe that educators and decision makers should be aware of and prepare for in Denmark? I think that Denmark has a very good education system and I think there is this fetish at the moment in Europe worldwide to follow the Anglo-Saxon model to become much more marketized, to have market competition, to dismantle the welfare state and there's no evidence that any of that for example in the UK really leads to a better higher education system. But my sense here is that Denmark looks over the channel and or decision makers look over the channel and see those as a positive model to emulate and I think there are a lot of dangers and we need to really look at the research that's coming out of Britain at the moment in terms of the research assessment exercise, in terms of market competition, in terms of less autonomy, more state auditing and learn from those negative consequences and Denmark shouldn't follow where we realize that there are huge weaknesses. Rashmi and I do, thank you very much. Thank you.