International higher education, boston college center

INTERNATIONALHIGHEREDUCATIONT H E B O S T O N C O L L E G E C E N T E R F O R I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N

International Higher Education is the quarterly publication of the Center for International Higher Education.

The journal is a reflection of the Center’s mission to en-courage an international per-spective that will contribute to enlightened policy and prac-tice. Through International Higher Education, a network of distinguished international scholars offers commentary and current information on key issues that shape higher education worldwide. IHE is published in English, Chinese, Russian, and Spanish. Links to all editions can be found at www.bc.edu/cihe.

Number 72: Summer 2013

Brain Drain or Brain Exchange?

2 BrainDrainorBrainExchange:DevelopingCountryImplications Philip G. Altbach

4 ResearchCollaborationandGlobalMigration Gali Halevi and Henk F. Moed

Internationalization: Trends and Critiques

5 TheFalseHaloofInternationalization Jenny J. Lee

7 TheDragon’sDeal:Sino-AfricanCooperationinHigherEducation Milton O. Obamba

9 DeceptiveForeignCredentialEvaluationServices George D. Gollin

10 FinancialAspectsofOffshoreActivities John Fielden

Rankings and Their Implications

12 AreGlobalRankingsUnfairtoLatinAmericanUniversities? Andrés Bernasconi

13 ImplicationsofExcellenceinResearchandTeaching Johannes Wespel, Dominic Orr, and Michael Jaeger

India Issues

15 GettingValueforMoneyinHigherEducation Philip G. Altbach and Pawan Agarwal

17 DoesIndiaHaveanInternationalStrategy? P. J. Lavakare

England’s Present and Future

18 EnglishEducationinDistress? Heather Eggins

20 WhatWillEnglishHigherEducationLookLikein2025? Jeroen Huisman, Harry de Boer, and Paulo Charles Pimental Bótas

Regions and Countries

21 TheChallengeofSustainingStudentLoanSystem:ColombiaandChile Jamil Salmi

23 AmericanEngineeringDoctoralEnrollments Richard A. Skinner

Departments

25 NewPublications27 NewsoftheCenter

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N2 Brain Drain or Brain Exchange?

Does Anyone Care AboutDeveloping Countries: BrainDrainorBrainExchange?Philip G. Altbach

Philip G. Altbach is Monan University professor and director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College. E-mail: [email protected].

The rich world is worrying about skills shortages, es-pecially at the upper levels of their economies. The

causesaremany—suchasa“demographiccliff” inJapanand in some European countries, significantly reducingthenumbersofuniversity-ageyoungpeople,especiallytoofew students enrolling in science, technology, engineer-ing, and mathematics (STEM) fields, a leveling off of ac-cess,andlow-degreecompletionrates.Whatisasolutionoftheseproblems?Increasingly,itistoboostthe“stayrates”of internationalstudents—inotherwords, toconvincein-ternationalstudents,mainlyfromdevelopingandmiddle-incomecountries, toremainafter theycomplete theirde-grees. To oversimplify, the rich are robbing the brains ofthedevelopingcountries—orforthatmatteranyqualifiedbrainswhocanbelured.Althoughthebraindrainhasbeenpartofacademiaforacenturyormore,thesituationisin-creasinglyacuteforallsides.Fordevelopingandemergingcountries,thedangeristhattheywillbeleftbehindintheglobal knowledge economy, thus permanently damagingtheirfutures.

Current RealitiesIntheeraofglobalization,itmaybeabitofanexaggera-tiontocallthisadeliberatepolicytoencouragebraindrain,butonlyslightly.Stayratesarealreadyquitehigh.Forex-ample, 80 percent or more of Chinese and Indians whohaveobtainedtheiradvanceddegreesintheUnitedStatesover almost ahalf centuryhave remained in the country.It ishardlyanexaggerationtopointout thatasignificantpartofSiliconValleyhasbeenbuiltwithIndianbrainpower.ArecentanalysisofdatafromtheNationalScienceFoun-dation’sSurveyofEarnedDoctoratesshowsthatthelargemajority of doctoral recipients from developing countriesplantoremainintheUnitedStates,contributingtotheaca-demic labor force, particularly in the STEM fields. Whiledata are seldom available, other European countries andAustralia no doubt show similar trends. However, returnratesaremodestlyincreasinggloballyasdevelopingcoun-tryeconomiesimprove,andsomeoftherichworldremainsmiredinrecession.

Subsidies from the Poor to the RichEmerginganddevelopingeconomiesareactuallycontribut-ingsignificantlytotheacademicsystemsofwealthiercoun-tries.InternationalstudentscontributesignificantlytotheeconomiesofEurope,NorthAmerica,andAustraliawhiletheyarestudyingaswellasiftheyremain.Datafrom2011indicate that the764,000internationalstudentsstudyingin the United States contribute more than US$22 billionto the American economy annually. Similar statistics canbe cited for the other major host countries. Indeed, Aus-tralia,earnsUS$17billionfrominternationalscholars,andtheUnitedKingdom,wherehighereducation isaUS$21billionearner,bothhaveclearlystatednationalpoliciestoincreaseincomefromoverseasstudents.

Perhapsofgreaterconcernarethesubsidiesprovidedby emerging and developing economies—through theirdoctoral graduates—who remain and join the academicprofession in the richcountries.Hereareexamples fromIndiaandChina—thetwolargest“brainexporters”intheworld. It shouldbenoted that these statistics are sugges-tive since details are unavailable and data points vary. In2012,100,000IndianstudentswerestudyingintheUnitedStates,mostlyatthepostbaccalaureatelevel.Thelargema-jorityofthesestudentsremainafterearningtheirdegrees,andmanyjointhelocalprofessoriate.UsingUNESCOsta-tistics,aroughestimateisthatitcoststheIndiantaxpayeraroundUS$7,600inpurchasingpowerparity(PPP)toedu-cateastudentfromprimaryschoolingthroughabachelor’sdegree.ItcanbeestimatedthatanIndianfamilymayinvestasimilaramountintheeducationofachild—particularlysince many of the young people who qualify for admis-siontooverseasuniversitieshavebeeneducatedinprivateEnglish-mediumschools in India—fora total estimateofUS$15,000. Thus, the approximate Indian investment inAmerica,bypayingfortheeducationof100,000youngpeo-plethroughthebachelor’sdegreeisapproximatelyUS$1.5billionannually.TheChinafiguresare likelyevenhigher.Although public expenditures on education are not avail-able, research shows the average Chinese family investsUS$39,000PPPdollarstoeducateastudentfromprimarythroughthecompletionofabachelor’sdegree.Therewere194,000studentsfromChinastudyingintheUnitedStatesin2012.Onecanestimate thatChinese familieswere in-vestingUS$7.6billioninbrainpowerintheUnitedStates.SignificantadditionalfundingfromChinesestatesourceswerealsobeinginvested,althoughfiguresareunavailable.

Itseemspossibletoapproximatetheeducationalcon-tributions of the various, mostly developing, countries—whose young people are studying abroad—to the econo-miesofthehostcountries.Whilenotallofthesestudentswill remain after completing their studies, the sums aresignificant.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 3Brain Drain or Brain Exchange?

In addition to direct costs, the host countries benefitfromanimmenseamountofintellectualcapitalfromsomeof thebrightestyoungpeople fromthedevelopingworld.At thesame time, the losses fordevelopingcountriesarehuge—for academe in particular, in research and teach-ingtalent,newandinnovativeideasthatmighthavebeencultivatedfromoverseasexperience,practicesinuniversitymanagement,andmanyothers.

Rich Country StrategiesHansdeWitandNannetteRipmeesterprovideanexcellentsummaryofsomeofthepoliciesaimedatincreasing“stayrates” through changes in immigration policy, the provi-sionofscholarships,closerlinksbetweenuniversitiesandemployers,andothers(University World News,February17,2013).ThereiswideagreementinEuropeandNorthAmer-icathatnewinitiativestoenticethe“bestandbrightest”ofprofessionalsfromothercountries,whomtheyeducate,tostayandjointhelocallaborforceareagoodidea.Effortstoliberalizevisaregulations;openemploymentopportunities;permit postgraduate work, easier degree recognition; im-provementofcooperationbetweentheuniversities,govern-ments,andindustry;andmanyotherinitiativesarebeingimplemented.

Countries, such as the United Kingdom and Austra-lia, that recently implemented more stringent immigra-tionlimits,arerethinkingtheirpolicies.TheUSNationalAcademyofSciencesaswellasuniversitiesadvocateliber-alizingvisaregimes,inordertomakeiteasierforforeigngraduatestoremainandworkintheUnitedStates.Thereisabsolutelynorecognitionofanycontradictionbetween,forexample,MillenniumDevelopmentGoals,whichstressthenecessityforeducationaldevelopmentintheemergingna-tionsandpoliciesaimedatattractingthebestbrainsfromdevelopingcountries.

AfricancountriesasSouthAfricaandBotswana,whichhaverelativelyadvancedhighereducationsystemsandpaymoreattractivesalaries,alsoluretalentfromelsewhereinAfrica.Further,theacademicbraindrainoperatesbetweenthemajor“academicpowers,”aswell.Germanytrieshardto attract back its postdocs and doctoral graduates, work-ingintheUnitedStates,backtoGermany,withonlylim-itedsuccess.Theattractionofamorestableacademicca-reerstructureandsomewhathighersalariesintheUnitedStatesareattractive,andAmericanuniversitiestrytokeepthe brightest international graduates, whatever their na-tionality.

The Complexities of a Globalized WorldWhilelocationstillmattersandtheworldisbynomeansflatwhenitcomestoacademicexcellenceandpower,glo-balizationhascertainlyimpacteduniversitiesandacademic

systems worldwide. The Internet has made communica-tionandcollaborationmucheasier.Theproportionof re-searchandpublicationconducted jointlybyacademics inmore thanonecountryhasgrowndramaticallyat the topofthesystem.Distanceeducation, joint-degreeprograms,andbranchcampusesexhibitanotheraspectofaglobalizedacademicworld.Noneofthis,however,makesupforlossesinpersonnel.

China,asacountrywithlargenumbersofitsacademicsworkingoverseas,hasinstitutedanumberofprogramstoluretopChineseresearchersbacktoChina.Jointappoint-mentshavealsobeenofferedforacademics inkeyfields,sothatChineseuniversitiescanbenefitfromtopscholarswhowishtoremainabroad.Otherdevelopingandmiddle-incomecountriesalsoseektoleveragetheacademicdiaspo-ra throughencouraging joint researchprojects, attractinginvestment, sponsoring academic organizations, and oth-ers.Successfulprogramshaveatleastensuredthattoplocaltalent canbenefit fromexpertiseby compatriotswho liveabroad.Countries suchasSouthKorea,Turkey,Scotland,andothershaveimplementedprograms.

Inallof thesecases,however, theadvantageremainswith the major global academic centers for obvious rea-sons.Also, locationmattersagreatdeal;beingpartofanacademiccommunityisamuchmorepowerfuldraw,eventhanInternet-basedcommunicationorsabbaticalsorsum-mers abroad. Stable academic careers, attractive salaries,academicfreedom,unfetteredaccesstothelatestscientificand intellectual ideas, amongother things, are a tremen-dous attraction. Few programs to bring back researchersand academics or efforts to limit academic mobility havebeenverysuccessful.The fact is thatuntiluniversities indevelopingcountriesoffertheacademiccultureandfacili-ties that top academics expect—including academic free-dom, unrestricted information access, and laboratories—theywillbeunabletoattractandretaintopacademictalent,butthepoliciesoftherichcountriescertaindonothelp.

Academic Justice?Dothe“academicpowers”haveanyresponsibilitytodevel-opingacademicsystems?Asenseofresponsibilityforen-couragingdoctoralgraduatesfromthedevelopingworldto

To oversimplify, the rich are robbing the

brains of the developing countries—or

for that matter any qualified brains who

can be lured.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N4 Brain Drain or Brain Exchange?

returnhome,tobuilduniversities,andtoimprovethequal-ityofemergingacademicsystems isentirelyabsent fromthecurrentdiscussion.Theonlyconcernistoimprove“stayrates”and liberalize immigrationrules toensure that themaximumnumberofthebestandbrightestfromthedevel-opingworldremains.Shouldtherichworldattheleast,inthecontextofMillenniumDevelopmentGoals,remittothedevelopingworld the costs incurred,bydeveloping coun-tries,ineducatingtheirnonreturningyoungpeople?Therearemanywaystoatleastamelioratethesituation—forex-ample,jointdoctoraldegreesthatprovideyoungdevelopingcountryscholarsanopportunitytostudyabroadforpartoftheirPhDwork,whileretainingalinktotheirhomeuniver-sityandatthesametimebuildingresearchcapacity.Then,atleast,thedevelopingcountrieswouldnotbedirectlysub-sidizingtheacademicsystemsoftherich.

ResearchCollaborationandGlobalMigrationGali Halevi and Henk F. Moed

Gali Halevi is at the Informetric Research Group, Elsevier, New York. E-mail: [email protected]. Henk F. Moed is at the Informetric Re-search Group, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]. The full text of the article can be found at: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1212/1212.5194.pdf.

Thisstudycomparestrendsincoauthorshipandphysi-calmigrationofscientistsfromcountrytocountry.Co-

authorshipanalysishas longbeenusedas away to tracktheformationofscientificnetworksbothdomesticallyandinternationally. Recently, however, an increased interestforms tracking and analyzing authors’ affiliations, to fol-lowthephysicalmovementofresearchersfromonecoun-trytoanother.Byanalyzingauthors’geographicallocationofaparticularpaperor studying largesetsofarticles, in-ternational coauthorship and collaboration networks canbe identified. Migration, as opposed to coauthorship hasanimpact,notonlyontheformationofscientificcollabo-rations but also on the social and economical fabric of acountry.Migrationtrendscan,potentially,servepolicymak-ersandprogramsdirectors—astothestrengthsandweak-nessesoftheirscientificcommunityandwhetheracountrysuffers from brain drain or benefits from developments,duetomigration.

Drivers of Migration and CoauthorshipOur recent study conducted a multidisciplinary databasecontainingover20,000sourcesofpeerreviewedpublica-tions,analyzingcoauthorshippatternsandscientificmigra-tionof17selectedcountries—Egypt, Iran,Malaysia,Paki-stan,Romania,Portugal,Germany,Italy,Netherlands, theUnitedKingdom,Brazil,China, India, theUnitedStates,Australia,Japan,andThailand.Analyzingthe2011corpusofpublicationsandincludingauthorswhostartedtheirca-reersfrom2001to2010,itwasabletotracethestrengthsofimmigrationbetweenvariouscountries.

The research found a difference between coauthor-ship and migration patterns. It is apparent that commonlanguage and geographical proximity drive internationalmigrationmorestrongly thancoauthorships. Inaddition,theeffectofpoliticaltensionsseemssmalleronmigrationthanitisoncoauthorship.ThiscanbeseenintherelativelylowratioofcoauthorshipandhighmigrationbetweenIranandtheUnitedStates,India,andPakistan—andChinaandTaiwan,asexamples.

TheUnitedStatesandChinaarebothuniquecasesofinterestingpatterns inmigration.USauthors tend tomi-gratelessfrequentlythanresearchersdofromlargeEuro-peanstudycountries—UnitedKingdom,Italy,andNether-lands. This could be due to the sheer size of the UnitedStatesandtheabundanceofexcellentUSresearchinstitu-tionsthatallowsresearcherstomovefromoneinstitutetoanotherwithouthaving to leave theUnitedStates. Inad-dition, our analysis showed that compared to the level ofcoauthorship,relativelymanyyoungresearcherscurrentlyactive in theUnitedStateshavebeenpreviouslyactive inIndiaandIran.

Permanent vs. Temporary MigrationAnotherfocusoftheanalysiswasbasedonthepercentagesofauthorswhostaywithintheircountry;thosewhomigratepermanently,andthosewhomigrateyetreturntotheorigincountry.ThelargestpercentageofauthorswhostayintheircountryareAmericanauthors,followedbyChineseauthors.Amuchsmallerpercentageofauthorsmovepermanently;andthosearefrompredominantlyGermanandDutchau-thors,followedbyAmericanandItalianauthors.TheonesleastlikelytomovepermanentlyareChineseauthors.ThiscouldbeduetothewealthofresourcesavailabletoChinesescientists, as opposed to the lack of expertise. In this re-spect,Chinesescientistsmightmigratetoothercountries,togainexpertiseinacertainarea,butreturntotheirhome-land,topracticeanddeveloptheircareers.Itwasalsofoundthatthenumberofauthorswhomigrateandreturncom-prisesthesmallestpercentageofauthors.Acomparisonofthepercentagesofauthorswhomovepermanentlytothosewhomoveandreturntotheirorigincountry,aclearpicture

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 5

ofcountrieswherebraindrainoccursvs.countrieswhichareintheprocessofdevelopingtheirinfrastructure.Coun-triessuchasIran,Thailand,Malaysia,andPakistanseemtohavealargenumberofresearcherswhomoveabroadandreturn. This type of migration supports the developmentof the country’s professional-skills levels and infrastruc-tureandshowsrisingnumbersofsuchexchange.OntheothersideofthespectrumarecountriessuchastheUnitedStates,Japan,IndiaandGermanywherelargernumberofresearchersseemtobemovingtodifferentcountriesper-manently.Inthemiddle,arecountriessuchasChina,Bra-zil,andAustralia,wherethenumbersarebalancedbetweenthose, who leave their country to work abroad and comeback,tothosewholeavepermanently.

Implications on Science PolicyThisanalysis,despitetrackingexistingtrends,couldpoten-tiallyserveasawaytoexaminetheeffectsofmigrationandcollaborationpatternsonresearchperformance—especiallytheextentthatresearcherswhomovefromonecountrytoanotherincreasetheirresearchperformance.Acasestudyconductedsomeyearsagoontheperformanceofresearch-ers,atLeidenUniversityintheNetherlands,revealedthatthoseafterattainingoftheirPhDintheNetherlandscon-ductedtheirpostdoctrainingatprestigiousforeignuniver-sitiesandperformedbetterthanthosewhoremainedintheNetherlands.

Theuseofaffiliationindicatorsallowsonetotrackco-authorshippatternsand identify the formationofdomes-tic and international scientific networks. Similar use ofaffiliation indicatorshaveshownthat theycanbeused totrackactualphysicalmigrationofscientistsfromcountrytocountry,whetheronapermanentortemporarybasis.Thismethodofanalysisenablespolicymakersatthenationallev-eltotrackresearcherswhostartedtheircareerinacountrybutmovedabroadandcontinuedtheircareersinforeignin-stitutions.Thisinformationcanplayanimportantroleforprogramsaimedtoinviteresearcherswhowentabroadtoreturntotheirhomecountry.Inthismanner,onecantrackmigrationbasedalsoonthescientificfocus.If,forexample,acountryseesscientistsinneurosciencemigratingout,itcandecidetoinvestmoreinthatarea,inordertokeepits

talentandavoidbraindrain.Thistypeofanalysiscanalsoindicatetheformationofcentersofexcellencearoundtheworld.

TheFalseHaloofInternationalizationJenny J. Lee

Jenny J. Lee is associate professor at the Center for the Study of Higher Education, University of Arizona, Tucson. E-mail: [email protected].

Internationalizationhascometotheforefrontascountriesandtheir institutionsstrategize toparticipate in today’s

global society. Internationalization can be likened to anarms race of international students, scholars, programs,andlinkinganinstitutiontoindividualsandactivitiesout-sideitsnationalborders.Whilemassiveeffortsarenowbe-ingmadetointernationalize,lessattentionispaidtodeter-miningthequalityandeducationalreturnininvestmentsoncetheactivitiesaresetup.Thiseffectofinternationaliza-tiontooeasilyoverlooksthehumanaspectofmigrationandexchange,whichiswelldocumentedasbeingquiteunevenglobally.Inshort,adangeroccursinblindlypromotingin-ternationalization, without careful consideration of its in-tendedpurposesandunintendedconsequences.

Beingcautiousandpayingattentiontothequalitativeexperiencesofinternationalstudentsandscholarscanyieldmajorinsightsleadingtoimprovedbenefitsandcoordinat-ing the intended diplomatic goals of internationalization.Twocaseswillbepresentedon theexperiencesofunder-studied international scholars and students, which offerimplications on how internationalization should be criti-callyassessedandpracticed.

Scientific Postdoctoral LaborInternational postdocs are a fundamental but often over-lookedpopulationinunderstandingscientific-researchpro-duction.IntheUnitedStatesandintheUnitedKingdom,postdocsareheavily concentrated in the science, technol-ogy,engineering,andmathematicsfields.Thesecontingentresearchers serve the countries’ scientific-knowledge cre-ation, given current domestic-skill shortages. Meanwhile,providingpostdocsfromabroadisplentiful,asinternation-alscholarstendtoseekoutpositionsintheUnitedStatesandwesternEuropeatthemosthighlyrankedglobaluni-versities.


It is apparent that common language

and geographical proximity drive inter-

national migration more strongly than

coauthorships.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N6

While all postdocs had at least some aspirations to-wardbecomingfaculty,internationalpostdocswerefarlessinclined. This international population holds two tiers ofacademic labor—onetheoretical (UnitedStatesandEuro-peans)andtheothertechnical(Asians),asdeterminedbyfacultysupervisors’stereotypes.Theseviewsthentranslat-edtodifferentlevelsofworkresponsibilitiesand,ultimate-ly, career paths—lab supervisors on temporary contractsand tenure-track science faculty. Based on this research,particulargroups(i.e.,Asians)areespeciallyvulnerableastheytendtobeassignedtasksthatmaynotleadtowardfac-ultypositions.Facultysupervisors’decisionsmaybebasedonuncheckedperceptionsaboutculturesandcountriesoforigin.

In today’s global knowledge society, the principles ofefficiency suggest that several part-time or short-term re-searchers are a better financial investment on scientificknowledgeproduction,comparedtoasingle, tenuredfullprofessor. Consequently, the term “postdocs for life” isbecoming increasingly common, because opportunitiesfor advancement andpermanent job security are limited.Questionsarise,however,whenconsideringwhethersuchactivities constitute “internationalization.” Based on a su-perficial observation, the hiring of international scholarsappearscertainlytoqualify.Whenobservedmorecritically,however,thepotentialexploitationofscholarsfromdevel-opingcountries runsdirectlycounter to thegood-spiritedmessageofinternationalization.

Student Athletes from Abroad As a second example, international student athletes areheavilyrecruitedintheUnitedStatesasawaytobringath-letic prestige to an institution. As in the case of interna-tional postdocs, international student athletes are soughtlater topromotean institution’s reputationaboveandbe-yondtheirdomesticsupply.Africanathleteshavebeenre-searchedstronglyrepresentedintrackandfield.Instancesof social isolation, verbal insults, and harassment wereidentified, in many ways similar to previous findings onother internationalstudentpopulations.Among themost

pervasivemisperceptionsaboutAfricanstudentathletes,inparticular,arethatthesestudentathletesprioritizeafutureprofessionalcareerinsportsoveracademics.Consequently,manyarefunneledtomajorsthatmightbe lessacademi-cally demanding, to accommodate for their training andcompetitions,butleftwithdegreesthathavelittlerelevancewhentheyreturnhome.

In the United States, a highly regarded athletic pro-gram can generate hundreds of millions of US dollarsfrom corporate sponsorships, private donations, ticketsales,andmore.Inordertomaintainorincreaseateam’scompetitiveness, recruiting student athletes from abroadiscommonplace.Asanaddedbenefit, theseinternationalstudentscanbeshowcasedtodemonstrateaninstitution’sinternationalizationefforts.Thesestudentsalsogainfromreceivingscholarshipsandtheopportunitytostudyatauni-versitywithmoreresourcesthanwhatmightbeavailableathome.Suchawin-winsituationappearsappealingtobothpartiesbut,whenexaminedmorecarefully,concernsarise.The quality of these student athletes’ experiences tend tobeignored,despitetheconsiderableeffortsthataremadetorecruitthem.Thecareertrajectoriesoftheseindividualsare also left unexamined, especially considering that top-ranked athletes can pursue a professional athletic career,withoutacollegeeducation.

A Social and Educational ResponsibilityIn sum, it is naïve and irresponsible to perceive interna-tionalizationasbeinginherentlygood.Internationalizationisnotmerelyasetofobservableactivitiesbutalsoinvolvessocialandeducationresponsibility.Asdemonstratedinthepreviousexamples,internationalizationeffortsdonotauto-matically result in improved education opportunities andexperiences,letalonegreaterdiplomacybetweenparticipat-ingcountries.

Internationalization potentially reflects the dominantinterestsof thehostrecipients, thanintheintendedspir-it of mutual collaboration and cultural exchange. In thehighereducationcontext,facultyandadministratorsmustnot limitplanningtofiscalconsiderations,as isoftenthecase.Theburdenofinternationalizationbeyondtheinitialsetupshouldbeontheinternationalhosts,nottheinvitees.When international scholars and students report unmetexpectations,discriminationandunfairtreatment,andha-rassmentfromthehostcommunity,theproblemshouldbeaddressedbythosewhorecruitedthem,notlefttothesuf-ferers.

Theresearchhasfoundthatthesourceofdiscrimina-tionisoftenourowndomesticstudentsandevenfaculty,whoironicallyareoccurringineducationsites—includingclassrooms.Assuch,thereportedincidentsinmanyways


This effect of internationalization too

easily overlooks the human aspect of

migration and exchange, which is well

documented as being quite uneven

globally.


reflectafailureoftheeducationsystemtoeducateitsownmembersonthevalueofinternationalizationandtheedu-cational benefits that international students and scholarsneedtooffer.

Manydomesticstudentscannotaffordtostudyabroadbutcanhavean internationalexperience in theirown in-stitutions.Amonginternationalstudents’mostciteddisap-pointmentsisthelackofsocialrelationshipswithdomesticstudents. While university activities to facilitate social ex-changeareplentiful,theseeventstendtobepoorlyattendedwithlimitedinterestfromlocalstudents.Highereducationinstitutions can internationalize by educating their owndomesticstudentsonthevalueofinternationalizationandacquiring basic global competencies, such as being abletoeffectivelycommunicatewithindividuals inforeignac-cents,possessknowledgeaboutdiverseculturesoutsideitsborders,andnetworkwiththosefromoverseas,asvitaltosuccessinthisglobalizingsociety.

Receivingcountriesandinstitutionsneedtoavoidex-ploitinginternationalstudentsorscholarsintheinterestofglobalprestigeoreconomicrevenue.While international-izationispartoftoday’sacademiclandscape,howweprac-ticeitisyettobedetermined.

TheDragon’sDeal:Sino-AfricanCooperationinEducationMilton O. Obamba

Milton O. Obamba is research associate, African Network for the Inter-nationalization of Education, Eldoret, Kenya. E-mail: [email protected].

ChinaandAfricahavealongtraditionofbilateralcooper-ation.TheestablishmentoftheForumonChina-Africa

Cooperation(FOCAC)in2000hasdramaticallyrevolution-ized Sino-African cooperation. It is an intergovernmentalagencyestablishedjointlybyChinaandAfricancountriestoprovideaplanforstrengtheningbilateralcooperationsbe-tweenChinaand50Africanmembercountries.Theemer-genceofFOCACcanbemoreaccuratelyinterpretedaspartoftheincreasinginstitutionalizationandintensificationofSino-Africanrelations,atatimeofdeepeningmultilateralinteractions,althoughcritiqueshaveintensifiedsimultane-ously. Since the establishment of FOCAC, trade volumes

havesignificantlyincreasedfromUS$10billionin2000toUS$160billionin2112.Similarly,thelevelsofChina’sof-ficialdevelopmentassistancetoAfricahavealsoincreasedsignificantly, rapidly rising fromUS$5billion in2006 toUS$20billionin2012.Inshort,China’scooperationwithAfricarunsdeepandstraddlesavastspectrumofstrategic,economic,andsociopoliticalspheres.Tofocusonthedevel-opment, character, andscopeofSino-Africancooperationinthefieldofeducation,thearticleisbasedonananalysisofpolicydocumentsproducedbytheChinesegovernmentandFOCAC.TheaimistocontributetoamoresystematiccharacterizationofChina’sbilateraleducationcooperationwithAfrica.

Human Capacity and Academic MobilityTheearliestformofeducationalcooperationbetweenChi-naandAfricaconsistedofrelativelysmall-scaleanddiffusepatternsofexchanges involving theoutboundmobilityofAfricanstudentsandinboundmovementofChineseteach-ers during the 1950s and 1960s. This pattern providedsmallnumbersofChinesegovernmentscholarshipstoAf-ricanstudents.Inthe1970s,short-termtrainingprogramsinChinawereestablishedforAfricanprofessionalsinvari-ousfields.TheFirstFOCACActionPlan(2000)reaffirmedChina’s commitment to increase the number of govern-mentscholarshipsandinboundChineseteacherstoAfrica.Significantly, theActionPlanalsoestablished theAfricanHuman Resource Development Fund, to provide a morecoordinatedmechanismfortrainingAfricanprofessionals.Overthelastdecade,thevolumesofChinesescholarshipsand professional capacity opportunities have continuedto increase. Scholarships, for instance, have grown from2,000in2003to6,000peryearin2012.Thisrecentup-surge inChinese initiatives inAfricahasraisedconcernsregarding the transparency of criteria applied to trainingopportunitiesacrossallthe50countriesinAfrica.Consid-ering the vastness and diversity of the African continent,China’sapproachofanundirectedcontinent-widecoopera-tionhas triggeredcriticismaroundChina’sprioritiesandeffectivedevelopmentcooperationofthatscale.

Capacity BuildingBoth within and outside the FOCAC framework, infra-structuredevelopmentsupporthasremainedasignificantagendawithinChina’sengagementwithAfrica, formanydecades. The third FOCAC summit contained Beijing’spledgetobuild100ruralschoolsinAfrica,whilethefourthsummit provided the construction of 50 China-Africafriendship schools and providing research equipment toAfrican researchers returning from China. Some of theflagshipChineseeducationalinfrastructureprojectsinAf-



rica include the Ethio-China Polytechnic in Addis Ababaand theUniversityofScienceandTechnology inMalawi.China’sspectacularinfrastructureprojectshavebeencriti-cizedasaway forpermittingcorruptionandpoliticalpa-tronagebytherulingAfricaneliteratherthanasinitiativesto deliver sustainable development for the populations.However,China’sroleininfrastructurefundingisvitalforAfrica,sincetraditionalWesterndonorsnolongersupportsuch initiativesandAfricangovernmentsalso faceseverefinancialconstraints.

Academic PartnershipsAlthoughmutualacademicmobilityhasbeenasignificantfeature of Sino-African educational cooperation since the1950s,therehasbeenlittleopportunityfordirectinterinsti-tutionalengagement.ThisisbecauseSino-Africanengage-ment is predominantly engineered through intergovern-mental bureaucracies, without scope for the participationof nonstate stakeholders. Interinstitutional cooperation istherefore a relatively recent and groundbreaking develop-ment.The2006BeijingActionPlanprovidedthefirstat-tempttocreateinstitutional-levelcollaborationthroughtheestablishmentofConfucius Institutes,although thesearealso largely organized at the intergovernmental level—aspartofChina’sglobal“softpower.”The20+20cooperationprogramestablished2009isanothersignificantinitiative.This program entails the launch of structured one-to-onepartnershipsbetween20Chineseand20African tertiaryeducation institutions, to promote capacity building andsustainabledevelopment.

Sustainable Development CooperationThe Fourth and Fifth FOCAC Plans of Action issued in2009and2012bothportrayaradicalshiftinthecharacter,scope,anddiscourseunderlyingtheemergingtrajectoryofSino-African engagement. These blueprints demonstratetheemergenceofadistinctiveanddominantdiscourseofknowledge,scienceandtechnology,anditslinkagestosus-tainabledevelopmentandpovertyreductioninAfrica.Un-

derthisremit,Chinapledgedtoprovide100postdoctoralfellowships for Africans and conduct 100 joint-researchdemonstrations.Significantly,theguidesestablishedthreeseriousprogramsthatareparticularlycriticaltotheemerg-ing Sino-African development paradigm. These includeChina-Africa Technology Partnership Program, China-Africa Research and Exchange Program, and the China-Africa Think Tank Forum. All these flagship cooperationprogramsaregenerallyfocusedonjointresearchandpro-viding a range of initiatives to strengthen the capacity ofAfricancountriesforscienceandtechnologydevelopment,policymaking, management, and technology transfer. Anew technical cooperation focuses on areas that are criti-cally connected to people’s livelihoods—including health-care,environment,agriculture,renewableenergy,andwa-terdevelopment.

ThistrajectorydenotesaChineseshifttowardpovertyreductionandsustainabledevelopment,asopposedtothetraditional preoccupation with grand infrastructure fund-ing. The Think Tanks Forum represents a new focus onproviding the scientific backbone and gravitas, requiredtostrengthentheknowledge-baseandrobustnessofSino-Africancooperationinacomplexworld.However,China’sgrowing dominance in Sino-Africa cooperation is widelyquestionedforreproducingnewpatternsofdependency.

ConclusionChineseassistanceforeducationdevelopmentinAfricahasevolved over many decades and is currently quite diverseandinstitutionalizedinitsscopeandarchitecture.Morere-cently, there is a distinct and unprecedented shift towardstrengthening science and technology capacity and learn-inghowknowledgecanbemoredirectlyappliedtoimprovepeople’slivelihoodsinAfrica.ThisobligationsuggeststhatChinese development assistance may be a good force inachieving the Millennium Development Goals in Africa.However, thesepotentialgainscanbeseverelythreatenedorerodedifChinareproducesthesamepatternsofdepen-dency associated with the contemporary North-South co-operation.ThespheresofSino-Africandevelopmentcoop-erationshouldbeexpandedtoincorporatenonstateactorsfrombothsides—inordertocreatesufficientcapacityandsynergiesforimplementingSino-Africandevelopmenten-gagement.


China and Africa have a long tradition

of bilateral cooperation. The establish-

ment of the Forum on China-Africa

Cooperation (FOCAC) in 2000 has dra-

matically revolutionized Sino-African

cooperation.


DeceptiveForeignCredentialEvaluationServicesGeorge D. Gollin

George D. Gollin is professor of physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. E-mail: [email protected].

Ayearafterenteringpractice inAfrica, theyoungAfri-canphysicianappearedtobeseekingemploymentin

Greece.Heaskedacredentialevaluationservice tovouchforthelegitimacyofhismedicaldegree,sendingareportof itsconclusionstohisnewhomecountry(Greece).Theservicepromised“fair&honestevaluations,”andclaimedit was “fighting degree frauds through professional tech-niques and verifications.” It determined “that applicant’sstudieshave theequivalencyofaDoctorofMedicine . . .froma regionally accredited InstitutionofHigherEduca-tionoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica.”

Thereportfailedtomentionthatthecredentialevalu-ation firm’s owner was himself a perpetrator of degreefrauds,havingbeenfined15,000eurosforrunningadiplo-mamillinEurope.ThemedicaldegreefraudscamefromaPakistanimill,whichhadoncetriedtosellmeadoctoraldegreeinthoracicsurgery.However,Iamaphysicist,notaphysician.

Another credential evaluator was paid by the ownersofaNorthAmericandiplomamillforpretendingthattheyranarecognizedAfricanschool,ratherthanacriminalen-terprise based in the United States. A third employed anunsavoryfellowwhowasthe“VicePresident”and“DeanofStudies”ofapairofdiplomamills.

There are many legitimate credential evaluation ser-vicesinthehighereducationlandscape,butalsoplentyofsnakesintheweeds.

Foreign Credential Evaluation ServicesTherapidchangesininternationalhighereducationcom-plicate the decision process, regarding transfer of creditswhenstudentscrossnationalboundaries.Sinceitiscostlytomaintainin-houseexpertiseintheevaluationofforeignprograms,itisnaturalforuniversitiesandemployerstoseektheanalysesofoutsideexperts—suchastheInternationalEducationServicesdivisionoftheAmericanAssociationofCollegiateRegistrarsandAdmissionsOfficers(AACRAO),or the National Association of Credential Evaluation Ser-vices (NACES). Members of the ENIC-NARIC Networks(ENIC: European Network of Information Centers in theEuropeanRegion;NARIC:NationalAcademicRecognitionInformationCentersintheEuropeanUnion)alsoprovidereliablecredentialevaluationservices.

Unfortunately, there isno regulatoryoversight in theUnitedStatesofthehundredsofforeigncredentialevalua-tionservices.Evenanevaluator’smembershipinaprofes-sional association is sometimes uninformative: in 2009,acredentialevaluatorwhohadworkedwiththenotorious“St.RegisUniversity”invitedlegitimateevaluatorstojoinan impressively named recognition mill intended to help“the smaller independent agencies to unite and receivegreater acceptance.” Most of the entities already listed asmemberswerecooperatingwithknowndiplomamills.AndNAFSA,thewell-respectedAssociationofInternationalEd-ucators,cautionsthatNAFSAmembershipdoes“notimplythat NAFSA has reviewed or endorsed their programs oractivities,orthatNAFSAmembershipconfersanyendorse-ment.”NACESmembersareheldtostandards,butonly21evaluatorsarecurrentlylistedbytheorganizationasmem-bers.

How is a corporatepersonneloffice to tell thediffer-encebetweenthelegitimateForeignCredentialsServiceofAmericaandthebogusagency,whichplagiarizedextensive-lyfromFCSAandthenclosedabruptlywhenitsAmericanownerswerechargedwithmailandwirefraudayearlater?

A Paucity of Info Facilitates DeceptionIt can be surprisingly difficult to find good informationaboutaschool’sdegreegrantingauthority.Sometimestherearesubtleties:intheUnitedStates,theCouncilforHigherEducationAccreditation(CHEA)maintainsanaccurateda-tabaseofaccreditedprogramsanduniversities,butdegreegrantingauthorityintheUSissuesfromthestates,ratherthanthefederalgovernment.LegitimateschoolsthatdonotseekaccreditationareabsentfromtheCHEAdatabase.

Sometimesinformationaboutacountry’suniversitiesis incomplete,unavailable,orunreliable.After theendofLiberia’scivilwar,thatnation’sonlypublishedlistofrecog-nizeduniversitieswasontheWebsiteofLiberia’sembassyin theUnitedStates.But theembassy’s chief anddeputychiefofmissionweretakingbribesfromtheownersofanAmericanmill andhadgranted themcontrol of theWebsite.Thelistof“recognized”schoolsincludedtheirdiplomamills,untilanewambassadorejectedthescoundrels.The


Sometimes dishonest credential evalua-

tors will offer gross misrepresentations

in their comparisons of the legitimate

academic programs of different coun-

tries.


UNESCO(UnitedNationsEducational,Scientific,andCul-turalOrganization)PortaltoRecognizedHigherEducationInstitutions is incomplete—only three African countriesare listed—while the more extensive Electronic Databasefor Global Education, managed by AACRAO, requires apaidsubscription.

Inmyexperience,mostdeceptiveevaluationsmisrep-resentadegreeprovider’sauthority to issuedegrees.Theabsenceofauniversallyaccessible,exhaustivedatabaseofrecognized schools allows corrupt evaluators to sell theirservicestothecustomersofdiplomamills.

Sometimes dishonest credential evaluators will offergross misrepresentations in their comparisons of the le-gitimateacademicprogramsofdifferentcountries.Anex-amplewasananalysisofonecountry’sthree-yeardegrees,whichsuggestedbasedonjudgmentsbyothersthatthosedegreesdidnotcorrespondtoUSbachelor’sdegreesaroseracialprejudice,ratherthanathoughtfulevaluationoftheacademic programs in question. The authors—both ofwhomhaveknownassociations todegreemills—cametoconclusionsthatwouldundoubtedlyattractprospectivecus-tomersseekingexaggeratedevaluationsoftheircredentials.

Dissemination of Information in a Litigious WorldDocumentingtheidentitiesandpracticesofhighereduca-tionfraudsters,publiclypostedandindexedbyGoogle,ac-curateinformationcanbedevastatingtothediplomamillindustry.ThemonthlyincomeofSt.Regisdeclinedsteadilyfromahighof$250,000inDecember2004,tojustafewthousanddollarsinAugust2005,thankstoamixofhostilenewscoverageandunflatteringanalysespublished to theInternet.Exposureof thedeceptivepracticesofdishonestcredentialevaluatorscouldalsobeaneffectivetoolfortheirsuppression.

Onepossiblerepositoryfordocumentationwouldbeagovernmentagency,whichwouldreceivereliableinforma-tionfromhighereducationprofessionals(includingfavor-ableevaluationsofdiplomamilldegrees),thenpublishit.Buttherevelationofsuchinformationcarriesriskstothewhistle-blowers,rangingfromlawsuitstothreatsofviolentretribution.Forseveralyears,Oregonpostedauseful(butincomplete) listofdiplomamills.Thestatewas regularlythreatenedwithlegalactionbytheoperatorsandcustomersofdegreemillsandeventuallyremovedthematerialfromtheworldwideWeb.

Giventheinternationalnatureofthedarksector,whichmarkets false academic credentials, it would be sensibleforUNESCOtoassumeresponsibility foran informationarchive.Butthatwouldrequireacommitmentofwillandresourcesthathavenotbeenforthcoming.

FinancialAspectsofOff-shoreActivitiesJohn Fielden

John Fielden is director of the Commonwealth Higher Education Man-agement Service Consulting, a small independent consultancy based in Odiham, Hampshire, in the UK. E-mail: [email protected].

InApril2013itwasannouncedthattheUniversityofEastLondonwouldcloseitsnewcampusinCyprus,afterop-

erating foronlysixmonthswithanenrollmentof just 17students.Insodoing,itjoinedthe11closuresofoffshorecampus ventures in the two years (2010–2012), recordedbytheObservatoryonBorderlessHigherEducation.Thesestatisticsemphasize the riskynatureofoffshoreactivitiesby universities and colleges. It is not just internationalbranchcampusesthatarevolatile;Australiantransnation-al education operations have also fluctuated dramatically,falling from a peak of 1,569 programs delivered in othercountriesin2003to889in2009.Despitethesereverses,the growth in offshore provision continues remorselesslyinsomecountries;intheUnitedKingdom,forexample,in2011/12therewere571,000internationalstudentsstudyingforUKawardsoutsidetheUnitedKingdom,anincreaseof40percentonthefiguretwoyearsbefore.

Formembersofuniversityboardsandseniormanag-erstheneedforrigorousanalysisofpotentialoffshoreac-tivityhasneverbeengreater.Theywillbehelpedbyastudyfrom the United Kingdom’s Higher Education Interna-tionalUnit—aguidetothefinancialaspectsofUKoffshoreactivities.Thisstudysetsoutsomeoflessonslearnedby24universitiesintheUnitedStates,Australia,andtheUnitedKingdom. Those interviewed were understandably reluc-tanttorevealtoomuchaboutthefinancialconsequencesoftheiroperationsbutwereonlytoohappytopassonadviceandrecommendationstoothers.Thesehavebeenencapsu-latedinthereportunderthreeheadings:thoseattheearlystageofentering intoaMemorandumofUnderstanding;those when things are getting more serious and a legalagreement is required; and thoseat theoperational stagewhenactivitiesareunderway.

Signing a Memorandum of UnderstandingThe originsof these memorandums mayhold thekey tofuturesuccess.Until recently theyhavebeenregardedbysomeastrophiescollectedatconferencesorevenaperfor-manceindicatorofinternationalization;someregardthemas“alicensetostarttalking,”ratherthananyseriousindica-tionofcollaboration.Theinterviewsidentifiedatrendtoa



morestrategicapproach.Majorinstitutionsarenowinvest-ing research effort in identifying favorable countries andsuitable partner institutions within them. In some cases,thisfitswithinastrategyofhavingalimitednumberofsig-nificant“deeppartnerships”forresearchandteachinginasmallnumberofcountries.Thishasledtoanew-growthin-dustry,developingcountryprofilesbackedbyextensiveduediligenceontheircurrency,regulatoryframeworks,taxre-gimesandincentives,nationalquality-assuranceagencies,andlegalrequirementsfortheoperationofhighereduca-tioninstitutions.

Theword“values” is increasinglyusedwhenmakingdecisions about foreign ventures. This applies particular-ly to the choice of partner. If the initiative comes from agovernmentthatwillbethepartner,thiscanbeasensitiveissue; two major UK institutions—the University CollegeLondonandtheUniversityofWestminster—havecontractsforthedeliveryofhighereducationwiththegovernmentsofKazakhstanandUzbekistan,whicharenotnotablede-mocracies.Bothhavetakengreatcaretoprotecttheirrepu-tationintheircontracts.Whenchoosingacommercialpart-ner the problems are even greater, since many countrieshave financial and corporate accounting systems that arenotverytransparent.Commercialpartnersareoftenlargeconglomerateswithpropertyinterestsandseeauniversityeitherasanattractioninabusinessdevelopmentorasanemblemofcorporatesocialresponsibility.Eveninsuchcas-es,however,theprofitmotivemaynothavegoneaway,andanydifferenceofmotivewiththeuniversitycanbeasourceoffuturediscord.

Developing a Business BaseThesecondstageofactivityinvolvesthedevelopmentofabusinesscasefortheboardandasubsequentlegalagree-ment.Itisatthisstagethatcommonvaluesandmotivesareessentialwithearlyagreementontuition-feelevels,schol-arships,anda reasonableperiodofpayback.Anotherkeyissue,oncethetechnicalstudiesareunderway,ishavingacommon languageandunderstanding, since informal re-lationshipsintheoperationalphasewillthriveifthereisapersonalpositivechemistrybetweenthepartners’ leadingplayers.Whateverthelegalagreementssay,unexpectedoc-currences andmidtermcorrectionswill be inevitable.AnAmericanintervieweesaid“anyonewhohaslowtolerancefor surprises, ambiguity and frequent shifting shouldn’teventhinkaboutoffshoreoperations.”Culturaldifficultiesoftenariseinthenegotiationphase.Insomecountries,thefinal legalagreement isregardedas thestartingpoint fornegotiation,andkeydefinitionsofwordssuchas“students”or“surplus”areparticularlypronetomisinterpretation.A“yes”canmean“Ihearyou,”ratherthan“Iagree.”

Othermajortopicsinnegotiationsarethepercentageshareinanylocalholdingcompanythatiscreatedtooper-ateanoffshorecampusand the termsofanexit strategy.Since fewuniversitiesareable (forfiduciaryor legislativereasons) to invest large sums in overseas operations, themostcommonroleofacommercialpartner is toprovidethephysicalinfrastructureandsometimestheequipment.The argument then centers on the financial value of theintellectualpropertyandbrandoftheincominguniversity,whichwillbeusedtocalculateitsshareofanysurplusordeficit.Thisbecomesahaggleandcanevenresultinworld-class institutions—suchas, theUniversityofNottinghamhavingtoacceptstakesof37.1percentand29.1percentintheassociatecompaniesrunningitstwooffshorecampus-es.Indiscussions,offshoreprovidershavedecidedthat itisessential to thinkearlyandhardabout the termsofanexitstrategy;insomecases,thisisevenconsideredattheMemorandumofUnderstandingstageincaseitbecomesadealbreaker.

Managing Offshore ActivitiesOnceanoffshoreactivityisupandrunning,thekeyques-tioniswheredecisionsaremadeandwhatisdelegatedtoa local board or an academic partner. Most internationalbranchcampusesareownedbyalocaljointcompanywithaboardthattakesthekeydecisions,whilemosttransnationaleducationoperationshavenolocallegalentitybehindthemandaremanagedbythehomeinstitution’sacademicstruc-tures.Themost importantdecisions relate to admissionscriteria(andconsequentialstudentnumbers),localmarket-ing strategies, and the level of tuition fees. This is whenanearlyinvestmentinbuildinggoodpersonalrelationshipspaysoff.Acommercialpartnerwillbetemptedtoloweren-trystandards,adoptaggressivelocalmarketingcampaigns,andincreasetuitionfees,whiletheuniversitywillnot.

Fewoffshoreventuresmakesignificantfinancialsur-plusesandmanytakebetween5to10yearstoseeareturnoninvestment.However,thereareexamplesofreasonable


In the United Kingdom, for example, in

2011/12 there were 571,000 internation-

al students studying for UK awards out-

side the United Kingdom, an increase

of 40 percent on the figure two years

before.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N12 Rankings and Their Implications

financialbenefits,andtheresearchfoundthatthemostsuc-cessfulAustralianuniversitiesclaimtohaveaverageprofitmarginsof8to10percent.Butakeyquestionisthecostbase on which the 10 percent is calculated, since such areturnisunlikelyifallmanagementandstafftimeisful-lycharged to theventure.Manyof theuniversities in thesampleclaimedthatitwasnottheiraimtomakefinancialsurplusesbuttopromotetheirreputationintheregion,todevelop collaborative research with the partner or in thecountry,andtogenerateaflowofpostgraduatesbacktothehomecampus.

Althoughthestudyhasemphasisedtheimportanceofrigorousprocessesforduediligenceandfinancialplanningwithcomprehensiveresearchaboutmarkets,akeyconclu-sionis that thesearenotenough.Successfuloffshoreop-erationsdemandgood leadershipandpersonal skills andmutually trusting relationships between the partners. Iftheseexist,theunanticipatedeventsandupheavalsthatwillinevitablyarisecanbeovercome.

AreGlobalRankingsUnfairtoLatinAmericanUniversities?Andrés Bernasconi

Andrés Bernasconi is a professor of higher education at the School of Education of the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. E-mail: [email protected].

Inits2012edition,theTimes Higher EducationWorldUni-versityRankingputnoLatinAmericanuniversityinthe

groupofthebest100,andonlyfouramongtheentirecastof400.TheShanghai2012rankingtreatsLatinAmericanobetter:oneintheleadinggroupof150and10intheoverallgroupof500universitiesranked.

Thisstatusissomewhatpuzzling,giventhatBrazilisthe6th economy in theworld andMexico the 14th.Thisshouldmakeadifferencewhenitcomestothepossibilityofsupportingfineinstitutionsofhighereducation,asonefindsincountriessuchasIsrael,with3institutionsinthetop100intheChineseranking;ortheNetherlands,with2.

University leaders in Latin America do feel thereis something wrong in the rankings, arguing thatthey are biased and unfair to the region and that Lat-in American universities are essentially different fromthe concept of a university implied by the rankings.

The Problem Is the RankingsAgroupofLatinAmericanuniversityleadersmetinMexi-coinMay,2012,backedbyUNESCO(UnitedNationsEdu-cational,Scientific,andCulturalOrganization), todiscussrankingsandwhattodoaboutthem.Itwasconcludedthatrankings are invalid measurements of university perfor-mance—bothintheircompositeindexandwithrespecttoevery variable purported to measure. Another conclusionwasthatrankingsareparticularlyunfittorecognizeLatinAmerica’s universities—“responsibilities and functionsthat transcend the more traditional ones of Anglo-Saxonuniversities, which serve as standards for the rankings.”TherectorsalsonotedthatthisbiasfavoringtheAnglo-Sax-onmodelof theuniversity isreinforcedbytheuseof theISI-Thomson Reuters and SCOPUS publication and cita-tionsdatabases,whichcollectmaterialmostlypublishedinEnglishand“inthefieldsofhealthsciencesandengineer-ing.”

Ofcourse,LatinAmericaisnottheonlyregionintheworldwithavalidclaimagainstthebiasesoftherankings.Thus,Asiahasatleastasgoodamotiveasinthispartoftheworldtoprotesttheunfairnessofitall,perhapsevenbetterthanhere:afterall,AsiansaremuchmorenumerousandarenotevenpartofthehegemonicWesterntradition.None-theless,mostoftheuniversitiesshowinggreatestprogressintherankingsarelocatedinAsia:Korea,Singapore,Tai-wan,andChina.InsteadofcomplainingthatnosufficientjournalsexisttopublishtheirworkinKoreanorChinese,scholarsinthatpartoftheworldteachthemselvesEnglishlanguage and publish internationally in that language, asscholarsdoalsoinIsraelandtheNetherlands.

Latin American Universities Are DifferentNow,whatare theseuniqueresponsibiitiesandfunctionsdischarged by Latin American universities, which wouldrecommend treating them differently from the model ofthe“Anglo-Saxon”university?UsuallyLatinAmericanuni-versitiesspeakabouttheir“social”mission,anelusivecon-cept that ismeant toencompasseverythingthatuniversi-tiessupposedlydoinherethatisnotresearch,orteaching,or transferof researchresults,or indeedanyof the func-tionsassociatedwith theuniversityasan institutionelse-whereintheworld.Thenotionofadistinct“social”missionmostlyseekstocapturetherolesreallyorallegedlyplayedby universities in fostering democracy, promoting socialinclusion, or forging a national identity. Universities inLatinAmericahaveoftenplayedthisrolewhendemocraticrulehasbrokendownandonlyuniversitiesandfewotherinstitutions have remained as spaces of relative freedomandpoliticalorganization.Thesehavebeenworthyendeav-ors,certainly,butnotexclusiveofuniversitiesintheLatinAmericanregion.Moreover,asdemocraticgovernanceand

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 13Rankings and Their Implications

the rule of law consolidate in Latin America, universitiesareincreasinglyrelievedofthissubsidiarypoliticalrole;andneed instead to reconnect with their proper institutionalfunctionascentersofknowledge.

Rankings as a Message to Latin AmericaCriticismofrankingsasavalidmethodologytoorderuni-versities on the basis of quality is well founded. But oneneeds not to agree with the proposition that universityNum. 100 is “better” in any meaningful way than Num.120,tolistentothemessagethatresearch-basedrankings

keepsendingyearafteryear:LatinAmericanhighereduca-tionisnearlyinvisibletotheworldofresearch.

Yes, as the rectorsclaim, this is inpartaproblemofinsufficientfundingforscienceinLatinAmerica.However,thisissueisnottheonlyoneandnoteventhemainone.Therehavebeengreatincreasesinpublicmoneyallocatedto research since the 1990s inBrazil,Chile, andMexico.Publicationshavemultipliedinresponse,butnotataratethat would make any difference globally. The two key re-sourceslackinginLatinAmericanuniversitiesarealargeenough numbers of dedicated research faculty and goodgovernance.

MostofthefinestuniversitiesinLatinAmerica(withtheexceptionofBrazil’stopfew)stillhaveacademicstaffsin which PhD holders are a minority of the faculty andwherefluencyinlanguages,otherthanSpanishandPortu-guese,isstillexceptional(andBrazilisnodifferenthere).Moreover,manyresearch-trainedacademics in theregionhavesalariessolowthattheyneedtohaveasecondjobtomake ends meet. No internationally competitive researchperformancecanbeexpectedoffacultynottrainedtocarryoutresearch,byresearcherswhoaredistractedbyfinancialinsecurity,orfromacademicswhoseentireknowledgebaseispublishedinSpanishandPortuguese.

The secondmajor roadblock is thegovernanceof in-stitutionsandthesteeringofthenationalhighereducationsystems.Universityautonomy,anobjectofquasi-religiousattachmentinLatinAmerica,servedfordecadesthenoble

function of keeping corrupt, incompetent, loony, or auto-craticgovernmentsoff thebacksofuniversities.Sadly, insomecountries,thatfunctionofautonomycontinuestobenecessarytoday.However,inmostoftheregion,stablede-mocracies with reasonable leadership are consolidating aspaceofcivilizeddialogueinwhichuniversitiescanafford,atlowrisktotheirprerogatives,toallowmorepolicymakinginhighereducationonthepartofelectedofficials,ratherthanslamming thedoorofautonomy in their faces.ThisisimportantbecausemostLatinAmericanuniversities,es-peciallyinthepublicsector,donothavethequalityleader-shiportheinternalpoliticalplatformtoreformthemselves.Therefore, they need to work with their governments (asuniversitiesincreasinglydoinEurope,Australia,andAsia)to find new strategies and mechanisms to change. Andchange is sorely needed in several key dimensions: aca-demiccadreshavetoberenovated,researchmoneyhastobedirectedtothosewhocanuseitproductively,andcareerstructures and salary schedules for professors have to beredesigned.Intheareaofadministration,reformisneededto introduce long-term, strategic decision making in uni-versities,curbadministrativebloat,and limit thedeleteri-ouseffectofpartisanpoliticsuponuniversityaffairs.SuchchangesmayusheraneweraforLatinAmerica’suniversi-ties,onewhereresearch-basedrankingsmayfeellessalientothem.

TheImplicationsofExcel-lenceinResearchandTeachingJohannes Wespel, Dominic Orr, and Michael Jaeger

Johannes Wespel is a researcher at the HIS-Institute for Research on Higher Education in Hannover, Germany. E-mail: [email protected]. Dominic Orr is a project leader at the same center. E-mail: [email protected]. Michael Jaeger is deputy head of the same center. E-mail: [email protected].

Inrecentyears,nationalinitiativestofosterscientificex-cellencehavebecomepopularasasteeringandfunding

instrument for public higher education systems in manyOrganizationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment(OECD)countries,mostprominentlyinGermanywithits“Excellence Initiative.” This contribution considers if andhowuniversityteachingistakenintoconsiderationinvari-ousexistingexcellenceinitiatives.Thetwomainresultsarethat(a)teachingandlearningplayasubordinatedroleinex-

Instead of complaining that no suffi-

cient journals exist to publish their work

in Korean or Chinese, scholars in that

part of the world teach themselves Eng-

lish language and publish internation-

ally.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N14 Rankings and Their Implications

cellence-fundingschemesforuniversities,and(b)thereislessuniformitywithregardtothedefinitionofandthepro-gramstopromoteexcellenceinteachingthanforresearch.

Excellence InitiativesOfficial descriptions of state-run funding schemes target-ingscientificexcellencewereanalyzedforanOECDwork-ing group, and the results were discussed at an OECDseminar for national experts. The data material spans 24suchschemes from16countrieson fourcontinents.Theanalysisshowsthataprototypicaldesignhasemergedforexcellenceinitiatives.Arestrictednumberofcenterscom-posedofhigh-classscientistsaresingledoutinacompeti-tive,multistageprocessinvolvinginternationalpeerreview-ersand,inmanycases,sitevisits.Selectedcentersreceivegenerousstate funding tocarryout researchschemes,al-beit depending on positive progress and outcome evalua-tions.Fundingperiodsarelongerthanforprojectfunding.Theaveragefortheresearchsampleisoversixyears,andfurthersustainabilityofthecentersisanimportantobjec-tiveof the fundingschemes.Most initiativeshaveunder-goneseveralfundingcyclessincetheirinception.Politicalaimsofexcellenceschemesaredefinedinarathergeneralfashionandareusuallynotperselinkedtospecificareasofscience.Thegoalsofraisingthecompetitivenessofthena-tionalsciencesystemandsparkingnewsynergiesthroughcooperation between institutions and/or disciplines rankparticularlyhigh.Manyexcellenceinitiativesoriginatefromanationalinnovationstrategy,inwhichthepublicresearchsectorrepresentsacrucialbuildingblock.

The Status of TeachingUniversities, the main target of the excellence initiativessurveyedinthisproject,serveassociety’sprincipaladapterbetweenscientific researchand itsdissemination,bywayofteachingandlearning.Itis,therefore,interestingtoseeinwhatwaypublicfundingsupportsthislink.Tothisend,the program descriptions of the excellence initiatives areanalyzedinthesample,intermsofwhetherandhowteach-

ingisintegratedintotheassessmentcriteriaforproposals.Ithasbeenfoundthatthevastmajorityofinitiativescon-centrate on research-related factors—such as, past meritin research, the innovativeness and feasibility of the pro-posedresearchproject(s),andtheutilityof theoutcomes.Teachingisnotamongtheassessmentcriteriainmostoftheinitiatives.Onlyafewcasesincludeaspectsofteachingspecifically:Spain’sInternationalCampusofExcellenceini-tiative(excellenceinresearchandinteachingareweightedequallyhigh);Ireland’sProgramforResearchinThird-Lev-elInstitutions(impactonteachingandlearningisoneoffourmajorassessmentcriteria);SouthKorea’sWorldClassUniversityProgram(aimsatcreatingnewfacultyenviron-ments, including teaching improvement);andGermany’sExcellenceInitiative(effectsofresearchonteachingareonecriterionamong15differentcriteria).

The results show that the term “excellence,” as usedinstate-runfundingschemes,clearlygravitatestowardre-searchperformance.Criticsfearthattheuniquereputationgivenbyanofficial“excellence”status,inconnectionwiththe considerable funds awarded to successful applicants,may encourage university-based scientists to concentrateonresearchattheexpenseofteaching.Itismainlyinthecontextof thisdebate that a fewcountrieshave launchedseparate,stand-aloneinitiativestofosternewandoutstand-ingteachingconcepts.Thoseteaching-excellenceinitiativesare clearly inspired by the research-centered excellenceschemes,intermsoftheirstructureandhowtheselectionprocessissetup:internationalpeersevaluateapoolofcom-petingproposalsinaquality-basedprocedure,andfundingis thenrestricted to theverybestapplicants.ExamplesofsuchinitiativesareFinland’sCentersofExcellenceinUni-versityEducationscheme,whosefundedunitsareexpectedtoplayakeyroleinimprovingthequalityandrelevanceofuniversityeducationinalong-termperspective;theUnitedKingdom’sCenters forExcellence inTeachingandLearn-ing program, active between 2005 and 2010, supporting74centersofteachingandlearningdevelopmentatBritishuniversities;France’sInitiativesd‘excellenceenformationsinnovantes(“excellenceinitiativesininnovativeteaching“),launchedin2012withtheaimoffundinginnovativeteach-ing projects with a role model function for other highereducationinstitutions;andGermany’sscheme,ExzellenteLehre(“excellentteaching”),providingfundsfor10select-edhighereducationinstitutionsimplementinginnovativeteachingconcepts.

Excellence and DiversityA closer look at the specialized, teaching-excellence pro-gramdescriptionsrevealsthatthefundedunitsaswellastheconcretemeasurestoachieveandsustainexcellenceareverydiverse,evenwithinthesingleinitiatives.Eligibleunits

The two main results are that (a) teach-

ing and learning play a subordinated

role in excellence-funding schemes for

universities, and (b) there is less unifor-

mity with regard to the definition of and

the programs to promote excellence in

teaching than for research.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 15India Issues

can be departments, faculties, universities, time-boundedprograms, or interinstitutional networks. They can be in-dependent centers, attached to or identical with existingeducationalunits.Supportedmeasuresincludestaffquali-fication, curricular reforms, skills development for stu-dents,establishinge-learningoffers,orstrengtheningthestudents’voiceinuniversitygovernance.Thisisincontrastto research-excellence initiatives, for which definitions ofwhatexcellenceisactuallyabout—andinwhatwayitisbestachieved—are rather more uniform across countries andinitiatives.Thisfindingisinlinewithasecondjuxtaposi-tion: teaching excellence initiatives make the exemplarycharacteroftheproposedconcepts—i.e.,theirtransferabil-itytootherinstitutionsandsettings—aprimaryassessmentcriterion apart from the innovativeness of the concept assuch. A comparable criterion is much less prominent inresearch-excellenceinitiativesacrosstheboard.Itthusap-pears that teaching-excellence initiatives generally play adifferentrolefromresearchexcellenceinitiatives.Whereasinresearch,excellenceschemescanbeseenasameanstopinpointscientificvaluecreationthroughtriedandtestedoperationalpatterns,and teaching initiativeshaveamoreexplorativecharacter:theyareexpectedtohelpclarifywhatexcellentteachingisallaboutinthefirstplace.

Thehesitancetoincludeteachingandlearninginthemajor national excellence initiatives, described above, ap-pearstobeduetothelackofagreedprocedures,standards,andmeasurements for excellence in teaching. It remainstobeseenwhetheramoreunifiedunderstandingofteach-ingexcellencewillemergeintime,orwhetherthediversityof approaches currently observable will remain—possiblyasaresultofthecontextualandmultifariousnatureoftheactivityofteaching.Iftheemergenceofteachingexcellencecannotbefound, it is likelythatresearchwillcontinuetodeterminethedefinitionofoverallexcellenceinhighered-ucation—afocusthatobscuresthehugechallengesfacingmassprovisionofhighereducationinaknowledgesociety.

GettingValueforMoneyinHigherEducationPhilip G. Altbach and Pawan Agarwal

Philip G. Altbach is professor and director of the Center for Internation-al Higher Education, Boston College. E-mail: [email protected]. Pawan Agarwal is advisor for higher education, the Planning Commission, Government of India. E-mail: [email protected].

Although Indian higher education suffers from manydysfunctionalitiesandthesystemoverallischaracter-

izedby“pinnaclesofexcellence inaseaofmediocrity”—bysomeinternationalcomparisons,Indiadoesreasonablywell.Hereareafewexamples:

•IndiaisagloballeaderintermsofGDPspentbypublicandprivate sourcesonhigher education. Indiadevotes a veryhighproportionofitsnationalwealthofhighereducation.At3percentoftheGDP(1.2%frompublicand1.8%fromprivatesources),IndianspendsmorethanwhattheUnitedStates(1.0%publicand1.6%private)orKorea(0.7%publicand 1.9% private) spends on higher education. This sug-gests a limited scope for further increase, althoughmoreisrequiredsinceinabsolutefiguresinvestmentinhighereducationdoesnotmeasureupininternationalterms.Fur-ther,thereisanurgentneedforeffectiveandefficientuseoffunds,inordertopromotebothequityandexcellence.

•India’s gross enrollment rate, 18percent, theproportionoftheagegroupaccessinghighereducation,isamongthehighestofcountriesatIndia’slevelofdevelopment.Thisisparticularly impressive given India’s size and complexity.Therecentlyapproved12thFive-YearPlanaimsatraisingthegrossenrollmentrateto25percentby2017andisbothdesirableandachievable.

•Finally, academic salaries, when measured against othercountries by accurate purchasing power parity compari-sons,arequitegood.Among28countriesinarecentstudy,Indiarankedfourthfromthetopinentrysalariesforaca-demics—and better than the other BRIC (Brazil, Russia,India, andChina)nations.China scorednear thebottomforaveragesalaries.Thisgoodshowingistheresultofthemajorpayincreaseimplementedin2006.

Value for Money?IsIndiagainingvalueforits investmentinhighereduca-tion? Also, is more money the answer to the challenges?MostobserverswouldagreethatonaverageIndiancollegesand universities do not produce a very distinguished job

The hesitance to include teaching and

learning in the major national excellence

initiatives, described above, appears to

be due to the lack of agreed procedures,

standards, and measurements for excel-

lence in teaching.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N16 India Issues

andaredefinitelynot“worldclass.”Anumberoffactorsarerelatedtothepositivetrendsnotedhere.AlthoughIndiain-vestssignificantsumsinpostsecondaryeducation,withthefunds increasingly coming fromstudents and their fami-lies,itdoesnotspendeffectively.Thereislittlecoordinationbetweenthestatesandthecentralgovernment.

ManyofIndia’s34,000undergraduatecollegesaretoosmalltobeviable.Theyaregenerallyunderstaffedandill-equipped;two-thirdsdonotevensatisfygovernment-estab-lishedminimumnorms,and theyareunable to innovatebecause of the rigid bureaucracy of the affiliating systemthat links thecolleges toasupervisinguniversity.All thismakes the system highly fragmented, scattered and dif-ficult tomanage.There isa strongcase forconsolidation

andmergingsmall institutions.But theaffiliatingsystemis vast and deep-rooted and, therefore, is neither feasiblenordesirabletodismantleit.However,decentralizationofpart of the curriculum holds great promise. With greateracademicautonomy,thecorecoursescouldberetainedbythe university, while the responsibility for the rest of thecurriculumcouldbedevolved to thecolleges.Thiswouldcreateadesiredinnovationcultureinthecolleges.Cluster-ing and even merging colleges that are very small wouldalsohavetofigureintothisreform.Inaddition,universi-tiesthataffiliatealargenumberofcollegeswouldneedtobereorganizedintotwoormoreuniversities,witheachofthemaffiliatingasmallernumberofcolleges—inordertoimproveoverallacademiceffectiveness.

Whilegrossenrollmentratesarenotbadbyrelevantin-ternationalstandards,India,however,isaboutfourdecadesbehindmost advancednations in enrollments.While theUnitedStateshadanenrollmentrateof15percentbythe1940s, most advanced nations reached that stage severaldecadeslater.TheUnitedKingdom,Australia,France,andJapanhadenrollmentratesof18,23,24,and25percentin1975;andKoreaenrolledonly8percentin1975,whichroseto13percentin1980,andthenrapidlyroseto34percentin1985.Allthesecountrieshaveachievedasystemclosetouniversalhighereducation;butitmustberecognizedthatenrollmentshavegrownhandinhand,basedontheriseindemandforqualifiedpeoplewithagriculturecontributingto less than 5 percent of the workforce. Considering thatoverhalfofthepeopleinIndiaarestillengagedinthefarm

sectorwithlimitedneedforhigherqualifications,currentlevels of enrollment in India appear to be adequate. Thebiggerchallengeisthatthestudentsdonotchoosetostudyinfieldsthatwillbestcontributetoeconomicgrowth—ortotheirownjobprospects.Also,employersregularlycom-plainthatgraduatesarenotadequatelyforavailablejobs.

WhileitistruethatIndianacademics,byinternationalcomparisons, are relatively well paid, they are not neces-sarilyeffective.Academics,andespeciallycollegeteachers,areconstrainedbyrigidbureaucracy.Further,theirworkisnot carefully evaluated—salary increases and promotionsareawardedratheronthebasisofseniority.Unfortunately,whensalarieswere increased in2006, thisboonwasnotaccompaniedbyanyreformsintheteachingprofessionorrequirements for evaluation. A System of Academic Per-formance Indicators for promotion and appointment ofprofessorsandlecturersisyettotakeroots.ItappearsthatIndianacademicswanttodoagoodjobandmostarecom-mittedtotheirprofession—structuralimpedimentsandanossifiedculturegetintheway.

Ourgeneralimpressionisthatdespiteseveralareasinwhich India compares well, globally, deep structural andcultural impedimentsconstraintheacademicsystemasawhilefromperformingeffectively.

ConclusionIndiahasachievedsomeareasofaccomplishmentinhighereducation.Thechallengeistocapitalizeontheseplansandreformanossifiedsystem.IntheIndiancase,expendituredoesnotnecessarilymeaneffectiveness.Inthisway,IndianhighereducationmaybecomparedtotheAmericanhealthcaresystem.TheUnitedStatesspendsthemostpercapitaonhealthcare,butexpendituredoesnotyieldresults.TheObamareforms, like the 12thPlan India,mayfinally im-proveanossifiedsystemtraditionallydominatedbyspecialinterestandconflictsbetweenthefederalgovernmentandthestates.Therecentlyapproved12thPlanprovidesagoodframeworkforchange.Itseekstoaligncentralgovernmentinvestmentwiththatofthestategovernments—alignnewcapacitywithdemand.Italsoseekstocreateaperformanceculture throughdeepeningofcompetitivegrantsandcre-ationofrelatedinstitutionalarrangements.However,suc-cessdependsoneffectiveimplementation.

India devotes a very high proportion of

its national wealth of higher education.

In addition to our Web site and Facebook page, we are now tweeting. We hope you will consider “following” us on Twitter!


India’sInternationalEduca-tionStrategy—IsThereOne?P. J. Lavakare

P. J. Lavakare is a member of the Board of Governors, MITS University, Rajasthan, India. E-mail: [email protected].

Across the world, the profile of higher education ischanging. Globalization has opened up global mar-

kets foremployment,andthestudentsareeager tograspthem.Theneedforstudentstobecome“globalcitizens”isrecognizedbyalleducationproviders. Insomedevelopedcountryinstitutions,highereducationisbeingrecognizedas a for-profit activity, by setting up campuses abroad, aspartoftheneweconomicdomain.Forsome,enrollingin-ternationalstudents isproving tobeasourceof revenue,forbalancingthedwindlingbudgetsoftheinstitutions.Thestudentisbecomingthedrivingforceforpromotinginter-nationaleducation. InIndia,however, this isnotyethowinternationalizationofeducationisperceived.Indiaisstilldebatingonhowtoreacttotheprocessofinternationaliza-tion.AnewschemeisbeingformulatedinthelatestFive-YearPlanforthedevelopmentofthecountry.

Expansion—Role of International PartnershipsIndia’s international strategy is constrained by domesticconsiderations.Withthegrowingdemandonhighereduca-tionandalowgrossenrollmentrateofabout19percent,thenationalconcernis toexpandtheavailablepoolofhighereducationinstitutions.Theresourcesrequiredarebeyondthe available budgets. Increasingly, the country is appeal-ingtoprivateandinternationalhighereducationproviders,toaddtothenationalcapacity.Themarketiseconomicallyattractivetoprivatehighereducationproviders.Thedoorsforentryofindividualforeignhighereducationinstitutionsarestillnotfullyopened.Undertheseconstraints,onemayapproveoflookingatallmeansofpartnershipsatthegov-ernmentlevel.Atthisstage,itmaybeinterestingtoseehowIndiahasbenefitedfrominternationalpartnershipsinthepastandwhethersomeofthosemodelsarestillrelevant.

Asacaseinpoint,onewouldliketouseIndia’sexperi-encewiththeUnitedStates—inselectedareasofeducation,suchasagricultureandscienceandtechnology.Intheagri-culturesector,inthe1950s,theintroductionofthe“Greenrevolution”inIndiacanbetracedbacktoIndo-UScollabo-rationsinagriculturalsciences.Thishelpedtosustainre-searchandeducationinagriculture.Agricultureeducationin India has greatly benefited from the government-levelcollaborationineducationthroughthesecolleges.

In the 1960s, a consortiumofAmericanuniversitiesfacilitated the establishment of educational institutions,

liketheIndianInstituteofTechnology,Kanpur;andtheNa-tional Council of Educational Research & Training, NewDelhi,bothfoundedwithacademicpartnershipsundertheumbrellaof the twogovernments.Both these institutionsarenowtotallyIndianintermsoffacultyandgovernance.Canoneuse thismodel tohelp the Indiangovernment’sefforttoincreasethenumberofcollegesanduniversities,throughprivateandpublicinitiatives?Cansomeoftheneweducational institutions be partnered by the two govern-ments?Iftheoldermodelshaveprovedeffective,itisclearthatsuchgovernment-levelpartnershipscanbemoreeffec-tivethanleavingtheexpansionprogramtotallyinthehandsofprivateinitiatives.Itisalsopossiblethatthroughmutualagreements,aneducationalinstitutioninIndiacouldalsobesetupjointlybyanIndianandanAmericanuniversity.ThenewFiveYearPlanforhighereducationhashintedatapolicyforinternationalization.Canthenewpolicymakewayforsuchgovernment-levelinitiatives?

AccordingtoareportbytheAssociationofIndianUni-versities, about 630 foreign higher education institutionswereoperatinginIndiaasof2010.AlmostallofthemareunregulatedandnotrecognizedbytheIndiangovernment

to offer degrees. Students obtaining degrees from theseinstitutionsarenot inaposition toget jobs in thepublicsectororcannotenroll inIndiangraduateprograms.Thenationallegislationthatisexpectedtobebroughtoutinthefutureshallnecessarilydemandthattheseinstitutionsgetregistered with the Indian government. The fate of theseinstitutionsisuncertaininthecomingyears.Suchforeigneducationprovidershave,inaway,tarnishedtheimageofinternationalizationofhighereducationinIndia.

Collaboration for Teaching FacultyInIndia,basedonanoverallshortageofgood-qualityteach-ingfacultythegovernmenthassteppedintoconsidertherouteofinternationalizationinthenewplan.Governmentschemeshavebeenannounced,andarrangementsarebe-ingworkedoutwithadvancedcountries, toacceptIndianfacultyforbeingtrainedininternationalstandardsofteach-ing and research. While the initiative is useful, the basicproblem still remains filling the large number of vacant

India Issues

India is still debating on how to react

to the process of internationalization.

A new scheme is being formulated in

the latest Five Year Plan for the develop-

ment of the country.


faculty positions in even good-quality Indian institutions,like the Indian InstitutesofTechnology.ThegovernmentpoliciesdonotapprovetheregularappointmentofforeignfacultytobeemployedinIndia.Moreover,thesalariesthatcanbeofferedwillnotbeattractivetofaculty.Withnosolu-tionyet tofill thevacant facultypositions fromwithinoroutside the country, internationalizing our education sys-temmerelythrough“facultytrainingabroad”isnotgoingtobeaneffectivestrategy.

Offering Joint Degrees Through CollaborationThegovernment isattemptingan internationaleducationstrategytoencourageIndianinstitutionstoenterintopart-nerships with foreign universities, to offer joint degreesto Indian students. The foreign universities do not havetoopen campuses in India, but their facultywould teachapprovedcoursesinIndia.Thestudentwillspendpartofthe four-yearbachelor’sdegreeprogram in Indiaand theremainingperiodattheforeignuniversity.Thisisanattrac-tive approach for internationalization, giving an opportu-nityof“globalimmersion”toIndianstudents,whoalsogetaforeigndegreeatareducedcost.Theacademicquality,thefinancial implications, and administrative arrangementsforrecognizingthejointdegreehaveyettobeworkedoutbetweenpartneringinstitutions.Yet,beforetheinstitutionscouldexplore thisopportunity, thegovernmenthas comeupwithacaveat for thechoiceof institutionswithwhichtheprivateeducationalinstitutionsinIndiacouldcollabo-rate.GovernmentinsiststhatIndianinstitutionscanonlyselecta“partner”institutionabroad,whichiswithinthetop500rankedinternationally.Asiswellknown,hardlyanyoftheIndianinstitutionsarerankedwithinthetop500worldinstitutions.So,arethewell-rankedforeigninstitutionsex-pectedtocomedowntopartnerwiththe“non-ranked”In-dianinstitutions?Thisisnotanattractiveofferforpartner-ship. Unfortunately, this approach to internationalizationdoesnotseemtobeworkable,either.

No Focus on International StudentsThe final area of internationalization strategy pertains tosendingIndianstudentsabroadandattractingforeignstu-dentstoIndia.GovernmenthasleftitfreeforIndianstu-dentstostudyanywhereabroad.Governmenthasnoplans,(unlikewhatBrazilhas)toprovidescholarshipsforstudy-ingincountriessuchastheUnitedStates.Therearealsonoplanstopromotetheculturalunderstandingofothercoun-tries,bysupportingIndianstudentstostudy,forexample,inacountrylikeChinaorBrazil.OnehasseenPresidentObama’s“100,000strong”programinitiativeofsupportingAmericanstudentsgoingtoChina.Indiaalsohasnomajorschemesforattractingforeignstudents.Theinfrastructure,intermsofgoodhostels,trainedstaff,andadequatestudent

advising services, required to host international students,doesnotexistinthemajorityofthehighereducationinsti-tutions.Numbersofstudents,earliercomingfromAfrica,havereducedoverrecentyears,andIndiahasnotyetshownanyconcernforattractingthemback.Thestudentfocus,intheinternationalizationstrategyofIndia,istotallymissing.

ConclusionIndiahasfiddledwiththevariousstakeholdersofinterna-tionalization—thestudents,thefaculty,andtheeducationalinstitutions—ina lackadaisicalmannerusingadministra-tive and regulatory framework. In 2004, the governmentdidsetupacademiccommitteesundertheaegisofitsapexbody—UniversityGrantsCommission—toPromoteIndianHigherEducationAbroadandin2009toprepareanActionPlanforInternationalizationofHigherEducation.Unfortu-nately,thestrategiesrecommendedbyboththesecommit-teeshavenotbeenreflectedinIndia’sinternationalizationstrategy.Thenewplanproposesthataprofessionalnationalagency,theIndiaInternationalEducationCentrewouldbecreatedtoundertakeinternationalizationactivities.Itisex-pectedtosupportselectedinstitutionstoestablishdedicat-edinternationalizationunits.Hopefully,thisnewproposedagency does not become a nonstarter in the bureaucraticmazeoftheIndianhighereducationsystem.

EnglishEducationinDistress?Heather Eggins

Heather Eggins is visiting professor at the University of Sussex, UK. E-mail: [email protected].

England, like every Western country, is concerned tomaximizetheabilitiesofitspeopleandthereby,through

theirskills,enrichthenation.Hence,overthelast10years,the issueof access tohigher educationhasbeenofgreatconcernto theEnglishgovernmentbut isnow, incombi-nationwithchanges incircumstance, facingconsiderableproblems.Theeffortsofthelastgovernment,aLabourad-ministration,metwithsomesuccess,inthattheparticipa-tionrateforthosefromdisadvantagedgroupsthatstoodat18percentin2004isnowmuchimproved.Arangeofini-tiativeswas introduced, includingsummerschools,men-toring, visits to local universities, and specially designed“access”courses.Now,however,withtheparticipationrateofthosegroupsstandingat30percent,theuniversitiesarecaughtinawhirlofconfusingandconflictingpoliciesthat



threatentounderminethesuccessoftheaccessdriveanddestabilizethewholesystem.

The Present Government’s ApproachThe present Conservative Liberal Democrat coalition,electedin2010,hashadtogoverninanerawheretoughfinancial measures need to be introduced in response tothe international crisis. Up to £9,000 per year can nowbechargedintuitionfees,andstudentshaveconsiderablymore“buyingpower.”Studentsnowhaveaverywiderangeofbursaryoffersbyindividualuniversitiestoconsider,andiftheyarefortunateenoughtogaintwoAmarksandaBmark, theycanexpect togetaplaceat theuniversityandcourseoftheirchoice.Thefactthatstudentswhogainthehighestgradescangoanywheretheychoosemeansthattheuniversitieshaveaninability toplantheirfinalfigures.Alevelofuncontrollableriskhasbeenintroduced,which iscausinggreatfinancialdistressforthem,withanumberofuniversitiesindeficit.

Fair AccessThe notion of “widening participation” implies attractingmoreoverallnumbersofstudentsandexpandingthetotalsystem.Thenotionof“fairaccess”makesitpossibleforallthosefromdisadvantagedbackgroundswhohavetheabil-itytoattenduniversity.Arecentgovernmentreportmakesrecommendationsforanew,nationalaccessstrategy.Anet-workofregionalcoordinatorswillbecreatedtotargetpri-maryschoolsandworkwithpupilsthroughtheirsecondaryschoolandsixth-formstudies.Theaimofthenetworkistosupportbrightchildrenfromprimaryschoolage,whatevertheirbackground,toaspiretoattenduniversityandtomakesuretheyareacademicallypreparedforit.

TheOfficeforFairAccess,agovernmentbody,hastheroleofapprovingtheaccesspoliciesofeveryhighereduca-tioninstitutionthatintendstochargeover£6,000tuitionfeesannually. Institutionalaccesspoliciesareexpected toincludearangeofbursaries,aswellasotheraccessinitia-tives. The most elite universities, which have historicallyhad higher percentages of students from independentschools,areunderpressuretoacceptmorepupilsfromdis-advantagedbackgrounds.

However,againstthisbackgroundoftheongoingpol-icyonaccess,thefinancialcrisisremainsand,inEngland,thereisa£9,000maximumtuitionfeeforundergraduatestudies.Theburdenofpayinghasshiftedfromdirectgov-ernmentfundingtoinstitutionstoloansmadebythegov-ernmentforthestudenttocoverthecost.Theseareavail-abletofullandpart-timestudentsandtostudentsstudyingatprivateuniversities.Means-testedgrantsforaccommoda-tion costs are still available for those from disadvantagedbackgrounds.

Allocated Target NumbersAmajorproblemintheEnglishsystemisthewayinwhichtheoverallnumbersarecontrolled.Eachuniversityhasanallocatedtarget,proposedbytheFundingCouncil.Thereislittleleewayinfailingtomeetthetarget,oroversteppingthetarget,before there isa loweringof theallocatednumberallowed or a fine imposed for overstepping. This system,thoughtrickytomanage,workedreasonablywell.However,inanefforttoopenupthesystemtomorestudentchoice,thewholesystemhasbecomeunstable.

ProblemsTwoinitiativesinparticularhavecausedthis.Thefirsthasbeenconcernedwiththerangeoffeeschargedbyuniver-sities. Inorder tomakesure thatstudentswereofferedarange of prices for higher education places, the govern-mentmade20,000placesavailablein2012toinstitutionscharging£7,500orless.Theseplacesweremeanttoactasan incentive touniversities todrop theirprices to£7,500orlessandtocollegestooffercoursesatdegreelevelandtherebydrawinmoremoneyfromgovernment.However,theincentivesdidnotwork.Ofthe9,600placesallocatedtouniversities,4,200wereunfilled,andofthe10,400allo-catedtoFurtherEducationcolleges,2,800wereleftempty(i.e.,overathirdwereunused).

Thesecondinitiativehasformedmoreseriouseffects,creating uncertainty and, for institutions, a high level ofrisk.In2012,thegovernmentalloweduniversitiesinEng-landtorecruitasmanyextrastudentsastheywished—withthegradesAAB(thehighestgrades)—intheuniversityen-tryexaminations.Thisappearedtobeadvantageoustotheuniversitiesinthemost-highlyselectivegroup(theRussellGroup). However, the overall numbers of applicants for2012/13showedafallof5percentforthoseaged18andafallof15–20percentforthoseaged19andolder.ThepoolofthoseapplicantsachievingAABshrank,whichleftsev-eraluniversitiesunabletoenrollthenumbersofstudentstheyexpected.Liverpool,Sheffield,andSouthampton—allintheRussellGroup—failedtomeettheirtargets,thoughtheUniversityofBristolgrewby28percent.Amongthoseother universities charging less than the full £9,000,therewerewidevariations.WhileStaffordshireUniversity


The burden of paying has shifted from

direct government funding to institu-

tions to loans made by the government

for the student to cover the cost.


showed a loss of only 3 percent, Leeds Metropolitan wasdown23percent.

2013/14The2013/14arrangementscouldwellintroduceevenmorefluidity into theEnglishsystem:This time, studentswithABB,alargerpoolthanAAB,canbeofferedplacesatanyuniversity.Therulesfortheextraplacesatthemarginarealsochanged:Therewillbeonly5,000places,butmanyofthesewillgotoinstitutionschargingbetween£7,500and£8,250ayear.

Meanwhileeachuniversitycontinuestobeallocatedafixed intake of students. Eleven higher education institu-tions exceeded their limits on student numbers in 2012;thefineshavejustbeenpublished.Taketoomanystudents,andyouarefined.Taketoofewandyournumbersforthefutureriskbeingcut.Itisatightropethatfewwouldvolun-tarilychoosetowalk.Theapplicationsfor2013/14inEng-landaremarginallyup(+2.8%)on2012/13,butstillagooddealbelow2011/12.Thevolatilitycouldwellbeworsenextyear.Thecombinationofsuddenchangesofpolicy,againstabackgroundofahike in tuition fees that studentswereunpreparedfor,hasdestabilizedtheEnglishhighereduca-tionsystem:AgrowingnumberofEnglishuniversitieswillbefacedwithdeficits.Theoutcomesin2013/14couldspellunacceptable financial turmoil for them. “The students,”astheMinisterforHigherEducationsays,arenow“inthedrivingseat”;theinstitutionsareinretreat.

WhatWillEnglishHigherEducationLookLikein2025?Jeroen Huisman, Harry De Boer, and Paulo Charles Pimentel Bótas

Jeroen Huisman is professor at the University of Bath, UK. E-mail: [email protected]. Harry de Boer is senior research associate at the University of Twente, the Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]. Paulo Charles Pimentel Bótas is research officer at the University of Bath, UK. E-mail: [email protected]. For those interested, the full scenarios can be found in Higher Education Quarterly 66 (4), 341–62.

In2009, theLabourgovernmentasked for an indepen-dent view on the future direction of higher education

funding in England. The Browne committee presentedtheirreport,SecuringaSustainableFutureforHigherEdu-

cation, in 2010. The new government—a coalition of theConservativeandLiberalDemocratparties—tookonboardmanyofthesuggestionsoftheBrownecommitteeandinte-gratedtheseinits2011whitepaper—“StudentsattheHeartoftheSystem.”Manyobserversthoughttheproposedpoli-cieswouldshakeupthehighereducationsystem.Forex-ample,thegovernmentproposedasetofmeasuresthatun-doubtedlyaffectstudentsandhighereducationinstitutions.Thekeyelementsofthewhitepaperarethathighereduca-tioninstitutionscouldsettheirfeelevelsat£6,000uptoa maximum of £9,000, which before the policy stood at£3,290.Theteachinggrant—allocatedtohighereducationinstitutionson thebasisofstudentnumbersand thedis-ciplines they were enrolled in—would disappear, makinghighereducationinstitutionstoalargeextentdependentonthestudentfeeincome.Whereasstudentplacesweremoreorlessfixed(asin,limitedplacesfordomesticstudentsforeachdiscipline/programathighereducationinstitutions),thegovernmentproposedtomakealargeshare—aboutaquarter—of the student places available on a competitivebasis,allowinginstitutionstobidforplaces.

ImpactObservers feared that the high(er) fee levels would deterstudentsfromenrollinginhighereducationandthat thiswouldespeciallyaffectstudentsfromlower-socialeconom-icbackgroundsandhencethreatenaccesstohighereduca-tion.Also, somehighereducation institutionsmight loseoutintheverycompetitivesystem;thelargesttradeunionpredictedthataboutaquarterofthehighereducationinsti-tutionswouldbethreatenedintheirexistence.Itwasalsoarguedthatthepolicieswouldcreateanewbinarysystem,forthepoliciescouldworkoutwellfortheresearch-inten-siveuniversitiesandwouldbedetrimentaltotheflourish-ingoftheteaching-orientedinstitutions.

Whereas some of the expected impacts were well-argued and supported by some empirical evidence, it isobviously impossible to fully predict the outcomes of thepolicyreform.Bearinginmindthetitleofaseminalworkonpolicychange—“GreatExpectationsandMixedPerfor-mance”—theactualimplementationofapolicymaydifferfromthepolicyintentions.Atthesametime,futuresocio-economicandculturalchangeswillcontinuetoimpactthesystem independently from the policy reform, potentiallyinterferingwithpolicyintentions.

Delphi StudyThus,itisrelevanttodiscussthepotentialdevelopments,ifonlytoengageinadebateaboutthefutureshapeandsizeoftheEnglishhighereducationsystemandtoreflectonpos-sibleoutcomesintermsoflikelihoodanddesirability.WethereforesetupaDelphistudy(supportedbyagrantfrom


21I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N

the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education). In theDelphistudy,highereducationexpertswereaskedtoreflectonstatementsonthepotentialdevelopmentsandsituationsin2025(e.g.,“InEnglishhighereducationin2025,privateproviderscaterfor15%ofstudents.”).Inourstudy,intotal44expertscommented individuallyon the likelihoodanddesirabilityofcertaindevelopmentstoward2025(21state-mentswereoffered).Inthesecondround,70percentoftheexperts reflectedon the full set offirst-roundarguments,claims, and assertions. Several rounds of reflections canbeusedforaDelphistudy,(e.g., toreachconsensus).WethoughtthedatafromthetworoundsweresufficientlyrichandusedargumentsfromthefullsetofdatatobuildtwoscenariosforEnglishhighereducation.

Scenario 1: Return of the Binary Divide by 2025The first scenario departs from the assumption that themarketmechanismsintroducedinthepasttwodecadesorso,willcontinuetocoordinatethesystem.Thiswillimplya somewhat smaller system in2025,due tomergersandsomeinstitutionsnothavingsurvivedthefinancialcrises.Thedifferencesbetweenthetraditionaluniversitiesandfor-merpolytechnicsincreased,andanewbinarylineemerged.Thesystemin2025consistsofabout25research-intensiveuniversities and 70 other higher education institutions.The sector of research-intensive institutions is rather ho-mogeneous;andinstitutionsstillfigurelargelyintheglobalrankings,ifonlyforthefactthatinternationalcompetitorsalsosufferedfromtheglobalcrises.Thenonresearchsec-torismuchmorediverse,buthasincommonafocusonundergraduateprograms,althoughtherearesomepocketsofresearchexcellence.Private(for-profit)institutionshavebeenabletoenterthemarketandtherewillbe—in2025—asubstantialnumberofsmallerandmedium-sizeprivateuniversities.

Scenario 2: Return of the Visible HandThisscenarioargues that increasingcriticismon the fail-ureofmarketmechanisms,toliveuptothepromises,hasledtoasituationthatthegovernmentwasforcedtostepindirectly.Moreinvestments,combinedwithstronggovern-mentalregulation,haveledtoathree-tiersystemin2025:sixresearch-intensiveuniversities(theSuperSixhavebeenabletopursueexcellencestrategiesandbelongtothesmallgroup of world-class universities) that set relatively highfees;about40comprehensiveuniversitieswithbroadmis-sions(theGrandUniversities);andfiveprivateuniversities(thathaveahardtimeasstudentsdecidetogopublic).Thesystemismuchsmallerduetoenforcedregionalmergersbetween comprehensive institutions. These institutionsthrive,partlybecauseofgoodnetworksandcooperationbe-tweenthem,combinedwithstronginstitutionalleadership

andmanagement.ConclusionBoth scenarios imply a rather drastic change to the Eng-lishhighereducationsystem,achangecomparabletotheabolishmentofthebinarysystemin1992:thenumberofinstitutionswillchange,aswellastheirprofiles(researchorteachingfocused,not-for-profitversusprivateinstitutions).Therewillbeseriousimplicationsforaccess,funding,andqualityassurance.Thescenarioscontainmoredetails,alsoonteachingandlearningandthestudentbody.Ofcourse,in2025ourpredictionswillbeprovenwrong,butthatisnotthepoint.Wehopethatinthecomingyearsthescenarioswillstimulateadebateonthefutureworldsthatacademics,higher education managers, policymakers, and studentswouldliketolivein.

TheChallengeofSustainingStudentLoansSystems:InColombiaandChileJamil Salmi

Jamil Salmi is a tertiary education consultant and former manager of tertiary education at the World Bank. E-mail: [email protected].

The Chilean government almost fell last year becauseof student protests against the student-loan system.

Asaresultof theChileanstudent-loancrisis,students inColombia have requested free higher education for all,whichwouldmakeanykindofstudent loanirrelevant.IstheendofstudentloansinLatinAmericainsight,echoingthegrowingconcernintheUnitedStates,wheretheUS$1trillionstudent-loandebtfigurehasbeenusedtodenouncestudentloansasafailedsystemandapproach?InarecentNew York Times column,CharlesBlowdescribedUSdebtlevelsas“staggering,”and“havinglong-termimplicationsforoursocietyandoureconomy,asthatdebtbeginstoaffectwhenandifyoungpeoplestartfamiliesorenterthehous-ingmarket” (March8,2013). In thiscontextofcrisisandapocalyptic statements about student loans in theAmeri-cas,thepurposeofthisdiscussionistoshare,withreaders,lessonsfromrecentdevelopmentsinChileandColombia.

The Case of ChileWhatstartedasademandbysecondaryschoolstudentswasthattheirfreetransportpassbeextendedfrom10months



to the entire calendar year. Ironically, thegovernment re-jectedthatinitialdemandcitingitshighbudgetarycostbutlateragreedtoareformpackagecosting20timesasmuchastheinitialrequestofthestudents,whichevolvedintoafull-blown confrontation opposing secondary and univer-sity students organizations and the entire government.The leading factionsofuniversitystudentswentas farasdemandingaconstitutionalamendment thatwouldguar-anteefreepublic,high-qualityeducationforeveryoneatalllevels,includinghighereducation.

Tobefairtothestudents,theyhadlegitimategrievanc-es.Forseveraldecades,Chilehashadasegregatedhighereducationsystem,withtwogroupsofuniversitiesofferingdifferent benefits to students. First, 16 public and the 9private universities receive government subsidies, whosestudentsareeligibletogetgenerousscholarshipsandhaveaccess toahighlysubsidizedincome-contingent loansys-tem.Second,36privateuniversitiesdonotreceivepublicfunding but enroll 53 percent of all university-level stu-dentsinthecountries.Thesestudentshavelimitedaccesstoscholarshipsbutareeligible fora loanscheme,runbycommercialbankswithgovernmentguarantee,thatwases-tablishedin2005.Thenewschemewasverysuccessfulintermsofuptakeandhadagoodtargetingsystem.By2011,75percentofalleligiblestudentsfromthefirstandsecondquintilesreceivedaloan.Buttheschemestartedtorunintoseveredifficultieswhenthefirstrepaymentsweredue,assomegraduatesfoundthemselveswithhigh-debtlevelsandalimitedrepaymentcapacitybecausetheschemewasnotincome-contingent.Theaveragedebt-serviceratio,calculat-edasthemonthlypaymentoverthemonthlyincome,was18percent,comparedto4percentinAustralia,6.4percentinNewZealand,2.9percentintheUnitedKingdom,and2.6percentintheNetherlands.Asaresult,thedefaultratequickly rose to 36 percent, which is extremely high for ayoung,student-loanprogram.Notsurprisingly,oneofthekeydemandsoftheprotestingstudentswastoabolishthestudent-loanprogrambecameoneof thekeydemandsoftheprotestingstudents.

Afewmonthsago,thegovernmentannounceditsin-tentiontomergethetwoexistingstudent-loanschemes,ap-plyingthetermsandconditionsofthefirstonetotheentiresystem.Thismeans,amongotherthings,thatrepaymentswill be income contingent, allowing students to choosetheirpreferredcareersandpaying for theirdegreewithafixedshareoffutureincomeandtherebyensuringareason-abledebtburden.Monthlypaymentswillrangefrom5to15percentofmonthlyincome,dependingontheincomelevelofgraduates.Repaymentswillbecollectedthroughthetaxsystem,even thoughtheMinistryofFinancewas initiallyreluctant to involving the administration of student-loanrepayments.

The Case of ColombiaFewpeople in theworldareaware that thefirst ever stu-dentloanagencywasestablishedin1951inColombia.TheColombian Student Loan Agency—Instituto ColombianodeCreditoEducativo(ICETEX)—wasthedreamofayoungand idealistic Colombian, Gabriel Bettencourt, who afterbenefitinghimselffromaloantogethismaster’sdegreeintheUnitedStates,convincedthepresidentoftherepublicto setup anagency thatwouldprovide the samekindofservicestoallneedyColombians.

After several decades of uneven developments, ICE-TEXhasgrown tobeoneof the strongest andmost suc-cessfulmortgage-type,student-loanagenciesintheworld.Under the leadership of a visionary president and withsupport from two successive World Bank loans since themid-2000s, ICETEXhasextendedcoverage to 19percentof thestudents, focusingonstudents fromthe lowestso-

cioeconomicgroups.Thisisthehigheststudent-loancover-age rate inLatinAmerica. ICETEXhasalso improved itscollectionrecord—reducingoverdueloansfrom22percentin2007to13percentin2009,andmodernizeditsmanage-ment practices, bringing operating costs from 12 percentin 2002 to 3 percent today. It has also entered into part-nershipswithparticipatinguniversitiestoprovidenotonlyfinancial but also academic and psychological support toloanbeneficiaries,whichhasgreatlyreduceddropoutratesamongloanbeneficiaries,comparedtostudentswithoutaloan.

However,thissituationhasfacedtwotypesoftroublesinrecentyears.First,withtheeconomiccrisis,agrowingnumberofgraduatesfounditdifficulttomeettheirrepay-mentobligations.Theproportionofgraduateswhoarenotcurrentwith their loanpaymentshas reached17percent.Second, the Chilean crisis has spilled over to Colombia.Studentsfrombothpublicandprivateuniversitieshavede-manded the abolition of fees across the board, increasedfundingforpublictertiaryeducationandthetransformationofstudentloansintogrants.Oneafternoon,afewmonthsago,theywenttoprotestinfrontofICETEXandendedupsmashingafewofthebuilding’swindows.Robustpressure


Is the end of student loans in Latin

America in sight, echoing the growing

concern in the United States, where

the US$1 trillion student-loan debt fig-

ure has been used to denounce student

loans as a failed system and approach?


fromthestreets,throughmostlypeacefuldemonstrationsbringingstudentsandteacherstogether,forcedthegovern-menttowithdrawthedraftHigherEducationReformLawfromcongress.

Concluding LessonsMany years ago, my Student Loan mentor—ProfessorBruceChapman—sharedwithmeinconfidencethethreesecretsforrunningasuccessfulstudentloanscheme:thefirstoneiscollection,thesecondiscollection,andthethirdiscollection.Attheendoftheday,nomatterwhattypeofstudent-loansystemoperatesinone’scountry,itisdoomedunlessyouhaveapropercollectionmechanism.

Traditional, mortgage-type student-loan schemes arevulnerablebydesign,asillustratedbytheChileanandCo-lombian cases. Without an income-contingent provision,timesofeconomiccrisisareboundtocreatedifficulties,asunemploymentrisesandincomesstagnate.

Obviously, income-contingent loan systems have ahigherprobabilityofsuccess.Butthenecessityofhavingafoolproofcollectionsystemmakesitchallengingformostdevelopingcountries.MysenseisthatChileisbetterplacedthanColombiatoworkthroughitsincometaxadministra-tiontocollectstudent-loanrepaymentsinanefficientway.Thisisoneofthepositiveconsequencesoftherecentcri-sis,whichhasforcedtheChileanstocomeupwithamorerationalandeffectiveapproachtostudent-loanoriginationandcollection.IwouldhopethatColombiadoesnotneedacrisisofsuchgravity tofindwaysof transitioningtoanincome-contingent, student-loan model that would allowICETEXtofurtherconsolidateitsrecentprogress.Infact,ICETEXhasalreadyopenedthepossibilityforgraduatestomove toan income-contingent repayment schedule.Two-hundred graduates took advantage of this new option in2012. If this approach proves to be successful in makingrepayments easier, ICETEX can hopefully extend it to allloanbeneficiaries.

AmericanEngineeringDoctoralEnrollmentsRichard A. Skinner

Richard A. Skinner is senior consultant to the higher education execu-tive search firm, Harris Search Associates. E-mail: [email protected].

The reliance of American engineering doctoral pro-gramsonforeignstudents,especiallythosefromIndia,

isacaseinpoint.USimmigrationpolicychangesin1965

launched a steady and growing stream of Asian studentsenrolling inAmericanuniversities—withengineering thesecond-mostenrolledfield.Moreover,foreignstudentnum-bershaveincreaseddramaticallyindoctoralprograms.By2006,foreignstudentsontemporaryresidentvisasearned64percentofengineeringdegrees,andmanyremainedinthe United States, often as professors. In the latter case,thesefacultymadeitpossibleforengineeringenrollmentsatbothundergraduateandgraduateslevelstogrowtoa20-yearhighby2010.Whetherthatupwardtrendcancontinueismoreproblematic.

The Need for Greater CapacityIn recent years, the top-ranked engineering programs inAmerica have increased the numbers of undergraduatesand are usually successful in filling master’s level pro-grams.Doctoralprograms,however,areseldomfilledtoca-pacity.Theresultisacaseoftheproverbialchicken-or-eggdilemma:morefacultyareneededtoteachlargernumbersofengineeringstudentsandtherebyincreasethenumbersofdoctoralstudents.

Ashortageofdoctoral studentsmeans that increasesin engineering graduates will be harder to acquire, andthustherewillbefewerdomesticengineeringgraduatestopursuedoctoralstudies.ForeignstudentscometoAmericato pursue graduate degrees more so than undergraduateones. Foreign students earned 24 percent of science andengineeringmaster’s,33percentofscienceandengineer-ingdoctorates,andonly4percentofbachelor’sdegreesin2007.Butforeignstudentsmadeuponly3.5percentoftotalUSenrollmentsin2010/11.

Moreover,Indianimmigration—amajorsourceofen-gineering doctoral students—is likely to continue to flowbasedonthepersistentgapinpersonalincomebetweenthetwocountriesandcouldaccelerate,withthelargeincreaseinIndiainthe16-to-34-agegroupinthefuture.

Growing Engineering EnrollmentsIn the near term, American engineering schools shouldcontinue to rely on international students to enroll andcomplete thePhD.Most signs are that such reliance is areasonablestrategy,butonlyforthenearterm.Demograph-ictrendsinIndiasignifyincreasesinthenumberofquali-fied students from India who can seek admission to USdoctoralprograms.Moreover,IndianresearchuniversitieshavenotadvancedasrapidlyastheirChinesecounterparts;so,AmericaninstitutionswillremainattractiveforIndianstododoctoralwork,particularlysinceEnglishisacommonlanguage.

In addition, the US immigration policy gives prefer-enceforreunitingfamiliesand40percentofIndiansim-migratedtoAmerica,after2000.Indianimmigrantsinsiz-


24 I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N

ablenumbersarelikelytocontinuetocomeandenrollinavarietyofprofessionalfields,includingengineeringdoctor-alstudies.In2010morethan60percentofIndianscienceandengineeringdoctoralrecipientsreportedplanstostayintheUnitedStatesBeyondthenear-term,however,somedatasuggestthatrelianceoninternationalstudentsmaynotbereliableinamoredistantfuture.TheNationalScienceFoundationreportedthatinthefirstdecadeofthecenturythepercentagedecreasedofAsianstudentsreportingplanstoremainintheUnitedStates.Aswell,iftheeconomiesofChina,SouthKorea,Taiwan,andespeciallyIndiaimprovefromtheglobalrecessionofrecentyears,thenforeignstu-dents’ numbers may decline further as opportunities athomeimprove.

Midtermprospectsforincreasingenrollmentsindoc-toralengineeringprogramsdependonpersuadinggradu-atestopursuethePhDandthefinancialsupportavailablefor doctoral students—both domestic and foreign. Pros-pectsforpersuasion’ssuccessarenotalwayssuccessful,soAmericanPhDprogramswill likelyneed to recruit inter-nationalstudents.That,inturn,willnecessitatechangestoimmigrationpolicy.SuchproceduresgainedachampioninthePartnershipforaNewAmericanEconomy,acoalitionofcitymayorsandcorporateheadschairedbychiefexecu-tiveofficersfromMicrosoftandBoeingandNewYorkMay-orBloomberg,amongothers.

The Partnership for a New American Economy, asone of the organization’s key principles, has increazed“opportunities for immigrants to enter the United Statesworkforce—andforforeignstudentstostayintheUnitedStatestowork—sothatwecanattractandkeepthebest,thebrightest,andthehardest-working,whowillstrengthenoureconomy.”Federalimmigrationlawwillneedtofocus

moreonfacilitatingentryandresidencebyeducatedindi-viduals interestedingraduatestudiesandengineering-re-latedentrepreneurship,ratherthanthecurrentpreferenceforreunitingfamilies.

Long-Term ProspectsIn the long-term, the immigration of foreign students toAmericaforgraduateeducationmaywelldecline,asincomedifferentials between American and foreign professionsnarrow andweaken the economic incentive for immigra-tion.Improvement inothercountries’universities—espe-cially research-intensive ones, coupled with the demandsfor faculty inhomecountries—could strengthen the caseforremaininghomeandforegoingimmigration.OnlyIn-diawillrequireanadditional1millionprofessorsby2020.

Americandoctoralengineeringprograms’relianceoninternational students in general and Indian students, inparticular, illustrateshowone-sidedtheflowof talentcanbecomeovertime.HadforeignstudentsnotimmigratedtotheUnitedStatesinsizablenumbersbeginninginthemid-1960s,pursuedengineeringPhDsandthenremained,itishardtoimaginehowthefieldcouldhavegrownandcon-tributedsosubstantially—toendeavorssuchastheAmeri-canspaceprogram,advancesincomputing,andimprove-mentsintheuseofenergy.

However,whethersimilarenterpriseswillbepossiblein the future—asat least inpartbecauseAmericanengi-neeringprogramscanbecertainofamplenumbersofwell-qualifieddomesticorforeignstudents—pursuingthedoc-torateisproblematic.


Doyouhavetimetoreadmorethan20electronicbulletinsweeklyinordertostayuptodatewithinternationalinitiativesand trends?Wethoughtnot!So,asaservice, theCIHEre-searchteampostsitemsfromabroadrangeofinternationalmediatoourFacebookandTwitterpage.

Youwillfindnewsitemsfromthe Chronicle of Higher Ed-ucation, Inside Higher Education, University World News, Times Higher Education, the Guardian Higher Education network UK, the Times of India, the Korea Times, just tonamea few.Wealsoincludepertinentitemsfromblogsandotheronlinere-sources.Wewillalsoannounce internationalandcompara-tivereportsandrelevantnewpublications.

Unlike most Facebook and Twitter sites, our pages arenotaboutus,butrather“newsfeeds”updateddailywithnotic-

esmostrelevanttointernationaleducatorsandpractitioners,policymakers, anddecisionmakers.Think “newsmarquis”inTimesSquareinNewYorkCity.Here,ataglance,youcantake in the information and perspective you need in a fewminuteseverymorning.

Tofollowthenews,press“Like”onourFacebookpageat:http://www.facebook.com/pages/Center-for-International-Higher-Education-CIHE/197777476903716. “Follow” us onTwitterat:https://twitter.com/#!/BC_CIHE.

Wehopeyou’llalsoconsiderclicking“Like”onFacebookitemsyoufindmostusefultohelpboostourpresenceinthisarena.Pleasepostyourcomments toencourageonlinedis-cussion.

Critical International News at a Glance on Facebook and Twitter

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 25Departments

NEW PUBLICATIONSBalán, Jorge, ed. Latin America’s New Knowl-edge Economy: Higher Education, Govern-ment, and International Collaboration. New York: Institute of International Education, 2013. 154 pp. (pb). ISBN 978-0-87206-358-7. Web site: www.iie.org.

A consideration of key elements in Latin America’s growing participation in the knowl-edge economy, this volume has a focus on international exchange issues. Among the topics considered by the authors are gover-nance of public universities, workforce train-ing and higher education, scholarship abroad programs, research universities in Brazil, western hemisphere academic exchange pro-grams, and others.

Farrugia, Christine, Rajika Bhandari, and Patricia Chow. Open Doors: Report on Inter-national Educational Exchange. New York: Institute of International Education, 2012. 112 pp. (pb). ISBN 978-0-87206-353-2. Web site: www.iie.org.

The Institute of International Educa-tion’s annual publication is about trends in student mobility to and from the United States. This volume includes statistics on key trends—with numbers and national origins of students coming to the US to study, and trends among American students for study abroad. Detailed information about numbers of students as specific universities, fields of study, and related topics are provided.

Goodman, Roger, Takehiko Kariya, and John Taylor, eds. Higher Education and the State: Changing Relationships in Europe and East Asia. Oxford, UK: Symposium Books, 2013 270 pp. $56 (pb). ISBN 978-1-873927-76-2. Web site: www.symposium-books.co.uk.

In the era of massification, the role of the state in higher education has been changing, as government support for higher education has dwindled in many countries and the pri-vate sector has expanded. This book focuses on the changing role of the state in East Asia and Europe. Various aspects of higher educa-tion relations are discussed in chapters deal-ing with, among others, Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Korea. Several of the chapters provide comparative

perspectives.

Johnston, Lucas F. Higher Education for Sus-tainability: Cases, Challenges, and Opportu-nities from Across the Curriculum. London: Routledge, 2013. 262 pp. (pb). ISBN 978-0-415-51936-6. Web site: www.routlede.com.

Examining curricular efforts to intro-duce themes of sustainability and environ-mentalism, this book provides a series of case studies mainly from the United States but also including several European coun-tries and Canada. Themes include sustain-ability in courses on tourism and hospitality, the role of interdisciplinarity in courses on sustainability, and others.

Kwiek, Marek, and Andrzej Kurkiewicz, eds. The Modernization of European Universities: Cross-National Academic Perspectives. Frank-furt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang, 2012. 360 pp. (hb). ISBN 978-3-631-63796-8. Web site: www.peterlang.de.

Modernization in the European context includes a complex set of issues—including Bologna-induced integration, the develop-ment of differentiated systems, changes in governance, and others. This book incudes essays concerning new patterns of funding higher education, student finance issues, and a range of analyses of patterns of moderniza-tion in a broad European context.

Manning, Kathleen. Organizational Theory in Higher Education. New York: Routledge, 2013. 219 pp. (pb). ISBN 978-0-415-87467-0. Web site: www.routledge.com.

Intended mainly as a textbook on aca-demic organization for use in American universities, this volume focuses on various interpretations of organization theory as they apply to higher education. For each theoreti-cal perspective, a case study is also provided. Among the organizational perspectives dis-cussed are “organized anarchy,” political, bu-reaucratic, cultural, and others.

Maximova-Mentzoni, Tatiana. The Chang-ing Russian University: From State to Market. London: Routledge, 2013. 194 pp. $155 (hb). ISBN 978-0-415-54018-6.Web site: www.routlede.com.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the universities were starved of fund-ing and found it very difficult to adjust to the new circumstances in Russia. This book fo-cuses on the transition of higher education in Russia in the 1990s, and the implications for the current situation of higher education. The main focus is on the development of marketization of higher education. Much of the analysis is based on a single case study.

McCabe, Donald L., Kenneth Butterfield, and Linda K. Treviño. Cheating in College: Why Students Do It and What Educators Can Do About It. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Uni-versity Press, 2012. 224 pp. (hb). ISBN: 971-1- 421407166. Web site: www.press.jhu.edu.

Based on a study of academic cheating in 31 diverse American colleges and univer-sities, the researchers found that two-thirds of undergraduate students engaged in some kind of cheating, and that cheating is also common among graduate and professional students. A variety of variables are studied re-lating to cheating, and recommendations are made for reducing its prevalence.

Olivas, Michael. Suing Alma Mater: Higher Education and the Courts. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013. 232 pp. $32.92 (pb). ISBN 978-1-4214-0923-8. Web site: www.press.jhu.edu.

A key resource on the highly compli-cated and often contentious relationship between the law and higher education in the United States, this volume relies in part on analyzing key court cases as a way of illus-trating how the courts deal with academic issues. Additional chapters focus broadly on higher education law in the United States and on new trends relating to the politics of court cases brought to the Supreme Court.

Rolfe, Gary. The University in Dissent: Schol-arship in the Corporate University. London: Routledge, 2013. 150 pp. ISBN 978-0-415-68115-5. Web site: www.routlede.com.

Extending the argument of Bill Readings in his The University in Ruins, this volume pro-vides a philosophical discourse critical of the growing corporatization of higher education worldwide.

26 Departments

Schloss, Patrick J., and Kristina M. Cragg, eds. Organization and Administration in Higher Education. New York: Routledge, 2013. 305 pp. (pb). ISBN 978-0-415-89270-4. Web site: www.routledge.com.

Focusing entirely on the United States, this book provides essays by administrators, discussing key themes in higher education management. Among the themes discussed are administrative aspects of accreditation and assessment, performance expectations for academic leaders, student governance, human resource strategy, curriculum issues and resources, philanthropy, and others.

Smelser, Neil J. Dynamics of the Con-temporary University: Growth, Accretion, and Conflict. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2013. 139 pp. $39.95 (hb). ISBN 978-0-520-27581-2. Web site: www.ucpress.edu.

This short book, based on the 2012 Clark Kerr Lecture series, discusses a range of themes central to an understanding of con-temporary higher education. These include revenues and costs, the stability of academic departments, the accretion of functions of universities, growing commercialism, and the rise of on-line and for-profit higher edu-

cation. While the focus in this volume is on American higher education, it has wide inter-national relevance.

Sovic, Silvia, and Margo Blythman, eds. International Students Negotiating Higher Ed-ucation: Critical Perspectives. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2013. 243 pp. (pb). ISBN 978-0-415-61470-2. Web site: www.routledge.com.

A broad analysis of issues relating to students studying abroad, this volume dis-cussed both the broader policy issues and some specific topics relating to the chal-lenges of international students. Among the themes considered are the ethical com-mitments of universities for serving interna-tional students, an internationalized curricu-lum, case studies of international students in the arts and in business studies, and several chapters focusing on language issues relat-ing to international students.

Vukasovi, Martina, Peter Maassen, Monika Nerland, Rómulo Pinhwieo, Bjørn Stensaker, and Agnete Vabø, eds. Effects of Higher Education Reforms: Change Dynamics. Rotterdam, Netherlands: SENSE, 2012. 311 pp (pb). ISBN 978-94-6029-014-9. Web site:

www.sensepublishers.com.This volume contains a range of re-

search-based essays relating broadly to academic change in different national and regional contexts. Among the topics consid-ered are student financial aid in the United States, the development of a European qual-ity-assurance system, research mobility in Europe, economic development and higher education in Africa, and a series of studies of the academic profession.

Wang, Qi, Ying Cheng, and Nian Cai Liu, eds. Building World-Class Universities: Differ-ent Approaches to a Shared Goal. Rotterdam, Netherlands: SENSE, 2013. 226 pp. $54 (pb). ISBN 978-9462-09-032-3. Web site: www.sensepublishers.com.

The focus of this volume is on the dif-ferent strategies for building world-class uni-versities. Case studies from Russia, Saudi Arabia, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Tai-wan are included. Broader analyses include discussions of the role of rankings, political and cultural variations among research uni-versities, the role of top-tier researchers, and others.

Center Sponsors Successful Conference

OnApril5,aconferencetitled“AttheForefrontofInterna-tionalHigherEducation”washeldatBostonCollegetocel-ebratethecareerandscholarlycontributionsoftheCenter’sfounding director, Philip G. Altbach. The event attractedmore than 100 researchers, scholars,policymakers,univer-sityadministrators,andstudentsfromseveralcountriesandfeatured discussions of key issues in international highereducation.AmongthespeakerswereJ.DonaldMonan,S.J.,HansdeWit,JamilSalmi,D.BruceJohnstone,NianCaiLiu,Henry Rosovsky, Judith Eaton, Patti McGill Peterson, andothers.Thesymposiumwasmadepossiblethroughthegen-erous support of the American Council on Education, theAssociation of International Education Administrators, the

EuropeanAssociationforInternationalEducation, theFordFoundation,theNationalResearchUniversity-HigherSchoolofEconomics,JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,theLuminaFoundation,theTalloiresNetwork,SAGEIndia,Ms.MariamAssefa,Dr.HansdeWit,andDr.TomParker.Arelatedbook,At the Forefront of International Higher Education,coeditedbyAlmaMaldonado-MaldonadoandRobertaMaleeBassett,willbepublishedbySpringerlaterin2013.Avideooftheconfer-encecanbefoundathttp://www.youtube.com/bostoncolleg-ecihe.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 27Departments

WiththeretirementofCenterdirectorPhilipG.AltbachfromactiveteachingatBostonCollegeinJune,therewillbemini-malchangeattheCenter.Dr.Altbachwillcontinuetobedi-rector of the Center and will remain actively involved withitswork.LauraE.Rumbleywillcontinueasassociatedirec-torandwilltakemoremanagementresponsibilities.BostonCollegehasapprovedthisarrangement,andtheCenterisin-debtedtoDeanMaureenKennyandProvostBertGarzafortheirsupport.

TheCenterwelcomesArianeDeGayardonas researchassistant.ShecomestotheCenterfromKingsCollege,Lon-don,andwillbepursuingadoctorateinhighereducationatBoston College. We congratulate Dr. Iván F. Pacheco, whohascompletedhisdoctorate.Hewasrecentlyinvitedtopres-ent his results at conferences in Colombia and New York.IvánwasagraduateassistantatCIHE.

CenterdirectorPhilipG.AltbachwasawardedtheMartaHoulihanAwardforDistinguishedContributionstotheFieldofInternationalEducationbyNAFSA:AssociationofInter-nationalEducators.HealsowasnamedanAERAFellowfor2013bytheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation.

TheCenterwas involved in a trainingprogram for ad-ministrators at Princess Nora University in Riyadh, Saudi

Arabia,thelargestwomen’suniversityintheworld.Thepro-gramwascoordinatedbyLizReisberg,formerlyontheCen-ter’sstaff,andincludedassociatedirectorLauraE.Rumbley,BCviceprovostforfacultyPatriciaDeLeeuw,andKarenAr-noldofthehighereducationprogram.PhilipG.AltbachandLizReisbergcontinuetoserveontheplanningcommitteefortheannual internationalconferenceonhighereducationinRiyadh—theyrecentlyparticipatedintheconference.

Dr.Altbachalso spokeat aworkshop forSaudi rectorsand later at a workshop for rectors of Catholic universitiessponsored by the International Federation of Catholic Uni-versitiesinLondon.HewillbeonthefacultyofaleadershipprogramattheUniversityofHongKongaswellandwillpar-ticipateaconferencesponsoredbytheSocietyforCollegeandUniversityPlanninginMontreal,Canada,andlateraconfer-enceonthemediaandhighereducationinToronto.

AssociatedirectorLauraE.Rumbleychairsthepublica-tionscommitteeoftheEuropeanAssociationofInternationalEducation.

News of the Center

Protect your International Higher Education subscription!

In order not to miss any future issues of IHE, please be sure that you are a registered subscriber! If you do not receive an electronic copy of the newsletter, you probably are not regis-tered in our database. To avoid being dropped from the dis-tribution in the future, please update your registration online.

Go to:

http://www.bc.edu/content/bc/research/cihe/ihe.html

Click on: “Subscribe to IHE” in the navigation panel on the left side

of the screen.

Click on the link: Click here for our subscription form.

Choose your subscriber status: New Subscriber/Existing Subscriber/Not a Subscriber[If you are not sure, choose “New”]

Skip “Expert Status”

Complete the remainder of the form and click “Submit”

If you have any questions, contact us at [email protected]

PRESORTEDFIRST-CLASS MAIL

U.S. POSTAGEPAID

N. READING MAPERMIT 258

Center for International Higher EducationBoston CollegeCampion HallChestnut Hill, MA 02467-3813USA

Editor

Philip G. Altbach

Publications Editor

Edith S. Hoshino

Editorial assistant

Salina Kopellas

Editorial officE

Center for International Higher EducationCampion HallBoston College Chestnut Hill, MA 02467USA

Tel: (617) 552-4236Fax: (617) 552-8422E-mail: [email protected]://www.bc.edu/cihe

We welcome correspondence, ideas for articles, and reports. If you would like to subscribe, please send an e-mail to: [email protected], including your position (graduate stu-dent, professor, administrator, policymaker, etc.), and area of interest or expertise. There is no charge for a subscription.

ISSN: 1084-0613©Center for International Higher Education

The Center For International Higher Education (CIHE)

The Boston College Center for International Higher Education brings an international consciousness to the analysis of higher education. We believe that an international perspective will contribute to enlight-ened policy and practice. To serve this goal, the Center publishes the International Higher Educa-tion quarterly newsletter, a book series, and other publications; sponsors conferences; and welcomes visiting scholars. We have a special concern for academic institutions in the Jesuit tradition world-wide and, more broadly, with Catholic universities.

The Center promotes dialogue and cooperation among academic institutions throughout the world. We believe that the future depends on ef-fective collaboration and the creation of an in-ternational community focused on the improve-ment of higher education in the public interest.

CIHE Web Site

The different sections of the Center Web site support the work of scholars and professionals in interna-tional higher education, with links to key resources in the field. All issues of International Higher Education are available online, with a searchable archive. In ad-dition, the International Higher Education Clearing-house (IHEC) is a source of articles, reports, trends, databases, online newsletters, announcements of

upcoming international conferences, links to profes-sional associations, and resources on developments in the Bologna Process and the GATS. The Higher Education Corruption Monitor provides information from sources around the world, including a selection of news articles, a bibliography, and links to other agencies. The International Network for Higher Edu-cation in Africa (INHEA), is an information clearing-house on research, development, and advocacy ac-tivities related to postsecondary education in Africa.

The Program in Higher Education at the Lynch School of Education, Boston College

The Center is closely related to the graduate program in higher education at Boston College. The program offers master’s and doctoral degrees that feature a social science–based approach to the study of higher education. The Administrative Fellows initiative pro-vides financial assistance as well as work experience in a variety of administrative settings. Specializa-tions are offered in higher education administration, student affairs and development, and international education. For additional information, please con-tact Dr. Karen Arnold ([email protected]) or visit our Web site: http://www.bc.edu/schools/lsoe/.

Opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for International Higher Education.

International higher education, boston college center

Documents

Transcript of International higher education, boston college center