INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION umber iNter€¦ · International Higher Education is the quarterly...

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 offer 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 66 :: WiNter 2012

Branch Campuses and Cross-Border Themes

2 ForeignOutpostsofCollegesandUniversities Kevin Kinser and Jason E. Lane

3 HowWellAreInternationalBranchCampusesServingStudents? Stephen Wilkins and Melodena S. Balakrishnan

5 InternationalJoint-andDouble-DegreePrograms Daniel Obst and Matthias Kuder

7 Franchising:TheMcDonaldizationofHigherEducation Philip G. Altbach

8 TwoModelsofCross-BorderEducation Amy Stambach

International Issues

10 CombatingUnethicalBehavior Robin Matross Helms

12 USInternationalizationFacestheRecession Madeline F. Green and Adelaide Ferguson

Trends in Global Student Mobility

14 TrendsandDirectionsinGlobalStudentMobility Rajika Bhandari and Raisa Belyvina

15 Brazil’sStudentMobilityInitiative Marcelo Knobel

Africa Focus

17 WestAfricanHigherEducationReforms Juma Shabani

19 RegulatingPrivateHigherEducationinSouthAfrica Chika Sehoole

21 GraduateEducationinSub-SaharanAfrica Fred M. Hayward

Greater China

22 InstitutionalDiversityinChina Ruth Hayhoe and Jun Li

24 HongKong’sAcademicAdvantage Philip G. Altbach and Gerard A. Postiglione

Latin America

27 Chile:TheRiseandDeclineofaStudentMovement Andrés Bernasconi

29 WhyArgentinePrivateUniversitiesContinuetoLag Marcelo Rabossi

Countries and Regions

30 WelcometotheNationalUniversityofGermany! Sebastian Litta

32 StudentParticipationinEuropeanGovernance Manja Klemencic

33 Canada’sEgalitarianDebate Daniel Zaretsky

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 Branch Campuses and Cross-Border Themes

ForeignOutpostsofCollegesandUniversitiesKevin Kinser and Jason E. Lane

Kevin Kinser is associate professor of Educational Administration and Policy Studies, and codirector of the Cross-Border Education Research Team at the State University of New York at Albany. E-mail [email protected]. Jason E. Lane is the director of education studies at the Rockefeller Institute of Government and assistant professor of Educa-tional Administration and Policy Studies at the State University of New York at Albany, Albany, NY. E-mail: [email protected].

Over the past several decades, many colleges and uni-versities have been expanding their global footprint

throughthedevelopmentofresearchsites,outreachoffices,andclassroomsinforeigncountries.Attimes,theseinitia-tivesaredoneincollaborationwithothereducationalinsti-tutions,asdualorjointdegrees.Morerecently,though,thestand-alone extension of the home campus has garneredscholarly and policy attention. Often called internationalbranch campuses, they have been critiqued and lauded,evenastheirscaleandscoperemainunclear.Inattemptstoprovidesomeclaritytothisinternationalphenomenon,however,ithasbeenrealizedthatnotallinstitutionsacceptthelabel“branch”todefinetheiractivities.Moreover,othermethodsuniversitiesusetoofferdegreesoffcampusseemtobeabsentfromacademicandpolicydiscussions.

Defining the Branch CampusThereareseveraldefinitionsofinternationalbranchcam-pusesintheliterature,butallfocusonspecifyingthelinksbetweenhomeandbranchgovernanceandacademicover-sight.Theworkingdefinitionwehaveusedistypical:“Anentitythatisowned,atleastinpart,byaforeigneducationprovider; operated in the name of the foreign educationprovider;engagesinatleastsomeface-to-faceteaching;andprovidesaccess toanentireacademicprogram that leadstoacredentialawardedbytheforeigneducationprovider.”

Throughthislens,wehavesoughttostudyhow,where,andwhycollegesanduniversitiesaredevelopingaphysicalpresence inothereducationalmarkets.Thekeyelementsdefininginternationalbranchcampusesarethatforeignlo-cationsshoulduseanamethatreflectstheirhomecampusparentage,haveanactualon-the-groundpresence (onlineonlydoesnotcount),andawardfulldegreestoenrolledstu-dents. Ownership is important, too, so thus it should beavoidedtocountfranchisingor4+0arrangements,wherethehomecampushasno real stake in the foreignopera-tion.Usingthisdefinition,wehavefoundnearly200suchentitiesscatteredacrosseveryinhabitablecontinent.

Basedonourlistofinternationalbranchcampuses,lo-calbranchcampusleadershavebeensurveyedtogainabet-terunderstandingoftheirgovernanceandacademicactivi-ties.Ithasbeenfound,however, thatseveralrespondentsrejectedourbranch campus label.They typically justifiedtheir exclusion from our definition, by referencing labelsusedinlocalqualityassuranceorgovernmentregulations.Forexample,onerespondentnotedthattheywere“anau-tonomousuniversityaccreditedbytheMinistryofHigherEducation and Scientific Research in the [United ArabEmirates]. Therefore, we are not considered as a branchcampusintheUAE.”Thiscampus,however,islistedasabranchonthemainuniversityWebpage.

Ontheotherhand,somelocationsclaimedthebranchcampuslabelevenwhentheyfelloutsideofourdefinition.In an example from another country, the respondent ad-

vocatedforrecognitioninthisresearch,arguingthattheirhomegovernmentandaccreditationagencybothapprovedthebranchasan“off-site locationforforeignnationals tomatriculateandreceivea[university]degree.”Thereseemedtobenoownershipstakeintheinitiative,however,whichhadoriginallyexcludedtheirprogramsfromthesurvey.

Foreign Outpost Approach to Offshore Delivery Theresponsesreceivedtothesurveyledustoconsidertheexistenceofotherformsofoff-shorecampuses.Thereisap-parentlyahiddenpopulationof“foreignoutposts”operatedbygeographicallydisperseduniversities.Foreignoutpostshaveformsthatdivergefromformalinternationalbranchcampusdefinitionsbutstillrepresentintriguingvariationsofthebranchcampusphenomenon.

ManipalUniversity,basedinsouthernIndia,providesanexcellentexampleofhowaninstitutioncanuseavarietyofforeignoutpoststodevelopamultinationalpresence.Es-tablishedin1953,Manipalisthefirstprivateeducationalin-stitutioninIndiatobecomeanautonomous,or“deemed,”university—meaningthat thegovernmenthasrecognizedtheinstitutiontobeofhighacademicquality.ThroughtheeponymousManipalEducationGroup,itscorporateparent,thereareseveraleducationalinstitutionsthatbeartheMa-nipal name in India and abroad. All of these institutions

More recently, though, the stand-alone

extension of the home campus has gar-

nered scholarly and policy attention.

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 3Branch Campuses and Cross-Border Themes

draw from the programs and curriculum of the originalhome campus, which also provides academic oversight.Theseoutpostshavemanycharacteristicsofbranchcam-puses,butonlyone—ManipalUniversityinDubai—meetsallthestandardcriteriaforaninternationalbranchcampus.

ManipalUniversityinNepalcouldbeconsideredanin-ternationalbranchcampusasthecurriculumisprovidedbyManipalfacultyataManipalfacility,exceptthedegreesareformallygrantedbyKatmanduUniversity—followinglocalNepalese regulations.ManipalMelakaMedicalUniversityisalsoabranchofManipalUniversity,butitrequiresstu-dentstocompleteapreclinicalcurriculuminIndia,beforecompleting their medical training in Malaysian hospitalsandhealthcenters.TheAmericanUniversityofAntiguaisa wholly owned subsidiary of the Manipal Group, with amedicalcurriculumsupportedbyManipalUniversity,butoperateswithmoreacademicautonomythantheotherout-posts.ManipalInternationalUniversity,alsolocatedinMa-laysia,ismorelikeaspin-offthanabranch.ItreliesontheManipal administrative and academic infrastructure butwas established as a private Malaysian university. Finally,SikkimManipalUniversityhasall thecharacteristicsofabranch, except it was established as a public-private part-nershipwiththesmallIndianstateofSikkim,ratherthanaforeigngovernment.

These foreign outposts are all physically located in aseparate policy and regulatory environment. They offerfull-degree programs, all linked administratively and aca-demicallythroughtheManipalEducationGroup.Theyarelinked also through common ownership and centralizedinvestments in the Manipal system. Most also share theManipal name; and though the Antigua outpost has notadopted theManipalbrand, it isan integratedpartof theManipaleducationfamily.

Although these locations may be questionable as in-ternationalbranchcampuses,asforeignoutpoststheyareobviousextensionsoftheManipalbrandbeyondthehomecampus.

ConclusionAvarietyofwaysexistinwhichauniversityfromonecoun-trycanestablishapresenceinanothercountry.TheMani-palexample,plustheresponsesfromsomecampusleadersto our international branch campus definition, suggestsgreatdiversitywithinthissubgroupofhighereducationin-stitutions.Abroaderconsiderationofallformsofforeignoutposts is needed. Both research and policy need to ex-aminethediversityofstrategiesemployedbycollegesanduniversities,astheyexpandtheirglobalfootprint.Itisim-portantnottoallowrestrictivedefinitionstoblindusfromtheinnovationsthatarenowhappeningontheground.

HowWellAreInternationalBranchCampusesServingStudents?Stephen Wilkins and Melodena S. Balakrishnan

Stephen Wilkins has taught business and management for over 15 years and is currently a doctoral candidate at the University of Bath, UK. E-mail: [email protected]. Melodena S. Balakrishnan is an as-sociate professor and MBA program director at the University of Wol-longong in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. E-mail: [email protected].

Theacademic literatureandprofessional journalsbothreveal no shortage of criticisms of the international

branch campus. Yet, each year, more branches are estab-lishedallaroundtheworld,andexistingcampusescontin-uetoexpand.So,itseemsthattheremustbeademandforthesecampuses.Buthowwellaretheyactuallyservingstu-dents?Itisinterestingthatthegrowthofstudentnumbersatinternationalbranchcampusesdoesnotseemtohaveaf-fectedenrollmentsatthehomecampusesofWesternuni-versities.Thisimpliesthatbranchcampuseshavefoundanew,additionaldemandforhighereducation.

Widening Access Althoughthemajorityofbranchcampusesoperateasfor-profitenterprises, theseinstitutionsprovideaservicethatismuchneededandwantedallaroundtheworld.Branchcampuseshaveenabledmanystudentstoreceiveahighereducation,whowouldotherwisenothavehadtheopportu-nitytodoso.Inparticular,thelargeexpatriatepopulationsincountriessuchasSingaporeandtheUnitedArabEmir-ates(UAE)areoftenunabletosecureplacesatstatehigher

There are several definitions of inter-

national branch campuses in the litera-

ture, but all focus on specifying the links

between home and branch governance

and academic oversight.

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 Branch Campuses and Cross-Border Themes

educationinstitutionsorabletoaffordoverseasstudyinaWestern country. Also, in some cultures it is not accept-ableforfamiliestoallowunmarrieddaughterstoliveandstudy abroad. Foreign universities have already providedover30,000studentplacesintheArabGulfStates,andinSingaporeitisexpectedthatbranchcampuseswillprovidemuchofthenewcapacitytoachievethecountry’stargetof150,000internationalstudents,by2015.

Convenience and Country-Specific AdvantagesArecentstudy,conductedintheUAE,foundthatstudentschosetostudyatabranchcampusintheUAE,ratherthanat the home campus of a Western university—for a mixof convenience and country-specific reasons. The conve-niencereasonswereassociatedwithavoidingfinancialex-pense,“hassle”oreffort,ormaintainingthestatusquointhestudent’spersonalandworkinglives.Theconveniencereasonswereconcernedwithspecificattractivefeaturesas-sociatedwithlivingandstudyingintheUAE—suchas,per-sonalsafety,religion,familiarity,andthecomfortwiththelocal culture and lifestyle, and improved prospects in thelocal/regionallabormarketaftergraduation.

Improved Prospects in Local Labor MarketsAdegreefromacountrywitharespectedhighereducationsystem—such as, Australia, the United Kingdom, or theUnitedStates—opensthedoortoopportunitiesinthelabormarketinmanyofthecountries,wherebranchcampusesoperate.Mostbranchcampusesspecialize inprofessionalsubjects—suchas,business,management, andcomputerscience/information technology—due in part to the factthatthesefieldsarerelativelycheaptoestablishandcanca-terforlargenumbersofstudents.IntheUAE,thesecours-esarepopularwithbothexpatriateandnational studentswantingtostartorprogresscareersinindustries—suchas,banking,finance,andhumanresourcemanagement—butfor students wanting to study subjects in the liberal artstherearefarfeweroptions.

Youthunemploymentamongnationalsishighinsev-eraloftheArabGulfStates.Thus,equippingyoungpeoplewiththeskillsneededtotakeupemploymentintheprivatesector has benefited both individuals and governments.Duringthelasttwo-to-threeyears,manyinstitutionshavewidenedtheirproduct,byofferingtoincludesubjectsfrom

differentdisciplinesandthosethatareparticularlyrelevantlocally. In Dubai, for example, Heriot-Watt University of-fersapostgraduatedegreeinpetroleumengineering,andMurdoch University offers an undergraduate program inenvironmentalmanagementandsustainabledevelopment.A number of branches globally have also begun to offerdoctoral-levelprograms.

Student ExperienceWhileit isgenerallyacceptedthatstudentsatbranchandhomecampusescannotpossiblyhavethesameeducationalexperience, students, parents, employers, and quality-as-suranceagenciesexpectthestudentexperienceateachlo-cationtobeatleastcomparableorequivalent.Tenyearsagomany branch campuses had libraries with limited collec-tions,nostudentaccommodation,andnosportsorleisurefacilities.Thisisnolongerthecase.Thedesiresandexpec-tationsofmanystudentsintransnationalhighereducationhaveincreased.Moreover,inmarketsthathavegrownquitecompetitive,manyinstitutionsfeeltheneedtodifferentiatethemselvesfromthecrowd,byofferingadditionalservicesandfacilities.

Themajorityofbranchcampusesworldwidestill,each,havelessthan1,000students,and,thus,sotheydonotpos-sessthescalenecessarytooffertherangeoffacilitiesandexperiencesavailableathomecampuses.Furthermore,theneedtoproduceprofit,oratleastbreak-even,detersinsti-tutionsfromhigherinvestmentinfacilitiesandresources.However, there now exist several purpose-built full-scalebranch campuses around the world that are intended toreplicatethehomecampusexperience—botheducationallyandsocially/culturally.ExamplesincludeNewYorkUniver-sityAbuDhabiandMonashandNottinghaminMalaysia.Thelarge-scale“replicacampus”formatseemstobelargelysuccessful, and it may prove to be the most sustainableformoftheinternationalbranchcampus,overthenexttwoorthreedecades.

Student SatisfactionTodate, therehasbeen limited research intostudent sat-isfaction at international branch campuses. However, thecreatedresearch—includingastudyofAustraliantransna-tionalhighereducationprograms inSouthEastAsiaandanother in the UAE—has generally found high levels ofstudentsatisfaction,bothwith institutionsandprograms.Students at branch campuses seem content that they areachievingthesamequalificationthatstudentsatthehomecampus receive, and theygenerallyhave realistic expecta-tionsaboutthecomparabilityofthestudentexperienceatbranchandhomecampuses.Themajorityofstudentsre-gardtheirprogramsaseffective,worthwhile,andrelevanttotheirjob/futurecareerintentions.

Yet, each year, more branches are estab-

lished all around the world, and existing

campuses continue to expand.

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

QualityMany writers seem to assume that it is not possible thatfor-profitinstitutionsachievehighquality.Intransnation-al higher education, the division between for-profit andpublic-sectorinstitutionsbecomessomewhatblurred,any-way—giventhatevenmostpublicuniversitiesneedatleasttobreakevenoverseas,astheycannotrelyonfundinggen-eratedathome.Onlyahandfulofinstitutionsgloballyarerelativelyfreeoffinancialconstraints—suchas,NewYorkUniversityAbuDhabiandParis-SorbonneUniversityAbuDhabi,whicharebothfundedbythelocalgovernment.

Anexpectationexistsamongallstakeholdersthatanin-ternationalbranchcampuswilldeliverthesameprogramsandadheretothesamestandardsandproceduresthataredemonstrated at its home campus. Branch campuses are

subjecttoaccreditationrequirementsandquality-assuranceauditsfromagencies—locatedbothintheirhomecountriesandlocallyinthecountries,wheretheyoperate.Althoughfranchisedandpartner-deliveredprogramshavefrequentlybeen criticized by quality-assurance agencies, the branchcampusesofAustralian,UK,andUSuniversitieshavegen-erallyachievedfavorablereports.Foreignaccreditationandquality-assurancebodieshavealready closedbranchcam-pusesonqualitygrounds,butnonehavebeeninstitutionsbasedinaWesterncountry.

Future ProspectsInternationalbranchcampuseshavefilledagapinthemar-ketandaresimplymeetingthedemandforforeignhighereducationthatexists inmanycountries.Thesector isnotfreeofproblems,andmoreinstitutionsarelikelytofail;butasthishappens,thesurvivinginstitutionswillgrowfurtherandbecomeevenstronger.

InternationalJoint-andDouble-DegreeProgramsDaniel Obst and Matthias Kuder

Daniel Obst is deputy vice president for international partnerships at the Institute of International Education. E-mail: [email protected]. Mat-thias Kuder is head of the liaison office network in the Center for In-ternational Cooperation at Freie Universität Berlin. E-mail: [email protected].

Whiletheinternationalexchangeofstudentscontinuesto occur predominantly through traditional, study-

abroadprograms,agrowingnumberofhighereducationinstitutionshavealsobeguntoestablishjoint-anddouble-degreeprograms.Thisdevelopment,whichlargelystartedinEurope in the 1990s,hasbecomean importantglobaltrend—prompting higher education institutions, govern-ments,andfundingandaccreditationagenciesworldwidetoconsiderstrategiesandpolicieswithregardtocross-bor-dercollaborativedegreeprograms.

Inresponsetothisburgeoningtrend,theInstituteofInternational Education and Freie Universität Berlin con-ductedaninternationalsurveyinspring2011.Thesurveyaddresseditself tohighereducationinstitutionsthatofferjoint- and double-degree programs, receiving responsesfrom 245 institutions in 28 countries. The subsequentreport, Joint and Double Degree Programs in the GlobalContext, presents the findings from a global perspective,aswellascountry-specifictrendsforthe6countrieswiththehighestnumberof responding institutions:Australia,France,Germany,Italy,theUnitedKingdom,andtheUnit-edStates.

How Many Are There and What Are the Trends? First,thebadnews:Thesurveycannotprovideaccuratein-formationonthetotalnumberofexistingjoint-ordouble-degreeprograms.Justasitisimpossibletodeterminetheexact number of standard-degree programs, so it is withcollaborative-degree endeavors. However, the availabledata suggest that suchprogramsaregrowing:95percentof the 245 responding higher education institutions plantoexpandtheircurrentportfoliosofjoint-ordouble-degreeprograms in the future. This figure is remarkable, giventhatmanyinstitutionsreportedhavingdifficultieswiththedevelopmentof theirexisting joint-ordouble-degreepro-grams.Aboutone-thirdofallsurveyparticipantsconfirmedthattheycanceledsomeoftheirprogramsinthepast,foravarietyofreasons—including,lackofstudentinterest,lackoffunding,andunsustainability.Surveyparticipantsidenti-

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

Although the majority of branch cam-

puses operate as for-profit enterprises,

these institutions provide a service that

is much needed and wanted all around

the world.


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

fiedthelattertwoasthemostpressingchallengesindevel-opingandmaintainingjoint-anddouble-degreeprograms.

Most higher education professionals involved in col-laborative-degree programs emphasize the uniqueness ofeach program, seconding the claim that “one-size-fits-all”approachesareill-fated.Nevertheless,basedonthesurveyresponses,itispossibletodiscernwhatconstitutesa“main-stream” collaborative-degree program: A double-degreemaster’sprograminbusinessmanagementorengineering

thatistaughtinEnglish,includesapartnerinstitutionfromaEuropeancountry,hasastudentenrollmentrateof25orless,andwasinitiatedbetween2001and2009.Accordingto the outlook of survey participants, such programs willremaincommon,inthenearfuture.

Themajorityofrespondentswhoplantodevelopmorecollaborative-degree programs aim to do so for double-degreeprograms, at themaster’s level.Themost favoreddisciplinescontinue tobebusinessmanagementorengi-neering.However,thereisamarkeddifferenceintermsofregional distribution. While higher education institutionsfromEuropeancountriesdominatethelistofexistingcol-laborative-degreeprograms,itisexpectedthatinthefuturesuchprogramswillbecomemorediverse,withtheUnitedStates and China becoming increasingly involved—alongwith higher education institutions in Asia (India, in par-ticular),SouthAmerica(Brazil,inparticular),andCanadaandAustralia.

Joint vs. Double DegreesWhatisthedifferencebetweenajoint-andadouble-degreeprogram?Definitionsofinternationalcollaborative-degreeprograms often differ between institutions, countries, orcontinents.Forthesurvey,wechoseageneraldefinition:acollaborative-degreeprogramisonethatisofferedbytwoormoreinstitutionsindifferentcountriesandfeaturesajoint-lydevelopedandintegratedcurriculum,aswellasaclearagreement on credit recognition. The line between jointand double was drawn according to the degree-awardingpraxis.Injoint-degreeprograms,studentsreceiveadegreecertificateissuedjointlybythehostinstitutions;indouble-degreeprograms, studentsweregivendegree certificates,issuedseparatelybyeachoftheinstitutionsinvolvedintheprogram.

Thesurveyresultshighlightothercharacteristics thatdifferentiatejointfromdouble-degreeprograms.Whilethelatter are much more common—with 84 percent of sur-vey participants offering double-degree programs—joint-degreeprogramsseemtorepresentamoreintegratedandcomplex form of cooperation. Roughly, 72 percent of thereportedjoint-degreeprogramsarestand-aloneprograms;that is, they were built exclusively as joint ventures withforeignuniversities.Incontrast,manydouble-degreepro-gramsareestablishedasanadditional tracktoanalreadyexistingdegreeprogram.Another indicator is studentse-lectionandenrollment.Themajorityofthereportedjoint-degree programs features the joint selection of students,whereas for double-degree programs universities oftenselectstudentsseparately,thoughbasedonjointlyagreed-oncriteria. In joint-degreeprograms, students tend tobeenrolledatboth(ormore)cooperatinginstitutionsfortheentiredegreeperiod,whichisnotnecessarilythecasefordouble-degreeprograms.

Institutional Expectations and a Lack of StrategyInstitutional motivations for the development of collab-orative-degree programs varied, with the highest scoresattributed to (1) broadening educational offerings, (2)strengthening research collaboration, (3) advancing inter-nationalization,and(4)raisingtheinternationalvisibility/prestigeoftheinstitution.Theleastimportantmotivations

wereincreasingrevenueandofferingcoursesfrompartnerinstitutionsthatdonotexistatthehomeinstitution.Giventhatmost joint-anddouble-degreeprogramsenrollsmallnumbersofstudents,theformerisnotsurprising.Interest-ingly, the latter, which proponents of collaborative-degreeprogramsoften refer to in the context of “synergies” and“resourcepooling,”seemstoplayamarginalrole.

While91percentofrespondentsindicatedthatthede-velopmentofcollaborative-degreeprogramswasanintegralpart of their institution’s internationalization efforts, thisisnotnecessarilymirroredintheirrespectiveinstitutionalpolicies.Accordingtotheresponses,alargenumberofuni-

Most higher education professionals in-

volved in collaborative-degree programs

emphasize the uniqueness of each pro-

gram, seconding the claim that “one-

size-fits-all” approaches are ill-fated.

A growing number of higher education

institutions have also begun to estab-

lish joint- and double-degree programs.



versitieseitherlackaclearstrategyfordevelopingjoint-anddouble-degreeprogramsorhaveyettoimplementit.Fewerthanhalfoftherespondinginstitutionshavecreatedpartic-ularmarketingandrecruitmentinitiatives,despitethefactthat the majority of them aim to attract top internationalstudentsfortheirjoint-ordouble-degreeprograms.Whiletwo-thirdsof therespondinginstitutionshavepoliciesforaddressing the issue of double counting of credits, theircommentssuggestthatthesepoliciesareimplementedondepartmental,asopposedtoinstitutionallevels.

Overall,thesurveyindicatesthatstrategiesandinternalregulations forcollaborative-degreeprogramsarenotsuf-ficientlydeveloped,yet,atmanyhighereducation institu-tions.Themostfrequentlymentionedchallenges(fundingandsustainability)mightinfactbedirectconsequencesofthese institutional shortcomings. While most joint- anddouble-degreeprogramsspringfromexistingpartnershipsand are nourished by individual faculty engagement, in-stitutions are well advised to include top-down elements,withclearinstitutionalpoliciesandguidelines—inordertoavoiduncontrolledgrowthand,mostimportantly,toensurequalitystandards.

Franchising—TheMcDonaldizationofHigherEducationPhilip G. Altbach

Philip G. Altbach is Monan professor of higher education and director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College.

Almost20percentofstudentsstudyingforaBritishfirstacademicdegreearenotresidingintheUnitedKing-

dom but rather pursuing their degree at one of Britain’s13branchcampusesor,muchmorelikely,ataforeignin-stitution that has franchised a British degree. More than400 franchise arrangements were reported in 2008. TheUKinstitutionprovidesthecurriculum,learningmaterials,qualityassuranceand,mostimportant,therighttoawardaBritishdegree.Universitiesinothercountriesarealsoin-volvedinfranchising;AustraliaandtheUnitedStatesareexamples. There are even multinational franchising andtwinningoperations;forexample,aBritishuniversityandanIndianinstituteofferdegreesinOman.

Atabranch, thehome institution is,at least tosomeextent,“ontheground”overseasandguideshands-ondi-rection for teaching and local supervision. Franchising istheprovisionofthecurriculumandadegreewithoutdirectinvolvement.FranchisingisexactlywhatMcDonald’sdoes.TheMcDonald’scorporationsells the right to “brand” itsproducts so long as the franchisee adheres to strict stan-dards and policies. Thus, a Big Mac tastes the same inChicago or Shanghai. “Inputs” (potatoes, meat, the “spe-cialsauce”)arecarefullymonitored.Businesspracticesarestipulated, and the “brand image” closely monitored andprotected.Thereismodestlatitudeforlocaladaptation.For

example,aBigMacinRiyadhishalal,andonecanfindaMcPorkinBucharest.Thepurposeoftheentireenterpriseistoearnprofitsforthefranchiseeandforthecorporation.

OnedifferencebetweenMcDonaldsandahigheredu-cation franchise is that a McDonald’s franchise requiresa significant investment by the franchisee—in facilities,equipment,andthelike.Inmanycases,aneducationfran-chisejustneedstorentspacewithlittleadditional invest-mentfromeitherside.Moreworrisome,aneasyexitispos-sibleforeitherpartywiththepossibilityofleavingstudentsinthelurch.

Franchising is yet another example of the commodi-ficationofhighereducation,andtheentirepurposeoftheoperationistomakemoney.

What’s Wrong with It? Ifoneacceptsthatnonprofithighereducationinstitutionsathomeshouldoperateasprofit-makingbusinessesover-seas, nothing is fundamentally wrong. But a number ofquestions must be raised. Concerns have been expressedbyquality-assuranceagenciesandintheBritishmediathatseveral universities—generally those at the lower end ofthepeckingorder—havebeencaughtofferingsubstandardproductsoverseasoratleastnotadequatelymonitoringthedegreeprogramsofferedintheirnames,thussullyingthereputation of British higher education. It is very hard toadequatelymonitorwhatisbeingdoneinthenameofaninstitutionfaraway.

Franchising is the provision of the cur-

riculum and a degree without direct in-

volvement. Franchising is exactly what

McDonald’s does.



Inarecentarticle in theGuardian,asenioradminis-tratorat theUniversityofNottingham,whichhas severalbranchcampusesinAsia,notesthat—infranchiseortwin-ningarrangements—theoverseaspartnermayhavetheUKcurriculum;butitmaynotbetaughtwiththesameethosthatcharacterizes thehomecampus.Anemphasison in-teractivelearningorcriticalthinking,forexample,maybemissing.Inotherwords,theformbutnotnecessarilythesubstanceofeducationmaybeprovidedbythefranchisee.Adequate quality assurance is not easy. Home evaluatorsmaynotbeawareofconditionsoverseas;andinanycase,thelogisticsaredifficultandoftenexpensive.

All of this also begs the question as to whether thecurriculumofferedformostspecializations intheUnitedKingdomorinotherdevelopedcountrieswillbeappropri-atefortheneedsofdevelopingormiddle-incomecountries.Yet, the essence of the franchise arrangement is that the“product”offeredshouldbethesameasatthehomeinsti-tution.

While no one has researched who are the franchiseprovidersindevelopingandmiddle-incomecountries,theyseemtobeavarietyofagencies.Someareprivateuniversi-tiesandothereducationalinstitutions.Somearepropertydevelopers or other business interests, wishing to enterthelucrativehighereducationmarketoraddaneducationfacilitytoanewshoppingmallorcondominiumcomplex.Theremaywellbenothingwrongwiththesesponsors,butitbalancestheeducationalmissionagainstotherbusinessinterests.

Higher education franchising seems to be a growingphenomenon.Aswithallcommercialinvestmentinhighereducation, therearesignificantpossibilitiesforproblems.Sofar,thefranchisersseemtobeworkingontheMcDon-aldsprinciple. Itwouldbe interesting to askwhynooneis looking at the educational equivalent of Intercontinen-tal Hotels—aiming at a higher-end market segment-—asa better model. (This article has also appeared in Times Higher Education,London).

Cross-BorderHigherEducation:TwoModelsAmy Stambach

Amy Stambach is professor of educational policy studies and anthro-pology and associate dean in the Division of International Studies, University of Wisconsin–Madison, a Worldwide Universities Network institution. E-mail: [email protected].

Like boxers in corners, two models of the free marketappear to sit in opposition. One is the global market-

place; theotheristheglobal commons.Thefirststressesthecommercialvalueoftheexchangeofpeopleandproducts.Thesecondemphasizestheopenexchangeofknowledge,goods, and information—of natural and social resources,mostusefulwhenshared.Proponentsofbothmodelssparoverhowbesttoregulatecross-borderhighereducation—tostructureinternationaltradeineducationservices.Dis-agreementarisesbecauseideasaboutthefreemarket,uponwhichbothmodelsturn,restupondifferentyetrelatedun-derstandingsofwealth,freedom,andthepublic.Nowpo-sitionsembedded in thesemodelswillbe illustratedwithreferencetoaneducationtooldevelopedattheUniversityofWisconsin–Madison.

Global MarketplaceA global marketplace model maintains that universitiescompeteforthebestmindsinaworldoflimitedresources.Thatis,studentsandfacultyarecompetitivegoodsandtiedtopositions,tuition,andsalaries.Stem-cellscientistsdevel-opingmedicalpatents—orresearcherswithknowledgeofbiomedicine—representtheresourcesthataretradedintheuniversitymarketplace.Seenfromthisperspective,scien-tistsandresearchersandscholarsandartistsarerivalgoods(economists’termforcompetitivecommodities);universi-tiesuseresearchers’knowledgeforcommercialadvantage;andresearcherscompeteforlimitedspacesinuniversities.

As rival goods, the “best minds” in the form of stu-dentsandresearchersaremostproductivewhen theyarerewardedandfundedhandsomely.Examplesofargumentsupholdingeducation-as-industryfrequentlyappearinpop-ularmedia(e.g.,Wall Street Journal, US News and World Re-port).Withintheseoutlets,peopleandpositionsareaformofwealth;freedomistheabsenceofregulation;andthefreetradeofresearchersandtheirintellectualproductsservetheinterestsofawidecommunity—thatis,itoperatesforthepublicgood.

Higher education franchising seems to

be a growing phenomenon. As with all

commercial investment in higher edu-

cation, there are significant possibilities

for problems.



Global CommonsA global commons model contends that knowledge is aform of wealth commonly shared (not competitively trad-ed),andthatthiswealthisunderprovidedforbymarkets.That is, if every aspect of knowledgewas sold formoneywithout state regulation, the public value of informationwouldbelostintheinterestofprivateearnings.Knowledgeofhowtomakeandusepharmaceuticalsisagoodexample.Ifsuchknowledgewasoverlyrestricted—withuniversitiesputtingapricetagonaccesstoknowledge—humanityasawholewouldsuffer.

As a nonrival good, education requires nonmarketmeans—suchasgovernmentalsubsidy,philanthropicsup-port, andpooled resources—to support it.Understood aslimitlessknowledge,educationismostusefulwhenwidelyshared. Examples of arguments upholding education-as-knowledgefrequentlyappearaspeer-reviewedscholarshipbut also in commercial media (e.g., Atlantic Monthly, or Harpers Magazine).Withinthesemedia,wealthisconceptu-alizedaswisdom;freedomisthewidecirculationofwealth;and that which is public constitutes the open domain offree-flowinginformation.

Mutual TerritoryAsanexampleofhowthese twopositions integrate,con-sider the work of the Wisconsin Center for EducationProducts and Services (WCEPS), which licenses nonpat-entable,copyright-protectedformsofintellectualproperty.English-languagelearningassessmenttoolsareamongtheproductsWCEPSwillselltoK–12institutions,particularlythose reaching underserved populations. Returns fromprofitsearnedonlicensedtoolswillbereinvestedinbasicresearchand—ifWCEPSoperatesinanywaylikeitspar-entprogram,theWisconsinAlumniResearchFoundation(WARF)—about20percentofitsreturnswillgotothere-searchanddevelopmentgroup,15percenttotheresearch-ers’ department, and 65 percent to the university. Thesepercentages,however,mustbe long-term.Reaching themwill depend on the success of researchers’ spin-off com-panies.Currently,WCEPSissubsidizedbytheUniversityofWisconsinFoundationandwillneedtopayitscostsoutofanindependentinvestmentportfolio.Itsparentmodel,

WARF,whichhasbeenupandrunningsince the1920s,ownsequity in36 facultycompaniesandsellsoverUS$1billioninproductsannually.ButWARF’sinvestmentstookoffexponentiallyat thebeginningof itscreation, throughthelicensingofVitaminD.ItremainstobeseenifWCEPScangrowindependently.

Critics of the marketplace model argue that WCEPSunethicallyprivatizespublicknowledge.Afterall,languageis a social-cognitive skill, not a copyrightable commodity.Another reasoned objection is that selling language ser-vicestounderservedpopulationsfurtherimpoverishesthealreadypoor.Successofthecenterreliesonmakingaprofitfromproducts thatsociallydisadvantagedchildrendonothave.

Marketplace proponents reasonably reply that theWCEPS does not go far enough in freely trading knowl-edge. Reinvestment of up to 65 percent in the universityisnotawiseinvestmentifthecenteristogenerateitsownrevenue.Moreover,marketplaceproponentsmightregardtheinvestmentofresourcesintoresearchers’departmentsasacamouflagedformofanoutdatedwelfaresystem.

Closerinspectionofthecenter,however,revealsanin-tegrationofmarketplaceandcommonsforms.Seenfromamarketplaceview,thecentertreatsresearchersandproducts

ascompetitivegoodsthatmustbekeptataparticularinsti-tution.Itregardstheuniversityasapublicserviceindustrythatmustmaximizeinvestmentandadvocatefreetradebutreinvest profits in basic research. Seen from a commonsview, the center acknowledges that markets alone under-provide for research. Research requires pooled resourcesandphilanthropicaswellasfederalsupport.Free-flowingknowledgeisnotalwaysmarketablebutmustbeprotectedandsubsidized,andservicesandtoolsoftheresearchuni-versitymustbeinvestedinternationally.

International InterdependenceThislatterpointaboutinternationalinvestmentraisesonefinalconcern. Inaglobalagewhenproductsaregenerat-ed or sold internationally, what should be the criteria forreinvesting intellectual property and copyrights? WARFhandles these concerns by working with foreign associ-

A global marketplace model maintains

that universities compete for the best

minds in a world of limited resources.

A global commons model contends that

knowledge is a form of wealth common-

ly shared (not competitively traded), and

that this wealth is underprovided for by

markets.



ates—notnecessarilywithlawyers—butpersonswhoholdhighereducationdegreesandhavepassedpatentbars.Crit-ics argue thatworkingwithnonlawyers isunreliable andjeopardizesholdingsofUS researchers,particularly if in-ternational patents are not recorded properly. Supportersnote that university investment in international propertyisausefulway tobringan internationalsystemintohar-mony:workingtogetheracrossbordershelpstocreatenewcollectivenorms.Whilethesupporters’argumentisnaïveinseeinguniversitiesasindependentofnationalinterestsand internationalpolitics (theyarenot), thecritics ignoretherealitythatdiversesystemsexistworldwide.

Abetterargument infavorofadvancingcross-bordertradeisarguingforgeneralrecognitionofotherstates’au-thoritytogovernaspectsofeducation.Suchmutuallyrecog-nizedinterdependenceisthebasisuponwhichtreatiesaresigned,diplomaticimmunitygiven,and—butnotonly—in-ternationaltradeineducationservicesmightbegoverned.

Todaynolessthanin1925(WARF’sfounding),highereducationisasynthesisofthetwomodelsoutlinedabove;thatis,itisacompetitiveindustryandacommonresource.Highereducationisengineandartifactofintellectualprop-erty,ideas,andtheirexchange.Assuch,highereducationshouldbebothintellectuallyopenandcarefullytended.Itshouldbeprivatelyandpubliclyfundedandbreakevenbutnot solely commercialor for-profit. Ifhighereducation isfully commercialized, good ideas go unexplored, and oldideologiesbattleinthering.Instead,itistimetoputdowntheglovesandrecognizethatthesemarketmodelsdonotcompete.

CombatingUnethicalBehaviorinHigherEducationRobin Matross Helms

Robin Matross Helms is a senior program officer at the Institute of In-ternational Education and owns Hibari Connections, an international education consulting firm based in Washington, DC. This study was sponsored by the World Bank. A longer paper on this topic is available from the author. E-mail: [email protected].

Examplesofunethicalbehaviorcanbefoundintertiaryeducationworldwide,inrichandpoorcountriesalike,

spanning virtually every process and function of colleges

and universities—from admission to academics and re-search,financialmanagement,andhiringandpromotion.Suchbehaviorhinderstheeffectivefunctioningofinstitu-tions,erodespublictrust,andultimately,ifleftunchecked,has the potential to prevent tertiary education institutionsystems from fulfilling their missions and obligations totheirstakeholders.

Avarietyofapproachesarecurrentlyinusetocombatunethical behavior in tertiary education. These measuresfallintofourcategoriesintermsofpurpose:thosethataimtopreventunethicalbehavior,thosethataredesignedtode-tectit, thosethatpunishitonceithasbeendetected,andthosethataddressallthreeofthesefunctionsatthesametime.

Preventative MeasuresMeasures designed to prevent unethical behavior includestandardized processes and procedures implemented byinstitutions and governments, as well as legislation thatincreasesoversightofinstitutionsoraimstopreventprob-lematic behavior—by making it illegal. Examples includeautomated scoring for examinations and other standard-izationofadmissionsprocedures,antidiscriminationlawsandpolicies,andlegislationthataddressesfraudandotherfinancialmisconduct.

Institutions and organizations may also implementbroaderpoliciesfocusedonmoralsandethicsratherthanspecificactions—attemptingtopre-empttheimpulsetoen-gageinunethicalbehaviorearlieron,bycreatingacultureandclimateinwhichsuchbehaviorisnotaccepted.Exam-plesincludestudenthonorcodesandfacultyethicspolicies,setforthbyinstitutionsanddisciplinaryassociations.

Measures for Detecting Unethical BehaviorUnfortunately,notall instancesofunethicalbehaviorcanbeprevented.Inordertominimizetheimpactofsuchbe-havior,effectiveandefficientmeasuresareneededtodetectitasearlyaspossible. Inrecentyears,newdevelopmentsintechnologyhavecometoplayanimportantrole inun-veilingunethicalbehavior.Computerprogramshavebeen

Examples of unethical behavior can be

found in tertiary education worldwide,

in rich and poor countries alike, span-

ning virtually every process and func-

tion of colleges and universities.

International Issues


developed todetectplagiarismandverify theauthenticityof degrees. Telephone “tip lines” allow individuals to callandreportproblematicbehavioranonymously,ande-mailsystemshavebeendesignedforthesamepurpose.Beyonddetectingindividualinstancesofproblematicbehavior,var-iousorganizationsworldwideareusingsurveystoexaminebroadertrends,rates,andtypesofunethicalbehaviorsinagivengeographicareaortertiaryeducationsystem.

Punitive MeasuresMeasures thataimtodetectcorruptandunethicalbehav-iorareonlyworthwhilewhencomplementedbymeasuresthatpunishsuchbehavioronceithasbeendiscovered.Themostsevereofthesemeasuresislegalaction,includingthearrestandprosecutionofoffenders,aswellaslawsuitsthatresultinfinancialorotherconsequencesifitisdeterminedthat theallegedperpetratoracted illegally.Suchmeasuresareappliedincasesofavarietyoftypesofunethicalbehav-ior,particularlybriberyandundueinfluenceinadmissions,theproductionandawardingoffakedegreesandotherfalsecredentials,harassment,andfinancialfraudandmisman-agement.

Whentheproblematicbehaviordoesnotrisetothelev-elof legalaction,careerstatusandacademic/professionalsanctionsmaybetakenbyinstitutions.Thissituationisof-tenthecaseininstancesofacademicdishonestyofcertaintypes,whichmayresultinfailinggradesandrevocationofdegreesforstudentsandsuspensionorterminationforfac-ultyandotheremployees.Likewise,facultymemberswhoengage in certain types of academic and research-relatedunethicalbehaviormaybesubjecttoprofessionalsanctionsby journals,disciplinaryassociations,andotheracademicorganizations.

Measures with Multiple PurposesAlongwithmeasuresthatprevent,detect,orpunishunethi-calbehavior in tertiaryeducation,onessuchasaccredita-tion and other quality-assurance procedures are designedtofulfillallthreeofthesefunctions.Accreditingbodiesandotheroversightagenciessetforthoperationalstandardsandstandardized procedures. When followed, such decisionsserveapreventativefunctionbyreducingopportunitiesforindividualstoengageinunethicalbehaviorsthatmaycor-rupt the educational process and other academic and op-erational functions. Regular reporting requirements andperiodicinspectionsensuretransparencyanddetectsomeaspects of problematic behavior. Sanctions imposed oninstitutionsand individuals that are found in violationofstandardsandproceduresfulfillthepunitivefunction.

What Works?In the case of anticorruption measures, more is better.Countriesthatsystematicallyfullyimplementedsuchmea-sureshavehad relatively low levelsofunethicalbehavior.TheUnitedStates,forexample,hasarobustaccreditationsystem,legalstructurestofacilitatethereasonablyefficientprosecution and punishment of offenders, explicit insti-tutionalpoliciestoimposestatus/careersanctionsonstu-dentsandemployeeswhobehaveunethically,andanactivereportingandpressnetworktopublicizeinstancesofprob-lematicbehavior.Together,thesemeasures,andthepartiesandstakeholders involved in implementing them, formasystemofchecksandbalancesthatmaximizesthechancesofdetecting,punishing,andultimatelypreventingunethi-calbehavior.

Of course, in countries where resources are con-strainedand/orwherecorruption isdeeplyentrenched, itissimplynotfeasibleto implementallof thesemeasuresatonce.Governments,systems,andinstitutionsmustpri-oritizemeasures,takingintoaccounttheoverallcontextoftertiaryeducation—historical,political,economic,etc.—indoing so. For example, in countries where corruption iscentralized within the government, introducing policiesthat allow greater institutional autonomy and oversight

ofoperationsmayhelpreduceunethicalbehavioroverall.Conversely,wherecorruptionisdecentralizedandinstitu-tionsthemselvesarenotoriouslycorrupt,increasedcentral-izationofprocesses,whichsupportsanincreasedoversightofkeyfunctions—suchastheadmissionprocess—maybemore beneficial. Resources and capacity for implementa-tionshouldbeconsidered,aswell.Ifthegovernmentdoesnot have adequate resources to implement a high-qualityadmissionsprocess,thenanotherwaytoendcorruptioninadmissionsmustbesought. Inallcases,policies thatare“onpaper”onlyandarenot feasible to implement,givenavailableresources,shouldbeavoided.Thesepracticesarelikelytodomoreharmthangoodbydemonstratingtoper-petratorsandpotentialonesthattherealconsequencesoftheirbehaviorareminimal, thusencouragingratherthanhindering unethical actions. Organizations such as theWorldBankandtheOrganizationforEconomicCoopera-

International issues

Institutions and organizations may also

implement broader policies focused on

morals and ethics rather than specific

actions.

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 International Issues

tionandDevelopmentcanhelpgovernmentsidentify“bestpractices” and policies that are likely to be effective in agivenregion.

Fortunately,evenstartingsmallcanultimatelyhaveasignificant impact. Educating government and institutionofficials andother stakeholdersabout thenegative conse-quencesofunethicalbehavior,relativelylow-costmeasures,can senda clearmessageandbegin to shift behavior.Asinitialmeasuresare implementedandunethicalbehaviorbeginstodecrease,evenslightly,acceptanceofmorecom-prehensivemeasurestofurtherdecreasesuchbehaviorwilllikelybedeveloped.Publictrustwillalsoincrease;systemsandindividualinstitutionswillthenbeperceivedasmoresolid and will bemore likely to attractprivate andpublicfunding. This may constitute less competition for spacesandlesscorruptionoftheadmissionprocessandfewerin-stances of degree fraud. The number of faculty jobs mayalso increase, which may lead to less corruption in thecareer-managementrealm.Salariesarelikelytobehigheracross theboard,whichmay lower the incentive forbrib-eryacrossalleducationalandadministrative functions.A“virtuouscycle”isthuscreated;asthenumberofinstancesofcorruptionandotherunethicalbehaviordecreases.Con-fidenceinsystemsandinstitutionswillcontinuetogrow;and tolerance for behavior that compromises quality andintegritywillfurtherdecline.

USInternationalizationFacestheRecessionMadeleine F. Green and Adelaide Ferguson

Madeleine F. Green is a senior fellow at the International Association of Universities and NAFSA. E-mail: [email protected]. Ad-elaide Ferguson is a global education and international development consultant. E-mail: [email protected]. This article is based on a report prepared for the Embassy of Australia, International-ization of U.S. Universities in a Time of Declining Resources, avail-able at http://www.aei.gov.au/International-network/northamerica/PolicyUpdates-USA/Pages/Policyupdates.aspx.

UShighereducationhasbeenhardhitbytherecession.Unemploymentstandsatmorethan9percent;states

areexperiencingseverebudgetshortfalls.Atthesametime,tuitioncostshaverisensteadilyoverthepastdecade.Thebudgetsituationpromisestobeevenworsein2012,with

theprospectofadeepeningrecessionandthelossoffund-ingprovidedin2009and2010bytheAmericanRecoveryandReinvestmentActof2009(“stimulusfunding”).Thislegislationprovided funding tostates tomeet theirshort-falls instateand local revenue ($107billion in2009and$89billionin2010).

Cuts in Federal FundingTherelativelymodestfederalsupportforinternationaledu-cation is spreadout through several federaldepartments,makingitdifficulttoidentifyallcutsenactedin2011.Themost visible programs are located in the Departments ofStateandEducation.DepartmentofStateprogramsincludefaculty and student exchange programs, which were cutbyabout5.5percent—from$635millionin2010toabout$600million in2011.Furthercutsmaybeseen in2012.The House Appropriations Subcommittee for State andForeignOperationsdropped10percentfromthe2011level.

TheDepartmentofEducationsponsorssmall,butim-portant, programs to support internationalization. Deepcuts ($50 million or 40 percent) were made within TitleVI programs and the Fulbright-Hays Program in the De-partmentofEducationfor2011,whichhadbeenfundedatapproximately $125 million in 2010. The Fulbright-HaysProgram primarily supports doctoral students to conductresearchoverseas;TitleVIsupportsavarietyofinternation-allyfocusedacademiccenters.Nonewawardsweremadeinseveralprograms.Additionally,theDepartmentofEdu-cationsponsorsinstitutionalcollaborationswithBrazil,theEuropeanUnion,Russia,andtheNorthAmericanMobilityProgram—allofwhicharetobephasedout in2012.ThegeneralcompetitionfortheFundfortheImprovementofPostsecondaryEducation,whichprovidesfundingforcam-pusinternationalizationinitiatives,wassuspendedfor2011.

Although externally funded programs have a signifi-cantimpactonsomecampuses,mostinternationalizationinitiativesintheUnitedStatesarefundedfrominstitution-alresources.

Responses by Higher Education Institutions Thereportonwhichthisarticleisbasedfocusedonpublicresearchuniversities;thefindingsaretoalargeextentap-

US higher education has been hard hit

by the recession.

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 13International Issues

plicabletootherfour-yearinstitutions.Itissometimesdif-ficulttoseparaterhetoricfromthereality,butinterviewedcampus internationalization leaders noted a positive andreceptiveclimateoncampus—withhighstudentinterestineducationabroad,strongpresidentialleadership,andawill-ingnessofthefacultytoengageininternationalization.Inspiteof(orperhapsinreactionto)theeconomicdownturn,manyuniversity leadersare increasinglyemphasizingtheimportance of a coherent international strategy—to aligninternationalprogramsandactivitieswithinstitutionalpri-oritiesandtofocusresources.

Anotherindicationoftheinstitutionalsupportforin-ternationalization is found in the international educationprofessional association membership and attendance attheirmeetings, in the faceofdeclining resourcesand re-strictiveuniversitytravelpolicies;anumberofstateslimitout-of-statetravel,asacost-savingmeasure.Overthepastfewyears,attendancehasincreasedsteadilyattheannualmeetingsoftheForumonStudyAbroad,theAssociationofInternational Education Administrators, and NAFSA: As-sociationofInternationalEducators.Asmoreuniversitiesstrive to professionalize their international education op-erations,onecansurmisethattheywillseevalueininvest-ingintheprofessionaldevelopmentoftheir internationalofficestaff.

Intensified Recruitment of International StudentsManyUSinstitutionsnowseerecruitingmoreinternation-alstudentsasonesolutiontotheirfiscalwoes;somehaveset numerical targets. For example, in a departure frompast policy, the University of California institutions havebeengivenamandatebytheregentstoincreasethenum-berofinternationalstudents

Notsurprisingly,manyinstitutionsaretargetingAsianstudents,particularlyChinese.Open Doorsreportedthatinthe2009/10academicyear,18.5percentofallinternationalstudentsintheUnitedStatescamefromChina,and36.4percentcamefromfiveAsiancountries.

Expanding international recruitment raises new is-suesandoptions.Manyinstitutionshavelimitedexpertiseininternationalstudentrecruitmentandlittleornotravel

budget.Institutionsmaychoosetodothisworkalone,col-laboratewithotherinstitutions,hireagents,orpartnerwithaprivateprovider.

Beginningabout10yearsago,institutionswithinvari-ousstatesbegantojoinforcestodevelopWebsites,tomar-ket to international students; nearly half of all US statesnowhavethem.Itisunclearhowsuccessfulthesejointef-fortsare inrecruiting internationalstudents,but theyarecost-effectiveandseenbyparticipantsasvaluable.

The drive to recruit more international students haspushedtocenterstagetheUSdebateaboutusingagents.Although the practice is well established in the UnitedKingdom, New Zealand, and Australia, US institutionshave been opposed to using agents. A new organization,theAmericanInternationalRecruitmentCouncil,wasde-veloped to set professional standards for agents, takingthepositionthatagentsarealreadyanessentialpartofthehighereducationlandscape.

Anotherapproachforrecruitinginternationalstudentslies in private-sector partnerships: arrangements betweenuniversitiesandprivatecompanies,torecruitinternationalstudentsforpathwayprograms.INTOUniversityPartner-ships, Kaplan Career Institute, and Navitas are the threemajorproviders,withratherdifferentmodels.Thesecom-paniesenterintolonger-termagreementswiththeinstitu-tions,partneringwiththemtorecruitstudentsandprovideprematriculation,academic-enrichmentprograms,oftenincollaborationwiththefaculty.

Staffing, Funding, and the Role of the International Officer

Thebudgetaryfateoftheinternationalofficeistiedtotheoverall financial health of the institution, and interviewswithseniorinternationalofficersrevealedawiderangeofbudgetary situations and effects on international offices.Most offices experienced no greater hardship than otherinstitutional units; others were somewhat protected. Allcampus intervieweesexpressedanxietyabout furthercutsin2011/12.

Although externally funded programs

have a significant impact on some cam-

puses, most internationalization initia-

tives in the United States are funded

from institutional resources.

As more universities strive to profes-

sionalize their international education

operations, one can surmise that they

will see value in investing in the profes-

sional development of their internation-

al office staff.

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 Trends in Global Student Mobility

Some universities are expecting the international of-ficetoexpandexistingsourcesoffundingortocreatenewones.Forexample,theseverecutsintheinternationalof-ficebudgetatoneinstitutionforcedtheofficetorelymoreand more on income-generating activities, to balance thebudget.Also, studyabroadandvisa fees for internationalstudentsandscholarshavebeenincreased.Severalseniorinternational officers interviewed pointed to study-abroadfees and English-language programs, to provide flexiblerevenuefor theoffice.Someinstitutionsarereorganizingorreallocatingfunding.

Asinstitutionsbecomemoredeeplyengagedinstrate-gicinternationalization,theroleoftheseniorinternationalofficersseemstobedevelopingintoamorecentralpositionat a more senior level. The senior international officer isnowmorecommonlyamemberofthefaculty,oronewithothersenior-levelexperience,andissometimessituatedintheofficeofthepresidentorwithadualreportinglinetothepresidentandtheprovost.Heorsheisinvolvedatthehighest levels in integrating internationalization into theoverallmissionandstrategicplananddevelopingpartner-shipsandotherconnections thatgobeyondstudyabroadorexchanges.

More Strategic International PartnershipsNational higher education meetings and interviews withseniorinternationalofficerspointtoatrendtowardfewerand more-strategic international partnerships. This de-velopmentseemstobetheresultofgreaterexperienceinmanagingoverseaspartnershipsintheacademiccommu-nity,decliningresources,andperhapslessonslearnedfromsomehigh-profilefailures.

Institutionsarereviewingandtighteningtheirprocess-esforvettingandapprovingagreements,seekingtoensurethattheyalignwithinstitutionalprioritiesforinternation-alization and to aggregate resources into fewer initiativeswith,mostlikely,agreaterimpact.Assuringthatsufficientfundingexists,tomakethecooperationreal,isapriority.

ConclusionInstitutionsarecopingwiththeeconomicdownturn,byus-ingatime-honoredmixofrevenuegenerationandcuts.Inthenextfewyears, itmost likelywillberevealedwhetherthe current crisis is indeedanother cycleor ifUShighereducationisindeedinaneraofa“newnormal.”Nomatterhowdirethefundingsituation,itisunlikelythatUShighereducationinstitutions,especiallyresearchuniversities,willretreatfromexpandingtheirinternationalfocus.

GlobalStudentMobility:TrendsandNewDirectionsRajika Bhandari and Raisa Belyavina

Rajika Bhandari is deputy vice president for research and evaluation at the Institute of International Education, and Raisa Belyavina is a senior research officer at the institute. E-mail: [email protected]. This article draws upon their two recent publications: R. Bhandari, and P. Blumenthal, International Students and Global Mobility in Higher Education: National Trends and New Directions. Palgrave Macmil-lan, New York, 2011; and R. Bhandari, R. Belyavina, and R. Gutierrez, Student Mobility and the Internationalization of Higher Education: National Policies and Strategies from Six World Regions. Institute of International Education, New York, 2011.

Overthe lastdecade, thenumberofstudentstravelingtoanothercountryinpursuitofhighereducationin-

creasedby65percent,totalingover3.3millionstudentsin2008.Althoughthephenomenonofstudentmobilityitselfisnotnew,therapidgrowthinrecentyearshaschangedthegloballandscapeofinternationaleducation.Asmoreindi-viduals seek out “nontraditional” educational experiencesabroadandnewandemerginghostcountriescompeteforinternational talent, the historical movement of studentsfromtheglobalSouthtotheNorthandEasttoWestisnowsignificantly more multidirectional. The “brain drain” oftalentfromdevelopingnationsisshiftingto“braingain,”asmanyemerginghostcountriesimplementpoliciestore-cruitstudents;and“braincirculation”asstudentscontinuetopursuemorediverseandmultinationaleducationalex-periences.

Traditional Hosts and New PlayersAlthough Anglophone and western European countriescontinue to attract the highest numbers of internationalstudents,newandemerginghostsarevyingforaplaceintheglobalmarketofinternationaleducation.Jordanhassetagoalofhosting100,000internationalstudentsby2020;Singaporeaspiresto150,000by2015;andJapanplansonhosting300,000by2025.Yet,by far themostambitiousgoalissetbyChina,whichaimstohave500,000interna-tional studentsby2020.According toProject Atlas (www.iie.org/projectatlas),therewereover265,000internationalstudentsstudyinginChinain2010—includingbothdegreestudentsandnondegreestudentsenrolledinstudy-abroadprogramsthroughtheirhomeinstitutions.Tomeetitsgoal,Chinahastakensignificantstridestoimproveinstitutionalcapacitytohostinternationalstudentsandhasearmarkedscholarshipfundsspecificallyforinternationalstudents.

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 15Trends in Global Student Mobility

Thispolicychangeamong the“suppliers”of interna-tional students (countries like IndiaandChina) to attractmoreinternationalstudentsposesachallengefordevelop-ingcountriesthatarepoisedtobecomepopularstudydes-tinations. Developing countries may face the dilemma ofincreasingthecapacityoftheirhighereducationsystems—toprovideadequateopportunitiesfortheirexpandingcol-lege-agepopulation—whilealsoaccommodatingincominginternationalstudentsandengaginganinternationaledu-cationalexchangenecessaryintoday’sgloballycompetitiveworld.

Atthesametime,manytop-hostcountriescontinuetoaddressthechallengeof“pushing”moreoftheirstudentstostudyabroad.Asinternationalunderstandingandinter-culturalskillsbecomecriticalforthemodernglobalwork-force, it is increasingly important forstudents tohave in-ternationalexperience.However,duetoavarietyoffactorsbothatthereceivingandsendingend,thenumberofstu-dents from Anglophone and western European countrieswhostudyoverseashasnotkeptpacewith theambitiousgoalsofcountrieshopingtohostthem.

Redefining MobilityOneofthemostsignificantshiftsinrecentyears,thedefi-nitionofmobilityitselfhasevolvedfromamoretraditionalgeographic mobility—to one in which students, highereducationinstitutions,andeducationprogramsareallmo-bile.Informationitselfhasbecomemobileintheformofdistanceandvirtuallearning.Theseshiftsaremostevidentin theadventof thebranchcampusmodeland,morere-cently,intheemergenceofregionaleducationhubs—suchas,Dubai’sKnowledgeVillage,Qatar’sEducationCity,andSingapore’sGlobalSchoolhouse.

Thesenontraditionalformsofmobilityhavesignificantimplicationsfordomesticandinternationalhighereduca-tion.Asprospective internationalstudentschoosebranchcampuses located in theirowncountriesover the institu-tion’s home campus, traditional student mobility, as weknowit,mightdecline.Conversely,possibly thesediverseformsofinternationalizationwillcontinuetogrowrapidly,servingdifferenttypesofstudentswithvaryingeducationalneeds.

Is English the Lingua Franca of Mobility?A key driver for studying overseas is the acquisition of anew language. But despite the growing popularity of for-eignlanguages,itisindisputablethatEnglishdrivesmuchoftoday’sstudentmobility.ItisnotacoincidencethattheUnitedStates, theUnitedKingdom,Australia, andCana-da—all Anglophone countries—attract a large number ofinternationalstudents.Atthesametime,manyEuropeancountriesarestrategicallyofferinganincreasingnumberofcoursesandevenentireprogramsofstudyinEnglish.ButthischangeandthegrowingdominanceofEnglishinnon-Anglophonecountriescomeataprice.Itislikelytoleadtoaslowerosionofacountry’snativelanguage(s),defeatingoneofthefundamentalpurposesofaglobaleducation:forstudents towiden theirglobalknowledgeandawareness,byimmersingthemselvesinunfamiliarlanguagesandcul-tures.

Therearemanydevelopmentsunderwaythatwilllikelyhaveanimpactonglobalstudentflowsinthenearfuture.Forexample,Swedenisalreadybeginningtoseetheimpactofnewlyimplementedtuitionpoliciesforinternationalstu-dents,andtheUnitedKingdomandAustraliaarealsofeel-ing the impactofnewimmigrationandhighereducationpolicies.Alloftheserapidlyoccurringdevelopmentsinmo-bilityareforcinginternationaleducatorstothinkaboutstu-dentmobilityinnewways,whilealsoposinguniquechal-lengesandopportunitiesformeasuringmobilitytrends.

BrazilSeeksAcademicBoostbySendingStudentsAbroadMarcelo Knobel

Marcelo Knobel is dean of undergraduate programs, at Universidade Estadual de Campinas (University of Campinas), Brazil. E-mail: [email protected].

Brazil has just launched a program to dramatically in-crease the number of Brazilian students abroad. Al-

though it counts with public-financial resources, no onereally knows if the ambitious quantitative goals can bereached.

Science without BordersJust a few days after the official visit of President BarackObamatoBrazilinMarch2011,theBrazilianpresidentDil-maRousseffannouncedthatitisatoppriorityofthegov-

Over the last decade, the number of

students traveling to another country in

pursuit of higher education increased

by 65 percent, totaling over 3.3 million

students.

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 Trends in Global Student Mobility

ernmenttosendatleast75thousanduniversitystudentstospendaperiodinUShighereducationinstitutions.Today,it isestimated that therearearound8,800Braziliansen-rolled inAmericancampuses, the 14th rankamongsuchforeign groups. Although the statement was made withconsiderable fanfare, itwasgivenwithout furtherdetails.Also,thespeechmentionedthiskindofprogram’simpor-tance for the hard sciences and technological programs,mainlyengineering,inordertoallowthecountrytohaveamorequalifiedworkforceinthesestrategicareas.

Sincethisannouncement,theBrazilianresearchagen-ciesstruggledtodesigntheplan,nowcalledSciencewith-outBorders,launchedofficiallyinJuly2011.Theprogramfinally includesnotonly theUnitedStates,butalsoothercountries. The Brazilian government claims that it willlookforprivatesponsorstopaytuitionandfeestopartneruniversities. The plan includes undergraduate students

(around 35% of the scholarships), PhD students (46% ofthe scholarships), and also fellowships for postdoctorateandseniorresearchers.ThetotalbudgetforaperiodoffouryearsisestimatedtobearoundUS$2billion.

It is clear that the intentions of the Science withoutBorders program are significant; and clearly some inter-nationalexperienceshouldbecomeafundamentalpartofhighereducation,especiallyforacountrylikeBrazil,whichhasseenincreasingengagementintheinternationalarena.Providingstudentswiththepossibilityofaninternationalexperienceisconsideredtobeaneffectivestrategy—fromageopoliticalperspectiveaswellastheacademicviewpoint.

Higher Education in BrazilBrazil has a population of 195 million inhabitants.Brazilhas a quite diverse higher education system, with a rela-tivelysmallnumberofpublic(federal,state,ormunicipal)researchuniversities anda largenumberofprivate insti-tutions—both philanthropic/confessional and for-profit.Approximately6millionstudentshaveenrolledinunder-graduateprogramsaroundthecountry,with77percentofthose in private institutions. There are a number of con-solidatedresearchcenters (both federalandstateowned),

whichgranted12,000PhDsand41,000master’sdegrees,in2010.Theconsolidationofthegraduatesystemduringthe1970sand1980sincludedasystematicefforttofinancegraduate and postdoctoral studies in other countries. Alarge part of the participants in those programs returnedtoBrazilandhelpedtoqualifythehighereducationinstitu-tionsand thebuddinggraduateprograms in the country,particularlyinpublicuniversities.Afterthisinitialperiod,thefederalpolicieschangedtostrengthenthedifferentpro-gramswithinthecountry,drasticallyreducingthenumberoffellowshipstosendstudentsabroad.Suchpoliciesresult-ed inadecreaseof thedegreeof internationalexperienceoffacultyinresearch-intensiveuniversities.Thus,thepro-posedinitiativediscussedhererevealsthereversalofcur-rentfederalpoliciestowardthegraduateeducationsector.

The Comparison with the US Initiative to ChinaThisprogramiscertainlyrelatedtotheso-called“100,000strongInitiative,”consideredtobeakeycomponentoftheObamaadministration’sforeign-policyagenda.Thus,therewouldbeacoordinatedeffortdesignedtoincreasedramati-callythenumberanddiversifythecompositionofAmeri-can students studying in China. Similar to the Braziliancase,thisinitiativeistemperedbyseriousconcernsabouttheachievabilityofsuchanambitioustarget.However,con-trarytotheBraziliancase,theObamaadministrationisput-tingforwardachallengebutnocash,claimingthatfinan-cialsupportfortheeffortisrequiredfromprivatesources.

ThemainchallengesinBrazilareofanothernature,re-latedtothenumberofqualifiedstudentsabletoundertakeacademic study in foreign universities. Considering thequality and leadershipof theUShighereducationsector,forexample,itisfairtosupposethatanygoodstudentatahigh-qualityuniversitywouldconsiderapplyingtoa“bridgescholarship,”givenbytheBraziliangovernment.

Nobodyreallyunderstandshowthis“magic”numberof 75 thousand students was set as a goal. In 2009, ap-proximately58thousandPhDstudentsand104thousandmasterstudentswereenrolledinBrazilianuniversities inallfieldsofknowledge.Only20institutionsgrantedmorethan100PhDtitlesin2009.Consideringthesenumbers,itisclearwhyundergraduatestudentsandpostdocsmustalso participate in the program. The challenge will be toverify whether there are enough qualified students, withminimum language requirements, capable andwilling totravelabroadandstudyintopworlduniversities.

Priorities and FundingThe program focuses mainly on health and life sciencesandontheso-calledSTEMfields(science,technology,engi-neering,andmathematics),withanemphasisonengineer-

This program is certainly related to the

so-called “100,000 strong Initiative,”

considered to be a key component of

the Obama administration’s foreign-

policy agenda.


ing. It is well known that engineering and basic-scienceeducation(bothinnumberandquality)areconsideredtobeamongthemainconstraintstotheimmediateandfuturedevelopment of the Brazilian society, and certainly a pro-gramcenteredinthesefieldsisanurgentnecessity.Ontheotherhand,itwouldbeinterestingtoextendtheprogramtootherfieldsofknowledgeinthenearfuture.

From the point of view of the partner countries, theprogram has already received some criticisms, mainly intheUnitedKingdom,wherearecent£200millioncutofstate funding for higher education was made by the gov-ernment. It is expected that Brazilians would not attainplacesotherwiseavailable toBritishandEuropeanUnionstudents. Nonetheless, concerns were raised that the UKgovernment’s funding model for higher education is be-comingincreasinglyreliantonattractingoverseasnationalswho,ifbornintheUnitedKingdom,mighthavestruggledtobecomearegularstudentatauniversitythere.Also,long-termpartnerssuchasPortugalwerealmostcompletelyex-cluded,atleastinthisinitialstageoftheprogram,causingsomenegativereactions.

Finally, one of the most important criticisms regard-ing this program is its unilateral character. The programshouldbearealexchangeprogram,withreciprocityfromthe counterpart university to support and stimulate theirstudentstoperformacademicstudyinBrazil.ThiswouldbeextremelybeneficialtotheBrazilianuniversitiestoboosttheir incipient internationalization process. Consideringthetotalbudgetoftheprogram,theissueoffurtherplan-ning and discussions in regard to priorities for spendingpublicmoneyinoverseasuniversitiesbecomesevenmoreimportant.

The main stakeholders assume that a program likethisneedsfurtherdiscussionandshouldbebasedonsolidstudies that constitute higher education policy, goals andpriorities,andtakingintoaccounttherealityofthecurrentBrazilianeducationscenarioandtheglobalizedhigheredu-cationsector.

WestAfricanHigherEducationReformsJuma Shabani

Juma Shabani is director of the UNESCO Bamako Cluster Office, Mali. E-mail: [email protected].

Sincetheadventoftheknowledgeeconomysociety,high-ereducationisseenasamajorcontributortopovertyre-

ductionandsustainablehumandevelopment.Overthepasttwodecades,manyregionalorganizationshaveinvestedintherevitalizationandfurtherdevelopmentof theirhighereducation systems—in order to benefit from the oppor-tunitiesofferedby theknowledgeeconomy.TheseeffortsincludetheimplementationoftheBolognaprocessofcon-structionofahighereducationareainEuropeandbeyondby2010andtheHigherEducationHarmonizationStrategyinAfricadesignedbytheAfricanUnion.Thesetwoinitia-tivesaremainlymotivatedby theneed tomove toanewsystemknownasthebachelor-master-doctoratesystem.

Thebachelor-master-doctoratereformdoesnotaimatestablishingauniquehighereducationsystem.Infact,thevariousnationalsystemswillbeplacedinacommonframe-workofcomparableandcompatiblequalifications,inorderto promote and further strengthen academic and profes-sionalmobility.TheBolognaprocessisamajorreformofhighereducationintheparticipatingcountries.InFrance,forexample,thisprocessisconsideredasthemostsignifi-canthighereducationreformsince1968.

GiventheirhistoricalrelationswithEuropeintheareaof higher education, the African Francophone countrieshave taken steps since the mid-2000s to implement thebachelor-master-doctorate reforms, in order to maintainandfurtherstrengthentheiracademicandresearchcoop-erationwithEuropeancountries.

In the West African Economic and Monetary Union(WAEMU),madeupofeightFrancophoneandLusophonecountries(Benin,BurkinaFaso,Côted’Ivoire,Mali,Niger,Senegal, Togo, and Guinea Bissau), the bachelor-master-doctorate system was adopted by the ministers of highereducationinJuly2007toachievethefollowingobjectives:to improvetheefficiencyandperformanceofhigheredu-cation institutions; to ensure international recognition ofdegreesissuedintheWAEMUmemberstates;andtopro-motestudentsandstaffmobility.

The Bachelor-Master-Doctorate ReformThe implementation of the bachelor-master-doctorate re-form in the WAEMU–member countries is considered

From the point of view of the partner

countries, the program has already re-

ceived some criticisms, mainly in the

United Kingdom, where a recent £200

million cut of state funding for higher

education was made by the govern-

ment.

Africa Focus


an important step toward the constructionof theAfricanhighereducationandresearchspaceinitiatedbytheAfri-canUnion.

The main features of the bachelor-master-doctoratereforminAfricaincludetheadoptionofhighereducationsystems made up of the three internationally recognizedcyclesofbachelor,master,anddoctorate;thesettingupofnational qualifications frameworks, which will eventuallyleadtosubregionalandregionalframeworks;andthedivi-sionofperiodsoftraininginsemestersandtheadoptionoftwoinstrumentsthatwill facilitatecomparabilityofquali-ficationsandencourageacademicmobility.Theseare thecredittransfersystemandthediplomasupplement.

The implementationof thebachelor-master-doctoratereform in theWAEMU–member countries takesplace atfourlevels:institutional,national,subregional,andAfricanregional levels.AttheAfricanregional level, implementa-tionofthebachelor-master-doctoratereformiscoordinatedbytheAfricanandMalagasyCouncilforHigherEducationmadeupof 17countries that includeall the8WAEMU–membercountries.Despitetheprogressmade,implemen-tationofthisreformisstillfacingseveralchallenges.

Challenges of ImplementationImplementation of the bachelor-master-doctorate reformin the WAEMU–member countries is facing three majorchallenges related to the quality of teaching and learningandtherelevanceofacademicandresearchprograms;thelowlevelofresearchdevelopment;andthelackofcrediblemechanism for monitoring the credit-transfer systems.Thesechallengeshavebeenwidelydocumented inrecentpublicationsonhighereducation inAfricanFrancophonecountries.

OpportunitiesIn recent years therehasbeena renewed interest forAf-rican member states and the donors’ community to sup-port the revitalization and further development of highereducationandresearchinAfrica.Indeed,almosteveryre-gionaleconomiccommunityinAfricahasidentifiedhigh-

er education as a major area for reform. The importanceofhighereducation inAfricawasreaffirmedat the2009World Conference on Higher Education and recent sum-mitsofAfricanUnionHeadsofStatesandGovernments.Thefirstopportunityis,thus,providedbytheprioritygivenbytheAfricanUniontothedevelopmentofhighereduca-tionandthewayitreflectsinthevariouscooperationagree-mentsrecentlysignedbetweentheAfricanUnionandde-velopedandemerging countries.The secondopportunityisrelatedtotheincreasedaccesstovirtualinfrastructuresandthethirdopportunityisofferedbythelessonsthattheWAEMU–membercountriesmaylearnfromtheBolognaprocessandadaptittofittheAfricancontext,cultures,andvalues.

Basedon several regional and interregional consulta-tions, the WAEMU–member countries have developed,with theassistanceofUNESCO,a three-year-pilotprojectfor implementation of the bachelor-master-doctorate re-formfortheperiodof2011–2013.Thisprojectisbasedontheuseof informationandcommunications technologiestostrengthenthecapacityneededforeffectiveimplementa-tionofthereform.

Theprojectaimsatachievingthreebroadresults.Thefirstresultisrelatedtoupgradinginformationandcommu-nications technology physical infrastructure to widen ac-cesstobroadbandInternet.Forthispurposethecampusesof public and accredited private universities in the eightWAEMUcountrieswillbeequippedwithfiberopticfacili-tiesandatleast200computerswithhigh-speeddatacon-nection.Thesecondresult isrelated to theestablishmentof a seriesof virtual infrastructures to improvequalityofteaching,learning,andresearchandtostrengthencapacityfor effective academicmanagement.These includeanet-work of virtual libraries and digital repositories; a virtualinstitutefordeliveryofonlinecourses;universityWebpor-tals,andanonlinecredittransfersystem.

Africa Focus

Given their historical relations with Eu-

rope in the area of higher education,

the African Francophone countries have

taken steps since the mid-2000s to im-

plement the bachelor-master-doctorate

reforms.

In recent years there has been a renewed

interest for African member states and

the donors’ community to support the

revitalization and further development

of higher education and research in Af-

rica.


The third-expected result is linked to strengtheningcapacitiestoensureeffectiveimplementationofthebach-elor-master-doctorate reform. These include capacity foreffective teaching and learning in higher education; de-velopmentofeffectiveaccreditationandquality-assurancemechanisms;andresearch-capacitydevelopment.Theproj-ectalsoaimsat integratingtheWAEMUcentersofexcel-lenceintoregionalandinternationalresearchnetworks.

ConclusionSincethemid-2000s,alltheregional-economiccommuni-tiesinAfricaareinvolvedintheimplementationofhighereducationharmonizationprocessesbasedonthebachelor-master-doctoratereform.TodayitisagreedthattheWAE-MU strategy, based on the use of information and com-municationstechnologiestobuildthecapacityrequiredforeffectiveimplementationofthisreformcouldleadtomean-ingfulandsustainableresultsandthereforeshouldserveasamodelfortheothersubregions.

ADecadeofRegulatingPrivateHigherEducationinSouthAfricaChika SehooleChika Sehoole is head of the Department of Education Management and Policy Studies at the University of Pretoria, South Africa. E-mail: [email protected].

Globally, the growth and expansion of public highereducation have been accompanied by the decline in

public resources forhighereducation.Thishas impactednegativelyonthequalityofpublichighereducation—thuspromptingstudentstolookforalternatives,includingpri-vate higher education institutions. South Africa is no ex-ception to these developments and has, since the end ofapartheidin1994,experiencedarapidexpansionofprivatehighereducationactivities.Thishappenedgiventheavail-abilityofalimitednumberofplacesinpublichighereduca-tioninstitutionsforhighschoolgraduates.Thiscreatedafertilegroundforthegrowthinthenumberofprivatepro-viders.Fromapre-1994period,wherebyunderapartheidprivatehighereducationwasoutlawed,thenumberofpri-vateinstitutionsgrewrapidly—toabout300in1999.Manyof these institutions, especially foreign private providers,wereoperatinginpartnershipswithpublicinstitutions.

Enter the Regulations The proliferation of private higher education institutionsled this sector to government’s focus on legislative andregulatory action. This happened against the backdrop ofreportedstoriesofthepubliclosingmoneytobogusprivateinstitutionsthatwouldopentheirdoorsatthebeginningoftheacademicyearand theowner(s)disappearingwithouttracewithinafewmonths.In1997,governmentpassedtheHigherEducationAct that legalizedprivatehighereduca-tion.In2002,theregulationsfortheregistrationofprivatehighereducationinstitutionswerepassedandwereimple-mentedsince2003.Theregulationsmadeitmandatoryforprivateandpublichighereducationinstitutionstoregistertheirprogramswith theSouthAfricanQualificationsAu-thority.Theseprogramsshouldbequalityassuredandac-creditedbytheHigherEducationQualityCouncil.

Thepurposeofregisteringprivatehighereducationin-stitutionswastoensurethattheyofferanacceptablequalityofeducation;studentsreceivehighereducationfrominsti-tutions thathave the resources, capacity, and/orexpertiseto deliver quality programs; students enrolled with theseinstitutionsobtainqualificationsthatarealignedwiththeNationalQualificationsFramework;andtheeducationsys-temcontinuesonapathof transformation inaccordancewithgovernmentpolicy.

The regulations outlawed franchising arrangements.This led to many providers disappearing from the scene.Outofareported300privatehighereducationinstitutionsthatwereoperatinginSouthAfricainthelate1990s,about89 applied for reaccreditation of their programs with theHigherEducationQualityCouncilin2002.

Private Foreign Institutions in South AfricaThe regulations made provision for the registration andoperationof foreignprivatehighereducationinstitutions.However,aforeignapplicantwasrequiredtosubmitproofthat:(a)itsparentinstitutionoperateslawfullyasahighereducation institutionand is accreditedby theappropriateaccreditingbodyinitscountryoforigin;(b)aqualificationawarded in its name will be fully recognized by its par-ent institutionandby the appropriate state authorities initscountryoforigin;and(c)astudentwhoisawardeditsqualificationwill suffernodisadvantage if she/heappliesto enroll for an appropriate advanced qualification in theparentinstitution.

Theserequirementswerealsorespondingtoreportedcases of foreign institutions offering qualifications thatwerenotrecognizedbyaparentinstitution.ManyforeignprovidersthathadenteredSouthAfrica,throughfranchis-ingarrangementsorintheirownright,withdrewasaresultoftheserequirements.Bymid-2004therewereonlysixfor-eignprovidersthatremainedoperationalinSouthAfrica.

Africa Focus


Overview of the Implementation of the Regulations The latest register of private higher education (August2011), shows that, since 2003, the government has dealtwithabout177institutions(bothlocalandforeign),whichappliedforregistration.Eighty-sixoftheseinstitutionsarecurrentlyregistered;31areprovisionallyregistered;3havebeengivennoticeofcancellation;and57hadtheirregistra-tioncanceled.Thereasons forcancellationof institutionsinclude the resistance to submit a financial surety agree-ment, failure to submit auditedfinancial statements, andlossofaccreditationstatusoftheirprogramsthataresomeoftheconditionsforregistration.Sometimes,cancellationwouldbeattherequestofaninstitution.

South Africa’s adoption of this regulatory frameworkhas not gone without challenges. During the period ofthe implementationof theseregulations,governmenthasfacedlitigationsfromthreeprovidersthatwereallwonbytheplaintiffs.PressurealsocamefromthenegotiationsoftheGeneralAgreementonTradeinServices(GATS)whereSouthAfricareceivedrequestsformarketaccesstoitshigh-er education “market” from countries such as New Zea-land,Norway,Kenya,and theUnitedStates.SouthAfricahasrefusedtoaccedetotheserequests,onthegroundsof

thepotentialdangersuchactionwouldposeonitseffortstotransformhighereducation,andinparticulartostrengthenthepublicsectorsothatitcanparticipateeffectivelyinaglo-balizingenvironment.Thisstandwasalsoinspiredbytheprincipled position of seeing higher education as “publicgood,”andsubjectingittotheGATSagendawouldunder-minethisposition.

Lessons Inmanydevelopingcountries,privatehighereducationhasgrownfaster thanpublichighereducation—mainlygiventhatgovernmentshavenotbeenabletomakeadequatepro-visionofqualityhighereducation.SouthAfricahasbeenable to regulateprivatehighereducationand in sodoingweeded out unscrupulous providers and maintained con-trol over the activities of legally registered providers. The

applicationoftheseregulations,manyofwhicharealsoap-plicabletopublicinstitutions,alsoaccountsforthereputa-tionSouthAfricanhighereducationhasintermsofqualityandstability.

How has South Africa succeeded where many coun-tries have failed? The case of South Africa demonstratesthatit ispossibletousethelawsupportedbysoundpoli-ciestoachieveone’sobjectives.SouthAfricarequirespri-vate institutions to have sound financial systems, subjecttheirprogramstoqualitycheck,andensure thatawardedqualificationshaveglobalrelevanceandapplication.SouthAfricahasfurtherbeenprincipledandconsistentinitsviewof education as a public good, and this has enabled it toenforceitspoliciesandwithstandthepressureforderegula-tionofprivatehighereducationthatotherdevelopingcoun-

tries have been unable to do. Through these policies thepublichasbeenprotectedevenduringtheglobalfinancialcrisisasithadregisteredcredibleandfinanciallysoundin-stitutionsthatcouldweatheroffthefinancialstorm.SouthAfrica’sprincipledpositiononprivatehighereducationfur-thersupportstheassertionthatglobalization(ofeducation)isnothappeninginspiteofthestatebutwiththecollusionandactiveparticipationofthenationstate.SouthAfricare-mainsanactiveplayerintheglobalfinancialandmultilat-eral institutionsthatshapeglobaleconomicsandpolitics,althoughthistrendhasnotdeterredittoalsodevelopandpursuepoliciesconsonantwiththenationalinterest.Thusfar,therehasnotbeenanyevidenceofSouthAfricahavingbeendisadvantagedbythepursuitofitseducationpolicies.

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

Africa Focus

The latest register of private higher edu-

cation (August 2011), shows that, since

2003, the government has dealt with

about 177 institutions (both local and

foreign), which applied for registration.

South Africa has been able to regulate

private higher education and in so do-

ing weeded out unscrupulous providers

and maintained control over the activi-

ties of legally registered providers.


GraduateEducationinSub-SaharanAfrica:ProspectsandChallengesFred M. Hayward

Fred M. Hayward is a consultant and senior higher education specialist. E-mail: [email protected].

HighereducationinAfricainthe1960sand1970spic-tured excitement, creativity, and pride—given that

faculty members dedicated to teaching were involved ininnovativeresearch,andmanyhelpedlaythefoundationsfor governance and development. Quality was high, anduniversitiesheldingreatesteem.Moststudentswereeagerscholars,exhilaratedbytheirgoodfortune,andcertaintheyweredestined for leadership roles.Anda startwasmadeongraduateprograms.Bytheearly1980s,thepicturewasdifferentformostuniversities—includingbudgetshortfallsindecliningnationaleconomiccircumstances,repression,curtailedacademicfreedom,civilunrest,andlossofstatus.Donor interest shifted toprimaryeducation,andexternalfunding declined from US$103 million annually as lateas1994,droppingtoanaverageofUS$30.8millionfrom1995to1999.

Enrollmentpressureaddeditstollwithstudentnum-bersincreasingfrom21,000in1960to473,000in1983.By 1991 enrollments reached 2.7 million, and by 2006therewere9.3millionstudents.This resulted in tremen-douspressureongovernmentstoincreaseaccess.Yet,only5percentofthecollegeagepopulationisinhighereduca-tioninAfrica,anddemandwillgrowespeciallyasthesuc-cess of “education for all” at the primary level producesmoresecondaryschoolgraduates.

While public expenditures in education continuedat about20percentofgovernmentbudgets,over the last15 years student expenditures declined about 30 percent.PublicspendingpercapitafellfromUS$6,800in1980toUS$1,200in2002,andby2009toUS$981.Thecombina-tionofdecliningper capitabudgets andgrowing studentnumbersatmanyinstitutionsledtolargerclasses,declin-ingrealincomeforfacultyandstaff,andfallingfacultymo-rale.Efforts toestablishgraduateprogramsbecameespe-ciallydifficult,giventheirhighercostandgreaterdemandsonstafftime.

Today’s Condition of Graduate EducationGraduateeducationexpandedafterthe1980s.By2001,82African universities reported they offered PhD programs(ortheFrenchequivalent).Inspiteofthatexpansion,only7

percentofenrollmentsareingraduateeducation.The financial problems of African higher education

have spawned a shortage of faculty members, and fewerthan 34 percent of those have PhDs. That has hinderedgraduateeducation.TheWorldBankestimates that if thecurrenttrendsinenrollmentcontinue,Africanuniversitieswillneedanadditional450,000facultymembersby2015.

Graduate training at high-quality institutions outsideAfrica isexpensive.ThecostsforaPhDinEuropeortheUnited States can be US$200,000 or more. In contrast,graduatestudyinsub-SaharanAfricaismuchlessexpen-sive,beingaslowasUS$3,000forscienceandengineeringinGhana(forstudentslivingathome).InSouthAfricaitisaboutUS$11,000ayear.Thus,postgraduatetraininglo-cally, or in other African countries, is the least-expensivewaytofosteradvancedtrainingforfaculty.

Thedeclineinfundinghasalsoresultedinareductioninfacultyresearch.Thelevelofresearchatmostuniversi-tiesisnotadequatetosupportqualitygraduateprograms.OnemeasureofthisdeclineisthedropinoutputofAfricanscholarsoverthelast25years,asmeasuredbyinternationaljournalpublications.Sub-SaharanAfricanpublications in

thesciences,forexample,declinedby31percentsinceitspeak in 1987. To produce high-quality master’s and PhDgraduates,aninstitutionmusthaveitsownactiveresearchprogramwithfacultymembersreadytoserveasadvisers,mentors,andresearchmodels.

Providingadequateopportunitiesforwomeninhighereducation,bothasstudentsandfacultymembers,hasprov-en difficult. My 2009 examination of graduate programsfoundthatonly29percentof thegraduatestudentswerewomen.Ethiopiawasatthelowend,with8percent.OnlySouthAfrica,with45percentofwomeningraduateeduca-tion,cameclosetogenderequity.

Fiscalausterityhasalsoresultedindeteriorationofin-frastructure,makingqualitygraduateeducationmoredif-ficult.ItisestimatedthattheinvestmentrequiredtobringthehighereducationinfrastructuretosatisfactorylevelsisUS$45billion.

Africa Focus

By the early 1980s, the picture was dif-

ferent for most universities—including

budget shortfalls in declining national

economic circumstances, repression,

curtailed academic freedom, civil un-

rest, and loss of status.


In spite of the severe financial problems, staff short-age, overcrowding, and declining working conditions inmostuniversities—thereremainsacorpsofdedicatedfac-ultymembersandadministratorsthroughoutAfrica,whoarecommittedtoqualityteachingandareproducingexcel-lentresearch.Also,severalcentersofexcellenceingraduateeducation in universities in places like Ghana and SouthAfricahavecontinuedtohavetheresourcesneededtopro-videhigh-qualitygraduatetraining.

The Need to Expand Graduate EducationInmanyrespects,thedevelopmentofpostgraduatestudieshasbeenheldhostage to thegrowingdemand to expandundergraduate programs, which have consumed limiteduniversityresources.Thus,thelackofgraduateprogramsispartofthereasonfortheshortageoffacultymembers.

The case for the expansion of graduate education iscompelling.Thecriticalcontributionofhighereducationtonational development has been empirically demonstratedby the World Bank’s research and other studies. In largepart,AfricanuniversitiescontinuetoprovidethemajorityoftheresearchdoneinAfrica,andgraduateprogramsareakeytomeetingthecriticalshortageoffacultymembers.

Theshort-runmajorefforts toexpandgraduate stud-

iesshouldfocusonexistingqualitygraduateprogramsandgivethemaregionalfocus—muchasSouthAfricahasdonethrough the Southern African Development Community,providing lower-cost tuition to its members. In addition,universitypartnershipsmight focusonregionalsolutionstothecurrentshortageofqualitygraduateprograms.

The primary focus in developing graduate programsmustbeonhighquality.Themostpromisingwaytobuildthe kind of outstanding graduate programs and the re-searchcapacityneededinAfricaistofocusresourcesonafewhigh-qualityprogramsincountrieswithgovernmentswillingtoinvestingraduateeducationandcooperatewithregional partners. These centers will attract the bright-estminds,bestteachers,andpublic-mindedacademicstobuildprogramsequaltoanyaroundtheworld.Successwillrequiremajorinvestmentsinhighereducationbygovern-ments,foundations,andotherfunders.Suchcommitments

arecriticaltoexpandingoutstandinggraduateprogramsinAfrica—programs that will build on existing examples ofexcellenceandonthoseuniversitieswillingandabletocre-atetheconditionstoproducefirst-classresearch,graduateteaching,andservice.

InstitutionalDiversityinChineseHigherEducationRuth Hayhoe and Jun Li

Ruth Hayhoe is a professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]. Jun Li is an assistant professor in the Department of Inter-national Education at the Hong Kong Institute of Education. Hayhoe and Li are coauthors, along with Jing Lin and Qiang Zha, of Portraits of 21st Century Chinese Universities: In the Move to Mass Higher Education, Comparative Education Research Centre and Springer, Hong Kong and Springer, 2011.

ThedegreetowhichChinesehighereducationhasmain-tainedsomeinstitutionaldiversityisquiteremarkable,

inspiteofpressures toconform to themodelofaglobalresearchuniversity.Universitypresidentsarenaturallycon-cernedabouttheirinstitutions’locationsinglobal-rankingsystems,andnationalpolicyhassupportedsignificantef-forts to enable universities to achieve world-class qualityandstanding.Strongnationalprogramshavealsobeenun-derwaytosupportfieldsofknowledgeseenasimportantinChina’sdevelopmentandtoensuresomeredistributionofresourcestoless-developedpartsofthecountry.

Globalization as a Process of HomogenizationChinesehighereducationhasbeenreshaped in themas-sificationprocesstowardahighlyhierarchicalsystem,withsubstantive priority funding given to the top 100 institu-tionsinProject211,initiatedin1993.Aneven-steeperhier-archyhasemergedwithProject985,establishedtosupport39topinstitutionsin1998.Theseinstitutionsbenefitfromresourcesandopportunitiesforglobalengagement,settingthem apart from the majority of regional and local insti-tutions.Akindofhomogenizationtowardworldtrendsinthemergershavetakenplace,aswellasthestrongimpetustowardcurricularcomprehensiveness.WhileChina’smedi-caluniversitieswereseparateinstitutionsundertheSovietmodelofthe1950s,virtuallyallofthemhavebeenmergedwithtop-levelcomprehensiveandpolytechnicuniversities.

Greater China

Fiscal austerity has also resulted in dete-

rioration of infrastructure, making qual-

ity graduate education more difficult.


Facultyhavearguedthatthiswasimportantinraisingtheirrankings, since medical research attracts considerable re-search funding. In addition, comprehensive universities,suchasPekingandFudanUniversities,whichformerlyfo-cusedonlyonbasicartsandsciences,havenowdevelopedfacultiesofengineeringandmanagement.Polytechnicuni-versities, suchasTsinghuaandShanghai JiaoTong,havedevelopedprogramsinhumanitiesandsocialsciences.

Inspiteofthistrend,someoftheuniquetypesofuni-versitiesdevelopedunderSovietsocialistinfluencesinthe1950shave survivedandenhanced theirprofilesover therecentperiod.Thishasensuredthemaintenanceofconsid-erablediversity in thesystem.These includenormaluni-versities,agriculturaluniversities,anduniversitiesengagedwith minority cultures. Their persistence has been madepossiblebynationalpolicyandbytheinitiativeof institu-tionalleadersinaperiodofenhancedautonomy.Threeex-amplesmaygivesomeinsightintohowthishashappened.

Education-Related Universities in a Diverse System The “normal university” is an almost unknown conceptin Anglo-American academic discourse. Derived fromFrance’s Ecole Normale Supérieure, it is a comprehen-siveuniversityfocusingonbasicartsandsciencesandthepreparationofteachersforsecondaryandtertiaryschools.Chinaalreadyhadnormaluniversitiesbefore1949,andun-derSovietinfluencetheyweredevelopedintoanationwidesystem.LeadersofEastChinaNormalUniversityinShang-hai,oneofChina’stopeducationalinstitutions,explained

theirresentmentofagovernmentpolicythatforbadethemfromremovingtheword“normal”fromtheirtitleorfromanykindofmerger,exceptthosebringingincognateeduca-tionalinstitutionsforearlychildhood,specialeducation,oradulteducation.Whileseeingthisasaseriousdisadvantageatfirst, later theymanaged to attract substantive fundingfromtheShanghaigovernmentforstrengtheningtheirim-ageasanenhancedversionof thenormaluniversity.TheEastChinaNormalUniversitytookonnewresponsibilitiesforeducationatalllevelsofschoolingandforadultlearn-ers,aswellasbroadeningthecurriculumintonewareasofthesocialandnaturalsciences.

AstrategicpartnershipwiththeEcoleNormaleSupéri-eure ingraduateeducationandthedecision tomake thisShanghaicampusaninternationaleducationcityhasnowgiventhisinstitutionauniqueidentityandprofile.Theef-fortsofsuccessivepresidentsandthesupportoftheShang-haimunicipalgovernmentenabledthemtoenterProjects211 and 985. These activists have led the way in demon-stratingthecontributionnormaluniversitiescanmaketoaknowledgeeconomy.Shanghai’sstunningdebutasnum-beroneintheworld,inthemostrecentProgramforInter-nationalStudentAssessmenttests(oftheOrganizationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment),hasnowgiventhemvisibilityonaglobalstage.

An Agricultural MultiversityNorthwestAgriculturalandForestryUniversity(NWAFU)inthesmalltownofYangling,somedistancefromXi’An,madeasimilarstrategicdecision.Thisinstitutionhaspro-moted its image as a high-level center of food researchratherthanthecomprehensivemultiversityithasbecome,through the merger of two universities and five researchinstitutes.Thegovernmentdiscouragedthemergingofag-riculturaluniversitieswithother typesofuniversities, yettherewasnotasstrongafiatagainstmergingorchangingthetitle,asinthecaseofnormalinstitutions.Nevertheless,NWAFU’s leaders saw the valueof emphasizing their lo-cation in the heartland of traditional Chinese agricultureandcreatingamajorcenter for thedevelopmentof inter-nationalfoodpolicyandresearch.Theyusedtheresources,giventothematthetimeoftheirmerger,andthegreatlyenhancedregionalinfrastructuredevelopedunderChina’sGreatWestProject.WhenwefirstvisitedNWAFUin1993,ittooktwoorthreehoursonaruttedruralroadfromXi’An.Now,afour-lanehighwaygetsvisitorstherefromtheXi’Anairportin40minutes.NWAFU’sleaderstoldusthattheyhad purposefully chosen international partners—such asWageninininHollandandCornellintheUnitedStates—tostrengthentheircapacityinsuchimportantareasasglobalfood security and agricultural environmentalism, ratherthanpursuingtheglobalresearchuniversitymodel.

Greater China

The degree to which Chinese higher

education has maintained some insti-

tutional diversity is quite remarkable,

in spite of pressures to conform to the

model of a global research university.

The “normal university” is an almost

unknown concept in Anglo-American

academic discourse.


A Multicultural University for Minorities Yanbian University in Northeast China, on the border ofNorthKorea,providesanotherinterestingexampleofper-sisting diversity. Founded in the early 1950s to train Ko-reanminoritystudentsforteachingandlocalgovernmen-talleadership,ithasrecentlyraiseditsstatustoanationaluniversity, supported by funding from Project 211. Here,institutional leadershipseems tohavebeencrucial to thepreservationandenhancementofthisinstitution’suniqueidentityasamulticulturaluniversity.Thesixcountrytalks,involvingChina,Russia,Japan,theUnitedStates,andthetwoKoreas,havedrawnconsiderableglobalattentiontotheregion;andYanbianUniversityhasmadeinternationalre-lationsandglobalgeopoliticsamainareaofcurricularfo-cus.IthasalsoattractedstudentsnationwidebecauseofitsbilingualKorean-ChinesepedagogyandtheexchangeandemploymentopportunitiesresultingfromthedynamismoftheSouthKoreaneconomy.Whileoriginallyalocaluniver-sity,itnowattractsmorethanhalfofitsstudentbodyfromallpartsofChina.ThisincludesmajorityHanstudentsandotherminoritystudentswhoareaskeenasKoreanstolearn

thelanguageandconnecttotheregion.EventhoughYan-bian isnot located inChina’snorthwest, its leadersweresuccessfulinapplyingforinfrastructuralsupportfromtheGreatNorthwestProject,sinceitqualifiedasbeinginadis-advantagedregion.

Persisting Diversity in Face of Globalization Afirst lookatrecentdevelopmentsinChinesehighered-ucation would suggest conformity to the homogenizingforcesofglobalization.Acloserlookrevealsabalancingofeffortstosupportworld-classuniversitiesonaglobalstage,withnationalpolicies insupportofdiversityandnationalprogramsofeconomicredistribution.Thus,eventheelitegroupoftopuniversitiesincludesdiversetypesofinstitu-tions,whichdrawattentiontolocaldimensionsofChina’seducationaltraditions,agricultural-developmenttrajectory,andpolicies for the supportofminority cultures. In this,

Chinamayhaveanimportantlessonforotherdevelopingcountries, as they seek to balance efforts to reach globalstandardswithsupportfortheintegrityandauthenticityoflocalornationalvaluesandpatterns.

HongKong’sAcademicAdvantagePhilip G. Altbach and Gerard A. Postiglione

Philip G. Altbach is Monan professor of higher education and director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College. Ge-rard A. Postiglione is professor of education at the University of Hong Kong. E-mail: [email protected].

WhyisitthatHongKong,aspecialadministrativere-gion of China, with a population of 7 million, has

more highly ranked research universities than mainlandChina—withitspopulationof1billionandunprecedentedexpendituresforestablishingworld-classresearchuniversi-ties?Theanswersmayyieldimportantinsightsfortheim-provementofresearchuniversitieseverywhere.

Hong Kong’s Academic RealitiesHong Kong has three universities that score well in theglobal rankings, and all eight of its public universitiesare academically respectable institutions. The three topschools—the University of Hong Kong, the Hong KongUniversity of Science and Technology, and the ChineseUniversityofHongKong,scorerespectivelyat34,61,and151 in theTimes Higher Education 2011rankings.The twotopmainlandChineseuniversities,PekingUniversityandTsinghua University, rank at 49 and 71. The new greaterChinarankings,preparedbythenewAcademicRankingsofWorldUniversities(“Shanghairanking”),placethethreeHongKonginstitutionsat3,5,and6;onlyTsinghuaUni-versity and National Taiwan University score better. ThethreeHongKonginstitutionsaremediumsizedbyglobalstandards—with between 10,000 and 20,000 studentseach. Two are comprehensive universities with medicalschools, and one is a science and technology university.Allwereestablishedinthe20thcentury—theUniversityofHongKongin1911,ChineseUniversityofHongKongin1964,andtheHongKongUniversityofScienceandTech-nologyin1991.AllofHongKong’suniversitiesarepublicinstitutions,withgoodfinancialsupportfromthegovern-ment;andallchargestudentsarelativelymodesttuition.

Greater China

NWAFU’s leaders saw the value of em-

phasizing their location in the heartland

of traditional Chinese agriculture and

creating a major center for the develop-

ment of international food policy and

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 25Greater China

The Context of SuccessThereareavarietyofingredientsthathavecontributedtothesuccessofHongKong’sbigthree.It isuseful tonotethatnoneofthethreeschoolswereacademicpowerhousesuntil the 1990s. The two older institutions were respect-ablesecond-tierinstitutions,andtheHongKongUniversityofScienceandTechnologywasnotestablisheduntil1991.HongKongdecidedtoinvestsignificantlyinhighereduca-tioninthe1990s,astheterritoryanticipatedthetransitionfromBritishcolonialruletoitscurrentstatusasaSpecialAdministrativeRegionofChina—withconsiderable insti-tutionalautonomyandacademicfreedomofaction.Flusheconomictimespermittedgovernment investment.HongKongbegantoemphasizeresearchuniversities,forseveralreasons. First—as one of the four tigers with Singapore,Korea,andTaiwan—HongKonghadtokeepup;andeventhoughthegovernmentleftinvestmentinhightechtotheprivatesector,itwaswillingtoestablishascienceandtech-nologyuniversity.Second,thiswasthebeginningoftheageof massification. As Hong Kong’s postsecondary collegesandpolytechnicsmovedtowarduniversitystatus,itsthreeuniversitiescouldtakethesteptowardbecomingresearchuniversities,asHongKongmovedtowarddevelopingadi-versifiedacademicsystem.

Characteristics of SuccessAbriefoverviewofsomeofthekeyfactorsthathavecon-tributedtoHongKong’sacademicsuccessmayyieldsomeusefulexplanations.

“Steering” and autonomy. Hong Kong’s government,through the Research Grants Council and the UniversityGrantsCommittee,providesoveralldirectiontothehighereducationsector;prioritized funding,combinedwithper-formanceguidelines,shapeuniversitypolicy.Atthesametime,theuniversitieshavealmostcompleteinternalauton-omyandself-management.

Effective governance. The University of Hong Kongstems from the British academic tradition and the Chi-nese University, though established by the consolidationofAmericanmissionarycollegesin1963,broughtAmeri-canmissionary andChinese traditions intoHongKong’scolonialframeworkforhighereducation.TheHongKongUniversityofScienceandTechnologyaddedtheAmericanresearch university model and academic governance tothemix,withoutassaultingthestatusquo.All threehavestronginternationalgovernancearrangementsthatempha-sizecontrolbytheacademics,whileatthesametimestrongadministrative leadership. Shared governance seems toworkwellinHongKong,althoughallthreeoftheuniversi-tieshavesomewhatdifferentapproachestoit.Theuniversi-tiesdonotseemtogetboggeddowninendlessacademicbickering,noraretheyruledbyautocraticadministrators.

TherearesomeinterestingvariationsbetweentheBritish-influencedUniversityofHongKongandthemoreAmeri-can-orientedarrangementattheHongKongUniversityofScienceandTechnology,thoughinrecentyearsthetwoar-rangementshavebeguntomerge.

English dominates.Englishisthemediumofinstructioninalltheuniversities,althoughbothEnglishandChinese(theCantonesedialectbutalsoMandarin)areusedat theChineseUniversityofHongKong,toreflectitsname.Thismeans that Hong Kong’s universities are immediately inthemainstreamofglobalscienceandscholarship.Thoughacademics at the Chinese University of Hong Kong mayuseChineseasamediumofinstruction,theyareascapa-bleasanytofullyparticipate intheglobalscientificcom-munitythroughthemediumofEnglish.Thereisastrongorientationtowardthekeyinternationalacademicjournals;andmostpublicationsproducedareinEnglish,althoughinrecentyearsChinesepublicationshaveincreasedasHongKongacademicshavebeguntotakeadvantageoftheimpactwonbypublishinginthemassiveacademiclandscapeontheChinesemainland.

Internationalism. Hong Kong as a place is highly in-ternationalized. This has always meant North America,England,andAustraliabuthasgraduallycometoincludemoreacademics from theChinesemainlandanda smallbutincreasingnumberoftopacademics,fromeveryconti-nent.HongKongistheAsianheadquartersformanymul-tinationalcompanies,andisoneofthetop-three(afterNewYorkandLondon)internationalbankingcenters.Althoughitspopulationis95percentChinese,aninternationalcos-mopolitan spirit pervades. Most of the top academics atresearchuniversitieshavedoctoratesearnedoverseas,andmanygoontoacademicandadministrativepostsinover-seasuniversities.Theuniversitieshavealwaysseenthem-selves as international institutions. No other regions inAsianhighereducationhavebetteraccesstointernationalscholarly books and publications. There is no censorshipoftheInternet,andacademicbooksthatmayberestrictedelsewhere in Asia are all available in Hong Kong. HongKong’s research universities hold international academicevents—forums,seminars,andconferences,onacaliberofanywhereintheworld.

Shared governance seems to work well

in Hong Kong, although all three of the

universities have somewhat different

approaches to it

26 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

The academic profession. Clearly the most importantaspectsofHongKong’ssuccess inhighereducation,aca-demicstherearerelativelywelltreated.Whiletheyarenolonger the highest-paid academics in the world, salariescompeteglobally,andHongKongisabletorecruitsomeofthebestacademicminds.Theuniversitiesalsoensurethattopscholarsandscientists, includingNobel laureates,areinvitedtolecture;andtheirownacademicshaveampleop-portunitiestoattendinternationalconferences.Termsandconditions of academic work—including teaching loads,administrative support, and the availability of researchfunding,onacompetitivebasisfromlocalsources—areallgloballycompetitive.Leadersinacademicfieldsalsoplayarole inexternalassessmentofresearchgrantapplicationsandteachingprograms.Hiring,promotion,andtenureareperformancebasedandquitecompetitive,contributingtoacademicproductivity.HongKongisnotonlyabletohiretalentedacademicsgloballybuthasaspecialattractionforsomeoverseasandmainlandChineseacademics,whocanliveinaChineseenvironment,whileatthesametimeen-joyinggoodsalariesandworkingconditions—superior towhat is offered to most academics on the Chinese main-land.Justasimportant,HongKongoffersmainlandreturn-

eesanatmospherethatisnotstifledbybureaucracy,wheredecisionmakingismoreparticipativeandtransparentandinwhichacademicfreedomandinformationaccessareun-fettered. What mainly distinguishes the academic profes-sioninHongKongfromelsewhereisitsviewthatperson-nelmattersandresourceallocationsare largelyperceivedbyacademicstafftobemadeonthebasisofperformancemeasures. This was not always the case. For example, afewdecadesago,theUniversityofHongKongresembledaprovincialBritishuniversityinitsacademicculture.Are-markabletransformationhastakenplace.

University leadership.Thefaithoftheacademicprofes-sionintheresearchuniversitiesofHongKonghashingedontheacademiccaliberofitsinstitutionalleaders.Eachofthe three researchuniversitieshasensured thatonlyout-standingacademicswouldbeat thehelmoftheir institu-tions.ThishasundoubtedlyhadagreatdealtodowiththeriseofHongKong’suniversitiesintheinternationalrank-

ings. For example, the last president of the University ofHongKongisaworld-renownedgeneticist,andthepresi-dentoftheChineseUniversityofHongKongwasawardedaNobelPrizeforhisworkinfiberoptics,namedan“AsianHero,byTimemagazine forhisworkonSARS.Thecur-rentpresidentoftheHongKongUniversityofScienceandTechnologydistinguishedhimselfasakeyassistantdirec-tor of the US National Science Foundation, in charge oftheMathematicalandPhysicalSciencesDirectorate.Theremaybeotherconsiderationsintheselectionofuniversityleaders.However,tosustainitsriseintheglobalrankings,HongKongmustensurethatthemostsignificantaspectsare that the most-respected global scholars and scientistsaretheonesthatareinpositionsofauthorityattheiruni-versities.

Hong Kong and China: Useful ComparisonsThe Hong Kong case has special relevance for mainlandChina and indicates some of the factors that may inhibitChina’srisetotop-academicstatus.Whiletheinvestmentinthefacilitiesofitstopresearchuniversitieshasbeenim-pressiveinrecentyears,the“softelements”oftheChineseacademicsystemmaywellinhibitthesystemfromachiev-ingthetoplevels.Amongthese,themostprominentaregovernanceandacademicculture.Chinastillplacesanin-ordinateemphasisonthepoliticalskillofitsacademiclead-ers—somethingthatisunderstandable,giventhecontextinwhichacademicleadersoperateontheChinesemainland.Nevertheless, the new education blueprint for 2020 hasmadethe“de-administrationofuniversities”amajorobjec-tiveinraisingtheacademicqualityofitsuniversities.Thus,governmentwouldtakemoreofasteeringrolethanadirectinterventionistroleintheacademiclifeofuniversities,al-thoughtherecentcaseoftheSouthChinaUniversityofSci-enceandTechnologyhasdemonstratedthedifficultyofthisprocess.Therehasbeenasteadyandunmistakableriseinthe internationalismofChina’sresearchuniversities.ThesurgeintheamountofSino-foreigncooperationinhighereducation,includingoverseascampusesonChinesesoil,isanindicationofprogress.Morepresidentsoftopresearchuniversitieshaveadoctoratefromoverseasorhavespentagooddealoftimethere.

Greater China

While they are no longer the highest-

paid academics in the world . . . Hong

Kong is able to recruit some of the best

academic minds.

The Hong Kong case has special rele-

vance for mainland China and indicates

some of the factors that may inhibit Chi-

na’s rise to top-academic status.


Akeyfactorinthecontinuedriseofmainlandresearchuniversities relates to low academic salaries. Low-basesalaries mean that academics must search for additionalincome through research grants, consulting, and extrateachingand,thus,paylessattentiontotheircoreacademicresponsibilities.Arelatedproblemisthedevelopmentofamatureacademicculture.MainlandChinawillbenefitbylookingatHongKong’srecipeforacademicsuccess.

Chile:TheRiseandDeclineofaStudentMovementAndrés Bernasconi

Andrés Bernasconi is a scholar of higher education policy and adminis-tration and the Academic Vice Rector of Universidad Andrés Bello, in Chile. E-mail: [email protected].

ShortlyafterthebeginningoftheacademicyearinMarch,Chileanuniversityandhighschoolstudentstooktheir

grievancestothestreetsandunleashedwhattheleadersofthemovementliketodescribeasthelargestpopulardem-onstrationssincethereturntodemocracy,in1990.

InChile,as inmostofLatinAmerica,universitystu-dentprotestshavebeenastapleofthesocialmovement’sscenario.Sincethe1980s,highereducationinChile—pri-vate and public—is funded chiefly through tuition pay-mentsby students.Thus, in thepast twodecades, facingincreasing costs of tuition, the mobilized students hadregularlypushedformorestudentaidandobtainedit.Butthese demonstrations were brief and focused. A noveltyfirstemergedin2006,whenpublichighschoolstudents,demandingbettereducation in thepublicsector,wentonstrikeandbarricadedthemselvesindozensofschools—ef-fectivelyinterruptingclassesforthousandsinseveralofthemaincitiesofChile,bringingdowntheMinisterofEduca-tion, and turning the quality of education into a politicalcrisisthatlastedforseveralmonths.

Thisyear’sstudentmovement follows in thewakeofthe2006riotsbuthasachievedgreaterscopeanddepth.Its support has extended way beyond the most politicallyactivestudents,whohadtypicallyledandgalvanizedtheirpeers, involving at its peak a majority of public opinion.The transformations the movement seeks to leverage arenot just changes in education but in the “model” of de-velopmentChilehasbeenenacting for thepast 30years.

What began as the expected seasonal rioting of highschoolpupils(onlydeferredlastyear,duetotheearthquakein southern Chile) acquired momentum when universitystudents joined in the taking of buildings and organizedweeklymassivemarchesonthestreetsofdowntownSan-tiagoandothermajorcities.Forthepastsixmonths,num-berssometimesapproaching200,000havemarchedtode-mandfundamentalchangesinChile’seducationalsystem,andmore.Hundredsofschoolsandcollegebuildingshavebeenoccupiedby live-indemonstratorsandclasses force-fullysuspended—forsome250,000highschoolstudents(7%ofthenationaltotal)andformostpublicuniversities,whosestudentswentonstrike.

Origins of the UprisingThe educational demands of the students mix well-wornbanners—suchasmore funding forpublicuniversities—and greater access of underprivileged populations, withnewer andmore fundamentalproposals—suchas the re-formofthemunicipaladministrationofprimaryandsec-ondarypublicschools,theendingoffor-profiteducationatalllevels,andtheintroductionoftuition-freehighereduca-tionforall.

Several factorshavecontributed to igniteandsustaintheprotests.Theweaknessofpopularsupportfortheright-ist government of President Sebastián Piñera, with pollnumbershovering in the low30s, leaves thegovernment

withlittlelegroomforapoliticalsolutionoftheproblem.Thecharismaof the twomainspokespersons for the

movement—CamilaVallejo,presidentoftheStudentFed-eration of the University of Chile, and Giorgio Jackson,presidentoftheStudentFederationoftheCatholicUniver-sityofChile—hasprovidedthemovementwithagreeableandarticulatefacesandhelpedleveragethestudents’causewiththenationalandinternationalmedia.

Somerectorsofpublicuniversitieshavealsocontribut-edtotheclimateofexasperation,bydenouncingthepaucityofpublicspendinginthestatesectorofhighereducation—abouthalftheaveragelevelofOrganizationforEconomicCooperation and Development countries. Rectors havesometimesaccusedtheprivatesectorofhighereducation,which accounts for 3/4 of all postsecondary enrollments,

Latin America

In Chile, as in most of Latin America,

university student protests have been

a staple of the social movement’s sce-

nario.

28 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 NLatin America

ofprofiteering,elitism,orsubstandardquality.Whilethisportrayaloftheprivatesectorisacaricature,ithasplayedwellwithamplesectorsofsocietythatarenotparticularlyfondoftheprivateprovisionofpublicgoodsand,instead,longforgreaterstatecontrolofeducation,health,energy,orinfrastructure.

Lastly, thereappearstobeagoodmeasureoffrustra-tionamong theChileanmiddle class,with theneoliberalmodel of development that Chile has followed since theyears of General Pinochet’s dictatorship (with marginalcorrectionsduringthe20yearsruledbyacoalitionofleft-of-centerparties).The“model”hasdonegood forChile’seconomicgrowth,andfortheverypoor,forawholegenera-tion.However,itsindividualisticandcompetitiveovertonesandagrowingsenseofoverallsocialinequality,whichin-cludesbutisnotlimitedtoeducationalopportunity,seemstobesubjectingthesocialcompoundtoseverestress.Popu-larsolidaritywiththestudentsisnurturedbythiscomplexsocialenvironment.

Peak and Decline Inpart,asareflectionofthisgeneralizedmalaiseand,also,outofsheerpoliticalopportunism,otheraggrievedgroupsjoined secondary and university students in the streets—suchastheteachers’union,anewlycreatedassociationofdebtorsofuniversityloans,governmentemployees,andthenationalunionofworkers.

InlateJuly,themovementachievedapoliticalvictory,byforcingthepresidenttoremovetheministerofeduca-tion.Thenewministerinvitedtheleadersofthestudentstodiscussapolicy-reformproposal,encompassingalllevelsofeducation.Forhighereducation,thegovernmentwasoffer-ingquitelikelythemostgenerouspackageeverputonthetablein40years,bothintermsoffinancialcommitmentsandinresponsetothehistoricdemandsoftheeducationalactors: theproposal considered injectingadditionalUS$4billion (2%ofgrossdomesticproduct) to theeducationalbudgetoveraperiodof4to6years,whichwouldfundin-creasedaccess topreschool, reforms in schoolsof educa-tiontoimproveteachertrainingandcertification,changesinthegovernanceofpublicschooldistricts,andincreasedperstudentfundingforK–12education.

Inhighereducation,thegovernmentofferedtocreatean enforcement agency to protect students’ rights, moni-toraccountability,andensureuniversitiestoabidebytheirnonprofitstatus.Italsoproposedstrengtheningofthena-tional accreditation commission and its procedures—aswellasmoretothecoreofthestudents’agenda,increasefunding forpublicuniversities, ease loanpaymentcondi-tions for outstanding debtors, lower the interest rate oneducationalloans,andgivefull-tuitionscholarshipstothepoorest40percentofstudents.

The government did not, however, offer to eliminatefor-profitprivateeducation(letaloneprivateeducation,asawhole)ortomakehighereducationfreeoftuition.Moregenerally,thegovernmentisreluctanttochangethemodelofsubsidytostudents’demand,throughvouchers,scholar-ships,andloans—underwhichpublicfinancialsupportischanneledbothtoschooleducationandhighereducation.

The students remained unmoved. Mere adjustmentstotheeducationalsystemwouldnotsuffice.TheywanttotransformwhattheyseeasChile’s“freemarket,”“neolib-eral”education—asameansofchangingtheChileanfreemarket,neoliberalmodelofdevelopment.Theybelievethatwell-funded, state-run education can achieve better out-comesforstudentsandamoreinclusive,cohesive,andjustsociety.Theirresponsetothegovernmentwasapledgetocontinueandradicalizethemovement.

The expansion of the student movement, to includeothercauses,addedtoitsinfluence,butthatstageblurreditsagendaandturneditincreasinglyideologicalandpoliti-cized.Itssuccessingarneringthesupportofpublicopin-ioncloudedthejudgmentofthestudents’ leadershipandtheirpoliticaladvisers,whoatthiscriticaljuncturechosetoexchangeactualreformforthechanceofaffectingatrans-formationincapitalismitself.

Thegovernmentreactedbytakingbackwhatithadof-fered, transferringitsresponsibility,offindingasolution,tocongressandthediscussionthereinofthebudgetbillfor2012,andbettingontheprogressiveerosionofthemove-ment. The gambit is paying off: exhaustion with the vio-lenceoftenassociatedwiththeprotestsiseatingonpopularsupportforthemovement;rectorsareeagertograbwhatthe government offered and are for the first time, in sixmonths,puttingpressureonstudentstogobacktoclasses;someoftheleadersfaceelectionsintheirstudentfedera-tions;andthepressismovingontootherissues.

The movement’s unprecedented success conspireswithitseffectiveness.Withgrandandever-evolvinggoals,multiple and diffuse leaderships, political radicalizationamongmanyofitsconstituents,andmountingdamagetopublicschoolsanduniversitiesfromsixmonthsofparaly-

Rectors have sometimes accused the

private sector of higher education,

which accounts for 3/4 of all postsec-

ondary enrollments, of profiteering, elit-

ism, or substandard quality.

29I 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 Latin America

sis—the movement seems increasingly unable to find anacceptableendgame.Thestudentmovementhasbroughttheproblemsofeducationto theforefrontof thepoliticalagenda—nosmallfeat,evenifit’stheonlyonethisgesturecanmanagetoaccomplish.

WhytheArgentinePrivateUniversitySectorContinuestoLagMarcelo Rabossi

Marcelo Rabossi is assistant professor at the School of Government, Torcuato Di Tella University, Buenos Aires, Argentina. E-mail: [email protected].

IHEdevotesacolumnineachissuetoacontributionfromPROPHE, the Program for Research on Private HigherEducation,headquarteredat theUniversityatAlbany.Seehttp://www.albany.edu/.

InLatinAmerica,theprivatesectorholdsroughlyhalfofallhighereducationenrollment.InArgentinaitholdsa

fifth.NootherlargecountryinLatinAmericaisnearlyaslowintheprivateshare.WhydoesArgentinacontinuetobesodifferentandwillthischange?

Early Stages The private university sector in Argentina began late, incomparisontoothersystemsinLatinAmerica.Attemptstochallengethepublicmonopoly,particularlyduringthefirsthalfofthe20thcentury,facedstrongstateopposition.Onlyafterintensecompromiseswiththeexecutivepower,wouldArgentinaopenitsfirstprivateuniversity(in1959).Atthetime, the large majority of Latin American countries hadalreadyestablishedaprivatesector,andonly3ofthe20re-publicswouldnothavedonesoby1962.AfterArgentina’spublicmonopolyofmore than130yearswasbroken, theprivate market began a process of enrollment expansion.Bytheendofthe1960s,itcapturedalmostoneofeveryfiveuniversitystudents.

Theexpansionof theprivatemarketwas insome in-stances, as in Mexico, a response to defend the status ofelitesinhighereducationasthepublicuniversityabsorbedmore and more students of modest socioeconomic back-ground. InArgentina,however, thepublic sectorwasnot

onlythemainabsorberofnewstudentsbutremainedcom-mitted to keeping its position at the top of the hierarchi-cal pyramid. The private market was never thought as acomplementarytooltolessentheparamountstatureofthenational institution. In comparison to the region overall,privateoptionshaveneverfoundfertilegroundtoexpandtoalargeshareofenrollment.

Argentina’shistoricalemphasison thepublicuniver-sityhasheld,evenduringperiodsoffiscalcrises.Thoughitmayappeareconomicallyperverse,thenatureoftheAr-gentinepoliticalsystemmeantthatduringthe1980s,whileanexhaustedstatewasbeggingforfunds,thedoorsofthenational university were opened for all secondary schoolgraduates.Policyineffectsince1973,allowingnonewpri-vateuniversities,wasnotlifteduntil1989.Thus,ArgentinabecameoneofthefewLatinAmericancountriestowitnessa decline in the private share of enrollment. In sum, theprivatesectorinArgentinawastoleratedbutnotpartofasystemicdesign.

A New Opportunity for Private Alternatives However, the early 1990s, amid neoliberal political/eco-nomic policy, brought another chance for private expan-sion.With theentryof23newinstitutionsbetween1989and 1995, for the first time private universities outnum-bered public ones (48 to 40). These newcomers addedheterogeneityinasystemdominatedinenrollmentbythepublicside(86%in1995).But,quickly,theopeningoftheNationalAccreditationAgency (CONEAU) in 1996wasanewbarriertoprivateexpansion.Theagencywasimmedi-atelystrictinitsrequirements,rejectingalmost9ofevery10 entry applications. For example, looking at the last 10yearsofavailableofficialdata(2000–2009),only12privateuniversitieswereallowed to enter themarket, andonly 3since 2005. Within this panorama, by the end of 2009,60 private institutions are found to be enrolling only 20percent of all university students—in other words, a per-centagenotdissimilartotheonereachedattheendofthe1960s(18%).

Asignificantfactduringtheperiod(2000–2009)wasthat new public enrollees remained stable (at 290,000),while private freshmen grew (from 62,000 to 97,000).Thus,25percentofallnewstudentsin2009chosethenon-publicoption.Consequently,privateenrollmentincreasedby6percentagepoints(from14to20%).Probablythein-creaseinthepurchasingpowerofsalariesduringthelastfiveorsixyearshelpsexplainthisprivategrowth.Also,wecan speculate that an increasing number of families per-ceivethatfromanacademicandorganizationalperspectivetheprivatesectorislessinternallypoliticizedorconflictedandthusenhancestheeaseofcompletingdegrees.Sucha

29

30 Countries and Regions

perspectivehasovertheyearscontributedtoprivategrowthelsewhereintheregion.

However, given Argentina’s statist tradition and po-litical culture, the public sector reacted by establishingnew universities. The public side has begun to widen itsacademicofferingsagain,byopeningseveralbranchesandnewinstitutions(someinplacesunattractiveforprivatein-vestors).Therehavebeen9newpublic institutionssince2005.Evidently,thestateisstillnotdisposedtogiveupitsroleofmain-demandabsorber.

More Room for Private Alternatives? Evenas theprivatesector isnowenrollingoneoutofev-eryfournewstudents,itsabilitytoincreasethisproportionremains unclear. Argentina does not offer the friendliestenvironmentforprivateundertakings.Mostpublicpoliciesarefarfromfosteringprivatealternatives.Theopenadmis-sionthatmainlyrulesthepublicsectorsince1983hardlyfavors thedevelopmentofa largerprivatemarket.Unlikesomeregionalcounterparts(thoughnotothers),Argentinaalsomaintainsapolicyofnotuitionforpublichigheredu-cationattheundergraduatelevel.Also,therearenoavail-

ablepublic-subsidedloansforstudentswhochoseaprivateinstitution. Loans are not prevalent for the public sectoreither,but it isonly theprivate sector that chargesmajorfees.Fromthesupplyside,publicpoliciesarenotfriendlyfornewprivateinvestors.WhiletheopeningofnewpublicuniversitiesdoesnotneedtogettheNationalAccreditationAgency’sapproval,nonpublicundertakingsarestrictlycon-trolledbytheagency.Suchasituationmayarisewhenthestate trusts itsnational institutionsmore than theprivatecounterparts.

Insum,Argentinahasdebatablebutstrongdualbar-rierstoprivatehighereducationgrowth:demandingpub-lic-policy regulations on the private sector and expansiveoreven laxpolicywithinthepublicside,particularlycon-cerning the opening of new institutions. Thus, no majorconditionsareseenasanexpectationforaprivateboominArgentinathatwouldbringthecountrytowardtheregionalprivatehighereducationshare.

WelcometotheNationalUniversityofGermany!Sebastian LittaSebastian Litta is a fellow at the Stiftung Neue Verantwortung, a think tank in Berlin, where he leads a project on the future of German univer-sities. E-mail: [email protected].

Six years ago, Germany’s federal government proposedthe ideaof creatinganartificial IvyLeagueof ahand-

fulof researchuniversities thatwould receiveextramon-ey—to compete with the likes of Harvard, Stanford, andCambridge.Afirstroundofthisso-calledexcellencecom-petition,in2007,producednineuniversitiesthatweresub-sequently showered with modest sums of public money.Thefundingwaslimitedtofiveyearsandwillendin2012.RecognizingthatnewHarvardscannotbebuiltwithinhalfa decade, the federal minister of education and researchsoonannouncedasecondroundthatwillstartnextsum-mer.SomepoliticiansandthefewGermanhighereduca-tionvisionariesarealready thinkingabouthow toensurethelong-termsuccessofthewinneruniversities.Creatingfederaluniversitiesseemstobeoneoption.

Universities’ Linkage to Shrinking State BudgetsTraditionally,theGermansystemofresponsibilitybetweenthefederallevelandthestatesprovidespowerconcerninguniversitiesandothereducationalinstitutionstothestates(Länder).Thefederalleveltakescareonlyofresearchorga-nizations—suchasMaxPlanck,theNationalScienceFoun-dation DFG, and international exchange organizations.Whilethisarrangementcouldmakeatheoreticalsenseonhow to organize a federal state, it clashes with the fiscalrealityofGermany’s16states,manyofwhichmustmakeseverebudgetcutsinthefuture.Tuitionfees,onlyrecentlyintroduced,mightneedtobeabolishedagain,becausethenumerousopponentswere successful inportraying themas unjust. Hence, German public universities will losethisonlysignificantnonpublicsourceofincome.In2017,whenthepublicfundsofthesecondexcellencecompetitionroundwillhavebeenspent,the9to12winneruniversitiesmightfallbackto“normal”levelsoffinancing,whichoftenmeansone-tenthofHarvard’sbudgetperstudent.

Undoubtedly,theideaofusingfederalmoneytobringstateuniversitiestoareputationofinternationalfamehasbeenmentioned.Arecentarticle,inGermany’sFrankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, evenproclaimed that federaluniversi-ties or Bundesuniversitäten already exist. This referred tothemergerofKarlruhe’sstate-financedTechnicalUniver-sitywithanearbyfederallyfinancedresearchinstitute.Thenewinstitution,rebrandedasKITorKarlsruheInstituteof

Argentina’s historical emphasis on the

public university has held, even during

periods of fiscal crises.

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

31I 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 Countries and Regions

Technology,isnowauniversityofficiallyrunbyastatebutactuallyreceivesalargepartofitsfundingfromthefederallevel.WhenAnnetteSchavan,thefederalministerofedu-cation and research, remarked that she could imagine inthefuturemorefederallyfundeduniversities,thepublicre-actionwasmildlypositive.However,twoproblemsshouldbe discussed before entering this new path of Germanhighereducation.First, thedebate isentirelybasedonfi-nancequestions.PolicymakersandeducationexpertsseemtoassumethatitisonlythesizeofthebudgetthatseparatesHeidelbergfromHarvardorBochumfromBrownUniver-sity.Second,evenafterrealizingthatmoneyalonecannotbuyacademicreputation,itseemsdifficulttoorganizethetransferfromstatetofederalfunding.

More Money Is Not EnoughRegardingthequestionofhowtobuildaworld-classuni-versity,moremoneycan,ofcourse,helptolessenthemostsevere problems. However, several institutional obstacleshinderGermanuniversitiesfrombecomingatop-20uni-versityintheworld.Theseissuescannotbeexplicitlydis-cussed,but they include theKapazitätsverordnung, a legalmonster that basically prohibits all universities from im-provingthestudent-facultyratiobecauseoftheneedtoau-tomaticallyadmitmorestudentsforeveryadditionalprofes-sorhired.

Anotherproblemistherelativelyweakpositionofuni-versity presidents, caused by both a romantic illusion ofenormousself-managingcapacitiesof individual researchprofessors and an ongoing obsession with trying to addmorevetoplayerstoeveryuniversitydecision-makingpro-cess.Also,theconcentrationofmanytopresearchersout-sidetheuniversitiesmightnotharmtheresearchsystem,but maybe the universities. The discussion about Bunde-suniversitäten is, therefore, more about a chance to allowsomeuniversitiestoescapedrasticcutsinthefuture,butitdoesnotproduceamasterplanofhowtoactuallyimprovetheiracademicstanding.However,ifthefederallevellinksfunding with institutional reform and a Bundesuniversität

couldbecomealaboratoryforthefutureofGermanhighereducation,thenthecasebecomesmoreinteresting.

Incentives to Transfer Universities to the Federal Level?

Another question concerns which universities will trans-form into federally funded institutions. The total list—9oreven 12winners—of theexcellence competitionmightbe too numerous, and it seems unclear how to quantifythe amount of excellence in higher education that a gov-ernmentcanaffordtofund.Evenifthefederalleveldeter-minesthenumberofuniversitiestobefunded,howshouldinstitutionsbe selected? It seemsdoubtful that the stateswillwillinglygiveuptheirmostprestigiousinstitutionstosavethem.Somestateministersofeducationmightbein-terestedinkeepingabitofinternationalIvyLeagueglam-ourundertheirfinancialjurisdiction.

Tomanyobservers,aclearexample indicatesBerlin’sHumboldt University. Once the global prototype of themodernresearchuniversity, itnowadayscannotbe foundin the top position of any university ranking—unless100-year-oldNobelPrizesaregivenextraweight.ThestateofBerlinhasbeenfacingseverebudgetproblemsformanyyears. Many members of Angela Merkel’s governmentwouldlikeHumboldttobecomeafederaluniversity,notatleastbecauseofgeographicalproximity.YoucanwalkfasterfromHumboldttotheReichstagandChancellorMerkel’s

office thanbeingable to readandunderstandanaverageHegelsentence.However,themayor-governorofBerlin—likemanyotherpoliticians—willmost likelyprefer toseeHumboldtstagnateunderstate-leveltutelageratherthantoseeitprosperoncethefederalleveltookover.Universities,along with police, regional culture, and primary and sec-ondaryeducationareamongthefewdivisionsthatarelefttostatepoliticians.Mostotherimportantissuesaredecidedatthefederallevel.“Buying”astateuniversitywillthusbeverycostly,ifnottoocostly,forthefederallevel.

Learning from SwitzerlandAll the obstacles mentioned above do not mean that itwould be impossible to create a federal university. WhentheSwiss,more thanone-and-a-halfcenturyago,debated

Some politicians and the few German

higher education visionaries are already

thinking about how to ensure the long-

term success of the winner universities.

Creating federal universities seems to

be one option.

Policymakers and . . . experts assume

that it is only the size of the budget that

separates Heidelberg from Harvard or

Bochum from Brown University.

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 N32 Countries and Regions

thesamequestionandencounteredmassiveresistancebyestablishing regional universities, they came up with anintelligentcompromise.Thenewlyerectedfederaluniver-sities would only focus on research areas not consideredworth working on by other universities: engineering, sci-ences,andothertechnicalsubjects.Today,theETH(SwissFederalInstituteofTechnology)Zürichisnotonlyanexcel-lent technical institution but clearly also one of Europe’sbestuniversities.

If German policymakers can articulate a compellingvisionofwhatcouldbeachievedbyestablishingafederaluniversity,thiswouldbeamajorfirststep.If,inadditiontomoremoney,thisinstitutionwouldavoidsomeoftheorga-nizationalandstructuralproblemsthatkeepmostGermanuniversities frombecomingworldclass. If a creativedealcanbe found tomake this institutional transferattractivetothestates,thefederallevel,andtherespectiveuniversity,thisloftyideacouldthenbecomeaseriousplan.

StudentParticipationinHigherEducationGovernanceinEuropeManja Klemencic

Manja Klemencic is postdoctoral researcher at the Centre for Education Policy Studies at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. E-mail: [email protected].

StudentparticipationinhighereducationgovernanceisconsideredoneofthefoundationalvaluesinEuropean

highereducation.Thispolicyisderivedfromthedemocrat-icmodelofhighereducationgovernance,whichemergedinEuropeafterthestudentrevoltsinthe1960s,andstip-ulates that universities as public institutions ought to begoverneddemocratically.Moreover,thisfactorimpliestheparticipationofallpoliticallysignificantconstituencies,in-cludingstudents.Suchstudentparticipationisalsolinkedtothenotionsofhighereducationasapublicgoodandofstudents as custodians of public interest. Today, studentsasacollectivebodyinsomewayrepresentapartofhighereducationgovernance,basically,ineveryEuropeancountry.

European VariationsAmong European countries, quite a variety exists: if na-tionallegislationspecifiesthecompositionofinternalandexternal stakeholders in institutionalgovernancearrange-mentsorifinstitutionshavetheautonomousprerogativetodecideontheseissues.Typically,legislationtendstospecifyprovisionson the roles, responsibilities, and compositionof thecentral institutionalgoverningbodies.Accordingly,studentparticipation inacademic senates tends tobe thestrongest across institutions and countries. Subinstitu-tional aspects are decided on the institutional level—andmayormaynotberegulatedintheorganization’sby-laws.Thus, noticeable differences arise between countries andeveninstitutionswithinthesamesystems.Basedonlegalprovisions,studentparticipationmaybegrantedbypurelyconsultativeordecision-makingbodies,andstudentsmayormaynotenjoyfullvotingrightsonallissues.Inviewofthesedifferencesbetweencountries,representativestudentorganizationshavecontinuedtoargueacaseformorepar-ticipation—formalaswellasactual.

Student Participation and the Bologna Process TheEuropeanStudents’Union,theEuropeanplatformofnationalstudentrepresentations,broughttheissueofstu-dentparticipationontotheagendaoftheBolognaprocess(seeIHE no.50).Althoughitisanintergovernmentalini-tiative, theBolognaprocessadoptedaparticipatorygover-nanceapproach.Stakeholderorganizations, including theEuropeanStudents’Union,havebeeninvolvedasconsulta-tivemembersinthegoverningstructures.Studentpartici-pationhasbeenasalientissuefortheunion.TheEuropeanministersresponsibleforhighereducationhavespokeninfavorofboth:studentinvolvementinthepolicymakingofthe emerging European Higher Education Area and stu-dentdecision-makingparticipationinEuropean,national,andinstitutionallevels.Suchpoliticalaffirmationwasvirtu-allyunprecedentedwithinEuropeanhighereducation.Still,the extent and degree of student participation as a policyobjectivewasleftratherambiguous.GiventheconsensualnatureoftheBolognaprocess,suchambiguityindicatesthepolicythatwas“inoffensive”againstpotentialrejectionbyreluctantgovernments.

Improvement of Student Participation in Governance? The European Higher EducationArea’s political endorse-ment of student participation has been used by nationalrepresentative organizations to consolidate or strengthentheir participation in the national policy processes. Theeffects vary, however, among the countries depending onthepre-existingmodelsofstudentinterestintermediation.InsomepartsofEurope,suchascentralandsoutheasternEurope,thepoliticalendorsementledtoimprovedstudent

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 33Countries and Regions

participationinnational-levelhighereducationpolicymak-ing.ThegeneraltendencyacrossEuropehasinvolvedstu-dentrepresentativesintheBologna-initiatedpolicyprocess-es,whiletoalesserdegree,ifatall,attheinstitutionallevel.Now,governance reforms sweeping acrossEurope evincea changing trend of the student participatory model—anerosionofstudents’involvementofdecisionmakingonallvital policy and strategy. Along with other internal stake-holderrepresentatives,studentrepresentativesareincreas-inglybeingeclipsedbytheexecutiveleadership,andtheirroleisincreasinglybeingtransformedfromdecisionmak-ingtoanadvisoryfactor.

University Governance Reforms and New Public Man-agement

WiththeincreasingpressuretomodernizeEuropeanhigh-ereducation,universitieshavebeengrantedmoreinstitu-tional autonomy. In general, European universities havecreated managerial infrastructures parallel to academicones.Thistendencyshiftsindecisionmakingfromcolle-giategoverningbodies,inwhichstudentsareformallyrep-

resented,tomanagerialbodieswheretheyarerepresentedlessornotatall.IncaseofPortugal,forexample,thenewprovisionsstipulatestudentparticipation in theConselhoGeral, but the minimal share of student representativesisnotspecified.Theargumentsgivenforthechangecov-ered disturbance of student representatives (e.g., fightsover tuition fees) and the effectiveness of decision mak-ing.Concomitantly,therelativepoliticalweightofstudentrepresentativesinuniversityboardshasdeclined.Insum,strongexecutiveleadershiphasbeenviewedasanewidealfor supplanting the representative democracy model, dis-cussedabove.

Students as ClientsGiventheglobalfinancialcrisisacrossEurope,theoveralltrend creates the burden of financing public higher edu-cationshiftingfromgovernmentstoinstitutionsandtheirstudents. The creation or substantial increase of tuitionfeesinsomecountrieshassignificantimpactsonstudent-university relations. Tuition-paying students—conceivedasclients,ratherthanpartners—fitwellintotheemerging

idealofthemodern“corporate”university.Identifyingstu-dentsasclientsdoesnotprecludestudentparticipationininstitutionalgovernance,but it fundamentally transformsit. The contemporary institutional preference for studentparticipation clearly constitutes an advisory rather than adecision-makingfunction.Studentsareinvitedtocontrib-uteininstitutionalquality-assuranceproceduresintermsofimprovingservicesandoverallinstitutionalperformance.

European VariationsThe trend in institutional governance across Europe isclearlyseenasweakeningformalstudentparticipationandstrengtheninginformalstudentparticipation.Theextentofsuchdevelopmentsdependsonthespecificnationalmodelofstudentrepresentationandhowformalizedandstrongthe channels of student involvement in higher educationgovernanceareonvariouslevels.Instatistcountrieswithweak student representation, the conception of studentsas consumers may well be overriding the traditional ideaofstudentsaspartners.Bothconceptionsareattemptedtobe combined in corporatist countries, suchas theNordicstates,withmatureandhighlydevelopedstudentorganiza-tionsandwithstrongchannelsofinfluencetohigheredu-cationgovernance,onalllevels.

Canada’sEgalitarianDebateDaniel ZaretskyDaniel Zaretsky is chief ideas officer of Higher-Edge, a Toronto-based international higher education consulting firm. E-mail: [email protected].

Some countries with much smaller populations, thanCanada’s35million,havedevelopedasharplydifferen-

tiatedortiereduniversitysystem.ButCanada’suniversitysystem evinces a different prevailing ethos. It aspires tolesserdifferencesoverall—intermsofcalibreofteaching,content, research, and facilities. Thus, last year, Canada’sleading national English-language magazine, Maclean’s, reported on Canada’s Big Five universities crying out formoreresearchfunding.WhydidthearticleelicitobjectionsfromotherCanadianuniversities?And,anyway,whydoesCanadahaveaBigFiveandnotaBestFive?

No Elite Tier of UniversitiesForacountrywith10percentoftheUSpopulation,ithasproportionatelyfarfewerinstitutions.Thereareonlyabout100 mainly degree-granting institutions in Canada, com-

Student participation in higher educa-

tion governance is considered one of

the foundational values in European

higher education.

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 N34 Countries and Regions

paredtoabout4,000intheUnitedStates.TheCanadiansystemisvirtuallyentirelyprovinciallyfunded.Tuitionsareheavily regulated, and provinces offer needs-based loansand grants. Private universities are virtually unheard of.The few that existhave tiny studentbodies, aregenerallyobscure,andarenotresearchinnature.Canadahasanun-usuallyhighproportionofitsuniversitiesasresearchuni-versitiesandasimilarlyunusualproportionofalloftheseinsmallpopulationcenters.

Tuition—Low and Staying LowWhatisthetuitionfeeimportofthesedifferences?Almostall bachelor’s degrees in Canada cost Canadians betweenC$6,000and8,000forannualtuition(withalmostalltheexceptionslower—aslowasC$2,000).Tuitiondifferencesdo not reflect intraprovincial or interprovincial caliber—or even perceived caliber—but simply involve the budgetjudgment of one province, as distinct from another. Yet,Canada’sbachelor’sdegreeprogramsarehighlyrespectedoutsideCanada,anditsprofessionalprogramsandmedicaland lawschoolsareconsideredfirstrateby the loftiestofUSvantagepoints(forexample,allengineeringschoolsareaccreditedbytheABET(AccreditationBoardforEngineer-ingandTechnology).

McGillUniversityisoneoftheself-annointed“Big5”(alongwiththeUniversityofToronto,UniversitédeMon-tréal,theUniversityofBritishColumbia,andtheUniversi-tyofAlberta).ItisoneofthefewCanadianuniversitiesthatcanlayclaimtoattractingasizeableproportionofstudentsfromalloverCanada(andtheUnitedStates).Yet,abach-elor’sdegreecostsQuebecresidentsbarelyC$2,000ayear!

Since tuition prices are limited by the provinces, Ca-nadian institutions have no undue financial incentive tomakebiginvestmentsinbranding.Dressinguptheimagemighthelpcommandmorestudentsorasomewhatbetteracademicprofilefortheincomingclass.Butthisisnotthesame conception as having the option to charge more infeesasdemandandappealstrengthens.

Commuter CountryIt isnosurprise, then, thatanotherby-productof theCa-nadiansystemmeansthat it isexceedinglycommonplaceforuniversity-boundstudentsincitiesacrossCanada,withsmallpopulations,tochoosetostudynearthehomeregion.AtypicalCanadianwillnotthinkCanada’sBig5universi-ties—ortheUStop10,forthatmatter—wouldteachbiol-ogy or psychology, which are qualitatively more challeng-ingthaninthemanychoicestheyhavewithincommuterdistance.

NoCanadianuniversityhasanationalbrandimagethatcomparesremotelywiththenationalbrandimageofHar-vardoroftheMassachusettsInstituteofTechnology.Intheinternationaldomain,CanadianuniversitieslagverymuchbehindalonglistofUScounterpartsinnamerecognition.Asaresult,thissystemmakesitlikelythattopstudentswillbewell-distributedacrossthecountry’sinstitutions.

Lower-Stress High SchoolTheabsenceofbigbranddifferences,afurtherimplicationof the Canadian system, is that Canadian high schoolersmayworkhardbutarenotoverlystressed.This isnot tosaythereisnotanyhighschoolstrivingorcompetitiveness.Certainly,somebachelorprogramsatauniversitywithlim-itedenrollmentrequireextraordinaryachievementtogainentry (andusuallydonot costmore).But thesedemandsarefewandfarbetween.

For example, fine mathematics and physics studentshaveampleengineeringspacesacrossthecountryand,formost,closetohome.Forahostofindividualreasons,largenumbersofstudentsroutinely turndownoneormoreoftheBigFive,toattendanotherinstitution.

Thoughhighschoolstandardizationandscoringisonthewane,forthemostpart,Canadianhighschoolgradesaretakenatfacevalue,withoutfurthervalidationrequired.There is no SAT (Scholastic Assessment Test) equivalentoranentranceexamsystem.Whileexceptionsexist,mostuniversity programs simply require only a submission ofhighschoolresults.

Becausetopstudentsstudyattheirownlocaluniversi-ty,theoverallcompetitiveframeworkisnotskewed.Theul-tra-competitivenessissavedforpostbachelorprograms—ormedicine,dentistry, law,andawiderangeof thesis-basedmaster’sdreams.

So, if therearestudentprotests, it isnotover theab-senceofIvyLeagueinstitutionsinCanada,butratheroverthefactthatC$5,000or7,000isstillalotofmoneytopayforannualtuition.Evenattheseprices,tuitioncostsremainlivelyissuesinprovincialelections.

The Big Five AspirationTheprotestationsthatdoemanatecomefrominstitutionslikeCanada’sso-calledBigFiveuniversities(locatedinitsmost-populousurbancenters).Theseinstitutionsfeelham-strung from competing in research, with the world’s topechelonofresearchuniversities.Thisislargelyduetothe“burden”asfacultywouldseeitoftakingonhugeclassesofundergraduatestudents,whichdwarfthoseofmanypromi-nentUSresearchuniversities.

TheUSsystemhascritiqueditselfoverofferingtoofewresearchprofessorsasinstructorsinundergraduatecours-es,especiallyinitseliteinstitutions.InCanada,thenormis

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 35News of the Center

thatresearchfacultycommitfullytobachelor’s-degree-levelinstruction.Goodforteachingandstudents,notsogoodforenablingfacultytofocusonresearch.

ToCanada’slargeresearchinstitutions,theywouldbehappierifmanyofCanada’sotheruniversitiestaughtmoreundergraduatestudents,leavingmoreoftheresearchtime,andmoney,tothem.ThesmallerinstitutionsfeeltheyhaveprovenworthyoftheresearchmoniestheyhavegarneredandareunconvincedashiftinresourcestothebiggestofCanada’suniversitieswouldbebetterforCanada—i.e.,theBigFivearenotnecessarilytheBestFive.

Societal Trade-OffsThe fault line isultimatelywhetherhavinga top tier (farfrom assured) of superfocused research universities isworththetrade-off.IsitinCanada’sbestintereststoclusterresearchmore in itsultraurbanareasandfundlessof its

research in smallerurbanareas?Does it serve thepublictohavemorestudentsstudyinglessunderresearchprofes-sors,atresearchuniversitiesor, indeed,morestudents inprogramswherenoresearchcompanionisthere?

Canadaproducesexcellentresearch,butitisgeograph-ically distributed. Indeed, research production might begreater were it clustered and if the best researchers wererelievedmuchmore,orentirely,fromteachingobligations.Fromthepublic-vantagepoint, thetrade-off iswhether toinvest locallyor concentrate funding ina few top institu-tions.

Asthelandofasinglestandardofstate-fundedhealthcareforall,Canadiansaregenerallyapttotradeoffalittleexcellenceforalotmoreequity.

AbooklaunchforThe Road to Academic Excellence: The Mak-ing of World-Class Research Universities,coeditedbyPhilipG.Altbach and Jamil Salmi, took place at the World Bank onOctober5inWashington,DC.Thebookhasreceivedcover-ageintheNew York Times, International Herald Tribune,andotherplaces.Op-edarticlesonthethemebyAltbachandSal-mihavebeenpublishedintheChronicle of Higher Education, Daily Nation (Kenya), and other newspapers. The Chineseeditionofthebookwasreleasedatthe4thWorldClassUni-versity Conference in Shanghai, where Altbach and Salmidelivered talks.Additional translationsare inproduction inFrench,Spanish,Turkish,andIndonesian.

TheCenter’s joint researchprojectwith theNationalResearchUniversityHigherSchoolofEconomicsinMoscowconcerning academic salaries, remuneration, and contracts

in28countrieshasbeencompleted;andabookreportingontheresults,Paying the Professoriate: A Global Comparison and Contracts,isnowinproductionwithRoutledgePublishers.

Liz Reisberg just returned from Brazil where she gaveaseminaron“Newparadigmsforteachingandlearninginhighereducation,”toagroupofprofessorsattheUniversityof Campinas, where she also collaborated on the develop-mentofthenewinstituteforuniversityleadershiptobeof-feredbyUNICAMPnextJuly.

Inthespringof2012,severalvisitingscholarswill jointhe Center. These include Qi Wang, assistant professor intheGraduateSchoolofEducationatShanghaiJiaoTongUni-versity;DanielLincoln,theeditoroftheEuropean Journal of Higher Education;andLinJinofHuazhongUniversityofSci-enceandTechnologyinWuhan,China.

News of the Center

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”updateddailywithno-

ticesmost relevant to internationaleducatorsandpractitio-ners,policymakers,anddecisionmakers.Think“newsmar-quis” inTimesSquare inNewYorkCity.Here,ataglance,youcantakeintheinformationandperspectiveyouneedinafewminuteseverymorning.

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.

Wewillkeepyouinformedandsaveyoutime!

Critical International News at a Glance on Facebook and Twitter

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 umber iNter€¦ · International Higher Education is the quarterly...

Documents

Transcript of INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION umber iNter€¦ · International Higher Education is the quarterly...