INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION umber priNg · 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 offers commentary and current information on key issues that shape higher education worldwide. IHE is published in English, Chinese, Russian, Portuguese, and Spanish. Links to all editions can be found at www.bc.edu/

Number 71: SpriNg 2013

International Issues

2 DoesHigherEducationEqualizeIncomeDistribution? Martin Carnoy

3 BrandingUniversities:TrendsandStrategies Gili S. Drori

5 ReligionandHigherEducationAchievementinEurope Gaële Goastellec

6 ImaginingtheUniversity Ronald Barnett

For-Profit Higher Education

8 TheFor-ProfitMotive Andrés Bernasconi

10 SqueezingtheNonprofitSector Daniel C. Levy

12 TheQuality-ProfitAssumption Kevin Kinser

Internationalization Themes

13 InternationalStudentMobilityintheUnitedStates Christine A. Farrugia and Ashley Villarreal

15 China’sConfuciusInstitutes—MoreAcademicandIntegrative Qiang Zha

17 Finally,anInternationalizationPolicyforCanada Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Glen A. Jones

19 BranchCampusesWeighStart-upOptions David A. Stanfield

Latin American Perspectives

20 NewDynamicsinLatinAmerica José Joaquín Brunner

23 ArgentinePublicUniversities:InefficientandIneffective? Marcelo Rabossi

24 CentralAmerica:TheValueofInternationalAcademicCooperation Nanette Svenson

26 Mexico:EnrollmentCompetition,Accreditation,andthePublic-Private Market Juan Carlos Silas Casillas

Departments

28 NewPublications31 NewsoftheCenter

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N2 International Issues

DoesHigherEducationExpansionEqualizeIncomeDistribution?Martin Carnoy

Martin Carnoy is Vida Jack Professor of Education, at Stanford Uni-versity, Graduate School of Education, Stanford, CA. E-mail: [email protected]. This article is based on University Expansion in a Changing Global Economy: Triumph of the BRICs?, to be published by Stanford University Press in June 2013.

Awidelyheldbeliefaboutthebenefitsofexpandingac-cesstoeducationisthatgreateraccessextendssocial

mobilityandincomeequality.Inthecaseofhighereduca-tion, as enrollments expand, bright youth from lower-in-comefamiliesaremorelikelytoenterandcompleteuniver-sities. In theory, thisshould increase thechancesofsuchindividualstomoveupwardeconomically,bymakingthemmore able to compete for higher-paying jobs associatedwithahigherdegree.Further,withrapid increases in thenumberofhighereducationgraduates,theirrelativeearn-ings may fall, eventually making overall income distribu-tionmoreequal.

Thisbeliefrunsupagainstacontraryreality.Inmanycountrieswherethenumberofsecondaryandhigheredu-cationgraduatesisexpandingathighrates,incomedistri-butionisbecomingmoreunequal and,insomecases,socialmobilityisatastandstill.

Recentresearch,byagroupof internationalscholars,studiedthisphenomenonempirically,tryingtounderstandwhether educational expansion creates greater incomeequality.ThisresearchfocusedonBrazil,Russia,India,andChina,knownastheBRICcountries.TheBRICshave40percentoftheworld’spopulationand,inthepast15years,havemanagedanenormousleapintheirhighereducationenrollment.

Modeling Earnings VariationTraditionally,economistshavemodeledearningsvariationasafunctionofthelevelofschoolinginthelaborforce,thedispersion(variance)inthenumberofyearsofschoolinginthelaborforce,theeconomicpayofftoayearofschooling(therateofreturntoschooling),andthedispersionofratesofreturntodifferentlevelsofschooling.Economistshaveusuallyassumedthataslevelsofeducationintheworkforceincreasetofairlyhighlevels, thepayofftoschoolingfalls,andthedispersioninyearsofschoolingalsodeclines.Thisis quite logical, given economic theories about competi-tivelabormarketsandthefactthatschoolingseemstoex-

pandmuchmorerapidlythanemployerdemandformoreschooledlabor.

Ontheotherhand, ithasbeenobservedthatevenasschool systems expand, including the rapid expansion ofuniversitygraduatesforthelaborforce,thepayoffforthesegraduatesdoesnotfall,andeventendstoincreaserelativetothepayoffsforsecondaryschoolgraduates.

Why does this happen? There are many possible ex-planations.Oneis thathighereducated laborcanbesub-stitutedforlowereducatedlabor.Thus,thistendstodrivedownthewagesofthelesseducated.Evenifthewagesofthe higher educated stay fairly constant—as they did, forexample, in the United States in the 1980s—the wagesofsecondaryschoolgraduates tend to fall,as thatmarketbecomesincreasingly“crowded”withthelesseducated.Asecondpossibleexplanationregardstheexpandingknowl-edgeintensityofproductionandservices,thedemandforhighereducatedworkersgrowsfasterthanthehigheredu-cationsystemexpands.Athirdpossibleexplanationisthatcountriespursuefiscalpoliciesthatfavorhigher-incomein-dividuals,antiunionpoliciesthatputpressureontheearn-ingsof lower-educatedworkers.Suchpolicieswouldhaveincreasedincomeinequality

Our Research FindingsWhatever the explanation, even as higher education ex-pandedapaceinthefourstudiedcountries,itappearsthatthepayoffforuniversitygraduatestendedtoincrease(notdecline) in thepastdecade,andit tendedtoexpand,rela-tivetothepayoffforsecondaryeducation.Thisalsoraisedthedispersioninratesofreturnamonglevelsofeducation.Together, these “payoff effects” contributed to the risinginequality ofearningsandtendedtooffsetwhateverequal-izingeffectthehigherlevelofeducationandthedecliningvarianceofyearsofschoolinginthelaborforce.

Thus, these results for the BRICs show that in thepast decade, higher education expansion and the associ-atedchangeintheratesofreturntoeducationseemedtomaintainorbroadenincome inequality. InBrazil, twoop-positeforcesineducationaffectedincomedistribution:theincreaseinthevarianceof therateofreturntoeducationtimes the risingaverage levelof educationcontributed toincreased income inequality. However, countering that

In many countries where the number of

secondary and higher education gradu-

ates is expanding at high rates, income

distribution is becoming more unequal.

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 3International Issues

tendency,thefallingaveragepayofftoeducationinBrazil,combinedwiththeincreasedvarianceinyearsofeducationin the labor force, helped decrease income inequality. InChina, the rate of return to education and the growth oftheyearsofeducationinthelaborforceespeciallycontrib-utedtohigherincomeinequality.InIndia,inequalityprob-ablyrose,duetofactorsoutsidetherapidriseofeducationlevels inthelaborforce.Finally, inRussia, itappearsthateducationexpansioncontributedinasmallwaytohigherincomeinequality,despitesmallchangesintheratesofre-turntoeducation.InRussia,asinIndia,themainchangeinincomeinequalityprobablywasduetootherunobservedfactors.

Twootherfactorsmaybecontributingtotherisingin-comeinequalityinChina,Russia,andIndiaor,asinBrazil,to keeping income inequality steadier than it might havebeenotherwise—inthefaceofmoregeneralincomeredis-tributionpolicies.Thefirstofthesefactorsistheincreaseddifferentiationofspendingoneliteandmasshighereduca-tioninstitutionsinBrazil,China,andRussia(notevidencedinIndia).Overthepast5–10years,spendinghasincreasedperpupilineliteinstitutions,whereasmassinstitutionmayevenfacedecreasedspendingperpupil.Sincehighersocialclassstudentsmorelikelydominateeliteinstitutions,theydisproportionatelybenefitfromthisdifferentiation.

Thesecondfactor is thedistributionofoverallpublicspendingonhighereducation.Thispublicspending—eveninacountrysuchasBrazil,where75percentofstudentsattend private universities not subsidized by the govern-ment—isskewedheavilytowardstudentscomingfromthehighest20percentofincomefamilies.Higher-incomestu-dentsinBrazil,China,India,andevenRussia,approachingalmost universal attendance in postsecondary education,aretheonesheavilysubsidizedbythestate.

The enormous expansion of higher education in theBRICshas, therefore,notbeeneffective inequalizing in-comedistribution.Theimplicationoftheseresultsisthat,withoutpowerfulfiscalandsocialspendingpoliciesaimeddirectlyatreducingincomeinequality,itwillremainhighandmayevencontinuetorise.

BrandingofUniversities:TrendsandStrategiesGili S. Drori

Gili S. Drori is associate professor of sociology and anthropology, at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. E-mail: [email protected].

Asenseoffierce,globalcompetitionoverresources,stu-dents,andfacultyisdrivinguniversitiesworldwideto

launchstrategicexercisesandbrandinginitiatives.Univer-sities,likecorporations,articulatetheirvisionandmissionstatements for brand differentiation and marketing cam-paigns.Oneresultisthat,withtheguidanceofmarketingand branding consultants, universities across the worldhave been replacing their traditional seals and emblemswith stylized, eye-catching logos. This act wholly symbol-izes the transformation of universities from professional(andoftenpublic)institutionsofresearchandlearningintomarketplayers.

Branding TrendsBrandsareartifactsthatuniquelyidentifytheorganization;they are taken to convey the personality of the particularuniversity.Inthebewilderingglobaleconomy,whereprod-uctsbarrageconsumerswithcallsforattention,brandingisconsideredanimperativeformarketingsuccess.Thislogicpenetratedtheglobalfieldofuniversities:whileuniversitieshavealwaysproudlyralliedbehindtheirsealandregardedthemassymbolsoftheuniversity’scommunity,academicbrandingislinkedwithamarketingstrategyaimedatdif-ferentiatingtheuniversityfromthe(presumably)compet-ing14,000universitiesintheworld.

Three trends of branding are identified in universi-ties.First,inthepasttwodecadesmanyuniversitieshaverestyledtheirinsignia,orrepresentativesymbol:thetradi-tionalemblem,whichisloadedwithsignalsoftheprofes-sion,isrestyledintoalogo,whichcanbeeasilymistakenforacommercialbrand.Noticeably,thisisachangetotheaestheticsoftheuniversity’sinsignia:fromasymbolthatis

Economists have usually assumed that

as levels of education in the workforce

increase to fairly high levels, the payoff

to schooling falls, and the dispersion in

years of schooling also declines.

Austere and minimally ornate, the re-

styled logos are characteristic of either

new universities or those that under-

went a strategic planning campaign.

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 International Issues

loadedwithfigurativeimages(abook,asourceoflightsuchasatorchsignifyingtheEnlightenment,ornationalicons)andinvariablyalsomeaningfultexts(thenameoftheuni-versityanditsyearoffounding,forexample)toa“swoosh”image,which isonly vaguely, if at all, reminiscentof theuniversity’shistory(itsfoundingfathers),mission(labtoolsoropenbooks),orcharacter(naturalenvironment,campuslife,sports,andalike).Austereandminimallyornate, therestyled logosarecharacteristicofeithernewuniversitiesor those that underwent a strategic planning campaign.Therefore, theadoptionof logostyle signals that thecur-rentlylegitimateformofvisualrepresentationforuniversi-tiesresembles thatofcorporations:an instantlyrecogniz-ableandmarketableimageofadistinctorganization.

The second trend is for universities to add to, ratherthanreplacetheirtraditionalemblem.Inthistrend,thesenewiconsservedifferentpurposes:universityseals,forex-ample,arestillcommonlyusedforofficialuniversitydocu-mentssuchasdiplomas.Logos, incontrast,wouldbere-servedforbanners,anddigitalmarkersonWebpagesandwordmarks(asimplifiedimageofthetraditionalemblemalongwiththeuniversityname)areusedforstationaryandbusinesscards.This isavisualexpressionof identitydif-ferentiation, by audience and function; for example, uni-versities relyalmostexclusivelyon their logos inorder toappealtotheyoungaudienceofprospectivestudents,whilereservingtheirtraditionalemblemsforformaleventssuchasgraduationceremonies.

Thethirdandlasttrendisforuniversitiestoestablishproprietaryclaimstotheiriconsandtaglinesbyprotectingthese as intellectual property—to register these as trade-markorservicemark.Onceregisteredassuch,universityinsigniabecomesourcesofrevenuethroughmerchandis-ing, where the university licenses the use of its icon tomanufacturerswhothenproduceandsellthewell-knownuniversitysweatshirtsandT-shirts.Thisactofproprietaryprotectionofinsigniaisbasedonvaluepropositions:uni-versity icons are no longer mere identity markers of theuniversityasanacademiccommunity,butrathertheyhavebecomecommoditiesthatleveragetheuniversity’sreputa-tion.

Strategic ImplicationsNowthatbrandingisregardedasimperativeanduniversi-ties launchbrandingcampaigns, it turns toprofessionalsforguidance.Indeed,universitybrandingbecomesasub-specialty of branding and marketing consultancy: consul-tancyfirmsofferspecializedbrandingandmarketingser-vices to universities, and branding associations establishchaptersinuniversitycampuses.Suchprofessionalizationalsodrivesmanagerialchanges inuniversities,oftenwiththecreationofanadministrativeunitchargedwithbrand

managementorwithchangingtheorientationoftheuni-versityspokespersonawayfrommerepostingofinforma-tion about university activities and toward proactive mar-keting of the university to prospective students and theirparents,donors,andpartneringfirms.

Once a branding campaign concludes with a newlystylized icon or set of icons, operational adjustments inuniversitiesfollow.Mostoften,universitiesformalizetheirbrand guidelines into regulations: many universities pro-duce “brand books” to specify the logo’s color and size,describe the various iconsand their functional roles, andexplicatethelawsregardingbranduse.Also,anydeviationfrom, or infringement of, these specifications are subjectto penalty. Universities file lawsuits on other institutionsthat trespassuponthelogo’sproprietaryclaim,andsomeuniversitiesalsopenalizeacademicdepartmentswithintheuniversitythatdonotfollowtheguidelines.Theseadmin-istrativestepsareformallyexplainedasmatterofbuildinga university-wide identity, but such explanations are alsoheavilyinfusedwithmanagerialargumentsaboutadminis-trativecohesionamongorganizationalsubunits.

Cultural Meaning Branding is more than mere fashion, where universitieslearnmarketingpracticesfromfirmsandothersuccessfuluniversities;rather,brandingisameaningfulchangeintheidentityof theuniversity.University logos convey littleofacademiaasaprofession,anationalinstitution,oraknowl-edgeorganization;andfurthermore, logosconvey littleofthe university’s legacyor location. The act of takingonalogo-styleiconisthereforeanactofmetamorphosis:shed-ding the signals that convey the meaning of academe asaguild-likeprofessional institutionand takingonsignalsthatconveythecommercialrecognitionofabrandanditsvalue.Indeed,brandingisanoffshootoftheentrepreneur-ial university and related processes of commodificationand marketization: initially the entrepreneurial, sociallyengageduniversitywasmarketingitsresearchthroughpat-enting,while todaytheuniversityalsomarkets itsreputa-tionthroughitsbrand.

Branding lends new meanings to long-standingacademic categories. Branding brings market logic andmanagerialism to the university and heightens the senseof academic competition. In this way, the university was

The second trend is for universities to

add to, rather than replace their tradi-

tional emblem.

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

transformed intoa “promotionaluniversity.”Andpromo-tionandmarketingchangethetone,ifnotthecore,ofaca-demic work: from a branding perspective, excellence is adifferentiation strategy rather than solely a professionalduty.Emphasisonpromotionisalsoaccompaniedbyare-definition of what a university does; such emphasis sub-jectsknowledgecreation,teaching,andstudytothelogicsofmarketingandservice.Specifically,sincebrandreputa-tion is built upon customer service and product benefits,universities become particularly attune to student evalua-tionsof teachingandpostgraduationsalarybenefits,and,as a consequence, curricular decisions (such as the deci-siontoofferaparticularcourseortoopenanewacademicprogram)aremadeinresponsetostudentsatisfaction.Forexample,acoursemaybeofferedbecauseofitspopularityamongstudentsandhighregistration,ratherthanbecauseofitsplaceintheoverallpathofprofessionaldevelopmentand knowledge acquisition. Last, branding redefines theacademicprofession:byallowingconsultantstoguidestrat-egy, faculty members delegate the responsibility of steer-ing the university to “outsiders” and surrender the senseof academic community and autonomy to professionalmanagers.Inthisway,theuniversityistransformedfromaguild-likeinstitutionintoamodernorganization.These,combined,signal thecomingof“brandsociety”ontoaca-demeandontoitsprimeinstitution,namelytheuniversity.

ReligionandHigherEduca-tionAchievementinEuropeGaële Goastellec

Gaële Goastellec is assistant professor at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland. E-mail: [email protected].

Althoughreligionhashistoricallybeenastructuringdi-mensionofhighereducationsystemsinEurope,little

research interrogates thecontemporary linkbetweenreli-gionandhighereducation.Suchananalysiswouldbeofinterest,at two levels.First, it isaboutunderstanding theroleplayedbyhighereducationinagivensociety.Aretheresomespecificreligiouscontexts,inwhichhighereducationappearsmoreorlessdeveloped,andwhatdowelearnfromthesecontexts’comparison?Second,itisabouttakingreli-giousbackgroundsorbelongingsintoaccount,intheread-ingofinequalitiesofaccesstohighereducation.Historical-

ly,somegroupshavebeenrefrainedfromaccessinghighereducation,andEuropeansocietiesare,today,stillmoreorlessorganizedalongreligiouslines.Thiscallsforthecon-siderationofreligionasapotentialindicatorofinequalities,alongwithanethnicandsocioeconomicbackground.

To understand these issues, data are used from theEuropeanSocialSurvey.Fromthefivewavesofthissurvey(2001–2010),weobtainedasampleof181,492individualsbornbetween1939and1979,from30Europeancountries.Wethenbuiltanoriginalresearchdesigntocompareter-tiary-degreeholderstotherestofthepopulation,lookingattheirreligiousbackground.

Religion, Education, and Society Thefirst striking result consists inaglobal trend: InEu-rope, the most secular societies tend to be those with ahigherlevelofeducation.Comparingthetwogroupsofso-cieties—themostsecularoneswithahigherleveloftertiaryeducationandthemostreligiousoneswithalowerleveloftertiary education—another trendappears:Countriesof aProtestanttraditionaremorelikelytohaveahighleveloftertiaryeducation,comparedwithcountriesofCatholictra-dition.Howcanoneexplainthesetrends?Someresearchshows that Protestantism has not only generated a highlevelofeconomicprosperity,asMaxWeberidentified,butalsoahighlevelofliteracyandmoreeducationnecessaryforreadingtheBible.Indeed,basedonthehistoryofProt-estantism and Catholicism, one finds a major differenceregardingthesereligions’roleinsociety:InProtestantism,the individual relationship to knowledge is straight, theBible has early been translated into German (by opposi-tionwith the long-lastingdominationofLatin inCatholi-cism), and the development of schooling was supportedduring theReformation.So, today’sdifferencesofhighereducationsystemdevelopmentcanbeinterpreted,atleastpartly,astheconsequenceofhistoricalchoices;inthiscase,thechoiceofacommonlanguageofreligiousinstruction,whichcamewithalesshierarchicalstructureofProtestant-ism,comparedwithCatholicism.Thisiscoherentwiththefactthat,in1900,countrieswithamajorityofProtestantshadnearlyreachedauniversallevelofliteracy,whichwasnotthecaseofanyCatholiccountries.


In Europe, the most secular societies

tend to be those with a higher level of

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 N6

Thisshowshowachoicemadebythereligiousinstitu-tionatsomepointofhistorycanhavelong-lastingeffectsonthedevelopmentofeducation.Italsocallsforthedevel-opmentofasocietalandhistoricalapproach,toexplorethecomplexlinkbetweenhighereducationandreligion.

Religion, Education, and IndividualsThe second important results concern the weight of reli-gious background on the individual probability to accesstertiary degrees, everything else being equal. To addressthis issue, the impact of the religious background hasbeeninvestigatedonaccesstohighereducation—foreachcountry—controlling forage,gender, theparental levelofeducation,parentalprofession,parental and respondent’scountryofbirth,citizenship,senseofbelongingtoaneth-nicminority,oradiscriminatedgroupaswellaslanguagespokenathome.Istherearesidualimpactofreligion,oncethesevariablesarecontrolledfor?

First,itappearsthatindividualswithoutanyreligiousbelongingareoftenmorelikelytoholdatertiarydegree,incountries where a majority of respondents declare a reli-giousbelonging.Forexample,inPortugal,Spain,Poland,Austria,andSlovakia—countrieswherethemajorityofthepopulationisCatholic—therespondentswhodeclarethem-selves“withoutreligion”aremore likely toholda tertiarydegreethanthosewhodeclareareligion.ItisalsothecaseinGreeceandRussia,twocountrieswithamajorityofthepopulationbeingofOrthodoxfaith.

Second,incountrieswheremostrespondentsdeclarenoreligiousbelonging,respondentswhoaffirmareligiousbelonging,tendtohavemoreprobabilitytoholdatertiarydegree.This is, forexample, thecase forCatholics in theUnitedKingdom,Sweden,orBelgiumandforProtestantsintheUnitedKingdom,Sweden,andLatvia.

Third, if based on the access to tertiary education ofdifferent religious minority groups by comparison withthe largest groups, Muslims appear less likely to hold atertiarydegreeinatleastfivecountries(Austria,Belgium,Germany, Greece, and Switzerland) and Orthodox in one

(Switzerland).Furthermore,regardingdifferentagegroupsofnationalpopulations,changesareobservedintherepre-sentationofvariousreligiouscommunitiesholdingtertiarydegrees.Thismeansthattheimpactofreligiousbelongingschangesovertime.

Religion as an IndicatorSowhydigintheburningsocietalissueofreligion,whenquestioningaccesstohighereducation?Thetrendsprevi-ouslyunderlinedareobviouslyhardtoexplain,astheyarethe product of complex and obscure processes. Still, dig-ging further seems worthwhile for at least three reasons.Atatheoreticallevel,interrogatingthemulticausalityoftherelationbetweenreligionandhighereducationshouldhelpunderstandingthedynamicsatplaybetweenhighereduca-tionandsociety.Atamorepragmaticallevel,thisexamina-tionoffersanopportunitytoanalyzehowsocietaldynamicsareintertwinedwithindividualonesineducationtrajecto-ries.What is the roleofhighereducation in thebuildingupofnationstatesintegratingdiversereligiouscommuni-ties?Finally,italsounderlinestheinterestofnotlimitingananalysisofinequalitiesineducationtotheclassicalso-cioeconomicandethnicbackgroundbutofenlargingittothedifferentbelongingsindividualsexpressaspartoftheirworld.

ImaginingtheUniversityRonald Barnett

Ronald Barnett is emeritus professor of higher education, at the Insti-tute of Education, University of London. His latest book is Imagining the University (Routledge, 2013). E-mail: [email protected].

ThepagesofInternational Higher Educationarewitnesstocontinuouschangesinuniversitiesacrosstheworld.

Thesecapacitieseasilyidentifywithchangesandholdcon-versationsaboutthemevenacrossquitedifferentsettings—sothataworldwideconversationistakingplacehere.

These reflections open up some major issues. Thatconversationscanbeconductedcross-nationally is indica-tiveofthechangesunderwaybeingglobalinnature.Thesechangeshavebeenidentifiedoverthepast30years,includ-ingattachedtermssuchastheemergenceofaglobalknowl-edgeeconomyandmarketizationandneoliberalism.Morerecently,termssuchascognitivecapitalismandknowledgecapitalismhavebeenoffered.Connected,too,aredevelop-


It appears that individuals without any

religious belonging are often more likely

to hold a tertiary degree, in countries

where a majority of respondents declare

a religious belonging.


ments in computing technologies that are making possi-blepublic, interactive,andmultimodalengagementswithknowledge.

Partlyasaresultofsuchglobalforces,onewitnessesthe rise of the entrepreneurial university. This universityhascometounderstandtobeincommandofservicesandproducts—intimately connected with the formation andtransmissionofknowledge—thathaveexchangedvalueinthemarket.Frombeingasmallinstitutiononthefringeofsociety,theuniversityhasbecomeamajorinstitutioncen-trallyinvolvedintheformationofacognitivelybasedworld.

ResponsesThere have been several reactions to these phenomena.First,respondersarethosewhowriteuptheveryideaoftheentrepreneurial university. They are a composite of thoseinthepoliticalsphere;theseniorlevelsofthemanagementandleadershipofuniversities;stateagencies;independentconsultants; and think tanks. Second, the academic crit-icsespousealanguage,inacriticalvein,ofneoliberalism,performativity,academiccapitalism,andcommodification.Third, a group of critics critique the university for beinglaggardlyintakingonthechallengesoftheage.Suchcriticspointtotheopportunitiesfortheemergenceoftheedgelessuniversity, theborderlessuniversity, and the collaborativeuniversity. In thisconception, theuniversity isalwaysbe-hindthegame,andratherslowtoembraceopportunities.

Last,therearethephilosophersandsocialtheorists:inexpounding theirviewsof theuniversity, they tend toop-erateataratherabstractlevel.Incritiquingtheuniversity,theydesistfromofferingspecificproposalsbutratherfocusonthecommunicativeconditionsthatneedtobesatisfiedbyanyuniversityworthyofthename.Suchaninstitutioncould be exemplified in a university of dissensus, or anidealspeechsituation,or(evenmorevaguely)auniversitywithoutcondition.

Forms of ImaginationItwouldbetemptingtocharacterizethiswholedebateasone lacking in imagination,but thatwouldbeunfair.On

thecontrary,asisevidentinourobservations,therearesev-eralformsofimaginingoftheuniversity,andtheseformsof imagination are amplified in the (sometimes obscure)academicliterature.

Formsoftheimaginationfallalongcertainfaultlines.Thoseinfavoroftheentrepreneurialuniversityarefullofbreezy optimism, while those evincing the standard aca-demiccritiquesarecharacterizedbyadismalpessimism(totheeffectthattheworldofhighereducationapparentlycanbenootherthanitscurrentstate).Someimaginationsworkonthesurfacelevel(speakinguncriticallyofquality,excel-lence, and technology), while others attempt to dig downtothedeepunderlyingglobalstructuresaffectingtheuni-versity.Also,asstated,someformsofimaginationimplic-itlyendorsethewaymattersarerunningfortheuniversity,whileothersseektocritiqueit.

Poverty of ImaginationItturnsout,then,thatfarfrombeingadearthoftheimagi-nation,overrecentyears,therehasbeenaveritableflow,ifnottsunamiofideas.Thereare,though,twocriticalpointstobemade.

First,asimplied,fewideasoftheuniversityareemerg-ing out of the academic literature into the public debate.Thus,onereasonisthatthemajorityofthoseideasdonotfitwith themoodofour time.Thatmoodisoneofvalueformoneyfrompublicservices,thecustomerpays,andthe

belief thata testof thevalueofanenterprise is thepres-enceofpurchasersforit.Therehasemerged,therefore,adiscursiveregimeinwhichtheideaoftheentrepreneurialuniversitysitsverynicely.Itishardlysurprisingifitseemstobetheonlygameintheuniversitytown.

Butanotherreasonishelpingtoexplainthedearthofideasinthepublicdomain:perhapsthoseideasintheaca-demic literaturedonotdeserve to enjoywide circulation.Afterall,animaginativeideaoftheuniversityisnotneces-sarily a good idea. Perhaps more than an increase in theideasoftheuniversity,therefore,betterideasareneeded.


Partly as a result of such global forces,

one witnesses the rise of the entrepre-

neurial university.

As is evident in our observations, there

are several forms of imagining of the

university, and these forms of imagina-

tion are amplified in the (sometimes ob-

scure) academic literature.


Second, despite the fecundity of ideas, one can stillspeakofapovertyoftheimaginationinthissense.Byandlarge, ideasarerequiredof theuniversity thatareatoncecriticalintone,positiveinspirit,andwithanawarenessofthedeepandglobalstructuresthatundergirduniversities.Muchof theacademic literature is,asstated,undulypes-simistic:canwethereforebeatoncerealisticaboutthesitu-ationinwhichtheuniversityfindsitselfworldwideandyetbe optimistic, coming forth with imaginative ideas aboutthe university that just might be brought off, even if thecardsarestackedagainsttheuniversity?Whatareneeded,surely,arenotmerelyutopiasoftheuniversitybutfeasibleutopias.

Feasible Utopia?Here is a contender for being one such feasible utopia,namelythatoftheecologicaluniversity.Theecologicaluni-versity would be seized of its being intertwined—at verydeeplevelsofitsbeing—withtheglobalknowledgeecono-myandwithforcesformarketizationandcompetition.Butitwouldlookforspacesinwhichitcouldliveoutthevaluesandideasdeeplyembeddedintheuniversity—oftruthful-ness, inquiry, critical dialogue, rational dispute, and eveniconoclasticendeavor.Theecologicaluniversitywouldalsobesensitivetoitsengagingwithdifferentecologies,suchasthoseofknowledge,culture,institutions,andtheeconomy;anditwouldbesensitivetotheseecologiesworkingatalllevelsfromthatoftheindividualpersonthroughcommuni-tiesandsocietiestotheworlditself.Further,whiletheideaofecology ischaracteristicallyassociatedwith thatofsus-tainability, theecologicaluniversitywouldnotbesatisfiedwiththatidea(withmerelysustainingstudents,orsociety,oreventheworld)butwouldlooktopromotewell-beingateverylevel.

ConclusionThemainpointofthisarticleistourgeformoreimagina-tioninthinkingabouttheuniversity;imaginationthatevenoffersfeasibleutopias.Thesuggestionhereofanecologicaluniversityisbutoneofferinginthatvein.However,auni-versitythatwantedtoseeitselfasanecologicaluniversitywouldbecomeanimagininguniversity.Forthetaskofbe-cominganecologicaluniversityrequirescollectiveimagin-ing.Theartofuniversityleadership,accordingly,becomeshereinpartoneofencouragingandorchestratingcollectiveimagining, so that a university realizes its possibilities ateverylevelandinallofitsactivities.This,inturn,callsfornothinglessthanthatanewkindofspaciousnessshouldopeninouruniversities,aspaciousnessofair,noless.

The regular PROPHE (Program for Research on PrivateHigherEducation)contributiontotheIHEcomesthistimeasaSpecial Section on For-Profit Higher Education.Often thesubjectofpolemics, for-profithighereducationisgrowingglobally.Thefollowingthreearticlesreflectonthe nature of the sectors and its relationship to the non-profitandpublicsectors.What is for-profithighereduca-tionandwhatisdistinctiveaboutitspursuitofprofit?Whatis the sector’s interface with nonprofit and public highereducation?Muchofwhatfor-profitsdo,theothertwosec-torsdo.Likeitornot,for-profithighereducationcannotbedismissedassimplyaberrantorperipheral. DanielC.Levy

TheProfitMotiveinHigherEducationAndrés Bernasconi

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

Lastyear’smassivestudentprotestsinChilehad,inthepursuitofprofitineducation,oneoftheirmaintargets

for denunciation. The argument defended by demonstra-torsandshared—accordingtoopinionpolls,byalargema-jority of Chilean society—was that seeking financial gainfromeducationismorally illegitimateandoughttobe le-gally banned. Under any circumstance, education cannotbeabusinessenterprise,asmostpeopleseemtobelieve.

Onequeryconcernstheactualstateofaffairsstudentswere complaining about. Schools in Chile can operate asfor-profit firms in all levels of K–12 education and at thenonuniversitysectorofhighereducation.Onlyuniversitiesarerequiredtoorganizethemselvesasnonprofitcharities.However,thisruleisshunnedbymany,possiblythemajor-ityofprivateuniversities inthecountryresortedtoclevertriangulationwithcompaniesownedbytheproprietorsoftheuniversity—tomakeearningsavailabletothefoundersorownersoftheuniversity.

From the point of view of policymaking, accommo-datingthedemandsofmobilizedstudentswastechnicallyeasierinthecaseofuniversities,foritwassolelyamatterofenforcingthelawsastheyappearinthebooks.Whereasattheotherlevelsofeducation,currentfor-profitproviderswould have needed to be expropriated of their legitimate



businessesbythegovernment,aconstitutionalquagmire,andforeseeablelawyers’paradiseoflegalwrangling.

Politically, a change of the state of affairs involved anonstarter for a rightist coalition government that placeshighvalueinprivateeducationandfreeenterprise,solelyorcombined,aswellinthestabilityoftherulesofthegameforthesakeofinvestors.

BeyondthecaseofChile,itmaybeaworthyexercisetoconsider,inabstract,whataretheprosandconsoffor-prof-ithighereducation.Canhighereducationbea legitimatebusiness?Isitanecessarybusiness?

A Fair Game for Businesses Seeking Profit? Fora longtime,allofhighereducationaroundtheworldhasbeenpublic,private-philanthropic,oraffiliatedwithre-ligious institutions.But theparticipationofprofit-seekingprovidersisgrowing,notonlyintheUnitedStates,butalsoin Latin America. Some estimates, for instance, put theshareofBrazil’sfor-profitsectoratover30percentoftotalenrollments in higher education, public and private. ButBrazil,aswellasPeruorCostaRica,allowsprofitsinhighereducation.Inaddition,perhapsafewmillionstudentsglob-allyareenrolledinostensiblynonprofitinstitutionswhosecontrollersignorethebanonprofitingviaunder-the-tabledealings.

Whyshouldtherebenospaceineducationforeconom-icgain?Oneargumentunderscores theconfidence-basednatureoftheeducationrelationship.Suchaconformationis subverted when the dominant goal of the undertakingisnottoeducatepeoplebuttomakemoneyfromeducat-ingpeople.Thosereceivingtheeducationmayreasonablyaskthemselveswhethertheownersareinfactinvestingasmuchastheyshouldininstruction,asopposedtocuttingcornerstomaximizeearnings.Thecounterargumenthereisthatforaneducationbusinesstoremaininbusinessitmust deliver good-quality education; otherwise, peoplewill take their business elsewhere. This pressure for per-formancecreatesanexogenousvirtuouseffect,evenwheretheremightnotbeanyvirtuousendogenousmotives.Evi-dently,forthisbeneficialcompetitiveoutcometomaterial-ize,aswithanyothermarket,good-qualityinformationonperformanceisneededforconsumers.

Anadditional issuehas emerged with the concentra-tionofenrollmentsinafewlarge-scaleproviderswithinthefor-profituniverse—aphenomenonobservedintheUnitedStatesaswellasinBrazil,Mexico,andChile—possiblyfos-teredbyeconomiesofscaleinmanagementandininstruc-tionaldesignanddelivery:For-profitprivatehighereduca-tionapparentlyappliestotheformationoflargeinstitutions(orconglomerates),muchmorethannonprofitprivatesandpublics.Whetherthisisgoodorbaddependsonone’stakeonmarketconcentrationordiversification.

Proponentsof educationas abusinessoftenpoint tothe efficiency gains derived from a focus on maximizingprofits.Iftheenterpriseistoobtaineconomicgainforitsowners,wastehastobereignedin,downtimeminimized,investmentscarefullymeasuredandapprovedbytheirex-pected returns, and incentives smartly tailored to makeeverybody in the organization produce their best. Thesemeasures not onlybenefit customers but typicallydonottake place at nonprofit and public institutions. Moreover,thelegalstructureoffor-profitscouldbeconsideredbettersuitedtotheunforgivingcompetitiveenvironmentofhigh-ereducationoftodaythanthecumbersomeconfigurationof foundations and other charitable forms in the private,notfor-profitdomain.Thisgreaterexpedienceformanage-mentandmobilizationoffinancialresources,foundinthefor-profitorganizationalform,isthetrendnotedinthepastfewyears toward large investments ineducation facilitiesandequipmentbyproprietorsoftheseinstitutionsleverag-ingmoneyfromshareholdersthroughinitialpublicoffer-ingsorfromfinancialinstitutionsorinvestmentfunds—ascenarionotunthinkable fornonprofits,butperhaps lessfrequentandmorecomplicatedtopullout.

Effects on Quality Yet,theempiricalquestionarisingfromthisarrangementisnotjustwhetheritistruethatpublicsandnonprofitsoper-atelessefficiently,butmorecritically,whethertheefficiencyadvantageallegedlyobtainedby for-profitsovercharitableandpublicentitiesislargerthantheshareofincomethatgoestoremuneratetheexecutivesandownersandforthatreasoncannotbereinvestedineducation.Inotherwords,


Only universities are required to orga-

nize themselves as nonprofit charities.

It may be a worthy exercise to consider,

in abstract, what are the pros and cons

of for-profit higher education. Can high-

er education be a legitimate business?

Is it a necessary business?


whatistheneteffectofprofitseeking,basedonhowmuchisleftforfundingqualityeducation?Opponentsalsostressthat the organizational mechanisms, individual rewards,and overall culture of efficiency maximization is deleteri-ous to academic integrity: programs in undersubscribedfieldsinthehumanitiesmaybeclosedbecausetheyhavetoofewstudentsanddonotbreakeven,regardlessofqual-ity.Also,largeminimumclasssizesmaybegoodforbusi-nessbutbadforteacher-studentcontact;expensivefacultymaybeshirkedforlesscostlyandinferiorcolleagues,whocannonethelessdeliverthebasics,andthelike.

Basedon the issueofquality,canaprofit-seeking in-stitution,redirectingpartofitsincometoshareholders,de-livermorequality—qualitymeasured,let’ssay,asfitnessofgraduatesfortheworkplace,whichisthemainstayofthepromiseofvalueinfor-profits—thancomparablenonprof-its,freetospendalloftheirincomeintherequirementsofeducation?Thus,anempiricalquestionincludestheissueofthemagnitudeoftheefficiencypremiuminfor-profits,compared to the sizeof the remuneration to theowners.ObserversinLatinAmericamaintainthatlocalinstitutionsinChileandCostaRicaimprovedafterbeingacquiredbyinternationaleducationcompanies.AsBrazil,aworldwideleaderintestingofgraduates,continuestoexpanditsna-tional program to test all graduates of higher educationinstitutionsinalldisciplinesandprofessions,datawillbe-comeavailabletoapproachthisquestion.Preliminaryanal-yses of average scores by type of institution show mixed,inconclusiveresults.

Is For-Profit Higher Education Necessary?Evenifprofitseekinginhighereducationgavegroundtomore cons than pros, it may still be “a necessary evil” ofsorts, necessary to provide access in times of worldwidemassificationofhighereducation,wherethestateisnotfi-nanciallycapabletosupportthegrowthofthepublicsector.Moreover,philanthropyisinshortsupply—acombinationoffactorsthatprettymuchdescribesthewholeofthedevel-opingworld.Indeed,itseemsagoodrisktostakethatlegalorillicitprofitmakingismoreprevalentinthedevelopingSouththanintheindustrializedNorth.Ifintheselatitudeshighereducationisnotprovidedasabusiness,ithasbeenarguedthatthesystemwillnotbeprovidedatall.However,adjudicatingonthispropositionwouldrequireaccurateac-

countingofwhat is for-profitandwhat isnot—adifficulttaskinthecurrentinformation-starvedenvironment.

Finally,whywouldpeoplebebarredfromchoosingtotaketheireducationfromaprofit-seekingprovider?Regard-lessoftheresponsetothisquestion,thereisoneconditionofplausibilityforthisargumentnobodycannegate:infor-mation.Customersmustknowwhethertheinstitutiontheyaredealingwithisafor-profit;andfinancialperformancesummaries of all institutions, whatever their corporateform, must be readily available. But the worldwide reluc-tanceoffor-profitstomakeofthisconditionacentralele-mentoftheirpublicpersonashouldgiveuspauseastothesociallegitimacyaccordedtoeducationalbusinessesinoursocieties.

SqueezingtheNonprofitSectorDaniel C. Levy

Daniel C. Levy is SUNY Distinguished Professor at the University at Albany, State University of New York, and director of PROPHE. E-mail: [email protected].

Theworld’shighereducationisusuallycategorizedsec-torallyaspublicandprivatebutthelatterencompasses

bothnonprofitandfor-profitparts.Wecanspeakofthreesectors,ascommonlydone forhospitals, child-care facili-ties,andprisons:public,nonprofit,andfor-profit.

The Two Private SectorsHowever, whether one chooses to call nonprofit and for-profitsubsectorsofprivatehighereducationorsectorsoftheirown,anunfoldingandsurprisinginternationalrealityisthat,whilefor-profitprivatehighereducationisgrowing,nonprofitprivatehighereducationisbeingsqueezed—itsdecades-long growth in share of higher education enroll-ment seriously threatened. The squeeze comes from thefor-profitsideandfromthepublicside.

Thenonprofitsectorisoftencalledthe“thirdsector,”lying in between the public and for-profit sectors and af-fectedbyeach.Fordecades,thenonprofitsectorbenefitedfromthepublicsector’sfailuretomeetmassivelyaccelerat-ingdemand:privatehighereducationsoaredtoroughly30percentoftotalglobalenrollment,withthebulkofthat30percentinnonprofitinstitutions.


Why should there be no space in educa-

tion for economic gain?


Or,atleastthebulkisininstitutionsthatarenonprofitbytheirlegalstatus.Inreality,manyofthesenonprofitin-stitutions are functionally much like for-profits. They areoftenwhattheliteratureonnonprofitscalls“for-profitsindisguise.”Thedifferencebetweenwhatislegallyandfunc-tionally nonprofit gives rise to confusion. The concept ofnonprofitprivateinstitutionsisgenerallymuchlessunder-stoodoutsidetheUnitedStatesthaninside.Oneimportantnonprofitprincipleisaprivatevoluntaryactionformotivesother than financial gain—private ownership acting forpublicgood.Legallykey is theprohibitingdistributingfi-nancialgainstoownersorinvestors;thereisnocondemna-tionagainstgeneratingsurplusesthatarethenplowedbackintotheinstitution.But,manylegalnonprofitsareadeptatfindingethicallydubiouswaystoroutegainstotheircon-trollingbusinesses,family,orfriends.

Therearewildlydifferentestimatesofthesizeoffor-profit higher education. Counted by legal definition, for-profitscompriseonlyasmall shareof theworld’sprivatehighereducation;perhaps,mostcountriesdonotevenau-thorizelegalfor-profithighereducation.Indeed,manyob-serversdoubtthatoutsidetheUnitedStatestruenonprofitsextend much beyond religious and a few semielite insti-tutions. Inconsidering the factors that squeezenonprofithighereducation,itisworthponderingwhichfallmoreongenuinenonprofitsoronesthatarefunctionallyfor-profit.

Accelerated Public Sector GrowthHistorically,inmostoftheworld,publichighereducationhadlongbeenthenaturalorder.This, inturn,madesub-sequentprivategrowthstriking.Aslongasprivatehighereducationincreaseditsshareofenrollment,growthwasthedominanttheme.Butinthenewcentury,withprivatehigh-ereducationalreadywidelyentrenched,increasingprivatesharesceasetobeinevitable.Now,anotionofaprivatesec-torbeingsqueezedfromthepublicsidebecomesrelevant.

In several countries the private share has actuallydecreased. This is sometimes the result of radical gov-ernment policy that vastly expands the public sector intoformsorqualitylevelspreviouslyunknown,asinHugoRa-fael Chavez’s Venezuela. Less radically but often in freshhigher education modalities, public expansion has beensufficient—as inColombiaand thePhilippines—tobringadecreaseintheprivateenrollmentshare,despitecontin-uedincreasesinabsoluteprivateenrollment.Or,thesharppublicexpansionatleastpreventsfurthergrowthofprivateshares,asinBrazil,orslowsitsotherwisegreatergrowth,asinChina.

Squeezed by Public Sector “Encroachment” It is only when private higher education is firmly estab-lished that accelerated public growth is reasonably seen

ascomingattheexpenseofprivatehighereducation.Pri-vateentrepreneursrailagainstencroachment. In thepasttheycouldcomplain(aboutstultifyingregulationorlackofgovernmentaidfortheirstudents)andyetstillgrabanin-creasingshareofhighereducation’sexpansion.Moreandmoretheynowfeelsqueezedbypublicencroachmentonto“private”turf.Thatencroachmentcomesnotonlythroughaccelerated public expansion but also where the publicsector reaches for“private”constituenciesbyadopting itsmethods. Examples include public universities becomingmoreentrepreneurial,andsometimesopeningfee-payingmodulesalongsidetheirtraditionallowornotuitionbase.

Thesqueezeisespeciallytightwhenitcomesintimesof overall system enrollment stagnation or even decline.Thedemographicrealitiesthathavebroughtshrinkingen-rollmenttoJapanandSouthKoreaarepoisedtodosoinPolandandsomeothereasternEuropeancountries.Noth-ingincreasesconflictualintersectoraldynamicsfasterthanashrinkingpie.Sincepublic institutionsusuallyholdthestatus level over the private institutions and carry out alower tuition, theyhavemajoradvantages inmaintaining

theirenrollmentsattheexpensethathadpreviouslybeenticketed for the private sector. The relatively high-statusprivate universities—disproportionally the truly nonprofitones—havemoreresourcestocopewiththecompetition,toresistenrollmentincursionsbytheothersectors,thougheventheytooaretroubled.Butthelargemajorityoflegallynonprofitinstitutions,boththetrulynonprofitonesandthefunctionallyfor-profitones,arelowstatusandvulnerable.

Squeezed by For-Profit Sector GrowthWhile some of the legally for-profit institutions are alsothreatened by public growth, they have been expandinginmanyplaces.Clearly,for-profitdynamics,behavior,andnormsarespreading.

Even in terms of enrollment, legally for-profit enroll-ment is notably growing. Brazil has led the way in LatinAmericasince themid-1990sandnowone-fifthof its to-talenrollmentisinlegallyfor-profitinstitutions.Peruanda few other Latin American countries likewise permit le-gal for-profit higher education. In Chile and Mexico only


The nonprofit sector is often called the

“third sector,” lying in between the pub-

lic and for-profit sectors and affected by

each.

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 For-Profit Higher Education

nonprofituniversitiesarelegallypermitted.Legalfor-profithighereducationhasbeenmorewidespread inAsia,andnow the Chinese government has authorized a period ofexperimentationwithfor-profits.

Suchfor-profitgrowthrisksthenonprofitsectorbothdirectly and indirectly. It leaves the nonprofit sector withfewer tuition-paying students. Moreover, if the Braziliancaseisanexample,creationofalegalfor-profitsectorsetsup a dilemma for existing nonprofits. The government’sfundamentalrationaleinlegalizingthefor-profitformwasthat functionally for-profit institutions pretending to benonprofitsshouldlosetheirtaxbreaksandbeforcedtopaytaxes on their profits. This threatens the size of the non-profitsectorintwoways.Onewayisobviouslythatsomeinstitutionsfeelcompelledtoleavethesector,whilesomenewinstitutionssetupoutsideit.Theotherwayisthatin-stitutions that preserve their legal nonprofit status comeunderincreasedregulatoryscrutiny.

How For-Profit Higher Education Gains GroundOf course, increased scrutiny can make life rough in thelegally for-profit sector, as well. Congressional clamoringhaschilledtheUSfor-profitsectorandhasrecentlycurbedits growth, partly diverting it into nondegree activities.However,nostrongglobalevidencerevealsthatanyregula-tioncouldstemthenetgrowthofshoddyfor-profithighereducationenterprises (whether legally for-profitor legallynonprofit).Often these institutions thriveeitherbydeceitorexploitingavulnerablestudentbodywithpoororunclearalternatives.

Asbothotherarticlesinthisspecialsectionshow,profitcangohand-in-handwithquality,atleastincareer-orientedteaching.Indeedlargefor-profitbusinessesmayhavesomeinherentadvantagesinthissortofprovision.Theycanen-joyeconomiesofscaleandfunctionwith largelyuniformprogramsacross institutionsandevencountries: (1)busi-nessdisciplineforahighereducationreality;(2)accesstofinance, sometimes to absorb short-term losses for long-termgains;(3)theycanbeconsumer-orientedparticularlywhenthestudentdemandisforefficienttraining.

Thus,thenonprofitsectorissqueezedfrombothothersectors,albeitmostlyindifferentways.Thissqueezecomesas traditional noncommercial pillars of demand for non-profitsupplyhavediminished—educationfoundedonre-ligiousorotherdistinctivevaluesandontrustintheworthofbroadlearning.

TheQuality-ProfitAssumptionKevin Kinser

Kevin Kinser is associate professor at the University at Albany-State University of New York. E-mail: [email protected].

Muchofthecriticismoffor-profithighereducationre-liesonanassumptionofanunavoidabletensionbe-

tween quality and profit. This tension typically is framedin which the pursuit of profit is directly connected to re-ductioninquality,requiringcountervailingexternalregula-tions,andexplicitlyenforcedinternalsafeguards.Anedu-cationalinstitutionwillmakegreaterprofit,inotherwords,ifitprovideslowerquality.Theregulatoryenvironmentisthereforeanecessarybulwarkagainst thispossibility, set-tingaqualityfloor,beneathwhichprivatehighereducationloseslegitimacyandgovernmentauthoritytooperate.

Theattractivenessofthisposition—inwhichprofitre-ducesquality—comesinpartfromthetraditionalprovisionofeducationasanaltruisticactivity.Thecharitablepurposeofeducationhashistoricallybeensupportedbythestateinthepublicsphereandbyreligionintheprivatesphere.Anewpopulationofeducationprovidersemergedinrecentdecades;however,thathasneitherbecomestatesupportednor religious affiliated. They are dominated by obviouslylow-quality,demand-absorbinginstitutions.Campusesaremorelikestorefrontsandstudentslikecustomers,withfac-ultyholdingmarginalqualifications,andcurriculapeggedtominimalstandards.

Because these new private-sector providers largelyserveastudentpopulationthatisunabletogainentryintothe traditional institutions of higher education, they areabletochargetuitionfeesfortheopportunityofeducationalaccess.Whetherlegallyfor-profitornot,thisrelianceontu-itionfeesandotheroperationalcharacteristicssuggeststhatmanyarefor-profitinstitutions,evenifindisguise(asDan-ielC.Levydescribesinthecontributiontothisspecialsec-tion).Inanycase,excessrevenuegeneratedbytuitionfeesdemonstratesthattheprivatesectorischargingmoreforitseducationalservicesthanservicescosttoprovide.Thisisincontrasttothepublicsector,whichoftenhashighercosts,whilechargingthestudentless,andmakingupthediffer-encethroughgovernmentsubsidies.

Theconflationoflowqualityandprofitissuggestedbythispattern.Low-qualityprogramsarelow-costprograms.Charginghigh-tuitionfeesforalow-costprogramresultsinprofit.Therefore,profitcomesfromlow-qualityprograms.Itfollows,then,thatsinceprivate-sectorprovidersaremak-ingaprofit,thequalityoftheirprogramsmustnecessarily

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

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 13Internationalization Themes

besuspect—asanimperfectlogic.Simplybecauselow-end,private-sectorinstitutionsarefrequentlyseenmakingprof-its, from a poor product, this does not make quality andprofitincompatible.

Why the Quality-Profit Assumption Fails Other routes to profitability do not require a low-qualityproduct.Themostfamiliarrouteisreducingcostsforde-livering an education program, gaining excess resourcesthroughimprovedinstructionalefficiencies.Thiscouldbedone through increasing class sizes, standardizing curri-cula,andteachingpractices,oracceleratingtimetodegreethroughamodifiedacademiccalendar.Althoughefficiencymaybeaeuphemismforcuttingcorners,itisalsoastrategyfor reducingwastefulpractices that canunderminemoreeffectiveeducationalactivities.Amoreefficientoperationcan serve the same number of students less expensivelyormorestudentsatthesamecost.Bothareprofitableout-comes for the private-sector provider that would not de-mandqualitytrade-offs.

Asecondroutewouldofferprogramsthatarealreadycheap to teach but priced higher by traditional compre-hensiveuniversitiescross-subsidizing theirownmoreex-pensiveacademicprograms.Theproliferationofbusinessprogramsinprivate-sectorinstitutions,forexample,canbeseenthroughthislens.Theseprogramsrequirenospecialtools or laboratory equipment, and the subject matter iswell-establishedandaccessibletononspecialists.Byitself,businessisa low-costprogram.Butmanytraditionaluni-versitiesuserevenuegeneratedbybusinessandothersimi-lar low-cost programs, in order to make higher-cost pro-gramsmoreaffordable.Simplybynotdivertingthisexcessrevenuetooffsetunprofitableprograms,theprivatesectorinstitutions’ownerscanearnahealthyreturnontheirin-vestmentswithoutreducingquality.

A third strategy that avoids the quality-profit connec-tion is to reduce “frills” elsewhere at the university, thusgrabbingprofitfromnothavingtosupportelaborateandex-pensiveextracurricularactivities.IntheUnitedStates,thefor-profitsectormostlyavoidsthetypicalamenitiesfoundontraditionalcampuses—suchasathletic facilities,socialorganizations, and campus housing. Anything outside oftheprimaryinstructionalmissioncanbeeliminated,leav-ingallofthefocusontheprovisionofaquality-academicprogram.Revenuethatwouldgotosupportnonacademicfeatures can then be converted directly to profit, and theintegrityandqualityoftheprogramremaininviolate.

In theseroutes toprofit,only in thefirstcaseshouldpotentialconcernsaboutacademicqualitycomeintocon-tention,andeventhenonlyiftraditionalcurriculumdeliv-erypracticesaredeterminedtobeessentialtoqualityprovi-sion.Theotherprofitstrategiesaretakingadvantageofthe

pricing strategies common throughout higher education.Thequalitydoesnothavetosuffer,nordoeducationalex-penditureshavetobeless,inorderforexcessrevenuetobegenerated.Theycanprovideessentially thesame instruc-tionalproductasthepublicsector,whileearningprofitbyreducingexpendituresforextraneousactivities.

Quality and Standards Akeyquestionremains,however.Whichaspectsofauni-versityeducationareextraneousandwhichareintertwinedwith a quality academic program? For example, to helppoorlypreparedstudents tobesuccessful, any institutionwouldneedtospendmoneyonnonclassroomactivitieslikeacademic services, support, advising, extra tutoring, andothers.Teachingmaybecheap,butthestudentbodyisof-tenquiteexpensive.

Tobeclear,arobustregulatoryregimecanstillserveaquality-assurance functionAs theUScaseshows,specifi-callytargetingfor-profithighereducationforregulatoryat-tentionmaybenecessarytoarrestegregiousviolationsofacademicintegrityinthenameofprofitability.Someactivi-tiesarecertainlyillegitimateandshouldbeprohibited.Theaimofqualityassurance,though,canbemorethanjusttheenforcementofminimumstandards.Itshouldbepossibleto discuss “good and better” without disparaging all but“the top.”Theprofit statusof the institutionmaybeoneelementconsideredinevaluatingeducationalquality,butitshouldnotbethedecisivefactor.

InternationalStudentMobilityintheUnitedStatesChristine A. Farrugia and Ashley Villarreal

Christine A. Farrugia is senior research officer, Institute of International Education, New York. E-mail: [email protected]. Ashley Villarreal is re-search coordinator at the Institute of International Education. E-mail: [email protected].

Thenumberofgloballymobilestudentshasnearlydou-bledoverthepast10years,from2.1millionin2001to

4.1millionin2011.AccordingtoOpen Doors 2012: Report on International Educational Exchange,theUnitedStateshost-ed764,795internationalstudentsin2011/12,anincreaseof3.7percentfromthepreviousyear.InternationalstudentsintheUnitedStatesnowmakeup19percentoftheworld’s

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 Internationalization Themes

globallymobilestudents,andasuniversitycampusenroll-mentsgrow,sodoestheproportionofstudentsenrollinginthemfromabroad.ThenumberofUSstudents studyingabroadreached273,996in2010/11,anincreaseof1.3per-centovertheprioryearandanincreaseof78percentoverthepast10years.

ThedatainthisarticlearedrawnfromOpen Doors 2012,a statistical survey that reports on international studentsstudying in the United States in 2011/12 and on US stu-dentsstudyingabroadin2010/11.

Growth Rates of International StudentsFor thefourthyear inarow,China isagainthe topplaceof origin of international students in the United States,with 194,029 students, and continues to grow at a highrate(23.1%).ThenumberofSaudistudentsintheUnitedStatesalsocontinuestoincrease,growing50.4percentover2010/11,toreach34,139.ThemobilityofSaudistudentsistheresultoflarge-scalescholarshipprogramsforeducationabroad,providedbytheSaudigovernment.Inthecoming

yearsthenumberofBrazilianstudentsintheUnitedStatesis expected to increase as a result of the Brazil ScientificMobilityProgram,whichwaslaunchedin2011.StudentsinthisprogrambeganenteringtheUnitedStatesinJanuary2012andwillbereflectedintheOpen Doors2013 Report.

In contrast to government-driven reasons for largeincreases in students from countries like Saudi Arabia,growth from some countries is largely driven by studentdemand.Oneexample isIran,which inrecentyears,hasshown a steady and significant growth in the number ofstudentsstudyingintheUnitedStates,despitetheobstaclesfacedbyIranianstudentsinstudyingabroad.Suchrestric-tions include difficulties obtaining visas and transferringfundsoutof Iran for tuitionand livingexpensesandUSgovernment restrictions on studying in certain scientificandtechnicalfields.In2011/12,therewere6,982Iranianstudents in theUnitedStates, a24percent increaseovertheprioryearandanincreaseof150percentoverthepastfiveyears.From1974/75through1982/83,IranwasthetopsenderofstudentstotheUnitedStates,reachingahighof51,310studentsin1979/80,butdroppingtoalowof1,660in1998/99.

In2011/12,modestdeclineswereseeninstudentsfromseveraltopplacesoforigin.ThenumberofstudentsfromIndiadecreased for the secondyear ina row. In2011/12,the number of Indian students decreased by 3.5 percent,followingadecreaseof1.0percentin2010/11.ThedeclineinthenumberofIndianstudentsislikelyduetotheexpan-sionofIndia’sdomestichighereducationsector,agrowingIndian economy that provides job opportunities for grad-uates, and a significant devaluation of the Indian Rupee.OtherdeclineswereseeninnumbersofstudentsfromTai-wan(6.3%),Japan(6.2%),Canada(2.6%),andSouthKorea(1.4%).

International Students’ Academic LevelsThisyear’sOpen Doors datareflectsomenotableshifts inenrollment patterns of international students by academ-ic level. For the first time since 2000/01, the number ofundergraduate students surpassed graduate enrollments,driven by large increases in undergraduates from China.The number of Chinese undergraduates in the UnitedStates reached 74,516 in2011/12, a 30.8percent increaseover the previous year. A striking increase in nondegreestudywasseeninthenumberofstudentsfromSaudiAra-bia,whichincreasedby95percentoverthepreviousyear,reaching 13,214 students. The majority of these studentswere enrolled in Intensive English Programs, which por-tendscontinuedgrowthinSaudidegree-seekingstudents,assomecurrentnondegreestudentsarelikelytoremainintheUnitedStatesforundergraduatestudy.

US Students AbroadIn 2010/11, 273,996 US students studied abroad for aca-demiccredit.TherateofgrowthofUSstudentsstudyingabroadslowedin2010/11,increasing1.3percent,comparedtoa3.9percentgrowthreportedintheprioryear.Eventsinseveralhostcountriesresulted inmanystudy-abroadpro-gramsbeingcancelled,contributingtodeclinesincertainkeydestinations.ThetsunamiinJapaninMarch2011con-tributedtoa33percentdecreaseinUSstudents,whileaUSStateDepartmentwarningontraveltoMexicoresultedina42percentdropofUSstudentsstudyingthere.TheArabSpringin2011likelyimpactedstudyabroadtoNorthAfrica,mostnotablyEgypt,whichexperienceda43percentdeclineinUSstudy-abroadstudents.Duringthesameperiod,oth-ercountries inAsiaandLatinAmericaexperienced largeincreases,includingCostaRica(15.5%),Brazil(12.5%),andSouthKorea(16.4%).

Over the past 20 years there has been increasing di-versification in study-abroad destinations. In 1989/90,76.7percentofstudentsstudiedabroadinEurope,whilein2010/11justoverhalfofstudents(54.6%)selectedEurope-andestinations.English-speakingcountriesreceivedjust21

International students in the United

States now make up 19 percent of the

world’s globally mobile 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 N 15Internationalization Themes

percentofUSstudentsstudyingabroadin2010/11,whilemanynon-AnglophonecountriesexperiencedincreasesinUS students studying abroad, including China (4.9% in-crease),India(11.9%increase),andIsrael(9.4%increase).These trends suggest that US students are increasinglyseekingdestinationsthatofferlinguisticandculturaldiver-sity.

Global Student mobility ThegrowthofinternationalstudentsintheUnitedStatesresultsfrombothpushandpullfactorsthatenticestudentstoselect thatcountryas theirpreferredstudydestination.

Thequality,variety,capacity,andaccessibilityofAmericanuniversities are compelling factors that make the UnitedStates an attractivedestination for international students.This is certainly the casewith students fromChinawho,astheresultofincreasingfamilyincomesandgrowingde-mandsforhighereducation,arebecomingmoreandmoregloballymobile.Likewise,studentsfromIranareincreas-inglyenrollinginUSinstitutions,despitethevisarestric-tionsandfinancialbarrierstheyface.

However,market-basedexplanations for internationalstudentflowsdonotentirelytellwhatisdrivingthegrowthof student mobility into the United States. Governmentinitiativestosendstudentsabroadtostrengthenacademicskillsandexpandculturalknowledgecanhaveasignificantimpactontheflowofinternationalstudents,asevidencedby the rise in Saudi students—which was precipitated bythe launchof theKingAbdullahScholarshipProgram in2005.

US study abroad is likewise impacted by a combina-tionofmarketforcesandgovernmentinitiatives.Whilethegrowth in US students selecting nontraditional destina-tions is inpart studentdriven, the increasingdiversityofstudydestinationsisalsoimpactedbyUSgovernmentini-tiatives—liketheBenjaminA.GilmanInternationalSchol-arship,whichencouragesstudentstoselectnontraditionaldestinations,andthe“100,000Strong”InitiativeforChina,whichpromoteseducationabroadinChina.

Increasing student demand for education abroadmeansthatinternationalstudentmobilitywillcontinueto

grow,buttheimpactofrecentgovernmentprogramsdem-onstratesthatpolicyinitiativescanalsobepowerfultoolstoincreaseinternationalmobilityandtosteerstudentstowardcountriesofinterest.__________________Authors’ note: The Institute of International Education has pub-lishedOpen Doors,anannualstatisticalsurveyofstudentmobil-ityintoandoutoftheUnitedStatessince1919,andhasreceivedsupport fromtheBureauofEducationalandCulturalAffairsoftheUSDepartmentofStatesincetheearly1970s.Theopinionsexpressedinthisarticleareentirelythoseoftheauthors.Morein-formationonOpen Doors isavailableathttp://www.iie.org/open-doors.

China’sConfuciusInsti-tutes—MoreAcademicandIntegrativeQiang Zha

Qiang Zha is an associate professor at the Faculty of Education, York University, Toronto, Canada. E-mail: [email protected].

EversincethefirstConfuciusInstitutewaslaunchedin2004inUzbekistan,thisinitiativehasbeenseenasan

arm of Chinese government for expanding China’s softpower.Thepast15yearswitnessedaphenomenalgrowthof theConfucius Institutes around theworld.By theendof2011,358ConfuciusInstitutesand500ConfuciusClass-roomswereestablishedin108countries—with21percentConfuciusInstitutesand60percentConfuciusClassroomslocatedinasinglecountry,theUnitedStates—thoughtheyremain controversial in many democratic societies. Afterall,theorganizationbehindtheseConfuciusInstitutesandClassrooms,theConfuciusInstituteHeadquartersorHan-ban,isaffiliatedtoChina’sMinistryofEducationandoper-ateswithgovernmentfunds.Notably, in2011alone,Han-banspentUS$164.1milliondirectlyonallkindsofprojectsand activities in Confucius Institutes across the world.Thisfigureisexpectedtogrowsignificantlyintheyearstocome.AttherecentGlobalConfuciusInstituteConferenceinBeijing,HanbanannouncedthreenewmajorprogramsapplicabletoConfuciusInstitutesworldwide.TheyincludetheConfuciusChinaStudyPlan—focusingonresearchas-pectsofConfuciusInstitutes,appointmentsofpermanentacademicstaffatallConfuciusInstitutes,andthe“Chinese

In contrast to government-driven rea-

sons for large increases in students

from countries like Saudi Arabia, growth

from some countries is largely driven by

student demand.

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 Internationalization Themes

Day”programconnectingConfuciusInstitutestotheirlo-calcommunities.

Apparently, these new programs aim to transformConfuciusInstitutesintoanacademicunitandanintegra-tivepartintheirhostuniversitiesaswellasthelocalcom-munities.TheConfuciusChinaStudyPlanwillchampionresearchfunctionofConfuciusInstitutes.Itsponsorsvis-itingscholarsassociatingwithConfuciusInstitutestoun-dertakeresearchprojectsinChinaforaperiodof2weeksto10months,providesdoctoralscholarships,andsupportsconferencesandpublicationsonChinaStudiesrelatedtop-ics.TheschemeforappointingtheCoreTeachersaimstocreate permanent academic positions at those ConfuciusInstitutesthathaveoperatedformorethantwoyears.TheCoreTeacherissupposedtobehiredandcompensatedattheleveloflecturerorassistantprofessorbyWesternstan-dards,withHanbancoveringtheirsalariesandbenefitsinthefirstfiveyearsand50percentinthesecondfiveyears,andtherest tobepaidby theConfuciusInstituteswherethey teach. Finally, the Chinese Day program designs topromote theChinese languageandcultureaswell as theConfucius Institutes in their local communities, throughconductingthematicactivitiesonaregularbasis.

Transformation Requires Research SupportWhileitremainstobeseeniftheseinitiativesmayworktoupgrade Confucius Institutes around the world, they willcertainlybringalotofvisibility(andpossiblymorecontro-versies)tothemandmightopenupanewresearchagenda.BetweenthegoalsandobjectivesspelledoutbythesenewinitiativesandtherealityinwhichConfuciusInstitutesop-erate,thereareanumberofroadblocks.Firstandforemost,Confucius Institutes are largely operating at the marginontheirhostcampuses,hardlymakingapartofthemain-stream functions—i.e., research, teaching and service. Inmanycases,theyaresomehowcompetingwiththeexistingstructure of China Studies and Chinese-language teach-ing—i.e., thepreexistentprograms,centersand institutesthathouseChina-relatedcontent.TheConfuciusInstitutes’outreachactivitiesoftenappeartobedisconnectedwiththehost universities’ community engagement strategies andschemes.Inthiscontext,thegoalforintegrationisnothingshortofachallengeandrequiresresearchsupportforthesakeoffiguringoutappropriatestrategyandactionplan.

In order to be integrative, Confucius Institutes needtotransformthemselves,andsuchquestionsmaystandintheirwayoffulfillingsuchatransformation:HowcanCon-fuciusInstitutescontributetothehostuniversity’sresearchfunction/agenda?Inthisregard,ConfuciusInstitutesneedtogenerate synergieswith theexisting researchstructure

andagendaintheirhostinstitutions,ratherthancompet-ingwiththemorcreatinganewstructure.HowcanConfu-ciusInstitutescontributetothehostuniversity’steachingand learning (pedagogical betterment) in general? Apartfrom offering Chinese-language learning programs andcourses,Confucius Institutesmaymaneuver to showcasethe humanistic aspects of the Confucian education tradi-tionandmakethemavailableandsupportivetopedagogi-calreferenceandprogressintheirhostinstitutions.Finally,howcanConfuciusInstitutesconnecttothehostuniversi-ty’scommunityengagementefforts?Howcantheycontrib-utetobrandingofthehostuniversity?Theaforementionedquestions may help upgrade and substantiate a researchagendasurroundingConfuciusInstitutes,yetameaningfulresearchonthemcannotaffordlosinggripinthedifferenceorevencontrastwithrespecttouniversityculture.

Inallcases,ConfuciusInstitutesinvolveapartnershipbetweenaChineseuniversityandanon-Chineseone,whichinevitablybringstogetherdifferentuniversityculturesandsometimescouldleadtoa“clash”ofuniversitycultures.Forinstance,HanbannowrequiresallConfuciusInstitutestoworkuptheirstrategicplanning,whichoftenneedstotaketheformofthree-orfive-yearplans.TheChineseuniversi-tiesarequite familiarwithandused to thiskindofprac-tice.However,manyWesternpartneruniversitiesmaynotnecessarilybeabletocopewithsucharequirement,asthelong-termplanningisnotapartoftheirculture.Inthiscir-cumstance,howcould theConfucius Institutes’planningsurvive the culture that traditionally de-emphasizes plan-ning? Even if more and more Western universities nowadapt to theplanningculture, thereneeds tobeacarefulefforttoconnecttheConfuciusInstituteplanning,tothatofthehostuniversityasawhole.

While it remains to be seen if these ini-

tiatives may work to upgrade Confucius

Institutes around the world, they will

certainly bring a lot of visibility.

By the end of 2011, 358 Confucius Insti-

tutes and 500 Confucius Classrooms

were established in 108 countries.


Awareness of Differences in University CultureMore importantly, the partnership denotes the differenceindecision-makingpatterns.Chineseuniversities tend tofeature a bureaucracy (and sometimes a political system)modelofdecisionmaking,characterizedwitha top-downapproachandshort-timehorizon.Westernuniversities,bycontrast,aremorelikelytodemonstratethecollegialmodelin decision making, and sometimes even characterize an“organizedanarchy.”Decisionscomeoftenoutofconsen-sus,whichrequiresagreatdealofcommunications,con-sultations,anddiscussions.Itiscrucialtoraiseawarenesstowardthiskindofdifferenceinuniversitycultureandcare-fullynurturethepartnershipasa“unitywithdiversity”—aConfucian concept itself.All in all, the transformationofConfucius Institutes,asanacademiceffortoran integra-tiveone,requiresnotonlyresourcesupportbutalso—andmoreimportantly—athriftyhandleofthedifferenceinuni-versity culture, inorder to forma shared “intersubjectivemeaning.”Asapressingstep,Hanbanneeds toconvincetheworld that,with thesenewprograms, it isnot takingadvantageofthelackoffundingforsinologyandsocialsci-encesinWesternuniversities,andtryingtomuscleinandcontroltheteachingoftheChineselanguageandChinesehistorythroughthefundsitsuppliestothosestrappedinsti-tutions.Perhaps,itisimportantforChinatoproceedslowlyandgaintrust.

Finally,anInternationaliza-tionPolicyforCanadaRoopa Desai Trilokekar and Glen A. Jones

Roopa Desai Trilokekar is assistant professor in the Faculty of Educa-tion, York University, Toronto, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]. Glen A. Jones is Ontario Research Chair in Postsecondary Education Policy and Measurement and professor of Higher Education at the On-tario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto. E-mail: [email protected].

Canadadoesnothaveanationalministryofeducation,anationalhighereducationpolicy,oranationalstrategy

for international education. Previous attempts to developaninternationaleducationstrategyforCanadahavefailed,underafederalarrangementwhereprovincialgovernmentscloselyguard theirconstitutional responsibility foreduca-tion—while the federalgovernmenthas responsibility forinternational relations. Given this context, the Canadianfederalgovernment’s2011announcement—toallocateCan

$10millionovertwoyearsforthedevelopmentandlaunch-ingofCanada’sfirstinternationaleducationstrategy—wasaboldsteptowardbringingthevariousstakeholderstogeth-ertoestablishacommonpathway.

The Need for a National StrategyA strategic approach to international education is crucialto achieving national prosperity in a globally competitiveknowledge economy. International education is now in-trinsicallylinkednotonlywithanation’sforeignpolicybutwithothernationalpolicies—suchas trade,economicde-velopment, labor, immigration, innovation, and research.Thus,theabsenceofanationalpolicyinCanadahasledtoapiecemealandlargelyuncoordinatedapproach,andCan-

adahasonlyasmallshareoftheglobalmarketforhighereducation.Canadaattracts5percentofalltertiarystudentswhostudyabroad,much lower thanothermajordestina-tion countries, including the United States, the UnitedKingdom,Australia,Germany,andFrance.

A New ApproachThe ministers of International Trade and Finance jointlyannouncedtheformationofasix-memberexpertadvisorypanel, tomake recommendationsonhow todevelopandimplementan internationaleducationstrategy.Thepanelsubmitteditsreporttothegovernment,onAugust14,2012,after a three-pronged extensive consultative process withmultiplestakeholdergroups.International Education: A Key Driver of Canada’s Future Prosperity isacomprehensiveandexpansive report, offering a total of 14 recommendationsunderfivecorethemes:targetsforsuccess;policycoordina-tionandensuringsustainablequality;promotionofeduca-tioninCanada;investments,infrastructure,andsupport.

Oneofthemost-strikingfeaturesofthisreportisthatitlargelydefinesinternationaleducationasstudentmobil-ity,anditemphaticallysendsamessagethatstudentmo-bility isnot tobeaone-waystreet.Acentral focusof thestrategyistobothattracttoptalent,byrecruitingthebestand brightest international undergraduate and graduatestudents, and encourage Canadian students to go abroadtodeveloptheirglobalperspective.Theadvisorycommitteeobviously listenedtoarangeofstakeholderorganizations

Canada does not have a national minis-

try of education, a national higher edu-

cation policy, or a national strategy for

international education.



thathaveadvocatedforabalancedapproach,anditrecom-mends that Canada should send 50,000 students abroadeachyear—throughaninternationalmobilityprogramco-fundedbythefederalandprovincialgovernmentsandaca-demicinstitutions.

Themajorityofthereport,however,isfocusedontherecruitmentandretentionofinternationalstudents,anem-phasisthatcomesaslittlesurprisegiventhepotentialrev-enueassociatedwithexpandingtheCanadianmarket.ThereportrecommendsthatCanadadoublesitsintakeoffull-time international students from239,131 in2011 tomorethan450,000by2022,representinga10percentannualin-crease.Underthisplan,internationalstudentswouldrep-resent17.3percentofthetotalpostsecondaryenrollmentinCanada,by2020.Thistargetseemsmodestandachievable,giventhegrowthininternationalenrollmentoverthelastdecade,withminimalgovernmentsupportorcoordination.Theeconomic impactof recruiting internationalstudentsisemphasizedthroughoutthereport.Internationaleduca-tionisvaluedastrade,butitisalsoviewedasanimportant

“pipeline”totheneedsoftheCanadianlabormarket.GivenCanada’slowbirthrates,futureeconomicdevelopmentde-pendsonimmigration,andtoday’s internationalstudentsmaywellbetomorrow’swell-educatedcitizens.

Changing Policy ContextsWhile the report is in sync with global trends, it is strik-ingtonotethechangeinCanada’spositionintermsofsoftpowerrelations.Canadaoncedistinguisheditselfasanon-colonial, middle power—having established internationaldevelopmentassistanceasacorecomponentofitsforeignpolicy. Through the establishment of the Canadian Inter-national Development Agency, Canada was once amongthemoregenerousdonorsoftheindustrializedcountries.Today,theproposednationalstrategyidentifiestheDepart-ment of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, as thenational leader for thenewstrategy,whilemakingonlyapassingreferencetothatagency.Thisisindeedindicativeofchangedpolicycontexts.Canadanowviewsinternation-

aleducationasaneconomicandtradebenefit.Further, itseekstopositionitselfcompetitivelywithothernationsandviesforaleadershippositiontoattracttoptalenttoCanada.Thereportrecommendsamassivenewinvestmentincom-petitivescholarshipsforundergraduateandgraduateinter-nationalstudents,apositivesteptowardattractingthebestandbrightest.However,itisanapproachthathaslittleincommon with earlier Canadian scholarship programs forstudentsfromdevelopingcountries.

The Future of the Strategy?GivenCanada’sfederalarrangements,theissueofcoordina-tioniskeyinanyattempttoimplementanationalapproach,andthisisamajorshortcomingofthereport.Whilethere-portdevotesconsiderableattentiontocoordination,thetaskforce attempts to address this issue through the creationof a Council on International Education and Research toprovidepolicyadvicetothedifferentfederalministries.Thenewcouncilwouldincludeachair,3deputyministersfromfederal government departments, and 2 deputy ministersasprovincialgovernmentrepresentatives.Thestructureaf-firmstheimportanceoffederalgovernmentleadershipinthispolicyarea,butitisdifficulttoimaginetheprovincesagreeingtoparticipateinanyarrangementthatwouldnotincluderepresentativesofall10provincialministersofedu-cation,severalofwhichalreadyhaveprovincialstrategies.Canada does have a “window of opportunity” to raise itsstakesininternationaleducation.However,itsfutureisde-pendentonthefederalgovernment’sapproachtofosteringmeaningfulpartnershipswith theprovincesandsecuringtheircommitment toacoordinatednationalstrategy.Willthe federal government and the provinces have a strongenoughcommitmenttoworkagainsttheinherentjurisdic-tional tensions in Canada’s highly decentralized system?Currently,therehasbeennoofficialgovernmentresponsetotheadvisoryreport.


One of the most-striking features of this

report is that it largely defines interna-

tional education as student mobility,

and it emphatically sends a message

that student mobility is not to be a one-

way street.

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


BranchCampusesWeighStart-upOptionsDavid A. Stanfield

David A. Stanfield is a research assistant at the Boston College Center for International Higher Education and doctoral student in Boston Col-lege’s Higher Education Administration program. E-mail: [email protected].

IHE dedicates an article in each issue to a contributionfrom the Cross-Border Education Research Team (C-BERT),headquarteredattheStateUniversityofNewYork,atAlbany.MoreinformationaboutC-BERTcanbefoundatwww.globalhighered.org.FollowusonTwitterat@Cross-BorderHE.

Highereducationinstitutionsfaceavarietyofstrategicdecisions,inestablishingbranchcampusesoverseas.

Adecadeago,therewaslittleguidefortheirdecisionmak-ing. Now, experience gained from watching early effortshaveprovidedsomehelpasthenextgenerationofuniver-sitiesconsiders theavailableoptions.Thisarticleoutlinesthreesetsofdecisionsthatcaninfluencesuccess.

First-Mover vs. Established MarketTheearlybirdgetstheworm,astheysay—butthesecondmousegets thecheese.Thefirst foreignuniversity toen-ter a country or region can benefit simply initially. Thisisknownas thefirst-moveradvantage,aconcept familiarto the business world—whereby a company establishesa dominant position through early entry into a particularmarket.Thoughthese“first-in”internationalbranchcam-pusesmuststillcompetewithlocalpostsecondaryinstitu-tions and the attractions of traditional study abroad, theyoftenhavesomeadvantageoverother,laterarrivals.

Bybuildingapositivereputationinthelocalcommu-nitypriortothearrivalofotherinstitutions,first-ininstitu-tionsareabletogainalastingmomentumtosignificantlyhelp with student recruitment in subsequent years. TheUniversity of Wollongong—not an especially well-recog-nizedinstitutionoutsideofAustralia—wasthefirstbranchcampustoopeninDubai,UnitedArabEmirates.Wollon-gongquicklybuiltupandcontinuestomaintainasignifi-cantenrollment,despitethe20-plusbranchcampusesthathavesincecomeontothescene.

Someinstitutions,however,haveoptedtojoinamar-ket, where other branch campuses have already been es-tablished.Inthiscase,morecertaintyexists,regardingthedemandforandacceptabilityofforeigneducationalprovi-sion. Nevertheless, sound research and planning should

inform and guide the decision. For instance, institutionsmustgaugedemandfortheirproposeddegreeprogram(s),evaluateinstitutionalreputationamongthetargetstudentpopulation, and consider whether the terms of the hostcountryororganizationalignwiththeirownlong-termvi-sion. Furthermore, when entering an established marketsuch as Dubai or Singapore, administrators must deter-minewhetherthelocationhasreachedasaturationpoint,whichmaydifferbasedoninstitutionaltype,degreefocus,ormethodofdelivery.

Comprehensive vs. Narrow FocusA small number of foreign education providers have de-veloped comprehensive branch campuses that provide adiverse assortment of academic programs and course of-ferings, robust administrative structures, and substantialphysical infrastructure. In addition, these comprehensivecampusestendtoofferabroaderrangeofcampusservic-es and extracurricular programming. Providers generallyhopethiswillcontributetoacampusethosandstudentex-periencesimilartothehomecampus.Withawiderrangeofcourses,comprehensivebranchcampusesalsomakeanattractive study-abroad destination for home campus stu-dents.

Comprehensiveinstitutions,suchasNewYorkUniver-sityinAbuDhabiandtheUniversityofNottingham’scam-pus in China, rely heavily on global brand recognition toattractstudents; lessprestigiousinstitutionsmaystruggletorecruitsufficientenrollmentnumbersunderthismod-el.Creatingacomprehensivecampusisanexpensiveandcomplexundertaking,usuallyrequiringmanyyearsofad-vancedplanningandanextendedstart-upphase.Ifsome-thinggoeswrong,institutionscouldfacereputationaldam-ageandfinancial loss—affectingnot just thebranch,butthehomecampusaswell.

Other international branch campuses may pursue amorenarrowfocus,offeringalimitednumberofprograms,sometimesjustamasterofbusinessadministrationorade-greeinhospitality.Theytendtoofferdegreesunderservedby(orunavailableat) local institutions,programsthatareperceivedtobemoreprestigiousorofhigherqualitythanthoseavailablelocally,and/orthosethatareinhighdemand


The first foreign university to enter a

country or region can benefit simply ini-

tially. This is known as the first-mover

advantage.


bythelocalpopulation.Fromastrategicperspective,mea-suringdemandforasmallnumberofdegreesislesscom-plicated than the comprehensive approach. Furthermore,withlowerstart-upcostsandfewerstaffingrequirements,the process is faster and reduces risk. If additional pro-gramsarewarranted,theyareaddedafterestablishingtheviabilityofinitialofferings.

Collaborative vs. AutonomousDubai,Malaysia,Qatar,Singapore,SouthKorea,andothersaredevelopingeducationhubs,withaconcentrationofin-ternationalbranchcampuses.Somehubsprovideanoppor-tunityforcollaborationbetweeninstitutions.Joiningahubmay help branch campuses save money, reduce start-uptime,andminimizehasslebysharingfacilitiesandstudent

services—such as, residence halls, food courts, libraries,andmedicaloffices,tonameafew(thoughthelevelofco-operationvariesamonghubs).Nevertheless,collaborationmay allow for less control and require compromising oncertainstandardsandexpectations.Institutionshopingtomaintainstrict-qualitycontrol,orattemptingtoreproduceparticularelementsfromtheirhomecampus,maypreferamoreautonomousapproach.Thedegreetowhichaninsti-tutioniscollaborativeorautonomousisfurtherinfluencedbyphysicalproximity toother institutionsandby thefor-malandinformalexpectationsofthehostcountryorlocalpartner.

ThesixAmericanuniversities inQatar’shub,Educa-tion City, permit students to cross-register for classes be-tweeninstitutions—allowingforamuchwiderrangeofop-tionsthananysingleinstitutioncouldprovide.Facilitatingcross-registrationcouldespeciallybenefitthoseinstitutionsoffering bachelor-level programs with significant generaleducation and elective requirements, which are difficultto maintain with small student populations. Establishinga branch campus in an education hub can also result inheightenedpublicityopportunitiesthroughjointbrandingandrecruitmentefforts.

Drawbacks to close collaboration include the obviousthreat of competition over student applicants and other

resources. Furthermore, establishing collaborative agree-ments such as cross-registration or shared student ser-vices are complex and often require years of negotiation,followed by constant tweaking. For example, during thestart-upphaseofEducationCityinQatar,thelocalsponsorconstructeda liberalartsandsciencesbuilding,basedonanassumptionthatbranchcampusstudentscouldjointlyenrollinsharedgeneraleducationcourses.Asuniversitiesjoinedtheproject,itbecameclearthateachinstitutionhadunique general education requirements, making the ideaimpractical,ifnotimpossibletoachieve.

ConclusionAsbranchcampusesevolve,learnedexperienceandhistori-cal perspective increase new entrants’ chance of success.Considerationoftheissuesoutlinedabovewillaiduniver-sities innothaving to reinvent thewheel.However, eachsituationisunique;thus,institutionsmustrecallthatthesestrategicdecisions,likeallothers,shouldstemfromtheiruniquegoalsandhostcountryenvironment.Decisionsvoidof nuanced, contextual considerations risk failure. Therewillalsobeinstanceswheninstitutionshavelittleornosayoveroneormoreofthesecategories.Forexample,somede-cisionsmaybedictatedentirelybylocalregulationsorpart-nershipterms.Inreality,establishingabranchcampusisnotanexactscience;butthoughtfulandinformedstrategicdecisionscanhaveasignificantimpactonbothshort-andlong-termsuccess.

NewDynamicsofLatinAmericanHigherEducationJosé Joaquín Brunner

José Joaquín Brunner is professor at the Universidad Diego Portales in Santiago, Chile, where he is the UNESCO Chair in Comparative Higher Education Policies. E-mail: [email protected].

In1950,therewereonly75highereducationinstitutionsinLatinAmerica,mainlyuniversities,with266,000stu-

dents.Todaythereareabout3,900universitiesandaround10,500nonuniversityhighereducationinstitutionswithanenrollmentof20millionstudents.Inaddition,whileinthe1950slessthan2percentoftheagecohort(18–24)wasen-rolled in tertiary education, in2010 itwas 37percent. Inother words, Latin American higher education has beenmassified, leaving behind its minority and exclusive elit-ism;more—inArgentina,Chile,Cuba,Uruguay,andVen-


Comprehensive institutions, such as

New York University in Abu Dhabi and

the University of Nottingham’s campus

in China, rely heavily on global brand

recognition to attract students.


ezuela—thegross-participationratehaspassed50percentof the cohort. This dramatic transformation is changingoursocietiesandbringingurgenteducational,social,andpublic-policychallenges.

Main Features of Mass Higher EducationThelandscapeischaotic,andnationalsystemsappeardis-orderedanddisorganized.Diversityisthedominantreality.There are institutions with different missions, dissimilarsizes, and diverse coverage of disciplinary areas; studentbodieswithdistinctsocioeconomiccompositionsandcul-tural capital; staff with varied professional profiles, laborregimes, training styles, and teaching modes; varied aca-demicdivisionsoflabor;distinctformsofinstitutionalgov-ernanceandmanagement,fundingsources,andfunctionalarrangements;andrelationstosociety,thestate,andstake-holders.Thesystemshaveallthefeaturesofapostmodernlandscape—hybrid institutions, the synchronism of highandlowculture,thecoexistenceofeliteandthemasslearn-ing,fluidknowledge,thedominanceoftheshortterm,thepotencyofthemarket,thelackofgrandnarratives,andsoon.

Infact,therapidmassificationofLatinAmerica’shigh-ereducationisinseparablefromthetidalwaveofaglobalcapitalismcharacterizedbymultiplenetworksandthein-tensificationofknowledgeinalleconomic,social,andcul-turalsectors.Fromalaborforcewithlittleeducation,LatinAmerica’s economically active population has an averageof complete secondary education and above. Soon, somecountrieswillhavebetweena third toahalfofemployedyoungpeoplewithtertiaryeducation.

Principles of Order Isourhighereducationaschaoticasitseems?Isitduetoalackoforder,coordination,andleadership?Idonotbelieveso. Rather, looking beyond appearances, one can discernstructures that order these systems and certain patterns(notfullydesigned,differentfromcommandandcontrol)ofbothcoordinationandleadership.

Threediversecategorieshavebeenorganizedbutfol-lowinginternationallyrecognizedrulesofproperty,control,andfunding.Theseare,first,public/statehighereducationinstitutions; second, private higher eduction institutionswhoseownership,control,andfundingisinthehandsofprivate persons or entities and do not receive direct statesubsidies. Third, between these two types are private in-stitutions,partiallyorcompletelysupportedfromnationaltaxes but with a private governance structure. Order hasevolvedthroughthedistributionofenrollmentandbytheproportionoffundingfrompublicorprivatesources.Thesetwoparametersdefinethepoliticaleconomyofthesystems.

Today,morethanhalfofLatinAmerica’shighereduca-tion enrollment is provided by private institutions—mostwithoutdirect,regularstate,orpublicsubsidies;around35percentoftotalhighereducationexpenditurecomesfromprivate sources. Both private enrollment and funding inBrazil, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, El Sal-vador,Paraguay,andPeruareabove theregionalaverage,insomecasesaccountingfor50percentinbothcategories.Thecombinedforcesofstateandprivateagentsareproduc-ingthemassificationofhighereducation.LatinAmericato-dayistheregionwiththehighestproportionofenrollmentin private higher education institutions and the greatestproportion of funding from private sources—particularlyhouseholdsandstudentindebtedness.

Consistentwithmixedpoliticaleconomies,theleader-shipandcoordinationofnationalsystemsaregroundedinmarketcompetition,stateregulation,andtheinstitutions’strategic behavior—itself produced by competition andregulation.Guidance,ifany,isatarmslength,withgovern-ments participating through regulations, incentives, andinformation; while the institutions themselves competeforstudents,academicstaff,resources,andprestigebasedon their position in the institutional hierarchy of a givensystem.Inbrief, theapparentdisarrayofLatinAmerica’stertiaryeducation is the resultofmarketconditions,withcompetitionbetweensuppliers,weakornonintrusivestateframework,atbestprovidingorientationwithregulations,evaluations, and incentives (backed by subsidies), ratherthancontrol.

ChallengesGiven these circumstances prevailing in Latin America,the first responsibility of governments (states) should beto guide market forces toward social welfare objectivesand align the system’s development to the general inter-est. The government, with other stakeholders, should es-tablishaframeworkforpriorities,benchmarks,andmeth-ods.Among the components agreement shouldbebasedonrulesofthegameandacommitmenttoalevelplayingfield;institutionscapableofregulatingandcontrollingthesystemandagents’behavior;clearandaccountablereport-ing requirements; guidelines and information about the


The landscape is chaotic, and national

systems appear disordered and disorga-

nized. Diversity is the dominant reality.


volumeandmodesofstate fundingfor thissectorwithamedium-term-timehorizon.

An essential role for public authorities is to ensurequality. In Latin America some think, erroneously, thatsuch activities reduce the market’s coordination functionandthatquality isbestrepresentedbyrankingsofhighereducation institutions that thenact asproxies forquality.Confronted with sharp information asymmetries, publicauthoritiesneed to acknowledge thatunder conditionsofintense competition,highereducationmarketsoftenpro-duceakindof “arms race” that encouragesa continuouscostspiral,withincreasingpressureonbothpublicfinanc-esandhousehold/studentincomes.Theallocationofsub-sidiesbythegovernment—bothtosuppliers(institutions)andfordemand(students)—shouldbemadewithclearob-jectivesandsocialpriorities,byusingasophisticatedandbroadsetofresourceallocationinstruments—competitivefunds, performance agreements, formulas—which pro-moteinternalandexternalefficiencyandactasstimuliforinnovationandqualityimprovement.

Turningtohighereducationsystemsandinstitutions,the main challenge is human-capacity building involvingmanyissues—forexample,accesstohighereducation;ad-mission rules andhowdifferent institutionsare selected;gradesandtitles;ideasandorganizationofcurricula;teach-ingmodesandpedagogicmethods;theacademicbodyandteachingpersonnel;andthetransitionfromhighereduca-tiontoworkandfollowupofgraduatesinthelabormarket.Each of these dimensions should take account of supplydiversity, from universities or nonuniversity institutions,whether academic-disciplinary or technical-vocational;whether they are elite or institutions with little or no se-lectivity,etc.Thechallengesaremyriad,andthefollowingparagraphsidentifyonlyafewsalientfeatures.

Foraccess,thekeyissueistotakestockoftheconse-quencesofmassiveentrance.Inparticular,thatforaperiod,an increasingnumberofstudentswillcomefromhouse-holds (in the lower three-income quintiles) with reducedeconomic, social, and cultural capital. The Program forInternational Student Assessment tests show that a highproportion of these young people have not developed, insecondary school, theminimumskills required tounder-

standtexts,managenumbers,andsetoutargumentsbasedonscientificprinciplesandtheuseofevidence.Theyoftenlackthecapacitytolearnontheirown,abasicrequirementforsuccessinhighereducation.Theinstitutionswillhavetocompensateforthesedeficits,justaspublicauthoritieshelpstudentswitheconomicsupport(scholarships,studentloans,etc.).If thisdoesnotoccur, thendropoutrateswillcontinueatanestimated50percent in the region,whichbyanymeasureisadramaticwasteoftalentsandaserioussquanderingofpublicandprivateresources.

Facing massive training requirements, higher edu-cation institutions (encouraged by government policies)should revise curricula (widely regardedas rigidandme-diocre)andprematurespecialization, inorder tocultivatethesocioemotionalskillsrequiredbythenewwaysoforga-nizingworkandcommunication.Thesenewarrangementswillincorporatedigitallearningandcontinuouseducationandthusimpactfacultytrainingandinstructionmodes.

Further, higher education institutions and govern-mentsneed to emphasizeemployability aspartof educa-tion,withoutdiscardingother crucial aspectsof learning,suchascitizens’rightsandresponsibilities,individualca-reermanagement,pluralism,and theappreciationofcul-turaldiversity,etc.

To summarize, Latin American higher education hasenteredanewstageandneedstodevelopinnovativecon-cepts,andinstrumentstofacethechallengesofmassifica-tion and universalization. Further, these challenges takeplacewithinmixedeconomicsystemswheregovernments,markets, and institutions interact and discover fresh ar-rangementstorespondtosocialdemandsandambitions,which aspire to leave poverty, authoritarianism, violence,andinequalitiesbehind.


The first responsibility of governments

(states) should be to guide market forc-

es toward social welfare objectives and

align the system’s development to the

general interest.

More than half of Latin America’s high-

er education enrollment is provided by

private institutions—most without di-

rect, regular state, or public subsidies.


ThePublicUniversityinArgentina:BothInefficientandIneffective?Marcelo Rabossi

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

DuringthepresidencyofJuanDomingoPerón(1946–1955), Argentina implemented an open-admissions

policy for all public universities. All aspirants holding asecondary degree were admitted. In addition, tuition wastotallyfree.Asaresultofthisfree-for-alleducation,anen-rollmentexplosionfollowed.Althoughbothmeasuresweresuspendedfromtimetotime,particularlywhenanewMili-taryJuntatookpower,themodelwasfinallyconsolidatedin1984—determiningthecurrentdynamicsofstudentflowstoday.Unsurprisingly,thisopenpolicyhashaditsdarkside.Alarmingattritionratesandalownumberofgraduatespor-trayapublicuniversitythatisbothinefficientandineffec-tive.

An Easy-to-Enter MechanismToday,54nationaluniversitiesenrollalmost1.4millionstu-dents(79.5%oftotalenrollment,by2010);eachuniversityisfreetodetermineitsownadmissionsprocess.Withdif-ferent typesof remedial courses shapedby the character-isticsandneedsofeach institution,basicallyallaspirantscarryinga secondary schooldiplomaare admitted. Inad-dition, tuition remains totally free at the undergraduatelevel.Thus,withthislogic,candidatesarenotchallengedtomaketheirbesteffort,neitherintellectuallynorfinancially,to get place at the most prestigious national institutions.Inotherwords,regardlessoftheiracademicperformancecandidatesmayenter anypublic institutionandenroll inalmostanydesiredfieldofstudy.However,thispermissiveadmissionspolicyhasseriousconsequences.

Theheavy loadofanopen-admissionmodelmustbetaken into account, since Argentina lacks a standard andcommon final examination for high school graduates tocontrol for quality. This situation puts an extra pressureontothesystem,particularlywhentheaveragehighschoolstudent lacks the basic skills to succeed in higher educa-tion.According to the lastProgramforInternationalStu-dentAssessment,in2009Argentinaranked58among65countries,confirmingthatthegapinperformancebetweenthehigherandlowerachieversisoneofthelargestamongparticipating nations. So it is not surprising that only a

smallportionofstudentsareabletocompletetheiruniver-sityeducation.

An Inefficient and Ineffective UniversityOnaverage,only22percentofallstudentsatnationalinsti-tutionscompletetheirdegrees.Incomparison,theprivatesectorshowsmoreefficientgraduationrates(35%).Higherout-of-pocket and opportunity costs and better-organizedprogramofstudiesintheprivatesectorencouragestudentsto complete their degrees within a shorter time. In thepublicsector,however,itislikelythatviolationofinternalrulesalsocontributestotheproblem.AlthoughtheHigherEducation Law of 1995 mandates that all students mustcompleteatleasttwocoursesperyeartomaintaintheiren-rollmentstatus,inrealityitislikelythat27percentofthestudentbodydoesnotcompleteasinglecourseduringtheacademicyear.Thisincreasesto41percent,basedonthosewhotookfewerthan2coursesduringtheperiod.Unsur-prisingly, this“permissiveuniversity”allowsArgentina tohavethehighest,gross-enrollmentuniversityrateinLatinAmerica.Ontheotherhand,thecountrygraduatesonly2.4studentsper 1,000 inhabitants,wellbelowmoreefficientsystemsintheregion.

Although some public universities’ graduation ratesare more comparable by international standards (wherearound50%offreshmencompletetheiruniversityeduca-tion),otherspresentalarminglylow-graduationrates.Inef-fect, in more than one-third of all publics, drop-out ratesareabove80percent.Inpart,thisunevenperformanceismostlikelyduetothefactthatsomeinstitutionsaremoreselectiveintheadmissionofstudentstomoredemandingcareers.Bydistributinglower-achieverstolessacademicallydemandingprograms,someuniversitieshavebeenabletoreducethenumberofdropouts.Also,someremedialcours-es have proven as efficient, especially in smaller classes,where a student has more contact with a tutor. Addition-ally,somepublicinstitutionsareexpandingthenumberofshorterprograms,toincreasethenumberofgraduates.Inthissense,theytendtobehaveasnonuniversityinstitutionsinordertoaddressthedropoutdilemma.

The Efficient Nonuniversity as Part of the SolutionBycontrast,arisingproportionofstudentsnowenroll innonuniversity institutions, a phenomenon that has de-creasedthenationaldramaoflowgraduationrates.Theseinstitutesoffertwo-andthree-yearprogramsinareassuchasWebtechnologyandtechnicaleducation.Also,theyareresponsibleforgraduatingmorethan70percentofallpri-maryandsecondaryteachers.Theyhavealsoproventobemoreefficientthanthenationaluniversity.

These institutos terciarios (tertiary institutes) enroll691,000 students, or 30 percent of all postsecondary en-



rollees,butproducealmostthesamenumberofgraduatesastheuniversities.Whenfactoringintheseinstitutions,Ar-gentinaisactuallymoreeffectiveintheproductionofhu-mancapital.Thetertiaryinstituteseffectivelybringgradu-ationintheArgentinehighereducationsystemuptoparwithneighboringcountries.

Thehigherefficiencyrateofthetertiaryinstitutesrestsonbothacademicandorganizationalfactors.First,academ-icprogramsareshorterandrequireless-previousacademicpreparation.Second,byofferingsmallerclassesthanuni-versities,theseinstitutesallowacloserinteractionbetweenstudents and professors. Also, tertiary institutions wereconceived as an extension of secondary schools. In thissense, they offer a “friendlier environment,” and requirefeweradjustmentsinordertosucceed.

ConclusionAlthoughthenationaluniversityinArgentinapridesitselfon socially equitable admissions, ithas alsoproven tobebothinefficient(judgedbyhigh-attritionrates)andineffec-tive (low proportion of graduates in comparison to othercountriesintheregion)intheproductionofhumancapi-tal.Evenwithoutadmissionsrequirementsortuition,thereisinfactstrongselectivityevidentintheprogressionfromfirst tosubsequentyearsofmostdegreeprograms.IfAr-gentinawantstotrulyachieveitsobjectiveofapostsecond-ary system that is socially just andequitable,higheredu-cation policy must be redefined. Beyond the urgent needforreformatthesecondaryleveltobetterpreparestudentsforpostsecondarystudy,tertiaryinstitutesanduniversitiesmustactascomplementaryentities.Theobjectivemustbetoachieveabetterarticulationbetweenbothtypesofinstitu-tions(currentlyalmostnonexistent),helpinglesspreparedstudentstomakeasmoothtransitionfromsecondarytoter-tiaryeducationwithmoreoptions.

CentralAmerica:TheValueofInternationalAcademicCooperationNanette Svenson

Nanette Svenson is an adjunct professor at Tulane University’s Pay-son Center for International Development, New Orleans, Louisiana. E-mail: [email protected].

Central America, like many small developing regions,contributes little to worldwide research efforts. It ac-

counts for less than 0.05 percent of global research anddevelopmentandonly0.07percentofallScienceCitationIndexpublications.WhilethiswouldseemtomakeCentralAmerican scientific and technological advancesunworthyofstudy,quitetheoppositeistrueasprogressonthisfrontwilllikelydeterminetheextentoftheregion’sdevelopmentoverthenextdecades.

Sevencountries comprise this subcontinent lyingbe-tweenMexicoandColombia:Belize,CostaRica,ElSalva-dor,Guatemala,Honduras,Nicaragua,andPanama.Eachisdifferent inmanyways,butall fall intothe“middle-in-come”WorldBankcategoryofdevelopingcountries.So,de-spitea40percentpovertyrate,CentralAmericaisnotpoorenoughtoqualifyformostdonoraid.Neitherisitlargeorrichenoughtogenerateinternallythescientificgrowth,re-quiredforpropellingdevelopment.Interestingly,morethanhalfoftheworld’seconomiesfallintothesamemiddlingcategory—almostdoublethenumberineitherthehigher-or lower-income classifications. Thus, the circumstancesfacing Central America, particularly for participation inglobalscientificexploration,arenotunique.Internationalacademiccooperationoffersapowerfulmeansofaddress-ingthisconcernandbridgingsomeoftheexistinggaps.

ObstaclesCentral America faces numerous challenges to develop-ing research capacity. Higher education enrollment hasincreasedinrecentyears—thankstoaproliferationofpri-vateuniversitiesandvariouslabor-marketfinancialincen-tives—andnowaveragesaround25percentoftheageco-hort;however,completionratesareestimatedatwellbelowhalfofthat.WiththeexceptionofCostaRica,qualityisalsoquestionable. No Central American university appears intheinternationalrankings;publicinvestmentineducationisunder theOrganization forEconomicCooperationandDevelopment’s average 5percentofgrossdomesticprod-uct; few professors hold advanced degrees; quality-assur-ancemechanismsareemergingbut stillunderdeveloped;


Although the national university in Ar-

gentina prides itself on socially equita-

ble admissions, it has also proven to be

both inefficient (judged by high-attrition

rates) and ineffective.

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 25Latin American Perspectives

andcurriculaaregenerallyoutdated,overlytheoretical,andinapplicabletoproductivesectorwork.

Additionally, the region invests little in scientific re-search.Contrarytoitsindustrializedcounterparts,70per-cent of the investment is public, with little to no privatesupport.Thisrepresentsaconsiderablelimitation,asgov-ernments struggle to budget for fundamental health andeducationalexpenses—muchlessscientificandtechnologi-calactivity.Consequently,researchisseenasaluxury,mostpolicymakersareuniformedaboutitspotentialreturns,andCentralAmericahasamongthelowestresearchanddevel-opment investment rates worldwide. Institutionalizationeffortsarealsolacking,whichhindersscientificprogram-mingsustainability.Finally,theregionoperatesprincipallyinSpanish.ThisfacilitatescooperationwithinLatinAmeri-ca,butimpedescollaborationwithNorthAmerica,Europe,Oceania,andAsia,wherethebulkofscientificexplorationandpublishingishappening.

Evenwiththeseobstacles,CentralAmericadoeshavesomething to offer the global scientific community. Itsnaturalresources,indigenoustradition,andhistoricalmi-gratoryimportance—amongothercharacteristics—makeitaregiontostudy.ItsproximitytoNorthAmerica,relativepolitical-economicstability,andliteratehumancapitalbasealsocontributetoprovidinganoperationalplatform.Lever-agingtheseassetstobringeducationtothepointofdevel-opingsignificantscientificcapacityisthenextstep.

Promising InitiativesInternational academic cooperation can do much to aug-mentscientificresearchbudgetsandbuildcapacity.Infact,internationalfundingcurrentlyaccountsfornearly20per-cent ofCentral America’s scientific spending.One of themostpromisingareasinthisregardisthatofcross-borderuniversity-andresearchinstitute-ledprograms.Anumberofthesehavebeenestablishedoverthepastseveraldecadesand are beginning to yield important dividends. This isespeciallytruewherecollectivesynergieshavebeendevel-oped,aroundareasofcommonregionalinterest—suchas,agriculture,environmentalmanagement,andhealth.

The Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Edu-cationCenter(CATIE)inCostaRicaisonesuchexample.Establishedover60yearsagothroughtheInter-AmericanInstituteofCooperationonAgricultureandnowsupportedbytheWorldBankandotherinternationaldonors,CATIEisaregionalresearchandeducationcenter,focusedonag-ricultureandnatural-resourcemanagement.Ithasgradu-atedmorethan2,000students,operatesover100researchprojects,employsprofessorsandresearchersfrom25coun-tries,andpublisheswidelyinSpanishandEnglish.

Other examples, similar to CATIE, include the USSmithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama; theUnited Nations University for Peace in Costa Rica; thePan-American Health Organization Institute of Nutritionfor Central America and Panama in Guatemala; and theLatin American School of Social Sciences, supported bythe United Nations Educational, Scientific, and CulturalOrganization, with programs throughout the region—in-cludingCostaRica,Guatemala,ElSalvador, andPanama.Alloftheseinitiativescreateregionalhubsforspecializedknowledgegeneration,education,research,andinnovationinareascritical toCentralAmericandevelopment.To theextenttheycandrawoninternationalscientificresearchca-pacityand funding,aswell as incorporate regionalactorsandstudents, theywill continue toadvanceopportunitiesforknowledgetransfer.

Moving ForwardCentral American governments, at both regional and na-tional levels, must contribute to these efforts more con-sistently and effectively. Fortifying the national entitiesresponsible forscientific innovation isessential,as is im-provingmonitoringandevaluationmethodsforproducingdata on ongoing scientific activity. Costa Rica is farthestaheadwith this, followedbyPanamaandGuatemala,butmuchremains tobedone inallcountries.Morestrategictargetingofspecificscientificandtechnologicalcapacitiestobedevelopedandthelinkingofdevelopmentaimswithscientific capacity building are important, too, for betteridentifyingprioritiesandallocatingresources.

Central American universities must also do more tofurther this process. Even with their limited resources,

The region invests little in scientific re-

search. Contrary to its industrialized

counterparts, 70 percent of the invest-

ment is public, with little to no private

support.

International academic cooperation can

do much to augment scientific research

budgets and build capacity.

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

alignment of graduate studies curricula with researchmethodsthataremorereflectiveoftheFrascatiprinciples,usedelsewhereastheglobalbenchmark,wouldrepresenta solidfirst step in thisdirection.StrengtheningEnglish-languageskillswouldcomplementthiseffort.Bothoftheseinitiativeswouldbetterpreparefacultyandstudentstoseekoutandparticipateininternationalresearchpartnerships.Instigating more of the types of international academiccooperation programs, described above, would not onlystimulateacademiclearningintheregionbutalsogiveuni-versitiesanaddedleveragewithnationalgovernmentsforincreasingresearchbudgets.

DevelopingCentralAmericanscientificandtechnolog-icalcapacityisadauntingtask.Nevertheless,resourcesandmodelsareavailable,andprogressisbeingmadeinisolatedareas.Theseadvances shouldbenurturedandexpanded.Better utilizing international scientific and technologicalcapacity,tofurtherregionaldevelopmentobjectives,standstobenefitgreatlythecountriesofCentralAmerica.Itcouldalso inspire middle-income countries facing similar chal-lengesinotherdevelopingregionstodothesame.

EnrollmentCompetition,Accreditation,andthePri-vate-PublicMarketinMexicoJuan Carlos Silas Casillas

Juan Carlos Silas Casillas is a professor at ITESO, the Guadalajara Jesuit University, Mexico. E-mail: [email protected].

IHEpublishesoccasionalarticlesfromPROPHE,thePro-gramforResearchonPrivateHigherEducation,headquar-tered at the University at Albany. See http://www.albany.edu/.

Afterdecades inwhichMexicoexperiencedstrongpri-vategrowthand institutionaldiversification, thenew

centuryhasbroughtevengreatercomplexity.Changingpat-ternsbetweenandwithintheprivateandpublichigheredu-cation sectorshavebrought, amongother things, intensemarketcompetitivenessinstudentrecruitment.

Accreditationhasassumedarisingroleasasignalofinstitutional legitimacy,sinceit iscarriedoutbyindepen-dent agencies that highlight the cohesiveness of the pro-gramsorthesolidnessoftheacademicstructurebasedon

preset processes. Accreditation is assumed as a synonymofquality.

Thebattleformarket-sharewithitscorrespondingac-creditationrole, isbeingwagedoveramajorrangeofthesystem—publicandmid-profileprivateinstitutions.Theseinstitutionsmustfightfortheirenrollmentapplicationsun-dergreatpressure.Thisleavesmostlyasidetheeliteinstitu-tions,whicharealwaysingreatdemand,attract themostprivilegedcandidates,andhavelittleneedtofurtherlegiti-mize themselves. Also, “demand-absorbing” institutions,whichsimplydependondemand,continuetoexceedgoodhigher education supply; these institutions thus requirelittleeffort torecruitrelativestudents.But thepublicandmid-profileprivateinstitutionsthatdohavetofightforen-rollmentconstitutethemainpartofthesystem.Thisenroll-mentcomesmostlyfromthelowermiddleclass,oftenfirst-orsecond-generationstudents,almostalwayswithdesirestojointhejobmarketatahighlevel.Boththeprivateandpublicinstitutionsarefightingmostlyforthissamepoolofstudents.

This rather unexpected situation of intense competi-tionseemstohaveresultedfromtwoprincipalcauses.Oneistheexpandedquality-assuranceeffortbytheMinistryofEducation. As in other countries, concern has increasedfordecadesaboutmeetingminimumacademicstandards,amid sharply growing enrollment and both institutionaland program proliferation. The government realizes thatthemarketdynamicsitfavorsrequireregulation.Theothercause lies in the growth of customer-driven expectations.College goers and their families increasingly realize thatthey cannot simply depend on all institutions, providinglearningexperiencesanddegreesthatworkintheincreas-inglycompetitivejobmarket.Accreditationisalogicalre-sponse to the pressures from both government and pro-spectivestudents.

A Bewildering Panorama of ProgramsTherisingconsumeranxietyisexacerbatedbyabewilder-ingproliferationofprograms.Itisnotjustthenumberofprogramsbuttheimpossibilityofjudgingamongsomanythatgounderessentiallysimilarnames.Alookatthedataonenrollmentandprogramsoffered inmany licenciatura (first-degreeuniversity)fieldsshowsthat thebulkofpub-lic and private institutions, in spite of the obvious differ-encesintheirfundingandinfrastructure,havesimilaritiesintheircurriculumandrecruitment.Theseprogramstendtotargettheservicesectoroftheeconomywithitspressingdemandforuniversity-trainedgraduates.

It may seem counterintuitive that public universitieswouldfightformarketshareandmakerecruitmentpitchesonajobsbasis.Afterall,thetraditionalMexicanandLatinAmericannotionwas thatpublic institutionswould train



professionalsindiverseareasofknowledgeand,therefore,meettheneedsofsocietyandnationaldevelopment.Com-petitionandadvertisingwerenotcentraltothatconception.Whyshouldpublicinstitutionswastetheirtimecreatingat-tractive new names for traditional offerings and strive toshowcasetheirprogramsasinnovativeincontentandde-liverymode?Muchoftheresponsestemsfromtheintensechallengefromthemid-profileprivate institutions.Publicuniversitiesdonotfeaturerelaxedrecipientsofanunques-tioningandeagerpoolofstudents.Establishedpublic in-stitutions—suchas, ITSON in the stateofSonora—place

newspaperads; and the largestateuniversity in Jalisco—Universidad de Guadajalara—sets up information boothsinshoppingmallsor“plazas.”Itisnotjustprivateentrepre-neurialinstitutionsthatgiveaway“trinkets”atrecruitmentfairsorstandsinshoppingmalls.

Accreditation and the MarketSuch program offerings and advertisements are over-whelmingformanystudentsandfamilies.Theavalancheof information is confusing for those who eagerly seek arational basis for their choices. In this setting, familiesmake decisions based on three elements (other than justlocation): (1) market image, brochures, media presence,andothermarketingmanifestations;(2)pricing,includingschemesforspecialdealsinmonthlypesopayments;and

(3)theuseofaccreditationsasasignofqualityandanele-mentoflegitimation.

This third element seems crucial in the confusingscenariosince theMinistryofEducationhasmodified itsrole—from a provider of access to an evaluator who con-demnslowperformanceandrewardshigherperformance.Theministryhasbeentargetingqualityasitsmaingoalandaccreditationastheauthenticwaytoprovequalityhasbeenachieved (orat least that the institution is striving for it).Publicandmid-profileprivateinstitutionsareunderstand-ably engaged in this “accreditation competition”—publicuniversities inorder to prove their continuingworth andprivateinstitutionstoshowcasethemselvesasreliableop-tion.Eliteinstitutions,focusedonprivilegedstudents,alsoseekaccreditationbutnotmainlyformarketingstrategies;demand-absorbinginstitutionsdonot(orcannot)makeac-creditationamajorpursuit.

The role of accreditation seems to be crucial in thepublic and mid-profile private institutions—not only toachievehigher levelsofperformancebutalsoshowcasingthemselvesaslegitimatedbyanexternalauthority.Buttheaccreditationprocessdoesnotinvolveoneclearroute.Bothinstitutions and programs can seek accreditation, fromamongmanygrantors:USaccreditationagencies, thena-tionalfederationofprivateinstitutions,thenationalassoci-ationofuniversities,orahostofprofessionalassociations.Theycanseekitthroughdifferentmixesofbasicqualityorsalesmanshipandpersuasion,throughcopyingaccreditedprogramsorinnovation.Whattheseinstitutionscannotdoistoignoretheincreasedpressuresinordertosellthem-selvesinanincreasinglycompetitiveprivate-publicmarket-place.


It may seem counterintuitive that pub-

lic universities would fight for market

share and make recruitment pitches on

a jobs basis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critical International News at a Glance on Facebook and Twitter

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 NDepartments

NEW PUBLICATIONSAdamson, Bob, Jon Nixon, and Feng Su,eds. The Reorientation of Higher Education:

Challenging the East-West Dichotomy. HongKong: Comparative Education ResearchCenter,Univ.ofHongKong,2012.324pp.(pb). ISBN 978-988-1785-27-5. Web site:www.fe.hku.hk/cerc.

A potpourri of essays on aspects ofhighereducationdevelopments inaglobalcontext,thisvolumeseekstotieinternation-al trends to regional and local challenges.Amongthethemesdiscussedarethedriversofreforminhighereducation,dilemmasofreforminIndia,regionalandglobalissuesintheHongKongcontext,culturalaspectsof Chinese higher education development,partnershipsinCentralAsia,andothers.

Agarwal, Pawan, ed. A Half-Century of In-

dian Higher Education: Essays by Philip G.

Altbach. New Delhi: Sage, 2012. 636 pp.INR995(hb).ISBN978-81-321-1048-4.Website:www.sagepublications.com.

ThisbookincludesadiscussionofkeyissuesinIndianhighereducationreflectingon the past half-century of developments.Among the themes discussed are studentpoliticalactivism,highereducationreform,the politics of universities, the academicprofession,languageandhighereducation,knowledgedistribution in theSouthAsiancontext,andothers.

Albornoz,Orlando.Competitividad y solidar-

idad: Las tendencias de la universidad contem-

poránea. Caracas, Venezuela: UniversidadCatólicaCecilioAcosta.560pp.(pb).ISBN978-980-405-001-5.

This publication—consisting of sixchapters, a preface, a prologue, and anepilogue—providesacriticalreviewofVen-ezuela’s“Bolivarianrevolution”anditscon-ception of the role of higher education insociety.Theauthorcriticizes,amongothercharacteristicsofcontemporaryhigheredu-cation in Venezuela, the “academic popu-lism” (an expression that Albornoz coinedin2005),whichinspiresmanyofthedeci-sionsthataffectthesystem.HeclaimsthatdespitethefactthatVenezuela’sBolivarian(now Socialist) revolution tries to present

theconceptsofcompetitivenessandsolidar-ity as antagonistic, other socialist societies(i.e., China, which he examines in one ofthechapters)havesucceededatharmoniz-ing these two concepts to a significant ex-tent.Inthisbook,Albornozoffersasocio-logicaloverviewofsuchtopicsasthefutureofVenezuelanhighereducation,theroleofeducation,ideology,andreligioninthepo-liticalconflict;thepossibilitiesandlimitsofhighereducationsystemstoeffectchange;andwhetherVenezuelacanandshouldtrytobuildaworld-classuniversity.(IvánF.Pa-checo)

Altbach,PhilipG.,GregoryAndroushchak,Yaroslav Kuzminov, Maria Yudkevich, andLizReisberg,eds.The Global Future of High-

er Education and the Academic Profession:

The BRICs and the United States.NewYork:Palgrave-Macmillan,2013.206pp.$85(hb).ISBN: 978-0-230-36978-8. Web site: www.palgrave.com.

The book focuses mainly on the aca-demicprofessionintheBRIC(Brazil,Rus-sia,India,China)countriesandtheUnitedStates.Careerspaths,salaries,andtheroleoftheacademicinthebroaderhigheredu-cation system are discussed. An introduc-tory chapter compares the BRIC countriesand comments on specific strengths andweaknessesamongthem.

Anderson,MelissaS.,andNicholasH.Ste-neck, eds. International Research Collabora-

tions: Much to be Gained, Many Ways to Get

in Trouble.NewYork:Routledge,2011.296pp.(pb).ISBN978-0-415-53032-3.Website:www.routledge.com.

This book provides a collection ofthoughtful essays relating to the possibili-ties and, especially, the problems of inter-nationalresearchcollaboration.Amongthetopicsconsideredarenationalvariationsinthe organization of scientific research, re-searchintegrityinaninternationalcontext,the impact of US law on international re-searchprojects,differencesindoctoraledu-cation,andrelatedthemes.

Arkoudis,Sophie,ChiBaik,andSaraRich-ardson.English Language Standards in High-

er Education. Camberwell, Vic., Australia:ACER Press, 2012. 186 pp. $44.95 (pb).ISBN 978-1-74286-064-0. Web site: www.aceroress.cin.au.

RecognizingthatEnglishisthekeyin-ternational language of higher education,this book provides a practical guide to theuseofEnglishinvariedglobalacademicen-vironments. Among the themes discussedaremodelsforEnglish-languageprograms,curriculumdesignandassessmentofEng-lish programs, English proficiency andworkplacereadiness,andothers.

Ashcroft, Kate, and Philip Rayner. Higher

Education in Development: Lessons from Sub-

Saharan Africa.Charlotte,NC:InformationAge Publishers, 2011. 286 pp. (pb). ISBN978-1-41735-541.7. Web site: www.infoag-epub.com.

Thefocusofthisvolumeishowtoim-proveuniversities in thesub-SaharanAfri-can region. The higher education contextin Africa is discussed. Additional chaptersconsider curriculum development, qualityand standards, teaching and learning, re-search,studentservices,andotherthemes.Shortcasestudiesrelatingtothesethemesillustratethebroaderpoints.

Bastedo,MichaelN.,ed.The Organization of

Higher Education: Managing Colleges for New

Era.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniv.Press,2012.366pp.(pb).ISBN978-1-4214-0448-6.Website:www.press.jhu.edu.

A collection of essays that focusesbroadlyontheorganizationofhigheredu-cation, this volume mainly concerns theUnitedStates.Thebookanalyzesthetrendsin research on higher education organiza-tionanddiscussessuchthemesasdiversity,rankings,socialmovementsandtheuniver-sity,institutionalstrategy,agencytheoryandorganization,andothers.

Cooper, David. The University in Develop-

ment: Case Studies of Use-Oriented Research.

Cape Town: Human Sciences Press, 2011.390 pp. (pb). ISBN 978-0-7969-2347-9.Website:www.hsrcpress.ac.za.

Thefirstpartofthisbookdiscussestheinternational patterns of research for de-

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 29Departments

velopment and university-industry collabo-ration. The second part focuses on SouthAfricaandprovidescasestudiesof severaluniversities and laboratories, to illustratehowuniversitiesparticipateinthedevelop-ment process. A careful analysis of prob-lemsisprovided.

Deardorf,Darla,HansdeWit,JohnD.Heyl,andTonyAdams,eds.The SAGE Handbook

of International Higher Education. Los An-geles:SAGE,2012.536pp.(hb).$125.Website:www.sagepubications.com.

This prominent volume serves as acritical international higher education re-source for scholars, administrators, policy-makers,andstudents.Thehandbookofferscomprehensive coverage of this expansiveandevergrowingfield,includinganhistoricoverview,currenttrendsandapproachestostudentandscholarmobility,innovativeap-proaches to cross-border engagement andpartnerships, and efforts to international-ize teachingand learning.Leadingexpertsfrom around the world offer insights intointernationalization trends within the UShigher education context and across theglobe.Thisvolumeprovidesavaluablecon-ceptual background, practical guidance forbuildingstrategicresponses,andaglimpseinto what is next for international highereducation. (David A. Stanfield and YukikoShimmi)

Fegel, Daniel Mark, and Elizabeth Mlson-Huddle,eds.Precipice or Crossroads? Where

America’s Great Public Universities Stand

and Where They are Going.Albany,NY:StateUniv. of New York Press, 2012. 318 pp.$24.95(pb).ISBN978-1-4384-4492-5.Website:www.sunypress.edu.

Marking the200thanniversaryof theMorrill Act, the law that created the LandGrantuniversitiesintheUnitedStates,thisvolume reflects on the current challengesand future prospects of America’s publicuniversities. Among the themes discussedin the chapters are the land-grantheritageanditsmeaningtoday,enhancingthepub-licpurposeandoutcomesofpublichighereducation,publicfundingandtuitioncosts,statewide university systems and the land

grantidea,andthefuturepromiseofpublicresearch universities. Among the authorsare presidents of key public research uni-versities.

Kelly,AndrewP.,andMarkSchneider,eds.Getting to Graduation: The Completion Agen-

da in Higher Education. Baltimore: JohnsHopkins Univ. Press, 2012. 335 pp. (hb).ISBN 978-1-4214-0622-0. Web site: www.press.jhu.edu.

Degreecompletionisoneof themostcontroversial themes in American highereducation. This volume discusses thatbroad topic from a range of perspectives.Amongthefociarechallengesfor increas-ing degree attainment, financial aid anddegree attainment, apprenticeships anddegree completion, the role of communitycolleges, certificate programs, remediationand degree completion, and others. Thisvolumeisperhapsthemostcomprehensiveoverviewofthistopic.

Koscielniak,Cezary,andJaroslawMakows-ki, eds. Freedom, Equality, University. War-saw, Poland: Civil Institute, 2012. 296 pp.(pb).ISBN978-83-933794-4-6.

FocusingonkeychallengesfacingEu-ropean universities, this volume featuresseveralchaptersbroadlyconsideringaccessissues,studentactivismandcivildisobedi-ence,themarketanddemocracy,andsever-alothers.Thesechaptersareaccompaniedbynationalcasesfocusinglargelyonpolicychange in Russia, England, Finland, Ger-many,andItaly.

Kwiek, Marek. Knowledge Production in

European Universities: States, Markets, and

Academic Entrepreneurialism. Frankfurt amMain,Germany:PeterLang,2013.486pp.(hb). ISBN 978-3-631-62403-6. Web site:www.peterlang.de.

An analysis of the interrelationshipsbetween the state and higher educationin a varietyofEuropean contexts, this vol-umefeaturesdiscussionsoftheexpandingprivate sector, changing ideasof the socialcontractandhighereducationinEuropeancountries, the university and the welfarestate, knowledge exchange, and aspects of

academicentrepreneurialism.Kwiek, Marek, and Peter Maassen, eds.National Higher Education Reforms in a Eu-

ropean Context: Comparative Reflections on

Poland and Norway. Frankfurt am Main,Germany: Peter Lang, 2012. 242 pp. (hb).ISBN 978-3-631-63808-8. Web site: www.peterlang.de.

The focus of this book is on develop-mentsinwhattheeditorscallthe“Europe-anperiphery,”inthiscasePolandandNor-way.ThesetwocountriesaresituatedinthebroaderEuropeancontextbythebook’sedi-tors.Otherchaptersexaminepublic-privatedynamics in Poland, qualifications frame-worksinbothcountries,Europeanizationinthetwocountries,andothers.

Lane, Jason E., and D. Bruce Johnstone,eds. Universities and Colleges as Economic

Drivers: Measuring Higher Education’s Role in

Economic Development. Albany, NY: SUNYPress,2012.316pp.$24.95(pb).ISBN978-1-4384-4500-7. Web site: www.sunypress.edu.

FocusingmainlyontheroleofAmeri-can higher education in economic devel-opment, this volume discusses highereducation and economic competitiveness,problems in assessing higher education’seconomiccontribution,andsimilarthemes.Attention is paid to higher education andthelabormarketandtheroleofcommunitycolleges,ineconomicdevelopment.

Levin,JohnS.,andSusanT.Kater,eds.Un-

derstanding Community Colleges. New York:Routledge,2013.263pp.(pb).ISBN978-0-415-88127-2.Website:www.routledge.com.

A multifaceted discussion of keythemes concerning American communitycolleges,thisvolumefocusesonsuchtopicsasthehistoryofcommunitycolleges,adultstudent development, teaching academicunderpreparedstudents,managementandleadershipincommunitycolleges,econom-ic and workforce development, state fiscalsupport,andothers.

Mack,Arien,ed.TheFutureofHigherEdu-cation. Theme issue of Social Research 79(Fall,2012):551-784.$18(pb).ISBN978-1-


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 N30 Departments

93348130-2.Thiscollectionofessaysfocusesonthe

globalfutureofhighereducation,includingthemes on road-mapping university devel-opmentandrestructuringresearchuniversi-ties.Amongthetopicsofspecificessaysarethefinancialfutureofresearchuniversities,future prospects for China’s universities,outcomesandtesting,trendsinEuropeandLatinAmerica,andseveralothers.

O’Hara,Sabine,ed.Higher Education in Af-

rica: Equity, Access, Opportunity. New York:Institute of International Education, 2010.162pp. (pb).ISBN978-0-87206-34-1.Website:www.iiebooks.org.

This book provides a selection of es-says on themes relating to African highereducation, topics include improvingaccessinAfrica,makinghighereducationapublicand social good, private financing, genderinequalities,andseveralchaptersindisabili-tiesastheyrelatetohighereducation.

Palmer, John D., Amy Roberts, Young HaCho,andGregoryS.Ching,eds.The Interna-

tionalization of East Asian Higher Education.

New York: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2011. 230pp.$85(hb).ISBN978-0-23010-932-2.Website:www.palgrave.com.

The broad theme of internationaliza-tioninanEastAsiancontext isconsideredin this volume. Contributions consider acomparison of higher education hubs inHong Kong and Singapore, international-ization and Americanization in a Koreancontext, issues in internationalization of aChineseregionaluniversity,Englishandin-ternationalization in Japan and Korea, andothers.

St. John,EdwardP.,NathanDaun-Barnett,and Karen M. Moronski-Chapman. Public

Policy and Higher Education: Reframing Strat-

egies for Preparaton, Access, and College Suc-

cess.NewYork:Routledge,2013.321pp.(pb).ISBN 978-0-415-89356-5. Web site: www.routledge.com.

Avolumeinanewbookserieson“Coreconceptsinhighereducation”aimedatpro-viding overview volumes for use in highereducationcoursesintheUnitedStates;this

text-oriented volume features case studiesandlearningexercises.ItdiscussesspecificaspectsoftheAmericanpolicydebaterelat-edtoaccessandcollegesuccessratherthanabroadarrayofpolicyissues.Thenationalpolicydiscourse is featuredaswell as casestudiesfocusingonstate-levelexperiences.

Shattock, Michael. Making Policy in British

Higher Education, 1945–2011. Maidenhead,UK:OpenUniversityPress,2012.280pp.£37.99(pb).ISBN978-0-335-24186-6.Website:www.open.co.uk.

Thisbookisaclassicaccountofthede-velopmentofBritishhighereducationpoli-cyovermorethanahalf-centuryofchangingperspectivesandtheadventofmasshighereducation that permanently changed thenature of postsecondary education. Struc-tures,financialissues,politics,themovetoaccountability, and the changing politicalwindsintheUnitedKingdomare interwo-veninthissophisticateanalysis.

Tight, Malcolm. Researching Higher Educa-

tion (Second edition). Maidenhead, UK:OpenUniversityPress,2012.278pp. (pb).ISBN 978-0-335524183-9. Web site: www.open.co.uk.

This is a comprehensive guide to re-searching higher education issues with alargelyBritishfocus.Thisvolumediscussesthe current literature on the field includ-ingthemostimportantbooksandjournalsavailable, key issues for research (such asstudentexperience,quality,systemdevelop-ment,academicwork,andothers),andtheprocessofdoingresearchincludingvariousmethodologicalapproaches.

Trower, Cathy Ann. Success on the Tenure

Track: Five Keys to Faculty Job Satisfaction.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press,2012. 270 pp. $45 (hb). ISBN 978-1-4214-0597-1.Website:www.press.jhu.edu.

Basedondata collectedby theCollab-orativeonAcademicCareersinHigherEdu-cation,aprojectbasedatHarvardUniversityandincludingarangeofAmericanuniversi-ties,thisvolumereportsonquantitativeandqualitative research relating to early careerdevelopment.Amongthethemesdiscussed

arethechallengesoftenure,work-lifeinte-gration,support for teachingandresearch,collegiality and campus community, andothers.

VandeBerg,Michael,R.MichaelPaige,andKris Hemming Lou, eds. Student Learning

Abroad: What Our Students are Learning,

What They’re Not, and What We Can Do

About It.Herndon,VA:Stylus,2012.454pp.$39.95 (pb). ISBN 978-1-57922-714-2. Website:www.Styluspub.com.

FocusingmainlyonAmericanstudentswhostudyabroad, thisvolumediscussesarange of themes relating to study abroad,with a special interest in student learningabroad. Among the themes discussed aremaximizingthestudy-abroadexperienceforstudents, cross-cultural learning, creatingcommunities, teachingand learningin thestudy-abroadcontext, interculturalcommu-nications,andother.

Wang, Qi, Ying Cheng, and Nian Cai Liu,eds.Building World-Class Universities: Differ-

ent Approaches to a Shared Goal.Rotterdam,Netherlands,2012.216pp.$49(pb).ISBN978-9462-09-032-3. Web site: www.sense-publishers.com.

Stemming from the 4th World ClassUniversitiesconferenceinShanghaiin2011,thechaptersinthisbookfocusonarangeofperspectivesrelatingtothedevelopmentofresearchuniversitiesandthebroaderthemeofworld-classstatus.Amongthetopicscon-sidered are different roads to world-classstatus, rankings and classifications, Asia’stop-tier researchers, the roleof theWeb inworld-classstatus,andothers.CasestudiesfromRussia,SaudiArabia,Taiwan,andtheNetherlandsareincluded.

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 31Departments

The most recent product of the Center’s ongoing collabo-ration with the Laboratory of Institutional Analysis, at theNational Research University-Higher School of Economicsin Moscow, was published in February—Philip G. Altbach,Gregory Androushchak, Yaroslav Kuzminov, Maria Yudkev-ich,andLizReisberg,eds.,The Global Future of Higher Edu-cation and the Academic Profession: The BRICs and the United States (New York: Palgrave-Macmillan 2013). English andRussianeditionswillbeavailable.American Higher Education in the 21st Century,coeditedbyPhilipG.Altbach,RobertO.Berdahl, and Patricia J. Gumport, has been published in aSpanishlanguageeditionbytheUniversityofPalermoinAr-gentina.Paying the Professoriate,coeditedbyPhilipG.Altbach,LizReisberg,MariaYudkevich,GregoryAndroushchak,andIvánF.Pacheco,hasbeenpublishedinaRussian-languageedition by the National Research University-Higher SchoolofEconomics inMoscow, andwill soonappear inChinesefromtheShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityPress.Leadership for World-Class Universities,editedbyPhilipG.Altbach,hasbeenpublishedinChinesebytheRenminUniversityPress,Bei-jing.ASpanisheditionwillbepublished,inAugust,bytheUniversityofPalermoinArgentina.

The Center, with the cosponsorship of the GraduateSchool of Education at the Shanghai Jiao Tong Universityand the support of the Innovation, Higher Education andResearchforDevelopmentprogramoftheOrganizationforEconomic Cooperation and Development, is organizing aninvitationalconferenceofthedirectorsofselectedcentersforhighereducationaroundtheworldinShanghaiinNovember2013—totakeplaceatthetimeoftheWorldClassUniversity(WCU-5)conferenceinShanghai.

TheCenter iscollaboratingwithReisberg&AssociatesonaninnovativeleadershipseminarforPrincessNorabintAbdulRahmanUniversityinRiyadh,SaudiArabia,thelarg-estwomen’suniversity in theworld.Theseminarwill takeplaceinRiyadhinApril.Agroupofsixwomen,higheredu-cationleadersfromtheUnitedStateswillworkwithcounter-partsinRiyadh.

Center director Philip G. Altbach and former researchassociateLizReisbergcontinuetoserveontheplanningcom-mittee of the annual Riyadh higher education conference.PhilipG.AltbachtravelstoMoscowinMaytoparticipateinameetingoftheInternationalAdvisoryCommitteeoftheNa-tionalResearchUniversity-HigherSchoolofEconomics.Hewill alsoparticipate ina leadership trainingseminarat theUniversityofHongKong.CenterassociatedirectorLauraE.RumbleyhasbeenappointedtothepublicationscommitteeoftheEuropeanAssociationforInternationalEducation.Sherecentlypresentedat theannualconferenceof theAssocia-tionforInternationalHigherEducationinNewOrleans.

The third installment in the International Briefs for Higher Education Leaders series, which the Center is copro-ducingwiththeAmericanCouncilonEducation(ACE),willbe released in April. This new edition is titled “India: TheNextFrontier.”AcomplementarywebinarwillbehostedbyACEonApril25,2013,withinformationtobeavailablehere:http://bit.ly/QOYVaL.

News of the Center

JointheAmericanCouncilonEducation(ACE)andCIHEforanupcomingwebinar:

India: The Next Frontier

Thursday,April25,2013

2:00–3:30pmEDT

ExpertpanelistswilldiscusstheIndianhighereducationsystem, and opportunities for US institutions to establishpartnershipsandworkeffectivelywithIndiancounterparts.Participantswill receiveaprintedbrief featuring 12 related

articlespriortothewebinar,andwillhavetheopportunitytoposequestionstothepanelists.

This webinar and Brief are part of the “InternationalBriefsforHigherEducationLeaders”seriesco-sponsoredbyACEandCIHE.

ContacttheAmericanCouncilonEducation’sCenterforInternationalizationandGlobalEngagementformoreinfor-mationaboutwebinarregistration:[email protected].

PRESORTEDFIRST-CLASS MAIL

U.S. POSTAGEPAID

N. READING MAPERMIT 258

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

Editor

Philip G. Altbach

Publications Editor

Edith S. Hoshino

Editorial assistant

Salina Kopellas

Editorial officE

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

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

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

ISSN: 1084-0613©Center for International Higher Education

The Center For International Higher Education (CIHE)

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

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

CIHE Web Site

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

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

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

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

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

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION umber priNg · International Higher Education is the quarterly...

Documents

Transcript of INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION umber priNg · International Higher Education is the quarterly...