international higher educationthe boston college center for international higher education

number 50 winter 2007

The 50th Issue of International Higher Education2 A Dozen Years of Service to Higher Education

Philip G. Altbach

2 Globalization and Forces for Change in Higher EducationPhilip G. Altbach

4 The Growing Accountability Agenda: Progress or Mixed Blessing?Jamil Salmi

6 Internationalization: A Decade of Changes and ChallengesJane Knight

7 Private Higher Education: Patterns and TrendsDaniel C. Levy

9 Graduate Education in Latin America: The Coming of AgeJorge Balán

11 International Research CollaborationSachi Hatakenaka

13 International Student Mobility and the United States: The 2007 Open Doors SurveyPatricia Chow and Rachel Marcus

15 The Management and Funding of US Study AbroadBrian Whalen

16 US Accreditation: International and National Dialogue Judith S. Eaton

Countries and Regions

26 New Publications

27 News of the Center

European Developments

18 The Private Financing of Higher EducationRyan Hahn

20 Higher Education Finance in GhanaFrancis Atuahene

The United States: Global Issues

21 Higher Education under a Labour GovernmentMichael Shattock

23 European Students in the Bologna ProcessManja Klemencic

Financing

Departments

25 Corruption in Vietnamese Higher EducationDennis C. McCornac

A Dozen Years of Service toHigher Education

This is the 50th issue of International Higher Education. Ourfirst issue appeared in the spring of 1995, almost 13 years

ago. Our commitment then, as now, is to provide thoughtfulanalysis of contemporary events in higher education world-wide and information on current developments, especially incountries that do not receive much attention. We have a specialconcern with the broad issues of globalization and internation-alization. Because of our sponsorship by a Jesuit university, wehave been interested in issues relating to Catholic and Jesuiteducation worldwide. Ours has been an effort at network build-ing and information provision.

We have focused attention on themes and countries some-times neglected in discussions of higher education. IHE hasfrom the beginning had a special interest in developing coun-tries—especially on how the developing world can cope withinternational trends largely determined by the major academicpowers. Among the topics we have emphasized over the yearshave been private higher education (our collaboration with theProgram of Research on Private Higher Education-PROPHE atthe University at Albany has been especially important), cor-ruption issues, internationalization and globalization, and oth-ers. A combination of independent and often critical analysis,focus on central issues for higher education worldwide, andshort but incisive articles has proved to be a successful strate-gy.

IHE is aggressively noncommercial. We do not charge for asubscription. We are always happy to provide permission, with-out any fee, to publications interested in reprinting our arti-cles. Our Web site is available without charge and is linkedwith many other Web sites focusing on higher education. Weaccept no advertising in any of our publications or on our Website. We have been able to do this work because of supportfrom the Ford Foundation and from Boston College.

International Higher Education is by now recognized as asource of information and analysis worldwide. We mail toreaders in 154 countries. IHE is available on our Web site andis widely used. We have been careful to archive all of the backissues and have indexed them so that researchers and otherscan have easy access. IHE articles are widely cited in the liter-ature and are often reprinted by journals in many parts of theworld. We currently work with publications in Mexico, theUnited Kingdom, the United States, and China that regularlyreprint our articles. IHE is translated into Arabic, thanks toGoogle, and we are working on starting a Chinese-languageedition in collaboration with the Shanghai Jiao TongUniversity Institute of Higher Education.

We have asked colleagues who have been associated withInternational Higher Education to reflect on some key trends in

higher education in an international perspective over the pastdecade of our publication. Several of these articles follow.Additional contributions will be published in the comingissues. We look forward to our 100th issue!

Philip G. Altbach, Editor

Globalization and Forces forChange in Higher EducationPhilip G. Altbach

Philip G. Altbach is J. Donald Monan SJ professor of higher education anddirector of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College.

What is globalization and how does it affect higher educa-tion policy and academic institutions? The answer is

deceivingly simple and the implications are surprisingly com-plex. For higher education, globalization implies the broadsocial, economic, and technological forces that shape the reali-ties of the 21st century. These elements include advanced infor-mation technology, new ways of thinking about financinghigher education and a concomitant acceptance of marketforces and commercialization, unprecedented mobility for stu-dents and professors, the global spread of common ideas aboutscience and scholarship, the role of English as the main inter-national language of science, and other developments.Significantly, the idea of mass access to higher education hasmeant unprecedented expansion of higher education every-where-there are about 134 million students in postsecondaryeducation worldwide, and many countries have seen unprece-dented and sustained expansion in the past several decades.These global trends are for the most part inevitable. Nations,and academic institutions, must constructively cope with theimplications.

Contemporary inequalities may in fact be intensified byglobalization. Academic systems and institutions that at onetime could grow within national boundaries now find them-selves competing internationally. National languages competewith English even within national borders. Domestic academ-ic journals, for example, often compete with international pub-lications within national academic systems, and scholars arepressured to publish internationally. Developing countries areat a significant disadvantage in the new globalized academicsystem, but smaller academic systems in rich countries alsoface problems. In a ranking-obsessed world, the top universi-ties are located predominantly in the United States, the UnitedKingdom, and a few other rich countries. The inequalities ofthe global age are just as profound and in part more complexthan the realities of the era of colonialism.

Academic systems will need to cope with the key realities of

international higher education

the 50th issue 2

the first part of the 21st century for higher education.Massification Massification is without question the most ubiquitous globalinfluence of the past half century or more. The United Stateshad the first mass higher education system, beginning as earlyas the 1920s. Europe followed in the 1960s, and parts of Asiaa decade or so later. The developing countries were the last toexpand. Most of the growth of the 21st century is taking placein developing and middle-income countries. There are nowmore than 140 million students in postsecondary educationworldwide, and this number continues to expand rapidly.North America, Europe, and a number of Pacific Rim nationsnow enroll 60 percent or more of the relevant age group inhigher education. What has massification brought?

Public good vs. private good. Stimulated in part by the finan-cial pressures of massification and also by broader changes ineconomic thinking, including the neoliberal agenda, highereducation is increasingly considered in economic terms a pri-vate good—a benefit accruing mainly to individuals whoshould pay for it rather than a public good that contributes ben-efits to society and thus should be financially supported by thestate.

Access. Postsecondary education has opened its doors to pre-viously excluded population groups—women; people fromlower socioeconomic classes; previously disadvantaged racial,religious, and ethnic groups; and other populations. Whilemany countries still contain disparities in enrollment, massifi-cation has clearly meant access and thus upward mobility andincreased earning potential. Access also greatly expanded theskills of populations, making economic expansion possible.

Differentiation. All mass higher education systems are dif-ferentiated systems. Institutions serve varied missions, withdiffering funding sources and patterns and a range of quality.Successful academic systems must ensure that the various seg-ments of the system are supported and sustained. Whileresearch universities need special attention, mass-access insti-tutions do as well.

Varied funding patterns. For most countries, the state has tra-ditionally been the main funder of higher education.Massification has placed great strains on state funding, and inall cases governments no longer believe they can adequatelyfund mass higher education. Other sources of funding need tobe found—including student tuition and fees (typically thelargest source), a variety of government-sponsored and privateloan programs, university income generating programs (suchas industry collaboration or consulting), and philanthropic

support.Decline in quality and conditions of study. On average in most

countries, the quality of higher education has declined. In amass system, top quality cannot be provided to all students. Itis not affordable, and the ability levels of both students andprofessors necessarily become more diverse. University studyand teaching are no longer a preserve for the elite—both interms of ability and wealth. While the top of a diversified aca-demic system may maintain its quality (although in somecountries the top sector has also suffered), the system as awhole declines.

Peaks and Valleys in Global Science and ScholarshipA variety of forces have combined to make science and schol-arship global. Two key elements are responsible. The growth ofinformation technology (IT) has created a virtual global com-munity of scholarship and science. The increasing dominanceof English as the key language of communicating academicknowledge is enhanced by IT. Global science provides everyoneimmediate access to the latest knowledge. Thus, everyonemust compete on the same playing field to participate inresearch and discovery. It is as if some teams (the wealthiestuniversities) have the best training and equipment, while themajority of players (universities in developing countries andsmaller institutions everywhere) are far behind. There isincreased pressure to participate in the international bigleagues of science—such as publishing in recognized journalsin English. Thus, while IT makes communication easier ittends to concentrate power in the hands of the “haves” to thedisadvantage of the “have nots.” National or even regional aca-demic communities, located in the valleys of higher education,are overshadowed by the peaks of the global academic powersthat dominate the new knowledge networks.

Globalization of the Academic MarketplaceMore than 2 million students are studying abroad, and it isestimated that this number will increase to 8 million by 2025.Many others are enrolled in branch campuses and twinningprograms. There are many thousands of visiting scholars andpostdocs studying internationally. Most significantly, there is aglobal circulation of academics. Ease of transportation, IT, theuse of English, and the globalization of the curriculum havetremendously increased the international circulation of aca-demic talent. Flows of students and scholars move largely fromSouth to North—from the developing countries to NorthAmerica and Europe. And while the “brain drain” of the pasthas become more of a “brain exchange,” with flows of both

3

international higher education

the 50th issue

Massification is without question the most ubiqui-

tous global influence of the past half century or

more.

The increasing dominance of English as the key lan-

guage of communicating academic knowledge is

enhanced by IT.

people and knowledge back and forth across borders andamong societies, the great advantage still accrues to the tradi-tional academic centers at the expense of the peripheries. EvenChina, and to some extent India, with both large and increas-ingly sophisticated academic systems, find themselves at a sig-nificant disadvantage in the global academic marketplace. Formuch of Africa, the traditional brain drain remains largely areality.

ConclusionThomas Friedman's “flat world” is a reality for the rich coun-tries and universities. The rest of the world still finds itself ina traditional world of centers and peripheries, of peaks and val-leys and involved in an increasingly difficult struggle to catchup and compete with those who have the greatest academicpower. In some ways, globalization works against the desire tocreate a worldwide academic community based on cooperationand a shared vision of academic development. The globaliza-tion of science and scholarship, ease of communication, andthe circulation of the best academic talent worldwide have notled to equality in higher education. Indeed, both within nation-al academic systems and globally, inequalities are greater thanever.

The Growing AccountabilityAgenda: Progress or MixedBlessing?Jamil Salmi

Jamil Salmi is the tertiary education coordinator of the World Bank,Washington, DC, USA. E-mail: jsalmi@worldbank.org.

Compared to the well-established tradition of accreditationin the United States, public universities in many countries

have typically operated in a very autonomous manner. In thefrancophone countries of Africa, for example, institutionsenjoy full independence in the selection (election) of their lead-ers and complete management autonomy. They do not have toanswer for their inefficient performance. In several LatinAmerican countries, the constitution entitles public universi-ties to a fixed percentage of the annual budget that they are freeto use without accountability. Some countries do not even havea government ministry or agency responsible for steering orsupervising the tertiary education sector.

In the past decade, however, accountability has become amajor concern in most parts of the world. Governments, par-liaments, and society at large are increasingly asking universi-

ties to justify the use of public resources and account morethoroughly for their teaching and research results. This under-taking may include many forms: legal requirements such aslicensing, accreditation, assessment tests to measure what stu-dents have learned; professional examinations; performance-based budget allocation; and governing boards with externalparticipants. Sometimes the press itself enters the accountabil-ity arena with its controversial league tables.

The Accountability AgendaNobody can argue that universities should not be accountable.First, governments are responsible for establishing a regulato-ry framework to prevent fraudulent practices. Accusations of

flawed medical research in the United Kingdom, reports ofAustralian universities cutting corners to attract foreign stu-dents, and the student loan scandal in the United States showthe need for vigilance, even in countries with strong accounta-bility mechanisms. Second, universities should legitimately beheld accountable for their use of public money and the qualityof their outputs (graduates, research, and regional engage-ment). The evolution toward increased accountability is reflect-ed in the expansion in the number of stakeholders, themesunder scrutiny, and channels of accountability.

The teaching staff has traditionally been the most powerfulgroup in universities, especially where the head of the institu-tion is democratically elected. Even at Harvard, the demise ofPresident Summers in 2006 was largely due to the oppositionof some professors. But today university leaders must at thesame time meet the competing demands of several groups ofstakeholders: (a) society at large; (b) government, which can benational, provincial, or municipal; (c) employers; (d) the teach-ing staff; and (e) the students themselves. Even within govern-ment structures, demands for accountability are coming fromnew actors—as has happened in Denmark, where responsibil-ity for the universities' sector is now with the Ministry ofTechnology.

The pressure for compliance comes through an increasing-ly broad variety of instruments. Government controls take theform of compulsory requirements, such as accreditation, per-formance indicators, and mandatory financial audits. They canalso operate indirectly through financial incentives such as per-formance—based budget allocation. In countries with a stu-dent loan system, these loans are usually available only forstudies in bona fide institutions. Innovative funding approach-es—such as the voucher systems recently established in thestate of Colorado and in several former Soviet Union republics

international higher education

the 50th issue4

Governments, parliaments, and society at large are

increasingly asking universities to justify the use of

public resources and account more thoroughly for

their teaching and research results.

or the contracting of places in private universities piloted inBrazil and Colombia—put the decision making on where tostudy in the hands of the students themselves. Establishinguniversity boards with outside members who have the powerto hire (and fire) the leader of the institution, as has recentlyhappened in Denmark, is another accountability channel. Inmany countries, accreditation reports are made available to thepublic, unlike the practice in the United States.

Public OpinionColombia was the first country in Latin America to set up anational accreditation system, but the number of programsreviewed by the new accreditation agency remained relativelylow because accreditation was voluntary and the most presti-gious universities did not feel any compulsion to participate.But after the country's main newspaper started to publish thefull list of accredited programs, many more universities joinedthe accreditation process out of fear of being shunned by thestudents. In the same vein, the Intel Corporation announced inAugust 2007 that due to quality concerns it was removingmore than 100 US universities and colleges from the list of eli-gible institutions where its employees could study, for retrain-ing, at the firm's expense.

The power of public opinion has been revealed in the grow-ing influence of rankings. Initially limited to the United States,university rankings and league tables have proliferated inrecent years, in more than 35 countries. Notwithstanding themethodological limitations of these rankings, the mass mediahave played a useful educational role by making relevant infor-mation available to the public, especially in countries lackingany form of quality assurance. In Japan, for instance, for manyyears the annual ranking published by the Asahi Shimbunnewspaper fulfilled an essential quality-assurance function inthe absence of an accreditation agency.

The Accountability Crisis In recent years, grievances about excessive accountabilityrequirements and their negative consequences have comefrom many quarters. In the United Kingdom and Australia, forexample, universities have complained of performance-indica-tor overload. In the United States, a controversy arose recentlyaround the recommendations of the US Department ofEducation Spellings Commission on the Future of HigherEducation regarding the need to measure learning outcomes.This reaction illustrates the weariness of the tertiary educationcommunity vis-à-vis accountability demands beyond accredita-tion. Another common complaint concerns the tyranny of therankings published by the press.

In developing and transition countries, university leadersmay accuse government of mixing accountability with exces-sive control. Comparing recent trends in two former SovietUnion republics, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, helps to illus-trate practices that may stifle the tertiary education sector. In2001, Kazakhstan introduced a voucher-like allocation systemto distribute public resources for tertiary education. About 20percent of the students receive education grants to study at thepublic or private institution of their choice. To be eligible, insti-tutions must have received a positive evaluation from the qual-ity-assurance unit of the Ministry of Education. As a result, alltertiary education institutions have become more mindful oftheir reputation as it determines their ability to attract educa-tion grant beneficiaries. In Azerbaijan, by contrast, theMinistry of Education controls student intake and programopenings, even at private universities. Thus, for the moredynamic tertiary education institutions it becomes extremelydifficult to innovate and expand.

Even in the absence of unethical behaviors, institutions maysuccumb to the natural temptation to pay more attention tothose factors that receive prominence in rankings. In theUnited States and Canada there have been rumors of universi-ties and colleges “doctoring” their statistics to improve theirstanding in the rankings.

Accountability often involves the need to reconcile multipleobjectives, some of which are incompatible. For example, thepursuit of equity may be defeated by high admissions require-ments—especially in countries like Brazil, with socially segre-gated secondary schools. While the proportion of low-incomefamilies is 57 percent in the state of São Paulo, it is only 10 per-cent at the University of Campinas (UNICAMP), one of thecountry's top universities.

On the positive side, however, many university leaders seekto make their institutions more accountable on a voluntarybasis. In the United States, for example, the same presidentswho decided in 2007 to boycott the US News and World Reportrankings announced that they would start publishing key per-formance indicators in the context of a Voluntary System ofAccountability Program. In Belgium, the Flemish universitieshave voluntarily joined the German ranking exercise forbenchmarking purposes. In France, ironically, when the gov-ernment in July 2007 offered increased autonomy againstmore accountability on a voluntary basis, there was a unani-mous outcry. The scope of proposed autonomy was thenreduced but imposed on all universities.

The Way ForwardThe universal push for increased accountability has made therole of university leaders much more demanding. This irre-versible evolution toward greater accountability has trans-formed the competencies expected of university leaders andthe ensuing capacity-building needs of university managementteams.

5

international higher education

the 50th issue

In recent years, grievances about excessive account-

ability requirements and their negative conse-

quences have come from many quarters.

Accountability is meaningful only to the extent that tertiaryeducation institutions are actually empowered to operate in anautonomous and responsible way. In the final analysis, theirsuccessful evolution will hinge on finding an appropriate bal-ance between credible accountability practices and favorableautonomy conditions. ________________Author's note: The findings, interpretations, and conclusionsexpressed in this article are entirely those of the author and shouldnot be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, the members ofits Board of Executive Directors, or the countries they represent.

Internationalization: A Decadeof Changes and ChallengesJane Knight

Jane Knight is adjunct professor in the Comparative, InternationalDevelopment Education Centre, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education,University of Toronto, Canada. E-mail: janeknight@sympatico.ca.

As we progress into the 21st century, the internationaldimension is a key factor shaping and challenging the

higher education sector in countries all over the world. Duringthe last decade internationalization has increased in impor-tance, impact, and complexity. It is a formidable force ofchange in its role as agent and reactor to the realities of global-ization. But are all these changes positive?

New ActorsFor several decades international academic relations have gen-erally been under the purview of ministries of education, cul-ture, and foreign affairs. Since the mid-1990s, ministries ofimmigration, trade, employment, industry, and especially sci-ence and technology have focused on the international recruit-ment of students and professors; the global competitivenessfor the production and commodification of knowledge; and thecommercial and economic benefits of cross-border education.Not only have additional national government agenciesbecome more engaged, so have intergovernmental bodies suchas UNESCO, and the Organization for Economic Cooperationand Development, and the World Bank, as well as internation-al and regional nongovernmental agencies. In fact, interna-tional education is now seen by both politicians and academicleaders as instrumental to regionalization initiatives such asthose underway in Europe through the Bologna process, inAfrica through the African Union higher education harmo-nization project, and the efforts in Latin America to work

toward a community of higher education. The role of highereducation as an international or regional political actor hasclearly gained ground in the last decade.

Increased Demand and a Diversity of ProvidersThe forecasted growth for international education moves from1.8 million in 2000 to about 7 million in 2025. This has majorimplications for the number and type of institutions, compa-nies, organizations, and networks involved in the cross-borderprovision of higher education. Traditional public and privateuniversities, primarily in Europe, North America, and Asia, aremore and more active in sending and receiving education pro-grams through a variety of delivery modes including franchis-ing, branch campuses, twinning, and distance. At the sametime, alternative or nontraditional providers are seeking busi-ness opportunities based on the rising demand for higher edu-cation and the attractiveness of foreign degrees for employ-ment mobility. As a result, more than 50 large transnationalcompanies are publicly traded on stock exchanges and areactive in providing international educational programs,degrees, and services on a for-profit basis. In addition, multi-tudes of small private companies are now involved in cross-border education. Many offer quality education programs andrecognized qualifications, but others are rogue, temporary, andunaccredited profit makers. The “for-profit” side of interna-tionalization is increasing in many countries of the world, butcertainly not all.

The recent inclusion of education services in the GeneralAgreement for Trade in Services has been a wake-up call forhigher education. As already noted, the export and import ofhigher education programs have been steadily growing, and soit should be no surprise that the World Trade Organizationsees the education sector as a lucrative market. But what isunexpected, and of concern to many, is that the movement ofprivate higher education services and programs between coun-

tries is now subject to multilateral trade regulations wherebefore it was done primarily on a bilateral basis, usuallybetween government departments related to education andforeign affairs—certainly not trade. This raises new implica-tions, questions, and challenges for higher education.

Quality A worrisome trend is the treatment of quality assurance andaccreditation as strategies for “international branding” andmarket position rather than for academic improvement pur-

international higher education

the 50th issue6

International education is now seen by both politi-

cians and academic leaders as instrumental to

regionalization initiatives such as those underway

in Europe through the Bologna process.

poses. The international ranking “game” is another illustra-tion of a preoccupation with international standings based onquestionable and biased indicators. To what end does thiscompetitiveness for international status serve? Is it toimprove higher education's contribution to solving some ofthe global challenges? Or is it a sign of the market approach,where often position is more important than substance?Internationalization can be used as a strategy to enhance theinternational, global, and intercultural dimensions of teachingand learning, research and knowledge production, and serviceto society. It also has the potential to improve quality, but a pre-occupation with status plus the emergence of rogue providers,diploma, and accreditation mills are overshadowing and jeop-ardizing the added value that internationalization can bring tohigher education.

Institutional Policies and ActivitiesMore institutions around the world are establishing a centraloffice and an institutionwide policy for internationalization.This trend takes many forms but illustrates a gradual changefrom a reactive ad hoc approach to internationalization to amore proactive planned approach. Nevertheless, a strategicapproach is still out of reach for most institutions.Considerations as to the obstacles with regard to international-izing an institution have evolved. Previously, the key barrierswere viewed as lack of senior-level commitment, finances, andpolicies. Currently, the major obstacles include lack of expert-ise in the international office and lack of faculty interest,involvement, and international/intercultural experience.Clearly, human resources are now a major challenge and inneed of more attention.

The approach of a long list of inactive bilateral agreementshas been shifted to participating in international or regionalnetworks. In fact, networks are becoming important brandingtools as institutions look for prestigious partners and fundingsources. Networks are often formed to enhance student andprofessor exchanges, develop joint curriculum and degrees,undertake benchmarking exercises, or engage in collaborativeresearch. In other cases, networks are oriented to cooperatingfor competitive purposes with regard to student recruitment,franchising programs, or applying for research grants. It isinteresting to note that the recent worldwide survey by theInternational Association of Universities found that the threemost important growth areas for internationalization includeinstitutional agreements and networks as number one, fol-

lowed by outgoing student mobility and international researchcollaboration.

International student recruitment remains a top priority fortraditional receiving countries like the United States, UnitedKingdom, Australia, and Canada; but new initiatives by sever-al European and Asian countries are making them populardestination points. The efforts of Asian countries and severalwealthy Gulf states are worth watching in the next few years asthey compete for increased market share of international stu-dents.

Rationales, Benefits, and RisksMany observers would claim that in the last decade they havewitnessed a dramatic movement of internationalization ratio-nales toward income production. While this trend may be truefor a small group of countries, it is certainly not the case for themajority of institutions around the world. A more accuratedescription is an increased diversification of rationales drivinginternationalization at institutional and national levels.Current leading motivations still focus on enhancing the inter-national knowledge and intercultural skills of students andprofessors, but other goals include the creation of an interna-tional profile or brand, improving quality, increasing nationalcompetitiveness, strengthening research capacity, developinghuman resources, and diversifying the source of faculty andstudents. In the past decade the importance and benefits ofinternationalization have been recognized, but at the sametime, new risks have been widely acknowledged. The mostimportant risks include commercialization, foreign degreemills, brain drain, and growing elitism.

All in all, we have seen a very dynamic evolution of interna-tionalization in the past 10 years. It is critical that we continueto nurture positive results and remain vigilant to potentiallynegative and unexpected implications so that internationaliza-tion builds on strengthening individual, institutional, commu-nity, and national development in the more interdependentand interconnected world in which we live.

Private Higher Education:Patterns and TrendsDaniel C. Levy

Daniel C. Levy is Distinguished Professor at the University at Albany, StateUniversity of New York, and director of the Program for Research on PrivateHigher Education. E-mail: DLevy@uamail.albany.edu.

In its 12 years, International Higher Education has publishedmany articles on the continued growth of higher education,

7

international higher education

the 50th issue

More than 50 large transnational companies are

publicly traded on stock exchanges and are active in

providing international educational programs,

degrees, and services on a for-profit basis.

as well as on related matters such as access policy. Within thispowerful higher education growth, even more spectacular isthe growth of private higher education. Today, best estimatesindicate that about one in three students globally is in the pri-vate sector.

There is no magic year that marks the inception of acceler-ated private growth. Certainly the last two decades have beenunprecedented in private growth, but each country has a differ-ent starting date or period in which private enrollment beginsto soar. As recently as 1980, while much of the world alreadyhad private higher education, still many countries did not. Nowvirtually all the world's regions have private higher educationin the large majority of their countries and pre-existing privatesectors have grown strikingly

The private higher education surge mixes with a substantialdegree of privatization in a range of other economic and socialfields. However, neither primary nor secondary education hasparalleled higher education for the proportional surge of pri-vate to total enrollment.

In some ways the most arresting private higher educationgrowth has come in regions where two decades ago, evensometimes one decade ago, there was no such sector. In theMiddle East, emergence is often basically a creature of the newcentury, otherwise of the 1990s. We are referring to such var-ied countries as Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Oman, Saudi Arabia, andSyria. With only scattered examples dating to the 1980s, pri-vate growth in Africa has more recently spread to country aftercountry, including all the largest ones. Predictably, the privatesector is larger in anglophone than francophone countries.

Latin America and Asia generally have longer continuousprivate higher education experience. But in the former it hasrecently grown to almost half (45%) of total enrollment andincludes every country except Cuba. Elsewhere in the regionsome countries have gone from minority to majority privateenrollment. Only with the 1989 fall of communism did privatehigher education emerge in modern eastern and centralEurope and it spread like wild fire in the first half of the 1990s.That leaves only western Europe as the outlier region wherethe public sector remains almost unchallenged by privategrowth (though it itself is partially privatizing). In Asia severalcountries, most importantly China, have launched private sec-tors. Several older private sectors account for most of theircountries’ higher education enrollment (notably Japan,Indonesia, the Philippines, South Korea, and Taiwan).

So powerful is global private growth that almost no country

has seen a decline of the private share in the last decade or two.This is not to rule out that changing national conditions couldlead to a decline. Those changed conditions could include anaging population (Japan, eastern Europe), partial privatizationof public sectors, and the threat that populist regimes such asVenezuela’s could curtail private institutions.

Follow the LeadersTwo very common myths about private higher education aremore false than true. One is that private-public differences areinsignificant as both types pursue public purposes. The secondis that each country is unique so we cannot intelligently gener-alize about private higher education. In fact, the private growthof the last decade or two is remarkable not only in weight butin replication of patterns long observed in other countries;among these patterns are prominent private-public differ-ences.

Regarding patterns of growth, for example, we continue tosee private emergence outside government plans (the MiddleEast excluded) and often taking officials and others by surprise.Private institutions continue to be considerably smaller thanpublic ones on average. The basic causes of private expansionremain religion, social advantage, and absorption of the accel-erated demand for higher education. As before, the causes ofthe growth now often shape the kind of ensuing private typethat functions.

In finance, the great majority of private institutions (old andnew) continue to be overwhelmingly financed privately, usual-ly through tuition and fees. Philanthropy, corporate contribu-tions, and alumni giving are still rare outside the UnitedStates, and elite private universities remain almost nonexistentoutside the United States. In governance, private institutionscontinue to be more hierarchical than public counterparts, lim-iting faculty and student participation. The private places stillconcentrate on a few fields, mostly in commercial areas. Theyremain narrower than public institutions in this and otherrespects. Another common and enduring private-public dis-tinction exists where the private institution represents a reli-gious or ethnic group. And concerning the demand-absorbinginstitutions a crucial challenge yesterday and today is to be ableto distinguish “garage” operations from serious operations.Even the serious institutions rarely pursue academic researchor graduate education and rarely have ample full-time facul-ties, top students, and laboratories and libraries.

New PathwaysBut it would be wrong to say there is nothing new under thesun. We should identify several key fresh tendencies andhybrid forms or developments. One tendency is the increasedrole of foreign institutions. In many instances they constructpartnerships with local institutions or government. Usually thepartnerships involve collaboration between countries of moreand less development. On both ends, the institutions may beprivate or public but probably a disproportionate share of the

international higher education

the 50th issue8

The last two decades have been unprecedented in

private growth, but each country has a different

starting date or period in which private enrollment

begin to soar.

involved local institutions are private. In other cases (e.g.,Greece) local institutions engaged in partnership with foreigninstitutions get leeway outside national rules (and cannot offernational degrees).

Local-foreign partnerships increasingly have a for-profitside. The financial incentive for Australian, UK, or US univer-sities is clear, even if their institutions are juridically public. Itappears that an increasing proportion of the local actors arefor-profit, in conjunction with “branch” campuses of foreignuniversities.

In other respects, the for–profit growth is yet more aston-ishing. Several for-profit businesses invest in higher educa-tion. The three most prominent internationally are Laureate(formerly Sylvan), Apollo (which owns the massive Universityof Phoenix in the United States), and Whitney International.Clearly these companies are in it for profit and do not claimotherwise. Alongside them is a growing list of domestic invest-ment companies. In some cases lines between ownership andinvestment are fuzzy. Laureate has often bought up existingprivate nonprofit institutions and invested, yet the institutionsremain legally nonprofit, as law in countries such as Chile andMexico proscribes for-profit higher education. However, theline between nonprofit and for-profit is notoriously unclear.Many legally nonprofit institutions are functionally for-profit,simply not distributing financial gains to stockholders.Meanwhile, even truly nonprofit institutions are becomingmore commercial. For-profit growth is one of the striking glob-al tendencies within the United States.

Even where the basic private types of yesterday are the pri-vate types of today, changed mixes emerge. There is a relativedecline of religious focus. Whereas elite private higher educa-tion is rare outside the United States, exceptions arise (perhapsTurkey's Bilkent University) alongside longer-standingJapanese and Korean cases. A much more common phenome-non is the development of “semielite” private institutions.These may evolve out of some of the serious demand-absorb-ing institutions. Though their elite nature may be more aboutclientele than academics, some do achieve distinction, often ina niche field. The niche field is usually business related.Semielite universities can be markedly entrepreneurial. Theycould evolve into a competitive threat to public universities ofthe second tier.

In terms of sheer numbers the most important privatedevelopment is the clear dominance of demand-absorbinginstitutions. In certain countries (e.g., Brazil, Philippines)such institutions have for many decades held the majority of

private enrollment, sometimes the majority of total enroll-ment. Now, however, the dominance in growth and enrollmentnumbers of these institutions spreads to more and more coun-tries. Unsurprisingly, the proliferation, against a legacy of littleregulation, has given rise to increased concern about qualityassurance and to the establishment of public accrediting agen-cies in country after country.

Graduate Education in LatinAmerica: The Coming of AgeJorge Balán

Jorge Balán is a senior researcher of the Centro de Estudios de Estado ySociedad in Buenos Aires and a visiting professor at the Ontario Institutefor Studies of Education at the University of Toronto. E-mail:j.balan@cedes.org.

Aresearch-based, academically oriented graduate programhad an early start in Latin America. In the 1950s and

1960s, many countries in the region established nationalcouncils for the support of scientific research and advancedtraining. During that period the leading public universitiessought to build a niche for advanced training and research toexpand and renovate the professoriate. Since the mid-1980s,the democratic regimes in the region have provided greaterinstitutional legitimacy and more generous funding toimprove the scale and scope of training and research. Withinthe public university, graduate education obtained a largerdegree of academic and administrative autonomy.

Flying under the radar screen of university politics, gradu-ate education is today perhaps the most dynamic and innova-tive sector of higher education. Its market is expanding anddiversifying, responding to the manpower needs of higher edu-cation and other economic sectors and to the career needs of agrowing number of graduates. Government plays a key role instimulating demand through regulation, incentives schemes,and the provision of funds for research and development. Thisarticle examines academically oriented graduate programs (theMA and PhD degrees) in a few major countries in the region.

Location, Scale, and Funding In 1985 Brazil developed a plan to send 10,000 studentsabroad for advanced training. However, during the 1990s thecountry gave priority to achieving greater domestic capacity forresearch and training in all areas of knowledge. Brazil is todaythe leader in the field of graduate education in the region, withan enrollment of over 100,000 graduate students in academic

9

international higher education

the 50th issue

The great majority of private institutions (old and

new) continue to be overwhelmingly financed pri-

vately, usually through tuition and fees.

degree programs, 38 percent of them in doctoral programs.Scientific production, 85 percent located in university researchand graduate training programs, has grown 2.5 times in thelast 15 years. Mexico shows a larger volume of graduate stu-dents but with a very different mix: around 100,000 studentswere enrolled in master's programs in 2005, five times morethan in 1990, but only 13,000 registered as doctoral students.Argentina ranks third, with almost 25,000 master's and 8,000doctoral students. Chile, a smaller country, currently enrolls13,000 master's and almost 3,000 doctoral students, whileColombia lags behind with less than 12,000 and 1,000 stu-dents in master's and doctoral programs (until recentlyColombia's graduate students largely concentrated in profes-sional specialization programs). In all these countries, the fig-ures correspond to accredited programs recognized by nation-al agencies mandating standards monitored through peerreview processes. Requirements vary significantly, with Brazilshowing the highest standards under a sophisticated qualityassurance system developed in the 1970s. The five countries,with a combined population of approximately 370 million, by2005 offered hundreds of doctoral programs, producing wellover 10,000 doctorates a year.

In contrast to China, Korea, or India, in the 1980s and1990s Latin America did not rely heavily on doctoral trainingoverseas, instead building upon previous investments toexpand the domestic supply. Today many fewer PhDs in theUnited States are granted to Latin American than to Asian stu-dents. In addition, Latin America tends to employ a largernumber of the graduates with doctorates the region producesin higher education. Moreover, a greater proportion ofBrazilians and Mexicans with PhDs earned in the UnitedStates—in contrast to Asians with US PhDs—plan to return totheir home countries.

Doctoral programs are largely concentrated in public uni-versities and almost entirely supported through public fundingallocated to education and/or scientific research. Private uni-versities, with few exceptions, lack the research infrastructurerequired for doctoral programs in the sciences and engineer-ing, although a number of these institutions are highly com-petitive in the social sciences and the humanities—fields inwhich the master's degree is most common. The recurrent fis-cal crises of the state and the equally recurrent governancecrises of the public university in Latin America have not inhib-ited the growing scale and production of graduate and doctor-al education, since the return to democratic regimes in theregion, in spite of neoliberal economic policies. Public fundingfor research has grown in absolute and relative terms. Braziltoday spends approximately 1 percent of its gross nationalproduct in research and development, up from 0.7 percent inthe 1990s, while Argentina and Chile spend a lower percent-age but also have significantly increased public funding forR&D during the years of rapid economic growth. Although stilla minor player in world science, the relative weight of LatinAmerica in world production has doubled in the last 15 years.

Industry plays a modest role in funding and execution ofresearch and employs few people with doctorates. Yet, publicuniversities with capacity for research developed technologytransfer programs, and many projects of university-industrycollaboration (with public-sector support) have proven to besuccessful.

Research and Graduate Education in the PublicMegauniversityAlthough the California three-tiered model was often in theminds of university reformers in Latin America, neither theidea of a research university nor the structure of a graduateschool ever took off in the region. Yet, research and graduatetraining are gaining a more comfortable niche within the tra-ditional megauniversity dominated by professional schoolsand professionally oriented undergraduate programs.

Governments have created significant incentives for univer-sities to develop and support graduate programs. In somecountries higher education institutions are required to offer anumber of research-based graduate programs to gain universi-ty status and thus enhanced autonomy. Graduate degrees aremandatory for entry into the academic profession and providesalary incentives to current faculty, thus fostering demand forgraduate education even in professional schools that tradition-ally required only a professional degree (i.e., engineering, law,medicine). Governments have negotiated loans from theWorld Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank tostrengthen public university research and graduate programs.

Accreditation of graduate programs has become widespreadsince the 1990s—the harbinger of broader efforts in qualityassurance. Peer review plays a key role in accreditation systemsand competitive research funding, strengthening the voice ofthe disciplinary-based academic communities in universityaffairs.

Reforms have often succeeded in shortening the length ofundergraduate professional programs to four or five years. Theexpanding number of graduates has created a larger demandfor professionally oriented graduate certificates and degreesoffered by the same units and faculty in charge of academical-ly oriented MA and PhD degrees. A market-driven, profession-ally oriented segment of graduate education provides someopportunities and fresh funding to the graduate faculty,enhancing its status within the university. Increased decentral-ization, administrative autonomy, and the pressure upon insti-tutions to diversify funding have largely favored graduate pro-grams and graduate faculty. Salaries for graduate faculty might

international higher education

the 50th issue10

Flying under the radar screen of university politics,

graduate education is today perhaps the most

dynamic and innovative sector of higher education.

be paid, or supplemented, by research agencies or specialfunding schemes outside of university control. Competitiveresearch funding, largely from public agencies, became therule. Graduate programs may charge fees, and in fact manyspecialization and master's programs are self-sustained.Diversity of funding at the graduate unit level broughtincreased autonomy vis-à-vis the central administration, withmore flexible contract arrangements and workplace rules.Thus, graduate education became a safer niche for research-oriented, full-time faculty than in the past within the profes-sionally dominated public university. The downside is thatoften this niche is quite isolated from the rest of university life,except for the market-driven specialization courses.

Last, but not least, the growth of graduate education is asso-ciated with increased differentiation within the professoriate interms of academic status, career orientation, and academic val-ues. While in the past an academically oriented professoriateconsisted mostly of a small group of foreign-trained and inter-nationally oriented scholars with a tenuous status within thepublic university, it has now become a major (although by nomeans predominant) segment of locally trained faculty, moreoften than not associated within graduate education.

ConclusionAlthough research and advanced training are certainly themost internationally oriented segments of higher education inLatin America, as elsewhere, the risks of parochialism andinbreeding are not to be dismissed when academic communi-ties are still relatively small, a sizable proportion of researchersare locally trained, and mobility is restricted by the small num-ber of research-oriented universities that often favor their owndoctoral graduates in recruiting new faculty. The reliance upondomestic publication in Spanish or Portuguese, particularlybut not solely in the social sciences and the humanities, is amixed blessing in this regard. Given the decreasing number offoreign-trained researchers in the region, a number of alterna-tives are actively explored by funding agencies, research uni-versities, and the academic community to counteract the risksof development. International coauthorship has increasedmarkedly in some countries and disciplines. Collaborativeefforts in quality assurance involving international counter-parts, often supported by international agencies, are numerousand productive. A number of research and advanced trainingcollaborative efforts are run with the support of electronicmedia, supplementing the expensive academic exchange pro-grams. Sandwich fellowships for doctoral students to spend

time in overseas laboratories and institutes to complete theirtheses have become very common. Internationalization is thusa priority on the agenda, yet it has to compete with many otherfactors for domestic funding at a time when internationaldonor agencies do not find compelling reasons to target theirefforts on Latin American countries.

New Developments inInternational ResearchCollaborationSachi Hatakenaka

Sachi Hatakenaka is an independent consultant and researcher on highereducation policy and management. E-mail: sachi@alum.mit.edu.

International research collaboration has always helped scien-tists to keep abreast of international science and to share

expertise and resources. Today, one-fifth of the world’s scientif-ic papers are coauthored internationally—a result of increas-ingly easy communication and cross-border travel. However, anew character of international collaboration is emerging, asscientific research has become an integral part of economicand innovation policy and international collaboration hasbecome a key element in globalization strategy.

The Background of Such ChangesThe perception of a “knowledge economy” matured.Knowledge economy has become a key term not only in devel-oped countries but increasingly in developing countries.Excellence in science is a prerequisite for future economic suc-cess, and international collaboration is seen as a key mecha-nism for international scientific competitiveness.

Some emerging economies, such as China and India, arechanging the meaning of international collaboration. Todayglobal networks are known to have contributed significantly tothe success of Silicon Valley. It is possible for the oldeconomies to benefit directly from the information technologyboom in India or from high-tech electronics in China, by beingconnected. Moreover, the success of these countries does notderive just from cheap labor. China and India are attractingglobal R&D activities—something that old economies in NorthAmerica and Europe have been trying to do for decades. Theold economies are keen to establish connections to these newpowerhouse economies—not only in downstream industriesbut also in upstream science.

The world is increasingly united on the need for researchand innovation to tackle global challenges such as poverty and

11

international higher education

the 50th issue

Doctoral programs are largely concentrated in pub-

lic universities and almost entirely supported

through public funding allocated to education

and/or scientific research.

climate change. The growing international concerns regardinggreenhouse gases, crises in Africa, or diseases in developingcountries are leading to new hopes about internationalresearch collaboration to address these issues.

Steps Taken to Encourage International CollaborationThe United States was one of the first nations to establish anapproach to attract the “best and the brightest” in the world totheir institutions. This policy placed the United States at theheart of international research collaboration, with USresearchers coauthoring with researchers from over 170 coun-tries. The unique US position was based, first, on the opennessof financial aid and fellowships supported any deserving grad-uate student. This system grew partly through generous feder-al research funding but also by means of institutional compe-tition to attract the best graduate students. Second, the tradi-tion of openness in hiring academics dated back to World WarII, during which many prominent European scientists movedto the United States. Third, the US labor market has been opento immigrants—particularly for highly skilled ones who couldget companies to sponsor them.

Today, more countries are taking comparable approaches toattract the “best and the brightest” through similar policies toopen up. The stepped-up competition for international stu-dents undertaken by other countries—most notably Australia,the United Kingdom, and Japan—and the tightening of USimmigration and security rules following September 11, 2001,led to the first period when the number of international stu-dents declined in the United States for several years. The trendhas since been reversed, owing in part to some steps alreadytaken to facilitate visa processing. Other immigration meas-ures, particularly to attract highly skilled international workers,are under discussion. Thus, competition will continue.

Since the late 1980s, Japan is a country that has been active-ly investing to become a viable destination for internationalstudents. Japan's strategy has been complemented by anotherapproach to promote international research collaborationthrough well-targeted programs, often based on bilateral agree-ments with collaborating countries. These activities cover jointresearch grants, research fellowships, and joint workshops andseminars—particularly in Asia. Today, their regular work withAsian peers shows that the Japanese researchers have becomekey players in the emerging Asian research hub.

Europe is going a step further. In its Seventh FrameworkProgramme, which just started this year, the European Union

(EU) announced its intention to “mainstream” internationalcollaboration across the range of its programs. In many ways,this policy is a natural extension of the EU's principle role—toencourage cross-border collaboration. However, the keychange is that the EU is now ready to invest in such work, par-ticularly with researchers in emerging and developing coun-tries, by supporting them to a greater extent than in the past.

The EU has also been strengthening its bilateral ties withkey emerging economies, most significantly China and Indiabut also Latin American countries as well as its neighbors—such as Turkey. China was its first Asian partner for scienceand technology (S&T) bilateral agreements a decade ago. Thisyear, the EU and China are jointly hosting a dozen or so eventsacross Europe and China to promote China-Europe S&T col-laboration. These special partnerships are being used to iden-tify specific research themes for targeting funding.

Another approach to international collaboration is to investin world-class research centers of excellence. Japan has beenstepping up its effort to create true hubs in global scientificnetworks through several programs, including the WorldPremier International Research Center Initiative. Singapore'sapproach has been much more aggressive; it was one of thefirst countries to use public money for attracting world-classinstitutions. Singapore has been at work for a decade tobecome a major Asian education and research center, by creat-ing high-profile international partnerships (with theMassachusetts Institute of Technology [MIT], Stanford,Berkeley, and Wharton—to name but a few), inviting world-class foreign universities to open campuses (e.g., INSEAD,University of Chicago Business School, and Waseda), and byits ambitious biomedical science park, Biopolis. However, notall of these ventures have worked. A partnership with JohnsHopkins University was terminated, and the University of NewSouth Wales closed its brand-new campus.

Singapore is not alone in funding institution-level partner-ships with an emphasis on research. The United Kingdom pro-vided its support for an MIT-Cambridge partnership, whichcovered not only education but also research. Scotland fol-lowed suit with the Stanford-Edinburgh link, which gives agreater focus on thematic research and commercialization. Inthe Middle East, many oil-rich nations have been investing ininternational educational partnerships. Recently, one unusualannouncement came from Abu Dhabi on an energy-researchinitiative called MASDER, which is to be based on multipleinternational research partnerships. There is also a California-Canada partnership with an emphasis on research, thoughthere is no promise of new public money. Portugal has alsorecently announced collaborative partnerships with MIT,Carnegie Mellon, and the University of Texas, Austin.

The Implications for Developing Countries For developing countries, these steps are likely to lead toincreases in scholarship and research collaboration opportuni-ties. Indeed, there is a specific focus on research for develop-

international higher education

the 50th issue12

The United States was one of the first nations to

establish an approach to attract the “best and the

brightest” in the world to their institutions.

ing countries. US foundations led the way in supporting pri-vate-public partnerships on key research and innovations—particularly to tackle infectious diseases in developing coun-tries. The need for action on climate change is also leading tonew dialogues to support research and innovation in develop-ing countries. The Department for International Developmentin the United Kingdom was one of the first official donors toarticulate a policy to emphasize the funding need for researchand innovation in international development.

International research collaboration has entered an era inwhich networking has a direct economic significance. Somegovernments are already beginning to pay a premium tobecome hubs in global excellence networks. The question iswhether these developments will produce significant changesin the world's research capacity. Will these reforms yield newcenters of excellence? Will one approach be more successfulthan others in creating effective networks? Finally, will thesetrends create capacity building for research in developingcountries or just more research relevant to developing coun-tries? Only time will tell us the true answers to these questions,but it is worth paying attention to these emerging trends.

International Student Mobilityand the United States:The 2007 Open Doors Survey

Patricia Chow and Rachel Marcus

Patricia Chow is Research Manager and Rachel Marcus is Research Officer,Institute of International Education. E-mail: iieresearch@iie.org. Moreinformation about the Open Doors survey can be found at: http://open-doors.iietnetwork.org.

In 2005, more than 2.7 million students were pursuingtransnational higher education—a 47 percent increase over

the 2000 figure of 1.7 million students. A concurrent increasehas occurred in the number of students seeking an interna-tional education in nontraditional destinations in Asia, Africa,and Latin America. Several countries in these regions havepositioned themselves as key actors in the global economy,attracting more students to their shores. Despite these develop-ments, the United States continues to be the top host countryfor students seeking higher education abroad. In 2006, theUnited States attracted 30 percent of internationally mobilestudents among the leading eight host countries (Australia,Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, and the UnitedKingdom).

This article draws upon key findings from the InternationalStudent Census of the recent Open Doors 2007: Report onInternational Educational Exchange to describe the currentinternational student population in the United States and toexamine the future trends in international enrollment. TheInstitute of International Education (IIE) has collected data oninternational student enrollment in the United States since1919 and in the form of the Open Doors survey since 1954.Annually, Open Doors surveys approximately 3,000 regionallyaccredited US higher education institutions on aspects ofinternational educational exchange. The 2007 survey reported582,984 international students studying in the United States

during the 2006/07 academic year—a 3 percent increase overthe previous year and the first significant increase in totalinternational student enrollment since 2001/02. In addition,the number of new international students—those enrolling ata US higher education institution for the first time—increasedby 10 percent, building upon the 8 percent increase seen in2005/06.

OriginsAsia remains the largest sending region, accounting for 59percent of total US international enrollments. The number ofstudents from Asia increased by 5 percent this year, driven byincreases from the top two sending places: India (10%increase) and China (8% increase). For the seventh consecutiveyear, India remained the leading place of origin of internation-al students in the United States, with 83,833 students. Chinaremained in second place, with 67,723 students and theRepublic of Korea in third place, with 62,392 students.

Turning to other regions, in 2006/07 we saw a 25 percentincrease in the number of students from the Middle East (to22,321 students), largely due to the 129 percent increase in stu-dent numbers from Saudi Arabia (to 7,886 students)—theresult of a large Saudi Arabian government scholarship pro-gram launched in 2005. Enrollments from Latin Americaremained steady in 2006/07, with Mexico sending the moststudents from the region (13,826). Kenya, with 6,349 students,was the only African country in the top 20 places of origin thisyear. The number of international students from Europe andOceania declined in 2006/07, to 82,731 and 4,300, respective-ly. Europe and Oceania are the only two world regions wherethe number of US students studying abroad in the regionexceeds the number of students from the region studying inthe United States.

13

international higher education

the united states: global issues

In 2005, more than 2.7 million students were pursu-

ing transnational higher education—a 47 percent

increase over the 2000 figure of 1.7 million students.

Student Profile and Fields of StudyOver the past 30 years, Open Doors data have indicated smallbut significant shifts in the demographics of international stu-dents. In 2006/07, 45 percent of international students in theUnited States were female, a 14 percent increase from the1976/77 figure of 31 percent. Also, a larger proportion of inter-national students were single in 2006/07 (87%), compared to30 years ago (74%).

As has been the case since 2001/02, international graduatestudents outnumbered international undergraduate studentsin 2006/07. Forty-five percent of international students weregraduate students, 41 percent undergraduates, and 14 percentnondegree/certificate students or students on optional practi-cal training.

Business and management remain the leading field of studyfor international students, with 18 percent of the total, followedby engineering with 15 percent. These two fields have been themost popular fields of study for international students over thepast five years. International students in the United States havea particularly large presence in sciences and engineering: in2006, non-US citizens earned 45 percent of all doctorates inthe science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields,and accounted for over half of all doctorate recipients in thefields of engineering, computer science, mathematics, andphysics (National Science Foundation, 2007 <www.nsf.gov>).

DestinationsInternational students were enrolled in all 50 US states in2006/07, highly concentrated in certain states and institu-tions. The 156 US campuses that enrolled (each) over 1,000international students, accounted for 58 percent of total inter-national student enrollment. The top host states are also hometo many of the top host institutions. Colleges and universitiesin California enrolled the largest number of international stu-dents (77,987, or 13% of the total), followed by New York(65,884 students, or 11 percent of the total). New York City wasthe leading metropolitan area, with 51,973 students, followedby Los Angeles, with 35,870 international students. Studentstend to cluster in areas with geographic and linguistic similar-ities to their home country, as well as an area with a large stu-dent or immigrant population from their home country.

Future Trends in International Student EnrollmentThese Open Doors findings, supported by similar data collectedby the Council of Graduate Schools and other surveys, suggestthat the number of international students in the United States

has rebounded and that the United States has not lost its attrac-tion as a destination of choice for international students. Inaddition to providing high-quality teaching, the Americanhigher education system is also esteemed throughout theworld because of the availability of advanced technologicalfacilities and extensive support for basic and applied research.

Meanwhile, US institutions have stepped up recruitment ofinternational students and adjusted their application proce-dures and admissions timetables to accommodate the leadtime needed for visa approval. These university-level effortshave been complemented by the US Department of State'ssteps to streamline the visa application and approval processand to promote the US as a welcoming place for internationalstudents.

While the results of these efforts by government and acade-mia appear to be turning the tide, more comprehensive stepsneed to be taken to ensure that this trend continues. Othercountries have also intensified efforts to attract internationalstudents, eliminating visa barriers and strengthening theirgraduate programs, especially in the sciences and engineering.Although the falling dollar may provide some relief, tuitioncosts in the United States continue to rise, ranging from anincrease of 6.6 percent for public universities, to 4.2 percentfor public two-year institutions. With the financial burdenlargely falling upon individuals and their families (62% ofinternational students use personal/family funds to pay for

their US education), it remains to be seen whether theseincreases will affect students' decisions to study in the UnitedStates. Widely disseminating information on financialresources and expanding financing options may help to allevi-ate the burden.________________Authors' Note: The Open Doors Project has received support from theBureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the US Department ofState since the early 1970s. The opinions expressed in this article areentirely those of the authors.

international higher education

the united states: global issues14

As has been the case since 2001/o2, international

graduate students outnumbered international

undergraduate students. Forty-five percent of inter-

national students were graduate students.

The number of international students in the United

States has rebounded and that the United States

has not lost its attraction as a destination of choice

for international students.

Visit our website for downloadable back issues of

International Higher Education and other publica-

tions and resources at http://www.bc.edu/cihe.

The Management and Fundingof US Study AbroadBrian Whalen

Brian Whalen is associate dean of Dickenson College and executive directorof the college's Office of Global Education in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, USA.He is also president and CEO of the Forum on Education Abroad. Web site:www.forumea.org. E-mail: whalenb@dickinson.edu.

US colleges and universities manage and fund study-abroadprograms in a tremendous variety of ways. The wide

range includes types of programs, policies for awarding aca-demic credit, structuring of study-abroad program fees, sys-tems for funding the study-abroad office, program evaluationmethods, and other areas of program management. US col-leges and universities frequently partner with overseas univer-sities and program providers.

A recent survey conducted by the Forum on EducationAbroad gives some useful data on the diverse managementpractices in US education abroad (www.forumea.org).Institutional members of the forum include 275 US collegesand universities, international universities, study-abroad-pro-gram providers, and independent organizations. This groupaccounts for approximately 75 percent of the US studentsstudying abroad each year. Over one-third of the membersresponded to the forum's survey, providing a comprehensivepicture of how US study abroad works.

Regarding their international education programs, US col-leges and universities have different approaches for developingand overseeing their curricula, which affects the education-abroad practices. The number and types of programs, the pro-gram models, the role of faculty, and policies for the awardingof credit vary from institution to institution. Study-abroad busi-ness models are based on the many factors influencing institu-tions’ decisions and best practices for funding educationabroad. Charging “home-school fees,” adding a study-abroadfee, negotiating a discount with a program provider, control-ling the number of students allowed to study abroad and forhow long include some of the practices that differ from insti-tution to institution.

Diverse Program TypesCurricular diversity can be seen in the many types of study-abroad programs offered by institutions. Over 85 percent of UScolleges and universities report that they offer multiple types ofeducation-abroad programs: with at least one special coursedeveloped for US or other international students on the pro-gram (93%); integrated university study, where students takeregular university courses (93%); reciprocal exchange (89%);and faculty-led, short-term (less than a quarter or semester)programs (86%). Additionally, over half the institutions offer

faculty-led, long-term (one quarter or semester or longer) pro-grams (55%), while in a number of cases faculty take studentsabroad for course work on sojourns rather than formallyapproved study abroad programs (53%). The majority ofprovider-funded study-abroad programs include at least onespecial course (95%), followed by integrated university study(60%), faculty-led, short-term study (50%), reciprocalexchange (30%), and faculty-led, long-term programs (10%).

Study Abroad FundingStudy-abroad offices and programs are generally fundedthrough the institution's general resources and revenue fromstudy-abroad-program fees. Three-quarters of US study-abroadoffices are funded by general funds, while half the institutionsfund the office through the study-abroad fees paid by students,with the average funding level consisting of 60 percent of theoffice’s operation. Most institutions support the programsfrom the general budget and study-abroad fees, although otherreported sources of funding include student fees paid by everystudent at the institution, restricted endowments, and costsharing provided by program providers.

Institutions and Program ProvidersUS colleges and universities often depend on study-abroad-provider organizations (both nonprofit and for-profit), overseasuniversities, and independent programs to organize these pro-grams; and these partnerships take many forms. Institutionspartner with provider organizations half the time (50%) whenrunning programs with at least one special course and no on-site participation by the institution’s faculty, and 35 percentcooperate with providers when offering nonexchange pro-grams with integrated university study.

Academic quality is the most reported factor that collegesand universities consider when deciding to affiliate with orapprove programs. The next most important factors reportedinclude health and safety, quality of program administrationand ease of working with program provider, in-country support(e.g., resident directors, cocurricular activities), and programstructure (e.g., direct enrollment, hybrid, field study). Notably,despite media reports about program discounts, the cost ofstudy-abroad programs ranks only sixth on the list.

Institutions set the fees for affiliated or approved study-abroad programs in different ways, with the single-most-com-mon practice being that students pay the program providerdirectly (35%). Other approaches are almost as common and

15

international higher education

the united states: global issues

US colleges and universities have different

approaches for developing and overseeing their cur-

ricula, which affects the education-abroad prac-

tices.

include students paying the institution for the program fee andthe institution then paying the program (31%); students payingfull-home-school tuition but paying for their own room andboard (29%); students paying full-home-school tuition andfees and the institution paying all of the program expenses,including room and board (18%). In addition, some institu-tions report that they assess an additional fee that study-abroadstudents must pay.

Institutions report that they commonly negotiate reducedprogram fees with provider organizations. Forty-four percentof institutions reported that in deciding whether to affiliatewith a program they negotiated fee reductions (“always” or“sometimes”) for each student sent on the provider’s program.Fewer institutions report that they (“always” or “sometimes”)negotiate rebates for each student sent (8%), with this rebatefunding used to support their study-abroad office. A morecommon approach employed by institutions is to negotiatescholarships for their students, with 38 percent of institutionsreporting that they (“always” or “sometimes”) take part in thispractice. Seventeen percent of institutions report that they(“always” or “sometimes”) negotiate scholarships based on stu-dent volume.

Also noteworthy, given the recent media coverage in theUnited States, only 3 percent (two institutions) reported havingexclusive agreements with program providers. “Exclusiveagreement” here refers to the practice of an institution notaffiliating with or not permitting a student to enroll in anyother study-abroad program in the same city, country, or regioncovered by the provider program. Based on the survey, exclu-sive agreements appear to be an uncommon practice.

Another aspect of the relationship between colleges anduniversities and study-abroad-provider organizations is institu-tional representation on the program providers' external advi-sory boards or committees. Seventy-four percent of providerorganizations report that they have an external advisory boardor committee or similar group, demonstrating how commonthis practice is. Provider organizations report that these enti-ties have several responsibilities. Eighty percent of organiza-tions report that they provide guidance on the needs of institu-tions and 80 percent report that they provide guidance on theneeds of students. Fifty-three percent report that such boardsgive credibility to the program provider's offerings. Almosthalf of program providers (47%) report that these bodies areutilized to evaluate programs, while 33% of them report thatthe advisory board actually approves programs.

Financial Aid for StudentsIt is not surprising that some portion of study-abroad fees goto institutions’ general funds given the amount of financial aidthat institutions provide for students who study abroad. About75 percent of US institutions report that their students whostudy abroad receive need-based and merit institutional finan-cial aid when they study on the institution’s programs, whileapproximately 60 percent report their students receive thistype of aid when they study on programs on an approved list.Most provider organizations also offer scholarship funding tostudents in a variety of ways, with the most prevalent practice,reported by 63 percent of organizations, being that studentsapply directly to the organization for scholarships.

Standardization or Adherence to StandardsSome might suggest that the diversity of approaches and prac-tices among US institutions represents a failure of the educa-tion-abroad field to agree on a set of standard practices. Itwould be a mistake, however, to recommend that all institu-tions and study-abroad organizations adopt the same specificpolicies and practices. Nevertheless, institutions and providerorganizations should agree on a set of principles that guidestudy-abroad management and funding practices.

While adhering to standards of good practice does not meanadopting the standardization of practices, it does mean practic-ing transparency and openness, avoiding conflicts of interest,and keeping the student-learning experience foremost inmind. Institutions and organizations that adopt standards ofgood practice show that they are committed to being clear andconsistent about their mission and goals, and employ continu-ous quality improvement.

US Accreditation: Bridging theInternational and NationalDialogue GapJudith S. Eaton

Judith S. Eaton is president of the Council for Higher EducationAccreditation, a nongovernmental institutional membership organizationthat provides national coordination of accreditation in the United States.E-mail: eaton@chea.org.

Throughout this decade, international conversations abouthigher education have been punctuated with significant

attention to accreditation and quality assurance. Whether thesubject is expanding access to higher education, the need forglobal competitiveness, or the imperative to create knowledge

international higher education

the united states: global issues16

Study-abroad offices and programs are generally

funded through the institution's general resources

and revenue from study-abroad-program fees.

economies, there is a sophisticated understanding of the rele-vance of robust quality review to the success of these endeav-ors. Central and often dominant in these deliberations isaccreditation as practiced in the United States, its operationand accomplishments.

Yet, something is missing—a major oversight—in the inter-national dialogue when it turns to US accreditation. There islittle attention to the concerns, criticisms, and challenges toaccreditation as practiced in the United States. However, whilethe international conversation proceeds, there is a robust USnational dialogue underway focused almost exclusively on thelimitations of accreditation, with an image of accreditation asan enterprise under siege.

The International Conversation While international colleagues are not, quite appropriately,seeking to imitate what is done in the United States, they arelooking for effective practices and insights that they mightglean from the long and extensive history of US accreditation.The sheer scope of US activity—with 19 active institutionalaccreditors and 62 active programmatic organizations—isimpressive to many. Typically, questions are raised aboutwhether and how this extensiveness and diversity can sustainappropriate and aspirational levels of quality.

The international conversations also focus on US accredita-tion's strong embrace of core educational values, perhaps itsmost attractive feature. Colleagues are aware that advocacy forinstitutional autonomy, academic freedom, and the centralityof institutional mission is fundamental to US accreditation,assuring a firm foundation for the historically strong academ-ic leadership role that colleges and universities have playedover the years. Colleagues often note that, at least to date, con-trol of accreditation has remained in the hands of higher edu-cation itself, run by independent, nongovernmental bodies cre-ated for this specific purpose. This is in contrast to the govern-ment-dominated control of colleges and universities typical ofmany other countries.

The National Conversation In contrast, the concern and criticism characterizing the USnational conversation has been driven by the changing expec-tations of US politicians and policymakers as well as aninformed segment of the private sector that has made accredi-tation a subject of ongoing national debate. This last sectorincludes, for example, organizations of trustees of colleges anduniversities, philanthropic organizations, and research insti-tutes-in the tradition of a strong US civil society.

During the past two years, the concerns and criticism havebeen most powerfully expressed through a nationwideCommission on the Future of Higher Education. This body ofeducators, business leaders, and policymakers, appointed bythe US secretary of education, has been a source of unprece-dented and sustained federal and national criticism of accredi-tation, challenging both accreditors and the higher educationcommunity. These concerns about the role of accreditation arelevied in a climate in which the demand for higher educationis great and the price of higher education even greater, engen-dering considerable anxiety about access and value for money.

Concerns and CriticismsAs led by the commission, the national conversation is over-whelmingly about accreditation's perceived limitations asthese relate to student achievement, transparency, studentmobility, and operating structures. Accreditation is viewed aslacking accountability in promoting and enhancing studentachievement. It is charged with neglect of the rigor of under-graduate education and an inability to provide comparable dataabout the quality of institutions and programs. Students andthe public, for example, cannot use accreditation to easily com-pare the relative strengths of institutions and cannot turn toaccreditation (e.g., to explain the decline in the standing of theUnited States internationally).

Accreditation is criticized for allegedly failing to meet cur-rent transparency expectations in the world of the Internet, theWeb, search engines, and instant information about almostany topic. Accreditation reports are not routinely made public,nor do accreditors regularly supply detailed information to thepublic about the strengths and limitations of the institutionsthey review.

There are also charges that accreditation is a barrier to stu-dent mobility among college and universities, standing in theway of student advancement through transfer of credit at boththe undergraduate and graduate levels. While more than 60percent of students obtaining a bachelor's degree attend atleast two institutions, there are fault lines in the student mobil-ity system, especially between two-year and four-year institu-tions and between for-profit and nonprofit institutions.

The national conversation also includes questions about theongoing effectiveness of the current structure and operation ofaccreditation as these were forged in the late 19th and early20th centuries. Does it make sense to continue the geographi-cally based accreditation represented by the regional (institu-tional) accrediting bodies that dominate US accreditation? Dothese regional configurations currently limit the options forindividual colleges and universities seeking an institutionalaccreditation? This, in turn, leads to a concern that accredita-tion is not adequately subject to market forces that somebelieve can, through enhanced competition, strengthen quali-ty. Are there too many programmatic accreditors, with the 62active organizations mentioned above? Is this contributing to afragmentation in the professions?

17

international higher education

the united states: global issues

There is a robust US national dialogue underway

focused almost exclusively on the limitations of

accreditation.

Joining the Two ConversationsThe international conversation about quality assurance andaccreditation that tends to focus on the strengths of US accred-itation can benefit from at least some additional attention tothe national conversation of concerns and criticisms in theUnited States. Awareness of US concerns can assist qualityassurance leaders in other countries in assessing the value oftheir own ongoing initiatives. Understanding these concernscan provide an early alert to developing countries that are inthe preliminary stages of establishing their own quality assur-ance organization and structure. At the same time, the USnational conversation can benefit from awareness of the inter-national conversation—a reminder of accreditation's strengthsand usefulness, a view that is lost in the current national dia-logue.

The Private Financing of HigherEducationRyan Hahn

Ryan Hahn is a research analyst at the Institute for Higher EducationPolicy. Address: 1320 19th St., NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036,USA. E-mail: rhahn@ihep.org; Web site: www.ihep.org/gcpf.

In recent years, cost sharing has been on the rise. Tuition hasbeen introduced in countries such as Australia, China,

Germany, and the United Kingdom. Likewise, where chargingtuition was already the norm (e.g., Canada, Japan, and theUnited States) students have faced a substantial rise in tuition.While the growth of cost sharing has been swift, the financialmechanisms to facilitate this cost sharing have not developedas quickly. In a handful of countries, the growth of mecha-nisms such as bond issuances, private equity, and philanthro-py have marked an increased role for private finance in highereducation, but these mechanisms have not been widely adopt-ed. Both students and institutions continue to face credit con-straints on worthwhile educational investments. If greater costsharing is to achieve what its proponents claim it can—name-ly, greater efficiency, equity, and access—private finance willhave to play a greater role in overcoming these credit con-straints.

Bond Issuance and SecuritizationOne way that higher education can tap private capital marketsis through the issuance of bonds. A university can issue bondson a public exchange, and over time investors are repaid theoriginal capital plus some interest rate. This interest ratereflects the risk that the institution will fail to meet its obliga-

tions—in other words, that it will default. The likelihood ofdefault, in turn, is determined by the financial health of theinstitution, rather than by the specific project for which moneywas borrowed. For example, a university may want to raisefunds to build a new business school, but it will have to issuebonds that carry a high interest rate if many of the university'sother operations are struggling.

In 2001, the Hungarian Ministry of Finance established theStudent Loan Centre (SLC), a nonprofit company that byAugust 2007 had issued loans to 234,000 students amountingto 142.8 billion Hungarian forints (about US$780 million). Tofund the scheme, the SLC issues bonds backed by a state guar-antee. The scheme appears to have helped boost enrollments.According to data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics,enrollment at the tertiary level increased between 2000 and2005 by 42 percent. This compares favorably to other easterncentral European countries. In the same period, Slovakia andthe Czech Republic both saw an increase of 33 percent, andPoland saw an increase of 34 percent. However, it is still diffi-cult to judge if the SLC will be financially sustainable in thelong run since default rates on the student loans have not beenestablished.

In a very different part of the world, universities, rather thanthe state, are taking steps to draw on private finance. A hand-ful of Mexican universities have received credit ratings, includ-ing Universidad de las Americas de Puebla, UniversidadAutonoma de Nuevo Leon, Universidad Autonoma del Camen,and Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla. Credit rat-ings are necessary for these universities to issue bonds becausethey help investors judge the likelihood of default. This trendis not limited to Mexico. In August 2007 Moody's, one of themajor credit-rating agencies, issued a report on its methodolo-gy for rating public universities outside the United States.Moody's has already issued ratings for universities in Canadaand the United Kingdom and expects that public universitiesin France, Germany, Italy, and elsewhere are likely to seek rat-ings in the future.

Securitization, a more recent financial innovation, can helpdeal with risk more effectively in some situations than thetypes of bond issuances described earlier. In particular, securi-tization has helped finance the growth of government-guaran-teed and private loans in the United States over the last 10years. During a securitization, student loans—issued by a com-mercial bank, nonprofit organization, or any other institution-are bundled together and placed in a legally independent trust.

international higher education

financing18

In a handful of countries, the growth of mecha-

nisms such as bond issuances, private equity, and

philanthropy have marked an increased role for pri-

vate finance in higher education.

Risk is no longer assessed based on the overall financial healthof the bank or nonprofit organization but solely on the likeli-hood of default of the student loans. While the United Stateshas the most experience with this process, it is not entirelyalone. The British government has securitized student loansthree times, in 1998 and again in 1999, and most recently in2007 by the former chancellor and current prime minister,Gordon Brown. The off-loading of these assets onto the privatemarket has helped free up public funds for other pressingneeds, including additional student loans.

Private EquityPrivate equity has recently taken an interest in investing inhigher education. In contrast to bonds, private-equity financeis not raised through a public exchange like the New YorkStock Exchange or the São Paolo Stock Exchange. Instead, aprivate-equity firm provides funds to a company in exchangefor a direct stake in its future profits. Companies that utilizeprivate equity are often small and have a high potential forgrowth.

In 2005, Banco Pátria, a major Brazilian private-equity firm,formed a private-equity fund called the Fundo de Educaçãopara o Brasil (FEBR). FEBR served as an investment vehicle inAnhanguera Educacional S.A. (AES), a private, for-profit edu-cation company that required additional capital to expand itsoperations. AES wanted to build new campuses in small andmidsize cities in southeastern Brazil. The company offers alow-cost education—average tuition stood at reais $503 in mid-2007 (approximately US$261)—for underserved, lower-income students in fields like engineering and business. Inaddition, AES spends 10 percent of its annual gross revenue onscholarships, taking advantage of government tax incentives topromote access. The strategy has proven highly successful,with enrollment nearly doubling, from 23,366 students inmid-2006 to 46,001 students by mid-2007. AES was success-fully floated on the Brazilian stock market in March 2007.

PhilanthropyWhile the term private finance is usually associated with theprofit motive, philanthropy also falls under this term.Philanthropy has a long history with higher education.Nevertheless, the growing demands of higher education havespurred a search for greater efficiency and accountability inhigher education philanthropy. One of the most interestingrecent developments is the combination of philanthropy with

profit-driven finance. Philanthropists with this approach hopethat their money can achieve greater efficiency in the pursuitof the same goals as more traditional philanthropy.

While it is too early to say whether this approach is viable,an example from Indonesia illustrates the possibilities. TheSampoerna Foundation worked with the International FinanceCorporation (IFC) and the Bank Internasional Indonesia toestablish a risk-sharing facility that provides loans on subsi-dized terms to Indonesian students and parents. TheSampoerna Foundation provided an initial cash reserve cover-ing potential first losses, while Bank Internasional Indonesiaprovides the loans and the IFC provides additional risk sharingon any losses in excess of the initial cash reserve. As ofSeptember 2007, 12 Indonesian institutions of higher educa-tion have agreed to participate in the loan program. If thescheme succeeds, it will serve as a valuable demonstration tobanks in Indonesia and elsewhere that student loans can beprofitable.

The Future of Private FinanceGiven that cost sharing has become a permanent feature of theterrain of higher education, private finance in its many formswill need to become a regular partner of higher education. Yetprivate finance presents its own risks, most recently demon-strated by the student loan scandal in the United States thatinvolved commercial lenders. What steps can be taken to cre-ate a successful partnership between private finance and high-er education? While the answer is complex, two elements arecrucial. First, there must be wider sharing of informationacross institutional and geographic lines. Private investors

need reliable information about profitable investments, andhigher education administrators must become more familiarwith the intricacies of private finance. The second factor is leg-islative reform, to promote and regulate private finance. Manycountries will have to address the tax treatment of philanthro-py, the regulation of securitization, and the governance of pub-lic-private partnerships. When these issues have beenaddressed, private finance will be able to play a key role inensuring that greater cost sharing promotes, rather thanundermines, equity and access in higher education.________________Author's note: This article summarizes The Global State of HigherEducation and the Rise of Private Finance: www.ihep.org/Pubs/PDF/Global_State_of_Higher_Education.pdf.

19

international higher education

financing

Securitization, a more recent financial innovation,

can help deal with risk more effectively in some sit-

uations than the types of bond issuances described

earlier.

Private finance presents its own risks, most recently

demonstrated by the student loan scandal in the

United States that involved commercial lenders.

Higher Education Finance inGhanaFrancis Atuahene

Francis Atuahene is academic adviser and graduate student supervisor atWestern Illinois University. Address: 216 Olson Hall, Macomb, IL 61455,USA. E-mail: FAuahene@wiu.edu.

Higher education in Ghana has suffered a myriad of chal-lenges such as accessibility, affordability, faculty recruit-

ment and retention, and a deplorable state of infrastructuredue to general poverty and macroeconomic instabilities of thecountry. However, the diminishing financial resources and thegrowing demand for participation remain the biggest threat tohigher education in Ghana.

Statistics provided by Paul Effah, the executive secretary ofthe National Council for Tertiary Education in Ghana indicatethat in 2000 the higher education budget was $23,870,359,which constituted 12 percent of the total government educationdiscretionary budget distributed among five public universitiesand eight polytechnics. This state of affairs has adverselyaffected higher education in the country. As a result, each yearover half the qualified applicants seeking entrance to universi-ties and polytechnics do not obtain admission, due to limitedacademic facilities.

Creation of an Education Trust Fund Cognizant of these quagmires and realizing the impact ofhigher education on national development, the National Unionof Ghanaian Students proposed the establishment of a specialeducation trust fund. The government supported this proposalin August 2000, and Parliament passed the Ghana EducationTrust Fund bill (GETFund) by raising the already existingvalue-added tax by 2.5 percent. The objective is to providefinancial resources to support educational institutions, provideassistance to genuinely needy and academically talented stu-dents, generate monies to support the student loan scheme,and financially support research and development. Initially, theGETFund was projected to generate about 200 billion cedis(US$54 million) annually. By 2007, this amount has more thanquadrupled. It represented 0.34 percent of gross domesticproduct in 2003, and it is projected to increase to 0.81 percentin 2008.

Contributions of the GETFundThe GETFund is having a robust impact on the development ofuniversities and polytechnics in the country particularly inareas of infrastructure, which have over the years remained ahuge challenge for universities. Institutions at all levels areundergoing a period of renaissance and rapid face-lifting.

Faculty research and development and the promotion of post-graduate studies have been the key focus of the managementof the fund. The GETFund has created a scholarship schemeand the Student Loan Trust Fund to improve accessibility at thetertiary level. It has also contributed immensely to theimprovement of vocational and technical education in thecountry by financing the establishment of 20 resource centersand modern equipment to enhance practical skill training. In2004, for example, the GETFund provided about 224 billioncedis (US$24,328,467) to finance the transformation andimprovement of capacities in the universities and polytechnicsthrough infrastructural development.

Data from the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planningshow that these developments have increased admissions atthe universities from 40,673 to 53,895 between 2002 and2003. At the polytechnic levels enrollment increased from18,459 in 2002 to 23,717 in 2003. Additionally, the GETFundsupports the expansion and development of distance educationas a means of expanding access. Accordingly, enrollment hasrisen from 750 in 2002 to 3,618 in 2003. The minister noted“the increase was supported by an allocation of 839.3 millioncedis from the GETFund to facilitate the coordination of dis-tance education in the two main providers of this service, theUniversity of Cape Coast and the University of Education,Winneba.” Additionally, over 60 faculty members at tertiaryinstitutions are being sponsored for further studies under theGETFund's Manpower Development Scholarship Scheme.

Analysis of the Policy Implementation ProcessDespite these great strides, the implementation of theGETFund has also faced some challenges. Alleged misappro-priation of the fund has been recorded since its inception. In2004, the president of the National Union of GhanaianStudents filed a complaint against the government about thetransition of the 2.5 percent value-added tax to the GETFundaccount. A case like this not only impedes the transparency ofthe fund but also hinders its sustainability. To some degree theGETFund, with its independently appointed board of trustees,is politicized. Even though the board is independent, theadministrator who oversees the management of the fund isappointed by the government. But the question is can weentrust public funds to a private entrepreneur? However, therole played by parliamentarians provides control over the man-agement of the fund. Yearly disbursements are subject to strictparliamentary approval, which in essence reduces the autono-my of the board of trustees.

international higher education

financing20

The diminishing financial resources and the grow-

ing demand for participation remain the biggest

threat to higher education in Ghana.

Additionally, the newly created student loan scheme willmake higher education accessible and affordable to studentsfrom lower social economic backgrounds. It offers students theopportunity to contribute and share part of the cost of theireducation. Unfortunately, the high interest rate is likely to putstudents into bankruptcy in a country faced with unbridledmicroeconomic instabilities. Also, while providing needs-based loans to students is an improvement over the previousloan scheme, the question remains how can one assess indi-viduals’ household income without reliable data? Moreover,awarding a scholarship to an “academically brilliant” student isa step in the right direction, but how do we ensure fairness ina country where a greater percentage of students are thosewhose parents can provide them with better pretertiary educa-tion in addition to supplementary instruction at home?

ConclusionDespite these challenges, the GETFund is making significantcontributions toward higher education development in Ghanain infrastructure, student development, faculty research, andstaff support. In 2007 Parliament approved an estimatedamount of 582 billion cedis (US$63,210,571) by the GETFundto overhaul infrastructure and equipment at the higher educa-tion level. It has become one of the richest sources of fundscomplementing government's budgetary allocation to highereducation. However, to sustain the fund for posterity, its sus-tainability needs to be ensured not only by maintaining trans-parency but also by providing a legislative instrument toincrease the autonomy of the board and improve managementefficiency. In summary, the GETFund has the potential forreplication in other developing countries facing similar chal-lenges.

Higher Education under aLabour GovernmentMichael Shattock

Michael Shattock is a visiting professor at the Centre for Higher EducationStudies, Institute of Education, University of London. E-mail:M.Shattock@ioe.ac.uk.

The Labour Party's victory in the general election of 1997,fueled by the slogan “Education, Education, Education,”

was greeted with a wave of popular enthusiasm. For highereducation the financial stringencies imposed by the Torieswere expected to be significantly alleviated. Labour inheritedthe recommendations of the National Committee of Inquiry

into Higher Education (the Dearing Report), which had beenjointly commissioned by the two main political parties to keephigher education from becoming an election issue. These rec-ommendations included a new deal on the financing of stu-dents—an issue at the heart of the report. Under the Tory peri-od from 1979 to 1997, the unit of resource (i.e., governmentfunding per student) had been reduced by 45 percent as stu-dent numbers rose but were funded at marginal cost only. Thebest that can be said after 10 years of Labour is that the govern-ment has stabilized state funding per student at the 1997 level.The expected uplift occurred only in the area of research; thispolicy has favored research-intensive universities over the rest.More seriously, the Dearing recommendations on studentfinance were not accepted, and thus a student fee was intro-duced. However, the benefit of what should have been anincrease in university funding was transferred back to the gov-ernment in a compensating lower recurrent grant.

Five years later the pressure on university finance forced thegovernment to set up an in-house working party of ministersand civil servants—rather than the more ponderous nationalcommission approach—which produced a white paper, TheFuture of Higher Education. This document was altogethermore radical and controversial than the Dearing Report, pro-posing a much higher student fee (£3,000) coupled withincome-based loans funded by the government. Coming at atime when the government was already under fire for itsallegedly neoliberal approach to the management of its welfarestate inheritance, the proposals aroused serious oppositionfrom within its own party within the House of Commons andwere only approved in a knife-edge vote by a majority of five.The concessions wrung by opponents included an agreementto review the level of fees in 2009/10 and the establishment ofan Office for Fair Access to ensure that access was preservedand that universities committed enough of their increased feeincome to bursaries for economically disadvantaged students.Applications for university places dipped slightly in 2005/06,the year before the introduction of the new fee structure butbounded back in the following year, seemingly justifying thegovernment's approach, though the long-term impact of stu-dent debt on the economy still needs to be evaluated. The intro-duction of the new fee levels reinforced the marketization ofUK higher education but also brought new and welcome fund-ing into the system. This did not apply in Scotland, however, asthe Scottish devolved government rejected fees to the conster-nation of most Scottish universities, which foresaw an alarm-ing gap emerging between their funding and the rest of the UKuniversity system.

Widening ParticipationFrom the beginning of its term, the new government sought todemonstrate its commitment to widening access to highereducation. The prime minister publicly envisaged the age par-ticipation rate rising to 50 percent; in practice it remains stuck

21

international higher education

european developments

at 43 percent in England, although the 50 percent figure hasbeen reached in Scotland. A prime objective, following theDearing Report, has been to encourage a larger proportionateacross for lower socioeconomic groups. A major cause célèbrewas created when the chancellor of the exchequer highlightedthe case of a girl from a northern state comprehensive schoolwho had excellent qualifications being turned down by Oxfordbut accepted and given a scholarship by Harvard. (It was laterestablished that the Oxford college that rejected her had a goodrecord of accepting candidates from state schools and that thedecision was simply a reflection of the severe competition forplaces.) Complex league tables were produced to indicate theexpected levels of lower socioeconomic students’ enrollment inindividual university intakes, and funding levels were adjustedto provide an incentive for widening participation.

This approach has had little effect, however. There is no evi-dence of discrimination in university selection procedures, andit is beginning to be recognized that the problem lies in theschools and in the wider economic and social policies pursuedby this and previous governments. One-third of children areborn into families whose earnings fall below the poverty line,and the Rowntree Trust has shown that children from poorhomes are a year behind their peers when they begin school

and two years behind at age 14. In 2000 the secretary of statelaunched a new initiative for the award of two-year “founda-tion” degrees aimed at improving the skills base. The proposalhas only produced modest numbers, and the decision in 2006to offer further education colleges (nonuniversity postsec-ondary institutions) the power to award the foundation degreewithout reference to universities is likely to depress its statusfurther.

Stretching the SystemPerhaps the most surprising result of the Labour government'spolicies has been the widening gap between the “best” (a wordincautiously used in the white paper) universities and the for-mer polytechnics that were given university status in 1992.Adherents of the Dearing Committee’s proposals believed theywere advocating a “compact” between the higher educationsystem and the government under which the concession ofmore accountability and the system’s pursuit of a social agen-da was the quid pro quo for a stable funding regime and themaintenance of institutional autonomy. Whatever privateassurances were given, the government, once in office, has notseen it this way. By 2003 when the white paper was published,the government had become convinced of the need for “world-

class” universities rather than a world-class system and,against the advice of the Funding Council, initiated an intensi-fication of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). In addi-tion, the government has invested considerably in researchand research infrastructure. Both actions benefited the most-research-intensive universities at the expense of a layer ofresearch-active universities (the so-called “squeezed middle”)and, of course, of the new universities. The white paper can-vassed the idea of “teaching only” universities, and a numberof higher education colleges that previously lacked degree-awarding powers have now been upgraded to university status.The result is a system much more polarized than before, withthe exponentially growing gap between the most successful ofthe Russell Group (the self-selected club of research universi-ties) and the stragglers in the Coalition of Modern Universities(which comprises most of the former polytechnics), in terms ofresearch excellence, academic quality of intake, and financialsustainability. This leaves the lower-ranked institutions thathave a high dependence on “access students” impoverishedand at some financial risk from fluctuations in the studentmarket. Whereas many of the most research-intensive univer-sities have reduced their dependence on the Funding Councilto below 30 percent, some of the newer universities aredependent on them to the tune of 70 to 80 percent.

Government InterventionismIf one leg of the so-called Dearing compact was funding, theother was autonomy, and here there are signs that the UK tra-dition of a hands-off relationship with government is fraying atthe edges. The Funding Council claims continuity with the oldUniversity Grants Committee in acting as a “buffer,” butincreasingly it is being marginalized on larger issues. The deci-sion to create foundation degrees and later to give degree-awarding powers to further education colleges, and the inten-sification of the RAE, referred to above, are examples of minis-terial fiat. The proposed revision of the RAE from a peer-reviewed to a metrics-measured system was announced by thechancellor of the exchequer, suggesting that the Department ofEducation and Skills itself, let alone the Funding Council, wasin control of the agenda. When in 2007 the department wassplit and a new Department of Innovation, Universities andScience was created, it might have been hoped that the newsecretary of state would adopt an advocacy role for higher edu-cation. However, his early arbitrary decision to stop the fund-ing of students taking a second first degree, an important func-tion for an institution like the Open University, suggests thatthe new department will marginalize the Funding Council yetfurther. The new president of Universities UK—the represen-tative body of UK universities—Professor Trainer, anAmerican, is quoted as saying that “In my native country, theUSA, even in the state universities there is nothing like thedegree of intervention in institutional management and theworking life of academics that we still experience in this coun-try.” It is worth adding that the single most dramatic ministe-

international higher education

european developments22

The introduction of the new fee levels reinforced the

marketization of UK higher education but also

brought new and welcome funding into the system.

rial intervention, the creation of the e-university, widely hypedas a farsighted initiative, collapsed under a mountain of debtsome four years later.

ConclusionThere is, of course, another side to the story. Internationally,the higher education system is highly successful: internationalstudent numbers have risen by more than a third since 1997,and the United Kingdom remains in spite of competition thesecond most popular destination after the United States forinternational students; in research, the United Kingdom'sshare of world citations also places it second only to the UnitedStates; Cambridge, Oxford, and Imperial College are to befound in the top 10 in world-ranking systems; within Europe,the United Kingdom collaborates more than any other countrywith China. Perhaps more significant, the newly introducednational Student Satisfaction Survey shows UK students to beoverwhelmingly satisfied with the education they are receiving.How far this performance reflects historic or inherentstrengths, rather than any actions by government in the last 10to 15 years, is hard to assess, but it is certainly true that withinEuropean higher education the United Kingdom is now seenas a sometimes uncomfortable trendsetter. Perhaps the moststriking feature of any account of UK government policytoward higher education is the extent it represents a continua-tion and extension of policies initiated by its predecessor gov-ernment's last decade. While there are danger signs in unwiseministerial interventionism, as a consequence of its size, itscost, and its economic importance higher education hasbecome a legitimate object of public policy in a way that wasbarely conceivable two decades ago. Inevitably there is disap-pointment with a government that seemed to promise somuch, but perhaps higher education should congratulate itselfthat the results have been no worse.

European Students in theBologna ProcessManja Klemencic

Manja Klemencic is a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for EuropeanStudies at Harvard University and former secretary general of ESIB—theNational Unions of Students in Europe. E-mail: m.klemencic.01@cantab.net.

The task of establishing a European higher education area,the so-called Bologna process, has led to massive systemic

changes in European higher education and has also dramati-cally altered the dynamics of European higher education poli-

cymaking and, especially, the role and influence of variousinterest organizations. The student constituency across Europehas been widely supportive of the process and vocal indemanding Bologna reforms to be implemented at theirrespective higher education institutions. One of the studentorganizations in Europe has played a particularly visible role inthe Bologna process. ESIB (the National Unions of Students inEurope), which has been renamed ESU (European Students'Union [www.esib.org]), has taken active part in the Bolognaprocess, ensuring that student interests were reflected in itspolicies. At the same time, ESU used the process to upgrade itsvisibility and role in European higher education policymakingin general.

The European Student Constituency and the EuropeanStudents' UnionThe student constituency active on the European level can becategorized in three main groups of student organizations: dis-cipline-based (e.g., AIESEC [Association of Economics andBusiness students] and ELSA [European Law StudentsAssociation]); political and religious (e.g., EDS [EuropeanDemocrat Students] and JECI-MIEC [International YoungCatholic Students-International Movement of CatholicStudents]); and interdisciplinary organizations (e.g., ErasmusStudent Network [network of students taking part in Erasmus

Program exchanges], AEGEE [Association des Etats Générauxdes Etudiants de l'Europe, which promotes European coopera-tion among students], and ESU). Most of these student organ-izations are members of the European Youth Forum(www.youthforum.org), the European platform of nationalyouth councils and European nongovernmental youth organi-zations, and a prominent player in European youth policymak-ing.

Only ESU represents democratic and independent studentorganizations that are elected as the national platforms in theircountries. Since its creation in 1982, ESU massively expandedits membership and today acts on behalf of 45 National Unionsof Students from 34 countries, representing over 10 millionstudents in Europe. ESU's main decision-making body is theboard, which consists of representatives of national unions andmeets twice yearly to decide on all policy and internal issues.While ESU has links to representatives of other student organ-izations, there is no formal channel of cooperation.

Students’ Interests in the Bologna ProcessWhile students were not formally included in drafting of the

23

international higher education

european developments

Since its creation in 1982, ESU massively expanded

its membership and today acts on behalf of 45

National Unions of Students from 34 countries.

Bologna Declaration, this situation changed soon after withstrong pressure from ESIB and support from some educationministers committed to student participation in Europeanhigher education policymaking. During the French presidencyof the EU in 2000, the then French education minister, JackLang, promised that the policies of ESIB would be presented tothe European Education Ministers’ Summit and that ESIB rep-resentatives will be formally included in the Bologna process.The Swedish government, subsequently taking up the EUpresidency, followed up on this promise and included the ESIBdelegation to the 2001 Bologna Ministerial Follow-Up Summitin Prague. ESIB’s declaration on Bologna issues was present-ed among the official documents of the Prague summit. Thedeclaration included ESIB policies on issues such as mobility,access to higher education, student welfare, recognition ofqualifications, and quality-assurance building on areas coveredby the Bologna Declaration.

ESIB entered the Bologna process at time when other stu-dent organizations were largely unaware of the BolognaDeclaration and its implications for the higher education sec-tor in Europe. Awareness was at the time also low among aca-demics, administrators, and individual students. ESIB’s contri-bution to the process was twofold. As the representative organ-ization of students in Europe it sought to upload its policiesreflecting student interests into the process. ESIB also coordi-nated information campaigns, so-called Bologna student days,to provide students with information about the BolognaDeclaration so that they could pressure institutions and nation-al governments to take up the reforms.

In a series of policy papers and declarations on issues raisedby the Bologna process, ESIB highlighted in particular that theBologna Declaration failed to address the social implications ofthe process for students. ESIB reminded ministers that it is theultimate responsibility of the state to finance higher educationand thus ensure equal access and diversity of quality programs.ESIB asked the ministers that the Bologna process should notendorse increases in tuition fees and instead should discussways to widen the access to education and respect the principleof education as a public good. ESIB also asked for a system ofcredits based on workload, a common European framework ofcriteria for accreditation, and a compatible system of degrees.Alongside the basic principle of free access, a two-tier degreesystem should guarantee free and equal access to all students.Academic, social, economic, and political obstacles to mobilityshould be removed, and relevant information should be pro-vided to contribute to the mobility of students, teaching staff,

and researchers. ESIB’s final message was that studentsshould be considered full partners in higher education gover-nance at all levels, including the Bologna process itself.

In their communiqués following the Bologna Declaration,the ministers incorporated many of ESIB’s messages—mostnotably that higher education should be considered a publicgood and public responsibility as well as that students are fullmembers of the higher education community. The issue of stu-dent participation in the Bologna process was resolved byincluding ESIB representatives (together with the EuropeanUniversity Association and the European Association ofInstitutions in Higher Education) in the general structure.Other student organizations, especially the discipline based,subsequently began to participate in the implementation of theBologna recommendations in cooperation with discipline-based European academic associations and individual highereducation institutions. At the same time, ESU remains a for-mal and active partner in the follow-up structure of theBologna process.

ConclusionRecognition of ESIB by the Council of EU education ministerswas historic as ESIB never before managed to present opinionsdirectly to the ministers, except through the EuropeanCommission, with whom it has had a consulting role. Withinvolvement in the Bologna process, ESIB transformed from a“sleeping giant” to a major player in European higher educa-tion politics. The recognition of ESIB as the “representativevoice of students in Europe” within the Bologna process alsohad an impact on ESIB’s internal structures. Given that issuesdiscussed on the European level coincided with those on the

national and institutional level, national and local unions ofstudents became ever more committed to and involved in ESIBwork. This also led to the further professionalization of ESIBin terms of establishing expert committees to deal with specif-ic Bologna issues. The Bologna process has thus unexpectedlyalso created circumstances that led to cooperation among thestudent unions and strengthened their resolve to empowerESIB to represent them on the European level.

international higher education

countries and regions24

The student constituency across Europe has been

widely supportive of the process and vocal in

demanding Bologna reforms be implemented at

their respective higher education institutions.

ESIB highlighted in particular that the Bologna

Declaration failed to address the social implications

of the process for students.

Corruption in VietnameseHigher EducationDennis C. McCornac

Dennis C. McCornac is associate professor of economics at Anne ArundelCommunity College, 101 College Parkway, Arnold, MD, USA. E-mail: dmc-cornac@aacc.edu.

More than two decades have passed since Vietnam beganthe transition to a market economy. The policy of Doi

Moi, generally translated as economic renovation, has fosteredmajor changes in social and economic institutions and highlyimproved production capabilities and the standard of living.These positive developments notwithstanding, Vietnamremains a less-developed country, and many of the ills associ-ated with this environment have not been alleviated.Corruption still plagues most sectors of the economy, and in2007 Transparency International gave Vietnam a dismal 2.6rating score on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being least corrupt.

Corruption in Education Education suffers pervasive corruption, particularly regardingstudent and teacher behavior. Bribes for school entrance,exams, and assessment, are just a few examples of practices inboth secondary and higher education sectors. Although theissue has come under increased scrutiny by the state mediaand educational authorities, a review of the literature revealsvery little formal research on corruption in education. This canprobably be attributed to the unwillingness of both parties toprovide accounts of illegal transactions and the extent to whichthe practices are viewed as corrupt.

Research Method The collection of data through a formal survey instrument wasnot possible due to institutional constraints. Thus, informalsurveys were conducted in various classes taught by the authorduring his teaching in Vietnam over the past decade. The sam-ple size was approximately 150 first-year university-level under-graduate students and 100 first-year university graduate stu-dents. In addition, in-depth interviews were carried out withclose to 35 students at various levels, 13 teachers, and 5 admin-istrators. These in-depth interviews were conducted in a semi-structured format with a heavy emphasis on open-ended ques-tions.

Norm, Rather Than ExceptionThe information from students, faculty, and administratorsprovides clear indications that corruption in higher educationin Vietnam is both rampant and institutional. Corruptive prac-tices are the norm rather than the exception and foster an envi-ronment of distrust and suspicion on the part of those forcedto participate in this system.

In the informal survey of classes, more than 95 percent ofthe students reported they had cheated at least once in a class,and all had observed situations of cheating by other students.Cheating is looked at as being so common that many peopleinvolved are of the opinion that not to do so puts them at a dis-advantage. Social and peer pressure play a significant role inthe decision to cheat, and cheating is looked at as a necessarycomponent of the educational experience. Both students andfaculty also commented that cheating is “just part ofVietnamese culture.”

Teachers and Examinations In various interviews, stories were told of corrupt practices byteachers, particularly during testing. During an examination,for example, a woman (not the supervising teacher) appearedin class and instructed the supervisor to allow one of the stu-dents to leave the examination. When the student returned hehad in his possession a piece of paper, apparently given to himby the woman, containing answers to the test. The answerswere also provided to other students, while the supervisingteachers did nothing to stop the practice. The student whoreported the story, however, stated “I felt very disappointedbecause I worked very hard studying for the exam, while thosewho did nothing and cheated received higher marks.”

Faculty members admitted they were lax in carrying out pro-cedures such as careful proctoring of examinations.Institutions either lacked strict policies to deal with these mat-ters, or there was a general consensus that nothing should bedone. Stroll down the corridor of a Vietnamese university, andit not uncommon to observe students openly talking, usingcheat sheets, and blatantly copying during tests.

The Use of BribesGiven the low salary level of educators in Vietnam, it is oftennecessary for professors to engage in corrupt practices. Almostall of the faculty and administrators interviewed admittedreceiving payments to give higher grades or to either assist orguarantee a student admission to a university.

A typical example was reported by one individual whosegood friend passed the university entrance despite being apoor-performing student who never studied. The poor-per-forming student later confessed that the headmaster of theuniversity accepted a 100 million dong (US$6,200) paymentfrom the student's father to guarantee his admission.

A number of students reported on the activities that occuron Teacher's Day, a public holiday celebrated in November

25

international higher education

countries and regions

In the informal survey of classes, more than 95 per-

cent of the students reported they had cheated at

least once in a class, and all had observed situations

of cheating by other students.

each year. The general practice is for students to go to ateacher's house and give gifts of flowers. However, it has nowbecome more common for the teacher to receive expensivegifts such as cell phones or designer bags, with the expectationof higher exam grades and other favors in return.

The growing economy has only exacerbated the situation ascompetition for employment opportunities among studentshas increased and faculty members have a greater need to sup-plement their income.

ConclusionThere is no doubt that the Vietnamese higher education sys-tem is in need of serious reform. Corruption is epidemic, andactions must be taken to change the environment in whichthese practices flourish. The recent decision by the Ministry of

Education and Training to adopt new, stricter measures onnational exams and the increased media attention on corrup-tion are steps in the right direction. The slogan for the educa-tional reform campaign is “say no to cheating in examinationsand achievement chasing in education.” Nevertheless, there isnot only a general frustration on all sides with the status quobut also concern that the current situation cannot be changed.

If Vietnam desires to obtain an international standard edu-cational system, required reforms are necessary from all par-ties. Perhaps, most importantly, there must be a monumentalchange in the attitude and thinking by students, faculty, andparents. Education is a right and privilege that is earned, not acommodity to be sold by administrators and faculty.

international higher education

international issues26

New Publications

Aby, Stephen H., ed. The Academic Bill ofRights Debate: A Handbook. Westport, CT:Praeger, 2007. 248 pp. $39.95 (hb). ISBN0-275-99244-6. Web site: www. praeger.com.

Since 2003, when an “academic bill ofrights” was introduced by conservativeactivist David Horowitz, there has been adebate in the United States about “liberalbias” in American higher education anddiscrimination against conservative aca-demics. The debate has even extended toseveral state legislatures.

Albornoz, Orlando. La UniversidadLatinoamericana: Entre Davos y PortoAlegre [The Latin American University:From Davos to Porto Alegre]. Caracas,Venezuela: Los Libros de El Nacional,2006. Apartado Postal 209, Caracas 1010-A, Venezuela.

Using two very different visions fordevelopment—the World EconomicForum and the World Social Forum—theauthor analyzes the role of the universityin Latin American society, giving specialemphasis to the case of Venezuela.Albornoz argues that a “middle point”between the extreme positions of Davosand Porto Alegre can bridge the gapbetween the practical demands of societyand unique role of the university innational development and discourse.(Laura Rumbley)

Bogue, E. Grady. Leadership LegacyMoments: Visions and Values for Stewardsof Collegiate Mission. Westport, CT:Praeger Publishers, 2007. 144 pp. $59.95(hb). ISBN 0-275-99778-2. Web site:www.praeger.com.

Written as a guide for senior administra-tors in US universities by an experiencedacademic administrator, this volumefocuses on how leaders can build a posi-tive legacy of their work.

Consejo Superior de Educación, ed.Educación Superior: Diversidad y Acceso[Higher Education: Diversity and Access].Calidad en la Educación, 26 (July 2007).Santiago, Chile: Consejo Superior deEducación, Marchant Pereira 844,Providencia, Santiago, Chile.

This edition of the Chilean HigherCouncil on Education's biannual publica-tion is comprised of eight monographs,three studies, and six additional arti-cles—all addressing the issues of accessand diversity in postsecondary education.The primary focus is on the Chilean con-text, although Bolivia, the United States,and the European Union also receiveattention. Calidad en la Educación is nowincluded in Latindex, the regional onlineinformation system for scientific journalsin Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain,and Portugal. It also appears in CLASE,the database of Universidad NacionalAutónoma de México for scientific andhumanities journals in Latin America andthe Caribbean. (Laura Rumbley)

Jantan, Muhamad, et al., eds. EnhancingQuality of Faculty in Private HigherEducation Institutions in Malaysia. Penang,Malaysia: Institut Penyelidkan PendidikanTinggi Negara, 2006. 187 pp. (pb). ISBN98342662-1-9. Web site: www.usm .my/ipptn.

Almost one-third of Malaysian studentsattend private higher education institu-tions, many of which are new and consid-ered of questionable quality. This booklooks at the faculty in private higher edu-cation with the aim of understandingtheir working conditions and improvingtheir quality. Analysis of faculty training,teaching conditions, and related issues isincluded.

Kell, Peter, and Gillian Vogl, eds. HigherEducation in the Asia Pacific: Challenges forthe Future. Newcastle, UK: CambridgeScholars Publishing, 2007. 245 pp. (hb).ISBN 1-84718-191-0. Web site: www.c-s-p.org.

A potpourri of themes stemming fromseveral Australia-Malaysia conferences,this book features essays on the role ofEnglish and English-language teaching,the internationalization of higher educa-tion in Malaysia, academic governance inMalaysia, quality assurance in offshoreteaching and learning, the role of aca-demic women in Malaysia, and others.

international higher education

international issues28 international issuesinternational issuesinternational issues

News of the Center

World Class Worldwide: Transforming Research Universities in Asia and Latin America, coedited by Philip G. Altbach and Jorge Balán,has been published in a Korean translation. It has been published in Chinese by the Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press, andarrangements have been made for translated editions in Spanish and Japanese. We have focused on expanding CIHE publica-tions in other languages. IHE continues to appear in Arabic as well as some of our other publications, thanks to the GoogleCorporation. Philip Altbach's coedited book on American higher education (Giao Duc Dai Hoc Hoa Ky) has been published inVietnamese by Nha Xuat Ban Giao Duc in Hanoi, Vienam. We are working on starting a Chinese edition of IHE in collaborationwith the Institute of Higher Education at Shanghai Jiao Tong University.

Philip G. Altbach gave a keynote paper at the conference on world-class universities at Shanghai Jiao Tong University. He alsoparticipated in the Beijing Forum and gave a talk at the Institute of Higher Education at Nanjing University, all in China. Hespoke at Seoul National University's annual research conference and at Yonsei University in Korea. In Saudi Arabia he willkeynote at a conference on higher education research in the Arab region in February and in Berlin will participate in a sympo-sium on international higher education research for the European Association for International Education.

Liz Reisberg, CIHE research associate, has received her doctorate. Her dissertation on quality assurance in Argentina was suc-cessfully defended in December. Gilton Eun Jun Lee, the CIHE's Web expert, also defended his doctoral dissertation inDecember. Congratulations to Dr. Reisberg and Dr. Lee.

Our Africa Web site, the International Network on Higher Education in Africa (INHEA), is currently being updated. We planon commissioning “editorial essays” from experts to add to the site soon.

The Center has hosted two visiting scholars during the fall term—Jane Knight from the University of Toronto, Canada, andAnthony Welch from the University of Sydney, Australia. Both are 2007–2008 Fulbright New Century Scholars. A day-long sym-posium on access and equity in higher education was cosponsored by the Center, the Monan Chair in Higher Education, andFulbright New Century Scholars on November 30, 2007. The event featured talks by Knight and Welch along with Prof. ClaireCallender of the University of London, and keynotes from Bruce Johnstone, distinguished professor at the State University ofNew York at Buffalo, and the NCS Distinguished Scholar Leader, and by Prof. Bridget Long, Harvard education economist.

New CIHE Initiatives

Our Center's widely used Web site is now being redesignedand will be available early in 2008. International HigherEducation will be available online as in the past but with a moresophisticated search to allow researchers to use multiple ele-ments (e.g., author + subject) for more precise searching. Thesite will not only have a new look but also a better integrationof the current sections—International Network for HigherEducation in Africa, the Higher Education CorruptionMonitory, and the International Higher EducationClearinghouse. Visitors to the site will find navigating andlocating information more streamlined.

A new online Expert's Database will enable visitors to theCIHE Web site to search by subject area to identify and locateresearchers and scholars worldwide relevant to particular top-ics.

Watch for an electronic survey to let us know if you would

like to be listed in the Expert's Database and which researchareas should be listed for you. If you have not yet returned theprofile update form included recently in the IHE mailing, sendus an e-mail (highered@bc.edu) with your name, institutionalaffiliation, title, e-mail address, and telephone number. As weadd e-mail addresses to our IHE subscriber database we will beoffering you the option of receiving the newsletter electronical-ly or continuing to receive it in print, or both.

We are expanding our podcast initiative. Check the Web sitefor new podcasts. We are adding both audio and video highereducation programming to the Web site as well.

Did you know that our resources among the most widelyused in our field worldwide? When you “google” the topic“international higher education” or similar themes, CIHEresources appear at or near the top of the list of millions ofchoices. Articles from International Higher Education and ourother publications are widely cited in the literature on highereducation worldwide.

29

international higher education

international issuesinternational issuesinternational issuesinternational issuesinternational issuesinternational issuesinternational issuesinternational issuesinternational issuesinternational issuesinternational issuesinternational issuesinternational issues

THE CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION

(CIHE)

The Boston College Center for International Higher Education

brings an international consciousness to the analysis of high-

er education. We believe that an international perspective will

contribute to enlightened policy and practice. To serve this

goal, the Center publishes the International Higher Education

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 worldwide and, more broadly, with Catholic universi-

ties.

The Center promotes dialogue and cooperation among aca-

demic institutions throughout the world. We believe that the

future depends on effective collaboration and the creation of

an international community focused on the improvement 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 international higher educa-

tion, with links to key resources in the field. All issues of

International Higher Education are available online, with a

searchable archive. In addition, the International Higher

Education Clearinghouse (IHEC) is a source of articles,

reports, trends, databases, online newsletters, announce-

ments 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 bib-

liography, and links to other agencies. The International

Network for Higher Education in Africa (INHEA), is an infor-

mation clearinghouse on research, development, and advoca-

cy activities 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 high-

er 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 provides financial assistance as well as work

experience in a variety of administrative settings.

Specializations are offered in higher education administra-

tion, student affairs and development, and international edu-

cation. For additional information, please contact Dr. Karen

Arnold (arnoldk@bc.edu) or visit our Web site:

http://www.bc.edu/schools/lsoe/.

editor

Philip G. Altbach

assistant editor

Salina Kopellas

editorial office

Center for International

Higher Education

Campion Hall

Boston College

Chestnut Hill, MA 02467

USA

Tel: (617) 552–4236

Fax: (617) 552–8422

E-Mail: highered@bc.edu

http://www.bc.edu/cihe

We welcome correspondence,ideas for articles, and reports.If you would like to subscribe,please send an e-mail to:highered@bc.edu, includingyour institutional affiliation,your position (graduate stu-dent, professor, administrator,researcher, policy maker, etc.),and area of interest or expert-ise. There is no charge for asubscription.ISSN: 1084-0613Our work is supported by the Ford Foundation and the Lynch School of Education at Boston College. We

are indebted to these funders for core sponsorship.

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