The Rhetoric and Reality of Mobility and Migration in Higher Education:

UCLA John N. Hawkins

Professor EmeritusConsultant East West Center

Introduction

• Large literature on M&M as a burgeoning force in global HE (Great Brain Race; Minds on the Move, etc.)

• First wave focused on students and scholars; second wave (APRU, PECC) includes institutional change, cross border supply, joint degrees, branch campuses etc.

• Barriers continue to exist to this movement

Numbers Small

• Striking that for many Asian nations the numbers are really quite small

• Most receiving nations are recommending a doubling of the numbers in the near future: Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan

• In terms of absolute numbers of students and scholars, compared to increases in enrollments and faculty hiring it “is nothing explosive like we would expect” O’Hara

How Much Impact has M&M Had on HEIs?

• One would expect to see changes of at least three types:

1.Upward trend in percentages of students & scholars going abroad and coming from abroad as percentage institutional numbers

2.Institutional adaptation, structural, curricular3.Institutional transformation, e.g. adopting

practices of other HEIs, ideas, etc.

US Context of Internationalization

• Lucky to have ACE Data mapping 3000 HEIs according to following indicators:

• Institutional support and structure• Academic requirements (curriculum etc.)• Faculty policies and opportunities, the

academic culture• International student mobility

Opening Statement

• “Given the geopolitical realities of the world after September 11, the growing pace of globalization, and repeated national calls for ‘globally competent college graduates’, one might expect that US colleges and universities today would be working avidly, perhaps urgently, to retool their curricula, policies, and practices to position themselves to fully prepare students for work and life in this changed world . . . .we might have anticipated

• That the survey would illustrate that US higher education institutions were redoubling their efforts to produce college graduates with strong intercultural skills, by working diligently to intensify language study, infuse their curricula with international study and institute policies and practices that promote campus internationalization. The findings of this study do not suggest that this happening”

What Did The Study Find?

• Most US HEIs have not made a public commitment to M&M with strategic plans etc.

• Over 50% of US HEIs seem unaware that M&M is occurring

• Large gap exists between institutional rhetoric and reality

• Students in US generally receive little or no exposure to global learning and M&M

• The curriculum is the least changed of all elements of HE in the US

• Study abroad: gone up but still small percentage, slightly over 1% of all US enrollees

• Only 37% had any courses that could be called international in their GE requirements

• 60% of all undergraduates will graduate without ever having taken an international course

• Foreign language enrollments have fallen back to 1965 levels

• Only 18% of doctorate granting institutions require a foreign language either for admission or graduation

• Institutional change has been limited and faculty reward structure absent for supporting international M&M

• Foreign students have increased but still amount to about 4% of all enrollees both graduate and undergraduate

• Graduate foreign students have remained flat over the past 5 years with decreases in critical STEM and business areas

• New competitors have further reduced the US market share in M&M

• Circuits of exchange appear to be minimal

UCLA & M&M

• Established 1919 as a Normal School• Renamed UCLA 1927• Currently: teaching faculty: 4,000;

undergraduate enrollment: 26,687; graduate enrollment: 11,863=total: 38,550

• Largest in the UC system• 118 UG degree programs; 200 G programs• Diverse: ranked in top 10 by Open Doors

Structural Impact of M&M

• Dashew Center for International Students and Scholars; Bradley Hall—Service

• The UCLA International Institute—Academic– Vice Provost, Chancellor’s cabinet– Oversees 18 multidisciplinary centers and

programs– Oversight over flagship EAP Program through

International Education Office (IEO)

The Flow of International Students and Scholars

• Education Abroad Program--Students• “We are working harder than ever to get the

message across that study abroad is for everyone, and not only for financially privileged and academically outstanding students” 2009

• Flow of students in and out: over 60 countries

EAP: Let’s Look at the Numbers

• 2009 UCLA Ranked 8th in US in Foreign Students and 5th in Students Studying Abroad

• Foreign Students: 5,685: S. Korea, China, India, Hong Kong, Japan (UG & G +non-degree, ESL)

• Foreign Students in Degree Programs: 2,282 in G; 1,737 UG or 10% of UCLA’s total degree enrollment (Open Doors, 2010)

More on Foreign Students

• 7% of Freshman applicants• 7% of total UG enrollment• Over 10 year period these numbers have

hovered around 4-5%• Last three years have increased by 1% each

year• So, one could argue that since 2006 UG

international students have doubled

EAP Study Abroad

• Flagship EAP: 622 (out of total 2,230 UCLA UG Students Abroad) or 2.3% of UG Class (2009-10)

• If All UCLA Students Going Abroad is Factored in: 2,230 then it is 5.8% of all UG Enrollment

• All UCLA Students Typically Go to Europe, UK, France, Italy, Spain and now China

Asymmetries

• International Students Occupy a Modest but Respectable Share of UG and G students

• Graduate Students are Skewed Toward Engineering, Management and Sciences

• Incoming International Students are about Three Times Outgoing UCLA Students

• Most UCLA Study Abroad Students are not in the Prestigious EAP Program

• For Past Five Years EAP Students Have Remained Constant about 2% of Total Enroll.

Asymmetries

• International Students are From Asia; UCLA Students Go to Europe (exception-China)

• Those that go to Asia are Primarily Heritage Students

• Both Study Abroad Students who Return and International Students Remain Marginalized Having Little Impact on the Campus as a Whole

• Conclusion: Numbers are Small and Not Growing; Hardy an M&M Surge

Visiting Scholars

• 2002 586• 2003 574• 2005 609• 2006 669• 2007 574• 2008 586

Visiting Scholars

• For this period they average about 14% of UCLA’s ladder faculty count

• Numbers have not changed much over last ten years

• Over half come from China, India, Japan, and South Korea, Germany, France and UK

• Clustered in engineering, sciences, and medicine• Little contact or influence on the campus at large

Institutional Priorities & Curricular Impact

• Mission Statements and Strategic Plans: ambiguous, depending on Chancellor

• Generally a Shift Toward Local California and LA Social and Economic Issues

• Lots of International and Global Courses a Few at GE Level, Mostly US Based

• No Foreign Language Requirement• CIDE Project• No Branch Campuses, Few Joint Degrees

Discussion

• UCLA, highly ranked international university in fact predominantly domestic/local

• International flows do not represent large percentages of key cohorts of incoming or outgoing faculty, students and scholars

• Little impact on key components of the university (strategic plan, curriculum, structure of knowledge, support personnel or institutional forms

Forces That Resist M&M

• International flows have been flat for past 5-10 years

• Public nature of UCLA limits numbers of non-resident UG students

• Graduate students are better but skewed toward “pragmatic” disciplines and come from narrow band of countries

• UCLA students still Europe oriented

• Foreign scholars do not come in large numbers and their mobility is flat

• Institutional structures must fight the dominant paradigm when budgets get tight

• “Brain circulation” and “Brain race” are asymmetric, international talent coming in small numbers and UCLA going out in even smaller numbers and then to familiar settings

• Worldwide recession is slowing M&M everywhere according to recent IIE study

• Only 8 countries worldwide host 72% of world’s students (US, UK, Germany, France, Australia, China, Canada, Japan)

• Question: What quantum qualifies a HEI as “internationalized” or “globalized”?

• Is the US an outlier on these numbers: a short circuit of exchange?