The Boston College Center for International Higher …...1 International Issues INTERNATIONAL HIGHER...

1

International Issues

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATIONThe Boston College Center for International Higher Education

Number 28 Summer 2002

Countries and Regions

Special Focus: Private Higher Education Developments

2 Knowledge and Education as International CommoditiesPhilip G. Altbach

5 Trade Creep: Implications of GATS for Higher Education PolicyJane Knight

7 New Challenges for Tertiary Education: The World Bank ReportJamil Salmi

9 Means Testing in Developing CountriesThomas Wolanin

11 The Private Universities of BulgariaSnejana Slantcheva

13 Working at a For-Profit: The University of PhoenixKevin Kinser

14 A New Higher Education Framework in SpainJosé-Ginés Mora

15 A Science University for Okinawa? A Bad IdeaPhilip G. Altbach

16 Lost Opportunities and Massification in ChinaRui Yang

18 Trends in International Student Flows to the United StatesHey-Keung Koh

21 Cuba and the Link Between Education and TransformationJesús M. García del Portal

22 More on the Pseudouniversity and Its ConsequencesThomas J. LaBelle

23 Higher Education Research in Latin AmericaAlma Maldonado-Maldonado

25 News of the Center26 New Publications

Departments

Reaction and Response

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION2

Knowledge and Education asInternational Commodities: TheCollapse of the Common GoodPhilip G. AltbachPhilip G. Altbach is J. Donald Monan, SJ professor of higher educationat Boston College and director of the Center for International HigherEducation.

A revolution is taking place in education. Educationis becoming an internationally traded commodity.

No longer is it seen primarily as a set of skills, attitudes,and values required for citizenship and effectiveparticipation in modern society—a key contribution tothe common good of any society. Rather, it isincreasingly seen as a commodity to be purchased by aconsumer in order to build a “skill set” to be used in themarketplace or a product to be bought and sold bymultinational corporations, academic institutions thathave transmogrified themselves into businesses, andother providers. Nowhere is this trend more clearlyexemplified than in the current debate about GATS, theGeneral Agreement on Trade in Services, now takingplace internationally within the World TradeOrganization. The commodification of education willhave major implications for how we think aboutschooling and the university, the ownership andtransmission of knowledge, and indeed the role ofcitizenship in modern society. The implications areimmense, both for nations and for the globalization andinternationalization of education.

There are positives and negatives in this newdispensation, just as there are in the broader globalizationagenda of which education is a part. Globalization isprobably both inevitable and unstoppable, and much ofit is positive as well. Yet there are many problemsassociated with globalization, from environmentaldegradation to growing inequalities within societies andinternationally. The problem with the current debateabout globalization is exactly the same as withdiscussions of its educational implications—the pros seeonly a bright future of economic integration, while thecons focus only on the negatives. Neither has a balancedvision that takes into account pitfalls and possibilities.

In the knowledge industries, of which education isa central part, globalization is already a key feature. Wesee implications in the growing use of the Internet forcommunication as well as for the marketing ofknowledge products of all kinds, in the strengtheningof a global labor force of highly skilled personnel, in theuse of English as a widespread medium for scientificcommunication and increasingly of advanced trainingin many fields, and in other ways. Indeed, higher

education has been internationalized since the verybeginning of universities in medieval Europe, when therewas a common medium of instruction, Latin, and bothstudents and professors routinely moved from countryto country. Now, perhaps 2 million students study outsidetheir home countries, and a world market already existsfor faculty and researchers. The Internet has greatlyexpanded the international flow of knowledge. One mightask why higher education needs to be subject to the legalstrictures of the WTO when internationalization is takingplace anyway at a pace and under conditions generallysuited to the higher education community.

The challenge for us is to understand both thecontext and the implications of the globalization of theknowledge economy. My purpose here is to point tosome of the problems created or exacerbated by currenttrends. The picture is certainly not entirely negative, buta balanced perspective requires careful analysis of thedownside—viewpoints often not articulated in the rushtoward the global future.

Underlying this discussion is a conviction thateducation at all levels is not simply a commodity to bebought and sold in the marketplace. An educationsystem provides the skills needed for economic success,but it also builds the underpinnings of a civil societyand of national participation. An understanding of thepast, of culture, and of democratic values, among otherthings, is part of education, and these elements cannotbe subsumed in some global marketplace. They areintegral to any society, and are part of the patrimony ofa people. Similarly, university-level basic research,certain curricular offerings, and other elements ofacademic work do not lend themselves easily tocommercialization. In other words, there are values ofthe national and social common good that must beprotected and preserved in a globalized educationalenvironment. Protecting culture, intellectualindependence, and the values of a civil society are simplynot on the same level as free trade in automobiles or equalaccess to markets for soybeans—or even to the otherservice-related activities that are included in the GATSagenda. To pretend that all intellectual “products” aresimply to be bought and sold on a commercial market isan oversimplification that contributes to givingglobalization a bad name among growing segments ofthe population. Ensuring that an accounting firm, forexample, has free access to international markets or thatsoftware is not pirated is simply not the same asprotecting an educational system.

Some Potential DownsidesMaintaining standards or even accurate information ina globalized academic environment is problematical.Ensuring appropriate academic standards in a national

International Issues

3

higher education system is a major challenge. The UnitedStates and many other countries do this through accred-iting systems that provide reasonably accurate informa-tion concerning numbers of colleges and universities,degrees offered, facilities available, and the like. It is dif-ficult enough to ensure minimal standards, track thegrowing number of “degree mills,” and in general tomaintain minimal standards at the national level—do-ing so internationally seems unworkable. Not onlywould data be difficult to obtain, but agreement on ap-propriate standards is unlikely. The European Union’sefforts to “harmonize” aspects of higher education in theEU countries in order to create a “common currency” ofhigher education are proving to be a major challenge—even though the EU has considerable power and re-sources to ensure compliance. Tracking academicprograms and degrees, not to mention maintaining qual-ity standards, on a global basis is extraordinarily diffi-cult. It is especially problematical when many of thoseseeking to enter the global marketplace are motivatedby a desire to earn a profit rather than by an educationalmission.

We are at the beginning of the distancerevolution in higher education.

We are at the beginning of the distance revolutionin higher education. There are already a considerablenumber of degree and training providers who useinformation technology and distance methods to offerprograms. As IT becomes more sophisticated and thecurriculum better developed, distance offerings willbecome more numerous. Already, “open universities”using mainly distance means of course delivery enrollwell over 3 million students worldwide—the largemajority in the developing world. Seven out of the 10largest distance learning institutions are in developingcountries. If national authorities are unable to exercisesignificant control over institutions providing distancehigher education in their countries through nationalaccrediting arrangements, degree recognition, andsimilar measures, quality control becomes impossible.

Open markets, at least in higher education, reinforcethe inequalities that already exist. If educational bordersare completely open, the strongest and wealthiesteducation providers will have unrestricted access.Countries and institutions that cannot compete will findit difficult to flourish. This means that developingcountries and smaller industrialized nations will be at aconsiderable disadvantage. Local academic institutionswill find it difficult to compete with providers that choose

to set up institutions in their country. Foreign providerswill focus on the most profitable segment of the market—today including business and management studies,information technology, and a few others— and leavethe rest to the local institutions. Such fields as the basicsciences, requiring expensive laboratories and otherequipment and offering little immediate profit-makingpotential, not to mention support for libraries, will beignored by the foreign providers.

There is a precedent for this. Several decades ago,the major industrial nations with the support ofmultinational publishers were able to tighten upinternational copyright rules and open up nationalpublishing to the international market. What happenedis that in many developing and middle-income countries,local publishers found it difficult to compete and werepurchased by the multinationals or went out of business.While books continued to be supplied to local markets,something was lost. The multinationals were especiallyinterested in the lucrative textbook market, largelyignoring less profitable general publishing. The resultwas that local publishers could not compete with themultinationals in the textbook market and were unableto afford to publish general books. Decisions concerningwhat books to publish were sometimes made in Paris,London, New York, or Amsterdam. Profits were exportedrather than being reinvested in the local market.University-level textbooks were increasingly importedfrom abroad rather than being produced locally. Valuableexpertise was lost. It is also the case that foreign capitalbecame available and that publishing standards weresometimes improved. But the loss of independence andautonomy was significant. Higher education will finditself in exactly the same position—with its mostlucrative markets creamed off by the multinationals andunable to afford to support the basic functions of theuniversities.

While it can be argued that science is by its natureinternational, higher education has a central role fornations and societies that goes beyond science andbeyond training for specific careers. What may berelevant for the United States in research or training maybe inappropriate or at least irrelevant for Ghana or China.If countries no longer have the ability to control the basicelements of the curriculum, the language of instruction,the pedagogical philosophies, and other key elementsof the delivery of higher education much is lost. Further,if the most profitable aspects of higher education, suchas management studies, are creamed off the top of theacademic enterprise by foreign providers, localuniversities will be left with the least popular—andprofitable—fields of study. These institutions will findit more difficult to compete and will be unable to offer a


full range of academic specialties. Further, they will haveneither the funds nor the infrastructures to engage inscientific research—thus abandoning the research rolethat is central to educating the best scientists and scholarsand leaving research in the hands of the wealthiestuniversities in the major industrialized nations. In a way,the profits that the rich universities may earn in thedeveloping countries can further strengthen theirresearch profile and contribute to the already existinginequalities in research worldwide.

The New NeocolonialismIn the bad old days of the Cold War, much was made ofthe efforts by the major powers to dominate the heartsand minds of the world. The Soviet Union, the UnitedStates, and others spent lavishly on student exchanges,textbook subsidies, book translations, institution build-ing, and other efforts to dominate the world’s academicleaders and intellectuals. We are in an entirely new eraof power and influence. Now, multinational corpora-tions, media conglomerates, and even a few major uni-versities are the new neocolonialists—seeking todominate not for ideological or political reasons butrather for commercial gain. The result is the same—theloss of intellectual and cultural autonomy by those whoare less powerful. In the Cold War era, power politicswas the motivation. GATS helps to establish open mar-kets for knowledge products of all kinds so that the newneocolonialists will have unfettered access to worldmarkets. In a way, developing countries were better offin earlier times—at least they could choose among feud-ing superpowers and could, if they had the will, keepexternal influences at bay without risking their entireparticipation in the world economy.

The new neocolonialism works through theknowledge providers who are selling a variety ofproducts on the world markets. These products includeacademic programs of all kinds, offered as “twinning”arrangements with local universities or businessenterprises, branch campuses offering degrees andcertificates from abroad, IT-based academic degrees,corporate training programs, and a myriad of others.There are some “high end” providers currently involvedin the international trade in training and certification.These include, among others, the University of Chicago’sbusiness school in Spain, Pennsylvania’s Wharton Schoolinitiative in Singapore, and several coalitions of Westernuniversities. There are many more lower prestige orunknown academic institutions and companies in theinternational educational marketplace offering“products” of completely unknown quality andrelevance. All of these providers have one thing incommon—the profit motive. Academic collaboration,intellectual exchange, and internationalization are

ancillary to the main purpose of the enterprise—money.Often, the programs that are exported are “off the shelf”offerings designed for students in the industrializedcountries. The relevance of such offerings for developingcountries is, at the very least, questionable becauseeducation is not country neutral. Both pedagogy andcurricular content must take into consideration localconditions, traditions, and learning styles. Foreignproviders are often unwilling to spend the moneynecessary to do this. While the new neocolonialism isprofit- rather than politics-driven, the end result is thesame. Countries and academic systems and institutionsin the developing countries become dependent on richand powerful foreign providers.

This is an argument against forcing thosewho are less powerful to be subject to adramatically unequal marketplace.

What Is To Be Done?This is neither an argument against the international-ization of knowledge nor against collaboration. Inevi-table inequalities between the well-established, wealthy,and powerful universities of the North and the less-well-endowed universities of the South are also recognized.This is an argument against forcing those who are lesspowerful to be subject to a dramatically unequal mar-ketplace, one that will rob academic institutions and sys-tems of the right to make decisions about curriculum,quality standards, and a variety of other educational fac-tors. It is an argument in favor of recognizing that edu-cation in all of its many forms is not a simple commoditybut a central part of a culture and of a society and de-serves to be treated differently than other parts of themarketplace.

In reality, we are not doing too badly right now. Theheavy hand of GATS and the WTO is not needed in theeducational sphere. International educationaltransactions of all kinds are at an all-time high. Somecountries, such as Singapore and Malaysia, have openedtheir doors to foreign universities, but have done so ontheir own terms. Others, such as Argentina, are seekingto understand the impact of foreign providers and toregulate them appropriately. China is slowly opening itsdoors to overseas academic institutions and programs.The United States is trying cope with adapting its well-established accrediting system to American colleges anduniversities offering programs overseas. Australia isaggressively marketing its educational productsoverseas. The European Union is moving toward the

5

harmonization of its divergent academic systems. Anunprecedented number of students travel abroad forstudy, and there is a functioning global market for highlyeducated personnel. The world is moving towardinternationalizing higher education by using the energiesof academe and responding to market needs. At the sametime, those on both side of the equation have the powerto shape educational transactions.

A new treaty that will have the power to forcecountries with quite different academic needs andresources to conform to strictures inevitably designedto serve the interests of the most powerful academicsystems and corporate educational providers will onlybreed inequality and dependence. Intellectualglobalization is alive and well now and does not needthe straitjacket of GATS and the WTO. We should bemoving toward a globalization based on equality ratherthan a new neocolonialism.

Trade Creep: The Implicationof GATS for Higher EducationPolicyJane KnightJane Knight is an associate faculty member at the Comparative, Interna-tional and Development Education Centre, Ontario Institute of Studiesin Education, University of Toronto, 252 Bloor St. W., Toronto, Ontario,Canada M5S 1V6, Canada. E-mail: <[email protected]>.

The General Agreement on Trades in Service (GATS)plus other regional trade agreements are testimony

to the increased emphasis on trade and the marketeconomy in this era of globalization. GATS is the firstlegal trade agreement that focuses exclusively on tradein services—as opposed to products. It is administeredby the World Trade Organization, a powerful organiza-tion with 144 member countries. Education is one of the12 service sectors covered by GATS. The purpose ofGATS is progressively and systematically to promotefreer trade in services by removing many of the existingbarriers. What does this mean for higher education?

The current debate on the impact of GATS on highereducation is divided, if not polarized. Critics focus onthe threat to the role of government, the “public good,”and the quality of education. Supporters highlight thebenefits that more trade can bring in terms of innovationsthrough new providers and delivery modes, greaterstudent access, and increased economic gain. Thepurpose of this article is to discuss both the risks and

opportunities that GATS brings to higher education andto identify some issues in need of further analysis.

Trade in Context with other TrendsTrade liberalization is firmly enmeshed with other is-sues and trends in higher education, which complicatesthe task of isolating the implications emanating fromtrade alone. These trends include the growing numberof private for-profit entities providing higher educationopportunities domestically and internationally; the useof information and communications technologies (ICTS)for domestic and cross-border delivery of programs; theincreasing costs and tuition fees faced by students atpublic and private institutions; and the need for publicinstitutions to seek alternate sources of funding, whichsometimes means engaging in for-profit activities orseeking private-sector sources of financial support.

These trends are evident in both developed and, tosome extent, developing countries. How does theexistence of the GATS relate to these trends? While GATSmay contribute to a commercial approach to educationand lead to expanded use of electronic or distanceeducation, it cannot be held responsible for theemergence of these trends. In fact, it is important toacknowledge that the business side of transnational orcross-border education was alive and well before theadvent of GATS. Supporters of more trade in educationservices celebrate the existence of the GATS to maximizethe benefits of these new opportunities. Criticsemphasize the risks associated with increased trade—believing that it leads to more for-profit providers,programs of questionable quality, and a market-orientedapproach—which are seen to challenge the traditionalnotion of education as a “public good.” The followingsections identify questions and issues that need to beexplored in terms of the impact of trade liberalizationand GATS on policy directions for higher education.

Student AccessGovernment and public education institutions havekeenly felt the responsibility of ensuring access to edu-cation. In many, if not in most, countries this is a chal-lenging issue as the demand for higher and adulteducation is steadily growing, often beyond the capac-ity of the country to provide it. This is one reason whysome students are interested in out-of-country educa-tional opportunities, and more providers are preparedto offer higher education services across borders.

When increased trade liberalization is factored intothis scenario, the question of access becomescomplicated. Advocates of freer trade maintain thatconsumers, or students, can have greater access to awider range of education opportunities at home andabroad. Nonsupporters of trade believe that access may


be more limited because trade will commercializeeducation and consequently escalate the cost ofeducation and perhaps lead to a two-tiered system. Thisraises a fundamental question regarding the capacity androle of government with respect to providing open orlimited access to higher education and the question offunding.

Quality assurance of higher educationis in some countries regulated by thesector and in others by the government.

FundingMany governments have limited budget capacity or atleast lack the political will to allocate funds to meet theescalating costs of higher education. Can internationaltrade provide alternate funding sources through newproviders? Advocates of trade in education serviceswould answer “yes.” Or, does it mean that public fund-ing will be spread across a broader set of domestic andforeign providers because of GATS rules, such as nationaltreatment and the unanswered question of whether pub-lic funding is seen as an unfair subsidy. Furthermore,does the presence of foreign providers signal to govern-ment that they can decrease public funding for highereducation, thereby jeopardizing domestic publiclyfunded institutions. Does international trade in educa-tion advantage some countries, such as those with a well-developed capacity for export, and disadvantage othersin terms of funding or access?

Regulation of Foreign or Cross-Border ProvidersThe development of a regulatory framework to deal withthe diversity of providers and new cross-border deliv-ery modes becomes more critical as international tradeincreases. In some countries, this will likely mean abroader approach to policy—involving licensing, regu-lating, monitoring both private (for-profit and nonprofit)and foreign providers in order to ensure that nationalpolicy objectives are met and public interests protected.More work is necessary to determine how domestic ornational regulatory frameworks are compatible with orpart of a larger international framework and how theyrelate to trade agreement rules.

Recognition and Transferability of CreditsNew types of education providers, new delivery modes,new cross-border education initiatives, new levels of stu-dent mobility, new opportunities for trade in higher edu-cation—all this can spell further confusion for therecognition of qualifications and transfer of academic

credits. This is not a new issue. While trade agreementsare not responsible for the creation of this confusion, theycontribute to making it more complicated and also tomaking resolution more urgent. National and interna-tional recognition of qualifications and the transfer ofcredits have already been the subject of a substantialamount of work. The UNESCO Global Forum on Inter-national Quality Assurance, Accreditation and the Rec-ognition of Qualifications is currently focusing on thisimportant issue.

Quality Assurance and AccreditationIncreased transnational education activity and new le-gal trade rules require that more attention be given tothe question of quality assurance and accreditation ofcross-border education programs and providers. It isclear that national quality assurance schemes are beingchallenged by the complexities of the international edu-cation environment. Not only is it important to havedomestic or national policy and mechanisms, it is equallyimportant that attention be given to developing an in-ternational policy approach to quality assurance andaccreditation. Can coherence between a domestic or na-tional system and an international policy frameworkactually strengthen national quality schemes rather thanweaken them? Clearly there are risks and opportunitiesassociated with this issue, but to do nothing is a risk initself.

Quality assurance of higher education is in somecountries regulated by the sector and in others by thegovernment, to a greater or lesser degree. The key pointis that authority for quality assurance, regulation, andaccreditation for cross-border delivery needs to beexamined and guided by stakeholders and bodies relatedto the education sector and not left in the hands of tradeofficials or the market.

Mobility of ProfessionalsGATS is facilitating the mobility of professionals to meetthe high demand for skilled workers. This impacts manyof the service sectors and has particular implications forthe mobility of teachers and scholars in the higher edu-cation sector. In many countries, the increasing shortageof teachers is resulting in active recruitment campaignsacross borders. Since many teachers and researcherswant to move to countries with more favorable workingconditions and salaries, there is real concern that themost-developed countries will benefit from this mobil-ity of education workers.

Culture and AcculturationLast, but certainly not least, is the issue of culture. Edu-cation is a process through which cultural assimilationtakes place. Concern about the homogenization of cul-

7

ture through the cross-border supply of education is ex-pressed by GATS sceptics. Advocates maintain that anew hybridization and fusion of culture will evolvethrough increasing mobility and the influence of ICTs.In fact, they believe that this has been happening fordecades and is a positive development. Once again, thedivergence of opinion shows that there are new oppor-tunities and new threats to consider, especially on thequestion of acculturation.

The Dominance of TradeFinally, it needs to be asked whether trade liberalizationhas the potential of dominating the higher educationagenda. There is a risk of “trade creep,” where educa-tion policy issues are being increasingly framed in termsof trade and economic benefit. Even though domesticchallenges in education provision are currently front andcenter on the radar screen of most countries, the issue ofinternational trade in education services will likely in-crease in importance, perhaps at the expense of otherkey objectives and rationales for higher education—suchas social, cultural, and scientific development and the

emergence of new types of tertiary institutions and newforms of competition, inducing traditional institutionsto change their modes of operation and delivery and takeadvantage of opportunities offered by ICT. But thistechnological transformation also carries the danger ofcreating a growing digital divide among and withinnations.

At the same time, most developing and transitioncountries continue to wrestle with difficulties producedby inadequate responses to long-standing challengesfaced by their tertiary education systems. Among theseunmet challenges are the sustainable expansion oftertiary education coverage, the reduction of inequalitiesof access and outcomes, the improvement of educationalquality and relevance, and the introduction of moreeffective governance structures and managementpractices.

Purpose and Structure of the ReportThe main purpose of the new World Bank report is toanalyze the role of tertiary education in building up acountry’s capacity to become a knowledge society. Themain messages are as follows: (1) social and economicprogress is achieved principally through the advance-ment and application of knowledge; (2) tertiary educa-tion is necessary for the creation, dissemination, andapplication of knowledge, as well as for building tech-nical and professional capacity; (3) the tertiary educa-tion systems of most developing and transition countries

New Challenges for TertiaryEducation: The World BankReportJamil SalmiJamil Salmi is coordinator of the World Bank’s Tertiary Education The-matic Group. Address: World Bank, 1818 H St. NW, Washington DC20433, USA. E-mail: <[email protected]>. This article is dedicatedto the memory of Tom Eisemon, in appreciation of his intellectual leader-ship and innovative contributions to the World Bank’s work in highereducation.

In the global environment, developing and transitioneconomies face significant new trends affecting not

only the shape and mode of operation but also the pur-pose of tertiary education systems. Among the most criti-cal dimensions of change are globalization, the increasingimportance of knowledge as a main driver of growth,and the information and communications technologies(ICT) revolution.

Both opportunities and threats arise out of these newchallenges. On the positive side, the role of tertiaryeducation in the construction of knowledge economiesand democratic societies is now more influential thanever. Tertiary education is central to the creation of theintellectual capacity on which knowledge productionand utilization depend and to the promotion of lifelonglearning practices. Another favorable development is the

role of education in promoting democracy and citizen-ship.

At this stage, the questions outnumber the answersabout the impact of GATS and trade liberalization. Thequestions are complex as they deal with technical andlegal issues of the agreement itself; education policyissues such as funding, access, accreditation, quality, andintellectual property; the larger political or moral issuesfor society such as the role and purpose of highereducation and the tension between the “public good” or“market commodity” approach to education. GATS isnew, complex, untested, and a work-in-progress. It is,therefore, difficult to understand or predict its impact.The one thing that is certain, though, is that the highereducation sector needs to be better informed and moreinvolved in the debate and provide advice to tradeofficials about potential unintended consequences orpossible opportunities.This article is based on the report Trade and Liberalization and HigherEducation: The Implication of GATS, prepared by Jane Knight for theObservatory of Borderless Higher Education: <www.obhe.ac.uk>.


are not adequately prepared to play this role, whichplaces these countries at risk of being furthermarginalized in a highly competitive economy; (4) thestate has a responsibility to put in place an enablingframework to encourage tertiary education institutionsto be more innovative and responsive to the needs of aglobally competitive knowledge economy and to thechanging labor market requirements for human capital;and (5) the World Bank can assist its client countries indrawing on international experience and in mobilizingthe resources needed to improve the effectiveness andresponsiveness of their tertiary education systems.

The Rise of Market ForcesAlthough public funding remains the main source ofsupport for tertiary education in most countries, it isbeing channeled in new ways and supplemented increas-ingly by nonpublic resources. Both changes bring mar-ket forces to bear in ways heretofore uncommon in thefinancing of public institutions. New financing strate-gies have been put in place in the public sector to gener-ate revenue from institutional assets, mobilize additionalresources from students and their families, and encour-age donations from third-party contributors. Many gov-ernments have encouraged the creation of privateinstitutions to ease pressures on the public purse andsatisfy pent-up demand.

At the same time, governments are attempting tomake the provision of public tertiary education moreresponsive to the new education and training needs ofthe economy, the shifting demands of employers, andthe changing aspirations of students. They havesupplemented the traditional budget transfermechanisms with resource allocation formulas to fostergreater institutional autonomy and better performance.Governments have also established quality control andenhancement mechanisms.

In many countries, the presence of privateinstitutions has brought about more diversity and choicefor students while serving as a powerful incentive forpublic universities to innovate and modernize. From anequity viewpoint, however, increased choice hasbenefited only those able to pay tuition or with access tofinancial aid. In many cases, the absence of scholarshipsand loans has led to increased disparities.

Rationale for State Support of Tertiary EducationContinued government support of tertiary education

is justified by three important economic considerations.First, that tertiary education investments generate majorexternal benefits that are crucial for knowledge-driveneconomic development, including the long-term returnsfrom basic research and technology development and

the social benefits accruing from the construction ofmore cohesive societies. Second, imperfections in capitalmarkets limit the ability of individuals to borrowsufficiently for education, thereby reducing theparticipation of meritorious but economicallydisadvantaged groups in tertiary education. Third,tertiary education plays a key role in support of basicand secondary education, thereby buttressing theeconomic externalities produced by lower levels ofeducation.

In a lifelong learning perspective, stu-dent mobility can be encouraged byopen systems.

The Evolving Role of the StateAs their direct involvement in the funding and provi-sion of tertiary education diminishes, countries rely lesson the traditional state control model to impose reforms.Instead, they bring about change by guiding tertiary edu-cation institutions with a coherent policy framework, anenabling regulatory environment, and appropriate finan-cial incentives.

Countries and tertiary education institutions willingto take advantage of the new opportunities presentedby the knowledge economy and the ICT revolution musttake the initiative in launching meaningful reforms.While no blueprint exists for all countries, a commonprerequisite may be a clear vision for the long-termdevelopment of a comprehensive, diversified, and well-articulated tertiary education system.

The second important dimension of governmentintervention is the creation of a regulatory environmentthat encourages innovations at the level of individualinstitutions as well as private-sector initiatives to expandaccess to tertiary education. Key dimensions ofregulation are the rules for establishment of newinstitutions (private and virtual), quality assurancemechanisms, financial controls on public institutions,and intellectual property rights legislation. In a lifelonglearning perspective, student mobility can be encouragedby open systems based on the recognition of relevantprior experience, degree equivalencies, credit transfer,tuition-exchange schemes, access to nationalscholarships and student loans, as well as acomprehensive qualifications framework.

The third modality of state intervention involves thefunding mechanisms and financial incentives appliedto steer tertiary education institutions toward quality,efficiency, and equity goals. These include allocation

9

formulas linking resources to measures of institutionalperformance, encouragement of resource mobilizationby institutions, competitive funds for investments inquality improvement, and student financial aid.

Strategic Framework for Future Bank SupportInvestment in tertiary education is an important pillarof development strategies emphasizing the constructionof democratic knowledge societies. The World Bank canplay a central role in the process in a number of ways.Under the right circumstances, the Bank may play acatalytic role by facilitating policy dialogue on tertiaryeducation reforms. This can be accomplished throughinformation sharing and analytical work in support ofnational dialogue and vision formulation efforts.

Three vital lessons that have been learned from pastand current tertiary education reform projects are thatcomprehensive reforms are more effective, sensitivityto stakeholders and the local political economy ofreforms is vital, and integration of positive incentivesfor change can be pivotal. Based on these lessons, WorldBank support to client countries should be appropriateto a country’s specific circumstances, predicated onstrategic planning at national and institutional levels,focused on promoting autonomy and accountability,geared toward enhancing institutional capacity,sequenced with a time horizon consistent with the long-term nature of capacity enhancement efforts, andsensitive to local political considerations.

While most strategic options outlined above arerelevant to middle-income countries, importantdistinctions are warranted for transition countries, low-income nations and small countries. The leading optionsfor improving tertiary education in the transitioncountries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia includeintroducing more-flexible and less-specialized curricula,promoting shorter-term programs, creating a moreadaptable regulatory framework, and establishingsystems of public funding that encourage institutions torespond to market demands for quality and diversity.

A tertiary education development strategy for low-income countries would include three priorities:building capacity for managing and improving the basicand secondary education system, including the trainingand retraining of school teachers and principals;expanding the production of qualified professionals andtechnicians through a cost-effective combination ofpublic and private nonuniversity institutions; andmaking targeted investments in strategic fields ofadvanced training and research in chosen areas ofcomparative advantage.

Priorities to address the tertiary education needs ofsmall states are subregional partnerships with

neighboring small states to establish a networkeduniversity, strategically focused tertiary educationinstitutions that address a limited number of the nation’scritical human skill requirements, negotiated franchisepartnerships between the national government andexternal providers of tertiary education, andgovernment-negotiated provision of distance educationby a recognized international provider.

Globalization and the growth of borderlesseducation raise important issues that affect tertiaryeducation in all countries but are often beyond thecontrol of any one national government. Among thosechallenges are the new forms of brain drain resulting ina loss of local capacity in fields critical to development,the absence of a proper international accreditationframework, the absence of legislation for foreign tertiaryeducation providers, the lack of intellectual propertyregulations governing distance education programs,and barriers of access to information andcommunications technologies. The World Bank willwork with its partners in the international communityto promote an enabling framework for these globalpublic goods, which are crucial for the future of tertiaryeducation.

Means Testing in DevelopingCountriesThomas WolaninThomas Wolanin is a senior associate at the Institute for Higher Educa-tion Policy in Washington, D.C. Address: Institute for Higher EducationPolicy, 1320 19th St., NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036 USA.E-mail: <[email protected]>.

Many underfunded institutions of higher educationin developing nations are considering the impo-

sition or the increase of tuition fees. To prevent the ex-clusion of academically qualified, low-income students,various student financial aid schemes that target assis-tance on low-income students are being contemplated.Other nations interested in improving social equity andfairness have established financial aid programs for stu-dents who would not otherwise have access to highereducation. These programs require means testing to de-termine which students should receive aid.

“Family” Responsibility?The decision to distribute aid to students based on meanstesting first requires determining whose means are to


be tested. Should a student’s family be responsible forthe higher education costs of the student? What consti-tutes a “family”—the nuclear family or a more extendedfamily? Should there be an age of the student beyondwhich the family no longer has the responsibility to helppay tuition fees (21, 30, or 40 years)? What should bedone in cases where the student and the student’s fam-ily are estranged from each other—that is to say, there isno “family” relationship?

What portion of the family’s resources should beavailable to support the student? This is another way ofasking what standard of living the family should enjoybefore its resources are directed to supporting thestudent’s higher education costs.

All of these questions raise difficult political issuesand touch on important and sensitive cultural values.In addition, there are practical issues of verification anddocumentation—such as birth, marriage, and deathcertificates and court records to establish, for example,whether a student is an orphan, how many other siblingsthe family is supporting, and whether a claim of familyestrangement is genuine or just economically convenient.Therefore, the quality of public records and the ease ofaccessing them in developing countries are importantconstraints on means testing.

The quality of public records and theease of accessing them in developingcountries are important constraints onmeans testing.

Standard QuestionnairesThe actual process for gathering information about thefinancial and family circumstances of the student andthe student’s family is usually by means of a standardquestionnaire. One obstacle to gathering useful informa-tion by questionnaire in developing countries is that theincome and assets of a substantial segment of the popu-lation may be in kind rather than in cash or cash equiva-lents.

A second and even more important issue is how todetermine that the information about the income andassets of the student and the student’s family is true andaccurate. How can the information provided on aquestionnaire be verified? One possibility is to comparethe information provided on the means testingquestionnaire with the information provided to thegovernment for purposes of collecting either a nationalincome tax or contributions to a national pension system.However, many developing countries have neither a

national income tax system nor a contributory publicpension scheme. Or, the income tax system and publicpension scheme may only cover a small segment of theworkforce or the official information may not bedependable.

Social IndicatorsAn alternative method for means testing is to use vari-ous social indicators to distinguish those who have theability to pay tuition fees from those who do not. Oneexample of the use of such social indicators is the appli-cation for financial aid at the Pedagogical University inMozambique. In addition to asking for information aboutfamily income, the application requires informationabout the occupation of the student’s parents or guard-ian, whether the student’s home has running water andelectricity, and whether the student relies on public trans-portation. Another example is a study of students atMakerere University in Uganda, which defined familyincome categories in terms of the number of years ofschooling of the father and whether he had access to anofficial or a personal vehicle.

The assumption behind the use of such indicators isthat the social status and lifestyle that they signify arecorrelated with family income and assets available to paytuition fees. However, the use of such social indicatorsin determining ability to pay tuition fees also presentssome significant practical problems. First, verifying theaccuracy of the information with respect to theseindicators is very labor intensive. Staff from thePedagogical University of Mozambique visit theneighborhood and home of the applicant for studentfinancial aid. The staff asks people in the neighborhood,the parish priest, and others whether the informationprovided is accurate as well as inspecting the quality ofthe home itself. At the American University inKyrgyzstan—which collects similar information fromapplicants for scholarships—university staff sometimeactually visit the family and count the size of its flock ofsheep. The confirmation of information in this manneris very time consuming and expensive.

A second limitation of the use of social indicators indetermining ability to pay tuition fees is that it is by itsnature highly subjective. The best that can probably behoped for is a judgment that the student and thestudent’s family have no ability to pay or have someability to pay tuition fees. Social indicators are likely tobe unreliable in deciding which family can pay 10 percentof tuition fees or 50 percent, versus 100 percent.

The process of verifying information about families’ability to pay could be made more manageable by onlyverifying the accuracy of the information for a sampleof those who apply. The efficacy of sampling or spot-

11

checking depends on the severity of the penalty forcheating, the certainty that the penalty will be applied ifcheating is discovered, and the thoroughness of theverification of the sample.

ConclusionThe use of means testing at the University of the Philip-pines represents a good summary example. AdrianZiderman and Douglas Albrecht report in FinancingUniversities in Developing Countries (1995): “To assess fi-nancial need, the university has had to move beyondincome tax returns, which often understate true abilityto pay. . . . (A)pplicants must complete a twelve-pagequestionnaire which asks about family assets, parentaloccupation and education levels, and location of resi-dence. The questionnaire itself does not stop dishonestapplicants, but home visits and harsh disciplinary ac-tions are believed to make applicants answer questionsmore truthfully. Home visits verify the accuracy of mostreports. Several students have been expelled from theuniversity for giving false information.”

In sum, means testing for purposes of studentfinancial aid in developing countries is subject to anumber of serious practical difficulties that call intoquestion its viability. It is particularly burdensome ifattempted for large numbers of students or for studentapplicants drawn from across a large country. Therefore,the implementation of increased tuition fees indeveloping countries is likely to be hard to achieve inways that are economically efficient and socially fair.

The Private Universities ofBulgariaSnejana SlantchevaSnejana Slantcheva is a fellow of the Open Society Intitute, Budapest,Hungary. E-mail: <[email protected]> or<[email protected]>.

Over the past decade, Bulgarian private universities havemanaged to establish themselves as a separate, dis-

tinct sector of the Bulgarian higher education landscape.In Bulgaria, where 247,000 students are educated at 42 uni-versities and 46 colleges, 11.3 percent of those enrolled areat private universities.

The First DecadeNonstate initiatives in Bulgarian higher educationbecame possible immediately after the fall of thecommunist regime in 1989. The first private universitiesappeared in 1991, following enactment of the law on

academic autonomy. The private higher education sectorgrew quickly, although it never reached the expansionlevels of private higher education in otherpostcommunist countries. In Belarus, Moldova, Poland,and Romania, for instance, student enrollments in theprivate sector constitute approximately 30 percent of thetotal student population. Between 1991 and 1995, theBulgarian Parliament recognized five new privateuniversities. Currently, four of them are in operation:Varna Free University (with some 9,000 students), theNew Bulgarian University (with 7,500 students), BurgasFree University (with 6,600 students), and the AmericanUniversity in Bulgaria (with 640 students). The fifthprivate institution, the Slavic University in Sofia,functioned for four years before being closed down byParliament in 1999 due to administrative irregularities.

Private institutions differ not only in many aspectsfrom their state counterparts but also from one another.Whereas, for instance, the Free Universities of Varna andBurgas rely primarily on local support and tuition fees,the New Bulgarian University and the AmericanUniversity in Bulgaria are also heavily dependent onfinancial support from foreign donors. The latterinstitution is rather small, offering American-styleeducation and differing in many aspects from otherinstitutions discussed in this article. Throughout the1990s, however, the private universities faced commonchallenges. One major difficulty was the legal vacuumin which they operated for several years. It was not until1995 that the higher education law officially recognizedprivate universities as institutions with differentstructures and modes of operation—a trend furtherstrengthened by the 1999 changes and amendments tothe law, with the recognition of the department as a basicinstitutional unit. The 1995 higher education law alsocreated requirements for the establishment of otherprivate institutions.

Another major challenge for Bulgarian privateuniversities involved accreditation procedures. Stateaccreditation is granted by the National AccreditationAgency and verifies that all programs and institutionalstructures comply with the law on higher education andthe uniform state requirements. Should an institutionfail to file an application for accreditation or receive anegative accreditation, the state will stop future studentadmissions (and terminate funding, in the case of stateuniversities). Uniform state requirements define in detailthe educational process while at the same timeaccommodating the familiar “old” disciplines andtraditional university structures. Paradoxically, then, intheir attempts to receive national accreditation,individual private institutions—with their differentinstitutional structures, forms of governance, andprograms—also had to comply with these state standards.

Special Focus: Private Higher Education Developments


Finally, strong public distrust has accompanied thedevelopment of private universities in Bulgaria. Possiblywith the exception of the American University inBulgaria, all other private institutions have been viewedwith reservation due to the high tuition fees they chargeas well as the nontraditional programs and courses thatthey offer.

AchievementsAlthough private universities still face many challenges,their achievements in the past decade cannot be under-estimated. Often they have anticipated changes that werelater adopted by state institutions. It was in the privatesector, for instance, where in the early 1990s thebachelor’s-master’s-doctoral degree structure was firstapplied. This degree structure was not officially intro-duced into Bulgarian higher education until 1995, as apart of the entire system’s attempt to harmonize withEuropean higher education structures. Private universi-ties were also the first to use the credit system to evaluatestudent progress. The credit system still presents a majorgoal for state institutions, although its introduction hasbeen hindered by rigid university structures and pro-grams. Distance education was yet another accomplish-ment first offered at private universities. Finally, with theexception of Varna Free University, private universitieswere the first to institute standard admissions exams.

Private universities have also played a progressiverole in introducing different modes of operation,institutional structures, and organization into theeducational process, which are able to support a varietyof nontraditional programs. Program flexibility andstudent mobility characterize all of them. Moreover, theAmerican University and the New Bulgarian Universityare the only institutions in the country that offer liberalarts education—a model that up until several years agotook second place to the official educational system thatprovided “spiritual and physical perfection” instead of“knowledge and skills” (in the words of the former viceminister of higher education). The New BulgarianUniversity has been instrumental in encouraging debateconcerning liberal arts as a different model of education.Finally, private universities employ market strategiesin the planning and regulation of their activities andcourse offerings—yet another challenge facing stateinstitutions.

Many of the accomplishments mentioned abovehave been made possible due to the private universities’financial autonomy from the state: unlike stateuniversities, they are not supported by the annual statebudget. Instead, they have a variety of sponsors, bothnational and international. In addition, most privateinstitutions receive funds through various programs.Tuition fees are a major form of funding, set by the

institutions themselves, and are much higher than themandatory annual tuition fees in the state sector.

Present and Future ChallengesA major weakness that private universities are attempt-ing to address relates to their faculty profile (exceptingthe American University): the majority of their facultyoccupy permanent positions at state universities and“travel” to a private institution to deliver lectures orseminars (these are the so-called “suitcase” or “travel-ing” lecturers); their contracts at the private institutionare for a given period of time or number of classes. Inthis area, the negative consequences for the overall edu-cational process include the lower faculty commitmentto the life of the institution. A slight improvement in thissituation has occurred as a result of accreditation de-mands: whereas in the 1999–2000 academic year 18 per-cent of the faculty held permanent jobs at privateinstitutions, for the 2000–2001 academic year their num-bers rose to 23 percent.

Finances are a second hurdle that these institutionsmust overcome. Whereas tuition fees are rising, thenumbers of students capable of covering them are not.The fact that there is also no state student loan programin place makes it even more difficult for students tofinance their education. The strong reliance on tuition-paying students makes the private universities overlydependent on market demand, often hamperingprogram development in many different fields. Despitesome appeals, the likelihood that the government willoffer financial assistance to these institutions is rathersmall.

All of the existing private institutions havereceived their institutional accreditation.

State accreditation, mandatory for all Bulgarianinstitutions, is yet another issue before privateuniversities. At present, all of the existing privateinstitutions have received their institutionalaccreditation. However, they must still obtain individualprogram accreditation, which will remain a difficultprocess as long as the uniform state requirements persistin their old, inflexible form. There has been muchcriticism both of the state requirements and the stateregistry of specialties. As a result, the government is atpresent contemplating introducing changes toaccommodate program varieties across the country.

In its short history, the Bulgarian private universitysector has successfully defied the persisting governmenttendency to treat them more as an addition to the existing

13

Faculty at Private For-ProfitUniversities: The University ofPhoenix as a New Model?Kevin KinserKevin Kinser is assistant professor and collaborating scholar of the Projecton Research on Private Higher Education, Department of EducationalAdministration and Policy Studies, University at Albany, State Universityof New York. Address: 344 Education Building, University at Albany,SUNY, Albany, NY 12222, USA. E-mail:< [email protected]>.

With 100,000 students across more than 100 campusesand learning centers, the University of Phoenix

(UOP) is perhaps the most well-known example of for-profit higher education in the United States. With an aca-demic model that is unusual by traditional standards,Phoenix caters to an exclusively adult student populationin the health care, business, and education professions, us-ing a highly structured, centrally designed curriculum. Atypical undergraduate class meets four hours per week forfive weeks. Required weekly “learning team” meetings out-side of class give small groups of students the additionalopportunity to discuss and prepare for the week’s assign-ments with their classmates.

Given its academic structure, it is no surprise thatPhoenix employs a faculty that is similarly unusual.“Unbundling” is a term applied to the UOP model:various components of the traditional faculty role (e.g.,curriculum design) are divided among different entities,while others (e.g., research) are eliminated altogether.Faculty are hired primarily to facilitate student learningin a particular course, and their term of employmentbegins and ends with the five-week UOP semester. Sucha transient and diminished faculty role would be asource of concern at most institutions of highereducation. The UOP, on the other hand, makes noapologies.

From a market perspective, Phoenix has beensuccessful. As an education institution, it is much moredifficult to evaluate. In particular, the limited role of thePhoenix faculty may raise questions about the academicvalues that underlie the for-profit model the institutionemploys. The expansion of private higher education invarious regions around the world, however, suggeststhat a range of potential faculty models could be

adopted by these new institutions. As a model for thedelivery of educational services, the UOP stands as aprominent example. Whether or not emerginginstitutions are organized as profit-making entities,Phoenix-like faculty roles may be employed.

Many observers of higher education will viewPhoenix with suspicion because of the institution’scommitment to the bottom line. The Phoenix businessmodel, though, is dependent on providing aneducational environment that students and theiremployers will value. The faculty play a key role increating this environment. At least three aspects of theUOP faculty model deserve attention.

Hiring StrategyFirst, the UOP hiring strategy focuses on bringing in newfaculty committed to teaching and in full agreement withthe Phoenix model and philosophy. Those selected tojoin the teaching staff have been vetted in a rather elabo-rate process that begins with an information session andorientation, continues through a formal teaching dem-onstration and interviews with current faculty, and con-cludes with a training session that exposes all new facultyto the Phoenix curriculum and classroom expectations.Individuals who are ambivalent about teaching tend notto make the cut. Likewise, potential faculty members notamenable to the specific classroom structures requiredby UOP are screened out by this process. Phoenix em-ploys a model of adult learning that assumes that stu-dents learn best in groups and in practical, interactive,discussion-based sessions. Faculty who believe it is im-portant to lecture about theory unconnected to practice,for example, would not only find it difficult to be suc-cessful in the Phoenix classroom, they most likely wouldnever pass muster to get there in the first place.

Professional ExperienceSecond, faculty teach part time for Phoenix and are ex-pected to bring to the classroom the knowledge and ex-perience from their full-time positions outside theuniversity. In addition to accreditation-specified aca-demic credentials, all UOP faculty members must havecurrent professional experience in the area in which theyare teaching, and they must have a full-time job otherthan teaching at the UOP. UOP training emphasizes thatwhat a student learns in class Tuesday night, he or sheshould be able to use in the office on Wednesday morn-ing. Faculty are encouraged to use their professionalexperience as a teaching tool to make explicit connec-tions to the world of work. In this light, even aside fromthe cost savings important to UOP’s for-profit status, itmakes sense to employ a part-time faculty. It has thepractical effect of ensuring the relevance of the curricu-lum to industry needs. It also has the symbolic effect ofmaking it clear to students and faculty alike that the in-

higher education system than as an alternative to it. Onceconsidered a place for students who failed to gain entryto state institutions of higher education, Bulgarianprivate institutions have managed to sustain studentinterest and earn greater legitimacy.


stitution is about the concentrated study of skills andknowledge with immediate useful application.

Pedagogy and ProfitFinally, classroom activities themselves can be describedin terms of both pedagogy and profit. The actual instruc-tion—and the training that supports it—focuses on help-ing students learn. At the same time, the profit motivedominates the design of the curriculum and the deci-sion to offer a particular program of study. Phoenix isunapologetically an institution for which making moneyis the bottom line. But within the constraints of a cen-trally designed curriculum, the faculty are encouragedto adapt evaluation procedures, assignments, and dis-cussions to fit their notion of what is important for stu-dents to know. Rather than rote performance of astandardized syllabus, the individual faculty member isdirectly and personally involved in shaping the course.The decisions and actions made by the faculty in con-ducting their instructional responsibilities reflect a con-cern for the student that, for Phoenix, is compatible withthe institution’s concern for the shareholders.

ImplicationsThe UOP selects its faculty and uses them in the class-room in ways that support the goals of the institution. Afairly rigorous selection process is designed to ensurethat faculty are competent, capable, and willing to teachusing Phoenix-specified techniques. Part-time facultymembers are expected to contribute their full-time pro-

fessional experience to classroom instruction. Limitedparticipation by the faculty in the design of the curricu-lum is combined with faculty involvement in structur-ing the classroom delivery of the material. Emerginginstitutions looking to duplicate the Phoenix approachshould understand how these various aspects interre-late to form a coherent academic model. They shouldalso be aware of how the extremely short semester andlimited faculty-student contact could continue to raisequestions about the ability of the Phoenix model to fos-ter in-depth learning.

The for-profit sector holds great interest not onlyfor its economic implications for the development ofprivate higher education, but also for how it may affectacademic culture and faculty identity. Cases such as theUOP can be used to explore the range of practice amongfor-profit institutions of higher education to identify theways in which faculty roles differ. How common is itfor private institutions to adopt structured, centralizedcurricula? To what extent are faculty screened for theircommitment to teaching or for their practical expertise?Has there been a strategic decision to employ a part-time faculty? Answers to questions such as these willhelp us map the range of options available to privatehigher education in a time of global expansion.

This article is presented as part of our ongoing cooperationwith the Project on Research on Private Higher Education,directed by Daniel Levy at the State University of New York atAlbany. This project is funded by the Ford Foundation.

A New Framework for HigherEducation in SpainJosé-Ginés MoraJosé-Ginés Mora is professor of economics at the University of Valencia.Address: University of Valencia, Faculty of Economics, 46022, Valencia,

Spain. E-mail: <[email protected]>; web: <http://www.uv.es/~ginesj>.

At the end of 2001, the government promulgated anew act on higher education (LOU, Ley de

Ordenacion Universitaria). This act is the last in a se-ries of profound changes in the structure of Spanishhigher education that started in the early 1980s. Atthat time, the Spanish higher education system was aperfect example of the Napoleonic model of the uni-versity. Universities were part of the state, professorswere civil servants, and they were ruled through typi-cal bureaucratic methods.

Recovering AutonomyThe “big change” occurred in 1983, when the universityreform act was instituted after the end of the Franco dic-tatorship. This act introduced major changes in the legalframework of Spanish universities. Universities, whichhad been completely controlled by the central govern-ment, became autonomous, moving from dependenceon the central government to dependence on the regionalgovernments. The decision-making power was trans-ferred from the state bureaucracy to collegial bodies withsignificant representation of nonacademic staff and stu-dents. Boards with many members make the decisionsconcerning the university and departments and elect therector, deans, and department heads.

The 1983 reform shook up the traditional universitysystem and produced many positive effects. In addition,the financial resources for universities increasedenormously in the last two decades. The main result hasbeen the tremendous expansion of the higher education

Countries and Regions

15

A Research University in thePeriphery: A Japanese MistakePhilip G. AltbachPhilip G. Altbach is J. Donald Monan, S.J. professor of higher educa-tion and director of the Center for International Higher Education atBoston College.

The Japanese government has announced plans for anew research university to be built from scratch in

Okinawa, in the Ryukyus, the island chain located twoand half hours flying time southwest of Tokyo andknown mainly for its tropical weather and Americanmilitary bases. One could hardly think of a more iso-lated location for such a university. It will focus on bio-technology and will require an investment of $600million by the Japanese government to get it started.Japanese authorities say that it will cost $160 million peryear to operate—a figure that seems unrealistically lowto operate a science-based research university. The aimis to recruit half the researchers from outside Japan; thelanguage of instruction is to be English. Except perhaps

system in terms of the number of universities, in physicaland human resources, and in student numbers.Consequently, access to higher education is quite open,research activities have greatly increased, and the qualityof the higher education system has generally improvedin all aspects.

Some Perverse EffectsNevertheless, the new legal framework produced someperverse effects mostly due to the excessive internalpower of academics and the lack of accountability. Asdepicted in Burton Clark’s model, universities movedfrom the strong influence of the state to a situation inwhich the academic oligarchy is the main force rulingthe system. Professors, who kept their civil servant sta-tus, together with nonacademic staff and student unions(which, by the way, are not very representative) controlinstitutions with a clear tendency to protect the “ivorytower.”

A greater responsiveness to market forces in highereducation and a more entrepreneurial universitystructure were considered necessary to confront the newchallenges facing universities: decreasing demand (fordemographic reasons), increasing competition, newexternal demands, globalization, and so on. The needto reform the legal framework of universities wasrecognized by both major political parties, whichincluded proposals in their platforms for the last generalelections.

The LOUIn 2001, the government presented a draft of the act thatwas considered by most experts to be too timid. The draftproposed a governing board for universities, one-thirdof which would be composed of people from outsidethe university and the rest of university staff and stu-dents. Nevertheless, rectors reacted angrily to the draft,considering it to be a frontal attack on university au-tonomy. For several months there was a confrontationbetween the conservative government and rectors, mostof whom were on the left. The debate was not very pro-ductive and was basically conducted via the media. Itwas not a debate about the future of universities butrather a political confrontation that can only be explainedin internal political terms. Eventually, the governmentreduced the external representation to only three peopleon the governing board (which may reach as many as 50members), and the LOU was finally approved by Con-gress. In spite of this modest representation of thenonuniversity community, there are several claims in theConstitutional Court charging that the LOU is unconsti-tutional. It should be pointed out that in Spain univer-sity autonomy (which is guaranteed by the Constitution)and self-government by the academic staff are consid-

ered by most university people as equivalent.The consequence of this confrontation is a new act

with inadequate tools for coping with the challenges thatSpanish universities have to face in the new globalcontext. The central problem—the internal powerstructure of universities—remains untouched.Nevertheless, the LOU introduced some elements offlexibility that could be taken by universities orautonomous regions as a means of moving forward. Forinstance: non-civil-service positions at all levels of theacademic staff ladder can be created; wage incrementsto compensate staff productivity will be introduced byregional governments and, universities will have morefreedom to establish their own internal statutes. On theother hand, a clear positive aspect of the LOU has beenthe creation of the Agency for University Quality andAccreditation, which will be in charge of promotingquality and informing citizens about universityperformance. Quality assurance has been a regularactivity during the 1990s in the Spanish higher educationsystem, but the LOU has institutionalized these activitiesand introduced accreditation of academic programs.

In summary, while the LOU might bring create someopportunities for more dynamic universities, mostanalysts are skeptical about the real capacity of the LOUto transform the Spanish higher education system. Thefear is that a good opportunity has been lost for makingserious improvements and that events of last year inSpanish higher education can be summarized as toomuch ado about nothing.


for some scientists from China, it is highly unlikely thatmany top researchers will be lured to Okinawa, not onlybecause of the location and surroundings, but becauseof the generally internationally uncompetitive salariesoffered by Japanese national universities at the seniorlevels.

From every perspective except perhaps forproviding some public investment for Okinawa, this isa terrible idea. There are some significant lessons to belearned for higher education generally, and perhaps thereis still time for the Japanese government to reconsider.

The decision comes at the same time that Novartis, themultinational pharmaceutical company, announced that it ismoving its research laboratories from Switzerland, not exactlya scientific backwater, to Cambridge, Massachusetts in orderto take advantage of the scientific infrastructure andentrepreneurial atmosphere there. This illustrates whyOkinawa is not the right place for a research university. Evenin the era of the Internet, intellectual enterprise requirescommunity infrastructures, and other academic andintellectual stimulation.

There are a few examples of great universities orscientific centers located in isolated places, although itwould be especially problematic to attempt this feat inthe current environment. Even some of the greatAmerican state universities, established in the 19thcentury in relatively isolated places such as Iowa Cityor Urbana-Champaign, Illinois suffer somewhat fromgeographical isolation and find it difficult to retain topscientists and scholars. And this is why great centers ofscience have for a long time been located in or nearmetropolitan centers that have a tradition of academicexcellence—such as Tokyo and Kyoto as well as Bostonor San Francisco, Paris, and London. It is one thing toestablish postsecondary teaching-oriented educationalinstitutions in places like Okinawa to provideopportunities for training and education to the localpopulation. It is quite another to build a researchuniversity in such a location.

There are a few examples of significant scientificcenters located in remote places, and Okinawa must becategorized as a remote place. Novosibirsk in Russia andLos Alamos in the United States come to mind. But bothwere built to serve military needs more than basic orapplied research and were purposely located in placeswhere security would be easier to maintain.

The Japanese experience with establishing TsukubaUniversity in Ibaraki Prefecture near Tokyo is an exampleof the challenges. Tsukuba, founded in the 1973 as a wayof diversifying higher education from the center ofTokyo, required several decades and much money toestablish itself as a major academic center.

The insurmountable problem of the plans for

Okinawa is that the location is so clearly peripheral—toother academic institutions as well as to the industries itis intended to serve. It will be very difficult to attract toptalent to Okinawa regardless of salary or otherincentives—and the Japanese national universities arenot noted either for administrative flexibility or highsalaries. Top scientists, it should be remembered, are arare breed. They are attracted by a scholarly communityas much as by high salaries and favorable workingconditions. The incalculable elements of an intellectualatmosphere—bookstores, cinemas, coffeehouses, and thelike—are all significant in the thinking of academics.Okinawa has the multiple disadvantages of location,climate, and the complete lack of other academic orscientific amenities.

There are several relevant lessons to be learned from thecurrent Japanese proposal—not only for Japan, which still hastime to drop the idea, but also for other initiatives elsewherefor the establishment of new scientific institutions.

Major research institutions should not be foundedin remote or peripheral locations. It is, of course,appropriate to have higher education facilities in suchplaces in order to provide access and skills to localpopulations. But research universities will seldom besuccessful. The informal infrastructures of intellectuallife are important. While communication is now possiblethrough the Internet, there is no substitute forcommunity or for direct links to both other researchersand the users (companies, government agencies, andothers) of the knowledge products to be produced.

Lost Opportunities in theMassification of HigherEducation in ChinaRui YangRui Yang is a lecturer in international and comparative education at theGraduate School of Education, University of Western Australia,Nedlands, WA 6009, Australia. E-mail: <[email protected]>.

One of the latest changes in China’s higher educa-tion is the dramatic growth in student numbers.

This expansion is happening in a policy context that viewshigher education as a tool for achieving an integrated glo-bal system along market lines. Meanwhile, Chinese soci-ety is also in transition. While making impressive progressin many areas, China is full of the tensions caused by tur-bulent social changes. This article aims to illustrate howsome parts of the population are losing out on opportu-nities for receiving higher education while others are

17

greatly benefiting from the recent fast growth.

Rapid Growth within the Ninth Five-Year Plan (1996–2000)Chinese higher education has expanded rapidly over thepast decade—with gross enrollment rates increasingfrom 3.4 percent in 1990, to 7.2 percent in 1995, and to 11percent in 2000. Quantitative growth continued in 2001.More than 1,500 new undergraduate and associate de-gree programs were launched. In order to further driveeconomic growth, the Chinese government lifted thelongstanding restrictions on marital status (the require-ment to be single) and age (a maximum age of 25 years)of student examinees.

China will be well ahead of the goalset in the Action Plan to Vitalize Educa-tion in the 21st Century.

With the current growth rate, China will be wellahead of the goal set in the Action Plan to VitalizeEducation in the 21st Century, issued by the Ministry ofEducation in 1999 to achieve a gross enrollment rate of15 percent by 2010. The national government has recentlyreadjusted its state planning and is determined toincrease the gross higher education enrollment rate to15 percent by 2005, with a total of 16 million students inhigher education.

The expansion of higher education has greatlyreduced the longstanding gap between social demandand higher education supply. Many people—especiallyin affluent areas, including major cities and coastal areas—have greatly benefited from the rapid growth in highereducation. The Beijing municipal education commission,for example, in 2001 declared its intention to raise thehigher education admissions rate to 70 percent ofsecondary school graduates. Higher education enrollmentin Shanghai has reached 38.8 percent of the 18-to-22-yearage cohort. With an annual growth of 10 percent, Jiangsuis expected to become China’s first province to start thetransition from elite to mass higher education.

The decision to increase university studentenrollments was made by the national government withthe goal of stimulating the economy. The centralgovernment hopes to push Chinese parents to use someof their huge savings on their children’s highereducation. It is anticipated that the expansion will leadto large-scale construction work at higher educationinstitutions, which will further drive up domesticconsumption.

Another major motivation for the expansion is tomaintain social stability by delaying employment for

some of the population. Gradually, a trend is emergingfor large numbers of secondary school graduates to goon to various institutions to receive their tertiaryeducation. The tension caused by thousands ofsecondary school graduates competing for a very limitednumber of places in universities has been lessened.

The overall picture, however, is not all rosy. Whilemany Chinese have increased access to higher education,some others have suffered a decrease in access. Amongthese are university students from poor families and thepopulation in China’s less-developed regions.

Students from Poor FamiliesThe issue of disadvantaged university students, whocomprise 10 percent of the total student population atnational universities, emerged in 1997 when Chineseuniversities began to charge students tuition and accom-modation fees. By the late 1990s, when student fees werestill relatively low, a student needed at least 10,000 to10,500 yuan annually for a 10-month academic year, al-ready an astronomical amount for many families. A sur-vey in Shandong showed that only 8.01 percent offamilies could cope with the whole amount on their own,22.43 percent could only manage half, 43.68 percent couldafford less than one-third, and 10.2 percent felt absolutelyhelpless.

Chinese parents are well known for diligently savingup for their children’s education, enduring hardships thatwould be unimaginable for many people living in affluentindustrialized nations. However, as some families live inabsolute poverty, they have no savings and little chance toborrow money. In such cases, assistance fromuniversities, while important, is insufficient.

Such straitened circumstances can hardly fail to exerta strong negative impact on the spiritual and social lifeof these students. While some students face theireconomic difficulties courageously, many experiencegreat mental pressures. The Chinese government, atvarious levels, and the universities have worked togetherto implement some policies to address the problemsfacing the poorest students. Yet, within the globalizedcompetitive culture of corporate managerialism,efficiency, and accountability in higher educationworldwide, efficiency has been given the highest priorityin China. University students from poor families willcontinue to be a knotty issue well into the coming years.

Opportunities in Less-Developed RegionsGlobalization never meant global equality. Disparitiesare widening in China between the thriving export-ori-ented coastal zones and the provinces, especially thosein the interior. There is great variation across provinceswith regard to available human, financial, and materialresources. Under such conditions, it is not surprising that


higher education development is poor quantitatively andqualitatively in China’s less-developed areas.

Despite recent spectacular economic development, 6.7percent of the Chinese population still lives in poverty.The introduction of university fees does not favor studentsliving in remote areas with little money. As highereducation is becoming more expensive, the gap in highereducation opportunities between the developed andunderdeveloped areas is rapidly widening.

Most affected are the impoverished areas, which areoften those with large minority populations. For instance,by the end of 2000, the number of students studying athigher education institutions in Tibet was 5,400; whereasin 2001, 38.8 percent of the 18-to-22-year age cohort inShanghai went to universities; and 70 percent of secondaryschool graduates in Beijing went directly to universities.

To make the situation in poorer areas worse, Chinais still practicing a discriminative university admissionspolicy, which gives preference to students from the majorcities. Top universities have a quota system and admissionsrequirements that favor local students. Such a policy wasoriginally designed to ensure that the best students inunderdeveloped areas would have a chance to attend keyinstitutions and enjoy the same quality of education. Asacademic qualifications become more important in China’sjob market, the disparity in access to higher education indifferent regions will have an even greater negative impact.A distribution of quotas between the central and localgovernments will be even more of a problem as the Chinesegovernment begins to decentralize.

ConclusionParallel to international changes in the philosophy ofgovernance and the way higher education is managed,there has been a strong trend toward diversification anddecentralization in China’s higher education. Mean-while, the latest developments confirm findings reportedby many comparative studies that decentralization canbe a mechanism for tightening the control of the centralgovernment over higher education. Thus there is a co-existence between decentralizing and centralizing trendsin higher education governance. While higher educationin China is under increasing pressure to follow interna-tional trends, the lingering influence of the country’slongstanding centrally planned system and the complexdomestic situation combine to create difficulties in eas-ing China’s ongoing social transformation. The role ofthe state, while still strong, is undergoing change. Con-sidering China’s social, cultural, and historical realities,the state remains necessary as a regulator, facilitator, andnegotiator. Currently, the state performs all these roles,although arguably such diverse roles often do not playout in a consistently beneficial way.

Trends in International StudentFlows to the United StatesHey-Keung KohHey-Kyung Koh is on the staff of the Institute of International Education.Address: 809 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017. E-mail:<[email protected]>.

The year 1999–2000 was a milestone year. For the firsttime since the Institute of International Education

began collecting data on international student flows tothe United States, the number of international studentsin the United States passed the half-million mark, ris-ing to 514,723. This past year, in 2000–2001, 547,867 in-ternational students were studying in the United States.The institute has been collecting this data since its found-ing in 1919 and began publishing this data indepen-dently in 1948 and, with United States Department ofState funding, since the early 1970s in the annual OpenDoors Report on International Educational Exchange.

In 2000–2001, over half, or 55 percent, of thesestudents came from places of origin in Asia, followedby Europe (15 percent), Latin America (12 percent), theMiddle East (7 percent), Africa (6 percent), NorthAmerica (6 percent), and Oceania (6 percent). China isthe leading place of origin for the third year in a row,with 59,939 students, or 10.9 percent of the foreignstudent total. India is ranked second, with 54,464students, or 10 percent of the total; this numberrepresents a 29.1 percent increase from the previous year,the largest percent increase of all the places of origin.

Although international students are studyingthroughout the United States, they are mainlyconcentrated in just a few metropolitan areas. Over one-fifth of all international students are found in seven statesand the nation’s capital. The New York metropolitan areahosts the most international students (49,283), followedby the Los Angeles area (27,426). In comparisons bycounty, Los Angeles County hosts the most internationalstudents, with New York County (Manhattan) a closesecond. Regionally, the Northeast hosts the mostinternational students (25 percent), followed by theMidwest (22 percent), the South (21 percent), the Pacific(18 percent), the Southwest (11 percent), and theMountain Region (11 percent).

The overwhelming majority of internationalstudents are at Research I universities, Master ’s Iinstitutions, and community colleges. These threeinstitutional types host more international students thanthe other 16 Carnegie Classification types combined,with 368,169, or 67.2 percent of the total. Business and

19

management continues to be the most popular field ofstudy among international students in the United States,with 106,043, or 19.4 percent, of all international studentsenrolled. Engineering and mathematics-computersciences are the next largest fields of study, with 83,186,or 15.2 percent, and 67,825, or 12.4 percent, respectively.

For the first time since the Institute ofInternational Education began collectingdata on international student flows tothe United States, the number of inter-national students in the United Statespassed the half-million mark

Enrollment Trends Over TimeThe numbers of international students in the UnitedStates have for the most part grown steadily since 1954–1955, the year that the present form of the Open DoorsReport came into being. Two of the exceptions to the pe-riods of growth, and at times of steep growth, in the for-eign student totals were plateaus in the mid-1980s andmid-1990s. Changes in enrollment flows have been rela-tively stable over the past 10 years, with significantgrowth since 1998. This past year’s international studenttotal, 547,867, represents a 6.4 percent increase over theprevious academic year. This is the largest percentagegrowth in over two decades, since 1980.

At present, even though there are over a half millioninternational students, in the United States they representless than 4 percent of all U.S. higher educationenrollments. In 1954–1955, there were 34,232 foreignstudents studying in the United States; they represented1.4 percent of the 2,499,800 total U.S. higher educationenrollment. Fifty years later, the foreign studentpopulation has increased tenfold to 547,867, butrepresents only 3.9 percent of the 14,046,659 totalenrollment. However, at the more advanced degreelevels, and in certain disciplines, foreign studentscomprise a high percentage of total U.S. graduate studentenrollments, with 13.1 percent of all graduateenrollments. More than half of all international studentsstudy at the undergraduate level. Historically, they havealways outnumbered graduate students, though inrecent years the gap has been closing.

Even though the overall foreign student enrollmentpercentages are small, their presence both on campusesand throughout the United States is significant and feltin a variety of ways. They are an important factor in theinternationalization of U.S. higher education, especiallyfor colleges and universities that do not offer study abroad

opportunities for the students or have students who arenot able to study abroad. In addition, internationalstudents’ financial contributions to both U.S. institutionsof higher education and the U.S. economy are significant.In an analysis prepared for NAFSA, the Association ofInternational Educators, Lynn Schoch and JasonBaumgartner of Indiana University estimated that theycontributed over $11 billion to the U.S. economy throughtuition and living expenses last year.

Regional TrendsEnrollment trends during the time period 1954–1955 to2000–2001 differ greatly by region of the world. Asia hasalways been the leading source of foreign student en-rollments in the United States, with the exception of oneyear, 1979–1980. The percentage of enrollment from Asiahas ranged from a low of 29.7 percent in 1954–1955 toover 55.1 percent in 2000–2001; the highest percentagewas nearly 60 percent (59.4 percent) in 1992–1993. Therehave been very sharp percentage increases since the late1970s and early 1980s, especially beginning in 1983–1984.

In the Americas, the general trend over the years hasbeen a decreasing percentage of enrollments from LatinAmerica, from 24.7 percent in 1954–1955 to 11.6 percentin 2000–2001, with fluctuations throughout the years. Inthe 1970s, the Middle East surpassed Latin America inits number-two ranking; then in the 1990s, Europesurpassed them both. Though actual numbers have beenincreasing over the years, the percentage of enrollmentsfrom North America have, in general, seen steadydeclines, from 13.8 percent in 1954–1955 to 4.7 percentin 2000–2001. There were double-digit percentages from1954–1955 to 1968–1969, but they have been 4 to 5 percentsince 1979–1980.

Percentages of enrollments from Europe havegenerally been in the double digits, in the range of 10 to15 percent, except in the decade from 1974–1975 to 1984–1985. These percentage of enrollment decreases weretaking place simultaneously with increasing Africanenrollments in that same decade. The percentage of totalenrollment each year from Africa was in the double digitsfor a decade, from 1974–1975 to 1984–1985, with the peakin the early 1980s, when enrollments doubled.International students from Oceania have alwaysconstituted less than 2 percent of international studentenrollments; they have for the most part constituted lessthan 1 percent of the foreign student total in the UnitedStates since the 1991–1992. As in the case of NorthAmerica, there have been total number increases, butpercentage decreases, since the early 1980s (1979–1980).

In comparing top regional enrollments from 1954–1955 to 2000–2001, several patterns emerge. In the earlyyears, from 1954–1955 to 1974–1975, Asia was the leading


region of origin, followed by Latin America, which sawits peak in 1954–1955 (24.7 percent). However, theranking changed in 1975–1976. Asia was still the topregion of origin, but the Middle East displaced LatinAmerica as the second-ranked region in the 1970s. Asiahas been the leading region of origin for internationalstudents in the United States, but in 1978–1979, thepercentage of students from the Middle East (26.6percent) grew quite close to that of students from Asia(29.1 percent). In 1979–1980, the Middle East percentage(29.2 percent) surpassed that of Asia (28.6 percent), theonly year that Asia was not the leading region. In 1982–1983, Latin America began catching up to the MiddleEast percentages. In 1987–1988, Latin Americanenrollment percentages (12.5 percent) passed the MiddleEast (6 percent). Since then, it has dropped down inthe rankings as the number-four region, surpassedby Europe in the 1990s, and has seen a steadydecline to almost 6 percent since 1991–1992. In1990–1991, Asia was still ranked the leading regionof origin, followed by Europe, for the first time,and then Latin America. They have remained the topthree regions since then.

The United States continues to be thedestination of choice among interna-tional students.

The Future of International Student FlowsThe United States continues to be the destination ofchoice among international students wishing either topursue or continue higher education abroad. How-ever, the U.S. market share of international studentshas been decreasing from 36.7 percent of the world’stotal enrollment in 1970 to 30.2 percent in 1995. Theproportion of international students studying in theUnited States has decreased by approximately 10 per-cent since the 1980s.

Reasons for this decrease in market share are variedand include internal and external factors. There has beenincreased competition for full-fee-paying internationalstudents from other English-speaking countries,notably the United Kingdom and Australia, whichhave national international education policies andinternational student recruitment strategies in place.While these nations’ total international enrollmentsdo not reach the level of enrollments in the UnitedStates, the international enrollments in these countriesare proportionally much greater, as are the percentageincreases. Compared to the United States, these

countries have a smaller number of institutions andenrollments in total. In addition, a number of countrieshave emerged as regional players in the internationalstudent marketplace that hope to attract a growingnumber of students from within their world region.These countries include, among others, Australia, Japan,Malaysia, and South Africa.

The terrorist attacks of September 11,2001 have impacted international stu-dent flows, but in unexpected ways.

More recently, the terrorist attacks of September 11,2001 have impacted international student flows, but inunexpected ways. Though the final impact on thenumber of students studying in the United Statesremains to be seen until the data are collected andanalyzed for the next Open Doors Report, an initial on-line survey conducted by the institute through its on-line membership network website during a two-weektime period a month after September 11 indicates thatthere was little immediate impact. Contrary to people’sfears that international students would return to theirhome countries in droves after the terrorist attacks, veryfew institutions reported much “negative” activityrelated to September 11. Of the 577 internationaleducators surveyed, 99 percent reported that there waslittle (less than 10 percent) or no change regarding thenumbers of international students returning home.Moreover, 97 percent reported that internationaleducation was equally or more important in theaftermath of September 11.

These findings revealed that the desire to seek aninternational educational experience has not beeneradicated among international students wishing tostudy in the United States and American studentswishing to study abroad, and that it is still consideredan important dimension of education. The events ofSeptember 11 underscored the fact that the world isinterconnected and interdependent. The positiveoutcome of the events was that they created an awarenessof the need to promote better understanding amongpeoples and cultures and to become more internationallyeducated. In this global world, the best way to promotepeace, understanding, and “open minds to the world”is to continue international education—not despite, orin spite of, the events of September 11, but because ofthose events. It is the institute’s hope that the post–September 11 levels of international student enrollmentwill continue to build on the growing trend since 1954–1955.

21

Cuba and the Link betweenEducation and SocialTransformationJesús M. García del PortalJesús M. García del Portal is senior professor of the UNESCO Chair onManagement and Teaching of the Center of Studies for ImprovementHigher Education at the University of Havana, Cuba. CEPES-Universidadde La Habana, Calle 23 N∞ 453 entre H e I. Vedado. C.P. 10400, LaHabana. CUBA. E-mail: <[email protected]>.

This article offers some reflections on Cuban higher edu-cation and attempts to present the key features of theeducational system, especially with regard to the linkbetween education and social transformation.

Post-1959As early as 1962, the reform of higher education hadbecome the most significant development for Cubanuniversi t ies unti l the mid-1970s. The reformidentified the main steps to be taken, anticipatingshort - and medium-term developments andwarning of initial and future contradictions anddifficulties. The reform would serve as a guide forsuccessive transformations.

The changes to the system went beyond thesimple massification of school and university servicesbut were a radical transformation, involving the veryconcept of education and its link with socialtransformation. Among the many contradictions anddifficulties created simultaneously by such a majorundertaking were those involving the students,almost all of whom were first-generation universityattenders; designing a new curriculum; training a newcadre of professors; diversifying academic institutionsand their location; opening up opportunities to theentire student population, to both young and adultstudents; linking training with the needs of the labormarket; and guaranteeing the employment of graduatesby the state.

The last four decades have witnessed a change inthe disc ipl inary dis tr ibut ion of univers i tyenrollments. While in the late 1960s the technical,pedagogical, and medical fields led in enrollments,pedagogy later moved to first place. More recently,the humanities have started to see increasedenrollments. In the future, the humanities willlikely experience a boom—just as the pedagogicaland medical fields did at earlier periods—as part

of a national movement to improve the culturalattainment of people throughout the country.

Current DevelopmentsHigher education in Cuba is going through a period ofqualitative development, as well as a decentralizationprocess. The trend is for academic institutions to becomecenters in which research work will be the foremost sub-stantive function. A network of research centers is beingextended all over the country to equalize provinces withthe large urban areas where the oldest centers are found.Those centers are under the auspices of various govern-ment offices, so that education is not just the responsi-bility of the ministries of education. The fact that theprivilege of scientific activity does not lie within the edu-cation arena alone has helped to promote aggressivedevelopment in such areas as medicine, genetics engi-neering, and biotechnology. Still, this does not imply thatresearch is given higher priority than teaching and edu-cation. Research will be integrated into postgraduatestudies.

Higher education in Cuba will continue to beinvolved with university extension activities, inwhich students and faculty work in communitiesto ensure that academic professionals are still partof economic development at the ground level. Thebulk of the country’s scientific potential is in theuniversities.

Problems and PerspectivesIf academic excellence is to be attained, fundamentalrequirements would be reexamining the undergraduatecurriculum and developing postgraduate programs andscientific research activity—inspired by a willingness todo everything better and a conviction that this is pos-sible as part of a process of ongoing academic self-evalu-ation and adaptation. Beyond the support theuniversities have given to the social transformation ofthe Cuban project, a higher stage of academic achieve-ment must be attained in three fundamental areas: stu-dent access; the missions of teaching, research, andservice; and governance.

Nevertheless, the foundations of the Cubaneducational model: public, free, and secular educationand the professional, ideological, and cultural levelof our graduates are indications of the success of theCuban educational enterprise. The results of somestudies on the professional performance of graduatesand progress in the productive and service sectors,along with certain scientific developments, supportthe position that Cuba has a highly qualified andvaluable labor and cultural potential.


More on the Pseudouniversityand Its ConsequencesThomas J. La BelleThomas J. La Belle is provost and vice president for academic affairs atSan Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Ave, San Francisco,California, 94132. E-mail: <[email protected]>.

This is a follow-up to the exchange in InternationalHigher Education between Altbach (fall 2001) and

Levy (winter 2002) on the pseudouniversity. Altbach ar-gues that it is time to find a new way to refer to andaccredit the mixed bag of institutions calling themselvesuniversities. He especially wants those “pseudos,” op-erating for profit who vocationally “train” students tobe renamed, thereby preserving the title of universityfor those that “teach, do research, and serve the publicgood.” Levy notes that many universities in the worlddo not meet the standards Altbach sets for them and thatit is extremely complex to establish definitions and char-acteristics to differentiate them.

While I agree with much that was said by bothauthors, I think they overlook another dimension of thedifferences—namely that the traditional university isbeing challenged and changed by the pseudos and insome ways the two are not looking so different.

Neither author mentions explicitly the students orthe teaching/learning (not just teaching) process. In the1980s, arguments against the most visible of the pseudos,the University of Phoenix, were not focused on thefaculty, research, or services of the institution. Instead,criticism was leveled at what Altbach might call theemphasis on training and the lack of attention to theeducational process—that is, what constitutes alegitimate campus learning context and on-campuslearning experiences for students.

But the concern with time-on-campus hasovershadowed the need to focus on what happens tostudents during that time—their access to and the sizeof classes, their time with tenure-track faculty, theirsatisfaction with class schedules, and their receipt ofacademic advising. These are the areas where thepseudos are most competitive and where the traditionaluniversities are being challenged.

A second challenge concerns accreditation.Educational outcomes, rather than educational processesexplain the accreditation of Phoenix in the mid-1980s.Once accredited, credentials from Phoenix gainedcredibility, and learning outcomes and accountabilitybecame the dominant indicators for all postsecondaryaccreditation—including the accreditation of traditionaluniversities.

An additional challenge is associated with thecurriculum. The pseudos typically focus on, andstandardize, a few subject areas. They then train facultyto teach the material and deliver the core curriculumwhen and where the students—rather than faculty—want it. This is in contrast to traditional universitycurricula where the courses offered—often as a result offaculty interests—grow and never seem to diminish.

The curriculum in the pseudos is also tailored tomeet licensure, credentialing, and the broader needs ofthe marketplace—certainly a public good—somethingthat traditional academics in the arts and sciencescontinue to believe is a “sell-out” to corporatism. Whilemany traditional universities don’t like the vocationalemphasis of the pseudos, student preference is forcoordinating knowledge and skills with the opportunitystructure.

An additional challenge involves the faculty whoteach at the two types of institutions. Most traditionaluniversities seek to have at least a majority of faculty onthe tenure track and thus limit their dependence ongraduate students and part-time lecturers. In reality,many traditional universities are becoming moredependent on the latter for teaching lower-division andmajor introductory courses and are concerned withgrowing unionization and the accompanyingemployment issues. The pseudos rely primarily on part-timers—usually the same part-timers as the traditionaluniversities. Thus, while it may be the ratio of tenure-track faculty to part-time faculty that distinguishesinstitutional types, it is not the specific faculty per sewho can be used to make such differentiations.

“Profit making” is also not a distinguishing featurebetween universities and the pseudos. If a traditionaluniversity can make money on its “business” of teaching,research, and service, it does so. Because of dwindlingfinancial support, however, it often finds it difficult justto balance its books. Associated with funding there areoften conflicts between policies designed, for example,to keep students enrolled and paying fees as opposed toexpediting their graduation. Fiscal constraints oftenrequire skimping on support for things like advising andremediation, and offering faculty-sponsored electives orsmall seminars.

In sum, whether we like it or not, the issue may notbe what to call an institution that does not present atraditional appearance. Instead, the broader questionmay be how and whether to sustain what has made thetraditional ones the standard bearers, in the face of thechallenges posed by the others.

Reaction and Response

23

Higher Education Research inLatin America: Trends andResourcesAlma Maldonado-MaldonadoAlma Maldonado-Maldonado is a research assistant in the Center forInternational Higher Education, Boston College. Address: CIHE, 207Campion Hall, Boston College, Chestnut Hill MA 02467, USA. E-mail:<[email protected]>.

Approximately half of the students in higher educa-tion today live in the developing world. Therefore,

it is no coincidence that the number of books and re-search centers on higher education is rapidly rising indeveloping countries. This is the case in Latin America,where a significant number of specialists are working onthe problems of higher education institutions in the re-gion. The fact that most of their research output is pub-lished in Spanish complicates the access to theEnglish-speaking academic community. However, theseimportant studies should not be ignored by specialists inthe English-speaking community and other communities.Therefore, this article provides information concerningseveral books recently published in Latin America—spe-cifically, in Argentina, Mexico, and Columbia.

Many differences exist among Latin Americancountries in the development of their higher educationsystems, research infrastructure, and number ofspecialists working on higher education. Thesevariations relate to the number of institutions and thetotal enrollments in higher education as well as factorssuch as academic traditions or national policies.Nevertheless, it may be useful to classify the countriesaccording to the level of institutionalized research onhigher education. Some countries have quite a fewresearch centers, specialists, associations of practitioners,journals, governmental bodies, and established networksof experts. Mexico, Brazil, Chile, and Argentina fall intothis group. Countries in the process of consolidating theirresearch systems include Colombia, Venezuela, andCuba. A group of countries that has made serious effortsto develop more institutionalized research in this field,but are at an early stage of development, includes Bolivia,Ecuador, Costa Rica, and Peru. A final group is comprisedof countries that have not yet developed institutionalizedresearch on higher education—such as the CentralAmerican countries as well as others about whoseresearch systems specialists know very little, such asUruguay and Paraguay.

Another relevant factor concerns the diverse topicsanalyzed in the region, a reflection of the differences thatexist across Latin America. Many of the topics concern

only specific institutions, but others are relevant for themajority of the higher education systems worldwide.

Current LiteratureOrlando, Albornoz. Cuba y China, ¿Son dos opcionesacadémicas para Venezuela? Un ejercicio de educaciónsuperior comparada internacional (Cuba and China: Arethey two academic options for Venezuela? An exercisein comparative international higher education). Caracas,Venezuela: Universidad Central de Venezuela-Facultadde Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, 2000. 345 pp. ISBN:980-00-1659-0. Address: Facultad de CienciasEconómicas y Sociales, UCV, Unidad de publicaciones,Caracas, Venezuela.

Venezuela is one of the countries in Latin Americacurrently experiencing a complicated political andeconomic situation. This is the context in which Albornozpresented his analysis. According to Venezuelan officials,Cuba and China are the two educational models thatVenezuela should follow. Therefore, Albornoz, one of themost well-known researchers on higher education inVenezuela, decided to undertake a comparative analysisof the viability of this idea. Albornoz analyzes the Cubanand Chinese education systems, their characteristics,history, and problems to see what Venezuela can learnfrom these two countries’ experiences. The authordiscusses the real possibilities for its future in theVenezuelan higher education system.

Pablo González Casanova. La universidad necesaria en elsiglo XXI (A university paradigm for the twenty-firstcentury). Mexico: Era, 2001. 167 pp. ISBN: 968-411-512-1. Address: Editorial Era, Calle del Trabajo 31, 14269,Mexico, D.F., Mexico.

González Casanova discusses the relevant issuesconcerning the type of university a society like Mexico’sneeds as it confronts its most pressing national problems.The author addresses the current challenges foruniversities in the context of globalization: finance, therelationship with state and national governments,privatization, and access. He proposes a universitymodel for Mexico that addresses all these issues from ahumanistic, democratic, and critical perspective; this isone of the most important strengths of this text.

Francisco López Segrera and Alma Maldonado-Maldonado, eds. Educación superior latinoamericana yorganismos internacionales. Un análisis crítico (LatinAmerican higher education and internationalorganizations. A critical analysis). Calí: Universidad deSan Buenaventura Cali, 2002. 267 pp. $15 (pb). ISBN:958-95925-4-6. Address: Universidad de SanBuenaventura Cali, La Umbría. Carretera a Pance, A.A.25162 y 7154, Colombia. E-mail: <[email protected]>.


López Segrera and Maldonado have edited acollection of eight different essays analyzing the impactof the report Higher Education in Developing Countries:Peril and Promise (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2000),focusing on Latin American countries. The book includeschapters by authors such as José Joaquín Brunner, CarlosTünnermannn, Axel Didriksson, Roberto Rodríguez, andother specialists, as well as by the editors. The authorsanalyze, from a Latin American perspective, the futureimpact of this report in the implementation of differentpolicies involving higher education institutions. Theessays point out many important topics: the influenceof globalization on higher education, the process ofinstitutional reform, a historical review of World Bankrecommendations, the problems with research, thetrends with regard to curriculum, and the pertinence andfuture of Latin American higher education institutions—all in the context of the main recommendations andconclusions of the document written by the Task Forceon Higher Education and Society.

Renate Marsiske, ed. La universidad de México: Unrecorrido histórico de la época colonial al presente (TheMexican University: A historical journey from colonialtimes to the present). Mexico: Centro de Estudios sobrela Universidad (CESU)-UNAM- Plaza y Valdés Editores,2001. 326 pp. $15 (pb). ISBN: 968-36-9737-2. Address:CESU, Edif. de la Unidad bibliográfica, lado norte delCentro Cultural Universitario, Coyoacán, Mexico, D.F.04510, Mexico. E-mail: <[email protected]>.

This book includes 14 chapters about the history ofthe National Autonomous University of Mexico(UNAM). The authors, 12 researchers at the CESU-UNAM, analyze the different stages in UNAM’shistory—first, as the Royal University, then the Royaland Pontifical University of Mexico, the NationalUniversity of Mexico, the Autonomous University ofMexico, and finally in its current configuration. This bookconstitutes a good source on UNAM and provides animportant interdisciplinary study not only about thisinstitution but about Mexican universities in general.

Javier Mendoza Rojas. Los conflictos de la UNAM en elsiglo XX (UNAM´s conflicts in the 20th century). Mexico:Centro de Estudios sobre la Universidad (CESU)-UNAM-Plaza y Váldes Editores, 2001. 254 pp. $15 (pb).ISBN: 968-36-9485-3. Address: CESU, Edif. de la Unidadbibliográfica, lado norte del Centro CulturalUniversitario, Coyoacán, México, D.F. 04510, México.E-mail: <[email protected]>.

The National Autonomous University of Mexico(UNAM) is one of the largest universities in LatinAmerica and the world. It is also one of the oldest and

most complex institutions of higher education in theregion. UNAM has lived through many importantpolitical conflicts during its history and particularly since1900. The most recent event was the student strike thatstarted in 1999 and ended almost one year later, as aconsequence of the attempt of the authorities to increasetuition. Mendoza Rojas traces the major conflicts thathave arisen at UNAM since its reopening in 1910. Theauthor divides the history of the institution into eightperiods: its creation as an elite institution, the MexicanRevolution, the phase between 1920 and 1940, the“golden on age” of the university, the political andcultural crisis in the 1960s, the populism of the 1970s,the lost decade in the 1980s (when the state no longerconsidered the university a useful social institution forits national project), and the modernization processbegan in the 1990s. For those who are interested inlearning about the most important public university inMexico this book represents an important source.

Approximately half of the studentsin higher education today live in thedeveloping world.

Javier Mendoza Rojas. Transición de la educación superiorcontemporánea en México: de la planeación al EstadoEvaluador (The transition of contemporary higher edu-cation in Mexico: From planning to evaluating State).Mexico: Centro de Estudios sobre la Universidad(CESU)-UNAM-Miguel Ángel Porrúa, 2002. 374 pp. $12(pb). ISBN: 970-701-201-2. Address: CESU, Edif. de laUnidad bibliográfica, lado norte del Centro CulturalUniversitario, Coyoacán, Mexico, D.F. 04510, Mexico. E-mail: <[email protected]>.

The decade of the 1990s is considered the period inwhich significant reforms occurred in Latin Americanhigher education systems. Mendoza Rojas points out thatat the beginning of this decade, a new approach tocoordinating the higher education system was initiated.The traditional role of the state changed, and evaluationbecame the most important policy mechanism, togetherwith market logic, to regulate the development of highereducation institutions. In addition to an analysis of thepolicies implemented during the 1980s, the author presentsa discussion of the main actors, programs, and initiativesthat influenced and regulated higher educationinstitutions. The analysis is centered on the changes startedin the 1990s when the economic crisis forced institutions

25

to modify their policies. A range of evaluation andaccountability procedures were introduced encompassinginstitutions, programs, academics, students, and researchprojects, among other elements. Mendoza Rojas’s bookconstitutes a basic document for understanding thetransformation in the public policies that took place inMexico over the last two decades.

Marcela Mollis. La Universidad argentina en tránsito:Ensayo para jóvenes y no tan jóvenes (The Argentine Uni-versity in transition: An essay for the young and not soyoung). Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica,2001. 145 pp. $7. (pb) ISBN: 950-557-421-5. Address: Fondode Cultura Económica S.A., El Salvador 5665, 1414, BuenosAires, Argentina. E-mail: <[email protected]>.

Every book that focuses on Argentina has acquiredspecial relevance in view of the economic and politicalcrisis that the country is now experiencing. This is the casewith Mollis´s book. The author describes and analyzes theArgentine higher education system and the principaltrends, problems, and transformations that the system hasbeen facing. The text is presented in a very informal waybecause it is addressed to a general audience. In fact, oneof the author’s main purposes is to provide a guide for

young people of college age, to help them in makingdecisions about their educational options and especiallytheir professional future. Mollis discusses the currentprocess of marketization in Argentina from a very criticalpoint of view. Although this book was written prior tothe recent economic crisis in Argentina, it provides arealistic analysis that remains relevant.

Alberto C. Taquini. La transformación de la educación su-perior argentina: De las nuevas universidades a los colegiosuniversitarios (The transformation of Argentine highereducation: From the new universities to traditional col-leges). Buenos Aires: Academia Nacional de Educación,2000. 339 pp. ISBN: 987-9145-10-0. Address: Pacheco deMelo, 2084, 1126 Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Taquini´s book presents an study about Argentinehigher education. The author presents important dataabout the system and some statistics about enrollment,institutions, and programs. The author also discussesthe problems and major trends of the sytem. The bookprovides an analysis of the context for Argentine highereducation, labor market demands, and other issues, suchas decentralization of the system.

News of the Center and the Boston College Program inHigher Education

The Center has received support for a research project on The Past and Future of Asian Universities. Expertsfrom 12 Asian countries will examine past and future trends affecting universities in their countries. Thecountries involved include China, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines, Cambodia, India, Pakistan,Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Cambodia. The research group will meet at Nagoya University in Japan,in December 2002, to discuss their findings, and a book will be published based on this work. The project isundertaken in cooperation with Prof. Toru Umakoshi of Nagoya University, and is supported by the ToyotaFoundation, The Japan Foundation, and the Japanese Ministry of Education.

Work on our major reference handbook on African higher education has been completed and the book willbe published by Indiana University Press at the end of 2002. Copies will be made available without cost to keyresearch institutions in Africa. Damtew Teferra has been the main researcher on this project. Philip G. Altbachspent a month as a visiting professor at the Fondation Nationale d’Etudes Sciences Politique and the Centrede Sociologie des Organisations. While in Paris, he lectured at the OECD, Sciences Po, CSO, and others. DamtewTeferra, Center staff member, is participating in an Africa-focused study of information technology. He recentlyparticipated in a conference on African higher education at the University of Illinois. The Center welcomesRoberta Bassett, Jef Davis, Francesca Purcell, Alma Maldonado-Maldonado, and Robin Matross as graduateassistants for the 2002 fall semester.


NEWPUBLICATIONSChapman, David W. and Ann E.Austin, eds., Higher Education in theDeveloping World: Changing Contextsand Institutional Responses. Westport,Conn.: Greenwood Publishers, 2002.278 pp. (hb). ISBN 0-313-32016-0.Address: Greenwood Publishers, 88Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881,USA.A wide-ranging discussion of highereducation issues in developing andtransitional economies, this bookfocuses broadly on issues ofgovernment-university relations andgovernance. Among the topicsconsidered are privatization inRussia, higher education goals inLaos, autonomy in Brazil, the role ofthe state in Mongolia, the role of theacademic profession in reform inChina, and related topics.

De Wit, Hans. Internationalization ofHigher Education in the United Statesof America and Europe: A Historical,Comparative, and Conceptual Analysis.Westport, Conn.: GreenwoodPublishers, 2002. 270 pp. $70.00 (hb).ISBN 0-313-32075-6. Address:Greenwood Publishers, POB 5007,Westport, CT 06881, USA.A comprehensive analysis of theentire range of internationalization ofhigher education in the United Statesand Europe, this book provides anunprecedented range of topics. Itdiscusses the historical origins ofinternationalization, the variousdefinitions of internationalization,and contemporary themes such asglobalization, the rise of regionalnetworks, and the role of English asa key international language.

Drewry, Henry N. and HumphreyDoermann. Stand and Prosper: PrivateBlack Colleges and Their Students.Princeton, N.J.: Princeton UniversityPress, 2002. 332 pp. $29.95 (hb). ISBN

0-691-04900-9. Address: PrincetonUniversity Press, 41 William St.,Princeton, NJ 08540, USA.Probably the most comprehensiveand thoughtful analysis of America’sblack colleges and universities everwritten, this book includes historicaldiscussion, sociological analysis, andcontemporary consideration. Theunique role of historically blackinstitutions of higher learning is thefocus of this book, which discusseshow this segment of higher educationremains relevant.

Friedland, Martin L. The University ofToronto: A History. Toronto: Universityof Toronto Press, 2002. 764 pp. $60,£45 (hb). ISBN 0-8020-44298. Address:University of Toronto Press, 5201Dufferin St. North York, ON M4Y2W8, Canada.A detailed historical chronology ofCanada’s most important university,this volume provides a completehistorical discussion of thedevelopment of the University ofToronto.

Grendler, Paul F. The Universities of theItalian Renaissance. Baltimore, Md.:Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.591 pp. $49.50 (hb). ISBN 0-8018-6631-6. Address: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, 2715 N. Charles St., Baltimore,MD 21218, USA.A detailed account and analysis of thefirst Western universities, this bookincludes historical sketches of theearly universities—Bologna, Padua,Florence, and others—a discussion ofteaching in the various disciplinesprovided, and consideration of theorganization of the academicinstitutions, student life, and finances.

Guhr, Daniel J. Access to HigherEducation in Germany and California.Frankfurt/M, Germany: Peter Lang,2002. 308 pp. (hb) §45.50. ISBN 0-8204-4708-0.This book compares access to highereducation in Germany and California

between 1970 and 1989 and trackssociocultural and ethnic groups.Policy initiatives, such as affirmativeaction in California, are analyzed.

Gumport, Patricia J. AcademicPathfinders: Knowledge Creation andFeminist Scholarship. Westport, Conn.:Greenwood Publishers, 2002. 197 pp.$64.95 (hb). ISBN 0-313-32096-9.Address: Greenwood Publishers,POB 5007, Westport, CT 06881, USA.An analysis of the emergence offeminist scholarship in the UnitedStates, this book discusses howfeminist thought was embedded intoAmerican universities and analyzesthe key scholars and intellectualtrends in the field as feminism andwomen’s studies became importantparts of academic research anddiscourse.

Huber, Mary Taylor and Sherwyn P.Morreale, eds. Disciplinary Styles in theScholarship of Teaching and Learning.Washington, D.C.: AmericanAssociation for Higher Education,2002. 239 pp. (pb). ISBN 1-56377-052-0. USA.One reform effort in U.S. highereducation is to increase the emphasison teaching as a central element in thescholarly work of the professoriate.This book focuses on the relationshipbetween teaching and scholarship insuch disciplines as English studies,history, communications, sociology,and psychology, among others.

Langan, Elise. The European Union:ERASMUS in Paris. Huntington, N.Y.:Nova Science Pubishers, 2001. 169 pp(hb). ISBN 1-59033-112-5. Address:Nova Science Publishers, 227 MainSt., Huntington, NY 11743, USA.A case study of theinternationalization efforts in Paris,this volume discusses Frenchinternationalization policy for highereducation and examines severaluniversities in the Paris region.

27

Sign up to receive announce-ments regarding new issues of In-ternational Higher Education bysending an e-mail to:[email protected] visit our website at http://www.bc.edu/cihe/

McDonald, William M. et al. CreatingCampus Community. San Francisco:Jossey Bass Publishers, 2002. 200 pp(pb). ISBN 0-7879-5700-3. Address:Jossey Bass Publishers, 989 MarketSt., San Francisco, CA 94103, USA.The focus of this book is on creatinga sense of community amongstudents, faculty, and administratorsin colleges and universities. Casestudies of campus-based programs tofoster community through socialservice and other programs arepresented.

McMillan, Linda A. and Wiliam G.Berberet, eds. New Academic Compact:Revisioning the Relationship BetweenFaculty and Their Institutions. Bolton,Mass: Anker Publishing Co., 2002. 256pp. $39.95 (hb). ISBN 1-882982-44-4.Address: Anker Publishing, POB 249,Bolton, MA 01740, USA.A project of the Associated NewAmerican Colleges, a group of privateuniversities and colleges, the NewAcademic Compact project examinesthe role of the academic profession inchanging circumstances. Among thetopics considered in this book arefaculty workloads, sharedgovernance and the academicprofession, professional developmentacross the academic career, the role ofservice, and others.

McSherry, Corynne. Who OwnsAcademic Work? Battling for Control ofIntellectual Property. Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 2001. 275pp. $29.95 (hb). ISBN 0-674-00629-1.Address: Harvard University Press,79 Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138,USA.Issues relating to intellectual propertyare increasingly central to the futureof modern research universities aswell as to the scholars and scientistswho work in them. This volume,which focuses on how scholars dealwith intellectual property, copyright,plagiarism, and related issues inAmerican universities, has majorimplications for the future of highereducation everywhere.

McVeigh, Brian J. Japanese HigherEducation as Myth. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, 2002. 320 pp. (pb) $25.95.ISBN 0-7656-0925-8. Address: M. E.Sharpe, 80 Business Park Dr.,Armonk, NY 10504, USA.Another critique of the Japanesehigher education system, this bookfocuses on the problems of theexamination system, overly strictcentralized controls, poor teaching,and other issues. The author, ananthropologist, focuses on theexperiences and opinions of students.

O’Brien, George Dennis. The Idea of aCatholic University. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 2002. 336pp $28 (hb). ISBN 0-226-61661-4.Address: University of Chicago Press,1427 E. 60th St., Chicago, IL 60637,USA.This wide-ranging book discusses thephilosophical and historical origins ofCatholic higher education as well asthe contemporary challenges facingAmerican Catholic colleges anduniversities. The author argues for theprimacy of academic freedom in thecontext of religious values, andexplains the university’s role as acenter for critical thought. For thatreason, he is critical of the recentefforts by the Catholic Church toensure loyalty through its document,Ex Corde Ecclesiae.

Onestini, Cesare. Federalism andLänder Autonomy: The HigherEducation Policy Network in the FederalRepublic of Germany. New York:RoutledgeFalmer, 2002. 235 pp. (hb).ISBN 0-415-93359-5. Address:RoutledgeFalmer, 29 W. 35th St., NewYork, NY 10001, USA.A detailed analysis of theorganization of the federal structureof German higher education and howvarious political forces at the stateand national levels impact on highereducation policy, this book providesa thorough overview of Germany’scomplex higher education policyframework. Such specific topics as the

financing of universities, the processof German unification, and others areincluded.

Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development.Lithuania. Paris: OECD, 2002. 276 pp.(pb). ISBN: 92-64-18717-0. Address:Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development, 2 rueAndre-Pascal, 75775 Paris, France.This is one volume of OECD’s usefulseries “Review of Natinal Policies forEducation.” These policy-focusedstudies deal with all sectors ofeducation, but higher education,adult education, distance educationand other aspects of postsecondaryeducation are the ones prominentlydiscussed. Statistical information,description, and analysis are allincluded in the study, which isprepared by a group of internationalexperts with input from localcounterparts. Additional studies inthis series relate to the other Balticnations—Estonia and Latvia. TheOECD has also sponsored similarreviews of OECD member states.

Schier, Tracy and Cynthia Russett,eds. Catholic Women’s Colleges inAmerica. Baltimore, Md.: JohnsHopkins University Press, 2002. 439pp. $45 (hb) ISBN 0-8018-6805-X.Address: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, 2715 N. Charles St., Baltimore,MD 21218, USA.More than 150 American collegeswere founded by nuns to educateCatholic women, of whichapproximately 110 remain inexistence. This book analyzes thehistorical development of thisunderresearched segment of


An Initiative in International Higher Education

ISSN: 1084-0613

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: [email protected] http://www.bc.edu/cihe/

Editor: Philip G. Altbach Assistant Editor: Jef C. Davis

countries. The next ring of the circle is made up of academic institutions in the Catholictradition. Finally, other academic institutions as well as governmental agencies concernedwith higher education may participate in the activities of the Center. All of the Center’spublications are available to a wide audience.

Programs and ResourcesThe Boston College Center for International Higher Education has as its purpose thestimulation of an international consciousness among Jesuit and other institutions con-cerning issues of higher education and the provision of documentation and analysis relat-ing to higher education development. The following activities form the core of the Center’sactivities during its initial period of development:• newsletter,• publication series,• study opportunities,• conferences,• bibliographical and document service, and• networking and information technology.

The Program in Higher EducationThe Program in Higher Education offers masters and doctoral degree study in the fieldof higher education. The Program has been preparing professionals in higher educationfor three decades, and features a rigorous social science–based approach to the study ofhigher education. The Administrative Fellows initiative provides financial assistance aswell as work experience in a variety of administrative settings. Specializations in highereducation administration, student affairs, international higher education, and others areoffered. The Higher Education Program works closely with the Center for InternationalHigher Education. Additional information about the program in Higher Education isavailable from Dr. Karen Arnold, Coordinator, Program in Higher Education, CampionHall, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467. Fax: (617) 552-8422 e-mail:[email protected]. More information about the program—including course descriptionsand degree requirements—can be found online at the program’s WWW site:

http://infoeagle.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/hea/HEA.html

Introduction

The Boston College Center for International Higher Education provides a unique service to colleges and univer-sities worldwide. While it has as its primary aim providing information and publications to colleges and universities related to the

Jesuit tradition, it also has a broader mission to be a focal point for discussion and thoughtful analysis of higher education. The Centerprovides information and analysis for those involved in managing the higher education enterprise internationally through publications,conferences, and the maintenance of a database of individuals and institutions. The Center is especially concerned with creatingdialogue and cooperation among academic institutions in the industrialized nations and those in the developing countries of the ThirdWorld.

The Boston College Center for International Higher Education works in a series of concentric circles. At the core of the enter-prise is the Jesuit community of postsecondary institutions—with special emphasis on the issues that affect institutions in developing

International Higher Education is publishedquarterly by the Center for InternationalHigher Education. We welcome correspon-dence, ideas for articles, and reports. If youwould like to be placed on our mailing list,please write to the editor on your businessletterhead.

Material in this newsletter may be repro-duced. Please cite the original source ofpublication. Opinions expressed here donot necessarily reflect the views of the Cen-ter for International Higher Education.

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION

.American higher education andanalyses the current status ofCatholic women’s colleges.Chapters include case studies ofinstitutions, discussions of thereligious impulses that led to thefounding of the schools, and the roleof the colleges in the broadercontext of American highereducation.

Tierney, William G. and Linda SerraHagedorn, ed. Increasing Access toCollege: Extending Possibilities to AllStudents. Albany, N.Y.: StateUniversity of New York Press, 2002.250 pp. (pb). ISBN 0-7914-5364-2.Address: SUNY Press, 90 State St.,Albany NY 12207, USA.The focus of this book is on theincreasingly important topic of

school-to-college transition, and theaim is to increase access to studentsfrom population groups with lowpostsecondary attendance rates.Programs for preparing students forcollege study are analyzed from theperspective of improving theireffectiveness and contributing togreater access.

Date post:	10-Apr-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

The Boston College Center for International Higher …...1 International Issues INTERNATIONAL HIGHER...

Documents