the boston college center for international higher education › content › dam › files ›...

international higher educationthe boston college center for international higher education

number 58 winter 2010

Branch Campuses and Transnational Higher Education2 Why Branch Campuses May Be Unsustainable

Philip G. Altbach

3 International Branch Campuses: Trends and DirectionsRosa Becker

5 Gulf State Branch CampusesSpencer Witte

6 Transnational Higher Education: Who Benefits?Vik Naidoo

Departments26 New Publications

27 News of the Center

African Developments23 Ethiopia: The Dilemmas of Expansion

Liz Reisberg and Laura E. Rumbley24 South Africa: Enhancing Retention and Success

George Subotzky

China: Trends and Developments

20 In Search of World-Class UniversitiesAnna Smolentseva

22 Divided We Fall: Collaboration StrategiesIgor Chirikov

8 Politics, UNESCO, and Higher EducationAlma Maldonado-Maldonado and Antoni Verger

9 The Future of International Student EnrollmentsMadeleine F. Green and Kimberly Koch

11 Power and University PresidentsAmanda Goodall

12 India: New Directions for Private Higher EducationPawan Agarwal

13 Colombia: Problems and AchievementsLina Uribe

International Issues

Private Perspectives

Russia: Efforts to Reform

15 Undergraduate Teaching Evaluation in ChinaKai Jiang

17 Academic Freedom and Public IntellectualsQiang Zha

18 Institutional DiversificationHubert Ertl and Kai Yu

Why Branch Campuses May BeUnsustainablePhilip G. Altbach

Philip G. Altbach is Monan University Professor and director of theCenter for International Higher Education at Boston College.

Branch campuses are sprouting around the world, likemushrooms after a heavy rain. According to the

Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, the number ofbranch campuses have increased by 43 percent to a total of 162between 2006 and 2009 (See Rosa Becker’s article in thisissue of IHE). Definitions are slippery; the Observatory'sdescription will suffice:

“An international branch campus is an off-shore entity of ahigher education institution operated by the institution orthrough a joint venture in which the institution is a partner(some countries require foreign providers to partner with alocal organization) in the name of the foreign institution.Upon successful completion of the course program, which isfully undertaken at the unit abroad, students are awarded adegree from the foreign institution.”

Many of the growing mushrooms may only hold a limitedlife span and a few might be poisonous. Let us be honest aboutbranch campuses. With a few notable exceptions, they are notreally campuses. They are, rather, small, specialized, and limit-ed academic programs offered offshore to take advantage of aperceived market. Not surprisingly, the most popular pro-grams offered are in business management and informationtechnology—with fairly low setup costs and significant world-wide demand. Except where generous hosts—such as in theArabian Gulf, Singapore, and a few other places—provide facil-ities and infrastructure, branch campuses become rather spar-tan places, resembling office complexes rather than academicinstitutions.

The Future Crisis of the ProfessoriateEnsuring that the professors teaching at branch campusescome from the home university typifies perhaps the greatestproblem of sustainability. It is actually difficult to lure homefaculty to branch campuses for a long period. Thus, courses areoften taught in intensive modules. Without faculty from home,does the branch in fact comprise part of the home institution?Often, branch campuses hire professors who lack an affiliationor experience at the home campus. If the sponsor is anAmerican institution efforts are made to find, as instructors,Americans in the region of the branch or elsewhere and some-times locals who have US experience. Similarly, administratorsand other staff are frequently not from the sponsoring institu-tion.

The ability to attract home campus professors to the branch-es has been undermined. Research-active senior faculty feel

reluctant to leave their work, especially in the sciences. Juniorfaculty worry that overseas teaching will not serve theirchances for promotion. Concerns about the education of chil-dren, employment of spouses, and other family issues alsointervene. Even in cases where additional remuneration andother benefits are offered, it is frequently difficult to lure pro-fessors overseas. The problem is exacerbated over time. Therelatively small number of home-campus faculty willing torelocate is restricted and quickly exhausted.

Replicating the Home CampusBranches typically offer a limited curriculum—generally infields that attract large enrollments, require limited infrastruc-ture, and are relatively inexpensive to teach. Branch campusesseldom reflect the home university in terms of facilities, thebreadth of curriculum, or the experience of studying at thesponsoring institution. As governments, accreditors, overseaspartners, and students become more savvy about their educa-tional goals, they may demand the “real thing” in the branch-es. An interesting case is the University of Liverpool’s joint-

venture campus with Xi'an Jiao Tong University in Suzhou,China. Mainly focused on teaching, Liverpool’s Chinese part-ners have requested that the campus be research focusedbecause Liverpool itself is a research-led university in theUnited Kingdom. It will be difficult for Liverpool to replicatethis in China. With regard to the Johns Hopkins University’smedical program in Singapore, the local authorities did notfeel it was providing the promised goals, resulting in the can-cellation of the program.

Replicating the StudentsFor a branch campus to provide an education equivalent to theform offered at the home university, the student body mustlargely match the one at home in terms of selectivity and qual-ity. Especially for the more prestigious institutions—such asCornell, Liverpool, Monash, and some others—this model willbe difficult to sustain. For the many less-highly ranked institu-tions sponsoring branches, maintaining a branch campus willnot be as problematic. It is questionable even now that mostbranches accept only students who would be qualified at home.These problems will likely become more serious given theincreased competition for the top students in the host coun-tries.

international higher education

branch campuses and transnational higher education2

The most popular programs offered are in businessmanagement and information technology—withfairly low setup costs and significant worldwidedemand.

In some cases, the pool of available students may becomeunpredictable as more branches are developed, and local insti-tutions are inevitably improved. This particularly serious prob-lem will likely infiltrate the Arabian Gulf region, where numer-ous branches have been established and the local and perhapseven the regional student population will have many otheroptions over time. Some of the branches, established generallywith funding from host governments or other agencies, arealready facing enrollment problems, and many are operatingunder capacity.

Changing Local ConditionsThe higher education environment has become fluid in manyparts of the world. Demand for higher education expandedthroughout the developing world, resulting in large numbersof students going overseas to study as well as a significantdemand for branch campuses in countries with inadequatedomestic provision or where the quality of local institutions isperceived as low. In the immediate future, expansion is antici-pated to be strong due to broad demand for access to bothmass and elite institutions. But the longer term is more diffi-cult to predict. Many countries, such as China, are expandinglocal capacity at all levels, and branch campuses may soon beless attractive. India, which has not allowed much foreigninvolvement, may be opening its doors soon. At the same time,local capacity at the top is quite limited. India has announcedplans for significant expansion of its selective institutions,including more Indian Institutes of Technology, which will forthe first time be open to international students. In short, thefuture market for branch campuses is difficult to predict.

Risks and DangersMuch is unclear about branch campuses. Universities estab-lishing them have in general not considered the long-termimplications. Establishing a real branch campus that providesan education the same as at the home institution is not an ini-tially easy task, and it is much more difficult as time goes on.Sustainability should be a central concern when establishing abranch campus, but there is little evidence of such a concept.And the longer-term prospects in the countries where branch-es are being set up remain unclear. Branch campuses may bethe “flavor of the month,” but the pitfalls, with resulting dam-age to academic reputations, financial losses, and of coursepoor service to students, loom as significant prospects.

International Branch Campuses:New Trends and DirectionsRosa Becker

Rosa Becker is senior researcher at the Observatory on Borderless HigherEducation. Address: Woburn House, 20–24 Tavistock Square, LondonWC1H 9HF, UK. E-mail: [email protected]. Web site: www.obhe.ac.uk.The full report, International Branch Campuses: Markets andStrategies, is available to Observatory members athttp://www.obhe.ac.uk/documents/view_details?id=770.

Since 2006 the number of international branch campusesin the world have increased by 43 percent, according to a

new report published by the Observatory on Borderless HigherEducation (OBHE). Branch-campus establishments have alsotaken some new directions.

DefinitionsThere is no universally agreed definition of an internationalbranch campus, and apart from the Observatory’s 2006branch-campus report, no official and comprehensive listappears to include all existing branch campuses in the world orin specific regions around the globe. Both factors make it diffi-cult to analyze and compare emerging trends across countries.

The term international branch campus is used here as an off-shore entity of a higher education institution operated by theinstitution or through a joint venture in which the institutionis a partner (some countries require foreign providers to part-ner with a local organization) in the name of the foreign insti-tution. Upon successful completion of the course program,which is fully undertaken at the unit abroad, students areawarded a degree from the foreign institution.

As distinctions between branch campuses, satellite campus-es, and study centers are blurred, subjective judgment is oftenrequired to conclude whether a certain operation exists. Thetraditional branch campus is characterized by academic andstudent facilities (such as a library, student accommodation,and recreational activities), research facilities, and a range ofcourse offerings. This article, however, also refers to smaller-scale operations that offer at least one full-degree program attheir own independent offices (i.e., not located within a foreignuniversity).

Certain establishments do not fit OBHE’s definition ofbranch campuses. Not included are schools with more thanone institution's courses and those with programs offeredthrough a partner institution or only providing joint and dou-ble degrees; foreign campuses that only offer parts of a degreeprogram; or study-abroad campuses for home students. Alsoexcluded from this article are operations modeled on a foreigncountry's higher education system but without ties to a specif-ic institution (such as the American University of Cairo); andforeign-backed universities, which have been established with-

3


branch campuses and transnational higher education

For a branch campus to provide an educationequivalent to the form offered at the home univer-sity, the student body must largely match the oneat home in terms of selectivity and quality.

in the host country’s higher education system and jurisdictionbut with initial academic support from foreign providers (suchas the Swiss-German University of Indonesia).

Market TrendsSince September 2006, the number of international branchcampuses in the world have increased by 43 percent, to 162,and more source and host countries have become involved inbranch-campus development. Institutions from the UnitedStates continue to dominate, both in the number of establishedoperations and in the campus growth over the past three years.Seventy-eight campuses, the equivalent of 48 percent of all cur-rent international branch campuses, have been set up by USinstitutions. The United States is followed by Australia (14campuses), the United Kingdom (13), and France and India (11campuses, each).

Among the host countries, the United Arab Emirates is theclear leader, hosting 40 international branch campuses, a quar-ter of all such ventures in the world. Two-thirds of these for-eign campuses are located in Dubai International AcademicCity. The prime position among the host countries is largelydriven by a high student demand, coupled with the country’sneed to build a knowledge economy and reduce its dependenceon the export of oil. China is in second position among thehost countries, with 15 campuses, followed by Singapore (12)and Qatar (9), two states whose governments are actively try-ing to establish themselves as “international higher educationhubs” for their region.

Recently, the directions of branch-campus establishmenthave started to change. While only three years ago, “North-to-South” branch-campus development was clearly dominating,“North-to-North” and, particularly, “South-to South” provisionhave increased, with the latter indicating that developing coun-tries are slowly but increasingly establishing their own branchcampuses abroad. The large increase in South-to-South provi-sion is largely due to the improved quality of higher educationprograms in developing countries, coupled with theirincreased ambition to export programs and hopes to generatea profit from these ventures. The relevance and need for pro-grams in countries with similar socioeconomic contexts anddirections of development have also contributed to this growth.

Overall, the international branch-campus market hasbecome more competitive, however, and there have also beenseveral branch-campus closures, reaffirming the need for insti-

tutions to undertake careful market research before deciding tocreate a campus abroad.

SponsorsInternational branch-campus proposals no longer always orig-inate from the providing institutions. Increasingly, branch-campus initiatives have been invited and even financially sup-ported by governments or other organizations in host coun-tries. In the Middle East and Southeast Asia several “interna-tional higher education hubs” have been established, whichoffer favorable conditions for foreign campuses. Countriesproviding support, funding, or infrastructure to foreignproviders have attracted the highest number of new branch-campus establishments. For example, the United ArabEmirates has been able to attract more campuses than anyother country, partly because of its oil wealth, which allows thecountry to set useful funding and support “packages” (such astax-free trade zones) for foreign institutions that establish alocal campus.

Dubai International Academic City, for instance, offers for-eign campuses 100 percent foreign ownership, a 100 percenttax exemption, and a 100 percent repatriation of profits.Foreign campus entry, however, is very restrictive. In Qatar, theQatar Foundation bears all the costs of developing internation-al branch campuses in Education City, including the costs ofbuildings, infrastructure, administrative assistance, and even

staff bonuses. Qatari students at the branch campuses inEducation City are eligible for local government study grants,and students enrolled at the hub’s US branch campuses aregiven the opportunity to “cross-register” by taking a course atUS branch campus A and another course at US branch cam-pus B. In Asia, South Korea's Incheon Free Economic Zonewill likely offer tax incentives and financial support—such as,support toward construction costs or reductions in accommo-dation rent. These conditions can be incentives for foreignproviders.

ConclusionThe fast expansion in the number of international branch cam-puses worldwide is likely to lead to increased global competi-tion for international students, along with several successesand a number of failures. Partly in response to recent branch-campus closures, higher education institutions have becomemore aware of the long-term costs and risks involved in



The traditional branch campus is characterized byacademic and student facilities (such as a library,student accommodation, and recreational activi-ties), research facilities, and a range of course offer-ings.

Among the host countries, the United ArabEmirates is the clear leader, hosting 40 internation-al branch campuses, a quarter of all such venturesin the world.

branch-campus establishment and are more often looking forsponsors and entering into public-private partnerships to shareand reduce such risks.

Gulf State Branch Campuses:Global Student RecruitmentSpencer Witte

Spencer Witte is a recent graduate of the University of Oxford. His master'sdissertation was titled, “Higher Education in the Gulf: America’sUniversities in Qatar and the UAE.” E-mail: [email protected].

As one of the more overt symbols of a perceived movementtoward the Westernization–indeed the Americanization—

of the Gulf tertiary system, incoming New York University-AbuDhabi (opening fall 2010) has naturally drawn comparison tothe six American degree-granting branch campuses presentlyoperating in Doha's Education City. At first glance, the termsof agreement established by the government of Abu Dhabi andthe Qatar Foundation appear similar: both projects are com-prehensively funded and concede full autonomy in decisionmaking to the universities. Standards of admission are osten-sibly maintained, and completion of the requisite curriculumis followed by the provision of degrees indistinguishable fromthose awarded at the home campus. The effort to enroll stu-dents in adequate numbers, however, reveals a significantdivergence in strategy. These differences will carry majorimplications for New York University-Abu Dhabi's integrationinto the social fabric of Abu Dhabi.

Qatar Foundation and Qatari StudentsQatar—much like the other Gulf Cooperation Council states—has long struggled with a central dilemma: how should thediversification of the local economy optimally proceed if it isnecessarily accompanied by an influx of both skilled andunskilled expatriate (non-national) labor. By 1975, just fouryears after independence from Britain, 98,000 of Qatar’s pop-ulation of 158,000 were migrant workers, and South Asianlaborers outnumbered Arabs by a margin of three to one.Education policy has largely been driven by a desire to legiti-mately qualify the national population for work in the growingmixed and private sectors and, in so doing, contribute to atleast the partial reversal of this demographic imbalance.

In accordance with this goal, the Qatar Foundation hasestablished explicit targets for the number of Qataris each ofthe six universities in Education City should aim to enroll. Atpresent, Qataris make up 46 percent of a student populationthat, in any case, is not very large (the classes of 2009 totaled

around 200 graduates). The Qatar Foundation would like tosee these numbers increase. Its strategy to counteract lowenrollment has been multifaceted but mostly local in focus.Since 2001, Education City has played home to the AcademicBridge Program, which provides up to two years of preparato-ry work for students hoping to qualify for otherwise unattain-able Education City admission. To similar ends, Texas A&M-Qatar has developed the Aggie Opportunity Program, a foun-dational scheme that sets standards for provisional acceptanceand effectively increases the number of Qatari students theinstitution admits. Seven of nine Qataris enrolled in this pro-gram in the 2006/07 academic year were later welcomed asfull-time students. Lastly, an outreach to potential applicantshas been directed at the Gulf Cooperation Council states, if notQatar. Georgetown University School of Foreign Services inQatar, for example, made more than 30 visits to Qatari highschools during a five-month span in 2007.

A Divergent StrategyIn working toward an eventual (and much more ambitious)goal of 2,000 undergraduates, New York Univeresity-AbuDhabi has taken a separate approach. The Abu Dhabi govern-ment has not made the enrollment of a desired number ofEmiratis explicit policy, and John Sexton, president of NewYork University, believes that nationals in the United ArabEmirates will likely become only a tiny percentage of the stu-dent population. As such, there is no foundation year program.

Instead, Sexton and the Abu Dhabi branch campus haveramped up admissions requirements. The “global education”offered at the university will attractively combine with unparal-leled financial aid packages. International students, who wouldotherwise attend the Ivies or else New York University’sWashington Square campus, will opt for Gulf-style freshmanorientation. An estimated 40 to 50 percent of the student bodywill be made up of Americans. To help fill the rolls, schoolcounselors from the world’s most elite secondary schools arebeing encouraged to nominate two students for possibleadmission. Recruitment events are taking place in every conti-nent except Antarctica.

Potential ChallengesSimply put, to approach their enrollment goals in Abu Dhabi,an elite university such as New York University must appeal toexpatriates. While in line with the university's hopes for anenhanced international profile, this policy is a departure from

5



Standards of admission are ostensibly maintained,and completion of the requisite curriculum is fol-lowed by the provision of degrees indistinguishablefrom those awarded at the home campus.

Abu Dhabi’s historically ambivalent stance toward its non-national demographic. Relative to Dubai, Abu Dhabi hasleaned on smaller influxes of culturally similar Arab andPakistani workers. A more cautious approach to the diversifi-cation of the local economy has been enabled by Abu Dhabi’smassive oil reserves, over 90 percent of the United ArabEmirates’ total supply. Former United Arab Emirates’ presi-dent, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al-Nahyan, is on record as say-ing that a majority expatriate population would continue topose “a grave problem which threatens the stability of our soci-ety and the prospects for future generations.”

Indeed, these anxieties are reflected in present-day AbuDhabi as well as in the development of the local tertiary educa-tion structure. The government declared 2008 “The Year ofNational Identity,” and apart from the selective pairing withtwo elite branch campuses (Paris Sorbonne University-AbuDhabi being the other), it has only allowed powerful indige-nous families to open its private universities. Prominent exam-ples of this include ALHOSN University (established in 2005with the university slogan, “Global Knowledge with LocalVision”) and Abu Dhabi University (established 2003, with themotto “Universal Knowledge, Timeless Truth”). Admissionsstandards for these universities are relatively low, with the endresult being that Emiratis are able to enroll locally in largenumbers.

Links to the Local EnvironmentIf New York University-Abu Dhabi succeeds it will assuredlybecome the premier tertiary institution in the Gulf region. Yet,in its present form, its enrollment strategy is likely to inspiredynamic tension between the availability of world-class educa-tion—comprehensively funded by the Emirate—and its rela-tive inaccessibility to the local population.

Questions about Education City’s interconnection with therest of Qatari society are common. Its officials and academicadministrators have been sensitive to charges of elitism andisolation, particularly when coupled with an expressed concernthat Qatar University—the institution representing over 90percent of Qataris in tertiary education—is being forgotten.The Qatar Foundation has attempted to counter these accusa-tions with demonstrable links between the branch campuses,the local business community, and the national university. Oneof the major benefits of Education City is understood to be theready supply of experts at the disposal of Qatar University fac-ulty. In short, Education City acts as a long-term, local consul-tancy.

New York University-Abu Dhabi is already making compa-rable inroads—in 2008 inaugurating its Sheikh Mohamed binZayed University Scholars Program with collaboration fromthe Abu Dhabi Education Council. The program identifies ahandful of the most talented upper-year students from theUnited Arab Emirates’ national universities, who then partici-pate in select academic and leadership programming providedby New York University. Given the projected enrollment aimsof the branch campus and some of the cultural unease that per-vades a demographically imbalanced Abu Dhabi, reaching outand expanding tangible links to the community and its existinguniversities will be of paramount importance.

Transnational HigherEducation: Why It Happens andWho Benefits?Vik Naidoo

Vik Naidoo is a strategy adviser to the Enterprise Connect Division of theAustralian Federal Government’s Department of Innovation, Industry,Science and Research. E-mail: [email protected]. He was previouslythe associate director (international relations) at the University ofAuckland, New Zealand. The views expressed in this paper are those of theauthor and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Australian fed-eral government.

Transnational higher education programs have become anincreasingly integral part of the internationalization of

higher education. The students are located in the receivingcountry rather than the source country where the awardinginstitution is based. While not an entirely new phenomenon inthe tertiary education landscape, the scale of the global expan-sion of contemporary transnational developments is substan-tially different. Until my recent article entitled “TransnationalHigher Education: A Stock Take of Current Activity” (Journal ofStudies in International Education, September 2009), an under-standing of the growth of transnational developments waslargely based on anecdotal evidence, given a dearth of compre-hensive statistics. Through an analysis of secondary data, syn-thesizing a range of intelligence scattered around books, aca-demic journals, newspapers, and institutional Web sites, thearticle quantified the scale of contemporary transnational high-er education in mid-2008. This sector involved approximately3,800 to 4,300 programs.

While transnational higher education is not a new phenom-enon, the pace of its global expansion, however, is. This growthhas taken place amidst liberalization of foreign direct invest-ment policies in the education sector. However, foreign direct



Since 2001, Education City has played home to theAcademic Bridge Program, which provides up totwo years of preparatory work for students hopingto qualify for otherwise unattainable EducationCity admission.

investment liberalization is a facilitator of transnational educa-tion, not its catalyst. In the following discussion, four ratio-nales are highlighted to help explain the growth in transation-al higher education. These rationales are derived from researchundertaken by the Organization for Economic Cooperationand Development, Centre for Educational Research andInnovation.

Mutual UnderstandingThe mutual understanding rationale emphasizes academic,cultural, social, and political grounds for the internationaliza-tion of education and does not consider education as part of anarticulated economic policy. Under this concept, the interna-tionalization policies for higher education are based onstrengthening ties between countries through the creation ofnetworks of political and business elites. For example, a num-ber of Spanish institutions, especially Catholic institutions,have apparently developed transnational higher education pro-grams to extend Spanish influence in the developing countriesof Latin America.

Skilled MigrationUnder the skilled migration rationale, internationalization ismeant to attract foreign students who are then encouraged tostay in the source country post graduation and contribute to itsknowledge economy. Germany is a country where the skilledmigration rationale is being employed. This approach is moredevoted to bringing students to the source country rather thantaking transnational programs to receiving countries.However, transnational programs can serve as a feeder strate-gy to facilitate student mobility to the source country (e.g.,twinning programs).

Revenue GenerationThe revenue-generation rationale highlights the market andtrade approach of transnational higher education. It reflectsincome as an important rationale for recruiting internationalstudents. In the United Kingdom, for example, the prime min-ister’s initiative has highlighted offshore education to diversifythe export of education services, which currently focuses pri-marily on student mobility. Similarly, some traditional receiv-ing countries have, in recent years, shown an interest in devel-oping their transnational delivery to take advantage of theexport revenues thus provided to the internationalization ofeducation. Singapore is a key example of this strategy.

Capacity BuildingLastly, the capacity development rationale views transnationalhigher education as a means of fulfilling the unmet demandfor education from local constituents and building capacityand capability for quality education. This rationale is especial-ly important in countries such as Malaysia, where the higher

education system does not meet domestic demand for highereducation.

The Possible BenefitsThese four rationales for the growth of transnational highereducation are not mutually exclusive. For example, a sourcecountry might benefit from revenue generation, while thereceiving country is promoted through capacity and capabilitybuilding. In both the popular media as well as academic litera-ture, transnational higher education has received much criti-cism regarding its benefits largely accruing to source coun-tries, to the detriment of receiving countries. In other words,these programs have often been referred to as a North/South(developed countries/developing countries) or West/East phe-nomenon. Given the mutually nonexclusive aspect of the dif-ferent rationales, there is a danger in analyzing transnationalhigher education through such North/South polarized lenses.Instead, a more balanced debate needs to be highlighted toconsider that the impacts of transnational higher educationmay be wide-ranging and accrue to both receiving and sourcecountries.

Such a balanced debate would present a more positive pic-ture of transnational higher education, although it needs to beacknowledged that developments are not risk free. For exam-ple, providers who are just profit minded and not concernedabout the delivery of quality programs, will undermine thebenefits as a capacity and capability instrument. However,providers can be controlled through proper management andgovernance of regulatory mechanisms. Disregarding alltransnational developments at the outset because of theserogue providers would be an injustice to the benefits that prop-erly implemented programs can deliver. The case of Singaporeand Malaysia are good examples in this respect. Not all coun-tries, however, have the same level of regulatory power asSingapore and Malaysia to manage the growth of transnation-al developments. Countries with a lack of regulatory capacityand enforcement may need to reinforce their institutions whenengaging with such programs. Thus, while uncontrolled devel-opments do have their dangers, the exercise of regulatoryframeworks can minimize these risks. Both the popular pressand the academic community share a responsibility to repre-sent a more balanced debate on the issue of who benefits fromtransnational higher education.

7



Under the skilled migration rationale, internation-alization is meant to attract foreign students whoare then encouraged to stay in the source countrypost graduation and contribute to its knowledgeeconomy.

Politics, UNESCO, and HigherEducation: A Case StudyAlma Maldonado-Maldonado and Antoni Verger

Alma Maldonado-Maldonado is assistant professor at the Center for theStudy of Higher Education, University of Arizona. E-mail:[email protected]. Antoni Verger is lecturer and postdoctoralresearcher at AMIDSt, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. E-mail:[email protected].

On Wednesday, July 8, 2009, at 5:00 pm (Paris time), theWorld Conference on Higher Education steering-commit-

tee chairperson read the conference’s final communiqué. Theentire assembly of 199 United Nations Educational, Scientific,and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) member countries,approved it by consensus and with acclamations. The chairper-son reported that 20 observers followed the drafting commit-tee’s work. Two of these observers are the authors of this arti-cle, offering a behind-the-scenes account of the events thatoccurred before the final communiqué’s presentation. In con-trast to the general calm atmosphere predominating duringthe conference sessions, the drafting process was notable forpassionate debates and tense negotiations among members, asthey worked to craft the final document.

The 1998 UNESCO World Conference on HigherEducation agreed on a very relevant final declaration thathelped to generate common understandings at the global levelon the definition of higher education and the main challengesto be faced by governments and stakeholders. Because of this,we think it is important to detail the content and the “politicsof higher education” behind the redaction of the second WorldConference on Higher Education’s final communiqué(http://www.unesco.org/en/wche2009/resources/conference-documents/).

Drafting ProcessBefore the world conference, a series of regional conferenceswere convened. Each of the regional conferences’ final declara-tions served as the main input for the final communiqué’s firstdraft presented to the drafting committee. The committeeincluded 17 UNESCO member states (Germany, France, theUnited States, Venezuela, India, Brazil, Jamaica, Romania,Azerbaijan, Pakistan, Madagascar, RD Congo, Morocco, SouthAfrica, China, Palestine, and Sudan), the chairperson (fromRussia), one UNESCO representative, four higher educationexperts, three stakeholders (International Association ofUniversities, Education International, and European Students’Union), two general rapporteurs, and three drafters.

Five meetings, over three days, were scheduled to draft thefinal document. The first day’s two meetings were spent dis-cussing the drafting committee’s general procedures. On thesecond day, content discussions began. Two meetings were

held that day, the first one at noon and the second one in theevening. The latter started at 7:30 pm and ended after 2 am.Undoubtedly, this was the most intense drafting-process day.

Three Contentious IssuesDuring the drafting process, most of the political discussionconcerned the following issues, although not exclusively.

Defining higher education. The most complicated issue toreach agreement involved defining higher education’s mean-ing. The first draft stated: “Higher education plays an impor-tant role in nation-building. Higher education as a public goodmust be a matter of responsibility of all governments.” Therevised final communiqué states: “Higher education as a pub-lic good and a strategic imperative for all levels of educationand as the basis for research, innovation, and creativity mustbe a matter of responsibility and economic support of all gov-ernments.” Between the first and final drafts, middle-stageiterations included: “Higher education is a social public goodand a human right” (3rd draft) to more market-driven concep-tions of higher education as a “public service” (5th draft). TheLatin American countries strongly advocated the 3rd-draftwording, while the United States was reluctant to accept theuse of the “public-good” category. Extended negotiations werenecessary to resolve this major disagreement. On the confer-ence’s last day, India’s and Brazil’s representatives negotiatedwith the United States to accept the use of “public good.” It isunclear exactly what was negotiated, but it may have been theelimination of the paragraph on the General Agreement onTrade in Services (GATS), as shown below. For the UnitedStates, the use of the adverb “as” was more acceptable than theverb “to be” (higher education is a public good). Even so, thefinal wording might still be perceived as too problematic forsome countries, such as the United States itself, that supporthigher levels of market intervention in the field.

GATS and trade in higher education. The GATS debate con-sumed a lot of time during the drafting process. The first draftstated: “Trade in services is a manifestation of globalizationthat has caused great concern in the academic community; inparticular with GATS under the WTO (World TradeOrganization). Member states should not consider higher edu-cation as a commercial transaction. . . .” Again, the discussioncentered on disagreement between the United States and LatinAmerican countries. The latter pushed for keeping this pointin the communiqué, as it could strengthen their position onhigher education as a public good. But the United States wasopposed to its inclusion, arguing that UNESCO is not the


international issues8

On the conference’s last day, India’s and Brazil’srepresentatives negotiated with the United Statesto accept the use of “public good.”

forum to discuss GATS, and that the global market of highereducation can coexist with a more state-driven sector.

Romania also backed the United States, arguing thatRomanians have already liberalized higher education usingGATS. As a consequence, Romanians felt that it would beunreasonable to accept the content of this paragraph whentheir behavior in the context of the WTO/GATS is the opposite.After a long and normative discussion on whether educationshould or should not be considered a commodity, Brazil andVenezuela, surprisingly, accepted the deletion of the paragraphin its entirety. As a result, the final communiqué contains nomention of GATS.

Worldwide university rankings. The initial draft stated:“Globalization has also increased the pressure to make com-parisons between higher education institutions, resulting inthe emergence of international rankings. Such comparisonsshould promote institutional diversity by including a range ofcriteria that reflect the variety of goals and purposes of differ-ent systems, institutions, and institution types. . . .” By the sec-ond draft, the paragraph had been revised to read:“Comparisons, in order to be useful, must be based on qualitydata and appropriate analysis reflecting the diversity of systemsand institutional missions.” The word “ranking” had disap-peared from this draft and was never included again. TheIndian representative strongly and repeatedly requested elimi-nation of the ranking concept from the communiqué. Neverclear were the objections on the use of this term. The maindebates involved the “solution” based on rather erasing the top-ics that had strong opposition than continuing to discussthem.

Final ResultsThe final draft needed to be approved by the third day. Timepressures, exhaustion, and last-minute negotiations in the cor-ridors had a combined effect in reaching this objective. As aconsequence, certain contentious topics were resolved (or“unresolved”) by simply deleting them from the document(i.e., discussions involving GATS and rankings). Another fac-tor induced countries to reach consensus: No one wanted tostall the drafting process and, as a consequence, be singled outas being responsible for the failure of the conference.

In total, six drafts were necessary to compose the final com-muniqué and a lot of negotiations and frame-bridging to satis-fy all the interests and ideas involved, which included progres-

sive demands (represented by the Latin American countries)and strong promarket statements (specifically pushed by theUnited States). In the Latin American case, this position findsan explanation in the current wave of left-wing governments inthe region that push for a bigger presence of the state in theprovision of a range of public services—higher educationamong them. In the US case, the influence of the new admin-istration has not been reflected in changes on the traditionalcountry's positions in UNESCO. The result of these tensionsfor the World Conference on Higher Education was a protract-ed yet fragmented communiqué that, in our opinion, does nottransmit a clear and coherent message to the higher educationinternational community. It is still too soon, however, to judgeits political relevance. In the meantime, we hope that theseinsider notes contribute to explaining the form and the con-tent, but especially, the omissions pertaining to the 2009 finalcommuniqué.

The Future of InternationalPostsecondary StudentEnrollmentsMadeleine F. Green and Kimberly Koch

Madeleine F. Green is vice president for international initiatives at theAmerican Council on Education, Washington, DC; Kimberly Koch is formerprogram associate at ACE. E-mail: [email protected].

According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, andCultural Organization, there were an estimated 2.8 mil-

lion internationally mobile students worldwide, up from 1.8million in 1999. UNESCO defines an international student asone who crossed his or her national border to pursue an edu-cation and excludes students who are in a program for lessthan one year.

Governments and higher education institutions support therecruitment and enrollment of international students for avariety of reasons, including income generation, cultural diplo-macy, promoting innovation and productivity by gainingaccess to talent, and promoting campus internationalization.Although the number of students seeking education abroad isgrowing and is likely to continue doing so, the competition forinternational students is fierce.

We examine international student enrollments in postsec-ondary education in the top-five receiving countries—theUnited States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, andAustralia—summarizing the efforts of these nations to attractthese students and the factors that will influence future trends.

9


international issues

The result of these tensions for the WorldConference on Higher Education was a protractedyet fragmented communiqué that, in our opinion,does not transmit a clear and coherent message tothe higher education international community.

The Top-Five Receiving CountriesIn 2006/07, the United States had the largest number(595,874) and share (20%) of international students. (TheUNESCO count differs from the commonly cited Institute ofInternational Education figures because of definitional differ-ences.) The United Kingdom hosted 351,470, or 13 percent, ofall international students. France and Germany each hosted246,612 and 206,875 students, respectively, or about 8 per-cent. Australia enrolled 211,526 international students, or 7percent.

This snapshot, however, tells only part of the story.Australia’s international students comprise 17 percent of totalAustralian enrollments, compared to 3 percent in the UnitedStates. Additionally, Australia’s 2007 international studentenrollment grew by 15 percent from the previous year and con-stitutes the country's third-largest export industry. Foreignenrollments constitute 14 percent of the UK student popula-tion and about 11 percent in France and Germany. When inter-national students are viewed as proportion of total studentenrollment in the country, their impact becomes evident.

Recruiting StrategiesAll of the countries except the United States have launchednational recruiting campaigns; all host central Web sites. Theybrand their efforts with slogans such as “Choose France,”Australia’s “Live, Learn and Grow,” the United Kingdom’s“Innovative, Individual, Inspirational,” and Germany’s “Landof Ideas.” Each country has a governmental or quasi-govern-mental organization that provides information and varying lev-els of marketing activities. Germany's DAAD (German

Academic Exchange Service), an intermediary organizationbetween higher education institutions and government, has64 offices worldwide. The UK government has set national tar-gets for international student enrollments, and the BritishCouncil, with offices in more than 100 countries, plays a mar-keting role. CampusFrance, launched in 2006 to replaceEduFrance, has 100 offices in 75 countries. Australia hasrecently launched a A$2.8 million drive to support internation-al education, focusing on six major Asian target countries.Australia Education International—the international arm ofthe government's Department of Education, Employment, andWorkplace Relations—has 25 offices in 17 countries. TheUnited States lacks a coordinated national strategy; individualinstitutions bear the major responsibility for recruitment. TheUS Department of State maintains a Web site and providesoutreach through its 450 advising centers in US embassies.

Visa PoliciesThe ease and expense of obtaining a visa are important factorsin a country’s ability to attract international students. US inter-national student enrollments dropped after the events ofSeptember 11, 2001. Students experienced delays in obtainingvisas in the immediate aftermath, and the requirement for apersonal interview at the embassy adds time and expense tothe application process. In 2009, the United Kingdom institut-ed a new points-based system; implementation problems havebeen cited in the press. Australia has made it possible for stu-dents to work for up to 20 hours per week under their studentvisa but, at the same time, have tightened policies enabling stu-dents to become permanent residents after their studies.Australia and the United States have the highest entry/visafees—US$427 and A$331, respectively. Germany and Francehave the lowest, at US$86 and US$70, with France chargingan extra fee for a residence permit.Scholarships

All five countries offer scholarships for international students.Available information suggests that Australia, the UnitedKingdom, Germany, and France are making considerableinvestments relative to the size of their higher education sys-tems. The largest US effort, the Fulbright Foreign Student pro-grams provide 3,200 scholarships (US$95 million.) TheUnited Kingdom offers 1,885 Chevening scholarships (US$48million). Australia's largest program provides 1,000Development Scholarships (US$85 million). France andGermany each provide a total of approximately EUR 100 mil-lion (US$150 million) in scholarships.

ConclusionMany factors will shape the future distribution of internation-ally mobile students, including the attractiveness and quality ofthe educational opportunities in the receiving country, the suc-cess of a coordinated national strategy to recruit internationalstudents, and the relative ease of applying to institutions andof obtaining a visa. Additionally, there are new competitors onthe horizon—including China, Malaysia, Japan, Singapore, theGulf States, countries seeking to become centers of excellenceand regional hubs. The growing trend of offshore educationenables students to stay in their home countries or regions andreceive a foreign education. This option may become increas-ingly attractive in light of greatly reduced costs to students andthe attractiveness to governments that wish to avoid braindrain. It is not at all evident that the past will predict the future.


international issues10

There are new competitors on the horizon—includ-ing China, Malaysia, Japan, Singapore, the GulfStates, countries seeking to become centers of excel-lence and regional hubs.

All of the countries except the United States havelaunched national recruiting campaigns; all hostcentral Web sites.

Power and UniversityPresidentsAmanda Goodall

Amanda Goodall is the Leverhulme Fellow, Warwick Business School,University of Warwick, UK. E-mail: [email protected]. Thisarticle relates to the author's book Socrates in the Boardroom: WhyResearch Universities Should be Led by Top Scholars, published byPrinceton University Press.

The question of who should lead research universities hasbeen the focus of my work: should they be individuals who

are essentially good managers, or are good scholars moredesirable? In several IHE articles (in 2006 and 2007) I havestated, using statistical evidence, that as presidents top schol-ars improve the performance of research universities. Drawingfrom interviews with university leaders, I have raised four pos-sible explanations for the empirical patterns. First, a president(vice chancellor, rector, principal) who is a distinguished schol-ar will essentially understand the core business of a universi-ty—that of research and teaching. The scholar-leaders will like-ly demand higher academic standards, and their appointmentmay also signal a university's priorities. Finally, they will havegreater credibility among their academic peers.

Presidents and University StrategyUniversity presidents in the United States and UnitedKingdom were asked how much power each leader had inorder to undertake certain tasks—for example, to design uni-versity strategy or hire top-team members. A total of 19 presi-dents were interviewed from the University of Pennsylvania,Harvard, Rockefeller University, Cornell, Oxford, LondonSchool of Economics and Political Science, Imperial CollegeLondon, University of Manchester, and University ofSouthampton, among others.

In response to the question “whose role do you believe it isto write or construct the strategy for the university?” the degreeof congruence was striking. With little or no hesitation, mostof the leaders stated that it was the responsibility of the presi-dent or vice chancellor to set the direction of a university. Thegeneral feeling was that the president is the only person whocan ask “Where are we going? What is our strategy?” Debatesemerge, it was suggested, out of the top team, but the goal tofinally determine an area of strategy remained with the head.Common among interviewees was the belief that if decisionmaking is devolved too far down, leaders lose control, particu-larly regarding the academic direction.

Committees tend to have greater authority in European uni-versities than those in the United States. However, as was evi-dent from the interviews, UK vice chancellors are beginning totake away certain rights. The British heads stressed the leader'sresponsibility as differentiated from that of committees, argu-

ing that it is the vice chancellor's role to form university strat-egy and then to get it approved, not the job of any committee.

A number of authors have argued that presidents needpower if they are to successfully lead a university. Similarly, aninstitution that has too much “democracy” can become impo-tent. The decline of many European universities is attributedpartially to their diffused decision-making processes—specifi-cally, decision making by elected committees. Political scien-tists may refer to “tyranny of the majority.” The form of con-sensus decision making that can exist in European universitiesprotects the status quo and curtails the actions of leaders,thereby reducing the likelihood of change. In fact, some schol-ars have suggested that university presidents with possibly themost direct powers reside at some of the best schools in theworld—for example, Ivy League institutions, Stanford, andCalifornia Institute of Technology. Seemingly, leaders areappointed to make decisions, direct the institution, and takethe fall when things do not work out. This explains why theytend to receive the highest salary in their organizations. If gov-ernance mechanisms are functioning properly, powerful headsbenefit universities

Selecting the Top-Management TeamAnother of the powers bestowed on university heads concernsthe right to hire top-team members. These powers do exist forUS presidents. There are a number of tiers of leadership inresearch universities. Below presidents are provosts, pro–vicechancellors and other deputy heads, senior administrativestaff, and leaders of key strategic units—such as deans ofschools or faculties. For a leader to execute strategies andextend his or her influence, it matters who is selected asprovosts and pro–vice chancellors. It is normal for universitypresidents at American institutions to choose top-team mem-bers and make other important hires. But this practice is lessestablished in the United Kingdom and even rarer in Europe.

Almost all of the 12 UK vice chancellors interviewed com-plained that they first needed to change or adapt the selectionprocess, before hiring their own choice of top-team members.For some of these leaders this procedure was slow andinvolved a great deal of negotiation. One UK head protestedthat his actions had been blocked by incumbent pro–vice chan-cellors for two years, until their terms were completed. At hisinstitution pro–vice chancellors were appointed by the senate,which had 200 members. This style of selection was commonin the United Kingdom, but many of the interviewed leadershad started to flex their muscles. Some UK heads negotiatedthe power to hire top-team members as part of their contract.This was true in the case of an experienced leader who was

11


international issues

The scholar-leaders will likely demand higher aca-demic standards, and their appointment may alsosignal a university's priorities.

asked to take over the reins of a weak and struggling universi-ty and introduced a new pro–vice chancellor, chief operatingofficer, and registrar, among others. One leader threatened toresign unless powers to select top-team members were trans-ferred exclusively to the vice chancellor.

Collegiality does not necessarily mean that everyone makesdecisions. This assertiveness by British heads is quite recent.Thus, at UK research universities, power to select top manage-ment teams is slowly following the US policy. In the UnitedKingdom, it is more common for heads of new universities(those established from polytechnics after 1992) to have directpowers to hire top-team members.

The traditional and largely continuing European approachinvolves appointment through a process of faculty elections.This practice has been criticized because, again, it substantial-ly weakens presidential powers, inhibits organizationalchange, and favors the status quo. One former and very expe-rienced US dean said he was strongly opposed to faculty mak-ing the selection of provosts or presidents, and he went on tosay, “I am against the notion of democracy.” This is noteworthybecause many academics construe universities to be collegialand therefore nonhierarchical, with democratic decision-mak-ing structures. This former US dean argued that universitiesare at least as hierarchical as the military, and our obsessivelabeling would imply this is the case (“Professor Dr Dr” is notan uncommon title in Germany).

Leaders do need power. The executive powers given to uni-versity presidents in the United States extend far beyond thoseconferred on European rectors, although vice chancellors inthe United Kingdom are becoming more assertive. The world'soutstanding research universities are located in the UnitedStates. These top institutions outperform their European coun-terparts. Presidents having adequate clout in meritocraticorganizations may explain some of this difference.

A New Direction for PrivateHigher Education in IndiaPawan Agarwal

Pawan Agarwal is a senior civil servant in the Government of West Bengal,India and author of Indian Higher Education: Envisioning the Future(Sage, 2009). The views expressed here are personal. E-mail:[email protected].

In India private higher education accounts for more than athird of overall enrollment and about four-fifths of enroll-

ment in professional higher education. Although the countryhas a long history of institutions entirely funded through pri-vate initiatives, frantic growth of private institutions is a recent

phenomenon. Currently, the established private institutionsare consolidating their positions and gain scale by setting upnew campuses, establishing new programs, and expandinginto new geographies. As a result, chains of private institutionsare emerging.

While earlier a few trusts and philanthropic societies withbroad representation of a community or a religious group usedto set up such institutions, now most of such chains are fami-ly owned. Rather than being on the fringes, these new estab-lishments are in mainstream higher education and distinctfrom chains of training centers built for instance by theNational Institute of Information Technologies that achievedscale in the information technology training segment throughits innovative model of franchising. Most of the chains hadmodest beginnings (with a few students graduating from theschool to the higher education sector) and grew over time. Andnow all of them are onto major expansion spree.

Earlier InitiativesThe Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani is one ofthe oldest and perhaps the most prestigious of these chainsand has retained its leadership through differentiated pro-grams and strong industry linkages. It started in the early1900s as a small school and blossomed into a set of collegesfor a wide range of subjects ranging from humanities to engi-neering until 1964, when these colleges were amalgamatedinto a private university. By setting up campuses at Goa andHyderabad in India and at Dubai abroad, the Birla Institute isnow a multicampus university with about 9,000 students and19,000 students enrolled in off-campus work-integrated pro-grams.

The Manipal Education Group, with Manipal University asits flagship, is a leading player in professional education anddistance learning in the country today. The group started witha medical college in 1953 and now has 24 colleges with anenrollment of over 80,000, in a range of subjects at all levels—making Manipal, a nondescript small town on the south coast,a major higher education hub. From its initial narrow focus onengineering and medical programs, it now offers programs inhumanities and social sciences. The group was early to recog-nize the global opportunity and effectively leveraged its brandequity and experience for international expansion. It is spend-ing US$90 million to upgrade its Manipal facilities and settingup four campuses, investing about US$25 to 30 million oneach campus in India. To consolidate its overseas presence inNepal, Malaysia, and Dubai, the group acquired the entire


private perspectives12

In India private higher education accounts for morethan a third of overall enrollment and about four-fifths of enrollment in professional higher educa-tion.

stake of American University of Antigua and entered theCaribbean medical market in 2008 and soon plans to enterOman, Indonesia, and Vietnam. The group’s internationaloperations contribute to more than 50 percent of its revenue.

From targeting foreign students when it began, the Pune-based Symbiosis that started in 1971 has 33 institutions in 9campuses, enrolling 45,000 students on campus and 100,000students in distance-learning programs. It was granteddeemed-university status in 2002. In recognition of the factthat it enrolls students from over 60 countries, the institutionrenamed itself as the Symbiosis International University in2006. The Apeejay Education Society, which started withschools about 40 years ago and later expanded into higher edu-cation, has 13 institutions of higher education enrolling 32,000students in 80 courses across the country.New InitiativesThe Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India (ICFAI)was established in 1984 to impart training in finance and man-agement to students, working executives and professionals,and the CFA Program (popular abroad) in 1985. It now hasseven private universities in Uttarakhand, Tripura, Sikkim,Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, and Jharkhand under its fold,and another three are planned in Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, andPunjab. Each university is a separate and independent legalentity and offers programs at bachelor's and master's levels ata full-time campus and through flexible learning formats in awide range of subjects. Though a late entrant, the ICFAI uni-versities have now become the largest chain of universitieswith pan-India presence, enrolling several hundred thousandstudents.

Amity University, which started just a decade ago, has twouniversities and 70 institutions that cater to 50,000 studentsin 130 different programs, from sciences to humanities tomedia. It has spent around US$220 million so far, plans toinvest around $450 million in the next two to three years andto increase the student intake to 500,000 in the next five years.It claims to have consistently grown at 50 percent annually forthe past five years and plans to double every year now—both interms of student intake and revenues.

Coimbatore-based PSG Group, which has 10 colleges withan enrollment of 16,992 students, expects to establish a uni-versity soon. The Bengaluru-based Jain Group has 21 educa-tion institutions with an aggregate enrollment of 16,400 stu-dents and 1,750 employees and plans 100 colleges within thenext 10 years.

In each state or region, new chains of institutions areemerging. Even the states that were laggard in private profes-sional education have embraced private growth for pragmaticreasons. West Bengal has the Techno-India Group, with 14 pro-fessional institutions including institutions at Mumbai, Delhi,and Bengaluru under its fold.

Future of Private Chains The operation of private institutions tied together in a chain isdictated by operational efficiency and marketing strategy. Suchinstitutions are put together under one brand name. This isnot just a marketing ploy but also a strategy that declares theirproduct is working and can now be offered, through institu-tional cloning, to populations that cannot reach the initialplaces.

Though only some of the multiple sites may have someautonomy, the core idea is a rather standard package for cur-riculum, pedagogy, hiring, and admissions to attain higheroperational efficiency. As the chains expand nationally, theytend to use an operational management framework for gener-al business organizations by adopting standardized processes.

In such institutions the main source of funding—both tomeet recurrent costs and capital costs for expansion—comelargely from fees. Due to economies of scale and growingdemand, they are able to generate huge surpluses from theiroperations. Most of the revenues are ploughed back in expan-sion and consolidation since the Indian tax laws bind the non-profits to reinvest rather than share their surplus among pro-moters. As a result, such chains of institutions would keep onexpanding and would be a force to reckon with in the Indianhigher education in the times to come.

Private Higher Education inColombia: Problems andAchievementsLina Uribe

Lina Uribe is a doctoral research associate in the Program for Research onPrivate Higher Education, at the University at Albany, State University ofNew York and the rector of the Institución Universitaria de Comfacauca inColombia. E-mail: [email protected].

IHE devotes a column in each issue to a contribution fromPROPHE, the Program for Research on Private HigherEducation, headquartered at the University at Albany. Seehttp://www.albany.edu/.

Within the Latin American context, Colombia has longbeen a country leader in diversified private higher educa-

tion development. In fact, during its history Colombian highereducation has had as much as a 68 percent private sector, his-torically paralleled only by Brazil and in recent decades byChile. The private institutions became Colombia's majoritysector in 1975, but already during the 1960s this part of thesystem was striking for its size. Today, private enrollment rep-resents almost half of total national enrollment. A decline from

13


private perspectives

1997 to 2007 may be only short term as the Ministry ofEducation data show private growth outpacing public growthin 2008.

Private institutions are much more than twice the numberof public ones, 197 out of the total 279 officially registered.These institutions are characterized by enormous diversity insize, objectives, and levels. This trend has assisted increasedaccess for the low-income population and the fulfillment ofvarious functions and goals. Nevertheless, quality has becomea concern notably in a system that relies so much on the pri-vate sector. Whatever the mix of problems and achievementsexplored below, the significant weight of Colombia's privatesector should first be understood as owing much to broadpolitical-historical tendencies and public policies.

Secular and Religious InitiativesColombian higher education was first influenced by the educa-tional culture inherited from Spain. The first universities inColombia were mainly private, basically more than in othercolonies; they were founded by Catholic orders, while becom-ing more controlled by the Spanish crown during the late colo-nial period. Some of these leading institutions are today'sUniversidad de Santo Tomás (1580), the Universidad PontificiaJaveriana (1623), and the Universidad del Rosario (1653).

As the liberators fought for national independence, they cre-ated national public universities to promote the consolidationof the republic. However, private initiatives also expanded,whether by partisan enterprises amid the struggles to steer thenew state or by intellectuals who advocated secular, nonreli-gious, and apolitical institutions. Whereas conservative leaderswere likely to give to the Church a fundamental role in educa-tion, liberals reacted to conservatism by creating new secularhigher education institutions.

In the second half of the 20th century, private higher educa-tion expanded from a system exclusively for the elite to oneaccommodating part of the increased demand of middle class-es. Colombia became a Latin American leader in the numberof nonelite institutions.

State Promotion of the Private SectorExpansion and diversity have also been promoted by policy ini-tiatives. Given the financial concerns against greatly enlargingthe public sector, the Colombian government supports privatehigher education’s ability to absorb the demand in both univer-sities and nonuniversity institutions. Indeed, for decades, themajor “public policy” for the expansion of private higher edu-cation was simply a lack of investment to expand public high-er education.

An analysis of the latest reforms suggests that Colombianpublic policy has become more proactive and, albeit belatedly,concerned with academic quality. Along with a complex quali-ty-assurance system adopted since 2001, the government hasdeveloped tools to stimulate the private initiative in open com-petition for public funds, by supporting projects to increasequality while achieving enrollment goals. Due to the recentnature of those policies, whether they can effectively addressstructural quality problems in the lowest-layer institutionsremains to be seen.

Institutional Diversity, Massification, and QualityAbout 15 percent of Colombian private universities are found-ed by religious communities, but the system also shows indus-try-tied and intellectual enterprises in the founding of privateinstitutions by origin. Many private nonelite institutions arefamily owned, with a critical ambivalence between the desirefor economical earnings and the Colombian legislation thatdisallows for-profit forms. The practices of some family mem-bers for financial gains through positions and high salarieswithin institutions and arrangements to rent buildings to theirown universities are obviously the target of criticisms. Suchpractices may not only hurt revenues and sustainability ofinstitutions but are also pathways for owners to evade tax pay-ment under the false “nonprofit” cover.

The phenomenon of massification has also created varied

types of private higher education institutions regarding legiti-macy and quality, ranging from bottom-tier to semielite orlocally elite private institutions. As in other country systems,policies for expanded access have led in Colombia to theunavoidable problem of low academic quality at the bottom ofa stratified system. As the system has achieved a 62 percentabsorption rate of high school graduates (against 37% in 2002,according to the World Bank), many institutions house stu-dents with poor academic backgrounds. In Colombia, the typi-cal trade-off of access and quality into private higher educationshows selective universities characterized by high-quality edu-cation alongside less-selective institutions.

Some crucial factors related to the troublesome quality ofprivate bottom-tier institutions include the lack of manage-ment tools such as budgets or development plans and thescarcity of full-time professors. Many of those shoddy institu-tions depend on moonlighting public university professors,


private perspectives14

Private institutions are much more than twice thenumber of public ones, 197 out of the total 279 offi-cially registered.

The phenomenon of massification has also createdvaried types of private higher education institutionsregarding legitimacy and quality, ranging from bot-tom-tier to semielite or locally elite private institu-tions.

often teaching in more than one private university. Bottom-tierinstitutions in Colombia have problems in hiring and payingprofessors, and some operate in rented buildings poorly ade-quate for teaching or research. Of course, along with controlefforts by the government to change the problematic patternsthere are several worthy endeavors of institutions in the mid-dle, searching simultaneously for access and quality.

In Pursuit of QualityIn contrast to the troublesome features, Colombian privatehigher education has led the movement into voluntary high-quality accreditation. Private institutions constitute the major-ity of institutions (63%) in obtaining such accreditation accord-ing to the National Commission of Accreditation data. About adozen of those private accredited universities might be classi-fied as the leading ones, characterized as well by their offer ofdoctoral degrees especially in health, law, and social sciencesand having a well-trained faculty.

Truly, no Colombian higher education institution appears inthe research-oriented world rankings—such as the TimesHigher Education/QS or the Shanghai Jiao Tong rankings. Theleading private Universidad de Los Andes is the only institu-tion registered within the top 500 on the World Universities’rankings (Webometrics.info) according to the visibility, vol-ume, and quality of its electronic publications. TheUniversidad de Los Andes also has the greatest number of doc-torate programs within the private sector.

Although such classifications are quite inexact, perhaps anadditional 30 of the five-year private institutions hold nationalor regional prestige because of accredited programs recog-nized by the public and the academic community at the under-graduate level. More clearly “demand-absorbing” units couldbe found in another 74 institutions. Along with them, 81nonuniversity private institutions offer two-and-three-year pro-grams. As only few of the Colombian “demand-absorbing” andnonuniversity institutions have accredited programs, theirquality and legitimacy rest more in holding the “basic condi-tions of quality.” These conditions are mandatory for allColombian higher education institutions assessed by academ-ic peers and the Ministry of Education as part of the quality-assurance system.

Undergraduate TeachingEvaluation in China: Progressand DebateKai Jiang

Kai Jiang is an associate professor at the Graduate School of Education,Peking University. Address: Graduate School of Education, PekingUniversity, Beijing 100871, China. E-mail: [email protected].

China has experienced dramatic higher education expan-sion during the past decade. In comparison with the previ-

ous year, the number of students admitted to higher educationincreased by 47 percent in 1999, which again increased by 25percent in 2000. In 2002, the relevant age group participatingin higher education reached 15 percent, compared with 5 per-cent in 1993. With more than 27 million students, China's cur-rent higher education system is the largest one in the world.

Under the context of rapid expansion, priority has beenplaced on quantitative growth. Universities, especially localuniversities were encouraged by the government to enrollmore students. Meanwhile, the quality of higher educationcame to be somewhat neglected. Forgetting about qualitycaused many problems, such as decline of educational expenseper student, deteriorating teaching conditions, and employ-ment difficulty for colleges graduates. Education quality hasbeen questioned by employers, academics, and the public. Thegovernment worries that without rigid quality assurance, theexpansion itself may not improve national and individual com-petitiveness.

Currently, the priority of higher education has shifted fromquantity growth to quality enhancement. Quality is now beingseriously considered by China's government and universities.

Major InitiativeA key measure for China to guarantee quality is the nationalevaluation of colleges and universities. In 1994, theDepartment of Higher Education of the Ministry of Educationinitiated a pilot project on undergraduate teaching evaluationand followed this with two other such evaluations in 1996 and1999. The results indicated that higher education institutionsunder evaluation tended to improve their campus and teachingfacilities, increase educational spending, closely monitorteaching quality, and put emphasis on teaching.

The landmark of evaluation is the establishment of theHigher Education Evaluation Center (HEEC) of the ministry(http://www.pgzx.edu.cn) in 2004. During its first five-yearcycle, HEEC implemented an undergraduate teaching evalua-tion for 589 colleges and universities. Although it is to bedeveloped as a comprehensive quasi-government evaluationagency, HEEC starts its work with the national evaluation of

15


china: trends and developments

Colombian private higher education has led themovement into voluntary high-quality accredita-tion.

undergraduate teaching. The ministry insists that undergradu-ate teaching typically reflects higher education quality, andthus teaching must be strengthened rather than weakened.

The evaluation of the standards of undergraduate teachingwork at regular higher education institutions includes threestages: the institutions conduct self-evaluation; experts’ teamsenter the institutions to conduct investigations; and the insti-tutions carry out rectifications and reforms. HEEC developed asophisticated indicator system for evaluation, which includes 7first-level indicators and 19 second-level indicators. Both theMinistry of Education and its affiliated HEEC hold the dis-course of evaluation as the means and improvement of teach-ing quality.

The evaluation of standards in undergraduate teachingwork is the most far-reaching higher education reform since“adjustment of colleges and departments” (yuanxi tiaozheng),which adopted the former USSR system in the early 1950s tofacilitate national industrialization.

In fact, adopting the same evaluation instrument and indi-cator system on undergraduate teaching, provincial educationadministrations have implemented sub-baccalaureate teachingevaluation on tertiary vocational colleges in respective scopes.The teaching at the majority of private higher education insti-tutions was evaluated by HEEC or provincial education admin-istrations.

Effects and DebatesAccording to the ministry and HEEC, achievements of thefirst-cycle undergraduate teaching evaluation are remarkable,similar to that of evaluations in 1996 and 1999. Even so, JiZhou, the minister of education, admitted some negativeeffects in the evaluation, such as formalism, fraud, and decep-tion. Besides, the unitary nature of the evaluation system lim-its its benefits across different categories of institutions, andthe costs, especially hidden costs, are high. Ironically, althoughmost colleges and universities were burdened with heavy pres-sure and invested huge energy before teaching evaluation,more than 80 percent of institutions received a score of “A” inthe first-cycle evaluation.

Academics, administrators, students, government, the pub-lic, and the media have been involved in the debate on effectsand direction of undergraduate teaching evaluation. Amongthem, two essays by presidents of national key universities in2008 constituted a sharp-cut contrast, published by People'sDaily, the most influential newspaper in China. Baocheng Ji,president of Renmin University of China, was the former head

of the Department of Higher Education in the Ministry ofEducation, which was in charge of teaching evaluation beforeHEEC was established. He criticized the multitudinous evalu-ations of universities and claimed more autonomy shall begranted to universities, including evaluation. Daren Huang,president of Zhongshan University, held a completely differentstance, insisting that teaching evaluation is quite necessary.Huang pointed out that China's higher education evaluationbears a solid legal basis, and the monitoring education qualityrepresents an international norm. Despite some problems thatexist, the evaluation itself cannot be disaffirmed. According tohim, if teaching evaluation becomes a regular tool for qualityguarantee, it will not disturb everyday teaching at universities.

Although undergraduate-teaching evaluation is still in heat-ed debate, a vice-minister of education stated that China wouldcontinue in this direction with efforts to strengthen evaluationof its higher education institutions. Organizing evaluation isspecified as the responsibility of government and receivingevaluation as an obligation of the universities.

The FutureBased on the positive and negative experiences of the first five-year evaluation of undergraduate teaching, the Ministry ofEducation and HEEC are working to improve evaluation. Thenew direction of undergraduate-teaching evaluation willinclude three aspects. First, a quality-assurance system runwithin each higher education institution is preferred to anexternal monitoring system driven by government. Second, to

avoid colleges and universities becoming a passive recipient ofevaluation, more opportunities will be provided for them toplay an active and leading role in their institutional evaluation.Third, the pressure on the majority of higher education insti-tutions to participate in lengthy and stressful evaluations willbe reduced. It has gradually become realized that undergradu-ate-teaching evaluation is more than a top-down measure ofthe government but rather an accountability measure among abroader group of stakeholders—including not only govern-ment but also institutions, academics, administrators, stu-dents, families, and even the media.

While a great deal of work remains to develop a comprehen-sive, well-established higher education evaluation system,China's specific national evaluation of undergraduate teachingrepresents an important milestone in national efforts to ensureand improve education quality. It has been reported that theMinistry of Education will initiate the second five-year cycle


china: trends and developments16

Universities, especially local universities wereencouraged by the government to enroll more stu-dents. Meanwhile, the quality of higher educationcame to be somewhat neglected.

Academics, administrators, students, government,the public, and the media have been involved in thedebate on effects and direction of undergraduateteaching evaluation.

evaluation of undergraduate teaching via HEEC in late 2009.Some initiatives on teaching evaluation will be explored in thenew cycle.

Academic Freedom and PublicIntellectuals in ChinaQiang Zha

Qiang Zha is assistant professor in the Faculty of Education, YorkUniversity, Toronto, Canada. E-mail: [email protected].

Academic freedom has always been viewed as problematicin China. The recent academic integrity crisis on universi-

ty campuses and governmental intervention have once againbrought this issue to the fore. Since 2002, China's Ministry ofEducation has promulgated a series of policies aiming to cleanup academic corruption on university campuses. Most recent-ly, in March 2009, it announced severe penalties for academicmisbehavior. Then, what is the status quo of academic freedomin Chinese universities? To consider this issue, it is necessaryto go back to the Confucian intellectual tradition, as it viewedthe relations between academics and the state in a quite differ-ent way from the Western notion. This article starts by offeringa historical perspective on academic freedom in China, fol-lowed by an effort at discerning the trajectory of its evolutionover the last century, as a way of exploring the causes of corrup-tion among contemporary Chinese university scholars.

Unity of Knowledge and ActionUnlike the Western tradition, where scholars believe in thepower of words and seek to be public intellectuals throughengaging in critical debate, the Confucian tradition promptedChinese scholars to realize their ideals through action and akind of direct responsibility for managing the state. This tradi-tion was best explained by the Confucian canons of knowledgeand the imperial examination system that selected intellectualsto serve as scholar-officials. Knowledge was less a matter ofunderstanding the world than of changing it, and scholarswere expected to “cultivate the self, manage the family, governthe country, and bring peace to the world.” Put explicitly, theysought a unity of knowledge and action through their roles asscholar-officials. Rather than considering themselves as inde-pendent social critics, they saw themselves as offsetting politi-cal authority with intellectual authority and being responsibleto “tame” the ruler so that he would be a “Philosopher King.”While there were inevitably cases of cynicism and corruption,this scholar-official role did not necessarily confine Confucianscholars in terms of independent thinking. More often, theywere seen as upholding social justice and morality with their“iron shoulders.”

A Century of Ups and Downs The abolition of the imperial examination system in 1905 ledto the formation of an independent intellectual class. In theMay 4th Movement of 1919, often called China's enlighten-ment, the Confucian tradition was repudiated and both radical-ism and utilitarianism began to characterize Chinese acade-mia. The former resulted in revolutionary activism, while thelatter led to a growing cynicism among Chinese scholars. Sincethen Chinese scholarship seems to have oscillated betweenthese opposite extremes. The May 4th Movement witnessedthe emergence of radical intellectuals, many of whom laterjoined the Chinese Communist Party and contributed to theformation of the People's Republic of China in 1949. Eightyears later, in 1957, when Khrushchev denounced Stalin at the20th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party, Chinese intel-lectuals participated enthusiastically in the Hundred FlowersCampaign, suggesting that China's new government should“govern democratically” and accept criticism. Mao Zedongviewed this as violating a healthy level of criticism andlaunched the Anti-Rightist Movement. Many university-basedintellectuals were labelled “rightists” and sent into exile.

The Anti-Rightist Movement resulted in Chinese intellectu-als feeling themselves to be objects of suspicion and oppres-sion. They became largely voiceless from the late 1950s to the

late 1970s, and some became cynical. This may have con-tributed to such disasters as the great famine of the early1960s and the Cultural Revolution between 1966 and 1976.When Deng Xiaoping launched a series of economic reformsthat led to the gradual implementation of a market economy,the Chinese government found itself groping to resolve thecontradictions that arose from its new and controversial policy.Intellectuals were again encouraged to contribute actively toreform, in the name of “respecting knowledge and talent.”Irritated by China's economic backwardness and the ultraleftthinking of the Cultural Revolution, many Chinese intellectu-als shared a strong commitment to the pursuit of freedom anddemocracy in the 1980s. Thus, the 1980s witnessed a secondenlightenment era with a predominant belief among universi-ty faculty that the reforms had not gone far enough. Havingseen the political liberalization undertaken in the name of glas-nost by Gorbachev, they were hoping for comparable reform inChina. This culminated in the June 4th Incident in 1989.

Leaving the idealist and passionate 1980s behind, Chineseintellectuals experienced a transformation close to what theirWestern counterparts did after 1968: a split between intellectu-al reformer and academic worker. A very few continued as lib-eral intellectuals, but the majority retreated to university cam-

17


china: trends and developments

The abolition of the imperial examination system in1905 led to the formation of an independent intel-lectual class.

puses to seek knowledge and academic pursuits for their ownsake. Chinese intellectuals now do contribute to policy forma-tion at various levels, through offering professional advice, butthey rarely take up the role of social critics or social activists.They have adopted a stance that is termed “constructive criti-cism” and does not necessarily reflect the radical social com-mitment of liberal intellectuals. As the Western idea of aca-demic freedom and direct criticism of government has gradu-ally lost its attractiveness, in the face of China's economic suc-cess more and more scholars in Chinese universities favor“constructive criticism.”

Chinese Scholars and Academic CorruptionAfter 1992 China changed very rapidly, making some scholarsanxious. Along with increasing wealth, the market economyhas also encouraged utilitarianism and a one-sided emphasison accumulating material wealth. Scholars have found theirelite culture replaced by a secular one. Some of them have beenattracted by various “shortcuts” to power and influence, espe-cially when their academic integrity has lost its ideologicalunderpinnings and utilitarianism has taken over. It is in thiscontext that plagiarism has become widespread, even in topuniversities. A recent article in Science (March 16, 2009) onplagiarizing or fabricating data by researchers at ZhejingUniversity (one of China's top universities) put a spotlight onthe crisis of academic integrity in Chinese universities and thefact that it is now attracting international attention. This showsa widely held perception that corruption is not limited to thepower sphere in China but has penetrated academia. InOctober 2009, when the Chinese government celebrated the60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic ofChina and announced Chinese universities now ranked theworld's fifth in terms of research capacity, based on the volumeof the research papers published, criticism came up immedi-ately from within and outside of the sector, citing the increas-ing plagiarism and declining integrity.

Realizing that academic corruption could jeopardizeChina's ambition of creating world-class universities, the gov-ernment has stepped in. While the government used to beviewed as an obstacle to academic freedom, it has now had tobecome a watchdog for the academic integrity of scholars anduniversities in China. Elsewhere, this is a time that cries outfor intellectuals to exercise self-mastery and self-discipline.China is not exempt from these trends, but Chinese scholarsmay be even more vulnerable, due to the character of the polit-ical regime and discontinuity with the Confucian scholarly tra-

dition. Until Chinese scholars can show themselves to beaccountable and exercise a kind of reciprocal responsibility,they may not be entitled to the kinds of autonomy and academ-ic freedom that have been part of the Western tradition. Whilethe Confucian classics are now being reintroduced into thecurriculum, it is not clear whether this will lead to a renais-sance of China's tradition of intellectual authority and a highdegree of social responsibility.

Institutional Diversification inChinese Higher EducationHubert Ertl and Kai Yu

Hubert Ertl is lecturer in higher education at the Department of Educationat the University of Oxford and fellow of Linacre College, Oxford. E-mail:[email protected]. Kai Yu completed his doctorate on diver-sification in higher education at the Department of Education, Universityof Oxford and now works at the Graduate School of Education, ShanghaiJiao Tong University, China. E-mail: [email protected].

China's higher education system has experienced unprece-dented growth since 1998. According to the most recent

data from the Ministry of Education in China, the number ofnew students entering undergraduate programs rose fromaround 1 million in 1998 to some 6 million in 2008. Thisincrease resulted in a total number of students of over 20 mil-lion in 2008, making China the world's largest provider ofhigher education.

With the rapid expansion in student numbers came theintroduction of several new types of degree-granting institu-tions. As outlined in an article by Ruth Hayhoe and Jing Lin inIHE (Spring 2008), private colleges and duli xueyuan or inde-pendent colleges, which are set up by public universities withthe contribution of a private investor, account for a substantialshare of increased enrollments: within just six years (2000 to2006) 318 independent colleges were established. Now one insix students studying for an undergraduate degree in China isattending an independent or a private college.

This article reports on an exploratory study comparing anindependent college and a private college with two public insti-tutions located in a provincial capital in southeastern China.The two public institutions (one university and one college,according to the official classification of higher education insti-tutions) are well established and—in line with governmentregulation—charge the same level of tuition fees. The inde-pendent and the private colleges are younger institutions andcharge around 2.5 times higher fees than the public institu-tions.


china: trends and developments18

The Anti-Rightist Movement resulted in Chineseintellectuals feeling themselves to be objects of sus-picion and oppression. They became largely voice-less from the late 1950s to the late 1970s

In 2008, the public university, public college, independentcollege, and private college in this study enrolled around9,000, 2,000, 3,000, and 800 new undergraduate degree-level students, respectively. The public and the private collegeswere promoted to degree-level institutions relatively recently,and this explains their smaller intake of students. The majori-ty of students at the private college were following sub-degree-level vocational courses. Many of the teachers at the two non-public institutions are retired faculty from public institutions.

University Entrance Exam ScoresThe analysis of the student intake showed clear differences inthe types of students attending the four institutions. Studentsat the two public institutions had significantly higher scores inthe university entrance exams than their counterparts at theindependent college and the private college. This indicates thatthe independent and private colleges contribute to the expan-sion of higher education at the lower end of the studentachievement spectrum.

Socioeconomic BackgroundSignificant differences exist in the socioeconomic backgroundsof the student intake of the four institutions. The parents ofindependent college students had the strongest educationalbackgrounds in the four institutions and held more prestigiousoccupational positions, compared with the parents of studentsstudying at the other institutions. The difference in the socioe-conomic background of students is particularly strong betweenthe two nonpublic colleges. For example, parents of independ-ent college students were almost five times more likely to haveearned a higher education degree than parents of studentsstudying at the private college. Also, compared with fathers ofstudents at the private college, fathers of students at the inde-pendent college were 9.5 times more likely to be managers ofbusinesses, 4 times more likely to be administrative personnelat a public authority, and twice as likely to be clerks at publicauthorities, while fathers of students at the private college weremore likely to be industrial and construction workers or farm-ers. Similar patterns can be found when the occupational posi-tions of the mothers of students are compared.

Rural/Urban OriginsSignificant differences can also be found in the geographicrecruitment patterns of institutions. The independent collegerecruits more students from urban areas than the other insti-tutions. Its intake of students from rural areas was significant-ly lower (at 18% of the overall student sample) than at the other

three institutions (29.6%, 24.2% and 37.6% for the public uni-versity, public college, and private college, respectively). This issignificant, since the rural-urban divide in China is stark andclosely correlated not only with the educational achievementsof students at high school level (with students at urban highschools on average achieving higher scores) but also with fam-ily income levels (with families in rural areas being overallpoorer than families in urban areas).

Degree of Financial ConcernThe differences in the socioeconomic background of the stu-dents are also reflected in the degree of concern students havewith regard to the cost of their studies. Despite the fact that stu-dents at the independent college pay significantly highertuition fees, their levels of financial concern are not higherthan those of students studying at the two public institutions.However, students at the private college are on average muchmore concerned about their finances: 45 percent of students atthe private college state that they are very concerned about thecost of their studies, which is double the level of concern of stu-dents at the other three institutions. This means that the high-er level of tuition fees at the nonpublic institutions does notaffect students at the independent college because of theirmore privileged family background, whereas for students atthe private college fee levels are a real concern. The study alsoshows that the high level of financial concern of students at theprivate college is linked to much lower aspirations for furtherstudy.

ConclusionThe increasing significance of the independent colleges andthe private colleges in the provision of higher education inChina has occurred without adequate attention to issues ofchoice and equality. For example, lower-achieving studentsfrom well-off backgrounds with high levels of economic, social,and cultural capital benefit from the option of paying increasedfees to attend independent colleges affiliated to prestigiouspublic institutions, while lower-achieving poorer students payincreased fees to attend less-prestigious private institutions.Further research into the labor market outcomes for graduatesfrom different types of institutions is urgently required toestablish the rates of return for students from various socioe-conomic groups and those from rural and urban areas.

19

international higher educationchina: trends and developments

Now one in six students studying for an undergrad-uate degree in China is attending an independentor a private college.

Lower-achieving students from well-off back-grounds with high levels of economic, social, andcultural capital benefit from the option of payingincreased fees to attend independent colleges affili-ated to prestigious public institutions.

Government policy on higher education does not createmore choice for the majority of students. Instead, the diversifi-cation of the institutional setup of higher education institu-tions in China appears to be a by-product of the overarchingaim of increasing student numbers. Choice can only be exer-cised by higher socioeconomic groups.

The recent establishment of private and independent col-leges has resulted in a significant new sector, shifting the high-er education system in China from being almost homoge-neously public to one where a significant proportion of stu-dents are enrolled in nonpublic institutions. However, theever-present institutional hierarchy in the Chinese higher edu-cation sector emphasizes vertical diversity, with strong differ-ences in the prestige of the institutions, at the expense of hor-izontal diversity of institutions offering different types of edu-cation. While this form of diversification has created newopportunities for accessing higher education, it has also led tonew inequalities in terms of the relative cost and prestige ofeducation at different types of institutions.

In Search for World-ClassUniversities: The Case of RussiaAnna Smolentseva

Anna Smolentseva is a senior research fellow at the Institute forEducational Studies at Moscow State University, Russia. Address: 5/7 B.Nikitskaya, Moscow, 125009, Russia. E-mail: [email protected].

Innovative development in Russia toward building a knowl-edge-based economy has become a national priority. While it

is recognized that Russian higher education and research fallbehind the world leaders in higher education, nostalgia forSoviet achievements in education and science remains relative-ly strong in the society.

Global RankingsAs in some other countries, in Russia global rankings havestimulated a critical analysis of the current state of higher edu-cation and research. Leading Russian institutions did not suc-ceed in global rankings. Moscow State University movedbetween the 66th and 76th positions, and St. Petersburg StateUniversity is listed within the 400-to-500 category of theworld's top institutions by the Shanghai Jiao Tong Universityranking during 2004 and 2008. The Times Higher Educationversion of the top institutions was also disappointing: since2004, Moscow State University's ranking varied from 79 to231.

For one part of the academic community the lower positionsof Russian institutions in the rankings have not become a sur-prise, only serving another signal of the troubles in Russianhigher education and research. For other sectors it was difficultto accept such a low ranking position of Russian higher educa-tion. The national response to the global challenges was man-ifold and reflected the lack of social consensus regarding high-er education.

A Russian RankingThe dissatisfaction with the methodology and mainly the out-comes of the global rankings have generated the design of anew global ranking declared to be more correct and objective.In 2009, the Russian independent rating agency, RatER, pre-sented a new version of global ranking. The authors empha-size that in contrast to existing rankings it pays more attentionto the indicators of the quality of education and teaching. Datacollection methods include survey of universities, educationalstatistics, universities’ reports, and Scopus® data. The indic-tors include the number of educational programs (fields ofstudy), patents and certificates of discoveries, performance ofthe computer center, number of publications and citations,international awards, university budget per student, presenceof university on the Web, and international students. As aresult, in this Russian global ranking Moscow State Universityoccupied fifth place, ahead of Harvard, Stanford, andCambridge. The academic community criticized the rankingand its methodology for numerous flaws. However, to someextent the Russian version proved to be appealing as an alter-native or addition to the available rankings.

National Research Universities’ ProgramThe Russian government is concerned about modernization ofRussian education and including several Russian institutionsin global rankings. The policy-related response to the interna-tional challenges has involved supporting a selected group ofuniversities. The first steps to establish leading institutionswere undertaken in 2006 when the Ministry of Education andScience merged several regional institutions to found two fed-eral universities, Siberian and Southern, to strengthen highereducation in their respective regions. From 2006 to 2008, inthe framework of the national priority project, 57 universitieson the competitive basis received federal funding to developtheir innovative programs (up to US$33 million per institu-tion). In 2008 the president of Russia signed a decree to granta status of national research university along with the fundingover the next 10 years for a National Research NuclearUniversity and technological universities in Moscow. In 2009,


russia: efforts to reform20

As in some other countries, in Russia global rank-ings have stimulated a critical analysis of the cur-rent state of higher education and research.

the Ministry of Education and Science launched a competitionfor the status of national research university and 10-yearfinancing, and 110 applications were accepted. Federal funding(up to US$60 million) for the first 5 years will support theinnovative development programs in priority fields selected byuniversities. Finally, a dozen universities have received thenational research status—the majority of them (9) technicaluniversities and the others classical universities in NizhniyNovgorod and Novosibirsk and an economics university inMoscow.

National research universities are expected to change theirlegal status from educational establishment to an autonomouseducational organization that provides more economic free-dom, although this change is not compulsory. In the mean-time, the Russian Parliament is about to accept the legislationon the special status of Moscow State and St. Petersburg Stateuniversities, which are to become federally funded universitiesable to employ additional admissions examinations and issuetheir own diplomas. The rectors are to be appointed by thepresident of Russia, although this policy is not yet decided.

Thus, Russia followed the path of some other countries indefining elite (or to-be-elite) institutions and providing themfinancial support. The competition regulations imply the con-trol over the groundwork of innovative programs and an abro-gation of the status of the national research university if aninstitution fails in the success of the program.

However, Russia has not elaborated a policy of building aworld-class university. It is unclear which criteria the innova-tion would meet and how such a university should be built.How will the success of the project in the international arenabe evaluated? How will the progress toward a world-class uni-versity be measured? No answers to these questions have yetbeen determined. Anyway, it would be unreasonable to expectthat the positions of Russian universities in global rankingswill notably improve over a five-year period. In particular, theratings of publications and citations cannot grow so fast (by theway, by publications and citations the staff of the RussianAcademy of Sciences outpace universities’ staff).

World-Class CultureIt is important to mention that a world-class university doesnot only involve research achievements, huge budget, higherinternationalization, and excellent facilities, although these

aspects are undoubtedly critical. In a democratic culture, excel-lence in research and teaching has had some prerequisites:academic freedom, transparency and collegiality in decisionmaking, and open competitions. These values are endangeredin many developed and developing countries, but remainimportant. In Russia, practices of academic freedom, peerreview, and transparency in decision making and competitionsare still insufficient; and such a cultural component mightbecome an obstacle in a search for excellence. The changetoward excellence requires adequate compensation for faculty,clear demands, an incentive reward system at institutional andsocietal levels, stimuli and opportunities to do research, inte-gration into the international academic community, andEnglish proficiency, among other issues. These changes wouldattract “best and brightest” faculty and students and form anacademic culture, where excellence and therefore world-classinstitutions become real.

Diversification of Knowledge ProductionFor Russia it is also important that universities, at least in thenear future, cannot specialize in a single mode of research.The Academy of Sciences trains graduate students and is able,at least at some research units, to develop internationally rec-ognized research, while universities still produce less R&D.Due to the organization of higher education and research, itwould be important to establish and expand horizontal net-works between universities and research institutions and

between universities. Also, the diversification of universities,now a formal initiative, should not lead to the deterioration ofthe majority of institutions. Most institutions not only fulfillimportant social functions in their respective regions but alsosupply talented students to the leading institutions and mightdemonstrate potential for innovations as well. The demograph-ic decline is decreasing the number of students as well as,thus, the financing from tuitions, which might encourage uni-versities to search for new sources of funding through innova-tion and research. The knowledge production seems to movetoward higher diversification and, therefore, to a partial declineof some elements of the universities’ system and Academy ofSciences.

21


russia: efforts to reform

In 2009, the Russian independent rating agency,RatER, presented a new version of global ranking.The authors emphasize that in contrast to existingrankings it pays more attention to the indicators ofthe quality of education and teaching.

National research universities are expected tochange their legal status from educational estab-lishment to an autonomous educational organiza-tion that provides more economic freedom,although this change is not compulsory.

ConclusionObviously, by selecting technological universities (formerSoviet polytechnic institutes) the government tends to fosterinnovations in applied research and development and underes-timates the strategic priority of basic research in various fields,while building a new economy of a knowledge and democraticsociety. Also, the amount of program funding could hardly pro-vide dramatic changes.

However, as an experiment with a new autonomous organ-ization, this program could be quite stimulating in the devel-opment of Russian higher education, by opening new opportu-nities for R&D at universities. Participating institutions willnot be able to appear among top world institutions in the nearfuture but will indicate if innovations are possible in the rou-tine construction of Russian higher education.

Russian Universities’“Midrange” CollaborationStrategiesIgor Chirikov

Igor Chirikov is a researcher in the Laboratory for Economic Sociology,National Research University–Higher School of Economics, Moscow,Russia. E-mail: [email protected].

An intriguing trend in the change of modern universities isthe engagement in forms of collaboration, especially

regarding cooperation strategies on the international level. InRussia, two opposing strategies are commonly used by univer-sities: first, the establishment of formal relationships andcouncils that in reality do not produce any collaborative proj-ects or programs; second, large-scale mergers of regional uni-versities initiated primarily by the government despite univer-sity objections. However, some universities have chosen toundertake a “midrange” cooperative development—a consor-tium of several educational and science organizations with aparticipation of regional government and hi-tech enterprises.

University Mergers in RussiaConnections and mergers within the Russian higher educationsystem are influenced by the historical context of state policydevelopment. In the 1990s drastic social and economicchanges forced Russian universities to operate under insuffi-cient state financing and weaker connections with industry. Atthe same time, the marketization and commercialization ofhigher education formed the main impetus for universitydevelopment. Since 1991, the relative number of students per10,000 of the population increased 2.5 times (to 475 in 2008).

Universities started to expand enrollments, trying to respondto the demand of all prospective groups. Almost all strong uni-versities initiated regional expansion, establishing branches(oriented toward fee-based programs).

As the market became saturated, there was no need foreffective collaboration. Every university tried to concentrate asmany resources and students as possible within the institu-tion. Models of interaction and structural forms produced dur-ing the Soviet period lost relevance to university strategies.Industry-based educational activities were limited to infre-quent exchanges of professionals and the widespread practiceof professors being simultaneously employed at several univer-sities. Therefore, many councils and associations of universi-ties had become organizations offering merely a veneer ofcooperation, with no real projects and outcomes.

Mergers were rarely initiated by universities. The two mostimportant mergers executed in Russia (Siberian FederalUniversity in Krasnoyarsk and South Federal University inRostov-on-Don, both founded in 2006) assisted developmentin certain Russian regions. In both cases four universities wereintegrated into one organization; the resulting institutionsfaced similar problems and obstacles during the mergerprocess. The resulting organizational structure is inflexibleand characterized by excessive centralization. Moreover, themergers have resulted in an increased heterogeneity of the uni-versity, which encourages the creation of groups disconnectedwith the new institutions’ overall objectives. Finally, the occur-rence of serious legislative gaps undermines the establishmentof large projects. As a result, the federal universities are cur-rently not performing as expected.

Consortia: Profile of the ModelA consortium of universities represents an alternative modelto both weak and formal contractual forms of collaboration andto the rigid model of institutional mergers. Currently, fourleading universities located in Tomsk are starting to imple-ment this model. The participating universities include a tradi-

tional comprehensive institution and a medical one and twopolytechnic institutions with strong participation by local gov-ernment, the scientific centers of the Academy of Science, andhi-tech enterprises in the planning process.

Universities and other participants of the consortium haveidentified a set of common problems possibly to overcomewith the help of intensive arrangements: in the sphere of edu-cation—doubling of courses, unfair educational competitionin the region, low proportion of young teaching staff, anddecreasing competitiveness for the most talented school-


russia: efforts to reform22

Connections and mergers within the Russian highereducation system are influenced by the historicalcontext of state policy development.

leavers and bachelor's degree recipients; in the sphere ofresearch and innovation—a small number of large researchprojects and inefficient marketing. This prediction of commonproblems allowed universities to create a set of shared goalsand principles for further collaboration. The consortium willfocus on the development of interdisciplinary research, accel-eration of the innovation process by means of integrating edu-cation and research, the collective positioning in national andglobal markets, and increasing economic efficiency of univer-sities. Such ambitious goals are going to be achieved with theuse of a flexible two-level organizational structure. On the firstlevel (center), the universities will conduct large collaborativeresearch projects and develop double-degree master’s and PhDprograms. On the second level (periphery) the universities willconduct their educational programs and research projects.

Two arrangements are relevant for planning practicalissues—the development of the City Credit Transfer Systemand the Common Technology Transfer Office. The first formatallows students to take courses for their bachelor’s or master’sdegree at any of the city universities. Universities approve theamount of courses available to all students in Tomsk; then, astudent can add some of the courses to the curriculum, attendthem, and pass final exams. The rationale for the secondarrangement is the pressing need to be competitive on themarket of new technologies and innovations. This office isaimed at overcoming the territorial remoteness of Tomsk andmediating between investors, hi-tech companies, andresearchers.

New Incentives for CooperationThe emergence of new strategies reflect some factors thatstimulate universities to look at each other not only as competi-tors, but as partners. First, the risk of decreasing enrollmentsand problems for extensive development will force universities(especially in the regions) toward efforts for collective position-ing and attracting talented school-leavers. Second, due to theconsiderable changes in state policy supporting higher educa-tion, Russian universities will need to develop effective strate-gies to obtain or retain status and additional funding.Collaboration can form a significant part of such strategies.Third, Russian universities are starting to understand impor-tance to be included within the networks of the global knowl-edge economy and develop interconnections at the institution-al level. In many respects the successful development of theRussian higher education system depends on the success ofinternational engagements.

Ethiopia: The Dilemmas ofExpansionLiz Reisberg and Laura E. Rumbley

Liz Reisberg and Laura E. Rumbley are research associates at the Center forInternational Higher Education at Boston College. E-mail:[email protected]; [email protected].

Ethiopia is one of the poorest countries in the world. Morethan three-fourths of the nation's primary economic activi-

ty involves small-scale agriculture, not only highly inefficientbut extremely vulnerable to variations in climate and interna-tional market prices. In order to move from an agrarian to amodern economy, Ethiopia requires citizens with more educa-tion. This necessity is especially critical in a country with the15th-largest population on the planet and a median age of bare-ly 17 years. Accordingly, the government has expanded thehigher education system while growing enrollment, both atbreakneck speed.

Ethiopia had only two universities for much of the 20th cen-tury. Since the mid-1990s, the number of private institutionshave expanded, with a simultaneous growth of the public sec-tor. Today 19 additional public universities represent eithernewly established institutions or colleges merged and upgrad-ed to university status. There are also 26 regional teacher edu-cation colleges and approximately 60 accredited private post-secondary institutions (only one recognized as a university).

The pace of growth has been intoxicating, and the chal-lenges of current circumstances in Ethiopia make the expan-sion of the higher education system all the more daunting. Thecountry reflects the tensions that Sir John Daniels graphicallypresents in his “iron triangle,” where access, cost, and qualityare precariously balanced against each other.

Strong (Male) Enrollment GrowthAt all levels, access to education in Ethiopia has improved sig-nificantly, with greater numbers of students completing sec-ondary education and continuing on to postsecondary study.Ministry of Education statistics show that during the 2000/01academic year, undergraduate enrollment at public universi-ties (not including distance and evening enrollment) wasapproximately 34,000. By 2007/08, regular undergraduateenrollment had increased to more than 125,000. Many moremen than women, however, are benefiting from expandedaccess: less than 30 percent of the undergraduate enrollmentand barely 10 percent of graduate enrollment is female.

Quality ChallengesWhile difficult to measure, quality has cause for concern. Thenumber of instructors has not kept pace with enrollmentgrowth. In 2000, slightly more than 3,400 teachers providedinstruction at Ethiopia's universities. In 2008/09, there were

23


african developments

The emergence of new strategies reflect some fac-tors that stimulate universities to look at each othernot only as competitors, but as partners.

approximately 7,500 university instructors. In other words,while enrollment nearly quadrupled, teaching staff barely dou-bled. This disparity is also apparent in the evolution of theteacher-student ratio, which grew from 1:8 in 1995 to 1:15today.

The system struggles to fill many teaching vacancies giventhe absence of enough qualified Ethiopians to fill these posi-tions. As a result, instructors are also hired from abroad. Mostuniversities do not have the resources to effectively superviseor mentor so many new and inexperienced instructors. Fewerthan 20 percent of the current teachers hold master’s degrees,and fewer than 4 percent hold PhDs, underscoring the limitedexperience with scholarship.

Quality is also constrained by infrastructure. During thepast two years, the country has suffered from regular rollingblackouts, and few universities have generators to keep techni-cal infrastructure operational during power cuts. The construc-tion of classroom space, expansion of library collections, addi-tion of computer labs, and the development of electronic net-works lag behind enrollment expansion. International agen-cies are helping the government to develop new facilities andinfrastructure; however, these efforts are largely uncoordinatedand will take time.

Cost ConsiderationsThe cost of educating a growing cohort of university studentsis quickly exceeding available government funds. A new policyhas eased the country away from fully subsidized higher edu-cation to a cost recovery scheme, but this system will notreturn funds to government coffers for several years to come.The government currently depends on international aid as wellas expatriate faculty to fill in the many gaps that result from therapid growth of higher education. But even with aid, fundingis insufficient to address the enormous needs of this nascentsystem.

Human Resources as a “Moving Target”Too many of the best and brightest academic and administra-tive staff in Ethiopia are on the move. Graduate study and pro-fessional development opportunities are currently availableoverseas through national and donor agency programs. In thelong term this will certainly strengthen Ethiopian higher edu-cation. However, educational opportunities abroad often leadto “brain drain,” while even the short-term absence of profes-sors and administrators presents significant challenges at thehome institution. Extra teaching responsibilities fall onto thecolleagues who remain behind, and a wide range of develop-

ment and research projects are often handed off to less-experi-enced and less-qualified staff.

Meanwhile, the movement of individuals from one univer-sity to another or out of higher education altogether is perva-sive throughout Ethiopia. Staff turnover takes place at all lev-els, driven by the desire to improve earnings and to move fromrural toward urban areas. Constant staff turnover wreaks havocon an institution's capacity to operate efficiently and to managelong-term planning and development.

Long-Term Planning vs. Short-Term ActionWhat are the alternatives to rapid growth without the corre-sponding infrastructure, staff, or resources? In 1999 less than1 percent of the age cohort was enrolled in higher education. Ifthe Ethiopian government had decided to “build the housebefore moving in” for a decade or more the country might nothave achieved much progress in expanding access. Instead, thegovernment has pushed forward, putting pressure on univer-sity leaders and instructors to “catch up” as they can while pro-viding larger numbers of young Ethiopians with opportunitiesfor further study.

Today 3 percent of the age cohort in Ethiopia is now enrolledin higher education, according to UNESCO (United NationsEducational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) data.Although far short of international levels, Ethiopia hasachieved a rapid 300 percent rise in enrollment, and the gov-ernment will continue to push for greater gains. The questionis whether the universities respond to enrollment gains withrelevant resources and personnel.

This period has proven to be an exciting time for Ethiopia'shigher education system, but “growing pains” are evident andwill continue, given such rapid expansion. At this critical stage,where much has already been accomplished, quality assuranceand a commitment to appropriate and sustained infrastructuremust rise to the top of the national agenda.

Enhancing Retention andSuccess in South AfricaGeorge Subotzky

George Subotzky is professor and executive director, Information andStrategic Analysis, University of South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa.E-mail: [email protected].

Internationally, one of the key challenges facing higher edu-cation institutions is to match expanding enrollments and

more diversified student bodies with enhanced retention andsuccess rates. Nowhere is this imperative more pressing andtopical than in South Africa, for a number of reasons. First, the


african developments24

Accordingly, the government has expanded thehigher education system while growing enrollment,both at breakneck speed.

majority of its students are severely underprepared for higherlearning. This is mainly the consequence of the ongoing lega-cy of apartheid and the predominantly substandard primaryand secondary education system in South Africa. After 15 yearsof democratic rule, the postapartheid government has beenunable to rectify these inequalities and inefficiencies signifi-cantly. Most students emanate from disadvantaged back-grounds and face challenging socioeconomic and financial cir-cumstances that, in combination, threaten student retentionand success. While the participation of black South Africanstudents has expanded dramatically over the past two decades,no corresponding increase in black faculty and staff and nomeaningful shift in institutional cultures have been evident.

As a result, many black students report experiences of alien-ation within the prevailing Eurocentric cultures and practicesin historically white institutions. This, in part, has contributedtoward particularly poor retention, success, and graduationrates among black students. A recent self-made video by whiteextremist students at the conservative University of the FreeState, in which they purposefully humiliated black cleaningstaff with the intention of demeaning the process of racial inte-gration, highlighted the persistence of racism in the SouthAfrican higher education institutions. The video precipitatednational outrage and led to the appointment of a commissionby the Ministry of Education to investigate both the overt andsubtle manifestations of this problem and to propose recom-mendations. This event has focused fresh attention on the bar-riers experienced by black students as a result of insufficienttransformation in South African institutions of higher educa-tion. Fourth, South Africa has been experiencing an ongoinghigh-level skills shortage, which continues to obstruct growthand development. Increasing participation, retention, andgraduation rates is therefore a top priority, particularly becauseof the enormous impact of HIV/AIDS on student retentionand in the workplace and as South Africa enjoys notoriety inhaving among the highest prevalence rates in the world.

Quantifying the ProblemA recent national study commissioned by the Council onHigher Education revealed the extent of the retention and suc-cess challenge in South Africa. The sobering reality is that only30 percent of South Africa's 2000 first-time entering studentcohort had graduated within five years, with a further 14 per-cent still registered. This meant that well over half the cohort,56 percent, had dropped out. Within these aggregate figures,wide variation among institutional types was evident—particu-larly so between contact and distance institutions, between theacademic universities and the vocational technikons, andbetween historically advantaged and disadvantaged institu-tions. The five-year graduation rate ranged from 50 percent atcontact universities, to 32 percent at contact technikons, to 14percent at the country's largest university—the distance educa-tion University of South Africa (Unisa)—and to a disturbinglylow 2 percent at the distance education Technikon South

Africa. Dropout rates also varied widely from 85 percent atTechnikon South Africa to 59 percent at Unisa, 58 percent atcontact technikons, and 38 percent at contact universities. Dueto their sheer size, Unisa's and Technikon South Africa's poorgraduation and retention rates had an enormously negativeimpact on aggregate figures.

The Case of the University of South AfricaWith this background in mind, it is not surprising that govern-ment has exerted strong pressure to improve retention andsuccess rates and that institutions continue to carry the burdenof large-scale academic development programs aimed at recti-fying the effects of poor schooling. The pressure to improve isparticularly strongly felt at the new Unisa, which as part of amajor government-driven restructuring of the institutional

landscape merged with Technikon South Africa and anothersmall distance education provider to become one of the world'slargest megauniversities. With approximately 260,000 stu-dents, Unisa now constitutes around a third of total SouthAfrican enrollments. Offering open access to a mix of academ-ic and vocational programs and catering for a large number ofoccasional, nondegree students, Unisa plays a major role innational and continental human-resource development and inproviding for labor market needs and opportunities for forma-tive education. Given its enormous size, the university absorbsa high proportion of government subsidy. As this is weightedtoward outputs, the institution also faces compelling financialreasons to address this challenge effectively.

The issue facing Unisa is particularly daunting. The vastmajority of its enrollments comprise nontraditional, part-timestudents with an average age of 31 years. In addition, the rapidincreases in enrollments over the past few years have severelystrained Unisa's operational systems. This has resulted, attimes, in service-delivery problems such as the late distributionof study materials, which reduces tuition time. Internally con-ducted cohort case studies of three large commerce and lawundergraduate programs indicated very low 10-year graduationrates that ranged from 14 percent to 30 percent. Interestingly,the time-to-completion of students who did graduate was with-in the expected minimum time for these qualifications, basedon average course loads of just under half full-time equiva-

25


african developments

On the student’s side, such transformation entailsdeveloping the personal attributes, skills, andknowledge required to master the demands andexpectations of higher learning while simultaneous-ly managing the many and often conflictingnonacademic life circumstances that impact reten-tion and success.

lents. These findings suggest that time-to-completion was sat-isfactory and that, consequently, reducing the inordinatelyhigh dropout rates of around 50 to 70 percent constitutes themajor challenge to enhancing success.

Emerging StrategiesFor these reasons, improving retention and success at Unisahas been foregrounded as a strategic priority, and a coordinat-ed effort in this regard has been undertaken. This planinvolves developing a framework to manage this challenge anda strategy for implementation. The first step was the develop-ment of a conceptual model identifying all factors impactingon student retention and success in the Unisa context. To thisend, a comprehensive literature review was undertaken, cover-ing numerous student retention models from the 1970sonward and focusing on a number of theoretical perspectives:sociological, anthropological, social-critical, and psychological.Drawing from these, the model incorporated a number of keyconstructs and explains retention and success in the Unisacontext with a sufficient fit between students and institutionalattributes, expectations, and performance at each step of thestudent's journey through higher education. Sufficient fit aris-es from mutual knowledge and coresponsibility for meaning-ful change. On the student's side, such transformation entailsdeveloping the personal attributes, skills, and knowledgerequired to master the demands and expectations of higherlearning while simultaneously managing the many and oftenconflicting nonacademic life circumstances that impact reten-tion and success. On the institutional side, transformationentails configuring and improving all academic, nonacademic,and operational services to meet specificities of students’ livedexperiences. Thus, the more that is known about students’ life

and learning circumstances, the more innovatively the institu-tion can design and deliver effective academic and nonacade-mic services and support. Conversely, the more informed a stu-dent is on the rigors and demands of tertiary education and thesupport services available, the more chance exists of uptakeand success.

The required quantitative and qualitative data are beinggathered through the Unisa student-tracking system. Thisincludes the innovative use of information and communica-tions technologies and data capturing instruments such asmandatory student profiles and online surveys, structuredjournal writing, blogs, and social networking tools to capturerelevant ongoing life and learning experiences. Unisa's stu-dent portal is used by approximately 190,000 students. Thisprovides a goldmine of opportunities for particularly richquantitative and qualitative data gathering, data mining, andstatistical and analytic modeling to determine and predict fac-tors shaping success. On the basis of these predictions, proac-tive supportive interventions are being designed and imple-mented, again through innovatively using information andcommunications technologies, in order to reduce the risk ofdropout and failure. In these ways, serious efforts are beingundertaken to configure Unisa's academic and nonacademicservices and support to effectively address the complex learn-ing and life circumstances of its heterogeneous student popu-lation. While not yet evaluated, the full impact of these initia-tives is anticipated to help enhancing South Africa's overallretention, success, and graduation rates—not only throughUnisa's performance in this regard but also through providingpractices that are replicable and adaptable in other institution-al contexts.


departments26

New Publications

Andreade, Maureen S., and Norman W.Evans, eds. International Students:Strengthening a Critical Resource. Lanham,MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2009. 301 pp.(hb). ISBN 978-1-60709-175-2. Web site:www.rowmaneducation.com.

A practical guide to serving internationalstudents, this book provides case studies andbroader analyses. Written mainly for anAmerican audience, the topics includerecruitment of international students, cam-pus orientation, English-language programs,social support for international students,intercultural adjustment, and immigrationand legal issues.

Bassett, Roberta Malee, and AlmaMaldonado-Maldonado, eds. International

Organizations and Higher Education Policy:Thinking Globally, Acting Locally? New York:Routledge, 2009. 312 pp. $160 (hb). ISBN978-0-415-99043-1. Web site: www.rout-ledge.com.

The editors of this volume argue that therole of international and regional organiza-tions on higher education worldwide isincreasingly important. These organizationshelp set both international and national poli-cy agendas, sponsor research, shape debate,and link policymakers and researchers world-wide. This volume examines the role of suchkey players as the United NationsEducational, Scientific, and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO), the Organizationfor Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD), the World Bank, and the GeneralAgreement on Trade in Services (GATS).Regional analyses are provided for Asia (witha case study of China), Europe, Africa, and

Latin America. A final section examines inter-national assistance to higher education insti-tutions in developing countries.

Bowen, William G., Matthew M. Chignos,and Michael S. McPherson. Crossing the FinishLine: Completing College at America's PublicUniversities. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press, 2009. 389 pp. (hb). $27.95.ISBN 978-0-691-13748-3. Web site:www.press.princeton.edu.

Based on a careful study of 21 flagship pub-lic universities and four statewide systems,this book explores retention and graduaterates for undergraduates. The authors look atparental education, family income, highschool grades, and other key variables.Among the findings are that students fromminority backgrounds and from poor familieshave lower graduate rates and only 30 percentof students in the 8th grade will obtain a BA

degree by age 26. Although limited in scope,this study is one of the most extensive analy-ses of retention and completion ever under-taken, and it examines a topic of growingimportance in the United States and interna-tionally.

King, Roger. Governing Universities Globally:Organizations, Regulation, and Rankings.Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2009. 235pp. $115 (hb). ISBN 978-1-84720-739-5. Website: www.e-elgar.com.

The basic argument of this book is that uni-versities worldwide are increasingly subjectto what the author calls global governance—pressure from a globalized economic system,

regional arrangements such as the OECDand the European Union, and a growingnexus of quality-assurance mechanisms,among others. Themes discussed includetransnational governance such as the OECD,the impact of rankings, growing competitionamong academic institutions and systems,the world-class university model, and others.The author sees a kind of academic conver-gence in this new global framework.

Meek, V. Lynn, Ulrich Teichler, and Mary-Louise Kearney, eds. Higher Education,Research and Innovation: Changing Dynamics.Kassel, Germany: International Center forHigher Education Research, 2009, 240 pp.

(pb). ISBN 978-3-934377-10-3. Electronic ver-sion available from http://www.uni-kassel.de/incher/v_pub/UNESCO_RR_09.pdf.

This volume reviews the work of theUNESCO Forum on Higher Education,Research, and Knowledge. Among thethemes discussed are changing academicwork, national research systems, policydynamics of higher education research, andmeasuring R&D in developing countries.The future directions for higher educationpolicy research is also discussed.

27


departments

News of the Center

From the beginning of 2010, International Higher Educationwill be published in a Russian edition, sponsored byIndependent Kazakhstan Quality Assurance Agency inEducation. In addition, the Deutsche Universitätszeitung, themain higher education publication in Germany, will distributeIHE in English to its readers.

Center director Philip Altbach and research associate LizReisberg attended the World-Class University conference inShanghai in early November. Altbach delivered a keynote talkon “The Past, Present, and Future of Research Universities.”There was also a working session of the research universitystudy group that is cosponsored by CIHE and the World Bank.The project, which will result in a book of case studies ofresearch universities, is coordinated by Philip Altbach andJamil Salmi of the World Bank. Altbach also participated in theadvisory committee of the Graduate School of Education atShanghai Jiao Tong University. In December, Philip Altbachvisited Moscow at the invitation of the New Economic School,which sponsored a round table on higher education develop-ment in Russia. He also met with colleagues at the HigherSchool of Economics to continue the collaboration with HSEand CIHE on research concerning academic remuneration,

and he gave a talk at the Peoples Friendship University. In October, the Center hosted a two-day seminar for 33 profes-sors and administrators from Brazil. The delegation was coor-dinated on the Brazilian side by Fabio José Garcia dos Reis, theDirector of Operations at the Centro Universitário Salesiano deSão Paulo. In November, the Center welcomed a delegation of14 high-level administrators from Vietnam National Universityin Hanoi for a half-day seminar and site visit.

Research associate Laura Rumbley participated in the annu-al conference of the European Association for InternationalEducation in Madrid, Spain, where she presented at a round-table session on research in international education. Researchassistant Kara Godwin presented a paper on international lib-eral arts at the Association for the Study of Higher Educationconference in Vancouver, Canada. In October, Liz Reisberg par-ticipated in strategic planning in Lima with members of thenew commission responsible for developing a quality assur-ance scheme for higher education in Peru. Philip Altbach hasorganized a panel on global higher education trends for theComparative and International Education Society annual con-ference in Chicago in March. He will receive the LifetimeAchievement award of the Higher Education Special InterestGroup of the CIES as well.

BC_CIHE on Twitter

We have expanded CIHE's Web presence by including Twitter. Now, in addition to our Web site and Facebook page, we aretweeting. Twitter provides different kind of forum for staff at CIHE to post information and commentary.

Recent tweets include commentary from the Third International Conference on World-Class Universities in Shanghai, newsabout activities of CIHE, and responses to items in the news. We hope you will consider “following” us!


departments28

THE CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION

(CIHE)

The Boston College Center for International Higher Education

brings an international consciousness to the analysis of high-

er education. We believe that an international perspective will

contribute to enlightened policy and practice. To serve this

goal, the Center publishes the International Higher Education

quarterly newsletter, a book series, and other publications;

sponsors conferences; and welcomes visiting scholars. We

have a special concern for academic institutions in the Jesuit

tradition worldwide and, more broadly, with Catholic universi-

ties.

The Center promotes dialogue and cooperation among aca-

demic institutions throughout the world. We believe that the

future depends on effective collaboration and the creation of

an international community focused on the improvement of

higher education in the public interest.

CIHE WEB SITE

The different sections of the Center Web site support the work

of scholars and professionals in international higher educa-

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

International Higher Education are available online, with a

searchable archive. In addition, the International Higher

Education Clearinghouse (IHEC) is a source of articles,

reports, trends, databases, online newsletters, announce-

ments of upcoming international conferences, links to profes-

sional associations, and resources on developments in the

Bologna Process and the GATS. The Higher Education

Corruption Monitor provides information from sources

around the world, including a selection of news articles, a bib-

liography, and links to other agencies. The International

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

mation clearinghouse on research, development, and advoca-

cy activities related to postsecondary education in Africa.

THE PROGRAM IN HIGHER EDUCATION AT THE LYNCH

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, BOSTON COLLEGE

The Center is closely related to the graduate program in high-

er education at Boston College. The program offers master’s

and doctoral degrees that feature a social science–based

approach to the study of higher education. The Administrative

Fellows initiative provides financial assistance as well as work

experience in a variety of administrative settings.

Specializations are offered in higher education administra-

tion, student affairs and development, and international edu-

cation. For additional information, please contact Dr. Karen

Arnold ([email protected]) or visit our Web site:

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

editorPhilip G. Altbach

assistant editorSalina Kopellas

editorial officeCenter 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

We welcome correspondence,ideas for articles, and reports.If you would like to subscribe,please send an e-mail to: [email protected], including yourinstitutional affiliation, yourposition (graduate student,professor, administrator,researcher, policy maker, etc.),and area of interest or expert-ise. There is no charge for asubscription.ISSN: 1084-0613©Center for InternationalHigher Education

Our work is supported by the Ford Foundation and the Lynch School of Education at Boston College. Weare indebted to these funders for core sponsorship.

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

Date post:	24-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

the boston college center for international higher education › content › dam › files ›...

Documents