the boston college center for international higher education · 2017-07-06 · international higher education the boston college center for international higher education number 59

international higher educationthe boston college center for international higher education

number 59 spring 2010

Crisis in Haiti2 Can Haitian Higher Education Rise from the Rubble?

Harry E. Dumay

Departments30 New Publications

31 News of the Center

European Trends21 UK Governance Under Stress

Michael Shattock

23 Good-bye to the Celtic TigerEllen Hazelkorn

25 Private Universities in ItalyFiona Hunter

Competition and International Students

18 Deciphering “Educational Hubs” StrategiesKevin Kinser and Jason E. Lane

20 Regional Education Hubs—Rhetoric or RealityJane Knight

3 The Asian Higher Education Century?Philip G. Altbach

6 Research Performance Measures and the Rise of AsiaDavid A. Pendlebury

7 Assessing Four Budget-Balancing Strategies in Higher EducationArthur M. Hauptman

9 Impact of the Financial Crisis on US Higher EducationRoger L. Geiger

The Future of Asia

Economic Issues

Higher Education Hubs

11 Competition for International StudentsMadeleine F. Green and Kimberly Koch

13 Trends and Issues in International Student MobilityHans de Wit

15 The Global Market for International Students: American PerspectivesJohn Aubrey Douglass and Richard Edelstein

17 International Enrollments in the United StatesPatricia Chow and Julie Chambers

Central Asia26 Central Asia: Increasing Diversity

Martha Merrill

28 Goals in KazkhstanJoseph Stetar and Kairat Kurakbayev

Can Haitian Higher EducationRise from the Rubble?Harry E. Dumay

Harry E. Dumay is associate dean for finance and chief financial officer atHarvard University's School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. He alsoserves as an external evaluator on a three-year US Agency for InternationalDevelopment–funded partnership grant between the University ofMassachusetts Boston and the State University of Haiti. E-mail:[email protected].

The January 12 earthquake dealt a devastating blow to Haiti'salready struggling higher education and brought it to a

halt. Yet, Haiti is determined to rebuild. In this reconstructioneffort, great care must be taken not just to restore what existedbut to erect a better system.

Catastrophic DamageDuring the 35-second quake, the sole building that housed theUniversity of Port-au-Prince crumbled, trapping hundreds ofstudents and faculty members under its fallen concrete slabs.At the State University of Haiti, the Faculty of Linguistics col-lapsed: the dean, several faculty members, and more thanthree hundred students lost their lives. Most buildings at theState University and at private institutions such as theEpiscopalian University and University Quisqueya were eitherdestroyed or declared unsafe. To date, the death toll for the uni-versity community has not been confirmed. Most institutionscannot predict when activities will resume.

Haitian higher education was already in a precarious stateprior to January 12. Lack of access, a weak governance struc-ture, and the absence of a true professoriate constituted threeof its many problems.

Lack of AccessEstimated at only 1 percent, access remains at the elite level inHaiti. A comparison with the Dominican Republic, Haiti'sneighbor, is illustrative. Out of a population of 9 million, theDominican Republic enrolled 174,621 students in 1997. Haiti'senrollment is estimated at 15,000 for a population of 8.5 mil-lion. Even among the students that made it into college, in2008 78 percent indicated that they could not enroll in theirdesired concentration.

Dysfunctional GovernanceGovernance is problematic within the State University of Haiti,first. The rectors, vice-rectors, and deans are all elected by stu-dents and faculty members. They feel more accountable totheir political constituency than to their leadership. Consciousof their political clout, a few activist students, often manipulat-ed by ambitious faculty members, frequently protest to

demand leadership changes. For example, a student strike atthe Faculty of Medicine paralyzed all academic activities fromApril 2009 until the time of the earthquake. Second, gover-nance is also problematic across the higher education system.The State University is mandated to oversee the private institu-tions that compete with it for students. Some private institu-tions feel that they are better run than the State University andresent this oversight function. Finally, the lack of appropriatestandards and effective supervision has given rise to a numberof pseudouniversities.

A Nonexistent ProfessoriateThe academic profession is not existent in Haiti. The mostrecent reliable statistic on the entire system dates from 1987and indicated that 93 percent of professors worked part timeand that only 26 percent had a graduate degree. Degree attain-ment among professors has somewhat improved since then.However, the majority of faculty members still have anotherfull-time job that they combine with as many teaching oppor-tunities as possible to enjoy a decent standard of living.

The Case for RebuildingWith hundreds of thousands of people still homeless and thehurricane season nearing, is higher education a current prior-ity for Haiti? The Haitian government and higher educationofficials answer this question in the affirmative. They are deter-mined to rebuild Haiti's schools for internal as well as externalreasons.

Since 1815 when the first Haitian postsecondary institutionwas founded, higher education has always played an importantinternal role to form the nation's elite. The provision of free,public higher education is viewed as one of the government'sresponsibilities. In turn, the State University of Haiti and themany private institutions that have sprung up since the 1980shave formed the majority of the country's professionals, tech-nocrats, and politicians.

Achieving economic growth constitutes the other reasonwhy Haitians believe that they must rebuild higher education.Human capital theorists consider education as indispensablefor economic progress, because it leads to innovation. JosephSchumpeter and other development economists assert thatinnovation yields nonincremental growth, the kind that thepoorest countries need to leapfrog out of poverty. TheMillennium Development Goals echo those theories by deem-ing science and technology necessary for the least-developed

international higher education

crisis in haiti2

During the 35-second quake, the sole building that

housed the University of Port-au-Prince crumbled,

trapping hundreds of students and faculty members

under its fallen concrete slabs.

countries to prosper. Consequently, Haitians believe that thenation must form its next generation of professionals andinnovators in order to be a viable state, one that does not relyon the international community for all its needs.

In the aftermath of the earthquake, many foreign universi-ties and international institutions have expressed an interest inhelping. Clearly, it would be a mistake to rebuild within thesame framework that existed. Improvement in the areas ofaccess, governance, and the academic profession can ensurethat the new system is better than the old.

Increasing AccessSome of the national reconstruction plans that are being elab-orated already include ideas that could help to increase access.One such proposal is the decentralization of activities awayfrom the capital city. Currently, all the major postsecondaryinstitutions have their main campus in Port-au-Prince. Thecosts and logistical difficulties associated with relocating toPort-au-Prince have kept college out of the reach of manyyoung people. The decentralization of programs and campus-es throughout Haiti would alleviate this problem. Another planthat could potentially increase enrollment is the StateUniversity's project to consolidate its previously physically dis-persed campuses. Colocation of faculties should permit cam-puses to avoid duplicating the same general education coursesin various units and to offer more flexible schedules, thus,making it easier to accommodate more students.

Establishing Governance and CoordinationThe State University of Haiti should follow the lead of better-run private institutions and stop electing its officials. An inde-pendent university board of trustees should appoint the rectorand hold him or her accountable to run the institution. A par-allel higher education board in the Ministry of Educationshould provide oversight to both public and private institu-tions. The board's effective coordination of these institutionsshould involve providing them with incentives to cooperateand share services to benefit from economies of scale. Indeed,no single institution has sufficient resources even for some ofthe minimal requirements: updated library systems, informa-tion technology, and laboratory facilities. It would be a waste ofinternational aid to replicate several suboptimal facilities atvarious institutions.

Investing in Full-Time FacultyTo improve the quality of teaching and introduce research, thesystem should strive to support more full-time faculty mem-bers and ensure their presence on campus. This impliesadjusting salaries to enable someone to live decently with justa faculty appointment. How does one accomplish this fiscally?Budget increases cannot be expected in the public system,given the government's near-bankrupt state. Reductions inadministrative expenses should take place and can help butwill not provide all the funds needed. As for private institu-tions, the high level of price sensitivity in Haitian householdsmakes it impractical for them to pass this cost onto students.This is where the international community can help. Aid andcollaboration should be aimed at supplementing facultysalaries for meritorious research efforts that advance knowl-edge and thus benefit the global community of scholars.

ConclusionThe Haitian higher education system must be rebuilt. It is thekey to the country's long-term economic independence.Undeniably, that task will be enormous. However, if well done,it could offer opportunities for a significant renewal and serveas a model for reconstruction in other sectors.

The Asian Higher EducationCentury?Philip G. Altbach

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

The 2009 world university rankings showed a modestincrease in the number of universities in Asia that have

entered the top 100—in the Shanghai Academic Ranking ofWorld Universities from 5 to 6, and in the Times HigherEducation/QS rankings from 14 to 16. Commentators immedi-ately referred to the academic rise of Asia and a concomitantdecline of the West. Fundamentally, however, academic excel-lence, research productivity, and reputation, which are mainlywhat the rankings capture, are not a zero-sum game. Theimprovement of universities in one part of the world does notmean that institutions elsewhere necessarily decline. Further,the shift to Asia is by no means dramatic. It is in fact a goodthing that universities outside the traditional powerhouses ofNorth America and western Europe are improving and gainingincreased recognition for their work.

3


future of asia

The State University is mandated to oversee the pri-

vate institutions that compete with it for students.

Some private institutions feel that they are better

run than the State University.

Nonetheless, it is useful to examine Asia's academic growthif only because the region houses the most rapidly expandingeconomies in the world, and a number of Asian countries haveplaced great emphasis on both expansion and improvement inhigher education. While it is almost impossible to generalizeabout so vast and varied a region, nonetheless some realitiesare relevant for significant parts of the region.

Asia is home to a majority of the world's private higher edu-cation institutions, and the private sector continues to expandin the region. With a few exceptions, the private sector standsat the bottom of the prestige hierarachy. As the economists putit, the private academic institutions are “demand absorbing”and provide access but generally not high quality. The privatesector does not contribute much to the improvement of thequality of Asian higher education.

Asia has a significant high-quality sector. Many Japaneseuniversities are highly ranked. Singapore and Hong Kong haveexcellent academic systems. Outstanding universities exist inSouth Korea and Taiwan. China's top dozen or so universitiesare approaching “world class.” The Indian Institutes ofTechnology, although not universities in the traditional sense,are also top institutions. But overall, Asia's universities do notcompare favorably with those in North America, westernEurope, or Australia. A number of structural, academic, andcultural factors may inhibit even some of the best Asian uni-versities from rising to the pinnacles of academic quality in thenear future and are likely to some extent inhibit the improve-ment of Asia's universities in general.

Asian strategies for academic improvement differ.Singapore and Hong Kong have accomplished considerablesuccess simply by building Western universities in Asia by hir-ing large numbers of nonlocal academic staff, using English,and copying Western norms of academic organization andmanagement. South Korea has sponsored several nationalcampaigns for academic upgrading such as the Brain Koreaproject. Taiwan has relied in part on convincing Western-edu-cated Taiwanese to return home to improve key universitiesthat have been given extra support. Singapore has strategicallyinvited several foreign universities to open branches and hasgiven them significant financial incentives to do so—althoughseveral have failed.

China's efforts have been the most impressive: a combina-tion of significant infusions of funds to universities identifiedas top performers, mergers to create institutions with bothhigh quality and economy of scale, and efforts to create an aca-demic environment that rewards productivity.

It is possible, however, that in China and elsewhere in Asiaa kind of “glass ceiling” will soon be reached. Financial andother resources combined with some innovative strategies canmake progress only so far. Cultural, academic, and historicalchallenges persist and may well slow the upgrade of Asian uni-versities. The rise of Asian higher education is by no meansinevitable, at least in the near future.

Major ImpedimentsAn academic culture that is based on meritocratic values, freeinquiry, and competition—combined with elements of collab-oration and at least some mobility—is central to a world-classuniversity. There is some recognition of the importance ofthese elements in much of Asia and of the difficulties of imple-mentation and impediments based on historical tradition andother forces.

Relationships are, of course, essential everywhere and in allinstitutions and societies. But in Asia, personal connectionsand networks—the Chinese call it guanxi—are still influencingmany aspects of academic life, from the admission of studentsto the promotion of professors and the allocation of researchfunds. One implication is widespread inbreeding of faculty.Those trained at a university are hired by that institution andtypically spend their careers there. This may hinder new think-ing and innovation because of common perspectives and anundue respect for academic hierarchy. It may also often be dif-ficult to encourage innovation in this environment. The tiesbetween a former student and his or her mentor might shapedepartmental or institutional politics and inhibit change or fos-ter factionalism.

Many Asian universities have a combination of affinity-based promotion policies for academic staff while simultane-ously lacking a formal “tenure” system. As a result, many per-sons appointed to an academic position are in due course pro-moted without much careful evaluation. Furthermore, manysystems in this part of the world do not provide formal protec-tion of academic freedom or a promotion policy that rewardsproductivity and encourages long-term performance.

Teaching and, to some extent, research often follow quitetraditional methods and emphasize lectures with little interac-tion between students and professors. Professors often simplyrepeat their lectures and leave little if any time for questions ordiscussion. Much criticism has been produced concerning tra-ditional teaching in recent years, with a recognition that it doesnot contribute to either long-term learning or independentthinking. These methods extend to graduate education, as well,


future of asia4

The improvement of universities in one part of the

world does not mean that institutions elsewhere

necessarily decline.

Asian strategies for academic improvement differ.

Singapore and Hong Kong have accomplished con-

siderable success simply by building Western univer-

sities in Asia.

where formality is often the rule, and independent “hands on”work is still not the popular norm.

Hierarchy is very much at the center of academic ties of allkinds. This often means that students are inhibited from thekinds of informal interaction with their teachers as enjoyed bycounterparts at Western universities. Junior staff are subject tothe methodological and topical constraints of senior profes-sors. Key academic decisions are often in the hands of moreexperienced professors and are related to the Asian respect forage and to the nature of many Asian societies, although sometop universities have rapidly promoted younger professors andhave hired a large number of foreign-trained staff.

Academic corruption exists, at least to a limited extent,everywhere, but the problem seems to be endemic in someAsian countries. Reports concerning favoritism in admissionsto plagiarism in publication, and falsifying research findingscan be found regularly in many Asian newspapers. A study byChina's Wuhan University estimated that $100 million isspent annually for ghostwritten academic papers by academicsand students. One of the world's top medical journals,Britain's Lancet, warned that China will not become a researchsuperpower by 2020 as promised by President Hu Jintao,unless academic fraud is more tightly controlled. Few statisticsare available, but anecdotal evidence indicates the problem isfairly widespread, even in some top Asian universities.

In most Asian countries, graduate education is at a relative-ly early stage—in need both of expansion and of shaping effec-tive programs to provide a research base for Asian universitiesand the ability to educate the next generation of professors andresearchers. Typically, professors who focus their work on post-baccauleareate education tend to be the most research active.Their academic responsibilities emphasize research and thetraining of small numbers of graduate students. Even many ofAsia's best universities provide more emphasis on undergrad-uate programs—thus making the emergence of research uni-versities more difficult, although some top institutions, forexample in China, have dramatically expanded graduate pro-grams.

Internationalization is widely recognized as a necessary partof any top university. Many of Asia's universities have stressedit, but the adversities are significant. What should representthe balance between the local language and English, as themain language of scientific communication? In some universi-ties, professors are encouraged to publish in major interna-tional journals—not an easy task in the highly competitivearena of science and scholarship. Some classes are taught in

English, but at times with mixed results. The complex issuesrelating to branch campuses, franchised degree programs, andinvolvement with foreign universities are multifaceted and notalways beneficial for the Asian institutions. Most of the world'sinternationally mobile students come from Asia, and many donot return home following their overseas study—although thistrend is slowly changing.

The final impediment is the academic profession—at theheart of any university but especially important for a top“world-class” university. For many Asian countries, the profes-soriate is inadequately paid in comparison to local salaries andwoefully remunerated by international standards. Teachingloads are often too high to permit much research to be per-formed. In many countries, academics are promoted becauseof longevity rather than for merit. Another challenge is the lackof a tenure system that provides firm guarantees of academicfreedom. Professors need both better job protection and moremoney and at the same time a competitive environment toensure high productivity.

The Future of Asian UniversitiesWhile it is very difficult to generalize about Asian countries,some generalizations are possible. Most countries in Asia—with some notable exceptions in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan,and Singapore—are still rapidly expanding enrollments. Thus,competition for public funds for rapidly expanding systems isintense. Top-tier universities often lose out in the struggle forresources. The growing private-sector institutions have nointerest in research and will not produce prestigious universi-ties.

Several Asian countries have undertaken ambitious plansfor improving higher education, and some are making impres-sive progress. China, South Korea, Singapore, and several oth-ers have invested heavily in higher education, with the top uni-versities improving significantly. Other countries—notablyIndia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and most of the poorer Asian coun-tries—have a very long way to go.

While there has been impressive progress in some Asiancountries and in some sectors of academe, many obstaclesremain to achieve world-class status. The struggle is a long oneand will require not only resources but also changing deeplyentrenched academic practices. But building world-class uni-versities is necessary for Asia to continue its impressive eco-nomic progress. Sophisticated research capacity and highlyskilled people are needed for Asia's future.

5


future of asia

An academic culture that is based on meritocratic

values, free inquiry, and competition—combined

with elements of collaboration and at least some

mobility—is central to a world-class university.

In most Asian countries, graduate education is at a

relatively early stage—in need both of expansion

and of shaping effective programs to provide a

research base for Asian universities.

Reflections on ResearchPerformance Measures and theRise of AsiaDavid A. Pendlebury

David A. Pendlebury is a citation analyst at Thomson Reuters. E-mail:[email protected].

The English poet William Blake wrote of “seeing theUniverse in a grain of sand.” That is how I think of the

footnote, relegated to the bottom of a page or the end of a text.In this particle of acknowledgment—often overlooked—wecan find “the Universe,” or at least a path that leads to “theUniverse.”

Citations in the journal literature represent the pathways ofcommunication among researchers. Taken together, they rep-resent a complex network of the exchange of knowledge, ascomplex as any set of communication connections, whether oftelephone calls, links on the World Wide Web, or even neuronsand synapses in the brain.

Citations: What Do They Represent?I have spent the last three decades analyzing and contemplat-ing citations. What do they represent? What do they reveal?Observers express many different opinions. Some say the cita-tions are primarily rhetorical and serve to support an argu-ment. Others say they are mostly shaped by social relation-ships. But I subscribe to the view that they are, when taken inquantity, reliable indicators—and symbols—of influentialideas.

In the sciences, a professional and even moral imperativeexists to cite what is relevant to one's work. This is “giving cred-it where credit is due.” The sociologist of science, Robert K.Merton, spoke of citations as “repayments of intellectualdebts.” I think that is the most accurate understanding of whatcitations represent and reveal.

Citation Databases: Information Retrieval and AnalysisThanks to the invention of citation indexes for scientific jour-nals by Eugene Garfield in the early 1960s, we have citationdatabases. Thomson Reuters Web of Science database is pri-marily designed for information retrieval. Citation indexinggives researchers a powerful way to navigate and explore theliterature because it relies on the expert judgments and con-nections made by scientists themselves—not indexers. Such arich collection of data, now covering the year 1900 to the pres-ent and including some 50 million journal articles and three-quarters of a billion citation connections, invites quantitativeanalysis. And that is citation analysis, one aspect of bibliomet-rics.

Quantitative Assessment and Peer ReviewThe most-cited papers and researcher can be identified. Onecan identify the most influential institutions, nations, and jour-nals. Likewise, the dynamics of research productivity and indi-cators of influence or impact can be monitored and explored.

Citation analysis, when pursued in concert with traditionalpeer review, can contribute to a more thorough understandingof research performance—of nations, institutions, researchgroups, and even individual scientists. Such analysis aids deci-sion making, whether by funders or those with responsibilityfor promotion. It can also increase fairness in a system of eval-uation, since peer review can at times be unfair, owing to bias-es that even the reviewers may not recognize.

The Rise of AsiaIn October and November 2009, I traveled throughout Asia todeliver lectures about citation analysis and the research per-formance of Asian nations. I met with government and univer-sity officials, leading scientists, and journalists.

Japan still strong. In Japan, I listened to concerns aboutJapan's declining world share of articles in the journalsindexed by Thomson Reuters—from nearly 10 percent in2000 to 7 percent by 2008. Policymakers expressed worry thatJapan's scientific standing in the world is falling. However, Ishowed that in terms of impact, or citations per paper, Japan'sperformance is the highest it has been in three decades. Thisillustrates the difference between output and impact. It alsoillustrates how scientific research has undergone a huge trans-formation in the last 30 years: globalization.

In the early 1980s, the United States was the publicationleader in science, with some 40 percent of all articles indexedby Thomson Reuters. By 2008, that number had fallen to 29percent. Europe saw its world share climb from 33 percent in1981 to 36 percent in 2008, but even Europe has lost worldshare since 2000 when it claimed 39 percent. Meanwhile,Asia, as a region, has increased its world share, from 13 percentin the early 1980s to nearly 30 percent today. The calculation ofworld share is a zero-sum game: if some nations producepapers at a faster rate than others, their share will increasewhile the latter will decline.

Singapore emphasizes quality. The government of Singaporeseeks to create a dynamic knowledge-based economy.Singapore's investment in research and development is now aremarkable 2.6 percent of the gross domestic product. That isabout the same as the United States. Singapore's goal for 2010is a 3 percent investment in R&D. Though a small producer,with only a .7 percent world share in the Thomson Reuters


future of asia6

I have spent the last three decades analyzing and

contemplating citations. What do they represent?

What do they reveal?

database, Singapore accounts for 1.1 percent of the world'shighly cited papers. This reflects a policy of focusing on andsupporting world-class scientists, many of whom have beenrecruited to Singapore from the United States, the UnitedKingdom, and elsewhere. Areas of particular strength forSingapore are materials science, engineering, and computerscience. Singapore represents an intriguing experiment inemphasizing quality over quantity, and it is already producinggood results.

India boosts output. In India, I discussed the proper use ofpublication and citation data for evaluation with faculty mem-bers at the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. Theprofessors were eager for advice on best practices since it wasclear to all that quantitative assessment would increasinglyaffect decisions about funding and promotion. In manynations—and not limited to Asia—rather crude measures andrewards have sometimes been implemented to improveresearch productivity. It is imperative that any system of quan-titative performance indicators be transparent to all, under-standable, and fair. For their own sake, scientists need to edu-cate themselves concerning world standards in researchassessment, if for no other reason than to guard themselvesagainst uninformed or bad practices by university or govern-ment administrators.

Our national indicators for India have shown a spike in out-put since 2000, from 2.2 percent of the world's journal litera-ture to 3.4 percent recently. During the last decade, citationimpact has also increased in tandem with increased output,which is often not the case (frequently we find that a largeincrease in output causes citations-per-paper scores todecline). India's research impact stands at some 44 percentbelow the world average, but it is improving. The strongestareas for Indian science are, as they have been traditionally, thephysical and agricultural sciences.

China's remarkable rise. As impressive as the growth ofIndian science is, China takes the prize for its astonishingincreased output over the last few decades. In the early 1980s,journal articles indexed by Thomson Reuters that carried aChinese author address were only .4 percent of the world's out-put. That number is now 10 percent, up from 5 percent onlyseven years ago. Today, China is second, behind the UnitedStates, in its production of research articles published in inter-nationally influential journals in the sciences and social sci-ences. Like India, the influence of Chinese research is belowthe world average—about 38 percent below the world average,

but this statistic began to increase in the late 1990s. Chinaalso, like India, places an emphasis on the physical sciences:materials science, chemistry, physics, mathematics, and engi-neering. These fields, along with agricultural sciences andplant and animal sciences, exhibit relatively high impact.Another phenomenon, discernible in the last few years, is anincreasing number of hot papers from China. Hot papers aredefined as those published in the last two years that rank in thetop .1 percent by citations, taking into account their date ofpublication and field. China now produces more hot papersthan Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, Switzerland, Australia,Spain, or Sweden. China is rapidly becoming a world power inresearch.

Assessing Four Budget-Balancing Strategies in HigherEducationArthur M. Hauptman

Arthur M. Hauptman is a public policy consultant specializing in highereducation finance issues. E-mail: [email protected].

Countries around the world that run educational systemsand institutions at all levels face serious challenges in

responding to cutbacks in government funding. Thus, it isworth considering whether the options open to public highereducation in addressing these challenges correspond withthose available to public school systems.

Public School and Higher Education SystemsFor school systems, government is typically the principalsource of revenues for almost all of their budgets. Moreover,new students often are seen as a drain on resources as anygrowth in students typically is not matched by more publicfunds. This crisis is especially true during recessions whengovernments have trouble meeting the many demands ontheir resources. This explains why public school systems mustincrease class sizes, cut programs and/or reduce staffing inresponse to government cutbacks in funding. Public highereducation systems and institutions share this characteristicwith public school systems.

Yet, in two other critical respects, the economics of publichigher education are strikingly different from the pressuresthat engulf public school systems. One issue is that publichigher education has a major revenue source that publicschool systems do not—tuition fees. This means that increas-

7


economic issues

In the early 1980s, the United States was the publi-

cation leader in science, with some 40 percent of all

articles indexed by Thomson Reuters. By 2008, that

number had fallen to 29 percent.

es in enrollments at public colleges and universities will resultin more revenues, which may or may not offset the reductionsin government funding.

Furthermore, enrollment in higher education is not com-pulsory, and those trends are far more variable than for publicschool systems, where the number of students in the shortterm vary within a relatively small range. Enrollments in pub-lic higher education, by contrast, tend to swell during reces-sions as job prospects are much more limited and more peopledecide to go back to school rather than stand in the unemploy-ment lines. The question and the challenge for public highereducation officials is whether this enrollment growth is viewedas an opportunity or a burden.

Common MisunderstandingsThese economic realities also lead to conflicts about how pub-lic institutions are financed. First, how much institutionsspend per student often is regarded as a relatively fixed amountof money. As a result, not enough attention is paid to the effectchanges in enrollment can have on per student spending fig-ures. For example, rapid enrollment increases brought aboutby recessions tend to drive down spending per student astuition fee revenues do not increase enough to offset the slow-down in government funds.

The other misunderstanding that clouds the public dis-course on cost recovery is that the debate typically focuses onhow tuition fees affect demand—namely, the lower the pricethe more that people will demand to enroll. But the reality isthat tuition fees do not just reflect demand. They are also keyin defining supply—the lower the fees, the fewer seats can beprovided at any given level of government funding. This (over)emphasis on demand considerations contributes to the viewthat lower fees will result in more access. But the data suggestthe opposite: countries that charge higher fees often havegreater levels of participation because of the larger number ofseats that are made available.

With these economic realities as context, four strategies areavailable to public higher education officials in dealing withcutbacks in government funding. One of the four—cappingenrollments and cutting costs—is revenue neutral or reducing.The other three are revenue increasing—changing the mix ofenrollments, increasing tuition fees for existing students, andincreasing enrollments while maintaining fees at current lev-els. It is worth considering the strengths and weaknesses ofeach approach and their likely effects on the key indicators onquality, access, and productivity.

The Four StrategiesCapping enrollments and cutting costs is public higher educa-tion's equivalent of public school systems hunkering down toweather the recession storm. This strategy has the advantage ofbeing budgetarily responsible—that is, making sure the sys-tem has enough money to pay its bills. It also holds the bestprospect of maintaining quality in the face of cutbacks. Yet,this approach has the tremendous drawback of being political-ly damaging on key dimensions as it has the painful conse-quence of reducing access to higher education and cuttingstaff. Given these realities, a principal question is why publichigher education officials would engage in this strategy beforefully exhausting the possibilities of revenue enhancement.

Changing the mix of enrollments entails increasing the num-bers of international (or out-of-state) students who typically paymuch higher fees than resident students. The chief benefit ofthis strategy is that it usually increases revenues more than thecosts of providing the education to these students. It also hasthe potential to increase the quality of the student body to theextent that the nonresident students are as good as or betterthan the resident students who otherwise would have beenadmitted. The main drawbacks of this approach are that it ispolitically damaging and unfair in that access would be deniedto a group of students from families who vote and who paid thetaxes that allowed the public institutions to exist and grow. Italso does little to improve productivity and may well decreaseit in the form of higher spending per student.

Increasing tuition fees for existing students is perhaps the mosttried and true response to reduced levels of government sup-port for higher education. It is the most direct and obvious wayfor institutions to balance their budgets by increasing cost-recovery rates. A further benefit includes being able to main-tain quality at current levels or improve them. However, accessis likely to be reduced for students who cannot afford the high-er prices, especially if not enough financial aid is provided tooffset the tuition-fee hikes. It also does little if anything toreduce costs per student or increase productivity.

Increasing enrollments while maintaining current tuition-feelevels often seems to be the least utilized of the four budget-bal-ancing strategies, despite the advantage both of increasingaccess and improving productivity. Critical questions needed tobe addressed in considering whether to utilize this strategy are:Will enrolling more students lead to lower quality? Do currentfee levels cover the marginal cost of enrolling more students?Do institutions have the capacity to accommodate additionalstudents?


economic issues8

The economics of public higher education are strik-

ingly different from the pressures that engulf public

school systems.

With these economic realities as context, four

strategies are available to public higher education

officials in dealing with cutbacks in government

funding.

The answer to these three key questions will differ in theshort term (using existing capacity) and the long term (poten-tial for expanding capacity); but if current fees are greater thanthe marginal cost of enrolling more students, this strategymakes economic sense. The fact that so few systems aroundthe world are choosing this strategy in the face of much morepainful choices may mean that officials determined that quali-ty would be compromised and/or marginal costs are higherthan current fees. Or it may be that institutional rigidities, lackof a fundamental understanding of marginal costs, or politicalconsiderations led to decisions that were unjustifiable on theeconomics.

Institutional or system officials obviously must decide howto respond to government cutbacks in funds based on theirown set of conditions. However, the potential benefits ofincreasing cost-recovery rates by adding numbers of studentsrather than, or in addition to, raising tuition fees should be animportant consideration in their decision making.

Impact of the Financial Crisis onHigher Education in the UnitedStatesRoger L. Geiger

Roger L. Geiger is distinguished professor of higher education atPennsylvania State University. E-mail: [email protected].

The economic crisis of 2008–2009 brought precipitousdeclines in almost all classes of financial assets and a con-

traction of economic activity that was, for a time, comparedwith the Great Depression. Colleges and universities wereforced to adjust to a variety of shortfalls in anticipated rev-enues, but deeper structural changes were virtually impossible.Now, midway into the 2009–2010 academic year, longer-termperspectives, rather than panicky predictions, are possible. Inthe short term, conditions have not proved to be as bad asfeared; but the current crisis has made it far more difficult toaddress the long-term weaknesses of American higher educa-tion.

EndowmentThe wealthiest colleges and universities, normally immune tothe tempests besetting other institutions, suffered significantfinancial damage in this crisis. With all classes of financialassets plunging, their diversified portfolios of alternativeinvestments were hit from all directions. The losses of2008–2009 will be felt for years to come, and many institu-

tions have announced permanent budget reductions of 10 per-cent. Cuts of this magnitude can only be achieved by firingpeople, since salaries comprise roughly three-quarters of uni-versity expenditures. Institutions have also instituted hiringfreezes and cancelled building plans. Still, these “hardships”should be put in perspective.

The fall in endowment values had the greatest impact onthe wealthiest institutions, since they support a larger share oftheir budgets with endowment income. Before 2008, thesesame institutions had experienced the greatest prosperity oftheir storied histories as a result of the investment booms ofthe late 1990s and 2003–2007. Their prosperity induced con-siderable extravagance, especially in amenities for undergrad-uates. However, these institutions also uphold the higheststandards of US science, scholarship, and graduate education.To date, the possible compromise or decline in these areas hasnot been revealed, although future investments are anothermatter. Harvard, for example, has placed plans for its new sci-ence campus on hold. Stanford will not fill 50 open facultypositions and also halted construction projects. Thus, theresearch capacity of the nation's most distinguished universi-ties will be frozen for some time.

Still, the immediate picture has brightened somewhat. Thestabilization of financial markets, the apparent end of the “offi-cial” recession in the United States, and some recovery in USand international financial markets all promise some mitiga-tion of the downturn. Still, selective private colleges and uni-versities have become more dependent on student tuition.

The States and Public Support for Higher EducationOne higher education official lamented: “every source of rev-enue coming into the state has decreased.” States, unlike thefederal government, must cover their expenditures with rev-enues, and that has meant rescissions (taking back fundsalready appropriated) and reductions in higher educationappropriations. In six states, rescissions during FY(fiscalyear)2009 took back from 8 to 24 percent of state funds. Buteveryone knew that allocations for FY2010 would be disas-trous, although as it turns out, they were not quite that bad.The Obama stimulus package contained over $50 billion toreplace state cuts in education funding, including higher edu-cation.

Public universities in many states have faced severe cuts inappropriations. California, with the largest and most admiredsystem of public higher education—and a dysfunctional legis-

9


economic issues

The wealthiest colleges and universities, normally

immune to the tempests besetting other institu-

tions, suffered significant financial damage in this

crisis.

lature—has been the poster child for the Great Recession. TheUniversity of California, the Cal State university system, andthe community colleges all suffered 20 percent cuts in statefunding. Other states experiencing decreases of similar magni-tudes include Washington, Hawaii, Arizona, and SouthCarolina—all places where the state has provided the majorityof funding for public higher education. Cuts of this size areunprecedented and can only be accommodated by diminishingquality and/or services.

Recession economics teaches that a revival of state tax rev-enues is virtually the last element in a recovery. States will facefurther budgetary squeezes next year. Unfortunately, many ofthe stopgap measures or budget gimmicks used to cope withthis year's crisis will be impossible to duplicate. Also missingwill be stimulus funds, which many states chose to expend infull for FY2010 in order to soften the blow. Hence, shortfallsfor FY2011 promise to be even more severe.

Public universities in virtually every state have resorted tosubstantial increases in student tuition. As these hikes do helpto buttress revenues, this trend is good news, at least for uni-versity budgets. However, public tuitions have been risingsteeply, especially since 2000. Increases of 9 to 10 percent for2009/10 will increase public tuitions by around $400 to $500.California will add another 30 percent hike. More students willrequire larger student loans to meet these fees.

States have been underinvesting in their colleges and uni-versities for many years. Disinvestment has been most evidentat the multitude of regional public colleges and universitiesthat provide open access to perhaps one-half of four-year col-lege students. The same can be said of community colleges,which enroll one-third of postsecondary students. Hence, thecompromises and sacrifices being made this year and next aresuperimposed onto years of retrenchment.

Enrollment PatternsThe economic downturn has caused students to downgradetheir educational aspirations and educational spending. Thus,students have opted for public universities instead of privateones, for regional institutions instead of flagships, for two-yearinstead of four-year, for commuting instead of attending a res-idential college. This race to lower costs has increased demandfor places at regional public universities and community col-leges at a time when their resources are being reduced. InCalifornia the response has been to limit enrollment. By oneestimate, the three systems will reduce enrollments by300,000 (or 15 percent) by 2011, with most of this attritionoccurring at community colleges. However, nationally, com-

munity college enrollments jumped substantially in fall, 2009.That sector is particularly well suited to serve financiallystrapped or career-minded students. The Obama administra-tion has emphasized this role by proposing a special appropri-ation for community colleges, although such federal fundswould be small compared with cuts in state appropriations.

Longer-Term ConsequencesUS universities are recognized for excellence in all aspects ofacademic research and graduate education. Yet, Americanhigher education has a far more equivocal record in recentyears for educating young people in keeping with a knowledgesociety and a democratic polity. The United States no longerleads the world in the proportion of young people graduatingfrom college, as it did until late in the 20th century.

Selective colleges and universities have been able to raisetheir prices consistently more than the cost of living (con-sumer price index + 3% annually, since 1980) because demandrose as they increased quality. The availability of financial aidand the practice of differential pricing (tuition discounting)made this strategy far more effective than it could have been inisolation. These practices simultaneously broadened the mar-ket for high-quality education (increasing demand) and bol-stered quality as well by ensuring the recruitment of top stu-dents. A likely decrease in overall demand for high-cost, selec-tive colleges could destabilize this model. The endowmentlosses suffered by these institutions have translated into long-

term budget cuts. These institutions, particularly the not-quite-so-wealthy institutions, will be looking to raise more revenuefrom student tuition, which means granting less student aid.At the same time, less-wealthy students will be leaving theapplicant pool, but not the wealthiest. Anecdotal evidence hasalready reported a perceptible shift from merit to ability to payin 2009 admissions. Thus, the student clientele of the selec-tive sector, already skewed heavily toward the affluent, is likelyto become more socially elite—and less elite intellectually.

In the open sector of higher education, the lack of financialresources weighs down completion rates and extends time-to-degree. High prices have a demonstrable impact, particularlyfor students from the two lowest-income quintiles. They aremore reluctant to take on debt and have resorted to growingamounts of part-time work. Institutions in this sector mustaccommodate students with weaker academic preparation.Most likely, these last two factors interact, as large classes, part-time teachers, and unavailable classes take the greatest toll on


economic issues10

One higher education official lamented: “every

source of revenue coming into the state has

decreased.”

Recession economics teaches that a revival of state

tax revenues is virtually the last element in a recov-

ery. States will face further budgetary squeezes next

year.

weaker students. The majority of American college studentsare probably affected to some extent by these conditions.Unfortunately, these market conditions also seem to feed uponthemselves, largely through the disinvestment in public high-er education and the steep stratification in the effectiveness ofprecollege education.

A comparison of college participation rates in Organizationfor Economic Cooperation and Development countries foundthat educational expansion was reducing the discrepancybetween the highest and lowest income groups everywhereexcept in the United States. Here, college attendance by thewealthy has actually increased more since 1980 than gainsamong low-income groups. Furthermore, attendance at selec-tive college and universities is more socially skewed, and grad-uation from college is still more socially skewed. Before 1980,American higher education, on balance, consistently providedopportunities for social and economic advancement, but sincethat date it appears, on balance, to be generating social repro-duction.

ConclusionThe economic downturn of 2008–2009 will exaggerate thefundamental problems facing American higher education andmake them more difficult to address, let alone reverse or atten-uate. The downward ratchet in attendance decisions will makethe selective sector more socially exclusive. Conversely, enroll-ment pressures at open-access institutions, even while publicfunds to support those institutions are being withdrawn, seemdestined to compromise quality.

Academic research and graduate education have enduredthe crisis better than other sectors, but here the danger lies inthe not-too-distant future. The most distinguished universities,which largely support scientific excellence, have ceased toexpand their research capacity, and this strategy has ominousimplications. Federal research funding has been artificiallyinflated with stimulus funds. This has buoyed academicresearch for the current year or two, but cutbacks almost cer-tainly lie in the future. If public support for research declinesin the way public support for higher education has, the futurewill indeed be bleak.

The Competition forInternational PostsecondaryEducation Students Madeleine F. Green and Kimberly Koch

Madeleine F. Green is vice president for international initiatives at theAmerican Council on Education. E-mail: [email protected] Koch is former ACE program associate. A longer version of thisarticle is available at<http://www.acenet.edu/Content/NavigationMenu/ProgramsServices/cii/pubs/ace/SizingUptheCompetition_September09.pdf>.

In 2007, there were an estimated 2.8 million internationallymobile students, up from 1.8 million in 1999. Those num-

bers are expected to continue to increase. The global market-place for internationally mobile students has led nations tocompete with one another by developing a variety of policiesand strategies to attract these students. This article highlightsthe goals and recruitment efforts made by the top five destina-tion countries, in order of their share of the international stu-dent population.

United StatesThe United States continues to be the world's leading highereducation destination. Nearly 672,000 international studentsstudied in the United States in 2008/09. The vast majority ofthese students come from Asia. Since 2002, India has sent thehighest number of students to the United States, followed byChina, South Korea, and Japan.

In the United States, the majority of recruitment efforts areconducted by individual institutions. Unlike other countries,the United States has no coordinated national strategy or tar-gets. At the national level, the US Department of State'sBureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs sponsorsEducationUSA, a network of professional educational advisersand education information centers that promotes US highereducation worldwide and offers international students infor-mation on the application process, admissions requirements,potential scholarship funding, visas, and everyday living in theUnited States. EducationUSA maintains a Web site, producesbrochures in six languages, and operates 450 advising centersaround the world. Additionally, the bureau funds overseasregional and national educational advising coordinators toorganize conferences and adviser training and serve as aresource on national and regional trends.

Institutions compete with each other to attract internation-al students. Some colleges and universities partner with otherinstitutions to promote higher education in their state orregion. Study Philadelphia, for example, is the result of the

11


competition and international students

A likely decrease in overall demand for high-cost,

selective colleges could destabilize this model. The

endowment losses suffered by these institutions

have translated into long-term budget cuts.

Campus Philly partnership among 20 institutions, and StudyWisconsin is a marketing campaign conducted by 36 collegesand universities in that state.

United KingdomIn 2007, the United Kingdom hosted 351,470 internationalstudents. International student enrollment has risen duringthe past decade, although with some slowdown in that growthin recent years. This slowdown may be attributable to thegrowth of English-language programs in Europe (which haveroughly tripled since 2003) and to the limited capacity of someUK institutions with high international student enrollments toabsorb additional students. In spite of new, more stringent visarequirements, the Universities and Colleges AdmissionsService in June 2009 reported a 12 percent increase in thenumber of international undergraduate applications from thesame time the previous year.

In 2006, then Prime Minister Tony Blair launched the sec-ond in a series of international education initiatives (PMI2),which aimed to “secure the U.K.'s position as a leader in inter-national education.” The targets for 2011 set by the initiativeinclude recruiting an additional 100,000 international stu-dents and doubling the number of countries that send morethan 10,000 students per year to the United Kingdom. Theplan targets 24 countries and focuses on improving the repu-tation of UK higher education and further education sectorsthrough marketing campaigns and the development of part-nerships. The Education UK brand was developed for thePMI2 and uses the slogan “Innovative. Individual.Inspirational.” A network of British Council offices located inmore than 100 nations markets the UK higher education sec-tor to potential students using this brand and offering informa-tion on scholarship opportunities.

GermanyRecent trends in Germany's international student recruitmentdemonstrate a move toward greater regional recruitment andless emphasis on the global market share. Enrollment fromnon-European countries has remained steady, while enroll-ment of students from Europe has grown. According toUNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, andCultural Organization) data, Germany hosted 206,875 stu-dents in 2007, about 8 percent of the total global internationalstudent enrollment.

The German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) operatesin 64 offices worldwide. DAAD is an intermediary organiza-

tion between German higher education and government agen-cies. According to its Web site, the service “offers higher edu-cation institutions the opportunity to become actively involvedin Germany's foreign cultural, education and research, anddevelopment cooperation policies.” The agency works in fiveareas: scholarships for foreign students to study in Germany,scholarships for Germans to study abroad, the international-ization of German universities, the promotion of Germanstudies and the German language, and educational coopera-tion with developing countries. DAAD helps institutionsrecruit international students through information and adver-tising campaigns, using the “Study in Germany: Land ofIdeas” slogan to attract students and managing a “Research inGermany: Land of Ideas” campaign to attract internationalpostdocs and faculty.

FranceThe French share of international students has remainedsteady since 2000, at approximately 8 percent. Seven of the top10 sending countries to France are francophone, and francoph-one students make up about 32 percent of the total internation-al student population in France. In 2007, UNESCO reported246,612 international students enrolled in French higher edu-cation.

When the annual number of international students begandecreasing in France in 1994, the government began to thinkmore strategically about promoting the French higher educa-tion system. EduFrance was established in 1998 as a nationalagency to promote French higher education abroad and wasreplaced by CampusFrance in 2006. CampusFrance currentlyhas 100 offices in 75 countries. The agency assists internation-al students throughout their student experience, from navigat-ing the application process through the students’ returns totheir home countries. Additionally, CampusFrance organizespromotional events (education fairs, forums, thematic visits,university tours) throughout the year in cooperation withFrench higher education institutions.

AustraliaIn 2007/08, education services were the third-largest exportrevenue category in Australia. International students make upalmost 20 percent of total higher education enrollments in thecountry. In 2007, Australia hosted 211,526 international stu-dents, a 15 percent increase from the previous year.


competition and international students12

The targets for 2011 . . . include recruiting an addi-

tional 100,000 international students and doubling

the number of countries that send more than

10,000 students per year to the United Kingdom.

When the annual number of international students

began decreasing in France in 1994, the govern-

ment began to think more strategically about pro-

moting the French higher education system.

As an English-speaking country, Australia has traditionallybeen an important destination for students from the Asia-Pacific region. Australia has led “Study in Australia” cam-paigns with the slogan “Live. Learn. Grow.” The newest versionof this marketing campaign, “Study in Australia 2010,”includes a A$2.8 million drive to support the internationaleducation sector. The plan includes a focus on six key markets:China, India, South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand,although Australia Education International officials note thatthey will continue to reach out to other emerging markets suchas Brazil. AEI has 25 offices in 17 countries that serve both asoutreach centers for potential students and as the internation-al student market research center for the government.

ConclusionThe competition for international students is heating up.Regional strategies are growing. Europe is intensifying itsefforts to create an attractive European higher education area;Singapore is established as a regional hub. Other nations suchas Malaysia and Japan have set national goals for internationalstudent numbers. The Gulf states are also intensifying theirefforts to become regional hubs. Trends and vigorous nationalefforts suggest that US pre-eminence is no longer a given andthat international students have many choices.

Recent Trends and Issues inInternational Student MobilityHans de Wit

Hans de Wit is professor of internationalization of higher education at theSchool of Economics and Management of the Hogeschool vanAmsterdam, University of Applied Sciences, the Netherlands, and editor ofthe Journal of Studies in International Education. E-mail:[email protected].

International students in the past months have reached theheadlines in the news around the world. We have seen inten-

sive coverage by the media of presumed (and later questionsfor their accuracy) racist attacks on Indian students, whichthreaten the success story of the increased number of studentsfrom India studying in Australia and their contribution to theeconomy.

More emphasis is now being placed in the media on thecontribution international students make to national and localeconomies. In New Zealand it generates more earnings thanthe export of wine; in Canada more than lumber and coal; andin the United Kingdom more than automotive or financialservices. NAFSA: Association of International Educators esti-

mates that foreign students and their dependents contributed,in the 2008/09 academic year, approximately $17.6 billion tothe US economy. For Australia, it is the fourth export productafter coal, iron, and recently—as a result of its sharp increasein price—gold.

The fact that these figures are becoming so dominant in thedebate about international students relates to the shift fromsocial/cultural and academic to economic rationales in interna-tional student recruitment, which is increasingly evolving in amultinational industry.

Tuition FeesThe dominance of income generation in the drive for interna-tional students has been present in the United Kingdom (early1980s) and Australia (mid-1980s), when the concept of differ-ential, cost-related tuition fees for international students wasintroduced. Until recently, this was not a factor in continentalEurope and the United States—with the exception of the pub-lic sector, where inner and outer state fees (also for internation-al students) always have existed. In Canada, other factors suchas immigration policy and development cooperation weremore dominant in their recruitment policy.

The policy of nondiscrimination between international andlocal students on tuition fees has survived for a long time incontinental Europe. Only in recent years, countries likeDenmark, the Netherlands, and Slovakia have introduced full-cost fees for non-European Union (EU) students, as is also thecase for Malta and Ireland. Sweden and Finland are consider-ing this option as well. Five German states have introducedtuition fees, which have increased the cost of study in thoseparts of the country for international students. Other coun-tries, though, like Austria—where the introduction of tuitionfees was revised during election time in 2008—Greece, Italy,Spain, and France have no plans to introduce higher fees fornational and/or international students.

Increased Global CompetitionWhile in northern Europe tuition fees for international stu-dents are introduced and in the United States and UnitedKingdom increased, one can see two other trends in interna-tional student circulation. First, there is increased competitionfor international students to the traditional top countries:United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, andAustralia. That completion is coming from other industrializedcountries such as Canada, New Zealand, Japan, and continen-tal Europe but also from emerging economies such as China,

13



More emphasis is now being placed in the media on

the contribution international students make to

national and local economies.

Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, South Africa, and the MiddleEast—also still the dominant sending countries. With localincreasing capacity in higher education, especially at theundergraduate level as well as increased foreign presence inthe sector, they compete for students from their region withthe traditional recipients. In Malaysia and the Middle East, theIslamic education is also used as an attractive alternative forthe increasing anti-Islam attitude in Europe and the UnitedStates. The Global Education Digest of UNESCO (UnitedNations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) in2009 observes that students are increasingly staying withintheir region of origin. This is in particular the case for LatinAmerica and the Caribbean (11% in 1999, compared to 23% in2007) and in East Asia and the Pacific (from 36 to 42%).

Recruitment of Top TalentsA second visible trend is a shift from massive recruitment toselected recruitment of top talents, students who not only areinvited to study but also to stay and work. Accounting for thisshift, skilled migration fills the needs of the knowledge econo-my and replaces the shrinking educated labor forces in thegraying societies of Northern America, Europe, Australia, andJapan. At the same time, countries like China also need thesetalents to serve their economies. John Douglass and RichardEdelstein of the Centre for Studies in Higher Education at theUniversity of California, Berkeley, in their report Whither theGlobal Talent Pool, in 2009, estimate that the United Statesneeds to double its international student enrollments from625,000 in 2008 to 1.25 million in 2020, in a time ofincreased global competition. Japan—after the completion ofan earlier target of 100,000 international students—has set atarget of 300,000 by 2020; Malaysia set a target of 100,000international students in the coming years; Singapore 150,000by 2015; and Taiwan 30,000 in the coming four years.Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou justified this target by stat-ing: “It is urgently important to make local universities andcolleges internationally efficient so as to recruit more studentsfrom other countries to help Taiwan sharpen its competitiveedge,” as well as a reference to the fact that Taiwan has the low-est birthrate in the world.

Reputation and Employability—New Pull FactorsInitially, a contradiction appears between the introduction offull-cost tuition fees for international students in northern

Europe and the increased global competition for them. InSweden, universities are asking the government to delay thedecision, given the present economic crisis and the sharp fallin number of non-EU degree-seeking students in Denmarkafter the introduction of higher tuition (a drop in two years of50%). Reputation and employability, however, are more impor-tant pull factors than costs in the decisions by students, theirfamilies, and donors concerning where to go, as shown in theUnited States and the United Kingdom. It is for that reasonthat the Danish science minister is not worried about the dropof non-EU students. In the University World News (January 24,2010) he stated that by maintaining free education, the riskand costs of a massive inflow of poor or mediocre internation-al students would be high and a combination of high tuitionfees and a scholarship schema will provide better changes torecruit top talents. A similar approach appears to exist in theNetherlands, although the scholarship schemes are underthreat due to the economic crisis.

World rankings have increased the importance of reputa-tion. The presence of top international students and scholarsresults in a higher position in these rankings and, as a result,the attractiveness for excellent students and scholars to bethere. As a result, the divide between the top and other levelsbecomes wider.

Brain DrainDisadvantages are suffered by people who do not have a chanceto study at all or to go abroad and escape from the poor condi-tions in their home country; and countries at the end of thechain, who see their small elite of educated children go awayand never return. The global competition for talents has placedthe issue of brain drain again on the agenda. Countries likeVietnam recognize this problem. In December 2009, theVietnamese government organized chat sessions withVietnamese students abroad (currently about 50,000) to stim-ulate them to come back after their studies instead of stayingaway. Other countries open their higher education to privateforeign providers by lack of public funding. But those at the farend of the chain can only survive by development aid: bringingin academics from the developed countries to fill the gaps cre-ated by the brain drain to these countries—a strange, costly,and ineffective way to complete the brain circle.



The dominance of income generation in the drive

for international students has been present in the

United Kingdom (early 1980s) and Australia (mid-

1980s), when the concept of differential, cost-relat-

ed tuition fees for international students was intro-

duced.

A second visible trend is a shift from massive recruit-

ment to selected recruitment of top talents, stu-

dents who not only are invited to study but also to

stay and work.

The Global Market forInternational Students:American PerspectivesJohn Aubrey Douglass and Richard Edelstein

John Aubrey Douglass is senior research fellow at the Center for Studies inHigher Education at the University of California, Berkeley. RichardEdelstein is a senior research associate at CSHE and managing director ofGlobal Learning Networks. This essay is adopted from their recent study“The Global Competition for Talent” available at<http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/ publications.php?id=341>.

As we are often reminded, the United States remains thenumber one international study destination for intelligent

students from across the world—in particular from India,China, and Korea, the big three sources of international stu-dents globally. In the long term, little doubt exists that UShigher education will remain extremely attractive to foreign tal-ent—due to the academic quality of a large number of itsresearch universities; the legacy of a relatively open society forimmigrants; and America's still-brilliant, if slightly tarnished,reputation as a land of opportunity.

However, a closer look at shifting higher education marketsand at the possible impact of the evolving global recession pro-vides a more nuanced perspective for policymakers. In sum,there are already signs that the world market for student talentis shifting to the benefit of the United States’ competitors, andin bad economic times we may find that shift accelerating.

Currently, the United States remains a good performer inattracting the world's growing cadre of international studentsto its graduate and professional schools, although it could domuch better, and its once-dominant position is eroding. Yet, itis an underperformer at the first-degree level, when comparedto its competitors. Perhaps most importantly, the United Stateslacks a strategic approach to capitalizing on the global pool ofmobile students.

So what has changed? Two macrotrends help explain theshift: growing demand and increased competition.

Demand—the Short and Long of ItThe global demand for higher education is creating a surge inthe number of students seeking an international experience inhigher education. The Organization for Economic Cooperationand Development estimates 135 million students in tertiaryeducation worldwide, a number doubled over the last 10 years,with huge increases in Asia and across Europe, especially.More students are seeking to study outside their home coun-tries. Between 1975 and 1990, the number of international stu-dents grew from some 600,000 to 1.2 million; by 2000 the

total was 1.9 million, and in 2006 it reached 2.9 million.Although the full impact of the global recession will not be

felt until the next academic year, surveys completed by theCouncil of Graduate Schools in the United States, based ondata collected on fall 2009, show that number of internationalstudents in US graduate programs remained flat after fiveyears of growth. Decreases were especially significant in theSTEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics)fields and in business.

We surmise that the long-term trend will involve a largeexpansion in the number of international students, fueled inpart by overall population growth and in part by the changingneeds of the global labor market. The open question is howthose students will distribute themselves.

New CompetitorsDeveloped and developing nations are improving their highereducation systems, seeking to raise the international profileand attractiveness of their universities, and integrating highereducation into their domestic and foreign policy initiatives.Consequently, new competitors for international students haveemerged in a market once dominated by the United States anda select group of largely English-speaking nations. From

2000–2006 the US market share of all international studentsdropped from 25 percent to 20 percent. Meanwhile, mostEuropean Union nations and countries such as Australia, NewZealand, Canada, and Japan have retained and, in some cases,expanded their market share of international students. TheUnited Kingdom, France, and Germany continue to attractlarge numbers of international students; and relative newcom-ers with high growth in the past decade include Australia, NewZealand, Canada, the Netherlands, Japan, and China.

Competition has increased given the relatively recent recog-nition that international students, by paying their full freightor more, are a real or potential profit center, subsidizing nativestudents (most nations cap tuition for native students but notfor international students). In the United Kingdom, for exam-ple, international students now produce some 10 percent ofthe entire income of the higher education system, while inAustralia they fund some 15 percent of all income for thenational universities. New Zealand also relies heavily on inter-national students to support its national higher education sys-tem; Japan is attempting to follow a similar path.

Evolving notions of workforce development is anotherimportant key factor. Canada and the Netherlands, for

15



However, a closer look at shifting higher education

markets and at the possible impact of the evolving

global recession provides a more nuanced perspec-

tive for policymakers.

instance, are openly using higher education to attract andretain highly educated immigrants. They—along with Japan,New Zealand, Australia, and most of Europe—are all experi-encing declines in population and are thus recruiting andenrolling more international students as a means to remaineconomically competitive.

Market ComplexityWith the evolving global knowledge economy and the atten-dant demand for highly educated professionals, serious conse-quences would be created by not meeting the emerging globalmarket for talent, particularly in the STEM fields. Indeed, since1977 the many more doctorates awarded to foreign students ontemporary visas has led to the overall growth in the number ofconferred doctorates in the sciences and engineering in theUnited States.

Over the past decades, international students who gained adoctorate increasingly chose to stay in the United States. Asmore students came to the United States, more of them stayedand entered the job market. Their presence has markedlyinfluenced technological innovation and the overall competi-tiveness of the US economy.

But this past success story also indicates vulnerabilities inthe ability of the United States, and other major nationalproviders like the United Kingdom, to continue to be domi-nant. Citizens of China, India, South Korea, and Taiwansecured about 20 percent of all doctorates in the United Statesin 2007. In a sign that this pattern may be unsustainable, theUnited States and other developed economies with maturehigher education systems are experiencing the new phenome-non of declining stay rates.

Thinking Strategically, Acting GloballyThe market for international students is only one dimension ofthe larger problem of adapting the university to globalizationand the global economy. The United States lacks key compo-nents of an international strategy for its higher education sec-tor and has assumed that its premier position in past decadeswill simply be retained. We do not think in that direction anddo believe the Obama administration needs a much moreproactive strategy at the national, state, and institutional levelto recruit foreign students.

Here are some of our recommendations to US policymak-ers. First, the Obama administration needs to elaborate anational policy on higher education as a critical national resource

in the global economy that must attract talented students andscholars from abroad and prepare Americans to be competentprofessionals and leaders in an international context.

We also urge the development of national strategic goals forinternational student enrollments at both the undergraduateand graduate levels and link them to broader policy objectivesin areas such as foreign relations, national economic develop-ment, and educational attainment. We suggest a goal to doubleinternational student enrollments in the United States to 1.25million by 2020, with emphasis on increasing the percentageof undergraduate students and on public-sector institutions.

Much greater flexibility in visa policies is required and otherstrategies to improve both recruitment and “stay rates” for for-eign nationals and reassess national security needs. Fourth,and a related recommendation, is the real need to increasefinancial aid for foreign students via grants, scholarships, loans,and paid work.

The federal government, along with smart state and localgovernments, can greatly support marketing US higher educa-tion internationally, with the goal of creating a more friendlyand supportive environment for students to apply and enroll inUS universities and colleges. The real need is to improve theavailability of information within an international market oftencrowded with multiple, often profit-minded ventures.

And finally, the US strategy should include an effort to diver-sify the national origin of international students to anticipate newmarkets for talented students in the future. The United Statesis, in short, too dependent on only a few major providers ofinternational students.

ConclusionMore and more competitors in the global higher educationmarket for talent are providing financial resources to subsidizeand support foreign students, via grants, scholarships, loans,and allowing for paid work. This, in turn, and without strategicinitiatives at the federal and state levels, will influence theattractiveness of the United States, where tuition rates are,generally, much higher.

Eventually an initiative will be working to encourage moreinternational students to come to the United States and to pro-mote joint programs and activities among US and foreign uni-versities—probably in 2010, and after other major domesticpolicy issues are, to some extent, addressed. If so, the timing isright. A tremendous opportunity is afforded by the newObama administration to offer a larger strategic vision and anenhanced sense throughout the world that the United States isonce again a more friendly and active participant in worldaffairs. The president and his administration need to morefully incorporate what is one of the nation's chief assets—itsuniversities and colleges—into its new, emerging foreign poli-cy vision.



New competitors for international students have

emerged in a market once dominated by the United

States and a select group of largely English-speaking

nations.

International Enrollments in theUnited States: 60 Years of OpenDoors DataPatricia Chow and Julie Chambers

Patricia Chow is a senior program officer and Julie Chambers is a researchofficer at the Institute of International Education. E-mail:[email protected]. Additional data is available on the Open Doors Website: < http://opendoors.iienetwork.org>.

In 2008/09, 671,616 international students were studying atUS colleges and universities, an 8 percent increase over theprevious year, according to the Open Doors Report onInternational Educational Exchange published by the Instituteof International Education. IIE surveys approximately 3,000accredited US higher education institutions annually on vari-ous aspects of international educational exchange and has col-lected data on international students in US higher educationsince its founding in 1919.

IIE published the results of its first international studentcensus for academic year 1948/49 under the title of Educationfor One World. Only 25,464 international students were report-ed that year, less than 4 percent of the total in 2008/09.Canada was the top sending country in 1948/49, with 4,197Canadian students studying in the United States that year. Incontrast, in 2008/09, India was the top sender, with 103,260students. While the top places of origin have changed substan-tially over the past 60 years, following economic and politicalshifts, Canada and India remain the only two countries thathave figured among the top 10 places of origin each year since1948/49.

Trends by World RegionSixty years ago, the distribution of incoming international stu-dents was more evenly spread out among the world regionsthan it is today. Students from Asia comprised the largestgroup at 26 percent, followed by Europe and Latin America (23percent, each), North America (17 percent), the Middle East (7percent), Africa (3 percent) and Oceania (slightly less than 1percent). Today, students from East, South, and Southeast Asianot only comprise the largest regional group, they also out-number students from all other regions combined.

The 415,000 students from Asia accounted for 62 percentof all international students in the United States in 2008/09.Four of the top five places of origin overall are in Asia (#1 India,#2 China, #3 South Korea, and #5 Japan—Canada is #4).Recent rates of increase, especially at the undergraduate level,indicate that China may be poised to retake the position of topplace of origin, which India has held since 2001/02.

Particularly large increases were seen by two other top-sendingAsian countries: #9 Vietnam (46 percent) and #11 Nepal (30percent).

The number of students from Asia has increased 28 percentover the past five years, 48 percent since 1999/2000 and morethan 60-fold since 1949/50. In the decade between 1979/80and 1989/90, the proportion of international students comingfrom Asia rose from 29 percent to 54 percent. Actual enroll-ment totals rose from 45,710 to 127,620, spearheaded by largeincreases from China, following normalization of relationswith the United States, and by large increases from Japan,South Korea, India, and Taiwan, all of which remain amongthe top places of origin today.

While the actual number of students from Europe grewsteadily through the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, the proportionof international students in the United States from Europe hasdeclined from over 20 percent in the early years of the OpenDoors survey to 13 percent in 2008/09. Enrollments fromEurope grew by 4 percent to 87,648 in 2008/09, reversing thedeclines seen in the years immediately following 9/11.

Similar to Europe, enrollments from Latin America havealso followed an overall upward trend, but have not kept pacewith the large increases in students coming from Asia. As aconsequence, the proportion of students from Latin Americain the United States fell from over 20 percent in the 1940s and1950s to 10 percent in 2008/09. Mexico is the top place of ori-gin in the region, with 14,850 Mexican students studying inthe United States in 2008/09. The region as a whole saw a 5percent increase in 2008/09.

The number of students from Africa increased by 4 percentto 36,937 students in 2008/09, 6 percent of the world total.The number and proportion of students from Africa rose inthe late 1970s and early 1980s, fueled by large enrollmentsfrom Nigeria during the oil boom years. At its peak in 1982/83,there were 42,690 students from Africa in the United States,about 13 percent of the world total. Nigeria is still the top placeof origin in the region, with 6,256 students in the UnitedStates in 2008/09.

The 29,140 students from the Middle East currently com-prise 4 percent of the total international student population inthe United States. Enrollments from the Middle East alsosoared during the oil boom years, peaking at 81,390 studentsin 1980/81—about 26 percent of the international studenttotal, led by enrollments from Iran, the top place of origin over-all between 1974/75 and 1982/83. Saudi Arabia is currently thetop sending country in the region, with 12,661 students in theUnited States in 2008/09.

17



Sixty years ago, the distribution of incoming inter-

national students was more evenly spread out

among the world regions than it is today.

Students from North America (29,697 from Canada and410 from Bermuda) comprised about 5 percent of all interna-tional students in the United States in 2008/09. Canada wasthe top place of origin of international students in the UnitedStates from the beginning of the Open Doors survey until1971/72, when it was surpassed by India.

The 5,053 students from Oceania still comprise slightly lessthan 1 percent of the overall international student total. Theproportion of students from Oceania in the United States hasnever exceeded 2 percent. Enrollments from Australiaincreased 18 percent in 2008/09 to an all time high of 11,042students, accounting for 63 percent of the regional total.

Recent TrendsAs has been the case since 2001/02, graduate internationalstudents outnumbered undergraduate international studentsin 2008/09, but by a smaller margin than in previous years.While the number of undergraduates increased 11 percent overthe past year, driven by large increases from China (61 per-cent), Vietnam (56 percent), Nepal (38 percent), and SaudiArabia (31 percent), graduate enrollment increased only 2 per-cent. Recent rates of increase indicate that undergraduateinternational students may once again outnumber graduateinternational students in the near future.

Deciphering “Educational Hubs”Strategies: Rhetoric and RealityKevin Kinser and Jason E. Lane

Kevin Kinser is a PROPHE collaborating scholar and associate professor inthe Department of Educational Administration and Policy Studies, StateUniversity of New York, Albany. Jason E. Lane is an assistant professor inthe Department of Educational Administration and Policy Studies, StateUniversity of New York, Albany, and a Fulbright New Century Scholar.They are currently working on a research project focused on the develop-ment and impact of international branch campuses and educational hubs.E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected].

Over the past two decades, an increasing number of govern-ments have recognized their higher education sectors as

important to their economic development. In part, this recog-nition has prompted governments to adopt innovative, albeitsometimes untested, higher education development policies.Of late, many of these policies have been focused on the devel-opment of private higher education, where it had often been anunderutilized tool in national strategies. One of the moreprominent developments in this policy arena, particularly in

the Middle East and Southeast Asia, is the increasing interestby government officials to reposition their region as an “educa-tion hub.” In its most recent assessment of cross-border high-er education, the Observatory on Borderless Higher Education(OBHE) highlights the notable increase in “hubs” over the pastdecade, and identifies seven currently in existence and fivemore in development.

As an evocative metaphor, education hub has great rhetori-cal power that likely contributes to its adoption by both themedia and policymakers. The widely used slogan encompass-es several different types of strategies, almost all of whichincorporate the development of private-sector institutions andoften include international branch campuses (regulated as pri-vate entities); but, the term lacks a commonly acknowledgedoperational definition. For example, in the OBHE report, hubsites mentioned a lack of commonality across multiple dimen-sions including size, number and type of institutions, and stu-dents enrolled.

While some governments enact policies with the goal ofbecoming a hub, others use the phrase to give greater defini-tion to an existing agenda. Even more, the level of governmentinvolvement can vary (e.g., cities, states, nations). Hubs caninclude different combinations of domestic institutions, inter-national branch campuses, and foreign partnerships. Forexample, in the early 1990s, the Australian city of Adelaideused the phrase “education city” (a variant of the hub lingo) todescribe its new focus on education, specifically for recruitingforeign students from Southeast Asia to attend local universi-ties. More recently, Qatar's “Education City” is comprised of sixbranch campuses of American universities. Elsewhere,Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand have all developed differentpolicies intended to boost their respective reputations as aSoutheast Asian education hub, while in East Asia, SouthKorea and Hong Kong use similar language to describe dissim-ilar activities.

Assumptions and RealityIn this article we focus on the strategies used by entities thatself-identify as educational or academic hubs. We examine fourassumptions in the emerging discourse about educational hubstrategies. By beginning now to disentangle the rhetoric fromreality in the current discourse, we hope to provide greater clar-ity for ongoing policy and scholarly analysis.

Assumption 1: institutions in educational hubs exist in closeproximity to each other.

Reality: in some intended hubs, institutions may be locatedanywhere in the country. In others, hub institutions are withinwalking distance of each other. The first arrangement reflectswhat we call an Archipelago hub, where institutions are dis-persed throughout a state or nation with no geographic con-centration of academic efforts. The second arrangement iswhat we call the Acropolis hub, which brings together severalinstitutions in one location. This latter form has recently beenused to recruit institutions to establish branch locations in


higher education hubs18

places such as the Dubai International Academic City andQatar Education City. Governments seeking to develop educa-tion hubs may adopt Archipelago or Acropolis strategies or acombination of both. In Malaysia there are at least twoAcropolis hubs, along with several foreign branch campusesdispersed in Archipelago fashion throughout the country.

Assumption 2: education hub is primarily a governmentalstrategy.

Reality: Although establishing educational hubs requiresgovernment involvement, many Acropolis and Archipelagohubs involve, and are sometimes supported by, quasi-govern-mental and nongovernmental entities as sponsors or partners.In the case of Dubai International Academic City, most foreignand domestic institutions rent space in buildings owned byTECOM investments, which supports shared facilities such asthe Student Hub and the Food Court. In Malaysia, following anArchipelago strategy, foreign institutions have been requiredby law to partner with a locally owned company, often a prop-erty developer who takes legal responsibility for building andmaintaining the facilities. Of course, governmental bodiesthemselves may also take a leadership role, as in the case ofMalaysia and the Iskandar Regional Development Authority.On the other hand, some intended hubs are distinguished bygovernment policy that more directly frames and guides theinitiative, led by central ministry-level government officials aspart of economic development plans. This is the Singaporecase.

Assumption 3: education hub and education city are inter-changeable concepts.

Reality: All education cities are designed to be educationhubs, but not all education hubs are designed as educationcities. The phrase “education city” refers to the Acropolis strat-egy used to develop an area into an educational hub. Nationsmay seek to become educational hubs, without creating aneducational city. Indeed, development of a hub is usually sup-ported by a broad policy agenda of a government to become aregional or international destination for education. The agen-da may or may not include developing an education city. Forexample, until very recently Malaysia pursued the goal ofbecoming an education hub without building an educationalcity (this has changed with the development of Iskandar andKuala Lumpur Education City). However, the intent remains

for the nation, not just the capital and Johor regions, to be theeducational hub. Similarly, Thailand's goal to become a region-al hub for education in Southeast Asia does not foresee thedevelopment of any education cities to achieve that goal.

Assumption 4: education hubs are driven by excess domesticdemand for higher education.

Reality: Whereas the literature on the recent growth of pri-vate higher education suggests that new institutions mostlyaim to absorb growing demand for higher education within anation, education hubs represent a supply-side argument fordeveloping private higher education—if you build it, they willcome. The creation of educational hubs, in part, is meant toattract focus to the nation's education sector and to build inter-est from foreign students, faculty, and institutions to becomepart of the local higher education marketplace. In fact, both theMiddle East and Southeast Asia/Oceania have experiencedincreasing competition among governments to become theregional education hub, with the hope of emerging as the des-tination of choice for students throughout their region.

ConclusionThe emergence of educational hubs is part of a larger evolutionin the international higher education marketplace, wherebycountries are turning to their private higher education sectorsto increase their global competitiveness. Whether focused oncapacity-building foreign institutions or encouraging theexpansion of domestic institutions, the private sector in manyemerging economies is seen as a strategic asset in the race toattract new students, build a more robust knowledge economy,and supply the country with more knowledge workers.However, the popularity of the phrase and its metaphoricimpressions may contribute to the nuances of strategy and pol-icy to be overlooked. Many governments are interested in cre-ating educational hubs, the resources required to support suchendeavors, and the international competition likely to be fos-tered because of it. Thus, it is important for scholars to focuson the various policy approaches and implementation strate-gies countries are using, rather than letting the metaphormuddy the discussion.

19


higher education hubs

Although establishing educational hubs requires

government involvement, many Acropolis and

Archipelago hubs involve, and are sometimes sup-

ported by, quasi-governmental and nongovernmen-

tal entities as sponsors or partners.

The emergence of educational hubs is part of a larg-

er evolution in the international higher education

marketplace, whereby countries are turning to their

private higher education sectors to increase their

global competitiveness.

Regional Education Hubs—Rhetoric or RealityJane Knight

Jane Knight is adjunct professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies inEducation, University of Toronto. E-mail: [email protected].

Internationalization has not only transformed higher educa-tion in three decades but it has undergone major changes

itself. This is especially true for cross-border education.Recently, cross-border education has grown in scope and scalewith competition and commercialization becoming criticaldrivers. The numbers of branch campuses, double-degree pro-grams, and franchise and twinning arrangements haveincreased as well as the recruitment campaigns for interna-tional students and faculty. The most recent development isthe race to create successful and competitive regional educa-tion hubs.

The concept of hub is currently very popular—almosttrendy. Countries are trying to position themselves as hubs forfinance, communication, transportation, manufacturing, fash-ion, and education. Cities are doing the same thing. But todate, a regional education hub does not include a definition,requirements, even characteristics, or an assessment of whatmakes a hub successful and sustainable. Education hub is alabel being used to describe a number of new and very differ-ent initiatives by countries in the Middle East and SoutheastAsia that are trying to position themselves as regional centersof excellence in education.

Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, created KnowledgeVillage in 2003 and more recently the Dubai InternationalEducation City. These linked initiatives aim to attract foreignbranch campuses to offer education and training to interna-tional students who will be job ready for the burgeoning serv-ice and knowledge economy in the Gulf states. Foreign educa-tion institutions and companies are colocated in an economicfree zone with attractive financial and tax benefits. Qatar hastaken a different approach, inviting and sponsoring sixAmerican institutions and one UK university to offer their full-degree programs and qualifications to Qateri students andregional students. The project is totally financed by the QatarFoundation and thus is a model difficult to replicate, but itaims to position Qatar as a regional source of high-quality edu-cation and to help prepare the country and region for a knowl-edge-oriented society and economy. The Global School HouseProject in Singapore is well known and has attracted a numberof foreign universities and international students in order toposition itself as a regional education hub for both educationand research. Malaysia, Hong Kong, Bahrain, and Botswanahave declared their aspirations and plans to be regional educa-

tion hubs and have set ambitious goals for international stu-dent recruitment.

Categories of HubsThese initiatives have some commonalities but also differ sig-nificantly in goals, rationales, sponsors, and activities. Thegeneric term regional education hub does not recognize theirdifferent approaches and objectives and thus needs to be bro-ken down into three different categories.

The student hub is the most focused and prevalent type ofeducation hub. The key aspect is the recruitment of interna-tional students to the country for the purposes of internation-alization of domestic higher education institutions, revenuegeneration, and building an international profile. In this sce-nario it is primarily local higher education institutions that arerecruiting the students to their individual campus, although insome cases foreign branch campuses are involved. A nationalrecruitment strategy and requisite policies are in place, but forthe most part individual institutions are recruiting students totheir own campus and programs. The goal is to reach a nation-al targeted number of international students and to build a rep-utation as a welcoming place for international students to geta high-quality education.

The education and training hub differs from a student hub inthat more than international students are being recruited, withthe involvement of different rationales and expectations.Foreign universities are invited to set up satellite operations inthe form of teaching centers or branch campuses.International private training and education companies arealso encouraged to offer academic programs and professionaldevelopment opportunities aimed at international and nation-al students. The driving key objectives are to educate and trainstudents to be skilled labor or knowledge workers for domesticand regional companies, to provide increased access to educa-tion and training for both international and domestic studentsand locally based employees, to demonstrate “best educationalpractice” by foreign education institutions, and to establishgeopolitical status in the region. In some cases, the majority ofeducation and training institutions and companies are locatedin one geographic area to share facilities and promote collabo-ration among themselves and with industry.

The knowledge and innovation hub broadens its mandatebeyond education and training to include the production anddistribution of knowledge and innovation. Foreign researchinstitutes and companies with major research and develop-


higher education hubs20

The concept of hub is currently very popular—

almost trendy. Countries are trying to position

themselves as hubs for finance, communication,

transportation, manufacturing, fashion, and educa-

ment activities are also encouraged to establish a base in thecountry and to collaborate with foreign and local universitiesand training companies to create a critical mass of talent andexpertise. The primary objectives are to help build a knowl-edge- and service-based economy, to educate and train skilledlabor, to attract foreign direct investment, and to increaseregional economic competitiveness. Collaboration among thekey players—foreign and local industries, research centers,education institutions, and companies—is a key factor tobuilding a knowledge and innovation hub.

Progressive Development or Quantum LeapA preliminary look at their stated rationales and planned orexisting activities shows that the majority of the seven coun-tries (Qatar is the exception) make the recruitment of interna-tional students a central feature of their efforts. Ambitious tar-gets, and in some countries major policy changes, are in placeto drive the process of becoming a regional student hub. Fourcountries—United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Malaysia, andSingapore—have attracted a substantial number of foreignuniversities or companies to provide increased access to educa-tion and training for local and international students.

But this line of thinking presumes a progressive growthfrom student hub to education and training hub to knowledgeand innovation hub; this may be a limited view or incorrectassumption. Is it possible to leap frog from a student hub to aknowledge hub, or is it feasible to start from the get-go as aknowledge and innovation hub? From an education perspec-tive, it is safe to say that no countries currently function as aknowledge hub, although perhaps an economist or trade spe-cialist would have a different view.

Regional education hubs are important new developments,but are they just a fad? Are they more rhetoric than reality?Probably not, but to make education hubs achieve their goalsand be sustainable requires substantial planning; policy pre-paredness; physical, technological, and human infrastructure;and investment by the sponsoring countries. Education hubshould not be merely a self-subscribed label used to achieveeconomic or geopolitical advantage in the region. With toomuch at stake, further work is needed in analyzing this com-plex and important new development in cross-border educa-tion.

UK University GovernanceUnder StressMichael Shattock

Michael Shattock is a visiting professor at the Institute of Education,University of London and the author of Managing Good Governance inHigher Education (Open Univ. Press, 2006). He also served as registrar atthe University of Warwick. E-mail address: [email protected].

University governance provides the essential frameworkwithin which teaching and research take place. In the

United Kingdom, with its historic tradition of university self-government, governance issues have mostly been concentratedaround questions of internal academic and student representa-tion in decision taking. However, with an expending systemthat consumes an increasing level of state resources, the grow-ing interest of the state in universities’ economic contributionand in institutional financial accountability has led to a parallelgrowth in state interest in university governance processes.Nevertheless, university governance has rarely attracted muchpublic or media attention. The technical (though important)differences between the traditional constitutions of the pre-1992 universities with their commitment to “shared” gover-nance between the council (the governing body) and the senateand the dominance of the board (the governing body) and thechief executive (the vice-chancellor) in the post-1992 constitu-tions have been obscured by the increasing tendency of thepre-1992 universities. The pre-1992 universities have followedthe lead of the post-1992 in adopting a more managerialstyle—appointing rather than electing deans and giving themexecutive powers and devolved budgets, appointing full-timepro-vice-chancellors with line-management responsibilities,creating senior management teams to run the university—sothat to the external eye the two types of constitution seem to bemoving in the same direction.

Strengthening Lay GovernanceThis movement has been coincident with the emergence of theCommittee of University Chairmen (CUC) (of governing bod-ies) as a significant force in university governance. First estab-lished in 1987 toward making university chairs betterinformed about university business and as a potentially power-ful lobby over funding issues in relation to a Tory government,the CUC was drawn into offering advice on university gover-nance in the mid-1990s. The evidence of governance malprac-tice, mainly at governing body level, was revealed in a smallnumber of post-1992 universities and colleges. Successive gov-ernments, Tory and Labour, have encouraged the view that laygovernance is likely to render greater accountability than aca-demic self-governance and may be more sympathetic to an

21


european trends

The primary objectives are to help build a knowl-

edge- and service-based economy, to educate and

train skilled labor, to attract foreign direct invest-

ment, and to increase regional economic competi-

tiveness.

economic view of higher education than university senates.The CUC has developed its interests from simply guidance ongovernance to a focus, based on reviews of the conduct of gov-erning body effectiveness, on how to appoint and remuneratevice-chancellors, on key performance indicators for institu-tions, and on the introduction of performance monitoringapproaches. The cumulative impact has resulted in strengthen-ing the role of lay governance and—taken together with therise of senior management teams—weakening the role of sen-ates, particularly in strategic decision making.

Smaller Governing BodiesThree developments have served to underline the shift in con-stitutional power. The first has been a long-running concern insome quarters about the appropriate size of the governingbody for decision-making purposes. Historically, the pre-1992universities had comparatively large governing bodies of up to45 or so members, one-third of whom were academics electedby the senate. Those universities relied heavily on decisionmaking through committee structures, while the polytechnicshad governing bodies of between 24 and 12 members, only twoof whom were academics normally elected on an institution-wide franchise (and therefore on an academic trades unionticket). This constitution continued when the polytechnicsbecame universities.

The 1997 National Committee of Inquiry into HigherEducation (the Dearing Committee) was sympathetic to themore robust approach of the post-1992 governing bodies andelevated the figure of 24 members to a principle that it recom-mended the pre-1992 universities should fall into line with.After protracted discussions and the jettisoning of representa-tion from local government communities, most universitiesreduced their membership to a little over 30. Yet, pressure hascontinued with a requirement that universities should justifyexceeding the figure of 24 in a statement in their accounts, andmany pre-1992 universities have consciously moved to thisposition. Implicitly, what might otherwise seem to be anarcane issue concerns decision-making processes—is the busi-ness of governing bodies mostly conducted through commit-tees where academic “experts,” for example, might be expectedto be influential, or is it conducted via a full-governing bodywhere lay influence, guided by a chief executive, might beexpected to be greater? All this is given greater point by a deci-sion by government that the minimum membership of 12should be removed so that governing bodies might becomeeven smaller and by implication operate more like company

boards without any academic or student representation. Anumber of universities, including at least one pre-1992 univer-sity, are known to be actively considering this model.

Relations between Vice-Chancellors and GoverningBodiesThis trend in governance potentially also reflects a shift in therelationship between the vice-chancellor and the governingbody, particularly with the chair of the governing body. In thepre-1992 universities the vice-chancellor, as chair of the senate,would previously have had the role of presenting the senate'sstrategic recommendations to the governing body. Now, facingperhaps a self-confident and invigorated governing body, rein-forced by accountability requirements laid down by the govern-ment, and with his/her performance monitored throughappraisal and the governing body's power to determine his/hersalary, a vice-chancellor could be much more the servant of theboard, subordinate to its wishes, rather than its leader. Thischange in the balance of relationship in some universities hasbeen emphasized by a spate of sudden departures of vice-chan-cellors from their posts: within the last year there has been anabrupt parting of ways at seven universities (both pre- andpost-1992 institutions). Most surprisingly, five have been with-in a year of appointment, suggesting that either the governingbodies (and their head hunters) were at fault in the initial selec-tion or that for whatever reason the relationship between thechair and the vice-chancellor proved to be incompatible. Suchevents are institutionally destabilizing; but it becomes a matterof wider concern when they occur at Imperial College, one ofthe United Kingdom's premier scientific universities.

Governance, Financial Accountability, and AcademicPerformanceThe third development has involved one of these seven univer-sities, London Metropolitan University—a large-access-orien-tated university formed by the merger of two former polytech-nics. Here, the university management had submitted incor-rect student data to the Higher Education Funding Council,thus inflating its student numbers and its entitlement to recur-rent grant. The funding council held the vice-chancellor andthe governing body, through its audit committee, responsible.The governing body's statement of full confidence in its vice-chancellor was met with a demand for his removal, the imme-diate dismissal of the audit committee, and ultimately, thestanding down of the board. Not surprisingly, the funding


european trends22

Successive governments, Tory and Labour, have

encouraged the view that lay governance is likely to

render greater accountability than academic self-

governance.

This trend in governance potentially also reflects a

shift in the relationship between the vice-chancellor

and the governing body, particularly with the chair

of the governing body.

council's demands have been met—after all, the most seriousevidence of mismanagement since the Cardiff affair in 1987,when a university teetered on the edge of bankruptcy.

What is surprising, however, especially after the run of vice-chancellorial departures referred to above, is that the fundingcouncil has now issued for consultation a revision of theFinancial Memorandum (the financial contract between eachuniversity and the funding council), giving the funding coun-cil the right to intervene directly to require a governing bodyeither to remove its accounting-officer responsibilities from itschief executive or to remove its chief executive. Clearly pro-voked by the London Metropolitan case, the proposed changeraises in acute form questions about university autonomy andthe funding council's confidence in governing bodies, whoseauthority the council has in recent years been so anxious toreinforce. It must be likely that consultation will lead to someamendment, but the incident serves to illustrate a new fragili-ty in top governance structures in universities.

In contrast to the turbulence described above, it is necessaryto report that Oxford saw off the attempt by its then vice-chan-cellor, aided and abetted by the funding council, to impose a laymajority on its council; and Congregation, its academic parlia-ment, remains its governing body. Both Oxford andCambridge retain minimal lay representation in their gover-nance but remain the two highest-ranked universities in theUK system and undeniably world-class institutions. Thismight suggest that while good governance is important to anyuniversity the precise forms of governance are less importantthan getting the academic fundamentals right.

Good-bye to the Celtic Tiger?Ellen Hazelkorn

Ellen Hazelkorn is director of research and enterprise, dean of the GraduateResearch School, and director of the Higher Education Policy ResearchUnit, Dublin Institute of Technology, Dublin, Ireland. E-mail: [email protected].

Ireland's historic transformation from a country dependenton agriculture and traditional manufacturing to one increas-

ingly based on hi-tech and internationally traded services is thestuff of legend. By 2007, the services sector accounted for 64percent of the gross domestic product (GDP), while industryaccounted for 33 percent and agriculture just 3 percent. Termedthe “Celtic Tiger” after similar transformations in Asia, theIrish experience was remarkable to both observers and partici-pants. Tax revenue surged, enabling massive investment inpublic services and infrastructure. In 2006, the governmentsurplus was 3 percent of GDP.

By 2009, all had changed utterly. The property bubble ofrecent years was exacerbated by incentives, a narrow tax base,and irregular practices in the banking sector. When the econo-my faltered, tax revenues and consumer confidence collapsed,exposing a massive public-sector deficit. GDP declined by 9.8percent during the first six months of 2009 and is estimatedto fall by 14 percent by year-end. Government borrowing islikely to rise to 13.6 percent of GDP in 2010, with unemploy-ment at over 15 percent.

Higher education was a beneficiary of the boom and is nowa potential casualty of the politically charged and financiallychallenging environment.

2009 Review of Irish Higher EducationThe idea of a review of higher education surfaced in 2007. Theaim was to go beyond the 2004 Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development (OECD) report on HigherEducation in Ireland, which had arguably been overtaken by thequickening pace of globalization. Announced in February2009, the review has been tasked with assessing higher educa-tion's fitness-for-purpose, developing a vision and national pol-icy objectives, and identifying “focused targets” for the nextfive years. It has been asked to consider the number and rolesof institutions, governance and accountability, level ofresources, and potential for greater efficiency “having particu-lar regard to the difficult budgetary and economic climate thatis in prospect in the medium term.”

The state of the economy has introduced urgency into theprocess. Rather than an 18-month process involving consider-able consultation, the final report is now due by December.The review is certainly timely; indeed, Ireland is probably latein tackling many issues. Even if the economy had not nose-dived, the system faces many challenges—inter alia, a binarysystem constrained by historical circumstances and unrespon-sive to changing national and global requirements, low levelsof internationalization, and weak governance and strategicleadership. At the same time, at the European level, increasingcompetition, rankings, and the possible emergence of a super-league of universities could be unfavorable to Ireland's smallresearch community.

ChallengesA big challenge involves the system level. Some observers haveviewed the challenge in terms of how many Irish universitiesare globally ranked according to Shanghai Jiao Tong or TimesHigher Education/QS. But Ireland is unlikely to adopt theGerman, Chinese, or Japanese strategy of concentrating

23


european trends

Termed the “Celtic Tiger” after similar transforma-

tions in Asia, the Irish experience was remarkable to

both observers and participants.

resources into a small number of universities. This perspectiveis not only due to philosophical reasons but also based on thefact that the cost associated with a single world-class universi-ty would beggar the entire higher education budget of EUR 1.4billion. Instead, Ireland is likely to adopt a “whole of country”approach encouraging strategic/regional clustering and/ormergers, especially at research and PhD level. This mightinvolve the introduction of a governance system similar to USstate systems to ensure greater coherence, collaboration, andefficiency and avoid duplication.

Another problem is investment. While approximately EUR3 billion has been invested in higher education and R&D sincethe late 1990s, Ireland still lags behind its European Unionand OECD neighbors as a percentage of GDP. In addition,tuition fees were abolished in 1997; ever since, its reintroduc-tion has been viewed as politically contentious, especiallyamong the middle class, which has been the main beneficiary.Today's large public deficit dictates that free tuition is nolonger tenable; however, any revenue generated is likely only toreplace and not increase existing core funding—whatever hap-pens in the future. A major disadvantage, however, is the timelag in actual receipts and the high level of graduate emigration.

Other possible issues include consideration of perform-ance-based funding as part of institutional contracts, aresearch assessment exercise, a student satisfaction and learn-ing outcome survey, further measures to both widen participa-tion and ensure matriculation across the system, andenhanced internationalization. Academic contracts will notescape scrutiny; attention is apt to focus on the need for greaterproductivity and performance measurements—albeit tenure isunlikely to be affected.

The Smart StateParallel to the review, two other government initiatives willaffect its recommendations and their implementation. InDecember 2008, the prime minister launched BuildingIreland's Smart Economy. Drawing together a range of initia-tives, the policy aims to position Ireland as a knowledge-inten-sive economy. While promoting higher education reform andrestructuring, it endorsed heavy investment to “incentivisemultinational companies to locate more R&D capacity inIreland, and ensure the commercialisation and retaining ofideas that flow from that investment.” As evidence of commit-ment, in March, the prime minister endorsed a TrinityCollege/University College Dublin plan to establish an “inno-vation corridor” with EUR 650 million investment from gov-

ernment, industry, and private funding over 10 years.Almost concurrently, the minister of finance established the

Special Group on Public Service Numbers and ExpenditureProgrammes. In July, the policy recommended reductions ofover EUR 5.3 billion and 17,000+ jobs across all governmentdepartments and agencies. Questioning the role of the HigherEducation Authority was always likely, given the popular beliefof too many government agencies. But the report went muchfurther, querying major campus development projects, criticiz-ing academic contracts, advocating institutional mergers andamalgamation of all research funding into a single agency, andquestioning research programs, the number of PhDs, andspecifically the link between science and technology researchand innovation. As if to emphasize its point, the report waslaunched within hours of the deadline for the major competi-tive research program, worth EUR 300 million in the currentround.

Responding to the CrisisIn response to the global crisis, many European countries, plusthe United States and Australia, have introduced stimulusmeasures to inflate their economies, including investing heav-ily in higher education and research. Indeed, the OECD hasrecently urged countries to “invest in education to beat [the]recession” on the basis that “human capital will contribute torecovery.”

Ireland has adopted the opposite approach. The govern-ment wants to position Ireland for the global economic upturnby making it more competitive and attractive to investmentthrough massive cuts in public expenditure and salaries,including restrictions on recruitment. Competitiveness isviewed in terms of reducing costs—pricing “ourselves backinto the market,” according to John Fitzgerald of the Economicand Social Research Institute—rather than investment.

Irish higher education, and the current review, is caught inthis political cross fire. Whichever agenda wins out, all propo-sitions will be measured against the Ministry of Finance's cri-terion of cutbacks and value-for-money. Such questions arelikely to find echoes in other countries as they struggle with theaftereffects of the recession. Ireland may provide a “useful” testbed—just as the “Celtic Tiger” presented another model.


european trends24

Higher education was a beneficiary of the boom

and is now a potential casualty of the politically

charged and financially challenging environment.

While approximately EUR 3 billion has been invest-

ed in higher education and R&D since the late

1990s, Ireland still lags behind its European Union

and OECD neighbors as a percentage of GDP.

Private Universities in a PublicFramework: The ItalianExperienceFiona HunterFiona Hunter is the international director at the Università Carlo Cattaneo-LIUC in Italy. E-mail: [email protected].

In contrast to the worldwide explosion in private higher edu-cation provision, the private sector in western Europe has

essentially remained a peripheral one that has not attracted theattention of researchers. The attempts to describe private pro-vision in the emerging body of literature highlight its heteroge-neous nature, for while expansion involves a global trend,much variation occurs in state stance and policy and in thenature and purpose of emerging private higher education. Inthe current debate on the privatization of public higher educa-tion, private universities operating within a public systembecome interesting cases for analysis. The term “private” inthis article refers exclusively to “nonstate” or “free” higher edu-cation institutions operating within the Italian regulatoryframework as nonprofit organizations.

Emergence and ExpansionThe persistence of a highly centralized and uniform model ofhigher education, established at the time of Italian unification,has resisted societal pressures for decentralization and diversi-fication. The Italian Constitution nevertheless provides theconditions for private provision, and alongside 61 state univer-sities there are currently 28 nonstate universities. While thenonstate institutions represent over 25 percent of the sector,they are significantly smaller in terms of enrollment, witharound 10 percent of the total student population. The vastmajority of the nonstate institutions have come into being inrecent decades in response to growth and variety in demandonly partially met by the state. Private expansion has occurredalongside public expansion.

The 20th century experienced the birth and intermittentdevelopment of the nonstate sector. Until 1990 there were only7 private universities, but between 1990 and 2000 a further 6were founded. Since 2000, 15 more institutions have comeinto existence, 11 of which are distance-education providers setup since 2004. Another phenomenon is the transformationfrom private to public status of nonstate universities unable tomeet the challenges of expansion and rising costs. The increas-ing financial pressure of this trend on the higher educationbudget forced the state to reconsider its laissez-faire policytoward spontaneous growth of the sector. Likewise, all newrequests, whether private or public, must be authorized withina central development plan.

State Regulatory FrameworkA private university initiative seeking to obtain recognitionfrom the Ministry for Education, Universities and Researchneeds to demonstrate adequate infrastructure, academicresources, and financial capital. After obtaining the legal rightof operation as a nonprofit organization, the unit's degreesmust be approved and granted legal validity, awarding themequal status with the state sector. While state recognitionbrings legitimation, it also restricts autonomy by imposingextensive legislative requirements in curricular content, creditweighting, and academic ratios as well as quality assurancestandards and performance measurements on a par with thestate sector.

While nonstate universities are governed to a large extent bythe national regulatory framework, they remain essentiallyself-funding institutions, relying almost exclusively on incomederived from tuition. In recognition of their public service,they receive a small contribution from the state higher educa-tion budget that averages at around 14 percent. Universitiessupported by local authorities or that offer healthcare throughtheir medical centers will receive a higher proportion of publicfunds, and those with strong affiliation to a stakeholder com-munity may have access to funding via donations or endow-ments. They compete on a par with the state universities in bidprocesses for research funds.

The nonstate universities have less financial accountabilityby virtue of their funding structure but are bound by nationallegislation for the hiring of tenured academics, and tend tokeep numbers low to reduce fixed costs and enhance flexibili-ty. Tenured staff in nonstate universities represent around 5percent of the national total, with significant sharing of the aca-demic workforce through the use of contracted staff from thepublic sector. These universities enjoy greater autonomy in therecruitment of administrative and nontenured academic staffand are independent in the acquisition and maintenance ofphysical plant. Their internal governance arrangements havemore extensive external stakeholder involvement, and deci-sion-making structures are typically more accountable to theirsponsoring institutions.

The Italian nonstate sector is heavily regulated through therequirements for legal validity, and its “privateness” or degreeof discretionary behavior is significantly reduced, with onlyminor margins of greater autonomy than the state sector. TheItalian stance to private higher education is one of incorpora-tion through a process of standard accreditation to ensurequality across the system but without an equal distribution offunding. As a consequence, the nonstate sector has notbrought significant diversity with most institutions cominginto being according to a model of “more” or “better” educa-tion.

Institutional ProfilesWhile its educational model may not be highly distinctive, thenonstate sector has flourished over the last 20 years, and insti-

25


european trends

tutional profiles demonstrate variety in age, size, location, aca-demic configuration, ownership, and reputation. For example,the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart is a large, well-established multicampus and multifaculty institution offeringall three educational cycles and full research facilities. While ithas over 40,000 students and 1,400 tenured staff, the other,much smaller, nonstate universities have only a few hundredstudents and a handful of staff offering a limited range of edu-cation and research services, such as the highly specializedUniversity of Gastronomic Sciences. There is a wide range ofdisciplines across the sector (including medicine).

While the nonstate universities are based predominantly inthe north and center of Italy, with over half of the universitiesclose to or in Rome and Milan, nevertheless a wide geograph-ic spread exists across the country. The profiles of the institu-tions are also influenced by the different types of ownershipthat fall into three broad categories: religious (Roman Catholic)ownership or affiliation, local authority institutions, and busi-ness groups or individuals (including the recently founded dis-tance-education providers). These categories influence theirfocus of mission, disciplines, and target groups.

With diversity of reputation, many nonstate universitiesplace emphasis on academic excellence and are well-respected.Yet, some of the more recently established universities are con-sidered less trustworthy, and their ability to meet minimumoperational and financial requirements have been questionedboth by the sector and the state.

ConclusionThe regulatory framework has traditionally focused on central-ization and uniformity, which has led to the emergence of anessentially analogous private sector with a strong sense of pub-lic mission alongside service to a specific stakeholder commu-nity. It remains peripheral despite significant expansion inrecent years in response to growth and variety of demand.Italian nonstate universities are hybrid institutions, account-able to both state and market. Precisely because they are forcedto ensure their own financial sustainability, the new conditionsof a more competitive international environment should bemore conducive to their development. The author's recentstudy of three nonstate universities suggested that internation-al and national market pressures are contrasting the power ofthe state in determining the environment and playing a

stronger role in defining institutional direction. As the dividebetween private and public higher education blurs, Italian non-state universities successful in exploiting their “privateness”have the potential to become examples of best practice.

Central Asia: IncreasingDiversityMartha Merrill

Martha Merrill is associate professor of higher education at Kent StateUniversity. She worked on university reform in Kyrgyzstan from 1996 to2001. E-mail: [email protected].

Although Central Asian nations are linked geographicallyand historically, their higher education systems are follow-

ing different paths. The five countries—Kazakhstan,Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan—evenat the time of the Soviet Union's dissolution varied in wealth,natural resources, population size, geography, governmentcontrol, languages spoken, treatment of nontitular ethnicgroups, and existing higher education resources. Since then,they have addressed nation building and the creation of profes-sional elites in different ways and with varied resources andphilosophies.

A Clear ExampleIn August 2009, the most repressive country, Turkmenistan,prevented students from traveling to Kyrgyzstan, the countrywith the region's most diverse system of higher education,even physically removing them from airplanes. The focus ofTurkmenistan's wrath was the American University of CentralAsia, a locally founded university with Kyrgyzstani licensureand attestation. However, it appeared that the more than 60students who were refused access to that institution would beallowed to attend the American University of Bulgaria, whichhas both US and Bulgarian accreditation. However, in earlyOctober, Turkmen authorities prohibited students from flyingto Bulgaria. Currently, rumors say they will be enrolled inRussian universities.

Turkmenistan—One ExtremeTurkmenistan is at one end of the continuum of diversity,choice, and academic freedom. Its dictator, SapramuratNiyazov, who died in December 2006, cut higher educationfrom 5 years to 2 and secondary education from 11 years to 9;closed the Academy of Sciences and most libraries, andrequired that hours of class time be devoted to the


central asia26

In contrast to the worldwide explosion in private

higher education provision, the private sector in

western Europe has essentially remained a peripher-

al one that has not attracted the attention of

researchers.

Rukhnama—his meandering and sometimes incoherentthoughts. Although under Niyazov's successor, GurbangulyBerdymukhammedov, 5 years of higher education have beenrestored, additional places have been created in universities(still not as many as in Soviet times), reopening the Academyof Sciences has been promised, and a branch of the RussianGubkin University of Oil and Gas has begun operations, aca-demic freedom remains nonexistent. Faculty educated underNiyazov have only 2 years of higher education and little knowl-edge of the world outside. Additionally, payment for admissionand grades reportedly is widespread; a dean and several lectur-ers at the Azadi Institute of World Languages this summeradmitted on television taking the equivalent of $119,000 fromeight students. Some blogs attribute the August clampdown—originally widespread and later focused on the AmericanUniversity of Central Asia—to officials upset at losing bribesfrom students who had other options. However, late inSeptember, 47 new Peace Corps Volunteers at the Philadelphiaairport suddenly were told they could not enter Turkmenistan,so the concern may be more about keeping out ideas. In mid-October, reports surfaced that Turkmenistan's natural gasfields held only a third to one half of the amounts claimed justlast year. Since the gas revenues are essential in fundingTurkmenistan's development, including education, the futureis unclear.

Kyrgyzstan—Choice or Chaos?At the other end of the spectrum is Kyrgyzstan, home not onlyto the American University in Central Asia, but also to two uni-versities founded by intergovernmental agreements: theKyrgyz-Russian Slavonic University and the Kyrgyz-TurkishManas University. In addition, Kyrgyzstan hosts the privatelyfunded Turkish Ala-Too University, the Organization forSecurity and Cooperation in Europe Academy, half a dozenbranches of Russian universities, a Kuwaiti university, anIslamic University, the Kyrgyz-Uzbek University, and a campusof the University of Central Asia, founded by the Aga Khan tobenefit mountain peoples. The European Union providesTEMPUS, Erasmus Mundus, Erasmus Mundus ExternalCooperation Window, and European Training Foundation pro-grams. Six Bologna process centers were created since 2007,and Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan were invited to the policyforum at the Bologna ministerial meeting in April 2009.

The American University in Central Asia and ManasUniversity offer four-year bachelor's degrees; other universi-ties have three-year BAs and two-year master's; others still

offer the five-year Soviet-era diplom and the kandidat nauk (can-didate of science). Some universities use credit hours, someuse the contact hours, and some use both. Several of thisauthor's interviewees in the summer of 2009 described thesystem as kasha—literally “porridge” but also a slang termmeaning “a mess.” On the other hand, openness to diversityhas advantages for a country with few natural resources, onethus dependent on citizens' brains and creativity. In fact, inAugust 2009, after the Ministry of Education adopted regula-tions on implementing credit hours, the European CreditTransfer System, the Diploma Supplement, and new teachingmethods supporting independent work, it reportedly instruct-ed universities to follow their own curricula until national cur-ricula were designed.

Kazakhstan—A Mixed ReviewGeographically the largest and, due to oil and gas reserves, thewealthiest nation in Central Asia, Kazakhstan is on a self-pro-claimed “Path to Europe” was invited to the 2009 Bologna pol-icy forum, and soon will assume the chair of the Organizationfor Security and Cooperation in Europe. Western-focused uni-versities include the Kazakhstan Institute of Management,Economics, and Strategic Research, the Kazakh-BritishTechnical University, and a small Kazakh-German University,plus the high-profile “world-class” University of Astana that isbeing developed in collaboration with University CollegeLondon. Some universities use credit hours. Kazakhstan per-mits private universities, allowed the creation of theIndependent Kazakhstan Quality Assurance Agency, andfunds the Bolashak program, which sends students abroad,with the proviso that they return and work in Kazakhstan.However, some signals are troubling: the much-toutedUniversity of Astana has no Web site, and the status of its workis difficult to confirm; the Kazakhstan Institute has cancelledcontracts with foreign faculty since the economic downturn;the Bolashak program is pressuring students to finish theirdegrees quickly and to return home; and some private univer-sities have been closed on short notice. Reform and trans-parency are, at best, uneven.

Uzbekistan—Limited OptionsUzbekistan—known for restricting political freedom underIslam Karimov, president since independence—has a rapidlygrowing number of professional training colleges, low instruc-tor salaries, insufficient places for the expanding youth popu-

27


central asia

Six Bologna process centers were created since

2007, and Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan were invited

to the policy forum at the Bologna ministerial meet-

ing in April 2009.

Kazakhstan permits private universities, allowed

the creation of the Independent Kazakhstan

Quality Assurance Agency, and funds the Bolashak

program, which sends students abroad.

lation, and, according to many reports, widespread corruption.A 2007 World Bank report notes that Uzbekistan andTajikistan have maintained elite systems, whereas Kyrgyzstanand Kazakhstan have chosen mass systems. Uzbekistan hoststhree foreign universities and three branches of Russian uni-versities. One of the four most prominent local universities,the University of World Economy and Diplomacy, has an inter-national focus. Alone among the Central Asian countries,Uzbekistan bars schools sponsored by the controversialTurkish Sufi organization (Fethullah Gulen) having closedthem in September 2000 reportedly because of Karimov's con-cerns about their propagation of a form of Islam that mightchallenge his rule. Even Turkmenistan has permitted theFethullah Gulen–sponsored International Turkmen-TurkishUniversity to operate since 1994, although its independence islimited.

Tajikistan—Worrying About the BasicsThe poorest among 15 former Soviet countries, Tajikistan is ina category by itself not only because ethnically and linguistical-ly Tajiks connect with the Persian rather than the Turkic world,like the rest of Central Asia, but also because of its devastatingcivil war (1992–1997) and its insecure border with

Afghanistan. The International Crisis Group, in a February2009 report titled “Tajikistan: On the Road to Failure,” esti-mates that half the working-age population has migratedabroad and that 70 percent of Tajiks live in “abject poverty.”Electricity often is available only a few hours a day. Tajikistanstruggles to provide adequate elementary and secondaryschools, particularly in rural areas. The capital, Dushanbe,hosts the Russian-aided Tajik-Russian Slavic University,Khorog is home to one of the three campuses of the AgaKhan–funded University of Central Asia, and according to the2007 World Bank report, 19 laws on higher education reformhave been passed since independence. Yet, restructuring oreven maintaining state-supported higher education is difficultfor a government beset with crises.

Divergent PathsCentral Asian nations, although connected by geography andhistory, are separated by wealth, resources, government priori-ties and control, and international connections, and increas-ingly follow divergent paths. Higher education systems,reflecting and responding to local conditions, no longer mirrorone another but rather plan for unique futures.

The Goals for Higher Educationin KazakhstanJoseph Stetar and Kairat Kurakbayev

Joseph Stetar is professor of education at Seton Hall University, SouthOrange, NJ, US. In spring 2006 he served as an embassy policy specialistat the US Embassy in Kyrgyzstan. E-mail: [email protected]. KairatKurakbayev is a PhD student at the Eurasian National University inAstana, Kazakhstan, and in spring 2008 was a visiting scholar at SetonHall University Program.

As part of its transition from the post-Soviet era and inresponse to the market economy and the effects of global-

ization, Kazakhstan (with a population of 16 million) has setambitious goals for improving the quality of higher education.Fueled by enormous oil reserves, Kazakhstan is determined tobecome one of the top 50 competitive economies of the worldin 2012, as indicated in the annual global competitive reportpublished by the World Economic Forum.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan'spublic universities suffered from poor resources, low facultysalaries and an outdated choice of specialties. Demand-absorb-ing private universities filled niches created by the market andwitnessed explosive growth. In 1994, the system contained 32private universities; 10 years later there were 130. In 2000/01,29 percent of Kazakhstan's 440,000 students were studying inprivate institutions; by 2003/04 those figures rose to 45.3 per-cent and 685,000. With the recent introduction of accredita-tion, 20 private universities have been closed. The strongestprivates are the English-language universities, with the NorthAmerican–style Kazakhstan Institute of Management,Economics and Strategic Research appearing to be the mostpreferred private institution. With 57 public and 110 privateuniversities, the higher education sector is overbuilt, and thenumber of private universities should continue to decline.

An Activist Government Looks AbroadSeeking to enhance the quality of its higher education sector,Kazakhstan has looked to western European standards forhigher education. For example, in 1997, Kazakhstan was thefirst country of newly independent states to adopt the policy ofthe Lisbon Recognition Convention, which calls member coun-tries for mutual recognition of qualifications and equivalencyof academic diplomas. The Ministry of Education and Scienceis also working on reforming the higher education systemalong the general lines of the Bologna process. In this context,Kazakhstan has encouraged the implementation of theEuropean structure of academic degrees (baccalaureate, mas-ter's and doctoral), a national quality-assurance system and aWestern-style credit system.


central asia28

Higher education systems, reflecting and respond-

ing to local conditions, no longer mirror one anoth-

er but rather plan for unique futures.

As part of its strategic development plan for higher educa-tion, the government has been implementing the StateProgram on the Development of Education 2005–2010. Onekey goal of this program is the adoption of a three-tiered degreestructure (baccalaureate, master's and doctoral). Currentlyboth public and private universities offer baccalaureate andmaster's programs. In 2005 two public universities, EurasianNational University and Kazakh National University, beganpiloting PhD programs. As part of this process EurasianNational signed memoranda of agreement with westernEuropean, Turkish, Japanese, South Korean, and NorthAmerican universities. This cooperation has bolstered thequality of postgraduate education and enhanced opportunitiesfor the university's ENU doctoral students, with the ministry'ssupport, to study abroad and be supervised by Western profes-sors.

In developing human capital, Kazakhstan has increased itsinvestment in the country's most talented young scholars. In1993 the government launched the “Bolashak” PresidentialScholarship Program. With the term bolashak [future], the pro-gram is evidence the government believes educating its eliteabroad will ultimately enhance national welfare.Approximately 3,000 undergraduate and graduate students,primarily from the urban centers, study abroad every year withthe United Kingdom, United States, and Russia the preferreddestinations. The program strengthens the state infrastructureas the preponderance of “Bolashak” graduates return toassume key government posts. However, the Ministry ofEducation and Science understands the program draws tooheavily from urban areas, with the rural areas significantlyunderrepresented.

Reform Has Spawned ChallengesConcurrent with these ambitious efforts and reforms theKazakhstani system of higher education has experienced localand international challenges. For example, continuous issueshave arisen with quality assurance. In 2001 rules of stateaccreditation of higher education institutions were approved,but only 25 percent of the universities passed the first stage ofaccreditation. In 2006, within the education budget, the shareof tertiary education was one of the smallest in the world, atabout 0.3 percent. At this juncture, an academic career hadonly a marginal attraction. For nearly a decade after 1991, uni-versity faculty needed to teach at two or more universities forstandard-of-living income and supporting their families. Atpresent, faculty salaries are still based on teaching load, leavingmost professors disinclined to engage in research and creatinga gap with the State Program on the Development of Education2005–2010, which attempts to expand faculty research.

Not unlike other countries in Central Asia a considerableeducation inequity exists between the urban and rural areas ofKazakhstan. Universities in rural areas lacking financial sup-port and academic infrastructure have difficulty in providing ahigh-quality education or recruiting young teachers to work in

rural areas. Kazakhstani professors and students, in general,suffer from a lack of up-to-date professional literature as uni-versities lack sufficient funding to subscribe to importantEuropean and North American journals. Electronic mediaresources also appear to be underdeveloped.

Kazakh-language-medium higher education also needs fur-ther development. The legacy of Russification has left universi-ties with only a small number of well-rounded specialists whohold an effective command of Kazakh. The absence of Kazakh-written teaching-and-learning materials further complicatesefforts to expand Kazakh-medium instruction. The status ofKazakh language needs to be addressed as ethnic Kazakh stu-dents begin to form a greater proportion of students in highereducation. Another serious issue is English-language compe-tence among students and professors. The ministry and uni-versity administrations are exerting pressure to ensure thatuniversity faculty hold a sufficient command of English topresent at major international conferences and to publish theirresearch in respected international journals.

After the Soviet Union's collapse Kazakhstan began imple-menting higher education reform that has greatly acceleratedover the last five years. Major steps have been taken to improvethe structure and quality of Kazakh higher education as evi-denced by the State Program on the Development of Education2005–2010. However, economic and societal issues—such asstudent and academic staff mobility, educational inequitybetween urban and rural population, difficulties in accessingcurrent literature, and a lack of English-speaking academics—have hindered attainment of goals outlined in the 2005–2010plan.

Substantial Challenges RemainIn terms of quality control, a shift is needed in the mindset ofsome Ministry of Education and Science staff and universitymanagement leaders who tend to view accreditation as a toolfor greater government control rather than a vehicle for insti-tutional self-improvement. There is an urgent need to developa culture of institutional accountability and transparencyacross the universities. Thus, on many fronts, developing thequality of the educational system is critical for Kazakhstan'sefforts to achieve international competitiveness.

29


central asia

The Ministry of Education and Science is also work-

ing on reforming the higher education system along

the general lines of the Bologna process.


international issues30

New Publications

Dean, Diane R., Susan J. Breaken, and JeanieK. Allen, eds. Women in Academic Leadership:Professional Strategies, Personal Choices.Herndon, VA: Stylus, 2009. 265 pp. $24.95.(pb). ISBN 978-1-57922-189-8. Web site:www.styluspub.com.

Women are a growing segment of top lead-ership in American higher education. Thisbook discusses the various elements ofwomen's leadership roles and styles. Amongthe topics are informal learning amongwomen community college presidents, strate-gies for women in leadership roles, womenand the quest for presidential legitimacy,mentoring women leaders, and others.

Douglass, John Aubrey, C. Judson King, andIrwin Feller, eds. Globalization's Muse:Universities and Higher Education in aChanging World. Berkeley, CA: BerkeleyPublic Policy Press, 2009. 407 pp. (pb). ISBN978-0-87772-432-2.

A broad analysis of globalization and high-er education, with a stress on marketizationissues, this book examines themes as well asproviding some case studies. Themes includethe race for human capital, market-driventrends in financing higher education, andothers. Most of the chapters discuss howbroad patterns of globalization are affectinghigher education in national and regionalcontexts. Among these are considerations ofAsia's role in technological innovation, uni-versity and industry in Taiwan, competitive-ness and its impact in Europe, managementissues in European universities, fee arrange-ments in England, and other issues.

Ehrenberg, Ronald G., Harriet Zuckerman,Jeffrey A. Groen, and Sharon Brucker.Educating Scholars: Doctoral Education in theHumanities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ.Press, 2009. 348 pp. $29.95 (hb). ISBN 978-0-691-14266-1. Web site: www.press.prince-ton.edu.

There is widespread agreement in theUnited States that doctoral preparation in thehumanities and related social sciences is incrisis. Funding for students is inadequate, thedoctoral programs themselves face consider-able staffing and financial problems, attritionrates are high, and full-time academic jobsscarce. This book is a careful and thoroughanalysis of these and other problems with aneye toward improving the situation. Amongthe themes discussed are transition from

graduate study to career, attrition issues, doc-toral program design, and others. A valuablediscussion of lessons for the future is provid-ed. While this book focuses only on theUnited States, it is relevant to many othercountries.

Jones, Elspeth, ed. Internationalization and theStudent Voice. New York: Routledge, 2010.210 pp. (pb). ISBN 978-0-415-87128-0. Website: www.routledge.com.

This book provides a wide-ranging discus-sion of how students engage with universityinternational programs and other internation-al activities, mainly from the viewpoint ofBritish university. Among the themes dis-cussed are internationalization and teachereducation, international volunteerism, andstudents in cross-cultural classrooms, andothers. The book is unique in that it looks atthe topic from the perspective of how stu-dents relate to international initiatives.

Kasozi, A. B. K. Financing Uganda's PublicUniversities: An Obstacle to Serving the PublicGood. Kampala, Uganda: Fountain, 2009.244 pp. (pb). ISBN 978-9970-02-735-4. Website: www.fountainpublishers.co.ug.

The argument in this book is that fundingproblems are the source of Uganda's continu-ing higher education crisis. A thorough analy-sis of patterns of funding and the implica-tions of shortage is provided. Among thethemes discussed are problems of access andequity and how students from more advan-taged groups get larger state subsidies, theproblems of academic staff, the influence ofstudent power on financing higher education,and the impact of funding shortages on qual-ity. A sustainable model for funding is provid-ed.

Kent Serna, Rollin, ed. Las Políticas deEducación Superior en México durante laModernización: Un Análisis Regional. MexicoCity: Asociación Nacional de Universidades eInstitutiones de Educación Superior,ANUIES, 2009. 282 pp. ISBN 978-607-451-009-6.

This work by Kent Serna and colleagues ispart of a larger project called “Alliance forInternational Higher Education PolicyStudies,” aimed at comparing the higher edu-cation systems of the three members of theNorth America Free Trade Agreement-Canada, the United States, and Mexico. Themain question for the study was “How do dif-ferent systems attempt to resolve issues thatare common to higher education in all con-

temporary societies, such as expansion andaccess, academic preparation, contributionsto economic development, and effectivenessand transparency in the use of publicresources?” The book consists of seven chap-ters in which the Mexican part of the study ispresented. Chapter one introduces the con-ceptual framework, including the methodolo-gy, key questions, and theories applied. Casestudies for the states of Guanajuato, Jalisco,Nuevo León, and Puebla are presented inchapters three to six. (Iván Pacheco)

Lewin, Ross, ed. The Handbook of Practice andResearch in Study Abroad: Higher Educationand the Quest for Global Citizenship. New York:Routledge, 2009. 586 pp. (pb). ISBN 978-0-415-99161-2. Web site: www.routledge.com.

This handbook is intended to provide a com-prehensive discussion of study-abroad issues,mainly from an American perspective.Among the themes discussed are engage-ment with a global civil society, global citizen-ship, study abroad and language issues,European perspectives on study abroad, cur-riculum and global studies, holistic learningand study abroad, and undergraduateresearch and study abroad.

Norwood, Stephen H. The Third Reich and theIvory Tower: Complicity and Conflict onAmerican Campuses. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press, 2009. 337 pp.$29 (hb). ISBN 978-0-521-76243-4. Web site:www.cambridge.org.

A case study of how American colleges anduniversities reacted to the Nazi assumption ofpower in Germany in the 1930s, this bookexamines their relationships with Germanuniversities at the time. Norwood points outthat Nazi ideology came to dominate Germanhigher education and that German academesought to project a positive image of the newNazi state. Generally, American universitiesdid not protest or boycott German institutionsand conducted business as usual.

Obst, Daniel, and Matthias Kuder, eds. Jointand Double Degree Programs: An EmergingModel for Transatlantic Exchange. New York:Institute of International Education, 2009.167 pp. $39.95 (pb). ISBN 978-0-87206-318-1. Web site: www.iiebooks.org.

Joint- and double-degree programs are ofincreasing interest globally. More than 80percent of the universities in the UnitedStates and Europe surveyed for this book areinterested in pursuing plans for such degrees.A significant number of universities in the


departments31

survey report they already have such degrees.This book includes a discussion of suchthemes as curriculum design, financialissues, strategies, sustainability, student andfaculty mobility, and related issues regardingdouble and joint degrees.

Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment. Education at a Glance 2009:

OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD, 2009. 469pp. $87 (pb). ISBN 978-92-64-02475-5. Website: www.oecd.org/publishing.

OECD's annual compilation of statisticsconcerning education is a valuable source ofcomparative information relating to membercountries and a few additional nations. Forhigher education, information includes theeducational attainment of adults, entry and

completion rates for tertiary education, publicand private expenditure for higher education,how much do tertiary students pay and whatkinds of public subsidies they receive, study-abroad statistics, enrollment rates, teachingstaff employed in tertiary education, postsec-ondary graduate rates, and other data.

News of the Center

Center director, Philip Altbach, was given the LifetimeContribution Award by the Higher Education Group of theComparative and International Education Society at the annualconference in Chicago on March 2, 2010. The citation notesthat the award is given “for a lifetime of profound contribution,leadership and research in comparative and international high-er education.” In her remarks, award committee chair RosalindLatiner Raby noted Altbach's lasting scholarly impact, globalvisibility in the field, and his mentorship of younger scholars.The award is given annually at the CIES national conference.

CIHE research associate Laura Rumbley has joined the staffof the Academic Cooperation Association in Brussels, Belgium,as deputy director. ACA is concerned with the internationaliza-tion of higher education in Europe. With a recognition of herenergy, intelligence, and commitment to the Center and tointernational higher education, she will be missed by her col-leagues. She has also been recently named to the EditorialAdvisory Board of the Journal of Studies in InternationalEducation. Along with Urbain DeWinter of Boston University,she has just published a chapter in the new volume, A Historyof U.S. Study Abroad 1965–Present, coedited by William W.Hoffa and Stephen C. DePaul and published by Frontiers: TheInterdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad. In late April, LauraRumbley is slated to present at the Russian National TrainingFoundation's first international conference in Moscow. Theconference is titled “Internationalization of Higher Education:Trends, Forecasts, and Scenarios for the Future.”

Research Associate, Liz Reisberg, will be a presenter at the“New Dynamics of Higher Education” conference in São Pauloat the beginning of April and will remain in Brazil for the restof the month as a visiting scholar at the University ofCampinas. She will be giving seminars on quality assurance

and access and equity issues as well as collaborating with col-leagues on research in these areas.

The Center is working closely with the Higher School ofEconomics in Moscow, Russia, on an expansion of our academ-ic salaries study. The new study will include 30 countries and,with the help of HSE's economics expertise, will grow insophistication as well. We have also started to work on aCatholic higher education initiative in collaboration withBoston College's Center for Catholic Education. Our first majoractivity is a compendium of Catholic postsecondary institutionsworldwide. This work is coordinated by research assistants IvánPacheco and Anna Glass.

Research assistant Kara Godwin is leading work on anexploratory study aimed at mapping the penetration of Englishas a language of instruction in higher education around theworld. Kara Godwin is also coordinating an international sym-posium at Boston College, cohosted by Amsterdam UniversityCollege, entitled “Liberal Arts Education: Global Perspectivesand Developments.” This half-day event is scheduled for April14, 2010 and will feature contributions by Henry Rosovsky andMarjik van der Wende. Inquiries about this event should bedirected to [email protected].

The Center has recently completed a revised listing of jour-nals in the field of higher education worldwide that will soon beon the Center's Web site. Anna Glass has coordinated this proj-ect.

Invisible to the eye but important for our work is a majorredesign of the architecture behind the CIHE Web site. A newWeb site design will make the wealth of hosted resources easi-er to find. Furthermore, new interactive features will be addedas well. This work has been coordinated by Liz Reisberg andKara Godwin with the help of Boston College's informationtechnology experts.

BC_CIHE on Twitter

We have expanded CIHE's Web presence Twitter. Now, in addition to our Web site and Facebook page, we are tweeting. Twitterprovides 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!

32


departments

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/.

editor

Philip G. Altbach

publications editor

Edith S. Hoshino

editorial assistant

Salina Kopellas

editorial office

Center for International

Higher Education

Campion Hall

Boston College

Chestnut Hill, MA 02467

USA

Tel: (617) 552–4236

Fax: (617) 552–2499

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, policymaker, etc.),and area of interest or expert-ise. There is no charge for asubscription.ISSN: 1084-0613©Center for InternationalHigher Education

Opinions expressed here do not necessarilyreflect the views of the Center forInternational Higher Education.

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

Documents

the boston college center for international higher education · 2017-07-06 · international higher education the boston college center for international higher education number 59