2 Measuring Quality in Internet-Based Higher EducationRonald Phipps

4 The Multifunctional Digital CenterPhilip G. Altbach

7 New Report on Higher Education in Developing CountriesMamphela Ramphele and Henry Rosovsky

8 Hungary in the 1990sIldikó Hrubos

10 Romanian ReformsAlexandra Horobet and Bogdan Chiritoiu

12 Kazakstan’s Stumbling TransitionHoa Tran

14 Internationalization in Belarus: The Post Soviet EraO. V. Klimanovich and I. I. Gancheryonok

16 Innovations in African Higher Education: The ADEA Report

18 Endowing African Universities – Cultivating SustainabilityDamtew Teferra

20 Expanding the State Role in MalaysiaMolly N. N. Lee

21 Recent French DevelopmentsChristine Musselin and Stéphanie Mignot-Gérard

22 Germany: Bremen’s New Private UniversityHans C. Giesecke

23 Pressures in Saudi ArabiaAli A. Mosa

26 News of the Center

27 New Publications

International Issues

Special Focus: Transition in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATIONThe Boston College Center for International Higher Education

Number 20 Summer 2000

Special Focus: African Issues

Departments

Countries and Regions

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION2

International Issues

Ronald PhippsRonald Phipps is senior associate at the Institute for Higher EducationPolicy, 1320 19th St. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, USA.

In the 10 years since the software for the World WideWeb was developed by Tim Berners-Lee in Switzerland,

educational institutions, research centers, libraries, govern-ment agencies, commercial enterprises, advocacy groups,and a multitude of individuals have rushed to connect tothe Internet. Indeed, not since the printing press was in-vented by Johannes Gutenberg in the 15th century has an“invention” generated such potential to dramatically changehow people communicate and interact with one another.

The extraordinary growth of technology-mediateddistance learning in higher education has prompted severaldifferent organizations to develop principles, guidelines,or benchmarks to ensure quality distance education. Theorganizations include the American Council on Education,the Global Alliance for Transnational Education, theNational Education Association, and the Southern RegionalElectronic Campus, among others. The quality assurancebenchmarks promoted by these organizations are designedto apply to a wide variety of institutional contexts and consistof fairly broad statements. The strategies address such topicsas course development, faculty training, student services,learning resources, infrastructure, and outcomes assessment.

Benchmarks for all types of distance learning have beenin existence in various forms for a number of years. Thequestion that has arisen is whether they are applicable toInternet-based distance education. Two organizations—theNational Education Association, the largest professionalassociation of higher education faculty in the United States,and Blackboard, Inc., a widely used platform provider foron-line distance education—have explored these issues. Thetwo organizations jointly commissioned the Institute forHigher Education Policy to examine the benchmarks bystudying active distance learning programs at several insti-tutions and to attempt to validate published benchmarks,with specific attention to Internet-based distance educa-tion. The goal was to ascertain the degree to which thebenchmarks are actually incorporated in the policies, pro-cedures, and practices of colleges and universities that aredistance education leaders. In addition, the study soughtto determine how important the benchmarks are to fac-ulty, administrators, and students.

The Case StudyA comprehensive literature search yielded a total of 45 bench-marks recommended by other organizations and groups, aswell as those suggested in various articles and publications.

U.S. institutions were then identified according to thefollowing criteria. The institutions must be experienced indistance education, recognized as leaders in Internet-baseddistance education, regionally accredited, and offering morethan one degree program via on-line distance learning. Tocapture a broad spectrum of higher education institutions,the study would include a community college, a compre-hensive institution, a research institution, and a virtual in-stitution. Of the several colleges and universities that fitthe requirements, the following six institutions agreed toparticipate in the study: Brevard Community College inFlorida, Regents College in New York, the University ofIllinois at Urbana-Champaign, the University of MarylandUniversity College, Utah State University, and Weber StateUniversity in Utah. Site visits to these institutions includedinterviews with faculty, administrators, and students. A sur-vey was undertaken to rate the presence and importance ofthe original group of 45 benchmarks and their impact onacademic quality.

The extraordinary growth of technol-ogy-mediated distance learning inhigher education has prompted severaldifferent organizations to developprinciples, guidelines, or benchmarks toensure quality distance education.

FindingsThe study showed that, for the most part, the benchmarksfor quality Internet-based distance education wereconsidered important and that institutions tried toincorporate them into their policies and procedures. At thesame time, several benchmarks did not enjoy unanimoussupport and, in some instances, were not consideredmandatory for ensuring quality in distance education.

The final outcome of the study was a list of 24benchmarks considered essential to ensure qualityin Internet-based distance education.

Institutional Support Benchmarks• A documented technology plan that includes electronicsecurity measures (i.e., password protection, encryption,back-up systems) is in place and operational to ensure bothquality standards and the integrity and validity ofinformation.

Measuring Quality in Internet-Based Higher Education:Benchmarks for Success

3

• The reliability of the technology delivery system is asfailsafe as possible.• A centralized system provides support for building andmaintaining the distance education infrastructure.Course Development Benchmarks• Guidelines regarding minimum standards are used forcourse development, design, and delivery, while learning out-comes—not the availability of existing technology—deter-mine the technology being used to deliver course content.• Instructional materials are reviewed periodically to en-sure they meet program standards.• Courses are designed to require students to engage inanalysis, synthesis, and evaluation as part of their courseand program requirements.Teaching and Learning Benchmarks• Student interaction with faculty and other students isan essential characteristic and is facilitated through a vari-ety of ways, including voice mail or e-mail.• Feedback to student assignments and questions is con-structive and provided in a timely manner.• Students are instructed in the proper methods of ef-fective research, including assessment of the validity of re-sources.Course Structure Benchmarks• Before starting an on-line program, students are ad-vised about the program to determine if they possess theself-motivation and commitment to learn at a distance andif they have access to the minimal technology required bythe course design.• Students are provided with supplemental course in-formation that outlines course objectives, concepts, andideas; learning outcomes for each course are summarizedin a clearly written, straightforward statement.• Students have access to sufficient library resources—that may include a “virtual library” accessible through theWeb.• Faculty and students agree upon expectations regardingtimes for student assignment completion and faculty response.Student Support Benchmarks• Students receive information about programs, includ-ing admission requirements, tuition and fees, books andsupplies, technical and proctoring requirements, and stu-dent support services.• Students are provided with hands-on training and in-formation to aid them in securing material through elec-tronic databases, interlibrary loans, government archives,news services, and other sources.• Throughout the duration of the course or program,students have access to technical assistance, including de-tailed instructions regarding the electronic media used,practice sessions prior to the beginning of the course, andconvenient access to technical support staff.• Questions directed to student service personnel are an-swered accurately and quickly, with a structured system in

place to address student complaints.Faculty Support Benchmarks• Technical assistance in course development is availableto faculty, who are encouraged to use it.• Faculty members are assisted in the transition fromclassroom teaching to on-line instruction and are assessedduring the process.• Instructor training and assistance, including peer mentoring,continue through the progression of the on-line course.• Faculty members are provided with written resources todeal with issues arising from student use of electronically accessed data.Evaluation and Assessment Benchmarks• The program’s educational effectiveness and teachingand learning process are assessed through an evaluation pro-cess that uses several methods and applies specific stan-dards.• Data on enrollment, costs, and successful and innova-tive application of technology are used to evaluate programeffectiveness.• Intended learning outcomes are reviewed regularly toensure clarity, utility, and appropriateness.

The study showed that, for the mostpart, the benchmarks for qualityInternet-based distance education wereconsidered important and thatinstitutions tried to incorporate them intotheir policies and procedures.

ConclusionThe 24 benchmarks that made the final list were consid-ered mandatory for quality Internet-based distanceeducation. Stated differently, the absence of the benchmarkwould be deleterious to quality. The purpose of this casestudy was to assist policymakers—such as college and uni-versity presidents and chief academic officers, state coor-dinating boards, accrediting bodies, state legislatures, andgovernors’ offices—as well as faculty and students, makereasonable judgments with regard to quality Internet-baseddistance education. We are confident that policymakersaround the globe can use this list to address the issue ofquality without placing unnecessary restrictions oninstitutions of higher education.

Author’s Note: This description of the case study is adaptedfrom the full report, Quality On the Line: Benchmarks forSuccess in Internet-based Distance Education, which can befound on the institute’s web site at <www.ihep.com>.

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION4

The MultifunctionalDigital Center: A Concept forDeveloping Countries in theElectronic Age

Philip G. AltbachPhilip G. Altbach is J. Donald Monan, SJ Professor of Higher Educationat Boston College.

Higher education faces multiple problems in the newmillennium, and these are especially acute in devel-

oping countries, where expansion is taking place at the sametime that state financing is declining and the challenges oftechnology, access, and the maintenance of quality loomever larger. The idea of The Multifunctional Digital Cen-ter (MDC) provides an important solution to some of theproblems faced by higher education in developing coun-tries and has lessons for industrialized nations as well.

The idea of the multifunctional digital center is basedon a simple concept—the provision in one physical space ofaccess to knowledge. It is part traditional library, part multi-media station, and part link to the Internet and all of theresources of cyberspace. Staffed by professionals skilled bothin information technology and retrieval and in pedagogy,MDC serves the needs of people studying in traditional aca-demic institutions, those involved in formal study throughdistance education, and people simply interested in acquir-ing knowledge and information.

MDC is hardly a new idea. It links the old concept of thepublic library, committed to storing and providing knowl-edge without cost, with the idea of a “university extension”offering educational programs for degrees or for specific train-ing or personal opportunities, either on-campus or at othersites. MDC depends on skilled professionals and innovativeuses of new technologies. Such a program requires sponsor-ship for both funding and ideas.

The multifunctional digital center isbased on a simple concept—the provi-sion in one physical space of access toknowledge.

The multifunctional digital center is ideally suited to therealities and the new technologies of the 21st century. It canintroduce established educational institutions, such as uni-versities, to new approaches to communication and knowl-

edge, and provide access to people with different interests,backgrounds, and needs. Public and private institutions areable to enter into cooperative arrangements. MDC can alsoprovide a forum for people who are concerned with educa-tion, and in this way it can be an important contributor to themaintenance of a civil society. In short, this approach com-bines the technological access of the 21st century with thehuman interaction necessary in all eras.

New RealitiesEverywhere facing new challenges, traditional aca-

demic institutions are no longer able to cope with demandsfor access, training, and research in a growing number offields. The problems are especially acute in developingcountries.• Worldwide, the demand for higher education contin-ues to grow, but the demand is greatest in developing na-tions, where in 2000, half the students in postsecondaryeducation are located.• Providing sufficient funds for higher education is es-pecially problematical in developing countries. There is re-sistance everywhere to the ever-expanding publicexpenditures for higher education. In developing countries,enrollment pressures add to the general fiscal difficulties.• Privatization is a key characteristic of higher educa-tion in developing countries. Private institutions, sometimesprofit-making, are taking hold in higher education. In manydeveloping countries, the private sector is the fastest grow-ing part of the higher education system.• The knowledge revolution is dramatically altering thelandscape of higher education. Knowledge is expanding rap-idly, and the means of storing and distributing informationis being transformed by the Internet and computer-basedtechnologies.• Developing countries control neither the sources northe means of delivery of the knowledge, and consequentlythey are in danger of being overwhelmed by the new tech-nologies. These countries may benefit from the knowledgerevolution, but, at present these countries are falling fur-ther behind. Individual academic institutions in develop-ing countries can rarely make the investments needed toaccess the new technologies.

The Advantages for Developing CountriesThe MDC concept can have key advantages for develop-ing countries. Without question, the needs are greatest inlow percapita income nations of Africa, Asia, and LatinAmerica–many of which lack adequate higher educationinstitutions and all of which lag far behind in Internet ac-cess and other elements of knowledge-based economy.• In countries with poorly developed basic infrastruc-tures, including telephone system and electricity provision,MDC can set up a central facility able to provide basic ac-cess such as auxiliary generators, satellite-based Internet

5

access (to circumvent unreliable telephone systems andspeed up data transmission), suitable computers, and ad-equate maintenance of facilities.• MDC can promote cooperation among public and pri-vate agencies to provide support and funding. As a publicfacility, MDC should generally be available without costor at a very low cost to individuals and organizations, but itcan also be supported by many agencies. Academic institu-tions, both public and private, government agencies, localand regional organizations, and private sector firms mayall contribute. The MDC would provide technology firmswith an opportunity to expose the public to the advantagesof knowledge products of all kinds.• Such projects can be a conduit for support from NGOs,foreign assistance agencies, the World Bank, and similarorganizations. Donor groups appreciate variety of impor-tance services offered and the ease of monitoring for effec-tiveness and fiscal accountability.• MDCs can be strategically placed throughout a coun-try to allow access to a broad segment of the population,minimizing regional disparities and political conflicts.• The multifunctional digital center can be used as anextension agency by agencies to offer programming andaccess to Internet and library facilities in areas inadequatelyserved by traditional educational institutions. MDC willbe especially useful for the burgeoning open universitymovement which provides academic degree study throughnontraditional methods. They can serve as regional cen-ters, resource bases, and meeting places for seminars forthe offerings of the open universities.

But the MDC is much more than a library,not only because it emphasizes severalways of accessing information, but alsobecause its mission goes far beyond thestorage and retrieval of information.

The Shape of the CommonsWhat will a multifunctional digital center look like? Ofcourse, there will be variations among them, but there arecentral elements. It is not a virtual entity although one itsmain purposes will be to provide access to the new tech-nologies of communication and information retrieval—itis a place where several central knowledge functions areoffered. It must be housed in a facility that provides boththe needed material and adequate access. The closest anal-ogy may be the public library, a building that provides ac-cess to information, largely through books but in somecountries now through Internet-based technology, and is

staffed by people trained to assist people to effective usethe materials available.

But the MDC is much more than a library, not onlybecause it emphasizes several ways of accessing informa-tion, but also because its mission goes far beyond the stor-age and retrieval of information. It should be noted thatadequate public library systems are in any case rare in de-veloping countries, and in general, are unfortunately notseen central elements for the information society.

The multifunctional digital center starts with a build-ing that houses all of the elements of the modern informa-tion society. Traditional books and journals as well as thenewer technologies for knowledge retrieval and dissemi-nation are a central part of the equation. The new tech-nologies will, of course, play a prominent role in MDC,and will no doubt receive the bulk of attention, energy, andfunding. Among the elements of the revolution are the fol-lowing:• The Internet is the most powerful, and in many waysthe most controversial part. It is the key element of global-ization and is the means of bringing the world’s storehouseof knowledge to the most remote locations. However, theInternet is dominated by a few industrialized countries, andit is increasingly commercialized. The major world lan-guages, and especially English, dominate the Internet. Thestructure, organization, and financing of the Internet has,so far, largely ignored the needs of developing countries. Itis, of course, necessary for developing countries to haveaccess to the Internet, but attention also needs to be givento how this powerful new mechanism can be most effec-tively used by them.• Electronic mail and related communications arrange-ments are an essential tool to bring Third World users intouch with each other as well as with colleagues in the restof the world. MDC will provide a central node of commu-nications for individuals and groups.• “The electronic classroom” or seminar is in the pro-cess of development, and this tool will be a central contri-bution of MDC. The ability to bring groups togetherelectronically, through video conferencing and other means,helps to overcome isolation. The multifunctional digitalcenter will have facilities for group communications thatcan be used by educational institutions and others.• Older “new technologies” such as CD-ROM, DVDand others will be a part of the services provided by theMDC. In developing countries, it is rare that academicinstitutions or other organizations have ready access to theseknowledge products.

A central feature of the multifunctional digital centeris a staff that provides expertise in the new technologies, aswell as in traditional librarianship. Many assume that thenew technologies are user-friendly, and can easily be ac-cessed–and maintained–by clients. This is far from the truth,especially in developing countries, where there is no tradi-

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION6

tion of expertise or widespread individual access to com-puters, the Internet or the other tools of communication.Technological librarians are a central part of MDC con-cept and must play a key role. It is not enough to providethe “hardware” of technology—the human “software” ofexpertise must be part of the equation. An added elementis the maintenance of equipment, decision-making withregard to the purchase of new machinery, software, otherknowledge products is central, and often one of the weak-nesses in developing countries. MDC will need to haveexcellent staff and access to spare parts as well as to “up-grades” in equipment if it is to be effective and sustainable.

A central feature of the multifunctionaldigital center is a staff that providesexpertise in the new technologies, aswell as in traditional librarianship.

The location of MDC is an issue of considerable im-portance, and perhaps controversy. If limited to the capitolor major academic centers, the underlying concept will belost. MDC must be available to users outside metropolitancenters in developing countries. It will not be possible toestablish one in rural areas or villages, but care must betaken to ensure that the MDC will not simply be anotherinitiative that further strengthens the domination of theurban centers.

Funding the multifunctional digital centerWhile the MDC will be much less costly than a universityor even a specialized educational institution, it will requireinvestment, both for initial development and long-termoperation. Without adequate funding, MDC cannot fulfillits promise, especially since information technology rap-idly changes and it is important to keep up with new prod-ucts and services, without appropriate funding. One of theadvantages of the MDC concept is that it can receive fi-nancial support from many sources. The multifunctionaldigital center should be a non-profit entity separated fromdirect government control. This not only permits autonomybut also makes it easier for nongovernmental organizationsto provide support.

Because MDC is a public service, it must have basicsupport from governmental sources. Other providers caneasily participate in support MDC. For example, academicinstitutions that use MDC services can provide support.Private enterprise can also provide support. Computer andsoftware firms, where they exist, are a natural source ofsupport, especially since the users of MDC will be usingcomputer products and familiarizing themselves with the poten-

tial of computers and of information technology. SupportingMDC is an effective way for a firm to show its support for educa-tion and the public good through a highly visible agency.

The multifunctional digital center lends itself very wellto support from external donors and such multilateral agen-cies as the World Bank. MDC combines a physical facilitywith support for human resources. It can potentially con-tribute to education at all levels, and especially at thepostsecondary level. It directly assists the development ofcivil society through providing information to people andorganizations and serving as a hub for communications.Care must be taken to ensure that the basic decisions con-cerning choice of equipment and related issues remains withlocal policymakers, since external donors often seek to tieaid to particular products, and in the area of informationtechnology, problems of computability may arise. BecauseThe multifunctional digital center serves a variety of pur-poses and because it is so clearly a contribution to educa-tion and socio-economic development, it will appeal todonor agencies. While it is always difficult to manage amultiplicity of funding sources, MDC can benefit from thefact that it serves many purposes.

The location of MDC is an issue of con-siderable importance, and perhaps con-troversy.

ConclusionThe multifunctional digital center has the potential of link-ing the technologies of the 21st century with the idea ofcommunity of an earlier era in a cost-effective way. It canprovide universities that cannot afford sophisticated com-puter systems with the access that they need to the worldof research and communication. It can link public and pri-vate institutions. It can attract financial supporters at homeand abroad. Perhaps most important. The multifunctionaldigital center is an idea can bring information,communication, and knowledge to people in developingcountries.

Author’s Note: I am indebted to Kamal Ahmad for articulatingthe idea of the Learning Commons initially, related to the MDC,and to the staff of the Task Force on Higher Education and So-ciety for discussions concerning it.

Internet Resource

For more information on issues related to internationaland comparative higher education, visit the Center’swebsite, located at: http://www.bc.edu/cihe/

7

New Report on Higher Education in Developing Countries:Educated People Are No Luxury, They’re Essential

Mamphela Ramphele and Henry RosovskyMamphela Remphele was vice chancellor of the University of CapeTown and is currently managing director of the World Bank. HenryRosovsky is professor emeritus at Harvard University and former deanof Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences. They were cochairs of theTask Force on Higher Education and Society. Address: MamphelaRamphele, World Bank, 1818 H St. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433,USA. Henry Rosovsky, Loeb House, Harvard University, Cambridge,MA 02138, USA.

Recently, World Bank president James Wolfensohnmarked a sea change in thinking about higher educa-

tion in the developing world, endorsing the final report ofthe Task Force on Higher Education and Society, on whichwe were fortunate to serve as cochairs.

Mr. Wolfensohn committed the World Bank to redou-bling its efforts to support higher education, sending animportant signal to the rest of the development commu-nity. “It is impossible,” he said, “to have a system that func-tions without an appropriate and deep␣ commitment tohigher education.”

Education is vital to the prospects of developingcountries. The poor, by definition, have very few resources.First-rate education and health care are vital investmentsin the assets they do control: their own labor, enterprise,and ingenuity. Educated, healthy people do not need to berescued from poverty. They rescue themselves.

But the stakes are rising. The knowledge economydemands highly specialized skills. It also moves at a fasterpace. People must now learn how to learn, or they will beleft behind. Primary and secondary schools aim to providestudents with a strong grounding in the 3 R’s and othervital skills, but higher education offers the depth and flex-ibility people need to thrive in the modern workplace. Italso promotes human development by enhancing the lifeof the mind and creates the freedom to pursue knowledgefor its own sake.

The case for higher education in developing countriesmay seem straightforward, but it has traditionally been con-tentious. Development orthodoxy holds that investmentin basic education yields higher returns than money spentfurther up the system. Higher education is thus a luxury,runs the argument, that developing countries cannot af-ford.

If this argument was ever true, it is no longer. Theissue is not primary and secondary education versus highereducation, but rather achieving the right mix among thethree levels. As leaders, entrepreneurs, and administrators,highly educated people are enormously important to so-cial and economic development. Investment in higher edu-cation is thus strongly in the public interest. Sustainable

poverty reduction will not be achieved without a renais-sance in the higher education systems of developing coun-tries.

We are not talking about systems that concentrateexclusively on professional training, either. We argue thatsome of the most promising students should receive a first-class general education. To overcome their seriousproblems, developing countries need to liberally apply avital resource—brainpower—not money.

Ultimately, this concerns helping some of the world’sfledgling democracies to thrive. As Nobel laureate AmartyaSen has pointed out, democracy matters most to the poor-est. No famine has ever occurred (or been allowed to hap-pen) in a society where leaders must listen to their citizens.

Education is vital to the prospects ofdeveloping countries.

The problems of the developing world are indeed se-rious. Demand is rising fast, but higher education systemsare expanding chaotically. Low-quality institutions mush-room in the private sector, while public-sector provisionsuffers from underfunding, lack of vision, poor manage-ment, and low morale.

The solution demands a holistic approach and a stra-tegic vision of what can be achieved. We advocate “planneddiversity” as a third way between central planning and cha-otic expansion. Both public and private sectors must be in-volved in a system that uses the market’s energy butrecognizes the areas where the market cannot deliver: mostnotably in the areas of basic science, the humanities, andaccess for the disadvantaged.

We see the state’s most important role as a guarantorof standards. If talented but poor individuals are deniedaccess by the system, then the state must intervene. It mustalso fight to improve the current lamentable standards ofgovernance in many countries and to boost capacity in thevital areas of science and technology. When resources arelimited, they must be spent well, not wasted by demoral-ized faculty, teaching out-of-date curricula to poorly moti-vated students.

Institutions should specialize. Research universitiesremain important in all but the smallest and poorest coun-tries. But other institutions should not be treated as poorcousins. Centers of excellence can be developed through-

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION8

Special Focus: Transition in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe

out the system—not simply reserved for an educational elite.Distance learning provides the most exciting challenge tothe status quo, especially as it becomes clear that many re-mote parts of the world will have Internet access long be-fore they enjoy decent roads.

The Task Force on Higher Education and Societybrought together 14 educational experts from 13 countrieswith the intention to start an ongoing debate, not to an-swer all the questions. We firmly believe that rapid progresscan be made, but only with political will, new resources,

and people prepared to contemplate and develop imagina-tive solutions.

At the report’s launch, Wolfensohn asked why weneeded such a document when what is being said is abso-lutely straightforward. “We need it,” he said, “because we’veforgotten it, because we don’t give higher education theweighting that is required.” We wholeheartedly agree.

Authors’ Note: This article is reprinted, with permission,from the Times Higher Education Supplement, London, UK.

Transformation of HungarianHigher EducationIldikó HrubosIldikó Hrubos is professor in the Department of Sociology and SocialPolicy, Budapest University of Economic Sciences. E-mail:<ildiko.hrubos@soc.bke.hu>.

Higher education reform in Hungary shares some ele-ments with similar transformations in Western coun-

tries and others that are unique to the country. Parallel to aperiod of economic growth in the 1960s and 1970s, highereducation in the developed countries experienced great ex-pansion, signifying a democratization of educational op-portunities. In the 1980s, questions concerning efficiencyand competition were in the forefront of the debates overhigher education. The decade of the 1990s was concernedwith quality: namely, the challenge of maintaining academicvalues while providing education for the masses. In the caseof Hungarian higher education, not only have all of theseprocesses been condensed into one decade but they havealso been initiated under deteriorating economic condi-tions. Another peculiarity of the Hungarian case is thatreforms were introduced that simultaneously affected boththe content of education and the system of administeringit. This was necessary to address the changing needs of thelabor market and society at large as well as to break downthe ideological and political biases of the system that pre-vailed under the state socialist (communist) regime.

The Expansion of Higher EducationIn the academic year 1990–1991, the ratio of those admittedto institutions of higher education was rather low comparedto international figures—a mere 10 percent of the 18-to-22-year age group. A rapid increase in student numbers in the1990s served to reduce this gap: by 1997–1998, enrollmentsclimbed to 20 percent and are expected to reach 30 percentby 2005. As a result, university enrollments increased 2.3-fold between the academic years 1990–1991 and 1997–1998.

This expansion of student numbers was achieved partly

by increasing enrollments in existing universities and partlyby establishing new institutions and programs. Nonstateopportunities for education were introduced, includingprivate universities and denominational schools. The num-ber of institutions of higher education in Hungary increasedoverall from 77 to 89 (28 of these were established bychurches and enroll 5 percent of all students; 6 are private,enrolling another 3 percent).

The decade of the 1990s was concernedwith quality.

The Network of Higher Education InstitutionsOne of the basic structural problems of the Hungarian highereducation system is the fragmentation of the institutionalnetwork. Based on the Soviet model, in the late 1940s andearly 1950s the faculties of traditional universities were sepa-rated from one another, and a number of specialized univer-sities were established. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, anetwork of colleges was created in a system similar to that ofcountries in Western Europe. In the 1970s and 1980s, therationalization of the network of such disunited institutionswas accomplished in other countries by merging institutionswith narrow profiles. Hungarian higher education, however,has been bearing the burden of fragmentation ever since.Currently, there are 89 independent institutions of highereducation in Hungary and 50 to 60 additional faculties. Themost common problems caused by such fragmentation areinefficiency and limited scope of academic activity.

Transformation of the Hungarian network of institutionswas initiated in the mid-1980s. Integration has been a prioritysupported by consecutive administrations in the 1990s and is ex-pected to be accomplished by 1999–2000. According to the cur-rent plan, upon completion of integration state higher educationwill be comprised of 17 universities and 13 colleges. The neworganizational order went into effect in January 2000.

Parallel to the transformation of the network of institu-

9

tions, other reforms will be introduced to meet current in-ternational educational requirements. Targets to be achievedare as follows:• increasing the variety of offerings and standards of edu-cation, in a system flexible enough to respond to the chang-ing labor market and other economic demands andinternational scholarly requirements;• encouraging interdisciplinary research and developmentactivities, both within institutions and internationally;• establishing institutions of higher education as the intel-lectual centers of regional development, to address the tasksof society-building and economic development that will arisefrom European Union accession;• establishing doctoral programs;• increasing the stability of institutions of higher educa-tion to enable them to withstand sudden economic changes;• introducing achievement-oriented, normative financingof higher education and the transparent operation of institu-tions; and• making efficient use of intellectual and infrastructurecapacities, eliminating repetition and improving coordina-tion and cooperation.

As early as the 1980s, institutions of Hungarian highereducation—particularly at the major universities—beganto loosen ideological and political controls. The content ofprograms and textbooks was updated, taking internationalstandards into consideration. Nevertheless, further reformsare necessary to dispel communist biases. This may be easierto accomplish within the new university structure, whichwill offer a broader spectrum of disciplines not possiblewithin the current narrowly focused institutions.

This expansion of student numbers wasachieved partly by increasing enroll-ments in existing universities and partlyby establishing new institutions andprograms.

The integration and subsequent modernization of insti-tutions will help Hungarian higher education come closer torealizing three goals that are also being pursued in developedcountries: the introduction of continuing education; devel-oping institutions of higher education into centers for high-quality research and development; and making use of suchcenters as intellectual resources for regional development.

The financial basis for the integration process has been se-cured by a U.S.$150 million World Bank loan in addition toHungarian government support totaling U.S.$100 million. Theallocation of this funding is based on the long-term development

plans of Hungarian institutions. The strict competition and ten-der system required by the World Bank compels these institu-tions to adopt a culture of planning and control.

According to the current plan, uponcompletion of integration state highereducation will be comprised of 17 uni-versities and 13 colleges.

For successful integration, institutions of higher educationneed greater financial independence. To achieve this they mustidentify sources to replace state funding and utilize resources ina more efficient manner. Moreover, quality assurance mecha-nisms need to be put into place. Some of these issues are ad-dressed by requirements attached to the World Bank loan.

Issues and DebatesThe processes initiated in the 1990s have changed theHungarian system of higher education considerably. How-ever, many issues that parallel structural reform remainunresolved and must be addressed in the near future.

A more vertically articulated system is needed—one thatwill clarify the structure of various programs and allow flex-ibility among faculties and fields. These changes are madedifficult by Hungary’s current structural model. The ques-tion of how to streamline the system is a concern in WesternEuropean countries as well. The introduction of graduateprofessional training is in its early stages, although this is thevery sector that is targeted to absorb the growing masses ofstudents. A credit system is a necessary condition to ensuretransfer between faculties; according to government decree,it is to be introduced in every institution by the year 2002.

To improve access to the system, various types of train-ing must be introduced. Part-time programs for those whoare employed require new approaches with regard to con-tent, didactic methods, administration, and financing. Dis-tance learning has been launched in 16 regional centers, andseveral major universities in other countries now offer de-gree-granting programs in Hungary. This type of educationis as yet not widely accepted.

Autonomy of finance presupposes the existence of a pro-fessional administrative staff. The creation of modern insti-tutional management is progressing slowly, and specialistsspecifically trained for this sector are rare. Academic staff havebeen slow to accept the need to transform decision-makingprocedures to meet new requirements.

The increase in admissions capacity has improved op-portunities for higher education, but it has also has intro-duced social inequalities. The costs of university studies have risen

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION10

considerably, and there is no system in place that provides finan-cial support for students. A culture of saving for higher educationis lacking, nor is there a system of scholarships for talented stu-dents who face financial constraints.

Much confusion still exists in society concerning the recog-nition of doctoral programs and international study programs.The labor market has not yet responded to the value added bydoctoral training; thus, those obtaining such degrees have notreceived the compensation warranted by such specialization.

The rapid changes of the 1990s have affected higher educa-

tion regulations, its system of operation, and the network of in-stitutions. But the actors involved in this transformation havepaid less attention to the issue of educational quality. In the yearsto come, within the established institutional and organizationalframework, the content of programs and the quality of trainingwill require more attention.

Author’s Note: The following article is excerpted from theCivic Education Project’s Discussion Series. For more infor-mation on the Discussion Series and other CEP activities,please write to cep@osi.hu or visit our website at<www.cep.org.hu>.

Euro-Shape and Local Content:The Bottom Line on RomanianHigher Education Reform

Alexandra Horobet and Bogdan ChiritoiuAlexandra Horobet is assistant professor in the Department ofInternational Business and Economics, Academy of Economic Studies,Bucharest, Romania. Bogdan Chiritoiu is assistant professor in theDepartment of Political and Administrative Studies, University ofBucharest, Romania.

The European Commission, which is generally fairlyunimpressed with Romanian progress toward

European Union (EU) harmonization, notes in its Agenda2000 that the education sector will not create problems forRomania’s accession. The Romanian Ministry of Educationalso reflects optimism when presenting 1999 as a year ofreform in education: “1999 will be the year of concreteactions toward visible and comprehensive changes ineducation, the year when all changes initiated previous toor in 1998 will be completed.”

This article reviews the mixed outcome of higher edu-cation reform to date. Higher education is one sector thatregistered strong growth during the transition in Roma-nia, yet such growth was not matched by increased re-sources, leaving the sector as starved as it was before 1989.Moreover, efforts to improve the content of higher educa-tion have encountered little success, and today Romanianuniversities retain many of the failings of the communistpast.

Failures of the SystemA number of recurrent characteristics of Romanian highereducation are blamed for its lack of competitiveness. Thesehave been targeted for change by successive governments:(1) The university system concentrates on informationtransfer; it aims more at the memorization and reproduc-tion of information rather than the acquisition and appli-cation of knowledge. (2) The system does not permitsufficient choices for individualized training, does not

recognize or encourage individual achievement, and promotesan obsolete concept of personal achievement as simple quan-titative expansion (increased volume of information, moreclasses, more examinations, etc.). (3) The system uses local—i.e., national—standards of achievement, even though edu-cational standards are increasingly being internationalized.(4) The system emphasizes the acquisition of general qualifi-cations, even though educational priorities worldwide havemoved on to target graduate studies. (5) The system is a cen-tralist one in which detailed decisions are taken only by high-ranking managers. (6) It is a system that is too susceptible tothe pressures of corruption involving grading, competitions,job offers, and examinations.

Reform PrioritiesEducation reform is linked with the overall reform pro-cess; it should not “follow other reforms” but rather is acondition of their success. Moreover, it can be achievedmore rapidly if other reforms are initiated simultaneously.Over the medium run, investments in education can beextremely beneficial to the success of transition as a whole.

The reform strategy of the current education minister isstructured around 12 areas, several of which are relevant here.

Higher education is one sector that reg-istered strong growth during the transi-tion in Romania, yet such growth wasnot matched by increased resources,leaving the sector as starved as it wasbefore 1989.

First, the administration intends to improve the in-frastructure of education and to promote the developmentof information technology use. Large investments fromthe central budget are granted on a competitive basis touniversities pursuing such goals.

11

Second, a change in the “character of education” willtake place, resulting in a shift from the transfer of informa-tion to the ability to generate knowledge. Measures toachieve this include the introduction of new curricula basedon interdisciplinarity, compliance with European standards,and harmonization at the national level. A related priorityis the development of graduate studies supported by “cen-ters of excellence” at high-performance universities. More-over, a reform of examinations to produce reliablenationwide, comparable evaluation is envisaged.

Third, the role of scientific research is being reassessed.The goal is to connect research with teaching by reinte-grating it into universities and making it the backbone ofgraduate studies. This will also improve the status of theteaching profession, another goal of the reforms, by intro-ducing compensation based on academic achievement.

Higher Education ExpansionRomania experienced a great increase in student numbersafter 1989, partly due to the development of the private sec-tor. While the total number of students doubled over the lasteight years, the average rate of growth for private educationwas 4.4 percent (1992–1997), enrolling 26.4 percent of Ro-manian university students by the 1996–1997 academic year.The rate of higher education enrollment increased overallfrom 8 percent in 1989 to 22.2 percent in 1996, and the num-ber of students per thousand inhabitants from 7.1 in 1989 to15.7 in 1997. National capacities in the social sciences, arts,and humanities quadrupled; medicine increased 150 percent,and the number of students in technical disciplines droppedin both relative and absolute terms.

Related to the increase in student enrollment in Ro-mania is the growth in the number of universities and fac-ulties. Over the last decade, the greatest increase in thenumber of higher education establishments has been ob-served in the private sector, accounting for 44 universitiesand 161 faculties in 1996–1997, compared to zero before1990. The reaction of the state to the “attack” of the pri-vate sector was public institutional expansion: in 1989–1990,44 state higher education institutions and 101 faculties ex-isted; in 1993–1994, 63 establishments and 261 faculties.

The proportion of public spending on education in-creased from 6.1 percent in 1989 to 9.6 percent in 1996.Even so, it falls below the 4 percent of gross domestic prod-uct (GDP) mandated by the Law of Education, Article 169,and is one of the lowest in Europe. Moreover, the relativeincrease does not necessarily represent a higher absoluteamount, due to the fall in Romania’s GDP during the tran-sition period. The relative increase in resources has beendirected mainly toward expanding academic staff. Of pub-lic expenditure on education, 76.1 percent supported sala-ries in 1994, as compared to 69.2 percent in OECD(Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Develop-ment) countries. However, the average wage in the educa-

tion sector is still the second lowest in the economy, sur-passed only by the health sector.

Higher Education RestructuringPost-1989 and current reforms aim to bring the Romanian uni-versity system closer to the European model. As mentioned pre-viously, master’s programs were introduced, and licenseexaminations and doctoral programs have been modified. A creditsystem also has been approved for implementation.

Scientific research previously was connected institution-ally to government bodies or the Romanian Academy. It isnow recoupled with university teaching through researchgrants offered by the National Council for University Scien-tific Research to teams organized within top university de-partments. These teams will also supervise master’s anddoctoral programs.

The private sector is developing quicklyand is responsible for a great deal ofthe increase in student enrollments, butquality is debatable.

The private sector is developing quickly and is responsiblefor a great deal of the increase in student enrollments, but qualityis debatable. Public higher education is more rigorous in studentselection, while private universities as a rule have copied stateuniversities and thus fail to offer a true alternative. In private uni-versities scientific research is insubstantial or nonexistent. Theyalso do not employ their own academic staff beyond about 5 to10 percent (1996) of their instructors, relying mainly on the aca-demic staff of public universities or persons who are not qualifiedto teach. Wide discrepancies exist even among the private uni-versities themselves: some are comparable to the most compe-tent public universities, while others barely observe the nationalstandards.

An interesting feature of private universities in Ro-mania is that, contrary to the situation in other countries,they are considered of lower status than the largely tu-ition-free public universities and attract students fromlower income groups. This counterintuitive fact is ex-plained by “informal” privatization—the continuous in-crease in private tuition (averaging U.S.$600 to U.S.$700per year) among students in public universities, a major(tax-free) source for supplementing the income of teach-ers. The current decline in the quality of public secondaryeducation and the extension of this informal privatizationare curtailing the ability of students from lower incomegroups to pass the competitive entrance examinations ofpublic universities.

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION12

ConclusionIn spite of the apparent convergence with Western educa-tion systems, Romanian universities remain focused on theneeds of the provider rather than the demands of student“customers.” Disciplines and the number and geographicdistribution of places and funding are based on the struc-ture of the existing labor force, and the reforms that havebeen implemented tend to reflect the desire to raise thestatus of the teaching profession rather than to address theneeds of the economy.

The higher education sector is experiencing greatchange, responding to the strong pressure of demand—asreflected in the improving Romanian statistics in compari-son with other countries. Where the reform process hasbeen less successful is in qualitative change. Most of theshortcomings inherited from the communist regime arestill present. The Ministry of Education has attemptedto make the education system responsive to societal andeconomic needs: to replace the mechanical reproductionof information with the generation of knowledge throughnew study programs and new teaching and testing meth-ods, to reunite teaching and research, and to improve the

training of professors. However, little of this vision hasreached the classroom so far.

We identify three factors responsible for this situation.First, financial resources are clearly insufficient. Second,the ministry no longer possesses the administrative leverageto impose changes upon universities. The main legalinnovation of the reforms—university autonomy—did notresult in the expected improvement. It may be thatautonomy requires more time to “deliver the goods.”However, without hierarchical subordination or effectivecompetition for public resources, there is little pressure onuniversities to change, innovate, and improve. As mentionedearlier, the new private sector has thus far failed to providean adequate alternate to the public sector. Finally, the arrayof task forces and committees created will soon have tomove beyond institution building to qualitative reform inorder to realize their proposals for change.

Author’s Note: The following article is excerpted from the Civic Educa-tion Project’s Discussion Series. For more information on the Discus-sion Series and other CEP activities, please write to cep@osi.hu or visitour website at <www.cep.org.hu>.

Kazakstan’s Higher Educationin TransitionHoa TranHoa Tran is a consultant to Unicef. Address: 11 rue du Belvedere, 56400Auray, France.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, an independentKazakstan embarked on the search for a new identity.

Adopting a market-oriented economy, it looked both tothe West and the Asian “tigers” for models. From 1993Kazakstan’s higher education started veering away, at leastin form, from Soviet tenets. Today, seven years since therestructuring began, questions may be asked about howmuch the fundamentals of Kazakstan’s higher educationhave in reality shifted.

New Wine in Old BottlesA key issue for Kazakstan’s higher education during thetransition period concerns the relaxation of Soviet-stylecentralized control, which had been deeply embedded inhigher education legislation and a multitude of regulations.These regulations had been the backbone of the system,determining its human and material inputs and outputs,and controlling everything from policy to delivery. Therelationship between the state and the universities was char-acterized by one-way traffic in the form of top-down di-rectives. If that structure made some sense under the Soviet

system, the dynamics of the nascent market economy havequickly rendered it out of date and in need of change.

Universities have urged the government to grant themgreater autonomy, especially in policymaking, management,and program development. Even the Soviet-trained tech-nocrats who sit at the head of these institutions have rec-ognized that excessive state control, coupled withsignificantly reduced state financing, would stifle the uni-versities. Their calls for change have contributed to theadoption of several measures promoting the democratiza-tion of institutional arrangements and academic planning.Elected university rectors and their deputies have acquiredmore say in institutional governance. They have been add-ing new subjects to existing programs, while trying to en-gage in income-generating activities to keep pace with thenew economic realities. Content in social science subjectshas been adjusted, glossing over Marxism-Leninism andintroducing Western philosophy.

A key issue for Kazakstan’s higher edu-cation during the transition period con-cerns the relaxation of Soviet-stylecentralized control.

Notwithstanding these new features, the restructur-

13

ing of Kazakstan’s higher education has been slow. Althoughthe rectors now have more leeway, their universities arestill largely state managed. Deregulation has been sluggish.The cabinet, the Ministry of Education, and the Ministryof Finance have been reluctant to relinquish their hold,since for them the decentralization of higher educationrepresents a threat. Up until now higher education had beenoverseen by a cumbersome, overmanned structure. Deci-sions about standards, curricula, degrees, staffing, and evenmodes of delivery continue to be made at the Ministry ofEducation. Financial decisions rest with the Ministry ofFinance.

The Kazak version of private highereducation is, however, little more thana combination of private payment andcontinued state control.

The Ministry of Education, however, has been anx-ious to update its own management style. The ministry hasused aid money to install a modern system for informationmanagement and to computerize aspects of its administra-tion. These new management tools will only be effective ifpolicymakers are interested in using them purposefully.There has to be a radical change in the approach towardthe collection and use of higher education information forthe analysis of the system’s quality, relevance, and efficiency.

Where there has been readiness for change, good in-tentions have been frustrated by shortages of experience atall levels of management. It is not unusual for educationpolicymakers to seek advice from their erstwhile Russiancolleagues, which has tended to bind them to the veryframework they were seeking to break away from. Practi-cal difficulties, coupled with a lack of initiative, have alsocontributed to thwarting reform efforts. Although the needto make study programs flexible and more responsive tothe new socioeconomic situation is recognized, progresshas been impeded by the scarcity of appropriate textbooksand teaching materials. Redesigning the curriculum andproducing new textbooks have started, but this is an enor-mous undertaking, requiring time and huge financial in-vestment. Interim measures could have beenintroduced—such as translating into local language theappropriate teaching materials that exist in other countries,or inviting external specialists with knowledge and experi-ence in the needed areas to give seminars and lectures. In-stead, much of the old framework for planning thecurriculum lives on, and the textbooks from the Soviet-era, in which training was highly specialized in narrowly

defined fields, continue to be the main reference for bothteachers and students.

Private or Nonprivate?The emergence of private higher education in countriesthat previously had a command economy no longer is causefor much excitement—with so many countries havingopened up in recent years. Nevertheless, if one takes intoaccount the fact that in other Central Asian countries, shar-ing the same Soviet mold, private higher education is stillnot a possibility, then what has happened in Kazakstanplaces it in the region’s vanguard.

Courses in high-demand fields such as informatics,management, banking, and the English language havemushroomed in the (former) capital, Alma-Ata, and in thebig cities. Private “universities” have been set up providingcourses in these fashionable and marketable disciplines, tocater to private enterprises, banks, and joint ventures. Inother cases, private “schools” were created within the stateuniversities themselves, where they enjoy a significant ad-vantage as facilities are made available to them on prefer-ential conditions. Two years after the privatization drivewas set in motion, Kazakstan already had 65 private insti-tutions of higher learning. Yet, with fees ranging fromU.S.$500 to U.S.$1,500, enrollment in nonstate educationis out-of-reach for the majority of Kazaks.

The Kazak version of private higher education is, how-ever, little more than a combination of private paymentand continued state control. Lack of understanding andexperience on the part of the education authorities hasslowed the private sector’s budding development. The viewof private higher education is influenced by preconceivedideas. The law on licensing of private institutions is basedlargely on outdated standards for state universities. Thishas placed private institutions at a disadvantage comparedto their state cousins and those private schools that werespun off from state institutions. The state of affairs showsthe misconception of the role and function of private insti-tutions by the education authorities. Regulations, ministe-rial orders, and detailed norms for licensing and certificationhave been more controlling than facilitating. Many privateuniversities see such an intrusion from the state as an at-tempt to contain the growth of private institutions and toprotect public universities. Within a few years since theintroduction of private establishments, the licenses of closeto two-thirds of them had been revoked. This is believedto be due in no small part to excessive state control.

Officially, private and public institutions are to betreated on an equal basis. In practice, this means that theyhave to follow similar centrally defined criteria, standards,and procedures. From the financial point of view, privateestablishments receive no government incentives in anyform. At the moment no institution has registered itself asa charity, and all private institutions are seen as for-profit

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION14

establishments. Thus they are obliged to pay taxes ontheir net revenues.

From the point of view of creating healthycompetition with public higher education, privateinstitutions still have a long way to go before they cangenerate reformative effects on public education. So farprivate education has been more of a spontaneousresponse to the lack of skills needed by the new market-oriented economy, rather than being a full-fledgedprivate system in its own right. Although privateinstitutions claimed to have put highest priority on thequality of teaching, rather than on making a profit, theyare, at least for now, more complementary to, thancompetitive with public universities. As privateeducation focuses on programs that are not offered bypublic universities, the spirit of competition betweenthem for more efficiency and higher standards has notyet emerged. The threat from private education is too

feeble for public institutions to feel the need to improve,especially since they are still safe under state protection.

ConclusionThe restructuring of Kazakstan’s higher education has beenaimed at enabling it to respond effectively to the newmarket-oriented economy. However, tradition andresistance to change have been major stumbling blocks.Those currently in charge of Kazakstan’s transition are theproduct of decades of entrenched Soviet principles.

In the hands of the old guard, the country’s com-prehensive transformation is unlikely. AlthoughKazakstan has changed much since independence, thegoals of restructuring have not yet been reached. Thefuture of Kazakstan’s higher education, and indeed thehealth of the country itself, lies with the restless younggeneration of today. They will lead the country withoutbeing bogged down by the vestiges of the Soviet era.

Internationalization in Belarus:The Post-Soviet Experience

O. V. Klimanovich and I. I. GancheryonokO. V. Klimanovich is a doctoral student at the Republican Institute ofHigher Education and is a cultural affairs specialist, Public Affairs Section,U.S. Embassy in Belalrus. I. I. Gancheryonok is head of the Departmentof Higher Education Administration at the Republican Institute of HigherEducation and coordinator of the EU TEMPUS program for cooperationin higher education in Belarus. Address: Republican Institute of HigherEducation, Minsk 220001, Belarus. E-mail: <gancher@nihe.unibel.by>and <oklimanovich@yahoo.com>.

Internationalization of higher education has not beendefined as a priority in Belarus, but many universities havetaken initiatives on their own, introducing various changes.In this article we highlight some of the approaches used bythe Belarusian higher education community to introduceinternational education into institutions of higher learning,as well as some of the constraints encountered by Belarusianuniversities in the attempt.

General OverviewThe Republic of Belarus, situated at the western border ofthe former Soviet Union, was one of the most industriallydeveloped republics, with very strong higher education andscience sectors. As of the 1999–2000 academic year, thestate system of higher education comprises 42 highereducation institutions. The nonstate sector of highereducation is represented by 15 institutions. Belarusianinstitutions of higher learning currently enroll 243,700students (the population of the republic is 10 million).

At present 50 percent of students attend programs ineconomics and the humanities. Admissions to technical andscience education have declined. The list of programsoffered has expanded substantially and now includes morethan 200 fields and over 1,000 specializations. This makesit possible to provide trained specialists in practically allbranches of the economy.

Internationalization EffortsInstitutional Changes. At many state universities and mostnonstate universities, departments of internationalrelations have been created. The main objective for suchdepartments is to develop international linkages for theuniversity by assisting faculty members to participate ininternational educational and scientific exchanges andeducational programs, by supporting foreign faculty andstudents at the university, and by seeking out opportunitiesfor international cooperation.

Belarus has only one Internet provider—the Belpak Company—which is fullycontrolled by the government.

Many universities have introduced administrativepositions to deal with issues of international education—oftenthese positions are ranked at the level of vice rector. It isobvious that universities with both an international relationsdepartment and a vice rector for international affairs are quite

15

oriented toward introducing internationalization.

Foreign LanguagesIn Belarusian higher education, all students are required tostudy a foreign language for at least three years. However,a number of fields—such as international relations, inter-national economic relations, international law, and thelike—offered at state universities now require proficiencyin two foreign languages. Some nonstate institutions alsorequire proficiency in two foreign languages.Foreign Students

Belarusian universities have created Russian languagedepartments for international students. After completingthe courses in these departments, international students areable to study as full-time students in a regular departmentwith the Russian language as the medium of instruction.For a number of reasons, Belarus continues to be a popularplace for international students to study, especially thosefrom the former socialist counties: the level of educationalquality is high, yet tuition is not as high as it is at Russianuniversities; the language of instruction is Russian and manypeople from the formerly socialist countries still have someknowledge of Russian; and Belarus is a safer environmentcompared to present-day Russia. Some universities havealso introduced courses conducted in foreign languages toattract foreign students.

At present 50 percent of students attendprograms in economics and the humani-ties. Admissions to technical and scienceeducation have declined.

Universities see several benefits of providingeducational services to international students: internationalstudents serve as a source of additional income for theuniversity, and once the students graduate they will createinternational contacts and links for the university.

Regional LinksThe leading state universities are situated in the center ofBelarus, in the capital city Minsk. There are five more re-gional centers, located near the Russian, Ukrainian, Pol-ish, Lithuanian, and Latvian borders. These regionalinfluences contribute international components to the in-stitutions.

Some universities located in the capital, close to the head-quarters of international organizations, have set up offices forthese organizations or provide space for them on campus.

Foreign AidInternational foundations and agencies have played andcontinue to play a significant role in internationalizinghigher education in Belarus. The Bureau of Educationaland Cultural Affairs of the U.S. Department of State(formerly the USIA), the Eurasia Foundation, and theEuropean Union have actively supported academicexchanges and partnerships on all levels in Belarus.However, for political reasons, international assistance hasbeen on the decline, which is of concern to Belarusianuniversities.

International foundations and agencieshave played and continue to play a sig-nificant role in internationalizing highereducation in Belarus.

Obstacles to InternationalizationInflexibility of the System. Unfortunately, the presentBelarusian system of higher education is not compatiblewith the Western credit system. This creates difficultiesfor students wishing to study abroad, as they do not receiveofficial recognition of the valuable experience they havehad during their international studies.

Limited Internet Access. Belarus has only one Internetprovider—the Belpak Company—which is fully con-trolled by the government. Although universities weredefined as priority sites for developing Internet access,the resources are still very limited and the quality ofconnection is not reliable. Scarceness of Internet re-sources makes it almost impossible to undertake jointinternational activities in the field of higher educationand research.

Financial Constraints. Most university faculty do notmake adequate salaries in Belarus and are forced to lookfor second jobs or provide tutoring services for highschool graduates wishing to attend the university. Giventhe financial situation, it is very difficult for theuniversity administration to expect faculty members toimplement the internationalization of teaching andresearch.

There are, of course, other financial issues—forexample, the problem of funding library acquisitions ofbooks, in particular of foreign languages titles, andsubscriptions to international periodicals.

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION16

Special Focus: African Issues

Innovations in African HigherEducation: The ADEA ReportNote from William Saint of the World Bank: The principal referencedocument at the recent Association for the Development of Education inAfrica’s Biennial Conference in South Africa was a “Prospective, Stock-taking Review of Education in Africa,” which synthesized the findings ofsome 30 different cases studies of successful educational innovationand change in Africa during the 1990s. I recommend this document asa useful guide to “interventions that work.” The portion of this paper thataddresses higher education is reproduced below. For further informa-tion concerning ADEA’s higher education working group, please con-tact William Saint, Principal Education Specialist, Africa Region, TheWorld Bank, 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433 , USAFax: (202) 473-8065.

Higher Education Reform

The ADEA Working Group on Higher Educationreports on three successful efforts in higher education

reform. The first focuses on institutional reforms within asingle university in Mozambique. The second analyzessystemwide higher education reform as introduced by thegovernment of Cameroon during the 1990s. The thirddescribes an innovation in regional cooperation forgraduate training and research.

The institutional reforms concern the strategic plan-ning experiences of the Eduardo Mondlane University inMozambique. Two intensive planning cycles are reported.The first one began in 1990 when it became clear that theuniversity needed to adapt to the changing economic andpolitical scenario associated with movements away frommarxism and affiliated support from the former Easternbloc. The need to solicit funds and support from externalpartners was evident. The second cycle began in 1996–97—when Mozambique and its major public university were adapt-ing to the impacts of democracy, market competition, andglobalization—whereas the first effort was that of a smallnumber of senior notables, the second one was generatedusing a participatory methodology deemed to be more effec-tive in involving the university in the process of change.

This case study is basically an assessment of the par-ticipatory process of the second planning cycle in compari-son with the first. It comes to the following conclusions:Participatory planning processes, especially in a contextwhere democracy is a relatively recent innovation (as inMozambique), tend to be long and painstaking. Participa-tory planning must involve the commitment of as manymembers of the university as possible. It is important tolisten to everyone, and to be seen as listening. An efficientinformation system is helpful. Indeed, one of seniormanagement’s roles should be to provide basic informa-tion and play a lead role in stimulating the debate. Differ-ent groups will need to participate in different ways. Thismust be taken into account when planning the process.

Planning cannot be evaluated on documentary evidencealone. One of its most important outcomes is its fosteringof debate on major issues. Divergence and conflict are anormal component of strategic planning. It is not a simpletechnocratic exercise; one of its goals is to catalyze debate.Universities are built upon the premise of free discussionand debate of ideas. It is therefore incumbent for the plan-ners to take this into account when preparing the planningprocess. Participatory planning has a positive impact.

Another contribution for the Working Group onHigher Education concerns the reform of higher educa-tion in Cameroon. This reform was initiated in 1993 as aresponse to severe overcrowding at the University ofYaounde, where enrollments increased from 9,000 in 1977to 45,000 in 1991. Alongside this was the relative stagna-tion of the infrastructure and a teacher-student ratio of 1/54 in 1991. The state treasury was likewise depleted, whichled to late and irregular payment of student stipends andstaff salaries (in 1991 they consumed 89 percent of theuniversity budget) and to a low execution rate for the uni-versity budget. Student welfare appeared to have surpassedteaching and research as the university’s priority. Successrates were low (about 30 percent) and graduate unemploy-ment was on the rise. As a result, the university commu-nity lost motivation and became demoralized.

The ADEA Working Group onHigher Education reports on threesuccessful efforts in higher educa-tion reform.

The goals of the 1993 reforms were the decongestionof the University of Yaounde and the professionalizationof university studies. The first aim was addressed by theestablishment of six full-fledged universities throughoutCameroon. Apart from solving the space problems inYaounde, the expanded geographical distribution madehigher education more accessible to students in underservedregions of the country. Professionalization was pursuedthrough quality improvement measures and greater uni-versity autonomy. A two-semester course credit system wasintroduced. Universities were required to link their pro-grams to local labor market needs. The bursary system waseliminated, thereby increasing the budget for research, in-frastructure, and teaching, and student registration feeswere increased significantly. The reforms produced results.Data for the 1995/96 academic year show improvementsin success rates (up to 70 percent for one of the universi-ties) and reduced teacher/student ratios.

The reforms, however, have also seen setbacks, such

17

as resistance to financial participation on the part of par-ents and students, and reduced funding by the state. De-spite new revenue generated by the registration fees andthe elimination of bursaries, universities still rely on de-clining government support for around 70 percent of theirbudget. The creation of new universities has also requiredadditional personnel. This has led to a decrease in overallstaff quality. Strategic planning and quality control are stillalmost nonexistent. The conclusion drawn from the highereducation reform experience in Cameroon is that the suc-cess of such reforms depends on full political and societalsupport, the financial sustainability of universities, and abody of experienced and devoted managers.

The ADEA Working Group on Higher Education alsoreports on a research capacity building network for East-ern and Southern Africa aimed at achieving human re-source development through sustainable capacity buildingin science, engineering, and the humanities. Staff devel-opment fellowships for research and for advanced degreesat the participating universities are the principal strategiesused. The program is known as the University Science,Humanities and Engineering Partnership in Africa. It is amultipartnership experience, involving the University ofCape Town (UCT), which provided much of the manage-ment and content for this experience; the Association ofAfrican Universities, which provided the vision and theframework for cooperation and introduced UCT to itscounterparts in Africa; participating universities in Uganda,Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Botswana; andexternal financing partners. The approach used is a “sand-wich model,” in which the fellowship holders alternate be-tween the partner universities (their home university and,in most cases, UCT, where they pursue their studies). Fel-lowships allow for travel and subsistence for up to 20months and make provision for supervisor travel, researchexpenses, and relevant equipment.

Other partner universities stressed theirstaff development and capacity build-ing needs, as well as their desire to de-velop continental research relationships.

Achievements to date are: 36 full-degree fellowshipshave been awarded, 10 of which have gone to women; twoPh.D.s and 2 master’s degrees have been completed. Over40 supervisors have visited partner institutions. These vis-its are associated with lectures, external examinations, andresearch cooperation. This experience demonstrates theeffectiveness of a network based on a common needs as-sessment, the enthusiasm of all participants, and an adequate

management capacity. This has helped to promote researchcollaboration among African researchers and has brokendown some of the historical barriers between South Africaand the rest of the continent. The sharing of regional re-sources yielding economies of scale has taken place. A net-work of African researchers capable of addressing thedevelopmental requirements of Sub-Saharan Africa hasbeen established.

The following key success factors are identified in thecase study: The importance of consultation . . . [and] thedevelopment of personal relationships at an early stage...played a role. These consultations led to general agree-ments on the objectives of the program, which in turn ledto shared expectations. Each partner expressed specificneeds and expectations. UCT, for example, stressed its un-tapped capacity to receive additional post-graduate stu-dents, and its belief in the importance of having studentsfrom other parts of Africa to serve as role models withinthe changing South African context. Other partner uni-versities stressed their staff development and capacitybuilding needs, as well as their desire to develop conti-nental research relationships. Effective management of theprocess included early institutional buy-in at the highestlevel from all partners and flexibility (including budget-ary) so that each fellowship could be tailor-made to theindividuals concerned. Enthusiasm was important as amotivating factor. There was a conscious effort made todevelop a network beyond the individual fellowship hold-ers. Linkages were established between universities, de-partments, and supervisors. These have led to spin-offs,particularly involving supervisors, such as the appointmentof external examiners and invitations to lecture or deliverseminars. Successful networking occurred simultaneouslyat three levels: the university senior management level; thedepartmental level; and the level of individual fellows. Thefocus on local research projects, the provision of suitableequipment, the emphasis on longer-term research coop-eration, and the ability to raise funds independently forfuture research were all factors.

Problems encountered included the following:communication was difficult (whether by post, fax, e-mail,or telephone), and this affected communications betweenCape Town and the partner universities, as well as betweenthe fellows and their supervisors. One outcome of this wasthat program administration was much more costly thananticipated. There were difficulties related to the lack ofclearly defined and delineated roles within the jointsupervisor system. The duties of the supervisors and thenature of their relationships were never adequatelyaddressed within the project. Imbalances generated by theproject were somewhat problematic. For some, living inCape Town on their home university’s salary was quitedifficult. The equipment received by the fellows also createdsome conflict between them and their more seniorcolleagues.

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION18

Damtew TeferraDamtew Teferra is coordinator of the African Higher Education Projectat the Center for International Higher Education, School of Education,Boston College, where he is currently completing his doctoral studies inhigher education. Address: Center for International Higher Education,School of Education, 207B Campion Hall, Boston College, MA 02467,USA; Tel: (617) 783-4807 (home), (617) 552-4413 (office); fax: (617)552 8422; e-mail: <teferra@bc.edu>; Internet: http://www2.bc.edu/~teferra.

Endowments are one of the major resource bases forhigher education institutions in the United States. An

endowment is made up of monetary donations to the insti-tutions from which it draws regular interest proceeds. Nu-merous institutions maintain extensive networks to boosttheir endowment holdings. Harvard University currentlyenjoys the biggest endowment—worth $15 billion. Otherprestigious U.S. institutions—such as Yale, Princeton, andStanford—have amassed $7, $5, and, $4.5 billion, respec-tively. Boston College, one of the premier Jesuit institu-tions, recently successfully completed a $1 billionendowment drive.

It is certainly the affluence of the society, its uniquetax system, the culture of charitable donation, and therecent strength of the economy that continue to drivethe expansion of philanthropic initiatives in the UnitedStates. The leaders of American higher education insti-tutions anticipate that when the economic frenzy andboom come to an end—they will have expanded theirfinancial base to last them through the difficult timesthat may lie ahead.

The main purpose of this prologue is not simply tounderscore the significance of this unique means of gener-ating resources for higher learning institutions but also tosuggest how this innovative method might be emulated,expanded, improvised, and adapted in a different context,situation, and environment such as Africa and the ThirdWorld in general.

The pressure on African governments toexpand tertiary education is constantlymounting, as higher learning becomesincreasingly critical to social mobility.

The serious financial hardships with which most Af-rican higher learning institutions must constantly con-tend have been thoroughly documented. Except for avery few institutions, such as the University of Botswana,

most of them suffer from serious shortages of skilledpersonnel and of financial, technical, and material re-sources. Of course, the state of higher learning institu-tions generally reflects the economic state of the countryin which they exist. This is particularly so in Africa,where almost all higher education institutions are pub-licly owned and heavily subsidized by the respectivegovernments—rendering them virtually and immedi-ately susceptible to economic exigencies.

The pressure on African governments to expand ter-tiary education is constantly mounting, as higher learningbecomes increasingly critical to social mobility. This hasforced governments to expand existing institutions and toestablish brand-new ones. It is common knowledge thatthese expansions often come at the expense of quality, withnegative impacts on the entire higher education commu-nity—students, faculty, staff, and administrators—and onthe nation as a whole.

The state of higher learning institutionsgenerally reflects the economic state ofthe country in which they exist.

Higher education reforms with respect to finance havebeen particularly difficult and sensitive in Africa. Policiesto change existing financial arrangements have been fiercelyresisted, forcing governments to maintain the status quoand to struggle with the heavy burden of financing highereducation. It should be emphasized that a plethora of ex-ternal agencies do participate in supporting these institu-tions through their various programs. Of the cocktail ofinitiatives by external agencies to support African universi-ties, endowment has been the least contemplated or imple-mented. At a recent international conference on brain drainand capacity building in Africa, I drew attention to the ideaof endowing African universities and other major scholarlycenters. The approach was warmly received by the confer-ees. Is it, then, possible to cultivate a culture of endowinghigher learning institutions on African soil? And, if so, how?

How can a university or other major research institu-tion kick-start an endowment initiative? A remarkable sta-tistic may provide some background for this discussion:more than 70 percent of research and development re-sources in Africa are generated externally. Some regionalinstitutions established as centers of excellence that relyvery heavily on these resources have been petitioning for

Endowing African Universities—Cultivating Sustainability

19

better, more reliable, and consistent resources and supportto improve their effectiveness and cultivate sustainability.

Endowing African universities by meansof funding from external or locallybased sources may appear an auda-cious initiative.

As a first step, they might do well to approach theirhistorical supporters. To be sure, many critics of West-ern aid policies may retain their reservations about aninitiative that still depends on the institutions them-selves. The donor community may reorient its focus bycultivating sustainability to bring about lasting devel-opment in these countries in general and higher insti-tutions in particular.

African institutions should emulate U.S. institutions,which continuously expand their endowments by generat-ing donations from corporations, foundations, govern-ments, and individuals. It is an opportune time for Africato move in this direction—given the current emphasis onthe need for a highly trained labor force in the new knowl-edge and information era and the favorable attitude towardThird World tertiary education.

The Rockefeller Foundation, for example, rarely pro-vides general institutional support in the form of fundingendowments or building and operating expenses. However,with the major foundations now reorienting their policiesand resources to address the plight of African universities,the climate would seem right for a major endowment drive.It is hoped that the large donation, of more than U.S.$100million, recently made by four major U.S. foundations—the Carnegie Corporation and the Ford, Rockefeller, andMacArthur Foundations—to improve African universities,will promote sustainability, by endowing a number of ma-jor regional centers, national universities, and programs.

for institutions that struggle just to make it through each day.Nevertheless, it should be feasible to convince philanthro-pists, governments, and individuals to invest in sustainableinitiatives. Locally and externally based affluent nationalsshould not be neglected in this endeavor. The conviction dis-played by an Ethiopian business tycoon in establishing a 40million Birr (equivalent to U.S.$5 million) endowment for acollege may appear the exception rather than the rule; butseveral such exceptions are bound to make a difference.

Initiatives to reinvigorate African higher learning in-stitutions—spearheaded by major and powerful educationthink tanks and financial and philanthropic institutions—have recently gathered momentum. It is up to the leader-ship of African universities and their respective governmentsto capitalize on this momentum by means of effective poli-cies and pragmatic measures. It will be unfortunate if Af-rica fails—again—to capitalize on this possibility: not onlyto rebuild its declining institutions but also to guarantee abetter and sustainable future for them.

How can a university or other majorresearch institution kick-start an endow-ment initiative?

Endowing African universities by means of funding fromexternal or locally based sources may appear an audacious initia-tive. It may look futile to consider such long-term strategies

Beginning with this issue of International Higher Edu-cation, we are offering an important new innovation—now you can sign up to automatically receive notice ofupcoming IHE publications. Sign-up is easy. Simplylog on to our website <http://www.bc.edu/cihe> andfollow the instructions in the middle of the page. Oncesigned on, you will receive the table of contents of eachnew IHE publication, with links to the full text of ev-ery article. This new service will put in you touch withour articles immediately on publication, will permityou to send our articles to colleagues, and allow you tocommunicate with us through the Internet.

You may not be aware that our on-line site alsoprovides a comprehensive index of articles publishedin International Higher Education, and includes linksto the full text of each article. In this way, you can eas-ily find past information concerning the countries, top-ics, and authors that has been previously published inIHE—a unique service valuable in research and policyanalysis. In addition to the index, our website offerslinks to other higher education sites, to publicationsrelated to the Center for International Higher Educa-tion, and to additional information concerning highereducation.

These initiatives are just a part of our effort toprovide our readers with efficient electronic access tothe latest information and analysis concerning highereducation worldwide. The programs of the Center aresupported by the Ford Foundation and by Boston Col-lege as a service to the university community.

International Higher Education On-line

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION20

Countries and Regions

Expanding the State Role inMalaysian Higher EducationMolly N. N. LeeMolly N. N. Lee is associate professor, School of Educational Studies,Universiti Sains Malaysia. She was a Fulbright scholar at the Center forInternational Higher Education at Boston College in spring 2000. Ad-dress: School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia Penang11800, Malaysia. Fax: 604-657-2907; e-mail: <molly@usm.my>.

A brief literature review on the relationships betweenhigher education and the state shows that the state can play

different roles—as provider, protector, regulator, or adviser—indifferent contexts and at different points in time. As provider, thestate allocates resources to institutions of higher education andprovides funds for scholarships and student aid, research, andcapital expenditures. As protector, the state takes on the functionof consumer advocacy by improving access to higher education,formulating policies to promote social equality, and by monitor-ing the quality of academic programs. As regulator, the state en-sures oversight of new and emerging institutions throughinstitutional accreditation and program licensing. The state steersby structuring the market for higher education services to pro-duce outcomes consistent with government priorities. Most gov-ernments are interested in influencing the behavior of institutionsof higher learning to achieve certain objectives such as efficiency,distribution, or furthering social and cultural objectives. Like manyother countries, the Malaysian government maintains tight con-trol over the expansion of higher education.

The Malaysian ContextThe state has expanded its role from being a provider and pro-tector to include regulating and steering functions. Until the1980s, the Malaysian government was the main provider of highereducation. The government provides complete funding to allpublic institutions of higher learning through budget allocationsas well as lump-sum funding for development and capital expen-ditures. As consumer advocate, the government kept tuition feeslow by heavily subsidizing all public institutions. Furthermore,the government offers scholarships and loans to low-income stu-dents. To promote social equity, the government has also imple-mented an ethnic quota system for student admissions to ensurethat the ethnic composition of the student body in public institu-tions reflects that in the general population. This admission policyis aimed at promoting social mobility through higher education,especially for the Malays who are recognized as the disadvan-taged group in the country.

Student enrollments at the tertiary level have risendramatically in the past decade. In 2000, the participation rate ofstudents in higher education stands at 19.6 percent or an esti-mated total enrollment of 450,000. About 30 percent of the de-velopment budget of the Ministry of Education is spent on higher

education. The ministry faced with tight budgetary constraintsin meeting the ever-increasing demand for higher education. Thestate has to relinquish its role as the main provider of highereducation by encouraging public institutions to seek revenue else-where and by pressing the private sector to set up independenthigher education institutions.

In 2000, the participation rate of stu-dents in higher education stands at 19.6percent or an estimated total enrollmentof 450,000.

In 1998, five public universities were given greater in-stitutional autonomy to generate revenue through researchcontracts, consulting, business ventures with industry, andother forms of investment. The increase in institutionalautonomy encompasses financial management, competi-tive remuneration of academic staff, and adopting strate-gies to increase efficiency and improve quality. To coverpart of their operating costs, some of these universities haveincreased tuition fees at the graduate level.

An Expanded State RolePrivate higher education has expanded tremendously inthe last two decades. The state plays a strong regulatoryrole vis-à-vis private higher education. In 1996, the Pri-vate Higher Educational Institutions Act was passed,which defines the government’s regulatory control pow-ers over all private education institutions in the country.Approval must be obtained from the Ministry of Educa-tion to establish a private institution or introduce new pro-grams. In 1997, the National Accreditation Board wascreated to formulate policies on standards and quality con-trol as well as accreditating the certificates, diplomas, anddegrees awarded by private institutions.

The state has attempted to give higher education a Ma-laysian identity. All private institutions must conduct theircourses in the national language. To teach a course in Englishthey must obtain permission from the minister of education.In addition, all institutions must offer required courses inMalaysian studies, Islamic studies (for Muslim students), andmoral education (for non-Muslim students). These coursesare aimed at transmitting cultural heritage and national iden-tity to the students, including foreign students who are alsorequired to take courses on the national language.

In 1996, the government established the National Coun-cil on Higher Education, whose main function is to plan, for-mulate, and determine national policies and strategies andoversee both the public and private sectors, so as to ensure

21

better coordination of the country’s higher education system.The government would like the private sector to complementand supplement the efforts of the public sector and has soughtto steer the private sector toward providing more vocationaland technical education.

Thus, there has been a gradual shift from state control to-ward state supervision in the relationship between the Malaysiangovernment and higher education. In the state control model,the Ministry of Education regulates access conditions, the cur-riculum, degree requirements, examination systems, the appoint-ment and remuneration of staff, the selection and admissions ofstudents, and other administrative matters. Conversely, in the

state supervisory model universities are responsible for their ownmanagement and generation of their own revenues. In this model,the state oversees the higher education system in terms of assur-ing quality and maintaining a certain level of accountability. Withthe corporatization and privatization of higher education in Ma-laysia, the shift is from central state control to market-based poli-cies, which will increase the range of choices for students andaddress the needs of an increasingly complex social order. How-ever, the Malaysian state will still maintain a central steering roleto ensure equity of access, consumer advocacy, and national iden-tity, which are broader social and cultural goals that transcendthe market.

Recent Developments in French UniversitiesChristine Musselin and Stéphanie Mignot-Gérard

Christine Musselin and Stéphanie Mignot-Gérard are on the staff of theCentre de sociologie des organisations. Address: CNRS, 19 rue Amélie,75007 Paris, France. Fax␣ : 33 47 05 35 55; e-mail: <s.mignot-gerard@cso.cnrs.fr> or <c.musselin@cso.cnrs.fr>.

French universities have long been known for theirweak governance capacity. Research by Erhard Friedberg

and Christine Musselin on this topic (Enquête d’universités,1989) and their comparative work on French and Germanuniversities clearly confirmed this characteristic. They showthat French university administrators tend to behave as primusinter pares rather than as active promotors of collectiveprojects. In most cases, university bodies came to“␣ nondecisions,” not making any decisions at all, rubber-stamping choices made by individual faculty members, leav-ing the final decision to the ministry, or simply implementingthe criteria set by the Parisian central administration. Thus,individual autonomy was considerable while institutionalautonomy was limited␣ ; moreover the latter was consideredsomewhat illegitimate. In the view of these two authors, theweak governance of French universities allowed the Minis-try of Education to play an interventionist role that also main-tained the weakness at the institutional level.

Fifteen years later, the authors of this article have done anew study on French university governance, funded by theAgency for the Modernization of the Universities—createdin 1997 as part of the French Association of University Presi-dents. Based on 250 in-depth interviews at four universities,the study shows that French universities experienced a num-ber of important changes within the last decade and havestrengthened their governance.

Institutional Policy and PlanningThe current study found a rise in the development and theimplementation of institutional policies at the university level.While the changes are not large in scale, more and more

universities are reexamining the curriculum in order to de-velop courses in specific areas or to give priorities to certainjob-oriented programs. Institutional policies are also focus-ing on research—to better coordinate research activities, pro-mote interdisciplinary projects, and to search fornongovernment funding. But the more surprising finding ofour study concerned management issues. Attempts were madeto develop institutionwide reporting and monitoring proce-dures. The goal was the harmonization and normalization ofpreviously diverse practices to create institutional sharednorms and ways of acting. This change in mangement al-lowed the production of data at the university level. Thesedata are more readily accepted and recognized than data pro-duced by the ministry and are useful as a basis for decidingsuch things as the redistribution of nonacademic staff posi-tions or new budget allocation procedures.

The goal was the harmonization andnormalization of previously diversepractices to create institutional sharednorms and ways of acting.

University BodiesA striking development has occurred in the effectiveness ofuniversity bodies. The 1984 law on higher education pro-vided French universities with three elected bodies: one forpedagogical issues, one for scientific issues, and above thesetwo the university council, which dealt with all other issuesand especially the budget. The council has the power to limitthe actions of the university president. As stated earlier, uni-versity bodies were previously known for their preferencefor “nondecisions” and were decribed as places for debatesand confrontations. This is no longer true. Decisions are now

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION22

Hans C. GieseckeHans C. Giesecke is NAICU International Fellow and Consultant forStudent Affairs, International University Bremen. Address: InternationalUniversity Bremen, Bürgermeister-Smidt-Strasse 78, 28195 Bremen,Germany. Fax: 49 421 3611 1818.

In the latter part of the 19th century, there was a streamof immigration between the ports of Bremerhaven,

Germany and Galveston, Texas. The influx of Germanimmigrants into Texas during those years led to thefounding of a number of German-American communitiesin the region between Houston and Austin. This humanflow has been augmented over the last quarter century by ascientific exchange between Rice University, Texas and thepublic University of Bremen. This exchange reached a peakin the 1990s, particularly in the field of mathematics.

The founding of the new International UniversityBremen (IUB) in the last year of the 20th century by thecity-state of Bremen, Rice University, and the University

of Bremen is an outgrowth of the links between Bremenand Rice University. IUB, which plans to enroll its firststudents in fall 2001, will be the first comprehensive, private,English-language institution on the European continentoffering B.A.s, M.A.s, and Ph.D.s to an international studentbody. The campus will feature an international digital library,extensive student and faculty exchange programs, and a varietyof joint educational and research ventures between institutionsin the Americas, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia.

IUB’s DevelopmentIUB made the transition from an idea on paper to aninstitution-in-the-making in a very short time frame. Theidea was germinated when a former officers´ logisticsacademy of the German Army became available in aresidential setting just 15km to the north of Bremen´s citycenter. Bremen´s progressive city-state government agreedto the idea of creating the first true private university inGermany on the site of the former military academy. This,

Office of the PresidentThe third important transformation that has occurred inFrench universities is the strengthened position of theOffice of President. While their statutory powers remainabout the the same as before, their conception of their rolechanged: presidents no longer see themselves as passiverepresentatives of the faculty members’ interest but muchmore as managers responsible for initiating projects withinthe university and promoting the development ofrelationships with the outside world. They are alsorecognized as the main spokespersons for the university bythe ministry (where as previously they had to compete withdeans for this position). Nevertheless, such involvement inthe definition and implementation of institutional policiesand strategic planning at the university level does not extendthroughout the university. The activist, and even quite

interventionist approach that is emerging at the presidentiallevel are still very rare at the level of the deans. The latter remainrather passive and are not (and do not wish to be) closely associatedwith the university administration. Indeed, their position is quitean uncomfortable one: the president’s staff expects the deans toconvey university orientation and policy, while the individualfaculty members still expect the deans to protect them againstthe presidential will. This imbalance within the universityleadership will probably be one of the big challenges faced byFrench universities in the coming years.

The changes affect not only the universities but the Frenchsystem as a whole, which for years has consisted of strong facultés(colleges) that the weaker universities were unable to consolidateinto a whole. The recent evolution fostered the emergence ofstronger universities, better able than before to promote collec-tive actions, practices, and orientations. In addition to changes atthe institutional level described earlier, there have also beenbroader transformations with important consequences. The min-istry (which initiated this change: but this is another story) needsto learn how to negotiate with university representatives ratherthan with those representing the disciplines. The developmentshave had an effect on the French university landscape: strongeruniversity governance promotes the evolving of institutional iden-tities, which increases the institutional diversification in a coun-try known for its standardized and national programs.Strengthened university governance could thus be the visible partof a larger overall change in the French highereducation system.

made that can affect the university’s future (for instance, thecreation of new academic positions and the priorities attachedto them). The size of these bodies (between 30 and 60 mem-bers in the universities we studied) does not allow decisionsto be reached during the plenary meetings: decisions are pre-pared beforehand by specialist groups. This may lead someelected members to feel “dispossessed” and constrained tovote for propositions elaborated without their input. Never-theless, decisions are now actually made, and university bod-ies have a much greater expertise than before.

The International University Bremen:Private Higher Education Returns to Germany

23

in turn, led to a number of contacts with leading academicinstitutions in North America to determine if a strong partnercould be found to assist in institutional development efforts.

Due to the history of collaboration between Rice Uni-versity and Bremen, the call to Rice University in fall 1997was received with considerable interest. A delegation of RiceUniversity officials was dispatched almost immediately tobegin discussions with Bremen civic leaders. The originalnotion was to create a branch campus of Rice University inGermany, but after preliminary discussion it became clearthat the more compelling approach would be to create anew independent international university in Bremen withits own board of directors and mission.

This concept was detailed in a white paper drafted byDavid Auston, then provost of Rice and now president ofCase Western Reserve University in Ohio. The white paperwas followed shortly by a memorandum of understandingbetween Rice and the city-state of Bremen, which in turncalled for the creation of a planning committee to beginconceptualizing the new university´s structure. Theplanning committee was assisted in its efforts by the rectorof the public University of Bremen, Jürgen Timm.

Once the initial planning documents were prepared andapproved, the next key step was to establish a Board ofGovernors to guide the institution through its birth. ReimarLüst, president of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundationand former director general of the European Space Agency,agreed to take on the role of chair of the Board of Governors.In addition, a planning corporation was founded.

On February 11, 1999, the International University Bremenwas officially founded at ceremonies in the historic Brementownhall. The university´s founding was widely noted in the mediaas an initiative that would help reform German higher educationby providing a private alternative to the state-run universities.

In a significant follow-up step, a contract was concludedbetween IUB and the city-state of Bremen whereby the city-state placed DM 230 million (U.S.$115 million) at the disposalof the university for start-up funding. These funds were tobe used to pay for the purchase of the military academy bythe university, the remodelling and reconstruction of several

key buildings, and the completion of the planning effort.In addition, Rice University assigned two academic

administrators to work for two years on the development ofIUB. Their key task has been to take the planning documentsand turn the Board of Governor´s vision into reality. Aninternational search for academic deans has been undertakento fill the next two key leadership posts: dean of science andengineering and dean of humanities and social science.

IUB’s Mission and ProfileThe institution´s mission statement proclaims the thrust ofthe academic program. It reads: An independent institutionfor the advancement of education, research, internationalleadership, and global citizenship. Legally, the university´sstructure has been stipulated as a not-for-profit corporationwith limited liability (GmbH) operating for the public good.Along with the president and academic deans, other keyfunctions now in development include articulation of theresearch agenda, planning for an information resource center,creation of a student affairs division, establishment of atechnology-transfer arm focusing on the creation of anadjacent science park, and the formation of a fund raisingand public relations apparatus.

IUB will differ from other established Germanuniversities in a variety of important ways: tuition will becharged; faculty will not be tenured—the 100 plus memberfaculty will be hired with limited-term, renewable contracts;enrollment will be modest (1,200 students by 2005);admissions will be highly selective; instruction will be offeredin English rather than in German; and the university willhave the look and feel of an American college campus, withthe goal of creating an environment in which students andfaculty are part of an academic community.

One key feature of the plan for student life at IUB isimplementation of a residential college system to which allstudents and faculty will be assigned. The goal is to create anacademic community where all members become involved andshare ideas with one other. In addition, international internshipprograms will be offered to all students so that they can blendtheory together with practical solutions to problems.

Ali A. MosaAli A. Mosa is associate professor of comparative and internationaleducation and dean of the College of Education at King Khalid Uni-versity. Address: P O Box 9090 Abha, Saudi Arabia. Tel. and Fax:966 7 224 9647; e-mail: <aamosa@hotmail.com>.

There are various kinds of institutions of higher edu-cation in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Some of them

are under the supervision of the Ministry of Higher Edu-cation (mainly, the eight universities), while the rest are

run by other government agencies or ministries. The Gen-eral Presidency of Female Education manages and finances50 women’s colleges of education; the Ministry of Educa-tion supervises 18 teachers colleges. These institutions havea total of 307,351 students (131,659 male and 169,692 fe-male) and 15,167 teaching staff (9,857 male and 5,310 fe-male).

Institutions of higher education below the level of thebachelor’s degree include 34 colleges for the health-re-lated professions, 20 women’s junior colleges, 3 commu-nity colleges, 12 technical colleges, and 2 industrial artscolleges. There are also a number of military and security

Pressures in Saudi Arabia

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION24

colleges that are beyond the scope of this article.The Saudi system of higher education has had to face

several challenges in the past few decades. The first chal-lenge has come from the rapid pace of progress in Saudisociety: dramatic changes in literacy, family income, mod-ernization, and social mobility—in the transition from amainly tribal and nomadic society to an urban one. Theseinternal changes could not have happened without exter-nal forces such as the emergence of a more open economy,exposure to foreigners from almost every country of theworld, industrialization, and, lately, war. Although thesedevelopments have influenced the development of Saudihigher education, the real pressures on the institutions ofhigher education have come from the beneficiaries (thelabor market and students alike), whose impact is begin-ning to be felt by colleges and universities all over thecountry.

Saudi higher education is under mount-ing pressure to admit more studentsthan it is really capable of handling—toaccommodate the ever-increasing num-ber of high school graduates.

Rising DemandSaudi higher education is under mounting pressure to admit morestudents than it is really capable of handling—to accommodatethe ever-increasing number of high school graduates. The risingdemand is due in part to individuals and families looking for waysto supplement their income (university students in Saudi Arabiareceive a monthly stipend of $300). Higher education is alsoviewed as a way to avoid the dangers of having large numbers ofunemployed young people.

To address this issue, Saudi higher education is studying thepossibilities of a national entrance examination for high schoolgraduates. Those who do not qualify for admission would haveto enter a one-year program of general courses. Students whosuccessfully completed these courses could then proceed to theuniversity. Those who did not pass would be asked to take othercourses to complete the requirements for a junior diploma, whichshould prepare them for the labor market. The main difficultywith such programs, however, is the possibility that their diplo-mas may not be recognized by the public and private sectors.

This situation reflects the lack of coordination betweenhigher education institutions (which enjoy a certain degreeof autonomy in terms of planning, organization, and poli-cies) and the public and private sectors. This disconnecthas led in the past to the doubling of programs that are notnecessarily relevant for national development plans or the

labor market. To address this problem, a group made up ofrepresentatives of government, business, and the universities inthe Arab Gulf States have recently held their fourth meeting inKuwait. They have started to work out new proposals to guideuniversities and colleges in setting up their programs to meet theneeds of the market and to maintain high academic standards.

This cooperation between the privateand public sector and the universitiescame about as a result of the policy ofnationalizing the work force in the ArabGulf States.

The Need to Nationalize the Work ForceThis cooperation between the private and public sector andthe universities came about as a result of the policy of nation-alizing the work force in the Arab Gulf States. Saudi Arabia,for example, has 7 million foreign workers in a population of16 million. Higher education, therefore, is assigned the re-sponsibility of replacing these foreign workers with qualifiedand competitive Saudis. The massive expansion of highereducation would not have been possible without a relianceon faculty members from other countries. Saudi higher edu-cation now needs to create a balance between the expansionin programs, students, and institutions and the preparationof Saudi nationals. While recruiting well-qualified scholarsfrom other countries has had a positive impact on the Saudihigher education in the short run, foreign faculty membersare not the right solution in the long term. This issue will bean ongoing concern for Saudi higher education in the future,given the rapid growth in higher education.

Competition is an area of greatconcern now.

Student Allowance PolicyThe continuing support for students in the form of monthlyallowances in the absence of tuition and fees creates a heavyburden on the budgets of higher education institutions andlimits the expansion and improvement of academic pro-grams and university services. The irony, however, is thatsuch financial support was introduced as an incentive toincrease higher education enrollments. While it is a sensi-tive issue, the student allowance program is increasingly

25

coming under fire. Higher education institutions are con-sidering many proposals that are aimed at revising this gen-erous program. One proposal would link this financialsupport with student achievement. Such a policy would re-duce the financial drain on institutions and the rate of stu-dent dropouts from colleges and universities.

Competition now is an area of great concern. The pur-pose of these discussions is to encourage competition be-tween the different institutions of higher education, and toattract the best students from all over the country. Someuniversities and colleges have started self-evaluation inorder to secure a place for their graduates in the job mar-ket and to win the recognition and trust of the private-and public-sector employers. This is in addition to thecommitments of academic institutions to improve and up-date their programs according to the national and inter-national standards.

In summary, the Saudi higher education is goingthrough many changes—imposed on it by internationaleconomic developments and by national economic andsocial needs.

The Global Growth of PrivateHigher Education:A SUNY–Albany Initiative

This three-year project financed by the Ford Foundation—with collaboration from the University at Albany, SUNY—has two major components. One is research on the globalgrowth of private higher education. This research will beheaded by Daniel C. Levy, Distinguished Professor, SUNYat Albany. The other component is support for theuniversity’s graduate work and other activities related tocomparative higher education. The specific researchproject concerns the global growth of private higher edu-cation—its causes, dynamics, patterns, consequences, andattendant public policy issues.

The study will gather and analyze wide-rangingdata. It will provide comparative and conceptual guid-ance for understanding proliferating private higher edu-cation in individual countries. This proliferation willbe related to general higher education issues of growth,governance, finance, and missions. Additionally, socialscience theory on private-public interfaces will help re-late private growth to wider matters of political sociol-ogy and political economy.

At least four national cases will be explored in greatestdepth. Likely cases include China, South Africa, Russia,

and Mexico. A set of additional cases will be explored insomewhat less depth, and quantitative data and other in-formation will be collected on all countries possible. Ap-propriate contrasts will be thematically drawn with the U.S.case. All cases will consider the extraordinary diversitywithin the private sector, including nonconventional andfor-profit activity. An international network of scholars,policymakers, and centers will be formed; inquiries—andinformation—are welcome.

The private higher education research project will in-volve doctoral students and lead to dissertations on thetopic. However, the overall Ford project will also supportgraduate work for students not tied to this research. Thissupport will include special assistantships and some fund-ing for summers, travel, and research. Details of a compe-tition for two Ford-sponsored assistantships will be givenin the next issue of the IHE. Tentatively, the applicationdeadline might be the end of November 2000, with win-ners announced around February 2001 for study beginningin fall 2001.

Faculty whose major interest lies in comparative edu-cation include Gilbert Valverde, Heinz-Dieter Meyer,Ralph Harbison, and emeritus Philip Foster, in addition toDaniel Levy. For both specific research projects and moregeneral graduate opportunities, the Ford project at Albanywill have linkages with the Ford project at its SUNY coun-terpart in Buffalo.

Inquiries may be directed to Daniel Levy(dlevy@wizvax.net) concerning either the specific researchproject or pertinent graduate study opportunities. For basicand general information on doctoral study, and forapplications, please contact Carm Colfer:<ccolfer@csc.albany.edu>.

Conference AnnouncementThe 12th Biennial Conference of the South African Asso-ciation for Research and Development in Higher Educa-tion (SAARDHE) will be held 21–23 March 2001 on thetheme: The Impact of Globalization and International-ization on Higher and Further Education in Southern Af-rica. The international keynote speakers will be MichaelGibbons, secretary-general of the Association of Common-wealth Universities and Jan Currie, School of Education,Murdoch University, Australia.

For inquiries concerning the conference program,contact: Prof. M. Fourie (Tel: +27 51 401 2441, Fax +2751 430 6714, e-mail <fouriem@rs.uovs.ac.za>. For inquir-ies concerning conference organization, contact A.Church (Tel : +27 51 401 2425, Fax +27 51 430 6714, e-mail <churcha@rs.uovs.ac.za>. Full registration particu-lars and a call for papers will be distributed duringSeptember 2000. Please contact either of the above per-sons to include your name on the mailing list.

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION26

Departments

A new initiative concerning the changing academicworkplace in comparative perspective has been launched at

the Center. Funded by the Ford Foundation, this project willbring together researchers from developing and middle-incomecountries to write on the rapidly changing environment for theacademic profession. The research team will prepare country-based essays that will be collected into a book. The material willbe discussed at an international conference to take place at theRockefeller Foundation’s conference center in Bellagio, Italy. Thisproject is supported by the Ford Foundation, with assistance fromthe Rockefeller Foundation. It relates to a European-focused ef-fort coordinated by Philip G. Altbach and Richard Chait ofHarvard University, with the assistance of Jürgen Enders of theUniversity of Kassel in Germany, and sponsored by the HarvardProject on Faculty Appointments. The European project willresult in a special theme issue of Higher Education, to be pub-lished in 2001.

The Center and the Program in Higher Education success-fully sponsored the eight-session Monan Symposium on HigherEducation during the spring semester. Key speakers on such topicsas morality in higher education, private higher education, poli-tics and the federal government, and others were featured. Theseries attracted higher education professionals from the Bostonarea and students and alumni of the higher education program atBoston College. The program was organized by Philip G. Altbach,the Monan professor of higher education. It was accompaniedby a seminar for graduate students taught by Dr. Ted Youn.

Work on the Ford Foundation–sponsored Reference Hand-book on African Higher Education continues under the leader-ship of Damtew Teferra. This handbook will be the first majoranalytical guide to African higher education, featuring essays onall African nations and key overarching themes.

Students interested in studying for the master’s or doc-

toral degree in higher education at Boston College maycontact Prof. Karen Arnold (e-mail: <arnold@bc.edu>) coordi-nator of the higher education graduate program. The deadlinefor the 2001–2002 academic year is February 1, 2001.

We welcome Jef Davis to the Center as a graduate assistant.Jef has worked in the area of international higher education atClark University and at the Drexel Institute of Technology.Roberta M. Bassett also joins the higher education doctoral pro-gram and the Center as managing editor of the Review of HigherEducation. Roberta has most recently been assistant dean and di-rector of summer sessions at Stanford University. Liz A. Reisberg,who has served ably as managing editor for the past four years,nears the completion of her doctoral program and continues todirect International Strategies and Training, a consulting firm.Kevin Sayers takes over as assistant editor for International HigherEducation from David Engberg, who has joined the staff of theAmerican Council on Education in Washington, D.C. in inter-national higher education. Kevin is a doctoral student in highereducation at Boston College and recently served in the adminis-tration of the Berklee College of Music in Boston. FrancescaPurcell, who joins the Center from Dean College, will assist withthe Center’s research activities.

Higher Education: A Worldwide Inventory of Centers and Pro-grams by Philip G. Altbach and David Engberg will soon bepublished by the Center for International Higher Education.The inventory features information about more than 185higher education centers and programs worldwide and is thefirst such guide. Complete information concerning each cen-ter is provided. Also included is an essay concerning the cur-rent state of higher education research worldwide by PhilipG. Altbach and a listing of journals in the field of higher edu-cation.

News of the Center and the Program of Higher Education

New Publications

Higher Education Research: Its Relationship toPolicy and Practice, edited by Ulrich Teichlerand Jan Sadlak. Oxford: Pergamon, 2000.192 pp. $92 (hardback). ISBN 0-08-043452-5. Address: Langford Lane,Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, UK. Booksare available in the United States fromElsevier Science, POB 945, Madison Sq.Station, New York NY 10160, USA.

A review of higher education researchand its impact on policy and practice, thisvolume features general essays on thecontext, implications, structures, andexperience of the relationship between

higher education policy and practice. Casestudies from Canada, Australia, Japan, andLatin America are also included.

Challenges Facing Higher Education at theMillennium, edited by Werner Z. Hirschand Luc E. Weber. Oxford: Pergamon,2000. 240 pp. $82 (hardback). ISBN 0-08-042817-7. Address: Elsevier Science,POB 945, Madison Sq. Station, NewYork, NY 10160, USA.

This book gives an overview in an in-ternational perspective of many of the cen-tral issues facing higher education byrespected academic leaders from theUnited States and Europe. Among the top-ics considered are the role of the informa-

tion age, economic issues facing the uni-versity, university-industry relations, life-long learning, and others. The authorsinclude presidents and rectors of key uni-versities.

Managing Technological Change: Strategies forCollege and University Leaders, by A. W.Bates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.235 pp. $34.95 (hardback). ISBN 0-7879-4681-8. Address: Jossey-Bass Publishers,350 Sansome St., San Francisco, CA.94104, USA.

The details of technology in highereducation—from outsourcing, on-linecourses, financial aspects of technologicalacquisitions, staffing technology on One

27

pus, and others—are discussed. The au-thor, a Canadian administrator, providesan internationally focused discussion.

Higher Education: Handbook of Theory andResearch, edited by John C. Smart. NewYork: Agathon Press, 2000. 557 pp. (pa-per). ISBN 0-87586-127-X. Address:Agathon Press, 100 Newfield Ave., Edison,NJ 08837, USA.

Now in its 15th year of publication,this important survey of higher educationresearch developments in the United Statesremains very useful. Volume 15 containsessays on teaching and assessment, inter-collegiate athletics, globalization and theThird World university, collegiate accessin the United States, student assessment,and other topics. The chapters are designedto provide an analysis of current researchand interpretation.

The University in Transformation: GlobalPerspectives on the Futures of the University, edited by Sohail Inayatullahand Jennifer Gidley. Westport, Conn.:Bergin & Garvey, 2000. 270 pp. (hard-back). ISBN 0-89789-718-8. Address:Bergin & Garvey, 88 Post Rd. West.Westport CT 06881, USA.

This book is divided into sections onWestern perspectives on the futures ofhigher education, non-Western perspec-tives, alternative universities, and relatedtopics. Among the issues discussed are dis-tance education, markets, and higher edu-cation. Alternatives such asconsciousness-based higher education,tantra as a philosophical base for highereducation, feminist alternatives andothers are included.

Tertiary Education and Research in the Rus-sian Federation. Paris: Organisation for Eco-nomic Cooperation and Development,1999. 182 pp. FF 220 (paper). ISBN 92-64-17042-1. Address: OECD, 2 rue AndrePascal, 75775 Paris, France.

One of the “reviews of nationalpolicies for education,” this OECDreview of the Russian higher educationsystem provides a description andevaluation of key elements of highereducation. Key elements such as re-

search, funding, distance education, andquality and standards are considered. Thisvolume is especially important in light ofthe lack of current analysis of Russian highereducation.

The Response of Higher Education Institutionsto Regional Needs. Paris: Organisation forEconomic Cooperation and Development,1999. 148 pp. FF 140 (paper). ISBN 92-64-17143. Address: OECD, 2 rue AndrePascal, 75775 Paris, France.

Based on several case studies, this re-port discusses the role of universities in re-gional development in industrializedcountries. Included are such topics as howregions can use academic expertise, man-agement teaching and regional develop-ment, and community relations.

A Professional Professoriate: Unionization,Bureaucratization and the AAUP, by PhiloA. Hutcheson. Nashville, Tenn.: VanderbiltUniversity Press, 2000. 312 pp. $23.95 (pa-per). ISBN 0-8265-1348-4. Address:Vanderbilt University Press, 112 21st Ave.South, Nashville TN 37203, USA.

The American Association of Univer-sity Professors (AAUP), traditionally the“conscience of the American academic pro-fession” and the protector of tenure andacademic freedom, embraced unionism inthe 1970s. This volume analyzes the exter-nal pressures on the professoriate and onthe AAUP at a key period in the history ofAmerican higher education.

Dispatches from the Ebony Tower: IntellectualsConfront the American American Experience,edited by Manning Marable. New York:Columbia University Press, 2000. 333 pp.$27.50 (hardback). ISBN 0-231-11476-1.Address: Columbia University Press, 562W., 113th St., New York, NY 10025, USA.

A set of essays by a group of America’smost distinguished African-American in-tellectuals, this volume deals with the de-velopment and future of African Americanstudies in higher education, and it also con-siders other issues relevant to the Blackexperience in the United States, includingAfrocentrism and cultural nationalism.

The Dons: Mentors, Eccentrics and Geniuses,by Noel Annan. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 2000. 358 pp. $30 (hard-back). ISBN 0-226-02107-6. Address: Uni-versity of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL60637, USA.

By discussing a group of the most il-lustrious teachers at Oxford and Cam-bridge universities in the 19th and 20thcenturies, Noel Annan provides interest-ing intellectual portraits not only of a groupof remarkable academics, but also of Brit-ish intellectual life and the British highereducation system in an important period.

Technology and Scholarly Communication, ed-ited by Richard Ekman and Richard E.Quandt. Berkeley, California: University ofCalifornia Press, 1999. 441 pp. (paper).$19.95. ISBN: 0-520-21763-2. Address:University of California Press, Berkeley,CA 94720, USA.

This book contains a series of analyti-cal essays on a range of topics relating totechnology and scholarly communication.Among the topics considered are electronicpublishing, electronic journals, the eco-nomics of technology in publishing, digi-tal libraries, and others.

Higher Education in Korea: Tradition andAdaptation, edited by John C. Weidman andNamgi Park. New York: Falmer Press,2000. 264 pp. $65 (cloth). ISBN 0-8153-1957-6. Address: Falmer Press, 19 UnionSq. West, New York, NY 10003, USA.

Korea has one of the world’s highestparticipation rates in higher education. Thisvolume considers key aspects of Korea’spostsecondary education system, includingentrance examinations, female students andfaculty, reform issues, historical develop-ment, management, and curriculum.

Open Doors: Report on International Edu-cational Exchange, 98–99, by Todd M.Davis. New York: Institute of Interna-tional Education, n. d. 96 pp. (paper).ISBN 0-87206-251-1. Address: Instituteof International Education, 809 UnitedNations Plaza, New York, NY 10017,USA.

Open Doors is the most comprehen-sive guide to statistical and other trendsin international education as it affects theUnited States. Information concerning

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION28

International Higher Education

ISSN: 1084-0613

Editorial Office

Center for International Higher Education Campion Hall Boston College Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 USA Tel: (617) 552-4236 Fax: (617) 552-8422 E-Mail: highered@bc.edu http://www.bc.edu/cihe/

Editor: Philip G. Altbach Assistant Editor: Kevin W. Sayers

Programs and ResourcesThe Boston College Center for International Higher Education has as its purpose thestimulation of an international consciousness among Jesuit and other institutions con-cerning issues of higher education and the provision of documentation and analysisrelating to higher education development. The following activities form the core of theCenter’s activities during its initial period of development:

• newsletter;• publication series;• study opportunities;• conferences;• bibliographical and document service; and• networking and information technology.

The Program in Higher EducationThe Program in Higher Education offers masters and doctoral degree study in the fieldof higher education. The Program has been preparing professionals in higher educationfor three decades, and features a rigorous social science–based approach to the study ofhigher education. The Administrative Fellows initiative provides financial assistance aswell as work experience in a variety of administrative settings. Specializations in highereducation administration, student affairs, international higher education, and others areoffered. The Higher Education Program works closely with the Center for InternationalHigher Education. Additional information about the program in Higher Education isavailable from Dr. Karen Arnold, Coordinator, Program in Higher Education, CampionHall, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02167. Fax: (617) 552-8422 e-mail:<arnold@bc.edu>. More information about the program—including course descriptionsand degree requirements—can be found online at the program’s WWW site:

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

Introduction

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

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

A New Initiative in International Higher Education

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

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

student numbers, fields studies, countriessending and receiving students, and relatedissues is provided.

Revitalizing the University in an Age ofSupercomplexity, by Ronald Barnett.Buckingham, UK: Open University Pressand the Society for Research Into HigherEducation, 2000. 200 pp. $36.95 (paper).ISBN: 0-335-20248-9. Address: OpenUniversity Press, 22 Ballmoor,Buckingham MK18 1XW, UK.

Barnett argues that the university haslost its way because it has been faced with“supercomplexity” in management, goals,and other areas. He provides guidelines for

dealing with this phenomenon and focuseson the role of knowledge, teaching, re-search, administration, and other centralaspects of contemporary higher education.

Higher Education in the Mediterranean: Aspecial issue of the Mediterranean Journal ofEducational Studies, edited by Sarah Guri-Rosenblit and Ronald G. Sultana. Vol. 4,No. 2, 1999, pp. 1–250. Address: Facultyof Education, University Malta, MsidaMSD 06, Malta.

This book includes articles dealingwith Mediterranean-area issues—in-cluding area trends for the region, man-agement of higher education in Greece,

challenges to Spanish universities,Turkish higher education, state legiti-mation in Cyprus, and others.

Learner-Centered Assessment on CollegeCampuses: Shifting the Focus from Teachingto Learning, by Mary E. Huba and Jann E.Freed. Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn &Bacon, 2000. 286 pp. (paper). ISBN 0-2-5-28738-7. Address: Allyn & Bacon, 160Gould St., Needham Heights, MA 02494,USA.

This book is a practical guide to class-room assessment for higher education.Learning theory and continuing improve-ment are stressed.