1

Higher Education in Global Perspective:The U.S. Model vs. the Successful Model

National Press Foundation

New York City October, 2006

Stephen P. HeynemanProfessor, International Education Policy

Vanderbilt University

2

The American Model of Higher Education: What is it?

• Diversity in price, function and quality• High access• High equity

3

Recent Higher Education changes outside the U.S.

Access Quality Managerial innovation Transparency Accountability Equity

4

Ranking of University-Based Industry Income in China (2003)

  As of 12/31/2003 Unit 1,000 RMB*

Institution NameGross Profit ($US)

1 Peking University 729,914 (91m)

2 Qinghua(Tsinghua) University 474,324 (59m)

3 Shanghai Jiaotong University 203,690 (26m)

4 Xian Jiaotong University 170,432 (21m)

5 Zhejiang University 129,154 (16m)

6 Fudan University 120,271 (15m)

7 Tongji University 101,009 (13m)

8 Dongbei University 99,064 (12m)

9 Harbin Industrial University 94,351 (11m)

10 Wuhan University 93,437 (11m)

*$US 1 = 8 Ren Min Bi

Source: http://www.cer.net.Chinese Ministry of Education Center for Education Technology Development

5

Public University Research-Based Industry Income In China (2000-2004)

Year # of Companies

Net Income

Gross Profit Net Profit Tax Revenue

(Unit—RMB) Million Million Million Million ($US million)

2000 2097 36,812 3,543 2,803 1,879 ( 235)

2001 1993 44,775 3,154 2,398 2,009 (251)

2002 2216 53,908 2,537 1,863 2,592 (324)

2003 2447 66,807 2,761 1,473 2,940 (368)

2004 2355 80,678 4,098 2,386 3,848 (481)

Source: http://www.cer.net.Chinese Ministry of Education Center for Education Technology Development

6

Universities in China: Funding from Non-Governmental Sources (2000)

Institution Name Proportion of Funds

from Non-Govt. Sources (%)

Beijing (Peking) University 41.7

Qinghua(Tsinghua) University 33.6

Fudan University 44.9

Jiaotong U. 45.9

Nanjing University 27.5

Zhejiang University38.0

Source: http://www.cer.net.Chinese Ministry of Education Center for Education Technology Development

7

More people are completing upper secondary and tertiary education than ever before…

…in some countries, growth has been spectacular…

…but others have fallen behind.

8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's

Growth in baseline qualificationsApproximated by the percentage of persons with uppersecondary qualifications in the age groups 55-64, 45-55, 45-44 and 25-34 years (2002)

9

0

10

20

30

40

1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's

Growth in university-level qualificationsApproximated by the percentage of persons with ISCED 5A/6 qualfication in the age groups 55-64, 45-55, 45-44 and 25-34 years (2002)

10

In many countries, the expansion was accompanied by massive financial investments

…while in others student numbers grew faster than expenditure

11

Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP (2001)All levels of education

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

EU

OECD

Denmar

k

Sweden

Portugal

Finlan

d

France

Austria

Mex

ico

United

State

s

Canada

Italy

Korea

United

Kingdom

Australia

Nether

lands

Spain

Germ

any

Irela

nd

Japa

n

Public Private

12

Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP (2001)Tertiary education

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

EU

OECD

Denmar

k

Finlan

d

Canada

Sweden

Norway

Belgiu

m

Austria

Irela

nd

Nether

lands

Spain

Germ

any

France

United

State

s

Hungary

Australia

United

Kingdom

Italy

Mex

ico

Japa

n

Korea

Public Private

13

Share of private expenditure on educational institutions (1995, 2001) Tertiary education

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

USA

Japa

n

Australia

Canada

Germ

any

Mex

ico

UKM

Spain

Hungary

Nether

lands

Czech

Rep.

France

Irela

nd

Austria

Norway

Denmar

k

Portugal

Turkey

1995 2001

14

Annual expenditure per studenton educational institutions, in equivalent US dollars, converted using PPPs

USD 0

USD 5,000

USD 10,000

USD 15,000

USD 20,000

USD 25,000

Primar

y

Lower S

econdar

y

Upper Sec

ondary

Tertia

ry

EU

OECD

United States

15

Changes in spending per student in tertiary education(1995=100, 2001 constant prices )

89 9094 96 96

101 101105

109 109 111 111 113117

120124

128131 133

139

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

Poland

Mex

ico

Norway

Australia

United

Kingdom

Finlan

d

Sweden

Nether

lands

Austria

United

State

s

Germ

any

Portugal

France

Japa

nIta

ly

Denmar

k

Switzerla

nd

Greece

Spain

Irela

nd

Index of change (1995=100)

Change in expenditure Change in the number of students Change in expenditure per student

16

Public subsidies for education in tertiary education (2001)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

% of total public expenditure on education

Scholarships/ other grants to households Student loans

Transfers and payments to other private entities

Country mean

17

The earnings advantage of tertiary education (2002) Relative earnings of 25-64-year-old tertiary graduates (upper secondary education=100)

40 %

60 %

80 %

100 %

120 %

140 %

160 %

180 %

200 %

Below u

pper s

econdary

Vocatio

nal te

rtiar

y qual

ifica

tion (5

B)

Academ

ic te

rtiar

y qual

ifica

tion (5

A)

OECD/men USA/men OECD/women USA/women

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Australia

Sweden

Icel

and

Finlan

d

Poland

New Zeal. USA

Hungary

Nether

lands

Spain

Denmar

k

Korea

UKM

Slovak

Rep

.

Japa

n

Irela

nd

France

Germ

any

Switzerla

nd

Mex

ico

Belgiu

m

Austria

Czech

Repub

lic

Current entry rates suggestthat the growth will continueSum of net entry rates for single year of age in University (2002)

Today’s entry rates in universities suggest that the strive for higher qualifications will continue…

Half of an age cohort now enter university, and in Australia, Finland, Iceland, Poland and Sweden 70% or more

University-entry in the USA is at 64% just after this group of countries

… but not everyone completes with a degree At 34% drop-out rate in US higher than the average (30%)

%

19

Academic Ratings of Universities

Shanghai Jiao Tong Universityhttp://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2004/top500list.htm

Top 100 World Universities

WorldRank

Institution CountryTotalScore

Score onAlumni

Score onAward

Score onHiCi

Score onN&S

Score onSCI

Score onSize

1 Harvard Univ USA 100.0 98.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 60.6

2 Stanford Univ USA 77.2 41.2 72.2 96.1 75.2 72.3 68.1

3 Univ Cambridge UK 76.2 100.0 93.4 56.6 58.5 70.2 73.2

4 Univ California - Berkeley USA 74.2 70.0 76.0 74.1 75.6 72.7 45.1

5 Massachusetts Inst Tech (MIT) USA 72.4 74.1 78.9 73.6 69.1 64.6 47.5

6 California Inst Tech USA 69.0 59.3 66.5 64.8 66.7 53.2 100.0

7 Princeton Univ USA 63.6 61.0 76.8 65.4 52.1 46.8 67.3

8 Univ Oxford UK 61.4 64.4 59.1 53.1 55.3 65.2 59.0

9 Columbia Univ USA 61.2 77.8 58.8 57.3 51.6 68.3 37.0

10 Univ Chicago USA 60.5 72.2 81.9 55.3 46.6 54.1 32.7

11 Yale Univ USA 58.6 52.2 44.5 63.6 58.1 63.6 50.4

12 Cornell Univ USA 55.5 46.6 52.4 60.5 47.2 66.2 33.6

13 Univ California - San Diego USA 53.8 17.8 34.7 63.6 59.4 67.2 47.9

14 Tokyo Univ Japan 51.9 36.1 14.4 44.5 55.0 91.9 49.8

15 Univ Pennsylvania USA 51.8 35.6 35.1 61.2 44.6 72.6 34.0

16 Univ California - Los Angeles USA 51.6 27.4 32.8 60.5 48.1 79.9 24.8

17 Univ California - San Francisco USA 50.8 0.0 37.6 59.3 59.5 62.9 48.8

18 Univ Wisconsin - Madison USA 50.0 43.1 36.3 55.3 48.0 69.2 19.0

19 Univ Michigan - Ann Arbor USA 49.3 39.8 19.3 64.8 45.7 76.7 20.1

20 Univ Washington - Seattle USA 49.1 22.7 30.2 57.3 49.6 78.8 16.2

21 Kyoto Univ Japan 48.3 39.8 34.1 40.0 37.2 77.1 46.4

22 Johns Hopkins Univ USA 47.5 48.7 28.3 43.7 52.6 71.7 14.2

23 Imperial Coll London UK 46.4 20.9 38.1 46.2 39.4 65.8 44.5

24 Univ Toronto Canada 44.6 28.1 19.7 39.1 41.2 78.4 42.8

25 Univ Coll London UK 44.3 30.8 32.9 41.0 41.0 61.1 42.6

Rankings by CountryCountry Number of Universities in Top 100 Top Rank

USA 52 1

UK 8 3

Germany 8 45

Japan 5 14

Sweden 4 46

Canada 4 24

France 4 41

Switzerland 3 27

Netherlands 2 39

Australia 2 27

Finland 1 72

Russia 1 66

Norway 1 68

Israel 1 90

Austria 1 86

Denmark 1 59

Finland 1 72

Italy 1 93

22

Asia’s Best Universities 2000

Asiaweekwww.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/features/universities2000/schools/multi.overall.html

Ranking of Asian Universities by Size of BandwidthRank Multi-Disciplinary Schools Internet

bandwidth per

student (kbps)

Overall Rank 2000

1 Sun Yat-sen University (Taiwan) 33.53 20

2 Kyungpook National University 29.76 35

3 Chungnam National University 20.84 50

4 Australian National University 19.58 8

5 Taiwan Normal University* 19.02 37

6 Seoul National University 17.14 4

7 Tsing Hua University (Taiwan)* 14.77 18

8 Kyoto University 14.17 1

9 Chonnam National University 13.52 34

10 Tohoku University (Japan) 11.84 2

11 Tianjin University (China) 11.54 46

12 Xi'an Jiaotong University (China) 10.81 54

13 National University of Singapore 7.1 5

14 University of Wollongong 6.92 45

15 University of Adelaide 6.88 26

16 Nagoya University 6.58 11

17 Central University (Taiwan)* 6.12 24

18 University of Melbourne 6.06 9

19 Kasetsart University 5.56 63

20 Chao Toung University (Taiwan)*

5.5 28

RankMulti-Disciplinary Schools

Internet bandwidth

per student (kbps)

Overall Rank 2000

21 Monash University 5.14 30

22 Chonbuk National University 5 43

23 Taiwan University* 4.1 12

24 Pusan National University 3.99 39

25 City University of Hong Kong 3.9 27

26 Hokkaido University 3.81 19

27 Southeast University (China) 3.56 60

28 Chung Hsing University (Taiwan)* 3.35 65

29 Keio University* 3.24 22

30 Hanyang University 3.16 38

31 University of Western Australia 2.89 23

32 Sungkyunkwan University 2.83 33

33 Ewha Womans University 2.46 32

34 Macquarie University 2.32 56

35 Ritsumeikan University 2.18 67

36 Waseda University 2.13 29

37 Chinese University of Hong Kong 2.1 6

38 University of Hong Kong 2.05 3

39Korea University

2.04 2314

40 Cheng Kung University (Taiwan)* 1.6 16

24

Countries 05.A. 05.B. 05.C. 05.D. 05.E.

Australia X X X

Austria X X X

Bulgaria X X X

Congo RP X

Costa Rica X X X

Czech Republic X X X X X

European Community X X X X

Gambia X X X

Ghana X X

Haiti X

Hungary X X X X

Jamaica X X X

Japan X X X X

Lesotho X X X X X

Liechtenstein X X X X

Mali X

Mexico X X X X

New Zealand X X X

Norway X X X X X

Panama X X X

Poland X X X X

Rwanda X

Sierra Leone X X X X X

Slovak Republic X X X X X

Slovenia X X X

Switzerland X X X X

Thailand X X X

Trinidad and Tobago X X

Turkey X X X X

USA X X

Total Number of Schedules 21 23 21 20 12

Legend:05.A. Primary Education Services05.B. Secondary Education Services05.C. Higher Education Services05.D. Adult Education05.E.Other Education Service

Source: WTO Secretariat

WTO: SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS to EDUCATION SERVICES

25

Distribution of Foreign Students by Host Country/Territory, 2002/2003

26

International Students in the U.S.: Place of Origin

5

Asia (55%)

Europe (15%)

Latin America (12%)

Middle East (7%)

Africa (6%)

N. America & Oceania (6%)

Asia

Europe

Latin America

Middle East

Africa

N. America & Oceania

SOURCE: Open Doors International, 2001

27

International Students in U.S.: Field of Study

1999/00 2000/01Foreign Foreign % of %

Field of Study Students Students Total Change

TOTAL 514,723 547,867 100.0 6.4Business & Management 103,215 106,043 19.4 2.7Engineering 76,748 83,186 15.2 8.4Mathematics & Computer Sciences 57,266 67,825 12.4 18.4Other (General Studies, Comm., Law) 53,195 57,235 10.4 7.6Social Sciences 41,662 42,367 7.7 1.7Physical & Life Sciences 37,420 38,396 7.0 2.6Undeclared 32,799 35,779 6.5 9.1Fine & Applied Arts 32,479 34,220 6.2 5.4Intensive English Language 21,015 23,011 4.2 9.5Health Professions 21,625 22,430 4.1 3.7Humanities 16,686 16,123 2.9 -3.4Education 12,885 14,053 2.6 9.1Agriculture 7,729 7,200 1.3 -6.8

28

U.S. Study Abroad Students: 1985/1986 – 1999/2000

SOURCE: Open Doors International, 200185/8687/88 89/9091/92 93/94 94/9595/96 96/9797/98 98/9999/00

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

29

Education Cost Affordability Rankings

30

Total Cost Affordability Rankings

31

The Loan/Grant Mix in Sixteen Jurisdictions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Aus Aut Bel(FI)

Bel(Fr)

Can Fin Fr Ger Ire Ita Jap Net Nza Swe UK USA

Grants Loans

32

The Role of Grants, Loans & Tax Expenditures in Reducing Total Costs

33

Innovations in Transparency and Accountability:

Research assessment exercise

Exit tests from undergraduate education

34

The American Model of Higher Education vs. the Successful Model: What does the future hold?

Universal Objectives:Higher qualityGreater accessIncreased equity

Current public resources:

Insufficient

Additional Resources:

New Sources of Revenue Copyrights on inventions

New efficiency Faculty-based salaries

Greater revenues from Contract overheadstraditional sources

Retrenchment Domestic science

35

Summary

Only one successful model of higher education: the one which succeeds in helping finance its own objectives

The U.S. higher education has traditionally led the way

All nations have to respond to the same set of dilemmas and challenges

In the future the U.S will have many higher education rivals