the boston college center for international higher education · 2 innovation and economic...

international higher educationthe boston college center for international higher education

number 60 summer 2010

International Issues

2 Innovation and Economic DevelopmentSachi Hatakenaka

3 Faculty Perceptions of Governance and ManagementWilliam K. Cummings, William Locke, and Donald Fisher

Departments

23 New Publications

27 News of the Center

Countries and Regions

16 India’s Open DoorPhilip G. Altbach

18 Legal Frameworks in Sub-Saharan AfricaWilliam Saint

20 Mongolia’s ChallengeGerard Postiglione

21 Humboldt’s Two Centuries—and TodaySebastian Litta

5 Quality in China’s Higher EducationQi Li

7 Expansion and Differentiation in ChinaJian Liu and Xiaoyan Wang

8 Postcompulsory Education and Training in ChinaQi Wang

10 Peking University’s Personnel ReformsRui Yang

11 China’s Polytechnic TransformationRuth Hayhoe and Qiang Zha

Focus on China

British Perspectives

13 Elite Inclusiveness: The Case of OxfordAnna Zimdars

14 Private Higher Education in the UKJohn Fielden

Changes for Innovation andEconomic DevelopmentSachi Hatakenaka

Sachi Hatakenaka is an independent researcher and consultant on highereducation policy and management. E-mail: [email protected].

Universities are going through significant organizationalchanges to play appropriate roles in innovation and eco-

nomic development. Similar organizational practices areappearing around the world—as if a standard list has turnedup for all universities to follow. The question is whether thechecklist works.

Policies, Processes, and IncentivesIn many countries, setting up appropriate institutional poli-cies, processes, and incentives has been the first step toencourage academics to undertake new activities, such as tech-nology transfer. Many institutions clarified their rules aboutacademics’ external engagement: how much time can theyspend outside, what are the limits to such work? One of theearly steps taken by many UK universities was introducing a“one day a week” rule for consulting and external activities. InJapan, policies to address conflict of interest was consideredcritical. Streamlining processes for external contracts, withclarification of monetary and other rewards that academic staffand their academic unit can expect, have also been significant.From Hong Kong University of Science and Technology toManchester University in the United Kingdom and MelbourneUniversity in Australia, more universities are changing aca-demic performance evaluation to recognize contributions inknowledge transfer.

Dedicated Professional SupportAs a standard practice, research-oriented universities inOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Developmentcountries now have technology-transfer offices for research-related functions—such as patenting or licensing, contractresearch, and consulting. Even in the United States, wheresuch offices have a longer history than in other countries, thenumber of staff is still increasing, with half of them workingon nonlicensing activities. The range of support activities fortech transfer has widened to include spin-off support as well asindustrial liaison to enhance academic contact with industry,or business development, to generate industry-related work.However, not all of such staff have the requisite expertise to beeffective. Technology transfer requires much more thanlawyers for protecting intellectual property rights. Science-

savvy professionals experienced in working with new techno-logical opportunities are critical staff members, and they arenot easy to find.

Most universities with special education programs such asa coop (or sandwich) programs or student projects have someacademics or professionals designated to run such activities.Increasing numbers of universities have entrepreneurshipcenters, from Asia to Africa, to provide students with keycourses and experience. Again, not many such centers havebecome real hubs where students and staff rub shoulders withreal local entrepreneurs.

For cultural- and community-related functions as well, spe-cific professional support is relevant if activities are to scale up.In the University of Pennsylvania, a unit to support communi-ty service activities was developed first within a departmentand later became part of the central administration to provideuniversity-wide support. Another key function appearing inmany universities is alumni relations, most often for fund-rais-ing. However, it is still uncommon for alumni to be used forbroader sets of relationship-building activities—ranging fromstudent recruitment to corporate partnerships, as theMassachusetts Institute of Technology does.

Cultural IssuesChanging people's attitudes usually requires more than modi-fying rules and policies. Role models that can provide activesupport and guidance are an effective route for culturalchange. Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden provid-ed one of the early examples for recruiting an industriallyactive academic to serve as a role model and offer support foryounger academics. More universities are following suit—some through new categories of “academics” such as adjunctappointments, professors of practice, or entrepreneurs in resi-dence.

An EcosystemA steady rise has taken place in science parks—starting fromthe Stanford Industrial Park in 1951, first in the United Statesand Europe and then globally. In the United States and inEurope, science parks tended to form close ties with universi-ties, while in Asia many of them emerged without formal con-nections with universities. In China, science parks developedsince the late 1980s as part of national policy to establish spe-cial technology zones. Today, China has 53 national and nearly

international higher education

international issues2

Universities are going through significant organiza-

tional changes to play appropriate roles in innova-

tion and economic development.

200 state-level science parks, along with 63 university-ownedscience parks.

Currently, it is understood that universities should play amuch more interactive role in these parks. Some parks are lit-erally designed to encourage the development of a single com-munity of university and industrial researchers. It is also nolonger adequate to recruit industrial and other research anddevelopment organizations into these parks; a much greaterinterest now focuses on incubation of new high-tech compa-nies. Another common approach is to add seed or venture-cap-ital arrangements, management support, and business net-

working. Yet, today, even though a larger number of venture-capital firms operate globally, many of them are less willing orcapable of funding and supporting early university spin-offs.Specialized arrangements for early venture funding and man-agement support directly linked with universities are increas-ing, often backed by government money. However, many ofthese options fail as it is not easy to replicate the true expertiseneeded. Israel and Taiwan were unusual in taking early actionsboth in building direct relationships with Silicon Valley butalso in attempting to build expertise for the domestic venture-capital industry.

Internal Mechanisms for Interdisciplinary Work Many universities are undertaking interdisciplinary researchand education to address real world issues, but developinginternal mechanisms for interdisciplinary work is not an easytrend. American universities have a long tradition of interdis-ciplinary research units that draw on academics from multipledepartments. Since the 1980s, larger pioneering interdiscipli-nary initiatives have continued to emerge. MassachusettsInstitute of Technology’s Energy Initiative is an institute-wideinitiative to address the world energy crisis. It is not a researchinstitute; it is set of programs, covering not only research andeducation but also campus energy management and outreach.At Stanford and MIT, such initiatives today will automaticallyhave affiliated industry partnership programs—to ensure thatinterested industrial partners can participate and contribute.

Institutional LeadershipLarge-scale partnerships with industry are increasingly estab-lished not only in the United States and Europe but also inAsia, most notably in Singapore and China. However, what

sets institutions such as MIT apart is the institutional capabil-ity to identify a key theme around which to rally multipleindustrial partners and diverse academic groups. Such ven-tures involve the need to strike a fine balance between top-down opportunity creation and bottom-up idea generation.Critical ingredients of such a capability appear to be two typesof institutional leadership. First, to lead such initiatives, promi-nent academics are needed who are well respected by the aca-demic community but also have credibility with nonacademicstakeholders. Second, organizational leaders—such as presi-dents, vice-presidents, and deans—are important in influenc-ing the rules, norms, and processes across campus, mobilizinglarger groups within campus, and raising the level of dialoguewith industry away from narrow-contract research into for-ward-looking research partnerships.

One key role of institutional leadership is to deal with con-troversies concerning relationships with industry. As the on-going debate about the role of the pharmaceutical industry inUS medical schools show, controversies will keep emerging,and institutions will be forced to review its rules aroundengagement from time to time.

In an ongoing process, only through serious experimenta-tion and, often, controversies can universities develop appro-priate organizational policies and structures for their roles ineconomic development and innovation.

Faculty Perceptions ofGovernance and Management: William K. Cummings, William Locke, and DonaldFisher

William K. Cummings is professor of international education at GeorgeWashington University. E-mail: [email protected]. William Locke is assis-tant director, Centre for Higher Education Research and Information,Open University, UK. E-mail: [email protected]. Donald Fisher isprofessor and codirector of the Centre for Policy Studies in HigherEducation and Training, University of British Columbia. E-mail:[email protected].

Academics these days like to hearken back to an earlier erathat comprised a reasonable division of labor in higher

education decision making, with faculty responsible for aca-demic matters and trustees and managers responsible forfinancial solvency and external relations. A model of highereducation decision making was prevalent with shared gover-nance as the cornerstone accompanied by consultative manage-ment leading to improved-work faculty performance and loyal-

3


international issues

Research-oriented universities in Organization for

Economic Cooperation and Development countries

now have technology-transfer offices for research-

related functions.

ty both to fields and institutions. Current trends toward the pri-vatization, marketization, and greater accountability of highereducation may have had the effect of undermining the “goldenage” compact of shared governance.

To assess faculty perceptions of the current state of highereducational governance and management, the ChangingAcademic Profession (CAP) project went to the field in 2007 in18 countries—Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China,Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Korea, Malaysia,Mexico, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, United Kingdom, andUnited States. For 8 of these countries, trend data back to 1992were available from the International Survey of the AcademicProfession sponsored by the Carnegie Foundation for theAdvancement of Teaching.

Shared GovernanceIn most of the 18 countries, faculty were more likely to perceivethey have authority individually or through academic commit-tees and boards over academic matters such as choosing newfaculty, making faculty promotion and tenure decisions, andapproving new academic programs. Higher-level bodies (espe-cially deans and department chairs) tended, instead, to decidebudget priorities and to select key administrators. Faculty inJapan, Canada, Italy, and Portugal—and to a slightly lesserextent, the United Kingdom, Finland, and the United States—regarded themselves as relatively powerful, whereas faculty inGermany and most of the emerging countries judged them-selves to be less powerful. Among the latter category, faculty inChina, Malaysia, and Brazil have the least power. When itcomes to budgets and administrators, the only anomaly isMexico, where faculty perceived government and externalstakeholders to have more power over these decisions than fac-ulty in any of the other 17 countries.

One measure of shared governance features the extent towhich faculty regarded themselves as having personal influ-ence in their institutions. As expected, a relatively high per-centage of academics in all countries saw themselves as influ-ential at the department level. This was particularly the case inthe United States (65 percent), Canada (60 percent), andGermany (57 percent), as well as Brazil (63 percent), Mexico(61 percent), Korea (58 percent), and South Africa (56 percent).Yet, when the examination of personal influence is extendedbeyond the department to the level of a faculty or school and tothe institution as a whole, the number of countries where fac-

ulty regard themselves as having a high level of personal influ-ence is reduced to four, namely, the United States, Brazil,Korea, and Mexico. Faculty in the United Kingdom, Finland,Norway, and Hong Kong regarded themselves to have a rela-tively low personal influence at all three administrative levelsat their institutions.

FacilitiesOverall, where the level of shared decision making and consul-tation was high, faculty tended to positively evaluate the quali-ty of their university infrastructure as well as the efficiency ofsupport processes. Among the emerging countries, Mexico isan interesting case where shared decision making was relative-ly high, as was the faculty’s perception of the quality of theirfacilities. Among the more advanced economies, Hong Kongstands out with relatively top-down decision making. Yet, thefaculty give positive ratings on the quality of their facilities andthe efficiency of the support processes.

Institutional LoyaltyIn most of the mature systems, less than two out of three aca-demics expressed a positive level of commitment when askedto rate the importance of their affiliation to their institution. Inthe United Kingdom less than 4 out of 10 expressed this senti-ment. This contrasts with several of the emerging countries—like Argentina, Brazil, Malaysia, and Mexico—where between80 and 90 percent expressed a positive sense of institutionalcommitment.

Change Since 1992For 8 of the 18 countries, it was possible to compare most ofthe 2007 findings with those in 1992 (with a similar samplingprocedure and identical questions). Despite recent facultycomplaints about their sense of powerlessness, the compari-son with 1992 would suggest that faculty have as much influ-ence on decision making today as before. Hence, if faculty havelost power, this process would seem to predate the earlier sur-vey. However, a shift in the overall power distribution hasoccurred, with deans and department chairs achieving a moreprominent role in decision making and higher-level bodies,such as the office of the chief operating officer as well asboards of trustees and government ministries, surrenderingsome authority.



In most of the 18 countries, faculty were more like-

ly to perceive they have authority individually or

through academic committees and boards over

academic matters.

Overall, where the level of shared decision making

and consultation was high, faculty tended to posi-

tively evaluate the quality of their university infra-

structure as well as the efficiency of support process-

es.

Transitions in the distribution of power (which as notedabove have been modest) appear to have little relation tochanges in the quality of facilities. In 1992, the more advancedsystems had superior facilities, and that positive findingremained so in 2007. The main pattern of change has existedin several of the emerging countries—notably Brazil, Mexico,Hong Kong, and Korea—to raise the quality of their facilities inkeeping with the quality of facilities in the more-advanced sys-tems. Indeed, academics in Hong Kong perceive their facilitiesto be the best in 2007, whereas the Hong Kong ratings wererelatively low in 1992. While we have only 13 items availablefor a temporal comparison, an improvement in the quality ofmanagerial support for teaching appears between 1992 and2007, though this tendency is less apparent concerning sup-port for research.

Decline in LoyaltyPerhaps the most striking change over the 1992–2007 periodhas been the decline in the institutional loyalty of academics,presaged above. In 1992, academics in most of the participat-ing countries indicated a high level of commitment to theiracademic discipline, department, and institution. In 2007, aca-demics in all countries continue to show a strong sense ofcommitment to their disciplines. However, 6 of the 8 countriesfor which panel data are available faculty reveal a somewhatweakened sense of loyalty to their department and a sharpdecline in the level of commitment to their institution. Forthese 6 countries, 9 out of 10 academics express a strong senseof affiliation with their discipline in 2007, while fewer than 6out of 10 express a strong affiliation with their institution.Correlates of low institutional commitment or loyalty include aperception that the prevailing management style is top-down,a perception that facilities are inadequate and support servicestoo bureaucratic. The emerging countries of Brazil and Mexicoare the exceptions, with high levels of institutional loyaltyexpressed in 1992 and 2007.

The decline in institutional loyalty appears to have conse-quences. Academics who express low institutional loyalty aremore likely to favor research over teaching, more likely todevote a greater percentage of their time to research and a less-er percentage of their time to teaching, and less likely toengage in university service and administrative tasks.

ImplicationsFor the higher education systems in the more advanced soci-eties, it may be that a significant minority of academics,demoralized by decision-making processes and what is per-

ceived as an inadequate working environment, are reducingthe effort they devote to the required tasks of teaching and rou-tine administration. Thus, these systems may be losing valu-able academic energy.

In contrast, in several of the emerging countries shared gov-ernance is, at best, weakly practiced. Yet, the strong managershave been able to deliver in terms of excellent facilities and effi-cient support services. Moreover, academics in these moreauthoritarian systems give their leaders reasonable ratings aswise decision makers who have created a clarity of institution-al mission and have provided competent management.

The Quest for Quality inChina’s Higher EducationQi Li

Qi Li is professor of higher education at Beijing Normal University. Address:Higher Education Research Institute, Faculty of Education, Beijing NormalUniversity, Beijing 100875, China. E-mail: [email protected].

With a dramatic increase in undergraduate enrollmentstarting in 1999, China began to enter the mass higher

education era in 2002. Given the rising public skepticismabout the quality of higher education following the expansion,in 2003 the Ministry of Education launched the Quality andReform of Undergraduate Teaching and Learning Project,which began to be upgraded and cosponsored by the Ministriesof Education and Finance, in 2007.

The Quality ProjectThe quality project has focused on enhancing the quality ofundergraduate teaching and learning by means of reforms andresource sharing. It comprises six types of granting pro-grams—including disciplinary-program revamping and spe-cialized accreditation; curriculum, textbook, and resource shar-ing; teaching and learning and talent-nurturing innovation;instructional-team and eminent faculty–team building; evalua-tion and public disclosure of general teaching and learningconditions; and support for postsecondary institutions in thewestern regions of China.

During the 11th five-year-plan period from 2006 to 2010,the central government has planned to spend a total of 2.5 bil-lion RMB (approximately US$366,241,338) on the aforemen-tioned programs. In addition, both the central and provincialgovernments have granted a variety of awards and honors inrecognition of the contributions made by individuals andteams to teaching and learning reforms. Despite these and-many other efforts, it is not clear whether they will yield the

5


focus on china

Perhaps the most striking change over the

1992–2007 period has been the decline in the insti-

tutional loyalty of academics.

desired results due to the following considerations.

Issues and ChallengesUnaddressed conflicts of interest. The grants, awards, and honorsof the project have conveyed at least two encouraging mes-sages. First, the project has resituated teaching as a research-able and rewarded scholarship, which symbolizes the elevationof teaching in the status hierarchy of the collegial value system.Second, the reward system itself has been used as an avenuefor change, thus giving incentives to encourage faculty involve-ment in reform activities.

Despite their positive nature, it is uncertain whether thesemessages can be sent out to the ordinary faculty because thereis no policy in place to regulate the entire application process.Since some applicants, in particular the academic and/oradministrative unit head, are usually eligible to evaluate quali-fications of other applicants, their de facto umpire-player rolemay enable them to put the interest of themselves, friends, orassociates above that of others. Issues such as these could beendlessly cited. As a result, perceived conflicts of interest existalmost everywhere.

The winner takes all. In competing for grants and awards, the

winners tended to be the academic and/or administrative unithead at various levels. Thus, between 2007 and 2009, 300people were honored as leaders of the State Level InstructionalTeams, 83 percent of whom came from this background. In2008, 97 people received the State Level Award forDistinguished Teachers, 79 percent of whom also came fromthis background. Interestingly, even among winners withouthaving administrative positions in the bureaucratic hierarchy,some were academicians while others were former deans,department chairs, or heads of an academic or advisory boardof their institutions or government agencies.

Some applicants take unfair advantage of their blended role,which justifies their control over academic and administrativeaffairs and, at the same time, affords them undue privileges,such as getting better rewards, and/or being partially or evenfully exempted from the minimum workload requirements forfaculty or administrators. This reality has aroused not only sus-picion as to whether these “winners” can ensure fair play intheir units but also criticism regarding the credibility of theaward itself, which is demoralizing for the ordinary facultymembers.

The gap between rhetoric and reality. Indeed, the quality proj-ect, especially the current teaching and learning reform, hasreceived enormous rhetorical support from academia.However, it is unclear whether postsecondary institutions have

endeavored to engage, motivate, and support faculty in thereform process. At many institutions, the grants and awardsseem to be tantamount to achievements in teaching and learn-ing reforms. Evidence is rarely provided to explain their impacton student learning outcomes. Unless recognized with awardsor honors, faculty's commitment to teaching is scarcely valuedand rewarded. Despite the rhetoric of the importance of teach-ing and learning, few institutions have an office in place to pro-vide support for or to nourish the scholarship of teaching andlearning. In short, there has been no substantial reform inteaching or learning at the institutional, programmatic, andclassroom levels.

ConclusionThe quality project is largely a reaction of the central govern-ment to the rising public skepticism about the quality ofundergraduate education, following the expansion starting in1999. Although it has received enormous rhetorical supportfrom academia, it is difficult to conclude or to substantiate thatthe project has enhanced the quality of undergraduate teachingand learning due to the fact that it is not evidence based.

Thus, postsecondary institutions urgently need to articulateand embrace their values so as to create and sustain an envi-ronment of trust while minimizing demoralizing factors inundergraduate teaching and learning reforms. Meanwhile,they must actively solicit faculty's professional commitment byproviding support and reward to facilitate their change andexperiments in teaching and learning at the institutional, pro-grammatic, and classroom levels.

However, given the current bureaucratic leadership in high-er education, it may be difficult to bolster faculty's morale or tosecure commitment overnight. Thus, both the governmentand postsecondary institutions must begin to address somedifficult and taboo issues related to power, politics, and peck-ing order inside academia so that unheroic leadership will bevalued and nurtured in the orderly pursuit of high-qualityundergraduate education.


focus on china6

At many institutions, the grants and awards seem

to be tantamount to achievements in teaching and

learning reforms.

The quality project is largely a reaction of the cen-

tral government to the rising public skepticism

about the quality of undergraduate education, fol-

lowing the expansion starting in 1999.

Expansion and Differentiationin Chinese Higher EducationJian Liu and Xiaoyan Wang

Jian Liu is a PhD candidate at the Ontario Institute for Studies inEducation, University of Toronto. E-mail: [email protected]. XiaoyanWang is a research fellow at City University of Hong Kong. E-mail: [email protected].

In the past decade, China has witnessed unprecedented high-er education expansion. The gross-enrollment rate jumped

from 9.8 percent in 1998 to 23.3 percent in 2008. At the endof 2008, 29.07 million students were enrolled in tertiary insti-tutions, making China’s higher education system the largest inthe world. Although a myriad of research studies have concen-trated on this grand expansion, few empirical studies haveexamined the profound changes the system is experiencing. Inthis article the expansion of baccalaureate and short-cycle pro-grams at local and national institutions is described, in boththe public and private sectors and in different disciplines.These trends provide implications for the differentiation ofhigher education in China.

Higher education in China is composed of formal programs(in regular and adult higher education institutions) and flexiblemodes (Web-based studies and preparation courses for exami-nations awarding formal qualifications). This study focuses onregular higher education, because it expanded much fasterthan adult higher education and flexible modes of higherlearning and accommodated 70 percent of the total enrollmentin 2008.

Who Are the Providers of the Expanded Opportunities?Statistics from the Ministry of Education reveal that expansiontook place mostly in local higher education institutions (atprovincial, prefectural, and municipal levels) rather thannational universities, under the jurisdiction of ministries ofthe central government.

In 1998, the enrollment in local colleges and universitieswas 2.258 million; in 2008 it increased to 14.578 million. Bycontrast, the enrollment in national universities only increasedfrom 1.541 million in 1998 to 1.705 million in 2008. Thesetrends can be partly attributed to the implementation of juris-diction transfer at the end of the 1990s, whereby 250 of a totalof 367 colleges and universities under the jurisdiction of min-istries of the central government were transferred to provincialjurisdiction.

The relatively “flat” structure of the higher education sys-tem became more vertically differentiated during the expan-sion. Most two-year programs in national universities wereclosed, resulting in an overall enrollment drop from 206,858

in 1998 to 64,995 in 2008. By contrast, short-cycle programsflourished in local institutions. The enrollment in two-yearprograms increased from 997,854 to 7,404,422, and account-ed for more than half of the total enrollment in local publicinstitutions in 2008.

At the same time, the prestige and capacity of national uni-versities were further strengthened through the implementa-tion of two earmarked projects: the 211 and 985 projects. The211 project selected 100 universities for Priority investmentbeginning in 1993, and the 985 Project was launched to pro-vide even more significant funding to 43 top universities, toraise them to a “world-class” level beginning in May 1998. Thedisparity between national and local institutions has thus sig-nificantly widened. The gap in per student expenditurebetween national and local higher education institutionsincreased from 3,708 RMB in 1998 to 8,196 RMB in 2006 (acomparable value to that of 1978).

What Is the Role of the Private Sector?After three decades in which private higher education was notallowed, the first minban (people-run) college, a euphemismfor private institutions, was established. Nevertheless, privatehigher education has only begun to flourish with the policy ofrapid expansion. In 1997, 20 private higher education institu-tions were providing formal programs, with an enrollment of14,000 students—about 0.9 percent of all regular higher edu-cation institutions and 0.4 percent of total enrollments. Underthe law for promoting minban education, which was passed in2003, the number of private higher education institutions pro-viding formal programs rapidly increased to 638 in 2008,about 28.2 percent of the nation's total.

An interesting phenomenon is the development of second-tier independent colleges—colleges affiliated with public uni-versities, but receiving little public funding, and whollydependent on student fees. Student intake is at a lower aca-demic level than at the public universities, but the affiliatedpublic universities are expected to assure basic academic qual-ity at these independent colleges. This experiment has causedlively debate over issues such as differential credentials, quali-ty, and equity. There were 322 such independent colleges in2008. Private institutions and independent colleges togetherenrolled 3.927 million students, accounting for 19.4 percent ofthe total enrollment in regular higher education in 2008.

Not Elite Anymore?Although four-year baccalaureate programs still host morethan half of the total enrollment after the expansion, two-year

7


focus on china

The relatively “flat” structure of the higher educa-

tion system became more vertically differentiated

during the expansion.

short-cycle programs have grown much faster. In 1998, totalenrollment was 3.409 million in regular higher education,with 2.235 million (65.6 percent) registered in four-year pro-grams and 1.174 million in two-year programs. By 2008, four-year programs accommodated 11.422 million students (5.1times the number in 1998) and accounted for 54.6 percent ofthe total; two-year programs had 9.168 million students (7.8times the number in 1998).

Which Disciplines Have Expanded Faster?Although all programs have enlarged their enrollment capaci-ty through the massification process, significant disparitiesexist among disciplines in terms of the rate of expansion.Engineering programs have continued to host the largest per-centage of the student body, with their share maintained at 40percent in 2008, while the share of sciences and agriculturehas nearly shrunk in half. Enrollment in economics wentthrough a huge increase with the rapid expansion of manage-ment and administration programs, from 14.9 percent of totalenrollment in 1998 to 24.7 percent in 2008. The share of edu-cation and literature each has increased slightly, while theshare of law and social sciences has dropped slightly.

Thus, enrollment in four-year programs no longer exceedsthe numbers in two-year programs across all disciplines. As of2008, enrollment in short-cycle programs in the three disci-plines of education, engineering, and management andadministration exceeded the four-year programs. Agricultureand medicine programs also gained a much higher proportionof two-year enrollments than was the case in 1998. However,the dominance of four-year science programs was strength-ened over the same period, with their enrollments being 236.1times greater than those of two-year programs in 2008.

ConclusionThe expansion and reconstruction of the Chinese higher edu-cation system over the last decade has resulted in increaseddecentralization, differentiation, and privatization of the sys-tem. Chinese higher education has evolved into a hierarchicaland diversified system: national universities remain at the top,ambitiously focused on attaining “world-class” status and pro-moting national competitiveness and prestige; local public uni-versities remain in the middle, acting as the major providersfor higher education and contributing to local development;and private institutions are largely at the bottom, focusing onvocational programs. However, a significant outcome of this

massification process is that through the differentiated expan-sion of four- and two-year programs, particularly along discipli-nary lines, the diversity of higher education provision has beengreatly enhanced. This result could be attributed to the insuffi-cient resources mobilized for the expansion. However, theprocess of differentiation has practically diversified the curric-ula structure, making it more responsive to the requirementsof social and economic development in the country.

Postcompulsory Education andTraining in ChinaQi Wang

Qi Wang is a lecturer at the Graduate School of Education, ShanghaiJiao Tong University. E-mail: [email protected].

The recent debate on building a learning society in Chinahas focused on the gap between individuals’ learning moti-

vation and the government’s policy orientation on furtherdeveloping postcompulsory [i.e., postsecondary] education andtraining programs through certified learning. This gap, reflect-ing China’s cultural and historical force of credentialism, isbelieved to be a barrier to the promotion of lifelong learning.

Government PerspectiveSince the late 1990s, the Chinese government at both nationaland municipal levels has strongly advocated to build a “learn-ing society” in government policies, such as the 2003–2007Action Plan for Invigorating Education in 2004, the ActionPlan for the Nation’s Science Literacy in 2006, and the 11thFive-Year Plan for Education in 2007. Other policies emphasiz-ing the development of a lifelong-learning culture have beenenacted through direct educational initiatives and regulations,such as the employment promotion law of the People’sRepublic of China, the decision on promoting vocational edu-cation, and the construction of a vocational qualification sys-tem. The development of these policies reflects the key nation-al initiative to revitalize the nation based on science, education,and skill development.

In response to these policy initiatives, a large number ofnew certified education and training programs have sprung upin the postcompulsory sector in China, in addition to universi-ty education and degrees. Such certified programs includeaccounting, law, manufacturing, environmental sciences, andalmost all culminate with a professional qualification exam.These programs are designed and implemented mainly by therelevant industries and the government at different levels, as


focus on china8

An interesting phenomenon is the development of

second-tier independent colleges—colleges affiliat-

ed with public universities, but receiving little pub-

lic funding, and wholly dependent on student fees.

part of the “learning society” project to meet the social and eco-nomic needs for highly skilled workers. For example, theShanghai Training Program for Talents in Shortage (STTP) hasbeen developed by the Shanghai municipal government since1993 to train and generate human capital in nine fields identi-fied in response to social and economic development needs.This training program provides more than 60 kinds of cours-es and certificates. According to the organization’s statistics,more than 4.3 million people have participated in the programover the past 10 years.

The Perspective of Current University StudentsAn increasing number of students expect that job-market-relat-ed skills are unattainable during their full-time university expe-rience. Thus, they are actively participating in these postcom-pulsory education and training programs as well as their ownstudies at the university. Such increasingly diversified learningopportunities enable university students to develop andimprove the skills and knowledge required for the postuniver-sity labor market.

Students believe obtaining extra credentials as well as theiruniversity degrees forms a kind of employment life insurance.As universities graduate more students, competition in the jobmarket intensifies; job opportunities are not growing as quick-ly as the number of university graduates. University degreesno longer serve as a guarantee for a job as was the case beforethe socioeconomic reform in China; rather, they are now onlytickets into the employment marketplace. Possessing extraqualifications can protect university graduates in an environ-ment of credential inflation. This credentialism mentality hasmotivated students to participate in the postcompulsory educa-tion and training programs, to strengthen their employability.For example, the above-mentioned STTP program was origi-nally targeted at people with professional experience, but nowmost participants are university students who consider the pro-gram an investment.

The truth is, however, that a credential may not accuratelyrepresent its holder’s true possession of skills and knowledge.This is especially true in the case of China, where learning isoften regarded as irrelevant, rote memorization, and heavilytheory laden. In other words, China’s postcompulsory educa-tion and training programs are considered as part of the ritual-istic process of gathering extra qualifications since positionalgoods and credentials are considered limited paper currency tobe exchanged for work opportunities.

Yet, these programs were set up to provide opportunities forstudents to improve themselves to “be a better person,” which

implies a strong sense of learning as moral duty—a trait deeplyingrained in Confucian culture. It is ironic that programsestablished with such moral goals have turned into just an eco-nomic market exchange of credentials and not even real knowl-edge and skills.

A Mismatch Between the Two PerspectivesA disconnect can be found between the government policy ori-entation on developing lifelong learning and individual learn-ing needs. Postcompulsory education and training programsare introduced by the government authorities to maintain themomentum of the country's development by targeting skillsshortages and skill formation. These policies are inspired bystraightforward human capital development concerns from thegovernment perspective.

However, individuals’ learning needs suggest that a strongcultural force of credentialism influences people’s learningmanagement. Along with their doubts about the quality of thehigher education system and the role of education and qualifi-cations, the learners find themselves both responsible andcompelled to be engaged in learning to develop and improvetheir skills and knowledge based on the present labor-marketdemand and in a qualification battle, to raise their position inthe labor-market competition. This perception does not sit wellwith culturally influenced concepts of “real” education to pro-mote engagement in lifelong learning for individual better-ment and genuine skills development.

Therefore, credentialism presents a major challenge to fur-ther evolving postcompulsory education and training into skillformation programs. This Confucian cultural resource couldpotentially be conducive to building and promoting a learningsociety in China, where everyone takes an active part in learn-ing, regardless of age, gender, or socioeconomic background.This situation in China may contrast with that of the Westernindustrial societies, where the influence of social class on awide range of social phenomena is deeply ingrained.

In this sense, the government might need to coordinate dif-ferent stakeholders’ needs and rethink their strategies of certi-fied learning—including course curriculum, teachingapproaches, and exam systems—to ensure the success ofhuman resource development and fighting against the cultur-al and historical struggle of credentialism.

9


focus on china

Since the late 1990s, the Chinese government at

both national and municipal levels has strongly

advocated to build a “learning society.

In response to these policy initiatives, a large num-

ber of new certified education and training pro-

grams have sprung up in the postcompulsory sector

in China, in addition to university education and

degrees.

Peking University’s PersonnelReformsRui Yang

Rui Yang is director and associate professor at the Comparative EducationResearch Centre, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong. E-mail: [email protected].

Aiming to rank among the world’s best universities, in2004 Peking University planned a radical overhaul of its

faculty appointment and promotion policies. The reform pro-gram went far beyond the sphere of personnel itself andreceived a strong response not only on campus but throughoutthe country. Widely cited as a weather vane for Chinese highereducation reform, the developments have vividly portrayed thedifficulties and obstacles in China’s new policies for universi-ties in a context of globalization and helped to identify furtherdirections and dynamics.

The Range of CausesA number of contextual factors have exerted impact on thereform plan. With ascending neoliberal thinking, market ide-ologies have burgeoned in China’s higher education sector.Chinese universities are opened to increasing public scrutinyand an expansion of expectations by both governments andsocieties. Meanwhile, the Chinese government is committed tostrategically promoting a group of Chinese universities toenter the world-class league within a decade and is investingheavily on them. Through reforming its personnel system,Peking University attempted to have a world-class teachingand research force in order to become a world-class institution.

A more direct reason was financial. During 1999–2001, thestate granted the university an extra fund of 1.8 billion yuan insupport of its development. The fund was used to substantial-ly increase the wage of each teacher. While ordinary teachersmight find nothing improper in the university’s taking themoney, their institutional leaders were grilled by the fact thatthe university must show real achievements if it wanted moremoney from the central revenue in future. In view of this, theuniversity launched its personnel system reforms to encouragecompetition and promote the flow of personnel when its high-ranking academic posts were filled, by and large, and not a sin-gle high-paid teacher was willing to leave.

The Reform PlanOn May 12, 2003, Peking University’s drafting committee ofthe personnel reform working team approved the first draft ofits reform proposal. The draft was then released throughoutthe campus for comment, generating a great deal of controver-

sy. Confronted with strong criticism and suggestions fromwithin the university and the wider society, the leading andimplementation panels produced a second version of thereform plan for discussion in June, with evident revisions andsubstantial compromises. The second draft represented a read-justment of interests among different groups, aiming to stabi-lize the existing teaching force at the university. But the origi-nal objective—with the market mechanism used to reformteacher appointment and promotion and the substitution ofteachers to obtain a domino effect for restructuring the aca-demic system—ended largely in failure. In April 2004, imple-mentation of the personnel reforms finally began. Althoughthe university claimed that it managed to adhere to the basicprinciple of the original reform design, the final version wasmuch more moderate. It made a number of concessions andleft people with the impression that the plan started with greatstrength and impetus, but in the end it turned out to onlyscratch the surface.

The essence of the reform plan was to open up academicpositions. Basic features of the reform plan included: (1) teach-ers employed and moved to work at different levels of posts; (2)an elimination system to be instituted for different branches oflearning that did not have good prospects for development; (3)a competitive mechanism from outside to be introduced forpersonnel employment and promotion; (4) in principle, no stu-dents of Peking University to be directly recruited into theteaching staff upon graduation; (5) posts for teachers to bedivided into two kinds: teaching and research, and full-timeteaching; and (6) a judge's panel of professors to be set up forteacher employment and promotion.

The Pros-and-Cons DebateShortly after the draft plan was launched, all the six majormoves proposed in the draft plan were heavily criticized as wellas strongly defended. The reform plan, which may seem com-monplace to many in Western universities, aroused suchstrong concerns given that changes to personnel policy were acrucial part of the reforms, because landing a teaching post ata Chinese university had traditionally been seen as guaranteedlifelong employment.

Most of the supporters of the reform plan were somewhatdistant from or completely unrelated to Peking University,while most of those with reservations about the reform planwere directly related to the university. The most concentratedopposition came mainly from humanists and a few social sci-entists within the university or among its alumni. The sharpestcritics asked whether the plan intended to reform or castrate


focus on china10

With ascending neoliberal thinking, market ideolo-

gies have burgeoned in China’s higher education

sector.

the university, an issue seen as a question of life or death con-cerning China’s traditional culture. They raised the matter tothe level of principles and accused the reformists of breakingthe law.

The reform plan received strong support from other univer-sity leaders, such as Zhu Qingshi—president of the Universityof Science and Technology of China—who saw Peking's policyas pioneering work and wanted to follow suit. The proposalwas also well received by higher education experts—includingPan Maoyuan and Yang Dongping, respectively, from XiamenUniversity and Beijing University of Science and Technology.Ji Baocheng, president of Renmin University, stated that thereform was an important step forward as China’s higher edu-cation reform reached a critical time. He insisted that reformof the personnel system was the primary reform needed. Asimilar viewpoint was expressed by Hou Zixin, president ofNankai University.

The most meaningful part of the debate was the notion ofthe Chinese idea of the university. The argument was that thefundamental mission of Chinese universities must be a judi-cious combination of learning from Western university tradi-tions and the ideological, intellectual, cultural, and education-al independence of the Chinese. The orientation of Chineseuniversity reforms should be toward developing such a mis-sion. Support for this notion appeared on both sides of thedebate. The differences lay in practical priorities.

Realistic ObservationsIn marked contrast to the early wide publicity, little discussionhas recently been raised about the reforms. Indeed, by the timewhen the communist China celebrated its 60th birthday,Peking University personnel reforms had almost fizzled outcompletely as Peking University President Xu Zhihong depart-ed. Several years have passed since the policy was put intooperation, and little difference has been made.

Similar to China’s reforms in other major arenas since the1980s, the approach employed by Peking University in its per-sonnel reforms was top-down, expressing mainly official wish-es. The reforms were pushed forward at the highest level of theuniversity, designed and orchestrated by economists who hadcompleted their doctorates in major English-speaking coun-tries. Unlike China’s previous reforms implemented throughadministrative power soon after decision making at the centralwith little room for discussion, Peking University’s reformssought soft-landing and agreement by trying to balance variousgroups’ interests. In this sense, the reforms should be givensome credit despite falling short of most of the intended goals.

The reforms extended well beyond the personnel sphereand far outside the university campus, taking in some funda-mental issues underlying Chinese higher education develop-ment. The responses to the reform plan demonstrated the dif-ficulty of China’s university reforms as “the last fortress of acommand-and-control society.” A number of issues thatemerged during the process of Peking University’s personnelreforms illustrated China’s long-standing struggle to strike abalance between dominant Western models and carrying for-ward its own rich cultural and educational traditions. The expe-rience reiterated the complexity of the internationalization ofChinese universities.

The Polytechnic Universities inChina’s TransformationRuth Hayhoe and Qiang Zha

Ruth Hayhoe is a professor in the Department of Theory and Policy Studiesin Education, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University ofToronto, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]. Qiang Zha is anassistant professor in the Faculty of Education, York University, Toronto,Canada. E-mail: [email protected].

Polytechnic postsecondary institutions have a long history.France was the first nation to raise engineering to the sta-

tus of a learned discipline, with the creation of the EcolePolytechnique in 1794, shortly after the French Revolution.The status of this and other grandes écoles in the French highereducation system was clearly higher than that of the tradition-al universities. This was in striking contrast to the positiongiven to Germany's Technische Hochschule in the early 19thcentury, although some attained the same status as universitieslater in the century. The Soviet Union went somewhat furtherthan either France or Germany in elevating the polytechnicaluniversity to a leading role in the socialist higher educationsystem. It served well a system of macrosocial and macroeco-nomic planning that slotted all varieties of engineering expert-ise into clearly designated professional and geographical sec-tors.

Polytechnic Universities in ChinaWhen China adopted Soviet patterns for higher education afterthe revolution of 1949, it was not surprising to see the percent-age of engineering enrollments rise from 15 percent to 36.5percent by 1960, and to see highest status and prestige accord-ed to polytechnic and specialist engineering universities.Institutions such as Tsinghua in Beijing and Zhejiang

11


focus on china

Shortly after the draft plan was launched, all the six

major moves proposed in the draft plan were heav-

ily criticized as well as strongly defended.

University in Hangzhou were forced to get rid of their historicprograms in the arts and basic sciences, while Harbin Instituteof Technology in the Northeast and Jiao Tong University inShanghai were suddenly given a new level of recognition with-in the socialist system. Most of China’s Communist leadershave been graduates of these institutions, while prestigiouscomprehensive universities such as Peking, Fudan, andNanjing Universities have tended to produce university profes-sors, basic scientists, writers, and artists.

In the early years of Chinese communism, polytechnic uni-versities were expected to focus on applied fields and maintainonly enough basic science and mathematics to ensure goodtechnological standards. By the mid-1950s, the problems withthis approach were becoming evident, and the ChineseAcademy of Sciences took the unprecedented step of creatinga university of its own in 1958—the University of Science andTechnology of China (USTC)—dedicated to the highest levelsof pure scientific research and the integration of basic sciencewith technology and teaching with research. Its subsequentinfluence triggered similar reform directions in other polytech-nic universities.

The curricular broadening that has resulted, together withunprecedented opportunities for collaboration with high-techindustries around the nation, has kept these institutions in aleading position within the Chinese higher education system.Most recently the affluent coastal city of Shenzhen has decidedto invest 10 billion yuan RMB to create a Southern Universityof Science and Technology to boost the local economy, ratherthan investing heavily in Shenzhen University, an existingcomprehensive university.

When the first nine universities were selected for the elite98/5 project shortly after Peking University’s centenary in1998, six of them had polytechnic backgrounds (Tsinghua,Zhejiang, Shanghai Jiao Tong, Xi'an Jiao Tong, USTC, andHarbin Institute of Technology), while only three were tradi-tional comprehensive universities (Peking, Fudan, andNanjing). When other universities found their way into thiselite project, the original nine members formed a coalition,nicknamed the “Chinese Ivy League,” to preserve their specialstatus. China’s science and technology universities are thuspositioned for leadership in the revolutionary changes comingabout with China’s move to mass higher education and itsdetermined efforts to compete in the global knowledge econo-my.

Advantages of China's Polytechnic UniversitiesChina’s top polytechnic universities have unique advantageswhen it comes to fostering science and technology that willserve national competitiveness. In recent years the Chinesegovernment has established a number of national laboratoriesin areas of key importance for China’s ambitious economicgoals. In most cases, these laboratories were located near toppolytechnic universities, and the universities have beenencouraged to take up leadership in these national efforts. Forexample, the president of the Huazhong University of Scienceand Technology (HUST) in Wuhan also serves as chairman of

the National Opto-Electronics Laboratory, and China’s OpticsValley is situated next to HUST’s campus. The Yangling HighTech Agriculture Demonstration District, supported by 19national ministries, is located next to the Northwest Universityof Agriculture and Forestry Science and Technology, and theState Synchronton Radiation Laboratory is on the campus ofthe USTC in Anhui. None of these universities are in majorcities such as Beijing or Shanghai. Yet, the government haschosen to locate some of its key engines of research for eco-nomic development close by, providing remarkable researchfunding, facilities, and opportunities. Many of these universi-ties have also become actively involved in consulting for someof China’s major multinational companies, thus providing asignificant flow of funds from the private sector. The problemwith this trend is the temptation for faculty to focus on theserelatively easier research dollars rather than the challengingdemands of basic scientific research.

LimitationsThe greatest disadvantage faced by polytechnic universities

is their limited curricular coverage of areas outside the sci-ences and engineering. Some—such as Tsinghua, HUST,Zhejiang, and Shanghai Jiao Tong—have merged with nearbymedical universities in recent years, creating excellent researchopportunities in the biomedical sciences and in some cases insocial aspects of health provision. However, few have been ableto recover the heritage in philosophy, culture, and the arts,which universities such as Tsinghua and Zhejiang Universitywere famous for before they were turned into polytechnics in1951.

As China’s economic transformation is increasingly accom-panied by an emerging new geopolitical role as well as the


focus on china12

When China adopted Soviet patterns for higher

education after the revolution of 1949, it was not

surprising to see the percentage of engineering

enrollments rise from 15 percent to 36.5 percent by

1960.

In the early years of Chinese communism, polytech-

nic universities were expected to focus on applied

fields and maintain only enough basic science and

mathematics to ensure good technological stan-

dards.

development of a broad program of cultural diplomacy, poly-technic universities are less able to contribute to debates overglobal governance or exercises in cross-cultural dialogue thancomprehensive universities such as Peking, Fudan, andNanjing. While some polytechnic universities have partneredwith institutions abroad in the founding of ConfuciusInstitutes, their orientation is more likely toward Chinese lan-guage for business purposes rather than philosophicalexchange or intercultural understanding.

The most striking example of the spirit of China’s contem-porary polytechnic universities comes from the world-famousAcademic Ranking of World Universities spawned byShanghai Jiao Tong University. The indicators it uses for com-paring universities globally are almost entirely in the arena ofscientific research and publication, with little attention toteaching quality or educational reputation and ethos. This putsChina’s universities generally in lower positions than does theranking system of the Times Higher Education Supplement,which has a broader array of indicators. It also reflects the lim-itations of a university such as Shanghai Jiao Tong, which hasa brilliant history in the engineering sciences going back to1897 and has recently taken over one of Shanghai’s top med-ical universities but is relatively weak in the humanities, socialsciences, and education.

Inclusiveness in EliteUniversities: The Case of OxfordAnna Zimdars

Anna Zimdars is a research fellow at the University of Manchester, UK,Institute for Social Change. E-mail: [email protected].

Surrounding elite universities—like Oxford, Cambridge,Harvard, Tokyo, and the grandes écoles—is the myth that

access is hard to acquire. Not everyone who wishes to attend isselected to enroll. Harvard, ranked number one in variousnational and international league tables, admits fewer than 1 in10 of its applicants for undergraduate study. The ancientEnglish universities, Oxford and Cambridge, admit about 1 in4 of their applicants.

The University of Oxford can be used as a case study to illus-trate three basic challenges faced in admitting undergraduatesat highly selective universities. These issues arise at a norma-tive (philosophical), empirical (social research), and policylevel: Who should gain admission to our most prestigious andselective universities? What is the profile of those who are actu-ally admitted? And, lastly, how could we change enrollment pat-

terns if we wished to do so? While the specific answers to thesequestions may vary by country, the three issues themselves arerelevant regardless of national context.

Who Should Be Admitted?Universities are responsive to their social context and to ideasabout who deserves to be successful in their society. The socialcontext in Britain—in politics or the media—is dominated bydiscussions of social class. A strong sense exists that one’s lifechances should not be determined by the accident of havingbeen born to parents in professional occupations rather than

those employed in manual jobs. Nonetheless, and to the dis-may of large sections of society and policymakers, what one’sparents do for a living continues to influence educationalachievement, and more affluent parents frequently opt out ofthe public (meaning, state) school system to give their childrenan advantage through private education. In Britain, fewer than1 in 10 school learners are enrolled in private schooling, butabout 1 in 2 of the top results in school leaving examinationsand 1 in 2 of the most desirable university places, such asOxford and Cambridge, are awarded to those who attended pri-vate schools.

While these specific figures might be unique to Britain, itwill not be a surprise to see some link between social originand educational attainment. The recent Organization forEconomic Cooperation and Development’s Program forInternational Student Assessment reveals that no industrial-ized country has managed to neutralize the influence ofschooling and class origin. What makes the British caseunusual is that the government has established a body dedicat-ed to overseeing university enrollment figures by school type.This Office for Fair Access sets targets for individual universi-ties, regarding the percentage of private and public school stu-dents they are expected to admit. The mission is to increase therepresentation of those educated in the public school systemand to enhance fairness in education.

Universities are expected not to exacerbate—perhaps,instead, even to reprove—some of the limitations of primaryand secondary education, to provide a completely level playingfield for every child to develop his or her academic potential.The focus is on private and public schools and social class, asopposed to the well-publicized focus on race in US university

13


british perspectives

In Britain, fewer than 1 in 10 school learners are

enrolled in private schooling, but about 1 in 2 of the

top results in school leaving examinations and 1 in

2 of the most desirable university places, such as

Oxford and Cambridge, are awarded to those who

attended private schools.

admissions. One would expect the specific national framing ofdiversity, whether in terms of race or class origin, to have animpact on the actual profile of admitted students.

Who Is Actually Admitted?Policies do not always equal practices, so in 2002 theUniversity of Oxford conducted a research project on its selec-tion process to see whether it was living up to its promise toselect fairly—based on ability and potential, regardless of classorigin and private or public schooling. Ethnicity and gender,with regard to admission, were also studied but were of lesserinterest to the commissioning team.

The study found that the profile of individuals who appliedto Oxford was skewed with a drop in representation of thosefrom working-class origins and from public schools, comparedwith the population of school leavers. The gap in representa-tion was decreased when taking into account that working-class and public-school students were underrepresentedamong high-achieving school leavers. Minority students areusually overrepresented in higher education but were neitherover- nor underrepresented among applicants to Oxford. Therewas almost gender parity in applications.

With regard to success in obtaining admission conditionalon having applied, the study compared applicants on a like-for-like basis—that is, matched on their prior attainment. Here,the researchers found that selectors for Oxford favored public-school applicants over private-school applicants with the sameattainment records. This preference had remained largely hid-den from the public eye because private school students oftenapply with slightly higher attainment records than their pub-licly educated peers. When comparing applicants with thesame attainment record by ethnicity, there was a disadvantagefor being nonwhite.

Changing EnrollmentPolicymakers will find some good and bad news in thisresearch. The good news is the possibility of changing enroll-ment patterns at universities. A few decades ago, Oxford wasperceived as a bastion of privilege, but internal and externalforces have created a meritocratic revolution whereby nowprior attainment is the most important factor in selection.With the Office for Fair Access providing targets for public-school intake, Oxford selectors are trained to increase the shareof public school applicants gaining admission to Oxford andhave succeeded. In actual admissions decisions, public-schoolapplicants with the same prior attainment as applicants fromprivate schools are judged to be of greater potential. This trendseems in line with the desired policy outcome to increase therepresentation of students from the public-school system inthe most prestigious British universities.

The bad news, however, is that individuals who suffer socialinequality and do not enjoy the same public salience might gounnoticed. In the Oxford context, selectors are neither trainednor monitored to ensure that minorities are admitted in line

with the strength of their academic profile in the applicationpool. Possibly, the face-to-face admissions process at Oxfordcould have some self-reproductive tendencies. Thus, predomi-nantly white selectors might, possibly inadvertently, selectaccording to their own stereotypes. Such self-reproductiveprocesses have been well documented in the psychological lit-erature and in the context of employment hiring.

If policymakers sought to increase the representation ofminority students at leading British universities, they mightthus wish to start this process by raising selectors’ awareness.In the United States, the salience of race in public debates hascertainly contributed to the comparatively high percentage ofminority students enrolled at the nation’s leading universities.But again, this particular policy success may have allowedother sources of inequality, such as differences in schooling, toinfluence educational outcomes.

The case of Oxford illustrates that universities are respon-sive to the social climate in which they operate. The undergrad-uate selection process can take into account the perceivedwishes of government and society: achieving more inclusive-ness in enrollment at selective universities is possible.However, deciding which groups are targeted for further inclu-sion—public school students, minorities, and others—mightbe relative to the national consensus on who is thought to bedeserving of a place at the nation’s most-selective universities.

Private Providers of HigherEducation in the UnitedKingdomJohn Fielden

John Fielden is director of CHEMS Consulting, a small management con-sultancy organization based at Poland House, Odiham, Hampshire, RG291JJ, UK. E-mail: [email protected]. This article is based on JohnFielden, Robin Middlehurst, and Steve Woodfield, The Growth of Privateand For-Profit Higher Education Providers in the UK. London:Universities UK, March 2010.

Arecent research report from Universities UK has analyzedthe growth of private providers of higher education in the

United Kingdom and questioned whether they are a threat tothe publicly funded sector (The Growth of Private and For-ProfitHigher Education Providers in the UK, <http://www.universi-tiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/Pages/Privateandforprofitproviders.


british perspectives14

aspx>). The answer is complex, rather like the sector itself. Fora start, private providers form a mixed group, and it is impos-sible to generalize about them, except to say that their num-bers are increasing.

Types of ProvidersFirst, some foreign universities have established campuses inthe United Kingdom. Their exact numbers are unknown, butmost likely at least 70 offshoots of American universities exist,principally taking US students from their home campus andoffering their own awards. However, a few—such as SchillerInternational University or Richmond American InternationalUniversity—do recruit the occasional UK and European Unionstudents. This category is growing, and, as well as the large UScontingent, universities from countries as diverse as Malaysia,Poland, India, and Iran have recently all established branchesin the United Kingdom.

Second, five organizations have gained degree-awardingpowers in the United Kingdom: the University of Buckingham,BPP Ltd (now owned by the Apollo Group in the UnitedStates), the College of Law, Ashridge Business School, and theifs School of Finance. Again, these are quite different types ofentity. Only one, BPP, is for-profit, and most of these institu-tions principally serve UK students in postgraduate law andfinance courses. However, the University of Buckingham, theoldest and smallest in the group, enrolls only 1,000 students—over 50 percent of them international.

Third, the biggest category involves the private colleges thatoffer the awards of UK universities or professional bodies,which are based predominantly in London. It is currentlyunknown how many such colleges exist, or how many studentsthey have. Once the current UK Border Agency’s regulatoryregime (centered on policing a visa control and immigrationsystem) settles down, some statistics should become available.The British Accreditation Council, one of the two bodies thataccredit private higher education providers, has approved 117UK and foreign organizations with over 30,000 current-degreestudents. In addition to the colleges accredited by the otherbody, Accreditation Service for International Colleges, about50,000 students study in these colleges for awards of UK uni-versities. Most of these students are international, but slowlysome of the colleges are starting to market their programs toUK and European Union students. For example, one privatecollege delivers a bachelor of science honors degree over twoyears for a total tuition cost of £8,400, and the UK students

who take up this offer are entitled to access the national stu-dent-loan scheme. This total can be compared with the fulltuition fees of £9,700 that a UK student would currently haveto pay on a traditional three-year degree program.

The final group of providers constitutes the companies thatcontract with traditional publicly funded universities to deliverEnglish, foundation, year-one, and premasters programs forthem. There are five such companies with 33 university clientsat present. Their main attraction to the host universities is thatthey recruit the international students (coordinating this effortwith the university’s own international marketing) and thenbring them up to a suitable linguistic and academic standard toenter the first or second year of a university program. In mostcases the students are housed in purpose-built accommodationon campus where they study programs, the syllabus for whichhas been agreed with the faculty to which they will move, ifsuccessful in an examination marked by those same faculty.Three of these companies are foreign owned and are for-prof-it.

The private sector has grown rapidly in recent years, andmany of the private colleges are expanding dramatically withalmost all international students. The largest is the LondonSchool of Commerce, with about 5,500 students; along withseveral other private colleges it plans to acquire degree-award-ing powers. The sector’s expansion has been largely motivatedby the fact that their annual tuition fees for international stu-dents are often well below those of the publicly funded sector;most range from £4,000 to £7,000 per annum for an under-graduate program and from £5,000 to £10,000 for a one-yearmaster of business administration. Another reason (put for-ward by the colleges) is that the better ones provide a high qual-ity of student support and care, leading to high scores of stu-dent satisfaction.

Implications for the FutureIs this a threat or an opportunity for publicly funded institu-tions? Why are public universities validating private-collegeprograms for which international students will pay about halfthe fees they would pay at the validating university for thesame qualification? Is this not taking away their market shareand building up private competitors who will in time acquiredegree-awarding powers and create a challenge in the domes-tic market? If, as is likely, the present national cap on tuitionfees charged by publicly funded institutions is raised, will thisnot give the private sector a huge boost?

15


british perspectives

The British Accreditation Council, one of the two

bodies that accredit private higher education

providers, has approved 117 UK and foreign organi-

zations with over 30,000 current-degree students.

The final group of providers constitutes the compa-

nies that contract with traditional publicly funded

universities to deliver English, foundation, year-one,

and premasters programs for them.

The public institutions say that they are not alarmed bythese questions; almost all of those that are validating the pri-vate-college programs generate useful income from the exer-cise and are based outside London. They are thus enablingtheir own degrees to be offered by the colleges in the Londonmarket to a range of students who would probably never cometo their own campus. From the national perspective the emer-gence of this private-sector alternative is broadening theUnited Kingdom’s offer to international students; more ofthem will come to the United Kingdom as a result.

The report makes several policy recommendations that thenew UK government will be considering. Some of these relateto tidying up the regulatory framework, which is confused andincomplete; others suggest that it is time for the private sectorto be brought into policy discussions and for it to provide com-prehensive information on its activities. Some big questionsand opportunities remain. A cash-strapped government mightwell be tempted to make a contract with private colleges toteach UK students for a price below what they currently pay forthe publicly funded institutions; it is also possible that otherUS providers could follow the Apollo Group and enter the UKmarket. In any event the coming years are sure to see a contin-uing growth in private provision for both domestic and inter-national students.

India’s Open Door to ForeignUniversities: Less Than Meetsthe Eye

Philip G. Altbach

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

India may finally open its doors to foreign higher educationinstitutions and investment. The cabinet has approved

human resource development minister Kapil Sibal’s proposedlaw, and it will be voted in Parliament in the near future.Indian comment has been largely favorable. What will an opendoor mean for Indian higher education—and to foreign insti-tutions that may be interested in setting up shop in India?Basically, the result is likely less than is currently being envis-aged, and there will be problems of implementation and ofresult as well.

The Political and Educational ContextEveryone recognizes that India has a serious higher educationproblem. Although India’s higher education system, withmore than 13 million students, is the world’s third largest, itonly educates around 12 percent of the age group, well underChina’s 27 percent and half or more in middle-income coun-tries. Thus, it is a challenge of providing access to India’sexpanding population of young people and rapidly growing

middle class. India also faces a serious quality problem—giventhat only a tiny proportion of the higher education sector canmeet international standards. The justly famous IndianInstitutes of Technology and the Institutes of Managementconstitute a tiny elite, as well as a few specialized schools suchas the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, one or two pri-vate institutions such as the Birla Institute of Technology andScience, and perhaps 100 top-rated undergraduate colleges.Almost all of India’s 480 public universities and more than25,000 undergraduate colleges are, by international standards,mediocre at best. India’s complex legal arrangements forreserving places in higher education to members of variousdisadvantaged population groups, often setting aside up to halfof the seats for such groups, places further stress on the sys-tem.

A Capacity ProblemIndia faces severe problems of capacity in its entire education-al system in part because of underinvestment over manydecades. More than a third of Indians remain illiterate aftermore than a half century of independence. On April 1, a newlaw took effect that makes primary education free and compul-sory. While admirable, it takes place in a context of scarcity oftrained teachers, inadequate budgets, and shoddy supervision.Minister Sibal has been shaking up the higher education estab-lishment as well. The University Grants Commission and theAll-India Council for Technical Education, responsible respec-tively for supervising the universities and the technical institu-tions, are being abolished and replaced with a new combinedentity. But no one knows just how the new organization willwork or who will staff it. India’s higher education accreditingand quality assurance organization, the National Assessmentand Accreditation Council, which was well-known for its slowmovement, is being shaken up. But, again, it is unclear whatwill take its place or how it might be changed.

Current plans include the establishing of new national“world-class” universities in each of India’s states, openingnew IITs, and other initiatives. These plans, given the inade-quate funds that have been announced and the shortage ofqualified professors, are unlikely to succeed. The fact is that


countries and regions16

Everyone recognizes that India has a serious higher

education problem.

academic salaries do not compare favorably with remunerationoffered by India’s growing private sector and are uncompeti-tive by international standards. Many of India’s top academicsare teaching in the United States, Britain, and elsewhere. EvenEthiopia and Eritrea recruit Indian academics.

This lack of capacity will affect India’s new open-door poli-cy. If India does open its door to foreign institutions, it will beunable to adequately regulate and evaluate them.

Why Welcome the Foreigners?Minister Sibal seems to have several goals for permitting for-eign universities to enter the Indian market. The foreigners areexpected to provide much needed capacity and new ideas abouthigher education management, curriculum, teaching meth-ods, and research. It is hoped that they will bring investment.Top-class foreign universities are anticipated to add prestige toIndia’s postsecondary system. All of these assumptions are atthe very least questionable. While foreign transplants else-where in the world have provided some additional access, theyhave not dramatically increased student numbers. Almost allbranch campuses are small and limited in scope and field. Inthe Persian Gulf, Vietnam, and Malaysia, where foreign branchcampuses have been active, student access has been only mod-estly affected by them. Branch campuses are typically fairlysmall and almost always specialized in fields that are inexpen-

sive to offer and have a ready clientele such as business stud-ies, technology, and hospitality management. Few branch cam-puses bring much in the way of academic innovation. Typically,they use tried and true management, curriculum, and teachingmethods. The branches frequently have little autonomy fromtheir home university and are, thus, tightly controlled fromabroad. While some of the ideas brought to India may be use-ful, not much can be expected.

Foreign providers will bring some investment to the highereducation sector, particularly since the new law requires aninvestment of a minimum of $11 million—a kind of entryfee—but the total amount brought into India is unlikely to bequite large. Experience shows that sponsoring universitiesabroad seldom spend significant amounts on their branches—major investment often comes from the host countries such asthe oil-rich Gulf states. It is likely that the foreigners will beinterested in “testing the waters” in India to see if their initia-tives will be sustainable, and thus are likely to want to limittheir initial investments.

Global experience shows that the large majority of highereducation institutions entering a foreign market are not pres-

tigious universities but rather low-end institutions seekingmarket access and income. The new for-profit sector is espe-cially interested in global expansion as well. Top universitiesmay well establish collaborative arrangement with Indian peerinstitutions or study/research centers in India, but are unlike-ly to build full-fledged branch campuses on their own. Theremay be a few exceptions, such as the Georgia Institute ofTechnology, which is apparently thinking of a major invest-ment in Hyderabad.

At least in the immediate and midterm future, it is quiteunlikely that foreign initiatives will do what the Indian author-ities hope they will accomplish.

The Half-Open DoorIndia’s open door comes with a variety of conditions and limi-tations. It might better be called the “half-open door.” Theseconditions may well deter many foreign institutions frominvolvement in India. The proposed legislation requires aninvestment of $11 million up front by a foreign provider in theIndia operation. Moreover, the foreign provider is restrictedfrom making any profit on the Indian branch.

It is not clear if Indian authorities will evaluate a foreigninstitution before permission is given to set up a branch cam-pus or another initiative—or if so, who will do the vetting. It isnot clear if the foreign branches will be subject to India’s high-ly complicated and controversial reservations regime (affirma-tive action programs) that often stipulates that half of enroll-ments consist of designated disadvantaged sections of the pop-ulation. If the foreigners are required to admit large numbersof students from low-income families who are unlikely toafford high foreign campus fees and often require costly reme-dial preparation, creating financially stable branches may beclose to impossible.

A further possible complication may be the role of state gov-ernments in setting their own regulations and conditions forforeign branches. Indian education is a joint responsibility ofthe central and state governments, and many of the states havediffering approaches to higher education generally and to for-eign involvement in particular. Some, such as Andhra Pradeshand Karnataka in the south, have been quite interested. Otherstates—such as West Bengal with its communist government,may be more skeptical. And a few, such as Chattisgarh, havebeen known to sell access to university status to the highestbidders.

17


countries and regions

Current plans include the establishing of new

national “world-class” universities in each of India’s

states, opening new IITs, and other initiatives.

Global experience shows that the large majority of

higher education institutions entering a foreign

market are not prestigious universities but rather

low-end institutions seeking market access and

income.

Foreign institutions will need to deal with India’s oftenimpenetrable and sometimes corrupt bureaucracy. For exam-ple, recent reports have evidence that some Indian institutionswere granted a coveted “deemed” university status after ques-tionable practices between the applicants and high govern-ment officials. It is unclear if the foreign branches will be eval-uated by Indian authorities or if overseas quality-assurance andaccrediting agencies will be fully involved.

In short, many unanswered questions remain concerningjust how foreigners will be admitted to India, how they will bemanaged, and who will control a highly complex set of rela-tionships.

A Likely ScenarioIndia’s higher education needs are significant. The countryneeds more enrollment capacity at the bottom of the system aswell as more places at its small elite sector at the top. The sys-tem needs systemic reform. Furthermore, fresh breezes fromabroad might help to galvanize local thinking. Yet, it is impos-sible for foreigners to solve or even to make a visible dent inIndia’s higher education system.

Foreign institutions, once they realize the challenges of theIndian environment are unlikely to jump in a big way. Somemay wish to test the waters. Many others will be deterred by theconditions put into place by Indian authorities and the uncer-tainties of the local situation.

The involvement of foreign higher education providers inIndia is perhaps just as murky as it was prior to MinisterSibal’s new regime. ____________(This article also appears in the Chronicle of Higher Education.)

Legal Frameworks for HigherEducation in Sub-SaharanAfricaWilliam Saint

William Saint is a higher education consultant specializing in sub-SaharanAfrica. E-mail: [email protected]. Some of the themes discussed in this arti-cle are in the author's article, “Legal Frameworks for Higher EducationGovernance in Sub-Saharan Africa,” Higher Education Policy, vol. 22 (no.4), 2009.

Ashortage of research on the legal frameworks for highereducation is evident in sub-Saharan Africa. Out of 49

countries, half either have no legal framework at all or one at

least two decades old. Consequently, the national higher educa-tion legislation and individual statutes of public universities in24 sub-Saharan African countries were analyzed and com-pared.

System Governance As sub-Saharan African higher education has swelled, manygovernments have established intermediary—or “buffer”—bodies to oversee their increasingly complex systems. Suchboards are more commonly found in English-speaking coun-tries. French-speaking countries have tended to create separateministries of higher education. Presently, 15 of 42 countriespossess semiautonomous buffer bodies. The number of mem-bers on their governing boards ranges from 7 to 28, with anaverage of 16. Composition often reflects a balance amongpublic sector, academic community, and private-sector repre-sentatives.

In a majority of countries, board appointments are madedirectly by the head of state, prime minister, or minister of edu-cation. In other cases, a blended procedure is followed, where-by some members are appointed and others are elected demo-cratically from within legally designated stakeholder groups.

Institutional GovernanceUniversities are characterized by similar governance struc-tures. Usually, a governing board is charged with formulatingthe institution’s strategic direction, approving internal statutes,accepting budgets, accounting for use of funds, managing theinstitution’s assets, and safeguarding institutional interests.The first model, characteristic of French- and Portuguese-speaking universities, is made up entirely or largely of univer-sity staff and student representatives. Chaired by the chief offi-cer, it governs with considerable autonomy and little involve-ment of external stakeholders. This model gives considerableauthority to the chief officer. The second model, found inEnglish-speaking universities, incorporates various types ofexternal members within the board. Most common are govern-ment representatives, followed by those from the private sec-tor.

Governing BoardsThe number of university board members ranges from a lowof 11 to a high of more than 40. Recent reforms accord withinternational trends toward smaller boards and a larger portionof external stakeholders. Procedures used in appointing boardmembers provide insight into the lines of political accountabil-



As sub-Saharan African higher education has

swelled, many governments have established inter-

mediary—or “buffer”—bodies to oversee their

increasingly complex systems.

ity (or control) formalized within the legal frameworks. InFrench- and Portuguese-speaking countries, an internal for-mula defines board membership. Members are usually univer-sity employees who serve on the board as a result of their titledposition within the university. In several English-speakingcountries, board members are appointed by the head of state orthe minister of education. In this case, a portion of board posi-tions is often designated for senior university staff. In eightcountries representing all language groups, board appoint-ments are made on the basis of a “stakeholder representationformula.”

Senior OfficersThe chief officer (i.e., president, rector) is a highly visible andpolitically sensitive position in most African countries. For thisreason, and to make the lines of accountability clear, the headof state appoints the chief officer in 9 out of 22 cases. In 4countries, the governing board is authorized to choose theinstitution’s chief officer without government approval.Government control over other senior university positions isless stringent, with the governing board authorized to makethese choices in 10 of 22 countries. In 8 out of 18 countries,deans and directors are elected by their academic peers, mak-ing these positions the most democratically chosen within theuniversity. Election is employed less frequently in selectingdepartment heads, where the chief executive is likely to makethe choice.

Academic GovernanceAcademic affairs are normally managed by an academic boardaccountable to the governing board and responsible for institu-tional policies concerning curriculum, educational quality,admissions, examinations, award of degrees, and research.The academic board often advises the governing board on aca-demic employment, promotions, and the establishment of newacademic units. Sometimes it prepares a preliminary budgetfor academic activities. Academic boards often have 50 or moremembers and are usually chaired by the university’s chief offi-cer.

Financial AutonomyThe freedom to obtain operating revenues from a range ofsources enhances the decision-making autonomy of tertiaryinstitutions. Most universities in Africa are permitted toreceive funds from government, donations, income-generation

activities, and student fees. Legal provisions permitting univer-sities to demand and receive student fees are nearly universal(17 out of 21 countries), although this authority may be curbedin practice by political pressures. Whether a university canemploy or dismiss staff is also a gauge of financial autonomy.In Portuguese-speaking countries, the chief officer is giventhis mandate. Within English-speaking countries, the govern-ing board is often empowered to make these decisions. French-speaking countries are likely to assign this authority to thechief officer or minister. On balance, tertiary institutions inEnglish-speaking countries appear to enjoy somewhat greaterfinancial autonomy than those in French- and Portuguese-speaking countries.

AccountabilityAccountability is a necessary companion of autonomy. Whengovernments cede decision making to tertiary institutions,they face the challenge of ensuring that institutions remainaccountable to them for adherence to approved policies andresponsible use of funds. Legal frameworks for higher educa-tion commonly stipulate five mechanisms for ensuringaccountability: strategic planning, stakeholder representationin governance, quality and financial auditing, annual report-ing, and performance-based funding.

An institution provides accountability to its stakeholders byincluding representatives of these groups on its governingboard. During recent years, the number of board membershave been expanded from outside the university community,and these external members have been elected representativesof specified constituencies. For example, recent legislation inTanzania requires 75 percent of board members to be external,whereas Lesotho and South Africa specify 60 percent. InFrench-speaking countries, the Université de Thiès in Senegaland the Kigali Institute of Science and Technology in Rwandarequire 35 percent of board members to be external.

ConclusionIn sub-Saharan Africa wide discrepancies in progress areobserved. Roughly half of the countries have introduced signif-icant reforms in the past two decades, while such notables asGhana, Kenya, and Nigeria—and others—have not. Thesereforms commonly promote more representative governance,quality assurance, and private provision. Other reform topics

19



Usually, a governing board is charged with formu-

lating the institution’s strategic direction, approving

internal statutes, accepting budgets, accounting for

use of funds, managing the institution’s assets, and

safeguarding institutional interests.

Academic affairs are normally managed by an aca-

demic board accountable to the governing board

and responsible for institutional policies concerning

curriculum, educational quality, admissions, exam-

inations, award of degrees, and research.

such as system differentiation, cost efficiency, and diversifica-tion of funding sources are less frequently addressed. A fewcountries—such as South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda—haveenacted substantial changes to their legal frameworks, equal-ing or exceeding good practices worldwide. In other coun-tries—such as Botswana, Cameroon, Ethiopia and Mali—reforms have been noteworthy but less bold.

Francophone countries in particular have lagged the rest ofthe continent in both the number and ambition of their high-er education reform efforts. Although notable differences char-acterize the legal systems and university traditions of French-and English-speaking countries, recent changes to the legalframeworks for Anglophone higher education should provideheuristic examples for those Francophone systems interestedin renewal and modernization. To facilitate comparative learn-ing and further research on the legal frameworks for sub-Saharan African higher education systems, universities in thisregion might post current copies of relevant higher educationacts, university statutes, and associated decrees or regulationson their Web sites.

Mongolia’s Challenge:Becoming Asian in HigherEducationGerard Postiglione

Gerard Postiglione, is professor and head of the Division of Policy,Administration, and Social Science, Faculty of Education, University ofHong Kong. E-mail: [email protected].

Despite the global economic crisis, the Republic ofMongolia is determined to move ahead in restructuring its

higher education system. Not generally known, its educationindicators rival those of its closest neighbors—China, SouthKorea, and Japan. It has a literate population, a popularizedschool system, and a higher education enrollment rate that isapproaching 80 percent. Since 1990, when it moved from aplanned to a market economy, the private higher education sec-tor has grown to encompass a third of all enrollments. Mostcolleges and universities are in the capital city where 40 per-cent of the national population resides. The rest of the popula-tion, also literate and schooled, adheres to a nomadic lifestyle.English has replaced Russian as the declared second languageof this land of 2.8 million, the largest landlocked country in theworld. Historical circumstance made Mongolia the most

Europeanized state in East Asia. However, its people retainedthe Asian value of acquiring as much education as possible.

Untying Knotty ProblemsMongolia ranks 7th internationally in the percent of the grossdomestic product (GDP) (9.0%) for education, and its educa-tion law guarantees that at least 20 percent of the governmentbudget is spent on education. Yet, higher education receivesonly 12 percent of that amount. This made sense for a develop-ing country in transition. However, the time is ripe for arethink of the higher education system, including its fundingstructure. State universities obtain government funds for heat-ing and lighting, but little else. One university leader pointedout that 80 percent of academic staff salaries come from stu-dent fees. A national fund for higher education provides cov-erage to one child from each civil servant family, and supportis also offered for outstanding students from poor families.However, there is also a view that higher education is a sourceof poverty because 67 percent of the personal loans taken bycountryside cattle rancher families are spent on the highereducation of their children.

With such literacy, school attendance, and higher educationenrollment rates, as well as a sustained Asian value towardeducation, the Republic of Mongolia would seem to be in agood position to move ahead with a higher education restruc-turing that brings the standard of teaching and research tointernationally recognized levels. Nevertheless, several daunt-ing challenges remain.

Urgent ChallengesGovernment spending on higher education is severely limitedin comparison to other regional players. For example, Malaysiaand Hong Kong tower over most Asian countries with respectto per student expenditure as a percentage of GDP. Mongolia’stransition to a market-oriented system included introducingfees for higher education. However, unlike Japan, Korea, andChina, Mongolia’s government could not make the sameinvestment in its top universities. Investment does matter.Hong Kong spends about 30 percent of the education budgeton higher education and has the highest concentration of top-rated universities in one city than elsewhere in Asia. Whilesome Asian governments allocate a smaller slice of the pie tohigher education, quality is not going to be achievable with a12 percent slice of the education budget for higher education.



Mongolia ranks 7th internationally in the percent of

the gross domestic product (9.0%) for education,

and its education law guarantees that at least 20

percent of the government budget is spent on edu-

cation.

The quality of private higher education has yet to surpassthat of the public institutions. Despite their short history, pri-vate institutions are catching up and some offer programscompetitive with those at public institutions. One view is thatstate institutions receive such a small portion of funding thatthey actually operate with state titles but in private mode.However, the private sector declares virtually no support is pro-vided by government and that the current balance of enroll-ments should be reversed—that is, one third of enrollmentsshould be in state institutions with the private institutionsenrolling the rest. In Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines,and Indonesia private universities enroll the majority of stu-dents—in some cases upwards of 80 percent. Mongolia’s pri-vate institutions enroll 34 percent of all students and believethat a level playing field is lacking.

With far too many (162) institutions, the average number ateach one is about 900 students—no way to attain economiesof scale. Consolidation has been used to address this problemelsewhere. The average number of students in Chinese institu-tions was 3,112 in 1990, up from 1,919 in 1990, when about 80percent of higher education institutions had less than 4,000students and 60 percent had less than 3,000 students. By2000, 612 colleges and universities were consolidated into250, and several universities now have over 50,000 students.Other countries are dealing with similar problems, especiallyat the outset of privatization, when an overabundance of smallcolleges spring up with little to offer in the way of qualityinstruction. After the initial phase of privatization, a system isneeded for quality assurance, which often ends in the closureand consolidation of many institutions.

Mongolia’s premier universities have obtained too few fac-ulty members for the number of students served, about a 1:23teacher-student ratio. At top universities elsewhere, the ratio islower. It is 1:10.5 at the University of Pennsylvania and 1:11.5 atNew York University. In the engineering faculty of the NationalUniversity of Singapore, it is 1:13. In the recent QS WorldUniversity rankings of top universities in the world, student-faculty ratio counted for 20 percent of the ranking. While stu-dent-faculty ratio is not automatically indicative of qualityteaching and research, it is relevant enough for Mongolia toconsider recruitment of outstanding academic staff.

Mongolia aspires, as do its neighbors in Northeast Asia(Japan, South Korea, and China) to have internationally recog-nized research universities. The intention to establish a highlyrecognized research university needs to be matched by anational budget that does not skimp on funds for research anddevelopment. Some observers continue to argue that making a

direct association with research productivity is risky. The R&Dbudget for Hong Kong is only 0.7 percent of GDP but has veryhigh per capita rates of research publications. Regardless,Mongolia’s R&D budget of 0.28 percent of GDP places it 70thin the world. Hong Kong ranks 50th. Moreover, Mongolia hasa military and natural resources, which Hong Kong lacks.Therefore, Mongolia’s research universities will remain hardpressed without a larger national R&D budget.

The academic profession must find better ways to retain topscholars. Meager salaries are an obstacle to improving quality.It is not unusual for faculty to leave their university to enterbusiness where they can earn a higher wage. At present, part-time staff who need to work elsewhere to supplement theirincome account for 18 percent in public and 44 percent in pri-vate institutions. Winning the best academic staff should be apriority, but the state of the economy greatly inhibits the abili-ty of colleges and universities to attract and retain the talentneeded to significantly improve the quality and competitive-ness of higher education.

A Brighter Vision or More of the Same?While many people agree that the discovery of one of theworld’s largest mineral deposits (coal, copper, and uranium)means a promising economic future awaits Mongolia, theeconomy is currently too weak to support the large number ofuniversity graduates, and many are seeking employment else-where. Unless the above challenges facing higher educationare urgently addressed with the political will necessary to over-come entrenched self-interests, Mongolia may find itself ill-prepared to take advantage of the opportunities on its horizon.

Celebrating 200 Years ofHumboldt UniversitySebastian Litta

Sebastian Litta studied at Freie Universität Berlin and is now a McCloyScholar at the Harvard Kennedy School. E-mail:[email protected].

On October 15, 1810 a new university was founded in Berlin.With only 256 students and 53 professors, this university

had modest beginnings, but it would eventually shape theentire German as well as the international higher educationlandscape. The Universität zu Berlin, later renamed HumboldtUniversität, revolutionized the concept of a university. Harvard

21



Therefore, Mongolia's research universities will

remain hard pressed without a larger national R&D

budget.

would not have become the Harvard of today if it had not emu-lated some of the innovations in higher education introducedby Humboldt. Such progress would probably have constitutedthe factor for most other research universities in the UnitedStates. While Humboldt is today in urgent need of reform, thisuniversity also forms the key part of the history of Germanhigher education over the past 200 years. This story representsthe originally most successful university system in the world,which became a sclerotic and bureaucratic behemoth and onlyrecently started to renew itself.

Reforming Prussia’s Education SystemThe newly founded university in Berlin was revolutionarybecause European universities were not, traditionally, researchinstitutions in the modern sense. Rather, they functioned asplaces of knowledge preservation, teaching, and examination.In the 18th century, many universities had actually become farremoved from the rapid speed of social and scientific changethat had developed outside of academia. Like monasteries hid-den behind thick walls and insurmountable hedges, they wereforgotten or even disdained by the outside world.

In some German states, efforts were undertaken to end thisissue of academic misery—such as the establishment ofreform universities, like Göttingen and Halle. Halle eventuallybecame Prussia’s most essential university, but it was closeddown in 1806 by Napoleon, who thought most universitieswere useless. Bereft of the flagship university, Prussianreformers started thinking about founding a new institution ofhigher education, and Wilhelm von Humboldt, the state’senvoy to the Vatican, became responsible for reformingPrussia’s education system in 1809. He stepped down afterjust one year but left an enormous legacy. Humboldt created auniform school system, established standards for teacher edu-cation, and also became the driving force in founding theUniversity of Berlin.

From Medieval University to Modern ResearchInstitutionNapoleon had abolished his nation's universities in 1802 andreplaced them with specialized schools. Humboldt chose a dif-ferent approach; he wanted to innovate the mission frommerely preserving tradition to actually producing science.Sylvia Paletschek—a history professor at Freiburg Universityand scholar of 19th-century Germany—has indicated thatHumboldt’s university, rather than performing radically as a

new institution, synthesized reform ideas from other Germanuniversities. Moreover, this new university did not initiallyfunction as an explicit research university. However, steady andgenerous state funding as well as state-created demandshelped to establish large-scale research at the university duringthe next decades.

In the late 19th century, American universities adopted thiscombination of research and teaching by creating graduateschools or entire graduate institutions—such as JohnsHopkins and Clark University. Harvard was more skeptical ofactual research and waited almost until the start of the 20thcentury before adopting this model.

Humboldt's Current CharacterWhile Humboldt served as an international model of highereducation, attracting such great thinkers as Hegel,Schopenhauer, Einstein, and Planck and receiving a total of 29Nobel Prizes in the first third of the 20th century, it has lost itsappeal since then.

In the early 1930s, when my grandfather had transferredfrom Tübingen University in southwest Germany to Berlin tostudy with Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the young professor of theolo-gy, he was able to witness the demise of the university. In 1933,books of Jewish writers and professors were burned, in front ofthe library, by incited students. Jewish professors were expelledfrom the faculty, and the university lost many of its best andmost innovative professors. After the end of the Nazi regime,the university found itself in the Soviet sector of Berlin. In1947, students and professors were again expelled, at that timefor not being in line with communist thought.

Supported by the mayor of West Berlin (and also the FordFoundation and, supposedly, the CIA), a dozen free-mindedstudents and professors refounded the university in theAmerican sector of Berlin and called it Freie Universität (FreeUniversity) as opposed to communist Humboldt. FreieUniversität grew into one of Germany’s largest universities.When the Berlin wall fell it remained unclear what would hap-pen to the two main universities in Berlin. Initially, it seemedas if Humboldt would regain its former strength: money wasgenerously poured in, excellent professors were hired, andFreie Universität faced a dim future as an overcrowded andmediocre institution.



Humboldt created a uniform school system, estab-

lished standards for teacher education, and also

became the driving force in founding the University

of Berlin.

While Humboldt served as an international model

of higher education, attracting such great thinkers

as Hegel, Schopenhauer, Einstein, and Planck and

receiving a total of 29 Nobel Prizes in the first third

of the 20th century, it has lost its appeal since then.

Humboldt and the Decline of German UniversitiesHumboldt was not able to retrieve its character as an interna-tional hub of academic excellence that it held before World WarII. It is a university plagued by the challenges faced by mostcontemporary German universities: a dramatic lack of finan-cial resources; the absence of a clear mission and effective gov-ernance structures; an outrageously bad student/faculty ratio;buildings that have not been repaired since the 1970s; a systemof strict hierarchies between tenured professors and an “aca-demic proletariat”—consisting of adjuncts and assistant andassociate professors; and the migration of some of the best andbrightest young researchers to US universities.

In 2007, Germany created an artificial Ivy League by desig-nating nine “excellence” universities to be showered with fed-eral money. The clear front-runner, Humboldt Universität, wasshocked not only when it did not win but also given that FreieUniversität was among those nine universities. Humboldt may

have suffered from the lack of a clear research profile, but italso did not help that Humboldt's president left in the midst ofthe preparations for the excellence competition. His successordid not turn out to be the strong leader needed to establish newself-confidence.

2010 as a New BeginningThis year, a new president will assume office. Jan-HendrikOlbertz, a native Berliner who spent his career as a professorat Halle University and as one of Germany's most respectedstate secretaries of education, is an unusually bold and inter-esting choice. His election could provide a great opportunity todevelop a vision of how to bring Humboldt back to its origin:as one of the most exciting and innovative places of highereducation worldwide. Humboldt has the chance to reinventitself and once again to become a model for higher education.

23


departments

New Publications

Bhandari, Rajika, ed. International India: ATurning Point in Educational Exchange with theU.S. New York: Institute of InternationalEducation, 2010. 141 pp. $39.99 (pb). ISBN9 7 8 - 0 - 8 7 2 0 6 - 3 2 1 - 1 . W e b s i t e :www.iiebooks.org.

A consideration of U.S-India higher educa-tion relations, this book focuses on bothIndian and American policies and programs.Among the themes discussed are the role ofimmigrant entrepreneurs, Indian policiesrelating to U.S.-India exchanges, the interna-tionalization of Indian higher education,intercultural competence, and several casestudies of U.S.-India university collaboration.

Clark, John B., W. Bruce Leslie, and KennethP. O’Brien, eds. SUNY at Sixty: The Promise ofthe State University of New York. Albany, NY:SUNY Press, 2010. 365 pp. (pb). ISBN 978-1-4384-3302-8. Web site: www.sunypress.edu.

The State University of New York is thelargest public university system in the UnitedStates, with 64 campuses and 440,000 stu-dents. It is also one of the newest. This vol-ume marks the 60th anniversary of the sys-tem. It includes chapters on the history of thesystem, the variations among the campuses,the global policy of SUNY, diversity in a largeacademic system, and others. There is a gooddeal of attention paid to the history and evolu-tion of the SUNY system and its constituentcampuses.

Cole, Jonathan R. The Great AmericanUniversity: Its Rise to Preeminence, ItsIndispensable National Role, and Why It MustBe Protected. New York: Public Affairs, 2010.750 pp. $35 (hb). ISBN 978-1-58648408-8.Web site: www.publicaffairsbooks.com.

A broad analysis of the American researchuniversity by Columbia University’s formerprovost, this volume discusses the history ofthe American university and the currentcrises facing it. The author strongly arguesthat the American university has providedmost of the knowledge and innovation thathas shaped the American economy in the pasthalf century. Considerable space is allocatedto discuss specific scientific discoveries andhow they have contributed to the economyand society.

Douglass, John A., C. Judson King, and IrwinFeller, eds. Globalization's Muse: Universitiesand Higher Education Systems in a ChangingWorld. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Public PolicyPress, Univ. of California, Berkeley, 2009.405 pp. (pb). ISBN 978-0-87772-432-2.

A wide-ranging discussion of global trendsin higher education, this book focuses bothon a number of case studies and providestheme-based chapters. Especially noteworthyare analyses of the global race for human cap-ital and Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development trends forhigher education. Among the case studies areAustralia’s fee policy, orientations in feesbetween the United States and the EuropeanUnion, competition in German higher educa-tion, university-industry linkages in Taiwan,

European responses to global competitive-ness, and others.

Garland, James C. Saving Alma Mater: ARescue Plan for America’s Public Universities.Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2009. 268pp. $27.50 (hb). ISBN 978-0-226-28386-9.Web site: www.press.uchicago.edu.

Garland, a former university president andprofessor, argues for radical change in howAmerican public universities are managedand funded. He advocates more attention toefficient management and governance in theuniversities and recommends that the stategovernments permit more autonomy. Hismost radical suggestion is that the states nolonger provide direct funding to public uni-versities—the universities would be responsi-ble for their own financing. This book, writ-ten prior to the financial crisis, may have evenmore relevance now.

Gaston, Paul L. The Challenge of Bologna:What United States Higher Education Has toLearn From Europe, and Why It Matters ThatWe Learn It. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing,2010. 225 pp. $35 (hb). ISBN 978-1-57922-366-3. Web site: www.styluspub.com.

A discussion of what the European Union’sBologna initiatives mean for the UnitedStates, this book presents the various ele-ments of Europe's approach to higher educa-tion harmonization and mobility, includinghow the process has evolved over time. Theauthor focuses on the need for Americanhigher education to understand and also toengage with Europe’s continuing internation-



alization initiatives.

Gerth, Donald R. The People’s University: AHistory of the California State University.Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Public Policy Press,Univ. of California, Berkeley, 2010. 664 pp.(pb). ISBN 978-0-87772-435-3.

The California State University, with 23campuses and more than 450,000 students,is one of America’s most important publicuniversity systems and one of the bestknown. It is in a way in the shadow of theUniversity of California system but to someextent more important to the people ofCalifornia. This multifaceted history, writtenby the retired president of California StateUniversity, Sacramento, provides a thoroughdiscussion of the key developments of thesystem over time.

Global University Network for Innovation.Higher Education at a Time of Transformation:New Dynamics of Social Responsibility.Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.222 pp. (pb). ISBN 978-0-230-23337-9. Website: www.palgrave.com.

GUNI, the Global University Network forInnovation, headquartered in Barcelona,Spain, has sponsored a series of global analy-ses of higher education. This volumeincludes summaries of the reports on highereducation and the challenges of human andsocial development, the financing of univer-sities, and accreditation and quality assur-ance. Each of the reports provides analysis,statistical information, and a broad globaldiscussion of the topics.

Gross, John G. and Edie N. Goldenberg. Off-Track Profs: Nontenured Teachers in HigherEducation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2009 192 pp. $30 (hb). ISBN 978-0-262-01291-1. Web site: www.mitpress.mit.edu.

Nontenure track faculty now constitutemore than half of the new appointments inAmerican higher education generally. Thisbook focuses on this increasingly importantgroup—teachers who are not on the tradi-tional “tenure track” that leads to permanentacademic appointments. These include full-time contract teachers, part-time staff, andothers. This book focuses on a small group ofprestigious research universities for analysis,and discusses how academic hiring editionsare made, market forces in hiring, role ofnontenure track teachers, faculty unioniza-tion, and related themes.

Hoffa, William W., and Stephen C. DePaul,eds. A History of U.S. Study Abroad:

1965–Present. Carlisle, PA: Frontiers Journal,2010. 510 pp. Web site: www. frontiersjour-nal.com.

A broad consideration of the landscape ofAmerican study-abroad policy and practice inthe past half century, this book includeschapters on such themes as the economics offoreign study, technology and study abroad,the growing diversification of geographicallocations, study abroad and the curriculum,the professionalization of the field, and oth-ers.

Menand, Louis. The Marketplace of Ideas:Reform and Resistance in the AmericanUniversity. New York: Norton, 2010. 174 pp.$24.95 (hb). ISBN 978-0-393-06275-5.

This short but informative volume con-cerns several key themes in the context ofAmerican higher education—the challengeof general education and the “crisis” of thehumanities, interdisciplinarity, and the poli-tics of the academic profession. LouisMenand, a professor English at Harvard anda prominent “public intellectual” has writtenan engaging essay.

Musselin, Christine. The Market forAcademics. New York: Routledge, 2010. 263pp. (hb). ISBN 978-0-415-99683-9. Web site:www.routledge.com.

This detailed analysis of how academics arehired and of the academic labor market gen-erally in three countries provides valuableinformation about the countries as well as acomparative framework regarding academiccareers. The three countries are France,Germany, and the United States. Based oninterviews as well as other options, this orig-inal research is a benchmark study of aca-demic careers and markets.

Obst, Daniel, and Matthias Kuder, eds. Jointand Double Degree Programs: An EmergingModel for Transatlantic Exchange. New York:Institute of International Education, 2009.168 pp. $39.95 (pb) ISBN 978-0-87206-318-1. Web site: www.iiebooks.org.

A joint project by the Institute ofInternational Education in New York and theFree University of Berlin, this book featuresshort chapters on various aspects of joint anddual degrees in a trans-Atlantic context. Thechapters consider, among other things, cur-riculum design, communications issues injoint programs, motivations for dual degrees,funding, student selection, and sustainabili-ty. A focus in the book is on the practicalimplications.

Palfreyman, David, and Ted Tapper, eds.Structuring Mass Higher Education: The Roleof Elite Institutions. New York: Routledge,2009. 343 pp. (hb). ISBN 978-0-415-42604-9. Web site: www.routledge.com.

The underlying concept of this volume isthat elite universities have had to adjust tomass higher education systems worldwide,and this has presented challenges at all levelsof the academic system. Countries have han-dled the challenge differently. Case studiesconcerning structural change in academicsystems and of elite institutions themselvesare provided. Among the countries consid-ered are Poland, Germany, the UnitedKingdom, India, China, France, and others.The American Ivy League and Oxbridge inthe United Kingdom are considered as well.

Richardson, Richard, Jr., and MarioMartinez. Policy and Performance in AmericanHigher Education: An Examination of CasesAcross State Systems. Baltimore, MD: JohnsHopkins Univ. Press, 2009. 263 pp (hb).ISBN 978-0-8018-9161-8. Web site:www.press.jhu.edu.

An examination of the higher educationpolicy process in five US states, this volumeprovides a careful discussion of the variouspolicy actors involved in higher education—governors, legislatures, executive agencies,and the like—and how they function in NewMexico, California, South Dakota, New York,and New Jersey. There are considerable vari-ations among the states and differing rates ofsuccess in solving some of the key problemsfacing higher education, as well.

Sadlak, Jan, and Nian Cai Liu, eds. The World-Class University as Part of a New HigherEducation Paradigm: From InstitutionalQualities to Systemic Excellence. Bucharest,Romania: UNESCO-CEPES, 2009. 354 pp.(hb). ISBN 92-9069-194-8.

A broad discussion of the issues involvedwith developing and sustaining research uni-versities, this volume features both case stud-ies and thematic analysis. Chapters considerthe academic profession, lessons from theAmerican research university model, evalua-tion issues, rankings, and other topics. Casestudies from Korea, Australia, China, Spain,and Switzerland are discussed as well.

Salazar-Clemeña, Rose Marie, and V. LynnMeek, eds. Competition, Collaboration andChange in the Academic Profession. Manila,Philippines: De La Salle Univ. Press, 2008.211 pp. (hb). ISBN 978-971-93801-2-2.Address: De La Salle Univ. Press, 28-C Scout


departments25

Albano St., Quezon City 1103, Philippines.Sponsored by the UNESCO Forum on

Higher Education, Research, andKnowledge, this book focuses on the chang-ing academic profession in Asia. Chaptersdiscussing Malaysia, India, Iran, the SouthPacific, Australia, Japan, and the Philippinesare included. In addition, comparative per-spectives focusing on funding and manage-ment are provided.

Schuman, Samuel. Seeing the Light: ReligiousColleges in Twenty-First Century America.Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press,2010. 326 pp. (hb). ISBN 978-0-8018-9372-8. Web site: www.press.jhu.edu.

The focus of this book is on evangelicalProtestant Christian colleges in the UnitedStates and particularly their religious identityin a changing American higher educationenvironment. Case studies of a dozen or soof these institutions provide the core of thebook, along with a broader discussion of thedevelopment of American higher educationfrom a religious perspective and of the impli-cations of the case studies. One chapter dis-cusses three Roman Catholic colleges anduniversities as a point of comparison.

Shavelson, Richard J. Measuring CollegeLearning Responsibility: Accountability in aNew Era. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press,2010. 238 pp. (pb). ISBN 978-0-8047-6121-5.Web site: www.sup.org.

This volume discusses two related butsomewhat separate topics—the assessmentof learning by students in postsecondaryeducation and accountability, including qual-ity assurance. The focus is on the UnitedStates, but one chapter focuses on qualityassurance in an international framework.The means of measuring learning, includingthe Collegiate Learning Assessment, are dis-cussed.

Smart, John, ed. Higher Education: Handbookof Theory and Research, vol. 24. Dordrecht,Netherlands: Springer, 2009. 475 pp. ¤181.(hb). ISBN 978-1-4020-9627-3. Web site:www.springer.com.

This volume features essays based on theanalysis of relevant research on a range oftopics focusing largely on American highereducation. One chapter in this volume exam-ines how Peking University rejoined theinternational higher education community.Among the themes discussed in this volumeare need-based grants for students, qualita-tive inquiry, whether financial aid matters forcollege success, Hispanics in American high-

er education, conceptualizing faculty work,and several others.

Smelser, Neil J. Reflections on the University ofCalifornia: From the Free Speech Movement tothe Global University. Berkeley: Univ. ofCalifornia Press, 2010. 380 pp. $45 (hb).ISBN 978-0-520-26096-2. Web site:www.ucpress.edu.

Sociologist Smelser has been a keenobserver of American higher education for ahalf century. As a professor at the Universityof California-Berkeley and leader in theUniversity of California system, he hasassembled his articles and chapters that ana-lyze key aspects of the University ofCalifornia. Among the themes are Berkeley’scrises during the 1960s, affirmative-actionissues, governing the University ofCalifornia, intercollegiate athletics, and oth-ers.

Smith, Darryl G. Diversity’s Promise for HigherEducation: Making It Work. Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 2009. 331 pp.$50 (hb). ISBN 978-0-8018-9316-2. Web site:www.press.jhu.edu.

Diversity—ensuring that diverse gender,ethnic, social class, and religious groupshave access to higher education and areappropriately represented in the academiccommunity—is among the “hot” topics inAmerican higher education. This book dis-cusses 40 years of research on this issue andfocuses especially on ideas to foster diversityamong students and faculty in the UnitedStates.

Stromquist, Nelly, ed. La Profesión Académicaen la Globalización: Seis Países, SeisExperiencias. Mexico City, Mexico: ANUIES,2009. 319 pp. (pb). ISBN 978-607-451-008-9. Address: ANUIES, Tenayuca 200, Col.Santa Cruz Atonyac, México DF, Mexico.

This book is the Spanish translation of TheProfessoriate in the Age of Globalization, firstpublished by Sense in 2007. The book pres-ents national and institutional case studies ofchanges in the conditions of the professori-ate, building on the research conducted bysix scholars funded through the FulbrightNew Century Scholars Program. While thereare national differences, trends toward areduced role of the state in higher education,the increase in the provision by private insti-tutions, the marketing of research, and thesearch for universal prestige are affecting theprofessional identity and the working envi-ronment of university professors.

Trilokekar, Roopa Desai, Glen A. Jones, andAdrian Shubert, eds. Canada’s Universities GoGlobal. Toronto: James Lorimer, 2009. 424pp .C$29.95 (pb). ISBN 978-1-55277-04102.Web site: www.lorimer.ca.

This book provides a comprehensive per-spective on the various aspects of the interna-tionalization of Canadian higher education.Among the topics discussed are policiesrelating to internationalization in Quebec,provincial efforts in Manitoba and Alberta,university classroom issues, global citizen-ship and global health, internationalizing thefaculty, cross-border strategies, and others.Two essays discuss international experiencesin Australia and Europe.

Trow, Martin. Twentieth-Century HigherEducation: Elite to Mass to Universal.Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press,2010. 627 pp. $40 (pb). ISBN 978-0-8018-9442-8. Web site: www.press.jhu.edu.

Martin Trow was one of the most promi-nent sociologists of higher education in thelatter 20th century. This volume bringstogether many of his key writings on highereducation in the United States and interna-tionally. His influential essay on elite-mass-universal access is included, as are essaysconcerning higher education in Britain, theinner workings of American universities,governance and reform in the United States,and the problems of transition to mass high-er education.

Tuchman, Gaye. Wannabe U: Inside theCorporate University. Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 2009. 256 pp. $25 (hb).ISBN 978-0-226-81529-9. Web site: www.p r e s s . u c h i c a g o . e d u .

An engagingly written case study of an “upand coming” American public research uni-versity, Wannabe U focuses on how the uni-versity has become more managerial as it hassought to boost its ranking. A study of thecorporatization of academe, this book dis-cusses accountability, the planning process,the centralization of power in the hands ofadministrators, and related themes.

Varghese, N. V., ed. Higher EducationReforms: Institutional Restructuring in Asia.Paris: International Institute for EducationalPlanning, 2009. 201 pp. (pb). ISBN 978-92-803-1335-2. Web site: www.iiep.unesco.org.

This volume focuses on institutionalrestructuring as a part of higher educationreform. It features an introductory essay andcase studies from Indonesia, Malaysia,

26


departments

Internationalizing International HigherEducation CIHE’s flagship publication International Higher Education,now appears in three international editions in addition toCIHE’s published version.

For almost two years, IHE has been published in Chinese bythe Graduate School of Education at Shanghai Jiao TongUniversity in both online and print editions. IHE in Chinese: <http://gse.sjtu.edu.cn/EN/journal.htm>

Beginning in 2010, IHE appears in Russian, published by theIndependent Kazakhstan Quality Assurance Agency and avail-able throughout the Russian-speaking area. IHE in Russian: <http://ihe.nkaoko.kz/>

Most recently, the Deutsche Universitätzeitung, the major mag-azine in German-speaking countries, has agreed to distributeIHE to their 20,000 subscribers in our original English edi-tion. Deutsche Universitätzeitung: <http://www.duz.de>

These international editions supplement the print andonline versions of IHE published by CIHE and significantlybroaden our scope and circulation. IHE is the only publicationproviding news and analysis of higher education issues inmultiple languages on a regular basis for a global audience.

Mongolia, Thailand, and Vietnam. The chap-ters provide detailed discussion of theprocess of change as well as statistical infor-mation concerning each case.

Verger, Antoni. WTO/GATS and the GlobalPolitics of Higher Education. New York:Routledge, 2010. 248 pp. $95 (hb). ISBN978-0-415-99882-6. Web site: www.rout-ledge.com.

This thorough study of how GATS (GeneralAgreement on Trade in Services) of theWorld Trade Organization is negotiated andits current situation as of 2009 provides adescription of GATS and an analysis of sever-al case studies of its negotiation. Case studiesof Argentina and Chile provide details to thebroader analysis in the book.

Wildavsky, Ben. The Great Brain Race: HowGlobal Universities are Reshaping the World.Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 2010.239 pp. $26.95 (hb). ISBN 978-0-691-14689-8. Web site: www.press.princeton.edu.

Journalist Ben Wildavsky’s upbeat discus-sion of trends in global higher education pro-vides a US perspective. Among the themesexamined are the nature of world-class uni-versities, branch campuses, rankings andtheir implications, and the role of for-profithigher education. Based on interviews withkey practitioners, this book provides a newperspective.

Winkle-Wagner, Rachelle. The Unchosen Me:Race, Gender, and Identity among BlackWomen in College. Baltimore, MD: JohnsHopkins Univ. Press, 2009. 227 pp. $55 (hb).ISBN 978-0-8018-9354-4. Web site:www.press.jhu.edu.

An analysis of identity formation amongAfrican-American women college students,this book shows how students from under-represented backgrounds navigate and shapetheir identities in college—the pressures ofacademic life, minority status, and gendermix in the complex process of identity forma-tion.

Woznicki, Jerzy. The University as an Instituteof Public Domain: The Polish Perspective.Bucharest, Romania: UNESCO-CEPES,2009. 443 pp. (hb). ISBN 978-92-9069-191-4.

This discussion of the role of the universi-ty in Polish society has relevance to broaderEuropean themes. Analysis of universities askey knowledge producing institutions is fol-lowed by a discussion of the legal and legisla-tive background of higher education inPoland.

Yunus, Aida Suraya, Rosni Bakar, andShukran Abdul Rahman, eds. Student LoanSchemes: Experiences of New Zealand,Australia, India, and Thailand, and a WayForward for Malaysia. Pulau Penang,

Malaysia: Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia,2009. 168 pp (pb). ISBN 978-983-861-429-0. Web site: www.penerbit.usm.my.

A broad perspective on student-loan pro-grams in comparative perspective—includ-ing an essay by Bruce Chapman, whodesigned Australia's well-known loanscheme—this book provides a useful analy-sis of several countries. The volume con-cludes two chapters focusing on student-loanideas for Malaysia.

Zemsky, Robert. Making Reform Work: TheCase for Transforming American HigherEducation. New Brunswick, NJ: RutgersUniv. Press, 2009. 240 pp. $25.95 (hb).ISBN 978-0-8135-4591-2. Web site: www.rut-gerspress.rutgers.edu.

Robert Zemsky, a member of PresidentGeorge W. Bush’s higher education reformcommission, provides a critique of Americanhigher education and suggestions forchange. He analyzes contemporary problemsand points out that, among other things,technology has not had a widespread impacton higher eduation. He argues that highereducation should be attuned to its marketand to diverse groups and at the same timefocus on core values and be attentive toteaching quality, accountability, and relatedissues.


departments27

BC_CIHE on Twitter

We have expanded CIHE's Web presence Twitter. Now, inaddition to our Web site and Facebook page, we are tweeting.Twitter provides different kind of forum for staff at CIHE topost information and commentary.

Recent tweets include commentary from the ThirdInternational Conference on World-Class Universities inShanghai, news about activities of CIHE, and responses toitems in the news. We hope you will consider “following” us!

Our Thanks to the Ford Foundation

This publication and the work of the Center for InternationalHigher Education has, for the past fifteen years, benefited fromthe financial support of the Ford Foundation. With the conclu-sion of this support, we express our thanks to Ford for its com-mitment to international higher education and to some of theresearch themes of interest to the Center, including the chal-lenges facing the academic profession, the emerging global pri-vate higher education sector, the role of research universities,

and others. Ford’s support has permitted us to educate a gen-eration of researchers and scholars of global higher educa-tion—professionals now working in a half-dozen countries andin several international organizations in a variety of roles. Weare especially indebted to our program officer through 2006,Dr. Jorge Balán, who provided wise advice while at the sametime permitting the Center to develop its own focus and direc-tion.

Philip G. AltbachDirector, CIHE

News of the Center

Center director Philip Altbach gave several lectures on highereducation issues at the invitation of the Saudi Arabian Ministryof Education. He is also a member of the planning committeefor a major higher education conference to be held in Riyadh in2011. He has been named an Erudite Scholar by the govern-ment of the state of Kerala, in India. He will travel toThiruvananthapuram and other cities in Kerala to give lectures.Philip Altbach is serving on the international advisory commit-tee of the Higher School of Economics in Moscow, Russia.

One of the Center’s long-term projects, a book on universityleadership in developing countries, has been completed.Leadership for World-Class Universities: Challenges for DevelopingCountries, edited by Philip Altbach, will be published byRoutledge in late 2010.

The Center's symposium on global liberal arts trends, whichwas cosponsored with the Amsterdam University College, washeld on April 14. Among the speakers were Marijk van derWende of Amsterdam University College, Provost LisaAnderson of the American University in Cairo, HenryRosovsky of Harvard University, and several Boston Collegespeakers.

During April, research associate, Liz Reisberg, was a presen-ter at the New Dynamics of Higher Education in São Paulo,

Brazil, and a visiting scholar at the Universidade de Campinas,where she presented a series of seminars.

The Center’s research project on academic salaries andremuneration, in collaboration with the Higher School ofEconomics, is now in its research phase. Thirty researchersfrom around the world are collecting data and will meet inMoscow in October to discuss and share results.

New CIHE Blog InitiativeThe Center is launching World View, a blog on internationalhigher education issues, hosted by Inside Higher Education. Thepurpose of the blog will be to provide commentary, interpreta-tion, and analysis of higher education issues worldwide.Contributors to World View will include recognized expertsfrom around the world, who will share their ideas and perspec-tives. The group includes Simon Schwartzman (Brazil), AndrésBernasconi (Chile), Pawan Agarwal (India), Dan Levy (privatehigher education), Maria Yudkevich (Russia), Jamil Salmi (glob-al issues), Damtew Teferra (Africa), Goolam Mohamedbhai(Africa), Alma Maldonado-Maldonado (Mexico), and PhilipAltbach (global issues). Additional bloggers will be added. Theblog can be found at the Inside Higher Education Web site.

28


departments

THE CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION

(CIHE)

The Boston College Center for International Higher Education

brings an international consciousness to the analysis of high-

er education. We believe that an international perspective will

contribute to enlightened policy and practice. To serve this

goal, the Center publishes the International Higher Education

quarterly newsletter, a book series, and other publications;

sponsors conferences; and welcomes visiting scholars. We

have a special concern for academic institutions in the Jesuit

tradition worldwide and, more broadly, with Catholic universi-

ties.

The Center promotes dialogue and cooperation among aca-

demic institutions throughout the world. We believe that the

future depends on effective collaboration and the creation of

an international community focused on the improvement of

higher education in the public interest.

CIHE WEB SITE

The different sections of the Center Web site support the work

of scholars and professionals in international higher educa-

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

International Higher Education are available online, with a

searchable archive. In addition, the International Higher

Education Clearinghouse (IHEC) is a source of articles,

reports, trends, databases, online newsletters, announce-

ments of upcoming international conferences, links to profes-

sional associations, and resources on developments in the

Bologna Process and the GATS. The Higher Education

Corruption Monitor provides information from sources

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

liography, and links to other agencies. The International

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

mation clearinghouse on research, development, and advoca-

cy activities related to postsecondary education in Africa.

THE PROGRAM IN HIGHER EDUCATION AT THE LYNCH

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, BOSTON COLLEGE

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

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

and doctoral degrees that feature a social science–based

approach to the study of higher education. The Administrative

Fellows initiative provides financial assistance as well as work

experience in a variety of administrative settings.

Specializations are offered in higher education administra-

tion, student affairs and development, and international edu-

cation. For additional information, please contact Dr. Karen

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

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

editor

Philip G. Altbach

publications editor

Edith S. Hoshino

editorial assistant

Salina Kopellas

editorial office

Center for International

Higher Education

Campion Hall

Boston College

Chestnut Hill, MA 02467

USA

Tel: (617) 552–4236

Fax: (617) 552–2499

E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.bc.edu/cihe

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

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

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

the boston college center for international higher education · 2 innovation and economic...

Documents