the boston college center for international higher education · owns universities in spain,...

international higher educationthe boston college center for international higher education

number 41 Fall 2005

Internationalization Trends

2 Cross-Border Education: Not Just StudentsJane Knight

3 International Students at Indian UniversitiesVeena Bhalla

4 Foreign Universities in India Sudhanshu Bushan

5 International Trends in New ZealandVikash Naidoo

6 National Regulation of Transnational Higher Education Line Verbik and Lisa Jokivirta

Markets and Finance

8 Innovations in the Allocation of Public FundsJamil Salmi and Arthur Hauptman

9 In Trouble with FeesMichael Shattock

11 Manpower Planning and University Enrollments in SingaporePang Eng Fong and Linda Lim

17 Dual Privatization in Georgian Higher EducationMarie Pachuashvili

20 An Anniversary: The Center for International Higher EducationPhilip G. Altbach

23 Center Publication Series

23 New Publications

Private Higher Education and Privatization

14 The Impact of Public-Sector Privatization in ChinaYingxia Cao and Daniel C. Levy

15 Private-Public Dynamics: Graduate Education in UruguayPablo Landoni Couture

Departments

Countries and Regions

19 Afghanistan: Transformation, Reform, and RenewalWillliam G. Tierney

18 Mexico’s Brain DrainSylvie Didou Aupetit

12 Markets, Accountability, and Privatization in the United StatesPeter Eckel, Lara Couturier, and Dao Luu

I

Cross-Border Education: NotJust Students on the MoveJane KnightJane Knight is an adjunct professor at the Comparative, International,Development Education Centre, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education,University of Toronto. E-mail: [email protected].

Over the next 20 years the demand for higher education willdefinitely outstrip the capacity of some countries to meet

domestic need. The Global Student Mobility 2025 Report, pre-pared by IDP Education Australia, predicts the demand forinternational education will increase from 1.8 million interna-tional students in 2000 to 7.2 million in 2025.

By all accounts these staggering figures present enormouschallenges and opportunities. As students continue moving toother countries to pursue their studies, they will remain animportant part of the international dimension of higher educa-tion. But student mobility cannot satisfy the hunger for highereducation within densely populated countries wanting to buildhuman capacity and thus fully participate in the knowledgesociety—hence the emergence and exponential growth ofcross-border education programs and providers. These newtypes of providers, forms of delivery, and models of collabora-tion will offer students education programs in their homecountries.

Program and Provider Mobility During the last few years, the movement of education pro-grams and providers across national boundaries has created ahotbed of activity and innovation. The Observatory onBorderless Higher Education (www.obhe.ac.uk) tracks thesenew developments and recently reported on the following ini-tiatives. Laureate Education (formerly Sylvan LearningSystems) has purchased (fully or in part) private higher educa-tion institutions in Chile, Mexico, Panama, and Costa Rica andowns universities in Spain, Switzerland, and France. Dubaihas developed a “Knowledge Village” in the Dubai Technologyand Media Free Zone; and to date the London School ofEconomics, India’s Manipal Academy of Higher Education,and the University of Wollongong from Australia are offeringcourses through franchising agreements and branch campus-es. Phoenix University has become the largest private universi-ty in the United States (owned and operated by the ApolloGroup company) and is now operating or delivering courses inPuerto Rico, Canada, the Netherlands, and Mexico. TheNetherlands Business School (Universitiet Nijenrode) recentlyopened a branch campus in Nigeria, and Harvard is developingtwo branch-campus initiatives—one in Cyprus and the other inthe United Arab Emirates. Jinan University will be the firstChinese university to open a branch campus outside ofChina—in Thailand.

Three Canadian universities are formally working with the

Al-Ahram Organization, a large private conglomerate, to estab-lish the Al-Ahram Canadian University, in Egypt. TheCanadian University will complement the German, American,and British universities that are already operating in Egypt.The franchise agreement that offers the distance MBA pro-gram of Heriot-Watt University from the United Kingdom,through the American University in Egypt, illustrates the com-plexity of some of the new arrangements among partners.Another example involves the partnership between the CaparoGroup, a UK firm with interests in steel, engineering, andhotels and Carnegie Mellon University (US) to set up a newcampus in India. In terms of volume alone, in 2002,Australian universities had over 97,000 students enrolled in1,569 cross-border programs, as of June 2003, Hong Kong had858 degree-level programs from 11 different countries operat-ing in SAR, and Singapore had 522 degree-level programsfrom 12 foreign countries.

In addition to these few examples, hundreds of new initia-tives have developed in the last five years. Higher educationproviders, including institutions and private companies, deliv-er their courses and programs to students in their home coun-tries using a broad range of delivery modes. New programs arebeing designed and delivered in response to local conditionsand global challenges, and new qualifications are being con-ferred. Clearly it is no longer just the students who are movingacross borders. The world has now entered a new era of cross-border education.

The Need for Reliable Data There is a serious lack of solid data on the volume and type ofcross-border programs and provider mobility. Institutions andnational education systems have invested a lot of effort to gath-er reliable data on student mobility, but only in the last fiveyears are countries and international organizations starting totrack program and provider mobility. Australia, New Zealand,and, more recently, the United Kingdom have been gatheringstatistics from their recognized higher education institutionson cross-border education provision. The lack of commonterms and systems of gathering data creates a huge challengein trying to compare this data. Moreover, the paucity of infor-mation from both sending and receiving countries on programand provider mobility creates an undesirable environment of

international higher education

internationalization trends2

To our Non-US readers:Due to a mailing error, many readers outside ofthe United States did not receive our summer2005 issue (number 40). We are therefore includ-ing a copy of this issue along with our new fall2005 issue. We apologize for any inconvenience.If this is a duplicate issue, please give it to a col-league or library. We are, by the way, able tosend IHE to libraries without cost.

speculation, confusion, and often misinformation. This canundermine confidence in the quality and dependability ofcross-border education provision and impedes the analysisneeded to underpin solid policy and regulatory frameworks.

Issues and ImplicationsThe national-level issues related to registration and licensingof cross-border providers, quality assurance, accreditation andrecognition of qualifications affect individual providers and,especially, higher education institutions. The quality of aca-demic programs starts with the provider delivering the pro-gram. Most higher education institutions employ adequatequality assurance procedures for domestic delivery but notnecessarily for all the aspects of cross-border delivery. Workingcross-culturally in a foreign regulatory environment and,potentially, with a partner can raise new issues—including aca-demic entry requirements, student examination and assess-ment procedures, workload, delivery modes, adaptation of thecurriculum, quality assurance of teaching, academic and soci-ocultural support for students, title and level of award, and oth-ers. Quality issues also need to be balanced with the financialinvestment and return to the source provider. Intellectualproperty ownership, choice of partners, division of responsibil-ities, academic and business risk assessments, and internaland external approval processes constitute only some of theissues the higher education institutions need to resolve.

The growth in the volume, scope, and dimensions of cross-border education may provide increased access and promoteinnovation and responsiveness of higher education, but thesedevelopments also bring new challenges and unexpected con-sequences. The current realities include the fact that unrecog-nized and rogue cross-border providers are active, that much

of the latest cross-border education is driven by commercialinterests, and that mechanisms to recognize qualifications andensure quality of the academic courses and programs are stillnot in place in many countries. These realities present majorchallenges to the education sector. It is important to acknowl-edge the huge potential of cross-border education but not atthe expense of academic quality and integrity. Higher educa-tion is not the only sector that needs to look at ways to guide,monitor, and regulate the movement of education programsand providers. It needs to work in close cooperation with othersectors and to play a pivotal role in ensuring that cross-bordereducation reflects and helps to meet individual countries’ edu-cational goals, culture, priorities, and policies.

International Students at IndianUniversitiesVeena BhallaVeena Bhalla is on the staff of the Association of Indian Universities.Address: 16, Comrade Indrajit Gupta Marg. New Delhi 110 002, India. E-mail: [email protected].

Transnational movement of students is obviously the mostvisible and, perhaps, most significant manifestation of the

internationalization of higher education. Since the early 1990sthe number of students crossing their national borders foracquiring knowledge and skills has steadily increased. Thenumber of students entering developed countries has shown aconsiderable rise. Unfortunately, this has not happened in thecase of India, which has the third-largest higher education sys-tem in the world and, therefore, is a potential exporter orprovider of education, at least to the Third World.

Presently, international students from about 125 countriesare pursuing various undergraduate, postgraduate, andresearch programs in India at recognized universities andinstitutions. The countries that provide the international stu-dents can be grouped into two categories: first, developedcountries that are technologically advanced and economicallystrong and have good facilities for higher education and train-ing (e.g., the United States, United Kingdom, Canada,Australia, countries of the European Union, and Japan); andsecond, the less-developed and developing countries that havelimited facilities for education—not only in professional fieldssuch as engineering, medicine, and management—but also inscience, humanities, social sciences, commerce, and law.

Data collected by the Association of Indian Universitiesover the period 1992–1993 to 2003–2004 suggest the numberof international students coming to India steadily increasedduring the first half of the 1990s, with a peak of over 13,000being achieved in 1993–1994. Subsequently there was a steadydecrease, with a marked fall occurring in 1996–1997; by theend of the millennium the number had halved. This trend wasprobably due to the fact that while many developed countries,and especially the United Kingdom and Australia, were aggres-sively marketing their educational ware, India was inactive inthis regard. However, the number of international studentsincreased during 2001–2002, after India adopted a more pos-itive approach, possibly suggesting a reversal of the trend.

More than 95 percent of international students in Indiacome from the developing countries of Asia and Africa. Thecountries that sent the most students in 2003–2004 areMalaysia, Nepal, Iran, and Kenya (about 500 each), followed byMauritius, Sri Lanka, the United States, and Ethiopia (over 300each). Significantly, during 2003–2004 there has been anincrease in the number of students from East Asia, the MiddleEast, South and Central Asia, Southeast Asia, northern

3


internationalization trends

It is important to acknowledge the huge poten-

tial of cross-border education but not at the

expense of academic quality and integrity.

Europe, and North America. The largest number of studentsare from South and Central Asia (2,102) followed by EastAfrica (1,465). The countries that sent increased numbers ofstudents in 2003–2004 include Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, SaudiArabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Malaysia, Vietnam,Sudan, Ghana, Ethiopia, Mauritius, Canada, and the UnitedStates.

The same period (2003–2004) has seen a decrease in thenumber of students from North Korea, Syria, Yemen,Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Eritrea,Kenya, Somalia, Tanzania, and Uganda. In the same year, thelargest number of students came from Malaysia (806). In2003–2004, the largest number attended the ManipalAcademy of Higher Education (2,031), followed by theUniversity of Pune (1,416) and the University of Delhi (1,077).

International students prefer to join educational institu-tions located in metropolitan cities like Delhi, Mumbai,Chennai, and Pune. They join colleges located in smallertowns only for professional programs. As is to be expected, theinternational student population in India is not equally distrib-uted over the country or in the various disciplines. Studentsprefer the western (especially Maharashtra) and southern partsof India. This is due to more congenial social and cultural envi-ronments.

To make Indian universities more attractive to internationalstudents will require a variety of improvements. Indian univer-sities must take steps to provide better infrastructure and facil-ities to international students. The country’s academic struc-ture needs to “internationalize” the curricula and becomemore flexible. The University Grants Commission is promot-ing the export of education through its Committee for thePromotion of Indian Higher Education Abroad. Significantly,at this point the private universities and colleges are the onesmaking efforts to attract students by providing good infrastruc-ture and other facilities.

Foreign Universities in India:Market-Driven New Directions Sudhanshu BhushanSudhanshu Bhushan is senior fellow and head of the Higher EducationUnit, National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration, 17BSri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi 110 016, India. E-mail:[email protected].

Anew direction for the higher education system in Indiaconsists of market-driven transnational provision of edu-

cation through the mobility of programs and educational insti-tutions. At present this phenomenon is symbolic and marketdriven, and as yet there is no policy guideline on foreign uni-versities. Given the strong demand for foreign degrees by

Indian students, market-driven trends may dominate in thefuture. In the absence of government regulation of foreign uni-versities the new trend is posing problems with respect to qual-ity. It increases the risk and uncertainty for the holder of qual-ification as the recognition of degrees is found to be absent.Moreover, the marketization promotes the commercializationof higher education.

The Presence of Foreign InstitutionsAn analysis of the presence of foreign institutions with respectto the country of origin, program types, and modes of opera-tion reveals interesting facts. At present only the United Statesand the United Kingdom have shown interest in collaboratingwith Indian partners. Of the 131 institutions in the sample, 59institutions partnered with UK universities and 66 institutionspartnered with US universities. There are other potential coun-tries such as Australia, New Zealand, and Canada that are con-stantly watching the developments and the government standon any regulation regarding foreign education providers. Atpresent these countries are organizing educational fairs. Theyalso have representatives to attract Indian students to theirrespective countries. They lack collaboration with the Indianeducation system, as they do not find any enabling laws for thelegal operation.

Out of the total sample of 131 institutions in India, 107 wereproviding vocational programs, 19 technical programs, andonly 5 general education. In the vocational category, manage-ment programs were the most popular. Business managementand hotel management constitute approximately 80 percent ofthe total number of programs. Information shows thatMaharashtra has the maximum number of programs in hotelmanagement. Delhi has the maximum number of programs inbusiness management. In technical programs, at present notmuch interest is shown, although 19 institutions were active intechnical sectors as well.

Analysis of 50 institutions shows that the maximum num-ber (30) of programs are offered under twinning arrange-ments. This is one of the preferred methods for foreign insti-tutions to attract international students to the home country.Twinning is a relatively cheap option, as part of the program isundertaken in the host country. The programmatic collabora-tions (18) consist of joint-program and joint-degree provisionby the institutions of the home and host countries. Indian part-ners prefer to design programs with the inputs received fromthe foreign institution, thereby making the arrangementshighly cost competitive. In this mode Indian private partnersprefer to collaborate when they get a brand name of a foreignuniversity to award the degree. There are only two franchisedinstitutions in India. There are no offshore campuses in India.The opening of a branch campus requires an investment interms of infrastructure. Some study centers of UK universitieswere also found to be operational in India.

Analysis of student perceptions indicates that the practical,market-oriented nature of programs, flexible curricula and



internationalization trends 5


examinations, attractive evaluation systems, and good jobprospects constitute the strong factors leading to growingenrollments in foreign-degree programs.

Rationale and MechanicsA number of rationales may explain the presence of foreigninstitutions in India. There is a growing demand for foreigndegrees, triggered in part by the international mobility ofknowledge workers. The supply constraint in the public provi-sion of higher education has opened up the market for privateproviders of education. They found an opportunity to link upwith foreign universities to provide foreign degrees that attractthe students for programs that could be easily marketed. Theother side of the picture is that the foreign providers willing tocollaborate saw this as an opportunity to sell education.However, the mechanics of operations are not guided by com-

petition. What is the context of the market-driven trend of the grow-

ing number of foreign higher education providers in India?There is neither recognition of foreign degrees in India norany mechanism in place for the mutual recognition of degreesabroad or at home. The holder of a foreign degree earned inIndia may find it difficult to achieve job security, therebyincreasing the uncertainty of a professional career. There is atpresent no system of quality assurance and accreditation ofcross-border education operating in India. An importantaspect is that private higher education partners rely mostly onguest faculty. It is also not clear who bears the responsibility—private institutions in India or the foreign collaborators andproviders of foreign degrees. Nevertheless, enthusiasm amongIndian students for foreign degrees has supported the com-mercialization. Some of the aspirants for foreign degreeschoose to earn foreign degrees in India at a relatively lower costthan for the same degree earned abroad.

The concern for policymakers in India is that the new mar-ket-driven trend backed by strong demand defies the domesticregulatory system, which clearly stipulates that only universi-ties established under central or state control have the author-ity to confer degrees. On the other hand, regulating foreigneducation providers amounts to accepting their existence,amending the University Grants Commission act and settingstandards and quality assurance for cross-border education. Allthese issues might put pressure on the government to improvethe competitiveness of public universities, which would in turnamount to committing resources for higher education. As theresources are limited for funding public universities, a market-driven trend might lead to further privatization. Given suchpossibilities, government finds it convenient, instead, to glossover the presence of foreign universities. However, given pres-

sure from international agencies to regulate and put in placethe mechanism for quality assurance the government might infuture accept the presence of foreign universities without get-ting ready for the competition they will create. Under these cir-cumstances, the long-term dynamics of foreign universities inIndia would thus lead to commercialization without raisingcompetitiveness in the system.

Strengthening InternationalEducation in New Zealand

Vikash Naidoo

Vikash Naidoo is the international relations officer in the Office of the ProVice-Chancellor (International) at the University of Auckland in NewZealand. E-mail: [email protected].

International education, primarily in terms of internationalstudent recruitment, has been a rapidly growing industry in

New Zealand. While in 1995 it was responsible for NZ$530million (US$370 million) in foreign exchange, by 2003 it wasestimated to have created over 20,000 jobs and contributedNZ$1.7 billion (US$1.1 billion) to the local economy.Approximately 31,000 international students were enrolled atNew Zealand’s tertiary institutions in 2003 compared to amere 4,000 in 1995. For a small country with only 8 universi-ties and 20 polytechnics (as community colleges are known inNew Zealand), such growth especially in a relatively short timeframe is quite substantial. Furthermore, although there are rel-atively small numbers of international students in NewZealand's tertiary institutions, these students comprise a sim-ilar proportion of the total tertiary roll as they do in countriessuch as the United States and Canada.

Complementing this economic dimension of internationaleducation, the development of deeper educational relation-ships with other countries has enriched New Zealand’s social,cultural, and political networks. Recognizing the role of inter-national education as an established sector of the New Zealandeducation system, the government has recently committedNZ$21 million (US$15 million) over the next four years to sup-port its development. In particular, this new funding is focusedon developing the government’s educational diplomacy in keycountries, attracting high-quality doctoral students to study inNew Zealand, and creating an innovation fund to support NewZealand education providers in new product and service devel-opment—all with the aim of enhancing New Zealand’s reputa-tion as a high-quality education provider on the internationalscene.

Through “education diplomacy,” the government is settingup seven offshore education counselor positions to developstronger and deeper linkages with those parts of the world rec-

There is a growing demand for foreign degrees,triggered in part by the international mobilityof knowledge workers.

ognized globally as centers of educational excellence. The firstfour positions are being located in Beijing (from February2004), Washington DC (from mid-2005), Brussels (late 2005),and Kuala Lumpur (early 2006). Details on the location of theother three positions are yet to be released. The intention isthat these counselors will be able to identify and share bestpractice in the field of international education between NewZealand and education providers in each of their respectivelocations.

The International Doctoral Scholarship Program, funded bythe government, is designed to provide financial support todoctoral students undertaking research. In 2005, the year of itsintroduction, 40 such scholarships were awarded to studentsfrom designated countries in North America, Latin America,Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Over the next two years, theprogram will be progressively expanded, with the aim that by2007 up to 100 doctoral scholarships will be awarded annual-ly to applicants irrespective of country of origin. The objectivebehind this program is to share New Zealand’s excellence withthe rest of the world and to bring the best students from othercountries to share their knowledge with New Zealand.Complementing this program, the government has also decid-ed that from January 2006, all international students applyingfor doctoral studies at a New Zealand university will not besubject to international differential fees. This means that evenif an international student does not gain a scholarship, theywill be able to study for a New Zealand PhD at subsidizeddomestic fees. Similarly, from January 2006, school-ageddependents of international PhD students studying at NewZealand universities will not have to pay international tuitionfees to attend New Zealand schools.

The third initiative, the Innovation Fund, will support NewZealand education providers to develop new markets, newbusiness models and structures, new delivery options for inter-national education including offshore campuses, online pro-grams and twinning arrangements with offshore educationproviders as well as the development of new educational pro-grams. It is recognized by the government that insufficientinnovation can be a detriment to the competitiveness and sus-tainability of the New Zealand’s export education industry.Hence, the overall objective of this fund is to assist with thedevelopment of value-added activities. During the first fouryears, the fund will primarily target encouraging offshore ini-tiatives. Compared to other competing countries, New Zealandcurrently relies almost exclusively on onshore delivery of inter-national education. In encouraging offshore initiatives, thegovernment is looking at diversifying risks. Similarly, thedevelopment of offshore education should benefit the sustain-

ability of onshore education by acting as a marketing presenceand providing potential pathways for international students tocome study in New Zealand.

These three initiatives are aimed at keeping New Zealand’sinternational education sector competitive in an increasinglydynamic industry. However, it is to be acknowledged that thesepolicies are not a means to an end. The New Zealand govern-ment recognizes this reality and understands that its invest-ment needs a long-term focus. Hence, we can expect to seemore investment in the future.

National Regulatory Approachesto Transnational HigherEducationLine Verbik and Lisa JokivirtaLine Verbik is a research officer and Lisa Jokivirta is deputy director at theObservatory on Borderless Higher Education, 36 Gordon Sq., London,WC1H OPF, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected] and [email protected]. URL: www.obhe.ac.uk .

Transnational higher education is not a new phenomenon,but the pace of its global expansion is a new development.

(Transnational is used here to designate higher education pro-vided by one country in another and excludes provision wherejust the students travel abroad.) As foreign delivery becomesincreasingly widespread, countries are facing a growing needto regulate this type of provision. Although many countrieshave yet to establish a clear regulatory framework for theimport and export of transnational higher education, ambi-tions to regulate and offer quality assurance for this type ofprovision are an emerging international trend.

Transnational higher education serves different purposes indifferent countries. Overall, the perceived benefits of transna-tional delivery include domestic capacity building, broader stu-dent choice in education systems facing resource constraints,minimizing the resources flowing out of the country, reducingbrain drain, and enhancing innovation and competitiveness inthe sector. However, provision has a tendency to be concentrat-ed in certain subject areas (e.g., business and information tech-nology). While such provision undoubtedly meets a need, it isunclear to what extent it seriously addresses the developmentagenda of the host country and thus contributes to real capaci-ty building. Experience with foreign education of low qualityhas made some countries wary of this type of provision andhas prompted them to work on making the sector less of anopen and easy market for foreign institutions. Concerns havefrequently been raised over the quality of transnational provi-sion, the impact on national authority over higher education,and unfair competition with domestic institutions.

Through a substantial research project, the Observatory has



Through “education diplomacy,” the govern-ment is setting up seven offshore educationcounselor positions to develop stronger anddeeper linkages. . . .

internationalization trends 7


made an attempt to categorize regulatory frameworks forimported transnational provision into six main models. Whena significant discrepancy exists between regulations and recog-nition (e.g., there are no legal barriers but recognition of for-eign qualifications is virtually impossible), this is indicated(see “very restrictive” model). Many countries allowingtransnational provision have a separate framework to addressthe recognition of foreign/transnational qualifications.

This article is not intended to provide an exhaustive exami-nation of national regulatory approaches but rather anoverview of different models and emerging trends. Somecountries will not fit perfectly into a category. Not only is verylittle statistical data available about transnational provision(few countries systematically collect information on this typeof activity), but it is also one of the most rapidly changing fieldsof higher education. The discrepancies that often occurbetween the letter and practice of the law are worth noting. Theauthority over regulation can also be unclear, given that manycountries have a decentralized system where individual statesor regions control the higher education sector.

Regulatory ModelsNo regulations. There are no special regulations or control of

foreign providers, which are free to operate without seekingpermission from the host country. Examples include: CzechRepublic, France, Malta, Mexico, Nigeria, Russia, Serbia, andSri Lanka.

Liberal. Foreign providers must satisfy certain minimumconditions prior to commencing operations (e.g., official recog-nition in the home country). Examples include: Argentina,Bahrain, Estonia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway,Peru, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UnitedKingdom.

Moderately liberal. The importing country is actively involvedin licensing and (in some cases) accrediting transnationalproviders. This model requires that foreign institutions gainaccreditation or other formal permission by the host country(e.g., Ministry of Education) prior to commencing operations.This category is diverse, ranging from compulsory registrationto formal assessment of academic criteria. Requirements aregenerally straightforward and nonburdensome. Examplesinclude: Australia, Bangladesh, China, Egypt, Hong Kong,Israel, Jamaica, Pakistan, Singapore, and Vietnam.

Transitional—from liberal to more restrictive. A more restric-tive regulatory framework is gradually being introduced.Changes in legislation can include: compulsory registrationand/or accreditation through the national system in order forforeign institutions to be allowed to operate and/or for theirdegrees to be recognized, requirements to establish a presence

in the country, and criteria for collaboration between domesticand foreign institutions, as well as other factors. Example:India.

Transitional—from restrictive to more liberal. New legislationaimed at removing restrictions for foreign institutions wishingto operate in the country is being introduced. The new guide-lines usually follow a period where regulations have practicallyruled out transnational provision. In some cases, restrictionsare only lifted in specified areas (e.g., South Korea), in otherschanges apply to the entire country (e.g., Japan). Examplesinclude: Japan and South Korea.

Very restrictive—regulations concerning permission to operate.The government or another authoritative higher educationbody imposes strict requirements on foreign providers. Suchinstitutions may be required to establish a physical presence inthe country (i.e., franchised provision is not allowed), onlyinstitutions or programs accredited by the host country’sagency are authorized, and foreign providers must changetheir curricula to be in line with domestic provision, and otherfactors. Examples include Bulgaria, Cyprus, South Africa, andthe United Arab Emirates.

Virtually impossible recognition for qualifications obtainedthrough transnational provision. The government does not rec-ognize foreign qualifications obtained through transnationalprovision. Foreign institutions wishing to grant recognizeddegrees must become part of the national system (this optionmay not be straightforward). Examples include: Belgium (fran-cophone) and Greece.

Emerging capacity-building model? If not legally mandated bythe importing country, it is suggested that foreign institutionscould increasingly be expected to adopt a development-basedrhetoric to secure external support and funding from both theimporting and exporting countries. Institutions are increasing-ly aware that to boost capacity, safeguard institutional reputa-tion, and assist in the strengthening of domestic systems, along-term commitment to the country through sustainablepartnerships or other investment is required.

The Main Findings and ObservationsThe general trend appears to be allowing the import oftransnational provision but increasingly attempting to regu-late this type of activity. A trend toward adopting any one par-ticular model, however, has not been detected.

There are signs that the issue of providing locally sensitivebut sustainable transnational education will be of growingimportance for exporting and importing institutions and coun-tries.

A potential trend exists toward developing regulatory frame-works at the regional and international levels, although theactual impact remains less clear.

The Observatory would be grateful for information on countriesnot listed here (particularly those outside the English-speakingworld), as well as any feedback on the examples provided. For further

Transnational higher education serves differ-ent purposes in different countries.

markets and finance


8

details, please refer to the two-part report “National RegulatoryFrameworks for Transnational Higher Education: Models and Trends”at www.obhe.ac.uk.

Innovations in the Allocation ofPublic FundsJamil Salmi and Arthur HauptmanJamil Salmi is coordinator of the World Bank’s Tertiary EducationThematic Group. Arthur Hauptman is an independent public policy con-sultant specializing in higher education finance issues. Address: The WorldBank, 1818 H St. NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA. E-mail: Salmi: [email protected]; Hauptman: [email protected]. This article isdrawn from a forthcoming World Bank paper on allocation mechanisms.

In recent decades, a growing number of countries havesought innovative solutions to the substantial challenges

they face in financing tertiary education. One of the principalchallenges, the demand for education beyond the secondarylevel, is growing in most countries around the world far fasterthan the ability or willingness of governments to provide ade-quate public resources.

The reasons for this rapid increase in demand are numer-ous. First, in virtually all countries, the economic value ofattaining a tertiary education, as measured by rates of return orother factors, is growing faster than the economic returnsaccruing to those who receive a secondary education or less.Second, in many cultures strong social pressures are exertedon students for moving beyond the secondary level of educa-tion based on nonmonetary factors such as greater socialstanding and prestige in the community—sometimes evenbetter marriage prospects for girls. Third, many countries areattempting to increase the relevance of tertiary education cur-ricula as governments and tertiary education institutionsdeemphasize certain fields with low levels of labor forcedemand, such as public administration and education, in favorof fields more closely linked to emerging labor force needs,such as information technology, engineering, and science.

The demands placed on public resources are typicallyintense as governments around the world face challengesacross the board in providing better health care, housing,transportation, agriculture, as well as the full range of educa-tion. In this context, tertiary education is often far from thehighest priority for public funding in both industrial and devel-oping countries.

Countries and institutions around the world have respond-ed to this mismatch between available public resources and thegrowing demand for tertiary education in several generic ways.The most frequent response has been to mobilize moreresources, principally by introducing or raising tuition fees as

a means of increasing cost sharing. Another related responsehas been to seek increased private resources through the com-mercialization of research and other private uses of institution-al facilities and staff. A third, perhaps less commonly foundresponse, has been an increased reliance on bonds and otherforms of creative financing that allow for greater public or pri-vate partnerships to provide services related to tertiary educa-tion activities.

A related trend has been the development of a variety ofinnovative allocation mechanisms that allow both public andprivate funds to go farther in meeting the challenges that terti-ary education systems face around the world. Our recent studyfound these innovative mechanisms cover a broad range ofapproaches:

1. Funding methodologies for recurrent expenses and capi-tal investment have evolved in a number of countries from themore traditional negotiations of budgets between governmentsand institutions to increasingly sophisticated funding formu-las that aim to insulate allocation decisions from excessivepolitical pressures and encourage desired institutional behav-ior.

2. As has recently happened in Colorado, some “demand-side” voucher systems have been created in which institution-al operating subsidies will be distributed through a vouchergiven to all undergraduates. In some cases, the allocation offixed funds to institutions is based on the characteristics ofenrolled students, an approach that might be referred to as“supply-side” vouchers.

3. Performance-based funding mechanisms have beenadopted in a number of countries. A portion of funding may beset aside to be distributed to institutions on the basis of a seriesof performance measures. Performance contracts are negotiat-ed between governments and institutions. Competitive fund-ing is introduced that encourages innovation, greater academ-ic quality, and strengthening institutional management capac-ity. Another approach includes financing mechanisms thatdirectly pay for results, either as part of the basic funding for-mula or as a separate set of payments of institutions.

4. In some countries financial aid has been substantiallyexpanded for students with high levels of financial need or aca-demic merit to allow for financing strategies that use higherfees to increase overall institutional resource levels, includingstudent aid in the form of vouchers to stimulate competitionamong institutions—as an alternative to publicly funded butinstitutionally administered student aid programs.

5. In a number of countries tax benefits have been createdto help students and their families offset the expense of tuitionfees, as well as family allowances primarily designed to cover

The growing diversity of funding sources hasbeen an important response by governmentsand institutions to the mismatch betweendemand and resources.

the living costs associated with attendance in tertiary educa-tion.

6. In many countries around the world student loans havebeen expanded—including the development of variousincome-contingent repayment schedules in a half dozen coun-tries over the past two decades in which repayment levels aretied to the amount borrowed and the income of borrowersonce they complete their education. Another approachincludes a series of creative financing arrangements by whichthe initial funding of mortgage-type student loans is leveragedto provide higher capital levels through modern financingtechniques.

These innovative approaches for allocating public fundshold the promise of helping countries improve the access,equity, quality, relevance, and efficiency of their tertiary educa-tion systems. But policymakers and institutional officials mustbe careful to recognize the obstacles of successful implemen-tation of these innovative approaches—including administra-tive capacity, transparency, and political feasibility.

Lessons from International ExperienceResource mobilization and allocation mechanisms. The grow-

ing diversity of funding sources has been an importantresponse by governments and institutions to the mismatchbetween demand and resources. Similarly, countries shouldrely on a mix of allocation mechanisms to achieve the objec-tives they seek for their tertiary education systems.

Mix of allocation instruments. While linking budget alloca-tions to some measure of performance should be a guidingprinciple, the selection of allocation instrument should dependto a great degree on the policy objectives being sought. Someallocation mechanisms are much better at achieving certainobjectives than others. In addition, what works well in onecountry will not necessarily work well in another. Many of themore innovative allocation approaches require strong govern-ment structures and adequate public-resource bases. Manydeveloping and transition countries lack these basic essentialsand thus must look to other approaches that do not have theserequirements for success.

Policy objectives. Policy discussions in many countries oftentend to devolve into general discussions of the need for moreaccess or better quality or greater efficiency. Without preciseand accurate definition of the objectives being sought, thesepolicy discussions can easily slide into advocacy exercises inwhich more of everything is better, with little or no prioritiza-tion of goals or objectives.

Links with systems of quality assurance. Governments shouldbe careful not to establish too rigid a relationship between theresults of evaluation and accreditation and the amount of fund-ing going to tertiary education institutions. A more effectiveapproach may be to make participation in evaluation andaccreditation exercises a criterion for access to additional pub-lic funding, rather than a determinant of the amount of thatfunding.

Political feasibility. Many financing reforms, including estab-lishing or increasing tuition fees, replacing scholarships withstudent loans, or authorizing private tertiary education institu-tions to operate are controversial measures. Political difficultyshould not be used, however, to delay implementing necessaryand important reforms. Expert studies, stakeholder consulta-tions, public debates and press campaigns should be used tominimize the risks of opposition and resistance.

These rules for the road should help stakeholders in devel-oping, transitional, and industrialized countries make the rightchoices for achieving successful allocation strategies for terti-ary education.

The Trouble with FeesMichael ShattockMichael Shattock is a visiting professor at the Institute of Education,University of London and is a former registrar at the University of Warwick.E-mail: [email protected].

On May 5th the new Labour government was returned tooffice with a parliamentary majority reduced from 161 to

66. While the dominant themes in the election were clearly theIraq invasion and immigration, the decision to raise tuitionfees for higher education students in England was the thirdmost important issue on the doorstep. It was vociferouslyopposed, with conviction, by the Liberal Democrats, who couldand did mobilize the student vote. The issue was also opposed,although one might have thought against their naturalinstincts, by the Tories. The issue was so controversial that itwas only won by the government, even with its previous major-ity, by 5 votes in the House of Commons in 2004, and veryobviously it would not have succeeded if it had been delayeduntil after the election.

It is difficult to see why the decision was so controversial.Fees of £1,200 are already in force for 2005–2006 for everyundergraduate higher education student in England; and thenew decision, while raising the fee level in 2006 to up to£3,000 (depending on the charge levied by the university),does not demand an up-front payment on entry because the feeis to be paid after graduation on an income-contingent basis,with the government paying the fee at entry. Under means-testarrangements students from disadvantaged backgrounds canreceive up to £2,700 per annum in maintenance grant.Students will thus be better off during their period of studyunder the new arrangements and will only be required to payafter graduation providing they are earning over £15,000, asagainst the current average graduating salary of about£19,000. A strong, secondary argument in favor of the newscheme is that it requires the middle classes, which benefit dis-proportionately from the higher education system both interms of entry (over 70 percent of the higher education studentpopulation is from the professional and managerial classes)


markets and finance 9

markets and finance

and from salaries and career prospects on graduation, to con-tribute more to the costs of higher education than lowerincome groups, which benefit much less but nevertheless haveto contribute to the costs through the tax system.

The new scheme, however, was opposed by an alliance ofthose who believe that higher education should be free andthose who saw it as a “stealth tax.” A further strand of opposi-tion came from those who opposed a variable-fees policy. Theuniversities had campaigned for fees to be raised to alleviatethe continuing financial stringency. The rector of ImperialCollege had publicly demanded that fees should be raised atImperial to £10,000 per annum if the college was to remaininternationally competitive. Variable fees introduced a marketelement—in fact only a tiny majority of institutions chose notto charge the full £3,000—but also left open in the future theprospect of the fee levels being allowed to increase.

To get the variable-fee policy through, the government hadto concede two control mechanisms. The first was that a bur-sary contribution must be made, out of the fee income, to allstudents from disadvantaged backgrounds, and a new agency,the Office of Fair Access (OFFA), was set up to give approval toindividual universities’ plans to charge fees against their pro-posals for bursary payments. The second was the creation of anindependent commission to review the fee policy in 2009 andan agreement that no increase could be introduced except withthe approval of Parliament after the commission had reported.

Thus, although one might see the introduction of variablefees as a further, timid, step in the marketization of highereducation, the control on higher education numbers has notbeen relaxed to prevent the most prestigious universities fromexpanding (and enriching themselves) at the expense of therest. Moreover the two control mechanisms themselves pro-vide opportunities for future market interventions and uncer-tainty that severely limit the original intentions of the scheme.

In March OFFA published the bursary levels that universi-ties were offering. They showed an astonishing range with asa general rule the most prestigious institutions (that receivethe fewest suitably qualified candidates from disadvantagedbackgrounds) offering bursaries of around £3,000 per annumand those institutions that have the least competitive intakes(and therefore the most candidates from disadvantaged back-grounds) offering between £300 and £500. Within theseextremes there is a clustering around £1,000 to £1,500 perannum with very few post-1992 institutions exceeding £1,000per annum. The institutional pecking order, established by theleague tables, is thus replicated in the level of bursary offers,although it is becoming clear that there will be discretion with-

in most university offer levels to recognize particular studentcircumstances. Some universities are also offering a range ofextras such as free laptops, vouchers for bicycles, and cashincentives.

Surprisingly, however, a market in bursaries has stimulatedconcerns about the danger of intake shortfalls, and the com-bined risks of not benefiting fully from the fee increase and ofthe imposition of a “claw-back” by the Funding Council if tar-gets are not met. As a consequence, universities are nowplunging into a scholarship market (“golden hellos”) to attractstudents with high A-level scores irrespective of social class,also to be funded out of fee income. No list of scholarships

available has been published but two conclusions can bedrawn: the first is that the competitive market at the admis-sions stage has been greatly intensified and the second thatovernight the student process of selecting universities forapplication has become immeasurably more complicated.Financial incentives have been added to more traditional con-cerns of choosing the right course, getting admission to a uni-versity whose league-table placement might help employmentprospects, or picking a university in a particular location. Thebureaucratic costs for each institution in managing these oper-ations will further deplete the benefit of the additional incometo be derived from the new fee structure.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that decisionmaking on higher education is a devolved function to Scotland,Wales, and Northern Ireland. In Scotland, the LiberalDemocrats made it a condition of entering a coalition govern-ment with Labour that the decision in 2001 to introduce feesshould be resisted, and the Scottish Executive has continued tofollow this principle with the new structure. This has prompt-ed special arrangements to charge English students choosingto enter Scottish universities, one or two of which are heavilydependent on an English intake. In Wales, where half of Welshstudents choose to study in England, a complex consultationprocess is being undertaken to determine whether Welsh stu-dents studying in Wales will pay fees. In both Scotland andWales, the universities are concerned that the additionalincome apparently becoming available to English universitieswill make them less competitive in terms of salaries andresearch ratings. In Northern Ireland, still ruled fromWestminster because of the present standoff in NorthernIreland politics, the decision to move to the new fee structurehas been taken, but because of considerable cross-border stu-dent traffic this will create tensions with the Irish Republic,which has so far resisted the recommendations of an OECDreview of its higher education system to charge tuition fees.


10

Some universities are also offering a range ofextras such as free laptops, vouchers for bicycles,and cash incentives.

The most frequent response has been to mobilizemore resources, principally introducing or raisingtuition fees as a means of increasing cost shar-ing.

markets and finance 11


There is a temptation to see all this as presaging a wide-spread move in Europe to charge tuition fees, and indeed, arecent European Commission document could be seen asencouraging such a development. But as the narrowness of thevote in the UK House of Commons shows and the continuedresistance in Scotland and Wales, the introduction of a sub-stantial tuition-fee element to first-degree work undertaken byhome students is deeply controversial, even in the most mar-ket-led higher education system in the European Union andeven when the scheme is designed in a way that might not bethought unattractive to students. With its reduced majority, theBlair government may even find it difficult to retain the newlyintroduced system when Parliament reviews it, as it is commit-ted to do, in 2009. At the very least it is unlikely that the advo-cates of raising the £3,000 limit much in 2009 will be success-ful, and, as a consequence, the government will find itselfunder renewed pressure from the universities for a larger pub-lic investment in higher education.

Manpower Planning andUniversity Enrollments: TheDebate in Singapore

Pang Eng Fong and Linda LimPang Eng Fong is practice professor of management at SingaporeManagement University. E-mail: [email protected]. Linda Lim is profes-sor of corporate strategy at the University of Michigan. E-mail:[email protected].

Faced with growing resource constraints, many countriesare grappling with the issue of how best to allocate

resources to publicly funded universities. Quite a few govern-ments have used manpower planning models to guide policiesregarding university enrollments and resource allocation.These models typically derive educational enrollments fromprojected manpower requirements based on forecasts of eco-nomic growth. Recent public debate on university admissionspolicy in Singapore raises anew the question of the effective-ness of the manpower planning model that Singapore (andmany other countries) relies on to guide university intakes.The Singapore government is committed to giving its univer-sities greater autonomy over financing and student admissionsto enable them to develop into world-class institutions. It haspledged that it will not require full financial independence ofpublicly funded universities. Nevertheless, the governmentcontinues to direct university admissions to ensure the outputof graduates matches projected skilled manpower needs.

University AutonomyThe stated goal of university autonomy may, however, not cor-

respond to the manpower planning model that has influenceduniversity admissions and funding for the past 30 years. Themodel was useful while Singapore’s mass-manufacturing-driv-en economy was catching up to developed-country levels ofindustrial development. Today, rapidly changing technologyand skill requirements make it harder to discern the wayahead, even for the world’s most adroit, anticipatory nationsand world-class multinationals.

In most countries where the government provides the bulkof the funding for universities, individual universities makethese policy decisions. “University autonomy” means that eachinstitution decides what degree programs to offer and theircourse content; how many and on what criteria students areadmitted to each program; how much is charged for tuition;the types and terms of faculty recruited; and how faculty, stu-dents, and the university itself are evaluated.

market signals How do universities make these decisions? They depend onmarket signals from employers who hire their graduates; stu-dents and their parents who choose (and pay for) degree pro-grams; and the demand for and supply of academic manpow-er in various specializations. This market responsivenessensures flexibility and efficiency in resource allocation.

If employers do not hire the graduates of any particular uni-versity or degree program or if the salaries they offer are toolow, students and parents will shift their demand (and tuitionrevenues) to other universities and courses whose graduatesare better rewarded in the job market. Faculty in specialized,high-demand areas will experience a rise in salaries, which willattract academic talent into those areas.

These supply-and-demand alterations do not always takeplace instantaneously or smoothly, but the market functionswell on the whole. In producing academic excellence and tech-nological innovation, these changes also absolve governments(who fund universities) of blame should universities misjudgemarket signals and make the wrong decisions.

Employers look for higher-order thinking and communica-tion skills, and more recently, IT skills. They value employeeswith the capacity to learn, relearn, and unlearn. They also seeka diverse workforce in terms of training, outlook, and subjectknowledge. Business leaders who sit on the advisory commit-tees of American universities often counsel against trainingundergraduates in specific narrow and especially novel fields.They stress instead basic disciplines and breadth of coursework because highly specific skills and knowledge can quicklybecome obsolete.

How Universities RespondHighly rated and market-responsive universities offer a varietyof degree programs and produce a wide range of graduates.Unlike Singapore, where manpower planning is skewedtoward engineering and business, top British and Americanuniversities produce few business graduates at the bachelor’s

level. At the University of Michigan, for example, less than 400out of an annual total of 5,000 graduates are business majors.Yet the vast majority of its graduates find employment in thebusiness sector.

Students and their parents want equitable and transparentaccess to higher education, a fair admissions process, flexibili-ty in course selection, good-quality instruction, government orprivate-sector financial assistance, and good jobs upon gradua-tion. Universities, for their part, want continued governmentfunding but with autonomy over enrollments, fees, admissionsstandards, student and faculty recruitment, and course curric-ula. The institutions compete for top-quality faculty and seek torecruit well-qualified graduate students to advance researchagendas and assist in undergraduate instruction.

Promoting Equity and EfficiencyEquity and efficiency should be the criteria for evaluating thevarious stakeholder interests while determining policies onstudent admissions and tuition. Tuition-based funding bornemainly by students themselves is efficient because it producesa better match between supply and demand for particular uni-versity places and for particular types of graduates. The cours-es students choose will reflect their own intellectual prefer-ences and expected lifetime income. On a yearly basis, thecourses are likely to be “closer to the market” than manpowerplans based on projected economic growth rates. Tuition-basedfunding is also equitable since the individual graduate is themain beneficiary of the higher lifetime income and nonpecu-niary benefits afforded by the person’s university degree.

In developed economies, many students pay for universitytuition by taking out loans from the government or the privatefinancial sector. Involving banks in providing loans will helpallocate resources more efficiently, since they can charge high-er interest rates for more risky courses of study. In Singapore,however, it may take a while to change mindsets. Accustomedto highly subsidized education, families and students remainreluctant to take loans to finance education.

We believe a market-based system of allocating universityplaces, funded primarily by tuition paid by students them-selves, is both efficient and equitable. Such a system improvesthe performance of universities themselves and encouragesacademic excellence, to the benefit of society as well as gradu-ates and employers. All stakeholders—the government,employers, parents, students, universities, academics and thepublic—will adjust to this system if it is allowed to evolve.

The deterministic manpower planning models that haveserved many countries well, including Singapore, are nolonger appropriate as guides to resource allocation. It is time tointroduce more market-based and flexible mechanisms intouniversity enrollment planning.

US Privatization, Accountability,and Market-Based State PolicyPeter Eckel, Lara Couturier, and Dao LuuPeter Eckel is associate director for institutional initiatives, Center forInstitutional and International Initiatives, American Council on Education.Address: 1 Dupont Circle, Washington, DC 20036, USA. E-mail:[email protected]. Lara Couturier is the former research directorof the Futures Project and now an independent consultant. Dao Luu wasan intern at the American Council on Education.

In the United States, the relationship between state govern-ments and public colleges and universities is being rede-

fined with new notions of autonomy and accountability andhighly market-driven funding policies (often referred to as“privatization”) as the centerpieces. These new patterns haveimplications for both public and independent colleges and uni-versities. The American Council on Education convened threeroundtable conversations of presidents and other higher edu-cation leaders to explore the implications of this changing rela-tionship. The following points emerged from those discus-sions and appear in the paper, “Peering around the Bend: TheLeadership Challenges of Privatization, Accountability andMarket-based State Policy.”

Business is not “as usual.” Situations and strategies unthink-able just a few years ago are becoming increasingly common-place. For instance, a few business and law schools at publicinstitutions are moving toward privatization, distancing them-selves from both the states and their parent universities. Publicuniversities are seeking “enterprise status” to become quasi-public institutions. One southern governor offered deals to hispublic institutions to privatize, removing them from stateauthority and state funding.

Innovative (but untested) policies are emerging. Policieslabeled as decentralization, tuition deregulation, vouchers,public corporations, state enterprises, charter colleges, andstate compacts are appearing, reflecting the changing percep-tion of the role and function of public higher education. Theseassumptions, long based on the premise that higher educationis a public good, are being replaced by a public belief in high-er education primarily as a private individual good. However,the policy labels and their definitions vary, making it difficultto understand what is truly happening.

Higher education leaders must reconcile two competing policytensions. One set of policies encourages expansion and risingexpectations of higher education’s many services to society. Inmany states, public officials see higher education playing acentral role in addressing state economic and social needs, inaddition to traditional education and research roles. The otherset of policies encourage contraction and fiscal restraint. Statesupport is not expanding commensurate with institutionalneeds, and in some states it is even declining. Institutionalleaders find themselves in difficult situations because they can-


markets and finance12

The government continues to direct universityadmissions to ensure the output of graduatesmatches projected skilled manpower needs.

not respond adequately to both demands concurrently. “Privatization” of public higher education is a solution garner-

ing significant attention, and it is most likely the wrong strategy.Despite recent high-profile examples, becoming private (in thiscontext understood as a reliance on private revenue sourcesrather than public funds) is not a feasible option for most insti-tutions. One public research university president estimatedthat his institution would need to increase its endowment by$7 billion to replace lost state funds. Public higher education isalso reluctant to sever its historic ties to the state, as doing sosends unfavorable messages to policymakers and the publicthat the institution no longer views itself as a public asset.Instead, a handful of public institutions are striking middleground through a type of hybrid public/independent statussuch as public corporations found in Maryland and state enter-prises found in Colorado.

The historic distinctions within American higher education—public and private (not for profit)—are being challenged. In manyways public institutions are acting like private ones and viceversa. Whereas public institutions have previously received amajority of their funding from the state, these institutions nowincreasingly rely on private revenue. The Chronicle of HigherEducation, for example, reported that of the 22 institutionsengaged in fund-raising campaigns in excess of $1 billion, 15are public institutions. Private institutions, on the other hand,are increasingly shaping state policy to their benefit, particular-ly regarding access to state financial-aid programs and publiccapital funding. These financial and policy changes are reduc-ing a number of factors that once highlighted important differ-ences and creating new key distinctions among institutions,such as those based on economic and prestige indicators.American higher education may be seeing a new set of mean-ingful classifications emerge, such as “public-independent” or“private-dependent,” indicating historical source of controlcombined with the level of financial dependence on publicresources.

The competition stiffens. While American higher educationhas traditionally been competitive and market driven, emerg-ing state market-based policies are further intensifying thecompetition. Public and independent institutions of all typesand sizes are facing increased market pressures. Those that aresmall and focused on undergraduate education often find theymust play by the same rules as large diversified research insti-tutions that offer a range of undergraduate, graduate, and pro-fessional programs. Market-based policies will clearly favorsome types of institutions over others by diminishing the roleof state support in higher education and will advantage entre-

preneurial or historically self-reliant institutions. Theincreased competition may be creating more problems than itis solving. Entrepreneurial or commercial activities may pro-vide the additional resources individual institutions need tofulfill their public purpose. However, when all institutions pur-sue the same set of competitive strategies, no one gains anadvantage. Institutions run harder to stay in place. The cumu-lative effect of competition may also work against importantsocial objectives such as affordability and access. Institutionalleaders at both public and independent institutions face thedifficult task of striking a balance between public or historicobjectives and the pressures of the competitive marketplace,which may not be wholly compatible.

Strategies for Moving ForwardSome potential strategies for university leaders to addressthese difficult challenges are beginning to emerge. First, insti-tutions should connect explicitly and intentionally to stateneeds. Colleges and universities must demonstrate throughaction that they understand the fiscal and social problems theirstates and regions face and that they have the capacity to con-tribute needed solutions. Second, leaders should intensifymeaningful cooperation with other colleges and universitiesand with outside groups. Beyond collaboration in research andback-office functions, institutional leaders also can work col-laboratively to shape public policy more effectively. Findingways to build strong ties with the business community, alum-ni, parents, and leaders of civic, philanthropic, and nonprofitgroups is an important policy strategy. Third, leaders need to

chose the right language to reframe the issues. The languagethat higher education is accustomed to using when describingkey policy issues, such as “autonomy,” may be counterproduc-tive. For example, higher education might be better served bytalking about “more flexibility”—freedom from counterpro-ductive regulations in managing its institutions—rather thanabout “increased autonomy”—with its implicit overtones oflessening public stewardship. Finally, campus leaders and pol-icymakers need to be mindful of adopting others’ solutions tooquickly. It is tempting to adopt strategies that seem to be work-ing elsewhere; however, state context matters. What’s happen-ing in one state may not be the best solution for another state.For example, the state fiscal framework and the mix of publicand private institutions in each state shape available options.

ConclusionHigher education leaders face the difficult challenge of balanc-ing immediate concerns with the need to position their institu-

13


markets and finance

In many states, public officials see higher educa-tion playing a central role in addressing state eco-nomic and social needs, in addition to tradition-al education and research roles.

A handful of public institutions are striking mid-dle ground through a type of hybrid public/inde-pendent status such as public corporations foundin Maryland and state enterprises found inColorado.

private higher education and privatization

tions and the higher education sector for an uncertain future.Questions such as how does one balance the pursuit of publicpurposes with the demands of a competitive marketplace? orhow can higher education’s key values be articulated and reaf-firmed as steadfast priorities given the new environment andthe constantly changing nature of public policy? will need to beaddressed if American higher education is to preserve the bestof its traditions and capitalize on the opportunities that liebefore it.

Author’s note. This article is based on a paper, the fourth in seriesof essays, capturing three roundtable conversations among 40 leadersof American universities and colleges and other higher educationleaders. The essays can be found on the website of the AmericanCouncil on Education (http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore) underLeadership and Institutional Effectiveness. The project was supportedby Fidelity Investments.

China’s Private HigherEducation: The Impact ofPublic-Sector PrivatizationYingxia Cao and Daniel C. LevyDaniel C. Levy is a Distinguished Professor at the State University of NewYork and director of PROPHE. E-mail: [email protected]. Yingxia Cao is aPROPHE doctoral research associate. E-mail: [email protected]. Bothauthors are in the Department of Educational Administration & PolicyStudies, SUNY-Albany. Address: Education Building, SUNY at Albany,Albany, NY 12222, USA.

IHE devotes space each issue to contributions from PROPHE, theProgram for Research on Private Higher Education, headquarteredat the University of Albany. See http://www.albany.edu/.

As in many countries, the emergence of private higher edu-cation initially seemed rather apart from the development

of public higher education in China. The public sector couldnot meet the increasing demand for higher education, and theprivate sector thus helped fill the gap. However, as privatehigher education has grown more robust—and as public high-er education has partly privatized—competitive intersectoralcompetition has become more dynamic.

The Growth of Private Higher EducationChinese private higher education reemerged in the late 1970s,after having been abolished in an earlier period, and has nowexpanded enormously. Whereas only a handful of private insti-tutions, with limited enrollments, existed in 1980, by 1999 thenumber of private institutions had reached 1,270—outnum-

bering public institutions by three to four hundred. Privateenrollments grew to over one million, giving China one of thelargest private higher education sectors in the world. Estimateson the private sector’s share of total enrollments have rangedfrom a fourth to even a third, although only about 40,000 ofthese students were in programs recognized by the Ministry ofEducation and thus permitted to grant bachelor’s or associatedegrees.

The dawn of the new century is witnessing an importantchange in the development of China’s private higher educa-tion. Although the number of private institutions and theirenrollments decreased for the first time in 2000, the declinelasted just a year. At the same time, the number of private insti-tutions with the standing to offer degrees has more than dou-bled, from 89 to over 200, and overall private enrollments areresuming their substantial growth. These characteristics sug-gest an upward trend in many private institutions’ quality andcapacity.

Scholars and practitioners generally agree that the resur-gence as well as initial development of private higher educa-tion took advantage of the public sector’s failure to meet therapidly growing demand (of students and employers alike),because of institutional inertia, financial shortfalls, and policyrestrictions. In contrast, the private sector proved eager andflexible enough to absorb some of the new demand. Whilethese dynamics have been common in many countries, they donot fully explain the more recent shifts in Chinese privatehigher education development (which have parallels in othercountries).

The Privatization of Public Higher Education The striking public-sector privatization presents at least threechallenges to private higher education development in China.One challenge involves the introduction of affiliated collegessince 1999. These colleges are owned (at least partially) ormanaged by private parties, classified by government as part ofthe private sector, but affiliated to public universities. Theybecome a new type of provider, often with competitive advan-tages (conferred through their public university) over the exist-ing independent private institutions in prestige, size, financ-ing, and level of education provision. Although establishedwith private financing and under independent management,affiliated private institutions usually receive important aca-demic resources and gain enhanced reputations from the pres-tigious universities to which they may be linked. They areallowed to grant baccalaureate degrees, without having to go


14

These colleges are owned (at least partially) ormanaged by private parties, classified by gov-ernment as part of the private sector, but affili-ated to public universities.


through the usual accreditation procedure. In comparison tothe public universities to which they are affiliated, these insti-tutions are permitted to enroll a considerable number of stu-dents with lower entrance examination scores but at muchhigher tuition rates. Consequently, many independent privateinstitutions are left with a greatly diminished ability to attractstudents and investments.

A second critical challenge is the privatization of public-sec-tor financing, which allows public institutions to expandenrollment capacity quickly. This obviously undercuts privatehigher education expansion. The two major privatized financ-ing sources for public higher education consist of tuition andbank loans. While tuition compensates for the state’s decreas-ing allocation, bank loans allow public institutions to garner asmuch as hundreds of millions of dollars. Such funds poseextraordinary enrollment challenges to private higher educa-tion because public institutions enhance their existing pro-grams and add new programs and campuses.

A third challenge to China’s private higher educationinvolves public institutions’ privatized management style,which imitates private business as well as the private highereducation sector by adopting a market orientation. Public insti-tutions not only improve their efficiency in management butalso update their curriculum and programs, based on marketdemands. Private institutions thus have to reexamine theirmanagement efficiency and compete with public institutionsin certain marketable fields that used to be the private sector’sexclusive profitable domain.

The Modification of Private Higher EducationAs the challenges from public-sector privatization modifyChina’s private higher education development, two key trendsemerge. One trend is the bifurcation of private institutions.Some institutions accumulate enormous resources, upgradetheir educational quality, update program provision, enrollthousands of students, and thus gain considerable prestige andrecognition while competing with public, affiliated, and otherindependent private institutions. But more and more inde-pendent private institutions experience hardship from thefierce new competition. Closings and mergers (from positionsof weakness) are increasing.

The second trend is that the future of independent privateinstitutions is increasingly obscure because of the rapid spreadof degree-granting affiliated colleges. As the latter enjoy certaininherent advantages, numerous nonprestigious independentprivate colleges thus often need to accept the weakest appli-cants, in nondegree programs. The competition is especiallydifficult because China is experiencing a gradually shrinkingpool of high school graduates who fail to gain admission topublic universities.

While China’s private higher education used to take advan-tage of the limited public provision, the new intersectoral com-petitive dynamics now present a challenge to private higher

education’s growth. This trend is also significantly modifyingthe development pattern and shape of the country’s privatehigher education sector.

New Private-Public Dynamics:Graduate Education in UruguayPablo Landoni CouturePablo Landoni Couture is a professor at the Catholic University of Uruguayand a PROPHE affiliate: Address: Av. 8 de Octubre 2738 Montevideo,URUGUAY CP 11600. E-mail: [email protected].

Uruguay was the last country in Latin America to authorizeprivate higher education institutions. Current regulatory

and financing arrangements contribute to a still rather limitedprivate-public competition but that may be changing, and thegraduate level is a key locus of such new competition.

A New Private SectorPrivate higher education was not allowed in Uruguay until1985, when the government authorized the founding of theCatholic University. Ten years later, a new regulation waspassed, opening the way for ample private growth.

Since 1995, 17 private higher education institutions havebeen recognized by the state. In the past 10 years, the sectorhas expanded and now offers 98 academic programs at theundergraduate and graduate levels. Uruguay’s private sectornow holds 12 percent of total national enrollments, althoughthis percentage remains far below the private sector’s share inChile, Brazil, and other countries in the region, some of whichhave more than half the enrollments in the private sector.

The venerable University of the Republic (Universidad de laRepública) is the country’s only public university. It has arather open admissions policy, and it does not charge tuition.As a consequence, the private sector is constrained in its abili-ty to attract students, especially from low- and middle-incomefamilies. This dual nature of the system, in terms of finance, isthe main reason why private-public competition at the under-graduate level remains limited.

Graduate Education From the beginning, Uruguay’s private higher education insti-tutions developed programs at the graduate level. This focuscontrasts with the almost exclusive undergraduate emphasis ofearly decades in the private sector in most Latin Americancountries. Uruguay’s private higher education leaders sawgraduate education as an area in which they could successful-ly compete with the public university.

The University of the Republic has mostly followed the tra-ditional Napoleonic model inherited by a good number of pub-

15


lic universities in Latin America. A major feature at this uni-versity is its organization into professional schools (facultades)with five- or six-year programs (seven in medicine). In thatcontext, graduate programs have been limited to few fields ofstudy (largely medicine and basic sciences) until recently. In2001, the institution regulated graduate education, introduc-ing a key policy change for the sector: allowing tuition for pro-fessional graduate programs. This approach makes the situa-tion in Uruguay similar to that in Argentina, where tuition,avoided at the public undergraduate level, is common at thepublic graduate level. Given that most Uruguayan programs atthe doctoral and even master’s level have an academic profileand thus do not charge tuition, competition among institu-tions for graduate students in professional programs is pro-ducing new private-public dynamics.

Private universities have from the start pursued a differentpath, with most undergraduate programs requiring just fouryears, in a baccalaureate format—following the US model (pro-grams in law are an exception). Their academic focus has beento develop programs in areas with high market demand, likebusiness administration and computer sciences. The sameareas of knowledge have been developed at the graduate level.Other fields of study with important private enrollmentsinclude education and psychology, due to public failure todevelop successful programs in those areas. All this is fairlytypical for private higher education development in LatinAmerica, except that Uruguay’s private-sector developmentstarted later.

In the last decade, graduate programs have expanded rapid-ly in both sectors of higher education. In 2002, 1,354 studentswere admitted to all institutions at the graduate level, 32 per-cent of them to private institutions. In the same year, 35 per-cent of graduates came from the private sector. Clearly, the pri-vate share of graduate enrollments far exceeds the privateshare at the undergraduate level.

In terms of programs at the graduate level, the University ofthe Republic accounts for 81 percent. The public share is high,largely because of the health sciences. The public universityoffers education in 86 specializations in medicine and nurs-ing. Leaving those aside, the private share of Uruguay’s gradu-ate programs constitutes 34 percent.

At the doctoral level, only the public university offersauthorized programs. Nevertheless, private universities aredeveloping PhD programs jointly with international universi-ties. Some of these programs are under review by publicauthorities. At the master’s degree level, the private-sector’sshare encompasses 33 percent of the total number of pro-grams.

New Private-Public Dynamics Private-public relationships in Uruguay’s graduate educationare changing due to the increased competition, among institu-tions, for graduate students (and revenues) in professional pro-grams.

The foremost example is the field of professional graduateprograms in business administration, including MBAs.Challenges for the public university come not only from pri-vate universities but also from foreign universities and dis-tance-learning providers. In 2002, the private sector enrolled54 percent of the graduate students in the field of businessadministration.

The extent to which a traditional public university has beenforced by the private institutions to compete is an interestingaspect of privatization. In areas under competition with insti-tutions outside the public sector, a generally easily accessibleand hitherto free university, completely subsidized by the state,needed to develop organizational structures and strategiesquite different from those long dominant at the public univer-sity.

The public university’s actions aimed at the new graduate-level competition have focused on advertisements, hiring inter-national faculty, and “coercive isomorphism.” For an institu-tion that enjoyed a monopoly for more than 150 years, develop-ing an advertisement campaign was a novelty. For the last threeyears the public university, fully financed by the community,has placed expensive paid advertisements in the press duringthe registration period. To improve the quality of the programs,the public university has hired international professors, as theleading private institutions were already doing.

Along with competing openly, the public university hastried to prevail by pushing through the government regulatoryagency that oversees private higher education new require-ments for private graduate programs, which will increase thecosts of those programs. However, new standards that mayaugment private costs might also bolster the quality, legitima-cy, and thus attractiveness of the programs to the students bothsectors want to lure.

Conclusion The private higher education literature highlights the diversifi-cation effects produced by private growth. A relevant factor forprivate development is public-sector failure. In Uruguay, it isclear that private universities took advantage of limited publicdevelopment in professional graduate education. A fresh pri-vate-public dynamic has emerged as the public universitydecided to charge tuition for professional graduate education.With open competition, the institution has been forced by themarket to engage in private-sector-like strategies and behaviorto attract students.

The impact of private higher education development inother areas—undergraduate and academic (as opposed to pro-fessional) graduate programs, especially at the doctoral level—is still mitigated by the dual nature of the system, with a fully


16 private higher education and privatization

In the last decade, graduate programs haveexpanded rapidly in both sectors of higher edu-cation.

subsidized public sector and a private side that does not receivepublic funding.

Experiences elsewhere in Latin America are mixed.Uruguay seems to follow developments in countries likeArgentina, with a dominant public sector and small niches ofcompetition including graduate education. Nevertheless, pri-vate and public institutions are increasingly engaging in a newcompetitive dynamic as private enrollments grow and the pub-lic university gets involved in some privatized endeavors.

Dual Privatization in GeorgianHigher EducationMarie PachuashviliMarie Pachuashvili is a Ph.D. candidate in political science at CentralEuropean University in Budapest, Hungary and a PROPHE affiliate. E-mail: [email protected].

In postcommunist countries, a significant transformation ofthe higher education landscape has taken place since the col-

lapse of communism—in the form of diminished stateinvolvement in funding, provision, and governance. The extentand shape of the shift varies by country, but all postcommunistcountries witness former public monopolies challenged bysome form of privatization. There is usually dual privatization:(a) the growth of private institutions and (b) the introduction oftuition fees and increased businesslike behavior at public uni-versities. Georgia has experienced both forms of privatization.

Like many countries in the region, Georgia has almost nohistory of private higher education. Georgian private institu-tions first appeared in 1991. Yet, by the 1992–1993 academicyear 131 such institutions already existed. The collapse of theGeorgian economy and decline in state support for public insti-tutions contributed to diminished public-sector enrollments(an apparent parallel to trends in Central Asian and Balticcountries). Several new public institutions opened, but thepublic sector saw a 20 percent overall decline in the first halfof the 1990s. This period represented the time frame of privateinstitutions’ founding and most intensive growth. The expan-sion of the comparatively large private sector peaked at 34 per-cent of total enrollments in 1995–1996.

Public-Sector PrivatizationSince that peak, however, private-sector enrollments have fall-en in relative and even in absolute terms. While the first fallis not unusual in the region, the second is. Demand for pub-licly provided education, by contrast, has increased since1997–1998. Just as the rise in private higher educationreduced public enrollments, public-sector reform is now tak-ing a toll on the private higher education sector.

There is one leading element in the public-sector reform:the growing body of self-financed students, which is a strikingaspect of privatization within the public sector both within andbeyond the region. Authorization for this change came in1993. By 2002, 43 percent of the public sector’s students paidtuition, and the share has risen each year. Student paymentsrepresent the major source of income for some public univer-sities. For instance, in 2001–2002, student tuition revenues atTbilisi State University and the Medical University were,respectively, two and three times higher than funds receivedfrom the state.

The dependence of public institutions on student tuitionfees has blurred the distinction between the activities and mis-sions of the two sectors in Georgia. In an attempt to attractmore fee-paying students, public institutions have tried hard tostay attuned to labor-market fluctuations by providing trainingin fields like information technology, law, business administra-tion, and foreign languages. Today, most public educationalorganizations run programs in law and economics. In addi-tion, besides the official Georgian language of instruction,courses are offered in Russian, English, German, Armenian,and Azeri. Such ethnic appeal has been a hallmark of privatehigher education, often frowned upon by national public insti-tutions. Thus, the new involvement of public universities is asignificant development.

Additionally, by introducing vouchers for financing highereducation, the Georgian government intends to encourageeven more marketlike behavior on the part of public institu-tions and to promote competition between and within the twosectors of higher education. According to the 2004 law onhigher education, successful candidates receiving the statefinancial grant can choose from among all accredited institu-tions, both public and private. This would further blur public-private differences, at least in reference to accredited privateinstitutions. Furthermore, neither public institutions, whichlong held a monopoly, nor private institutions, which enjoyeda period of rather easy growth during the 1990s, would farewell without being competitive—both inter- and (largely) intra-sectorally.

ConclusionIn summary, extensive privatization of the previously publichigher education system has been taking place in Georgiasince 1989. The shift relates to the creation and growth of adistinct private sector as well as to public institutions increas-ingly supplementing public funding with private resources,mostly through tuition. The Georgian case corresponds in keyrespects to developments in the region, but it is striking for

17



According to the 2004 law on higher education,successful candidates receiving the state finan-cial grant can choose from among all accredit-ed institutions, both public and private.

several reasons. One is the absence of a tradition of privatehigher education. Second is the comparatively large privatehigher education share of total enrollments. Third is the rela-tively vigorous privatization of public education financing.Both the second and third developments stimulate striking pri-vate-public mixes, dynamics, and competition.

Mexico’s Brain DrainSylvie Didou AupetitSylvie Didou Aupetit is a researcher at Mexico´s Centre for AdvancedResearch and Studies and is head of UNESCO´s Chair on QualityAssurance and Emerging Providers of Tertiary Education. E-mail: didou@)cinvestav.mx.

The Mexican press constantly expresses its concerns aboutbrain drain, but, perhaps because its impact has been offi-

cially underrated, the matter has so far not appeared on theeducation research or policy agendas. While brain drain is cal-culated to involve only 5 percent of the students granted post-graduate studies abroad, that estimate is low—for the follow-ing reasons: (1) because it is based on findings from a sampleused to evaluate the National Council of Science andTechnology (CONACYT) scholarship program over the past 30years; (2) because it does not incorporate the free movers whohave used alternative mobility channels to study abroad; (3)because the mobility of highly qualified personnel includes,other than the academic market, additional fields of endeavorsuch as, for instance, the productive sector; and (4) because theintention expressed by young Mexican PhD holders to remainin the United States after obtaining their degrees has increased(notoriously) in recent years—almost matching the preferenceof Argentines and Chileans with US doctorates to remainabroad. Given these factors, the brain drain estimation wouldvastly surpass 5 percent. However, to reach a reliable approxi-mation of the phenomenon would require mobilizing financialand human resources and organizing joint cooperative pro-grams—to develop linkages between highly skilled Mexicaninstitutions and institutions located in their countries of ori-gin—as well as recognizing the existence of a vexing problemthat the public authorities have opted to ignore.

From Conventional Policies to No Policies?Paradoxically, while academic circles and antigovernmentgroups are expressing renewed alarm about the “exodus of tal-ented minds,” the policies established 10 years ago to combatthe trend are coming to an end. In the early 1990s, thePACIME Program (“in support of Mexican science”), cofi-nanced by the World Bank and the Mexican government, wasset up in an attempt to repatriate doctoral graduates fromabroad and invite interested foreign scientists into the country.

PACIME was a conventional program, aimed at repatriationor medium-term stays, but it also focused on the multipolarflow of highly qualified human resources which was partiallysubstituting the bipolar South-to-North dynamic. Under favor-able international circumstances (the collapse of the Sovietbloc, the extended crisis in Cuba, and the difficult return topeace in Central America), the program’s success was striking.Not only did it attract a significant number of Mexican and for-eign doctoral degree holders, but it also encouraged nationalstate universities desiring to enhance their research capacitiesto enlist the services of these repatriates and visitors.

The apparent results were not sufficient, and once thePACIME program was terminated, the repatriation and invita-tion efforts went into decline. Mexico received 299 foreign aca-demics in 1994 and only 49 in 2002. Jaime Parada, director ofCONACYT, recently attributed this decline to the lack of a spe-cific budget. His statement probably indicated the end of a pol-icy that, despite its traditionalism, showed immediate and pos-itive results. Will another kind of program take its place? Thereis nothing to point in that direction, but the situation calls foranswers to several questions.

Does a country with substantial inflows of money from itscitizens abroad not also need the academic assistance of itsmost educated expatriates? Can it be that Mexico lacks themeans for utilizing the experience accumulated abroad (insideand outside Latin America) through brain bank or the organi-zation of scientific and productive diasporas? Is it that Mexicocan only perceive the brain drain—a term that forms part ofthe national rhetoric in lieu of a more neutral expression, suchas brain circulation—as a form of treason against the mother-land, an absolute loss of capacities, or an inevitable conse-quence of neocolonialism and thus fail to understand the dou-ble meaning of both risk and opportunity?

Strategic ChallengeA country such as Mexico experiences many challenges espe-cially under the present circumstances. Some are wellknown—the result of asymmetric professional working condi-tions between Mexico and its main trade partners, the difficul-ties faced by the national academic market in absorbing youngdoctoral degree holders, as well as all the country’s bureaucrat-ic, credit, and fiscal requirements, which discourage the cre-ation of business enterprises.

However, the significance of some other issues is underes-timated, despite their relevance in the context of nonterritorialrecruitment dynamics and “circulating elites.” Developed


countries and regions18

Paradoxically, while academic circles andantigovernment groups are expressing renewedalarm about the “exodus of talented minds,” thepolicies established 10 years ago to combat thetrend are coming to an end.

countries and regions

countries are applying aggressive policies to recruit PhD hold-ers, while developing countries have not yet substantiallyimproved the working conditions offered. Mexico has adoptedquality assurance policies, and, recently, pilot initiatives for theconvergence of higher education systems, international har-monization of domestic degrees, regional equivalency in pro-fessional training—in the framework of bilateral or multilater-al agreements, such as NAFTA. Consequently, the recruitmentof Mexican postgraduates regardless of where their degreeswere obtained, has become less risky for international employ-ers. Those factors point to a scenario in which white collarmigration will rapidly increase.

The situation described above calls for strategic decisions.One decision would have to involve national postgraduatescholarships. Mexico is providing funding for doctoral stu-dents in fields with a greater probability of obtaining employ-ment abroad than of returning home. Another factor is thereestablishment of strategic linkages with scientific and pro-ductive communities abroad, based on the results achieved inArgentina, Colombia, El Salvador, and Venezuela, as well as inSouth Africa, China, and India. Still another area involves ascience policy more focused on national priorities and on theexpansion and reproduction of scientific communities andentrepreneurial groups. The goal is that the relations withMexicans living abroad will help to consolidate an official pro-gram for the reform of a national science system.

Transformation, Reform, andRenewal in AfghanistanWilliam G. TierneyWilliam G. Tierney is Wilbur Kieffer Professor of Higher Education anddirector of the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis at the Universityof Southern California. Address: Waite Phillips Hall, Univ. of SouthernCalifornia, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA. E-mail: [email protected].

Afghan higher education is undergoing enormous changesafter a generation fraught with conflict, university closure,

and severe damage to the infrastructure of Afghanistan’s uni-versities. Postsecondary institutions have suffered from sever-al significant problems over the past quarter century. Many ofthe most talented faculty fled the country—first during theSoviet invasion, then during the years of fighting by theMujahidin, and most recently during the era of the Taliban.Faculty who stayed in the country suffered from professionalisolation not only with peers outside Afghanistan but also withcolleagues at other institutions within Afghanistan. Many fac-ulty were killed or exiled; others were driven underground.Higher education became highly politicized, ideologized, andsectarianized. Postsecondary campuses became war zones.

The result was that the infrastructure was damaged, looted, ordestroyed.

The Infrastructure of the SystemAfghanistan’s higher education system remains one of themost centralized in the world, although a weakened or nonex-istent infrastructure limits the capacity to manage the system.Such centralization permits standardized policies and proce-dures, but it also weakens the authority and innovativeness ofthe chancellors and faculty on the 19 campuses. Universitiesdo not have budgets, and all requests involving income, hiring,and new departments must be requested through the Ministryof Education. Students are accepted not by the respective uni-versities but by the ministry. The ministry also determines thesize and placement of an incoming class.

The ministry controls the budgets for all postsecondaryinstitutions with a total annual operating budget of slightlymore than US$9 million. About 65 percent of the budget cov-ers the costs of housing and feeding students in dormitories.Tuition is not charged at any university. The result is that post-secondary institutions are dependent upon the largesse of non-governmental organizations for structural improvements.

The number of institutions—currently 19 four-year institu-tions and 18 two-year institutions (which are equivalent toteacher training institutes)—has continued to expand, result-ing in considerable discussion about the inefficiencies withinthe system. Some institutions are quite small, with fewer than500 students, and their capacity to increase is limited due totheir geographic isolation. At the same time, Afghanistan cur-rently has less than 0.15 percent of its population in highereducation, a statistic among the lowest in the world. There arecurrently 36,000 undergraduate students, 17 percent of whomare women. The estimate is that within five years over 100,000students will desire a postsecondary education. The system isnot well positioned to deal with such a rapid expansion. Inaddition to the physical devastation suffered by many campus-es, during the Taliban regime hundreds of thousands of bookswere destroyed. No university presently has what might beconsidered a minimally acceptable number of books for a post-secondary library. Buildings remain in serious need of repair.No institution has more than 100 computers.

The Diversity of the PopulationThe challenged infrastructure must respond to the needs of aculturally and ethnically diverse population. There are fourmajor ethnic groups in the country and two major languages.The diversity of cultures is a social fact that is to be honored; atthe same time, given the recent history of the country, lan-guage and culture are also significant topics of contestation.Which language is to be used as the medium of instruction, forexample, is an unsettled question with many differentanswers. Although English is the most widely spoken foreignlanguage in Afghanistan, the extent of Afghans’ fluency varieswidely.

19


departments

Hopeful signs do exist for higher education in Afghanistan.In the last four years, over 2,500,000 refuges from neighbor-ing countries have returned to the country, one of the largestrepatriation movements in modern history. Many of theserefugees are children. Along with hundreds of thousands ofchildren who remained in Afghanistan and were deniedschooling under the Taliban—including, of course, girls—stu-dents are now flocking to schools. With the encouragement ofthe ambitious Back to School Program, the last two years haveseen millions of children pour into elementary and secondaryschools, as citizens embrace education as a path to a betterfuture. The challenge for higher education is to accommodatethis influx of students over the next decade. Issues to beresolved include language of instruction, curriculum, anddegree standards. Funding to support institutions must be pro-cured. And faculty must be able to respond to student demand,institutional needs, and the national context.

Challenges Facing FacultyAs with many professional sectors in the country, the events ofthe past 25 years have profoundly affected the professoriate. Atpresent, the postsecondary system has approximately 2,200faculty in four-year institutions. Slightly more than 50 percenthave a bachelor’s degree, less than 6 percent hold a doctorate,and 12 percent of the faculty are female. The problematic state

of the academic profession in Afghanistan has had a seriousimpact. First, early in their careers faculty have no sense ofwhat it means to be an academic. Second, senior faculty basetheir understanding of what it means to be an academic fromexperiences of over a quarter century ago. Third, faculty in gen-eral have limited expectations of their colleagues and evince nosense of ownership over critical matters such as academic free-dom, curriculum development, faculty-student relationships,or intended outcomes for degree programs. Finally, the profes-soriate is no longer viewed as a respected calling but instead isa poorly paid civil service job.

This state of affairs is demonstrated in numerous ways. Nouniversity offers a master’s or doctoral degree. Students com-plain that most instruction stifles creativity and critical think-ing. Faculty show little respect for student opinion; indeed, if astudent challenges a faculty member in class or disagrees witha professor’s point of view, students run the risk not only ofhaving their class grade lowered but also being threatened withretribution, even violence. Unacceptable behavior such asnepotism, bribery, plagiarism, and sexual harassment havebeen reported as commonplace. Academic freedom is absent.Students and faculty can be disciplined for exercising freespeech. By no means do all faculty exhibit such aberrant behav-ior. However, the related problem is that there are no accepted

standards to deal with this sort of behavior. Regardless of the shortcomings of graduate education in

developed countries, it is commonplace to assume that whenstudents complete their graduate training, they have learned aprofessional ethic about what it means to be an academic.When an individual assumes a faculty position, that ethic isfurther called upon in the specific institution, college, anddepartment. Such training has been largely absent inAfghanistan for 25 years. One ought not to be surprised at thecurrent conditions. A professional ethic of the faculty is notsomething that arises without explicit cultivation.

ConclusionClearly, a great deal of work awaits those who desire to improvehigher education in Afghanistan. At the same time, one oughtnot to forget the progress made since the fall of the Taliban inDecember 2001. Buildings that were closed are now open.Faculty who were silenced have returned to the classroom. Theexplosion in applications for college is evidence on the part ofthe young of their desire to learn. Indeed, the university stu-dents resemble college-age students everywhere—showingenergetic, inquisitive, optimistic, and impatient attitudes.

Everyone acknowledges that the problems in higher educa-tion will not be resolved overnight. Indeed, without consistentand significant external support, and the willingness withinAfghanistan to restructure the system, the road will be verylong. But education has long been considered a way out and away up. For Afghanistan to put in place an indigenous modelof what they want to be as a nation, then the universities willhave to play a major role. Without a functioning higher educa-tion system, it will be impossible to generate the expertise andknowledge needed to rebuild a country with a vast history andtroubled past.

Ten Years: The Center forInternational Higher Educationand International HigherEducationPhilip G. AltbachPhilip G. Altbach is Monan professor of higher education and director ofthe Center for International Higher Education at Boston College.

The Center for International Higher Education (CIHE) andits flagship publication, International Higher Education

(IHE), are entering their 11th year of activity in 2005. It isappropriate to look at what has been accomplished and howhigher education has changed in the past decade. We started


20

The challenge of higher education is to accommo-date this influx of students over the next decade.

21


departments

our work in 1994 with the aim of providing objective and ana-lytical perspectives on higher education worldwide. We had,from the beginning, a special focus on developing countriesand a commitment to higher education in the Roman Catholictradition—reflecting Boston College’s Jesuit roots. We wantedto highlight countries and regions that received little attentionfrom analysts and in the research literature. We were motivat-ed by a commitment to the “public good” and the perception ofuniversities as central institutions that produce and transmitknowledge. Higher education is not simply a commodity to besold for a profit—these convictions separate our perspectivefrom those of many contemporary analysts of higher educa-

tion.CIHE started with limited resources from Boston College,

some big ideas, and notions for ways to serve a higher educa-tion audience worldwide. From the beginning, we were com-mitted to communication, publishing, and networking—feel-ing that the sharing of information and insights is central toanalysis and reform. We are also committed to ensuring thatcommunication is a two-way street—and we have featured thework of researchers and commentators from many countriesand regions. We have tried, in our own way, to break with theidea that the only knowledge that is worthwhile comes fromthe wealthy academic systems of the North. We have also triedto feature the work of younger researchers and scholars in thefield—students in the field of higher education at BostonCollege as well as many others worldwide

These ideas resonated with Dr. Jorge Balan at the FordFoundation. For 9 of our 10 years of existence, the FordFoundation has been a steady supporter of our work, making itpossible to for us to publish our books and IHE, and to spon-sor several research projects. We have also received additionalassistance from, among others, the Toyota Foundation, theRockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, theMacArthur Foundation, and anonymous donors.

CIHE has always been an integral part of the Program inHigher Education Administration in the Lynch School ofEducation (LSOE) at Boston College. CIHE’s activities dependon the master’s and doctoral students in the higher educationprogram who have a special interest in international highereducation. Some of these students have received financial helpfrom CIHE and have provided staff and research assistance.Many have graduated and have gone on to careers in highereducation in the United States and in other countries. At least25 students have been sponsored by the Center and perhapsdouble that number have chosen to focus on internationalhigher education as part of their graduate education at BostonCollege. The faculty members in higher education have provid-ed steady support for the CIHE, as has the administration of

the LSOE and of Boston College. The J. Donald Monan SJChair has also backed my work and has been instrumental inproviding a resource base for the CIHE as well. Strong localinstitutional support has been combined with external fundingto make our work possible.

CommunicationOur commitment to knowledge dissemination led to two earlyinitiatives, the establishment of a quarterly publication and awebsite. IHE has published 40 issues and is now well estab-lished as a key resource worldwide for information about high-er education. We send the paper edition of IHE to more than2,500 readers in some 80 countries without charge. IHE isalso available on the Internet, and many more readers access itelectronically. All IHE articles are available in full text on theweb, and readers are assisted in locating relevant materialthrough an interactive index. IHE articles are now frequentlycited by researchers and others and are reprinted in publica-tions worldwide—a strong indication of our impact. Almostimmediately after the establishment of the Center, we started awebsite focusing on international higher education issues.This pioneering website, one of the first in the field, links upwith many others, and is considered a major resource—it haswon several awards and is widely used. It is a featured link ofseveral prominent organizations. Indeed, the CIHE appears ator near the top of the major search engines such as Google andYahoo, indicating its early advent and prominence as a tool forknowledge in the field. We have recently started a new website-based initiative, called the International Higher EducationClearinghouse, with the cooperation of the American Councilon Education, the Institute of International Education, andNAFSA, to focus in-depth on key international higher educa-tion issues as a way of serving practitioners worldwide. A sim-ilar initiative, the Higher Education Corruption Monitor, is awebsite that features news and analysis on the unfortunatelygrowing phenomenon of corruption in all aspects of academic

life.The products of our research have been disseminated in the

form of books and other publications. We have, through ourgrant support, been able to provide copies of the 13 books wehave published to readers in developing countries without cost.We have been able to arrange for translated editions of most ofour books in other languages—notably Spanish, Chinese, andJapanese.

As part of our networking effort, we have hosted visitingscholars from around the world, including Lebanon, Jordan,India, Japan, China, Russia, Mexico, Argentina, theNetherlands, South Africa, Nicaragua, and elsewhere. We haveworked with research centers and agencies in other countries

We were motivated by a commitment to the“public good” and the perception of universitiesas central institutions that produce and trans-mit knowledge.

The CIHE appears at or near the top of themajor search engines such as Google andYahoo, indicating its early advent and promi-nence as a tool for knowledge in the field.

departments

and have an informal collaborative agreement with the Centerfor the Study of the University at the National AutonomousUniversity of Mexico.

Research and PublicationsIn the past decade, the CIHE has sponsored research projectson several important themes in higher education. Typically, wehave recruited researchers from a dozen or so countries toresearch a theme, then brought the research group together fordiscussions, followed by revision of the essays and their publi-cation as a book. These research conferences have taken placeat Boston College, Nagoya University in Japan, and theRockefeller Foundation’s Bellagio Study Center in Italy. Wehave sponsored research on private higher education, thechanging academic workplace and the academic profession,the future of Asian higher education, and most recently therole of research universities. In all cases, we have had a specialfocus on developing countries. We have also directed smallerresearch projects on reforms in Japanese higher education,women’s higher education, corruption in higher education,and other topics. We prepared a guide to journals in the fieldof higher education everywhere and developed an inventory ofall higher education programs, research institutes, and centersworldwide. We track the literature on higher educationthrough short reviews of new books in IHE.

Africa FocusUnder the leadership of Damtew Teferra, research assistantprofessor at Boston College and a graduate of the BC highereducation doctoral program, the CIHE sponsored two majorAfrica projects, African Higher Education: An InternationalReference Handbook, and the Journal of Higher Education inAfrica. The journal is cosponsored by the Council for theDevelopment of Social Science Research in Africa, based inSenegal. We sponsor INHEA—the International Network onHigher Education in Africa—a major website focusing onAfrican higher education issues.

ThemesThe CIHE has concentrated on several themes, reflecting ourbroader commitments, our sense of some of the key issues inhigher education, and the interests of our students andresearchers. Our topics in the past decade have included pri-vate higher education and the privatization of public highereducation (some of this work has been in cooperation with theProgram for Research on Private Higher Education at theUniversity at Albany), the academic profession and the chang-ing academic workplace, globalization and internationalizationin higher education, the future of Asian higher education (incollaboration with Nagoya University in Japan), the role of theresearch university in developing countries, Catholic highereducation, corruption in higher education, and women’s high-er education.

The Center enters its second decade with a continuing com-mitment to serving the higher education community world-wide with thoughtful analysis, networking possibilities, andproviding access to the growing research literature on highereducation. For the immediate future, we have identified sever-al focal points for our work. Our ongoing research project onresearch (“flagship”) universities in developing and middle-income countries will provide insights into the challenges fac-ing academic institutions seeking to build research capacityand work in the top ranks of academe worldwide. OurInternational Higher Education Clearinghouse and theCorruption Monitor are building web-based resources that areof use to the field. We plan to develop a handbook for academ-ic leaders in developing countries that will serve as a resourcefor new administrators and policymakers.

The Center’s work is inspired by the conviction that highereducation is an essential part of any successful society and thatthe university plays a central role in social and economic devel-opment everywhere. Much more than just a tool for careerdevelopment and individual benefit, higher education is truly apublic good.


22

IInntteerrnneett RReessoouurrcceessVViissiitt oouurr wweebbssiittee ffoorr ddoowwnnllooaaddaabbllee bbaacckkiissssuueess ooff IInntteerrnnaattiioonnaall HHiigghheerr EEdduuccaattiioonnaanndd ootthheerr ppuubblliiccaattiioonnss aanndd rreessoouurrcceess aatt

hhttttpp::////wwwwww..bbcc..eedduu//cciihhee//..

23


departments

Publication SeriesCenter forInternational HigherEducationPhilip G. Altbach. Comparative HigherEducation: Knowledge, the University andDevelopment, 1997. (Commercial editionpublished by Ablex Publishers. Asian editionpublished by the Comparative EducationResearch Centre, University of Hong Kong.Japanese-language translation published bythe Tamagawa University Press, Tokyo,Japan. Chinese-language translation pub-lished by the People’s Education Press,Beijing, China.)

Philip G. Altbach, ed. Private Prometheus:Private Higher Education and Development inthe 21st Century, 1999. (Commercial editionpublished by Greenwood Publishers,Westport, Connecticut. Spanish-languagetranslation published by Centro de EstudiosSobre la Universidad, UNAM, Mexico.Japanese-language translation published bythe Tamagawa University Press, Tokyo,Japan.)

Philip G. Altbach and Patti McGill Peterson,eds. Higher Education in the 21st Century:Global Challenge and National Response, 1999.(Published in cooperation with the Instituteof International Education, New York.Spanish-language translation published byEditorial Biblios, Buenos Aires, Argentina.)

Philip G. Altbach and David Engberg. HigherEducation: A Worldwide Inventory of Centersand Programs, 2000. (Commercial editionpublished by Oryx Publishers, Phoenix,Arizona.)

Philip G. Altbach, ed. The Changing AcademicWorkplace: Comparative Perspectives, 2000.(Also published as a special theme issueof Higher Education, vol. 41, no. 1-2,January-March, 2001.)

Philip G. Altbach and V. Selvaratnam, eds.From Dependence to Autonomy: TheDevelopment of Asian Universities, 2002.(Commercial edition published by Kluwer

Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, theNetherlands. Japanese-language edition pub-lished by Tamagawa University Press, Tokyo,Japan. Chinese- language edition publishedin Taiwan. Asian paperback edition pub-lished by De La Salle University Press,Manila, Philippines.)

Philip G. Altbach and Yoshikazu Ogawa, eds.Higher Education in Japan: Reform andChange in the 21st Century, 2002. (Also pub-lished as a special theme issue of HigherEducation 43, no. 1, January, 2002.)

Philip G. Altbach, ed. The Decline of the Guru:The Academic Profession in Developing andMiddle-Income Countries, 2002. (Commercialedition published by Palgrave Publishers,New York and London.)

Glenda Kruss and Andre Kraak, eds. AContested Good? Understanding Private HigherEducation in South Africa, 2003. (Co-pub-lished with PROPHE, University at Albany.)

Alma Maldonado-Maldonado,Yingxia Cao,Philip G. Altbach, Daniel C. Levy, and HongZhu. Private Higher Education: AnInternational Bibliography, 2004.(Commercial edition published byInformation Age Publishers, Westport, Ct.)

Francesca B. Purcell, Robin Matross Helms,and Laura Rumbley. Women’s Universities andColleges: An International Handbook, 2004.(Commercial edition published by SensePublishers, Rotterdam, the Netherlands).

Philip G. Altbach and Toru Umakoshi, eds.Asian Universities: Historical Perspectives andContemporary Challenges, 2004. (Commercialedition published by the Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, Baltimore, Maryland.Japanese language edition published byTamagawa University Press, Tokyo, Japan.Chinese language edition published byChina Ocean University Press, Quingdao,China.)

Philip G. Altbach and Daniel C. Levy, eds.Private Higher Education: A Global Revolution.(Commercial edition published by SensePublishers, Rotterdam, the Netherlands).

Private HigherEducation: A GlobalRevolutionThis new book, copublished by CIHE andPROPHE, is now available. This 300-pagepaperback features 59 articles concerningprivate higher education that originallyappeared in International Higher Education.There is also an original introduction byPhilip G. Altbach and a conclusion by DanielC. Levy, who are the editors of this book.Copies are available free of charge to readersin developing countries. Please write or e-mail the CIHE with your request. Readerselsewhere may purchase the book fromSense Publishers, POB 21858, 3001 AWRotterdam, the Netherlands(http://www.SensePublishers.com). This vol-ume is the second in our new series on pri-vate higher education. The first, PrivateHigher Education: An InternationalBibliography, coedited by Alma Maldonado etal., is also available.

New PublicationsBarr, Nicholas and Iain Crawford. FinancingHigher Education: Answers from the UK.Routledge, 2005. 314 pp. £20.99 (pb). ISBN0-415-348579.

The authors of this book are influentialeconomists who have played an importantrole in the new British fee policy for highereducation. They argue that fees are justifiedboth in terms of ensuring that those whobenefit from higher education pay for it andto provide funds for the government to payfor higher education

Berg, Gary A. Lessons from the Edge: For-Profitand Nontraditional Higher Education inAmerica. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers,2005. 213 pp. $42.95 (hb). ISBN 0-275-98258-0. Address: Praeger Publishers, 88Post Road West, Westport CT 06881, USA.

One of the few books to look in detail at thenew for-profit institutions in the UnitedStates, this one focuses on the University ofPhoenix and DeVry University. Author Bergfocuses on how these institutions work, andwhat their goals are and how they are imple-mented. Such topics as the organization of


departments24

the institutions and the curriculum, therhetoric of the for-profit sector, and thefaculty are considered.

Bleak, Jared L. When For-Profit MeetsNonprofit: Educating Through the Market. NewYork: Routledge, 2005. 179 pp. $70 (hb).ISBN 0-415-97417-8. Address: RoutledgePublishers, 270 Madison Ave., New York, NY10016, USA.

An analysis of four U.S. universities thatestablished for-profit subsidiaries—BabsonCollege (Babson Interactive), DukeUniversity (Duke Corporate Education),Columbia University (Fathom), and NewYork University (NYUonline), this bookexamines the impact of the for-profit enter-prises on the home institution. Issues suchas governance, curriculum, the culture of theinstitution, and related issues. Impacts andsuccess of the for-profit subsidiaries werevaried.

Bradley, Richard. Harvard Rules: The Strugglefor the Soul of the World’s Most PowerfulUniversity. New York: HarperCollins, 2005.375 pp. $25.95 (hb). ISBN 0-06-056854-2.Address: HarperCollins Publishers, 10 E.53rd St., New York, NY 10022, USA.

An attack on Harvard president LawrenceSummers, this book discusses Summers’administrative and intellectual style and alsolooks into the culture and politics of Harvardduring the past half decade. Discussing theparticular organization of HarvardUniversity, the author looks at the internaland external consequences of the Summers’presidency.

Brodie, H. Keith H. and Leslie Banner, eds.The Research University Presidency in the Late20th Century: A Life Cycle/Case HistoryApproach. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2005. 347pp. (hb). ISBN 0-275-98560-1. Address:Praeger Publishers, 88 Post Rd. West,Westport CT 06881, USA.

A volume in the American Council onEducation’s valuable higher education series,this book focuses on the tribulations of thepresident of the American research universi-ty. The approach of the book is unique—ana-lytic chapters concerning the “life cycle” ofthe president are provided. These are fol-lowed by short commentaries by eight presi-dents of key universities. This book is quitevaluable for understanding presidential lead-ership.

Consejo Superior de Educación (Chile).Calidad en la Educación [Quality inEducation] No. 21: El Aseguramiento de laCalidad de la Educación Superior [QualityAssurance in Higher Education]. Santiago,Chile, December 2004. 370 pp. 5,000 CLP.ISSN 0717-4004. Address: Marchant Pereira844, Providencia, Santiago, Chile.

A volume is comprised of 21 essays, with aprimary (though not exclusive) focus on theChilean experiences of evaluation, accredita-tion, and related quality assurance activities.A list of higher education theses and disser-tations produced by graduates of Chileanuniversities in the period 2001–2003, as wellas a list of books published by Chilean uni-versity presses in 2004, round out the vol-ume.

Douthat, Ross Gregory. Privilege: Harvardand the Education of the Ruling Class. NewYork: Hyperion, 2005. 288 pp. $24.95 (hb).ISBN 1-4013-0112-6. Address: HyperionBooks, 77 W. 66th St., New York, NY 10023,USA.

This book is a memoir of life as a studentat Harvard University by a conservative stu-dent journalist. Among the topics discussedare social and political student life, elitism,and student escapades.

Ezell, Allen and John Bear. Degree Mills: TheBillion-Dollar Industry That Has Sold Over aMillion Fake Diplomas. Amherst, NY:Prometheus, 2005. 315 pp. (pb). ISBN 1-59102-238-X. Address: Prometheus Books,59 John Glenn Dr., Amherst NY 14228, USA.

As this book shows, fake degrees anddiplomas constitute a big business in theUnited States—the authors estimate thatsales exceed $500 million annually. Theauthors show that many prominent peoplehave fake degrees and that the enterprise ishighly damaging to higher education. Thisbook discusses how the “industry” works,who purchases degrees, what is being doneto enforce standards, and how legitimate aca-demic institutions are affected.

Evans, Mary. Killing Thinking: The Death ofthe Universities. Continuum, 2005. 172 pp.£22.50 (pb). ISBN 0-8264-7313-X. A critique of “marketization” in higher edu-cation in the UK context, this book arguesthat the regime of competition and regula-tion has destroyed creativity, and has shiftedthe higher education from genuine educa-tion to imparting skills perceived as useful tothe employment market.

Fagerlind, Ingemar, and Goren Stromqvist,eds. Reforming Higher Education in the NordicCountries. Paris: International Institute forEducational Planning, 2004. 265 pp. (pb).ISBN 92-803-1267-7. Address: IIEP, 7-9 rueEugene Delacroix, 75116 Paris, France.

The authors begin their book by askingwhat happened to the “Nordic model” ofhigher education in the globalized world ofthe 21st century. They focus on nationalresponses to European Union initiatives andthe changing realities within the Nordiccountries. Case studies of Denmark, Finland,Iceland, Norway, and Sweden are presented.

Hahn, Carola and Ute Hanzehdorf, eds.Wegweiser Globalisierung—Hochschulsektorenin Bewegung. Länderanalysen aus vierKontinenten zu Marktchancen für deutscheStudienangebote. (Guide to globalization: Thehigher education sector in transition:Analyses from countries on four continentsof market opportunities for German highereducation) Kassel, Germany: VerlagWinifried Jenior, 2005. 366 pp. (pb). ISBN 3-934377-75-0. Address: Verlage WinifriedJenior, Lassallestr 15, D-34119 Kassel,Germany.

From the perspective of the expansion ofGerman higher education activities abroad,this study focuses on conditions in 9 coun-tries of interest to German higher eduationexporters. The research looks at market con-ditions and other aspects of academic sys-tems relevant to overseas study programs.The countries considered are Namibia,South Africa, Jordan, Singapore, Vietnam,Russia, Turkey, Brazil, and Mexico.

Halimi, Suzy. L’enseignement supérieur auRoyaume-Uni. Paris: Ophrys, 2004. 176 pp.(pb). ISBN 2-84120-109-0. Address: OphrysPublishers, 10 rue de Nesle, 75006 Paris,France.

An overview and analysis of contemporaryBritish higher education, this volume dis-cusses recent reports that have affected high-er education in the United Kingdom, thenew culture of evaluation, issues relating toaccess, the politics of research, currentdebates about financing, and other issues.This book provides a French perspective ondevelopments in Britain.

Hersh, Richard H. and John Merrow, eds.Declining by Degrees: Higher Education at Risk.New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. 244 pp(pb). ISBN 1-4039-6921-3. Address: PalgraveMacmillan Publishers, 175 Fifth Ave., NewYork NY 10010, USA.

25


departments

A critical analysis of American higher edu-cation, this volume features discussion ofsuch topics as the state of liberal arts educa-tion, market pressures on higher education,an examination of academic quality, the cur-riculum, issues of access and retention ofstudents, and others. Among the authors aremany prominent analysts and educators.

Huisman, Jeroen and Marijk van der Wende,eds. On Cooperation and Competition II:Institutional Responses to Internationalization,Europeanization, and Globalization. Bonn:Germany: Lemmens Verlag, 2005. 247 pp.(pb). ISBN 3-932306-68-6. Address:Lemmens Verlag, Matthias-Grünewald-Str 1-3, D-53175 Bonn, Germany.

A volume in the valuable AcademicCooperation Association’s publication series,this book discusses contemporary develop-ments in the European Union regardinginternationalization of higher education andrelated issues. Most of the chapters describethe programs in European countries relatingto these themes. Among the countriesincluded are England, Norway, Greece,Austria, the Netherlands, and Germany. AEuropean-wide perspective is also provided.

Hunt, Thomas C. et al., eds. A Handbook ofResearch on Catholic Higher Education.Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers,2003. 362 pp. (pb). ISBN 1-59311-058-8.Address: Information Age Publishers, 80Mason St., Greenwich, CT 06830, USA

A comprehensive series of essays concern-ing key issues facing Catholic colleges anduniversities. This volume discusses suchtopics as the faculty at Catholic universities,the campus ministry, university-communitypartnerships, finance and fund raising, thecurriculum and its philosophical base, thehistory of Catholic higher education, and oth-ers. The focus is on the United States.

Iacoubucci, Frank and Carolyn Tuohy, eds.Taking Public Universities Seriously. Toronto:University of Toronto Press, 2005. 613 pp.$55 (pb). ISBN 0-8020-9376-0. Address:University of Toronto Press, 10 St. Mary St.,Toronto, ON M4Y 2W8, Canada.

This book, which stems from a symposiumheld as part of a review of postsecondary edu-cation in Ontario, provides a wide-rangingconsideration of the challenges facing publichigher education in Canada and worldwide.While most of the chapters focus on Canada,there are several that deal with the UnitedStates, Australia, and the United Kingdom,and all of the themes are relevant every-

where. Among the topics considered areaccess and equity, governance, graduatestudy and research, performance-basedbudgeting and other financial issues, studentloans and related issues of financing studies,and others.

Ilchman, Alice Stone, Warren F. Ilchman,and Mary Hale Tolar, eds. The Lucky Few andthe Worthy Many. Bloomington, IN: IndianaUniversity Press, 2004. 208 pp. $34.95 (hb).ISBN 0-253-34476-X. Address: IndianaUniversity Press, 601 N. Morton St.,Bloomington, IN 47404. USA.

The process of selecting winners for high-ly competitive scholarships is the focus ofthis book. The editors argue that it is very dif-ficult to select a small number of winnersfrom the many highly qualified applicantsfor such scholarship programs as Rhodesand Marshall. The challenges of ensuring theselection process, including organizing pan-els, conducting interviews, and making deci-sions are considerable and are examined bythe contributors.

Jones, Glen A., Patricia L. McCarney, andMichael L. Skolnik, eds., Creating Knowledge,Strengthening Nations: The Changing Role ofHigher Education. Toronto, Canada:University of Toronto Press, 2005. 290 pp.Cdn$60 (hb). ISBN 0-8020-3856-5. Address:University of Toronto Press, 10 St. Mary St.,Suite 700, Toronto ON M4Y 2W8, Canada.

The focus of this internationally orientedvolume is on the relationship between high-er education and economic development andentrepreneurialism. The book attempts tobalance the economic and non-economicobjectives of higher education.

Kasozi, A. B. K. University Education inUganda: Challenges and Opportunities forReform. Kampala, Uganda: FountainPublishers, 2003. 190 pp. $36.95 (pb). ISBN9970-02-342-X. Address: FountainPublishers, POB 488, Kampala, Uganda.

This book provides a wide-ranging discus-sion of the challenges facing Uganda highereducation. Among the topics discussed arepatterns of growth, financing issues, curricu-lum reform, global forces on Ugandan high-er education, management and structuralpatterns, and the challenges of quality.

Kennedy, James C. and Caroline J. Simon.Can Hope Endure? A Historical Case Study inChristian Higher Education. Grand Rapids,

MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 2004. 271 pp.$29 (pb). ISBN 0-8028-2870-1. Address:Wm. Eerdmans Publishing, 255 JeffersonAve. SE., Grand Rapids, MI 49503, USA.

A case study of Hope College in Michigan,this book provides information about the ori-gins and historical transformation of a rathertypical Protestant liberal arts college in theUnited States. Hope College was founded aspart of the Dutch Reformed Church inAmerica and has over time changed to adaptto circumstances. One of the focuses of thebook is how the institution has managed toretain its Christian heritage.

Kezar, Adrienna J., Tony C. Chambers, andJohn C. Burkharadt, eds. Higher Education forthe Public Good: Emerging Voices from aNational Movement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005. 342 pp. $40 (hb). ISBN 0-787973-82-2. Address: Jossey-BassPublishers, 989 Market St., San Francisco,CA 94103, USA.

An effort to refocus the debate about high-er education in the United States on the pub-lic good, this volume argues that higher edu-cation contributes significantly to broaderpublic goals in society. Beyond educatingpeople for both economic and civil life, col-leges and universities contribute to a socialcharger for society. Among the themes dis-cussed in the book are the state and the pub-lic good, the role of trusteeship, faculty rolesand rewards, and institutional leadership.While this volume focuses exclusively on theUnited States, there is relevance to othercountries.

Knezevic, Bozana. Program Evaluation inHigher Education. Frankfurt am Main,Germany: Peter Lang, 2005. 292 pp. $57.95(pb). ISBN 3-631-52828-0. Address: PeterLange Publishers, Eschborner Landstr. 42-50, D-60489 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

The focus of this book is the improvementof the curriculum on higher education.Using action research, it is argued that activelearning, and democratic evaluation areappropriate ways of handling internal evalu-ation.

Krotsch, Pedro. Educación Superior yReformas Comparadas [Higher Education andComparative Reforms]. Buenos Aires,Argentina: Universidad Nacional deQuilmes, 2001. 196 pp. ISBN 987-9173-54-6.Address: Roque Sáenz Peña 180 – Bernal –(B1876BXD) Pcia. de Buenos Aires.

A comparative analysis of the problems for


departments26

higher education of change, innovation, andreform represents the main focus of thisbook. The author introduces the concept ofcomparative higher education in the contextof innovation and reform; provides anoverview of the more general field of highereducation studies; explores key examples ofanalytical frameworks for understandinghigher education; reviews contemporarydevelopments in higher education in theindustrialized world; and zeroes in on ananalysis of important developments in theLatin American and Argentine higher edu-cation contexts.

Lang, James M. Life on the Tenure Track:Lessons from the First Year. Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005. 186pp. $18 (pb). ISBN 0-8018-8103-X. Address:Johns Hopkins University Press, 2715 N.Charles St., Baltimore MD, 21218, USA

This book is a memoir, written in diarystyle, of the first year of teaching in anAmerican college. Among the topics dis-cussed are the tenure system, the challengesof teaching, faculty politics, and others. Thestyle is engaging.

Leslie, W. Bruce. Gentlemen and Scholars:Colleges and Community in the “Age of theUniversity.” New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction,2005. 312 pp. $29.95 (pb). ISBN 1-4128-0458-2. Address: Transaction Publishers, 35Berrue Circle, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA.

A historical study of 19th centuryAmerican undergraduate colleges, this bookshows how four institutions developed fromtheir Protestant denominational roots into amore national orientation as the UnitedStates became industrialized in the latter19th century. Leslie argues that the most suc-cessful of these institutions adjusted tonational economic and social trends, whileothers retained their more parochial roots.

Levy, Daniel C. To Export Progress: The GoldenAge of University Assistance in the Americas.Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press,2005. 407 pp. (hb). ISBN 0-253-34577-4.Address: Indiana University Press, 601 N.Morton St., Bloomington IN 47404, USA.

A multidimensional analysis of assistanceprovided mainly during the 1960s and 1970sby the Ford Foundation, the U.S. Agency forInternational Development and the Inter-American Development Bank to LatinAmerican higher education, this book looksat motivations of donors and recipients, suc-cesses and failures, of a range of develop-

ment assistance programs.

Lin, Xiaoqing Diana. Peking University:Chinese Scholarship and Intellectuals, 1898-1937. Albany, NY: State University of NewYork Press, 2005. 233 pp. (hb). ISBN 0-7914-6321-4. Address: SUNY Press, 90 State St.,Albany NY 12207, USA.

Focusing on the development of academicdisciplines and curriculum, this book exam-ines the formative years of China’s mostinfluential and oldest modern academicinstitution, Peking University. The interplaybetween Western academic knowledge andChinese ideas is discussed.

Luhanga, Matthew L. et al. Strategic Planningand Higher Education Management in Africa:the University of Dar es Salaam Experience.Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Dar es SalaamUniversity Press, 2003. 225 pp. $36.95 (pb).ISBN 9976603959. Address: Dar es SalaamUniversity Press, POB 35182, Dar es Salaam,Tanzania.

This book provides a detailed discussion ofthe strategic planning process that took placeat the University of Dar es Salaam during the1990s. The nature of the planning process isdiscussed as is the nature of the plans them-selves and the process of implementation.Implications for other African countries arealso provided.

Martin, Robert E. Cost Control, College Access,and Competition in Higher Education.Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2005. 258pp. (hb). ISBN 1-84376-953-0. Address:Edward Elgar Publishers, Glensanda House,Montpellier Parade, Cheltenham, GL50 1UA,UK. Economist Martin focuses on the complexrelationship between the desire or U.S. high-er educations to maximize the their prestigewhile at the same time serving their stu-dents. Taking to account competition,increasing costs, endowment issues, andother factors, he develops a model for costcontainment while serving the “social con-tract” the students.

Merrifield, Susan R. Readin’ and Writin’for the Hard-Hat Crowd: Curriculum Policy atan Urban University. New York: Peter Lang,2005. 139 pp (pb). ISBN 0-8204-5508-3.Address: Peter Lang Publishers, 275 SeventhAve., New York, NY 10001, USA

A case study of the establishing of anurban public university in the United States.

Establishing in 1964, Urban State Universitywas supposed to be a “poor man’s Harvard.”This volume discusses the problems andchallenges encountered by the institution,with special attention to curricular issues.

Muche, Franziska, Maria Kelo, and BerndWächter. The Admission of InternationalStudents into Higher Education: Policies andInstruments. Bonn: Germany: LemmensVerlag, 2004. 175 pp. (pb). ISBN 3-932306-62-7. Address: Lemmens Verlag, Matthias-Grünewald-Str 1-3, D-53175 Bonn, Germany.

This volume presents a detailed analysis ofhow the admission of international studentsis administered in several countries, includ-ing the United States, Switzerland and sever-al others, and a consideration of the key ele-ments of admissions policy. This book will beof great value for academic institutions con-cerned with the processes of admissions in achanging international environment.

Muche, Franziska, ed. Opening Up to theWider World: The External Dimsion of theBologna Process. Bonn: Germany: LemmensVerlag, 2005. 133 pp. (pb). ISBN 3-932306-67-8. Address: Lemmens Verlag, Matthias-Grünewald-Str 1-3, D-53175 Bonn, Germany.

This book considers the ongoing Bolognaprocess in European higher education froman international perspective. The focus ofthis book is on how other regions of theworld—including the United States, India,Africa, Latin America, and Australia—viewthe process and how they might fit in.Consideration is given to the prospects fornon-European students in the new arrange-ments and how admissions and relatedissues can be handled.

Newman, Frank, Lara Couturier, and JamieScurry. The Future of Higher Education:Rhetoric, Reality, and the Risks of the Market.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004. 284 pp.(hb). ISBN: 0-7879-0972-9. Address: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 989 Market St., SanFrancisco, CA 94103, USA.

The final report of the Futures Project,headed by the late Frank Newman, this bookprovides a very useful overview of broadtrends shaping higher education in theUnited States. Its relevance, however, is glob-al, since the issues facing the United Statesare common in most countries. An overalltheme of the book is the “problem of themarket”—the negative implications of themarketization of higher education. Among

the themes discussed are how competition isdistorting the public purpose of higher edu-cation, the problems of autonomy andaccountability, student learning, and the roleof service.

Nkulu, Kiluba L. Serving the Common Good: APostcolonial African Perspective on HigherEducation. New York: Peter Lang, 2005. 182pp $59.95 (hb). ISBN 0-8204-76269.Address: Peter Lange Publishing, 275Seventh Ave., New York NY 10001, USA

Using Julius Nyerere’s ideas about educa-tion for the common good, this volumeexamines how African higher education canhelp to solve the cultural, economic, politicaland social problems of the 21st century.

Odin, Jaishree K. and Peter T. Manicas, eds.Globalization and Higher Education.Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2004.265 pp. $27 (pb). ISBN 0-8248-2826-7.Address: University of Hawaii Press, 2840Kolowalu St., Honolulu, HI 96822, USA.

Stemming from a conference on the ide-ologies of globalization, this book analyzes arange of topics relating to how globalizationaffects higher education. Among the topicsconsidered are the impact of the internet onthe professoriate, a critique of the neoliberalagenda for higher education, lessons fromfor-profit higher education, globalization,access to higher education, corporate chal-lenges, the role of the new technologies, andothers.

Ogren, Christine A. The American StateNormal School. New York: PalgraveMacmillan, 2005. 310 pp. (pb). ISBN 1-4039-6838-1. Address: Palgrave Macmillan, 175Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10010, USA.

Between 1870 and the 1900s, public nor-mal schools were responsible for the educa-tion of many school teachers in the UnitedStates. More than 200 contemporary col-leges and universities stem from these nor-mal schools. This history discusses teachereducation, gender issues, and related issuesin analyzing the history of these institutions.

Orfield, Gary, Patricia Marin, andCatherine L. Horn, eds., Higher Educationand the Color Line: College Access, RacialEquity, and Social Change. Cambridge, MA:Harvard Education Press, 2005. 228 pp. (pb).ISBN 1-891792-59-8. Address: HarvardEducation Press, 8 Story St., Cambridge, MA

02138, USA. A broad consideration of race in

American higher education, this book exam-ines the affordability of higher education formembers of minority groups, racial diversityon campus, standardized assessment andhigher education, race and gender inequalityin the 50 states, the role of higher educationin social mobility, and related issues.

Potts, Anthony. Civic Leaders and theUniversity. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang,2003. 407 pp. $56.95, ¤61.40. (hb). ISBN 3-906769-54-2. Address: Peter LangPublishers, POB 350, CH 2542 Pieterlen,Switzerland.

This book explores the relationshipbetween regional political leaders and thedevelopment of two universities in Australia.The focus is on the role of civil and politicalleaders in the development and support ofacademic institutions. The case studies pro-vide detail concerning the interplay betweenpolitics, concepts of development, and theestablishment of universities.

Schuman, Samuel. Old Main: Small Collegesin Twenty-first Century America. Baltimore,Md: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2005.280 pp. $39.95 (hb). ISBN 0-8018-8092-0.Address: Johns Hopkins University Press,2715 N. Charles St., Baltimore MD 21218,USA.

This analysis of the situation of small liber-al arts colleges in the United States is basedon case studies of 12 institutions out of a totalof 600. The case study schools include pub-lic and private, and prestigious and lessfamous institutions. Schuman points outthat these colleges are different from themainstream of American higher educationand that they face particular problems andchallenges. He is also convinced of theimportance of these colleges.

Shulman, Lee S. Teaching as CommunityProperty: Essays on Higher Education. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers, 2004.242 pp. (hb). ISBN 0-7879-7201-0. Address:Jossey Bass Publishers, 989 Market St. SanFrancisco, CA 94103, USA.

Carnegie Foundation president Shulmanargues for the primacy of teaching in highereducation in this series of essays.

Stevens, Robert. University or Uni: ThePolitics of Higher Education in England since

1944. London: Politico’s, 2004. 196 pp.L15.99. ISBN 1-84275-102-6. Address:Politico’s, 215 Vauxhall Bridge Rd., LondonSW1V 1EJ, UK.

Author Stevens has held academic posi-tions in the United Kingdom and in theUnited States and focuses in this book onanalyzing a half century of British highereducation policy. He argues that governmenthas taken ever-greater interest in higher edu-cation and that the academic system isincreasingly seen as central to the success ofthe economy. Universities have become lessindependent.

Vest, Charles M. Pursuing the Endless Frontier:Essays on MIT and the Role of ResearchUniversities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,2004. 291 pp. $24.95 (hb). ISBN 0-262-22072-5. Address: MIT Press, 55 HaywardSt., Cambridge MA 02142, USA.

Recently retired MIT president Vest focus-es on some of the central issues facingresearch universities from the perspective ofthe MIT experience. Among the topics con-sidered are relationships between universityand industry, national security and highereducation, excellence and access, the impli-cations of the digital age, and others.

Weston, Timothy B. The Power of Position:Beijing University, Intellectuals, and ChinesePolitical Culture, 1898–1929. Berkeley:University of California Press, 2004. 325 pp.(hb). ISBN 0-520-23767-6. Address:University of California Press, 2120 BerkeleyWay, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA.

Beijing University, China’s key academicinstitution, has been centrally involved withChinese politics since its establishment inthe late 19th century. This volume focuses onintellectual and political trends in the univer-sity, on the scholars who were involved inshaping those trends and broader politicalthought in China, and how the universityinteracted with society during a key period inChinese political development.

Wulff, Donald H and Ann E. Austin, eds.Paths to the Professoriate: Strategies forEnriching the Preparation of Future Faculty.San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 2004. 300 pp.(hb). ISBN 0-7879-6634-7. Address: JosseyBass Publishers, 989 Market St., SanFrancisco, CA 94103, USA.

A useful compilation of current thinkingand programs concerning the reform of doc-toral education in the United States, this

27


departments

book features discussion of career paths ofdoctoral recipients, strategies for academiccareer socialization, the development ofgraduate students as teaching scholars, and avariety of new programs for doctoral educa-tion. While this book focuses on the UnitedStates, it may be relevant to others concernedwith developing doctoral education.

Publications from Japan on highereducationThe Research Institute for Higher Educationat Hiroshima University, the oldest such cen-ter in Japan and one of the government-fund-ed Centers of Excellence, regularly publishesbooks and journals in English concerningJapanese and international higher education.The annual Higher Education Research inJapan provides English translations from the

Institute’s quarterly Japanese-language pub-lication, Daigaku Ronsho. The 2005 issueincludes articles on fixed-term arrangementsfor Japanese professors, social stratificationand higher education in Japan, and the aca-demic profession. Articles on comparativethemes are also published. Higher EducationForum, also published annually, collects arti-cles from leading scholars in the field ofhigher education in Japan and elsewhere ortopics of general relevance. The 2005 issueincludes articles on social stratification, theBologna process, mass higher education inChina and Japan, and other topics.Globalization and Higher Education, edited byAkira Arimoto, Futao Huang, and KeikoYokoyama, features analyses of themes onglobalization in Australia, Germany, China,Japan, and the Nordic countries. Another vol-

ume with an international theme isEnhancing Quality and Building the 21stCentury Higher Education System. Stemmingfrom an international conference, this bookfeatures mainly chapters concerning Japanbut also includes several analyses of otherAsian countries. Further information can beobtained from the RIHE, 1-2-2 Kagamiyami,Higashi-Hiroshima 739-8512, Japan. The faxnumber is 81-82-422-7104.


departments28

our website The Center’s award-winning website is a useful sourceof information and analysis on higher education world-wide. All back issues of International Higher Educationare available, and an index provides easy access to arti-cles by topic and country. Center publications are alsoavailable, and links to relevant higher education web-sites and information are provided. We are a featured e-link of the World Bank and other agencies.

the program in higher education in the lynchschool of education, boston college The Center is closely related to the program in highereducation at Boston College. The program offers mas-ter’s and doctoral degree study in the field of higher edu-cation. The program has been preparing professionals inhigher education for three decades. It features a rigoroussocial science–based approach to the study of highereducation, combining a concern with the broader theo-retical issues relating to higher education and an under-standing of the practice of academic administration.The Administrative Fellows initiative provides financialassistance as well as work experience in a variety ofadministrative settings. Specialization is offered inhigher education administration, student affairs anddevelopment, international higher education, and otherareas. Additional information about the program is avail-able from Dr. Karen Arnold, coordinator of the programin higher education, Lynch School of Education,Campion Hall, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Mass-achusetts, 02467, USA. Fax: (617) 552-8422. E-mail:<[email protected]>. More information about the pro-

gram—including course descriptions and degree require-ments—can be found on-line at the program’s website:<http://infoeagle.bc.edic/bc_org/avp/soe/hea/JEA/html>. International Higher Education is available full-text on our website. The Boston College Center for Internation-al Higher Education provides a unique service to collegesand universities world wide by focusing on the globalrealities of higher education. Our goal is to bring aninternational consciousness to the analysis of highereducation. We are convinced that an international perspective will contribute to enlightened policy andpractice. To serve this goal, the Center publishes Inter-national Higher Education, a book series on higher edu-cation, and other publications. We sponsor occasionalconferences on key issues in higher education and main-tain a resource base for researchers and policymakers.The Center welcomes visiting scholars for periods ofstudy and reflection. We have a special concern for aca-demic institutions in the Jesuit tradition worldwide, andmore broadly with Catholic universities. The Center isalso concerned with creating dialogue and cooperationamong academic institutions in industrialized nationsand in developing countries. We are convinced that ourfuture depends on effective collaboration and the cre-ation of an international community focused on theimprovement of higher education in the public interest.

editorPhilip G. Altbach

assistant editorSalina Kopellas

editorial officeCenter for InternationalHigher EducationCampion HallBoston CollegeChestnut Hill, MA 02467USATel: (617) 552–4236Fax: (617) 552–8422E-Mail: [email protected]://www.bc.edu/cihe

International HigherEducation is published quarterly by the Centerfor International HigherEducation. We welcome corrrespondence, ideasfor articles, and reports. If you would like to beplace on our mailing list,please write to the editoron your business letter-head. There is no chargefor a subscription.

issn: 1084–0613

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

the boston college center for international higher education · owns universities in spain,...

Documents