the boston college center for international higher educationgoals of success mohamed h. a. hassan...

international higher educationthe boston college center for international higher education

number 46 winter 2007

2 Four Models of GrowthArthur M. Hauptman

3 Goals of Success: Universities and DevelopmentMohamed H. A. Hassan

4 Exam Trends and Global Talent FlowsJohnette Peyton and Veronica A. Garcia

6 The Dominance of English in Scholarly PublishingMary Jane Curry and Theresa Lillis

7 Mobilizing Marginalized Talent: The International Fellowship ProgramJürgen Enders

8 Internationalization Brings Benefits and Risks: Survey ResultsJane Knight

10 Entering International Markets: New Zealand’s ProblemsMa Xiaoying and Malcolm Abbott

11 US Accreditors Shouldn’t Evaluate Foreign CollegesAlan L. Contreras

12 Internationalizing Canada’s UniversitiesRoopa Desai Trilokekar and Glen A. Jones

17 India: The New Private SectorAsha Gupta

Departments26 New Publications

Private Higher Education

Africa Focus18 Planning for Higher Education Change in Madagascar

Fred M. Hayward and Hanitra Rasoanampoizina

20 Emerging Policy Shift in Botswana’s Higher Education LandscapeIsaac N. Obasi

21 Violence in Pursuit of Knowledge: African Victims of XenophobiaDamtew Teferra

Internationalization Trends

14 The International Branch CampusLine Verbik

15 Mainland Chinese Students in Hong Kong and MacauMei Li

Countries and Regions22 The Minnow and the Whale: Singapore-China Relations

Anthony Welch

24 China’s Soft Power ProjectionRui Yang

Four Models of GrowthArthur M. Hauptman

Arthur M. Hauptman is a public policy consultant specializing in highereducation finance issues. This article is from a paper on strategies to meettertiary challenges prepared for the Higher Education Authority in Ireland.E-mail: [email protected].

Over the past half century, more than a dozen countriesaround the world have employed varying strategies to

move from elite systems of tertiary education to mass or uni-versal ones, enrolling at least half of the traditional college-agepopulation. Examining the strategies employed helps to assesshow these and other countries in the future may keep up witha burgeoning demand derived from the increasing economicreturns through additional postsecondary education and train-ing. A review of the strategies employed suggests four modelsof growth.

Model One: Expansion of a public sector charging lit-tle or no tuition fees. This is perhaps the most prevalent model of growth over thepast half century. Countries make a financial commitment ofpublic funds sufficient to expand their public sectors of tertiaryeducation without requiring large or even significant cost shar-ing in the form of higher fees from students and families. Inthis approach, tuition fees represent 10 percent or less of theresources used to pay for instructional and operational expens-es (excluding research and other activities).

In the 1950s and 1960s, the United States employed such astrategy to make a transition to a mass education systembeyond the secondary level. This model included the develop-ment of a community college system as well as the creationand expansion of four-year public institutions. In the pastquarter century, this strategy has been used by severalScandinavian countries including Norway, Sweden, andFinland.

The critical component for successful implementation ofthis strategy is a country’s willingness and ability to devote sub-stantial levels of public resources (probably in excess of 1.5 per-cent of GDP) to allow for expansion without significant costsharing. In reality, most countries are not in a position to makesuch a commitment of public funding.

Model Two: Publicly financed fees repaid through thetax system once students graduate. Australia established a new model for growth in the late 1980swhen it introduced its Higher Education Contribution Scheme(HECS). This strategy recognized two realities. One was thefinancial reality that private resources were needed to supple-ment public resources to fuel the growth of higher education.

The other was the political reality that many students and theirfamilies were unwilling to pay traditional fees. To deal withthese realities, Australia developed an approach in which thegovernment would initially finance fees, with most of thesestudents repaying the fees once they graduated as a percentageof their income through the tax system. England and Thailandintroduced a similar system of publicly financed fees begin-ning in the academic year 2006.

A key question with regard to publicly financed fees, like themodel of public-sector expansion, is whether a country hasenough resources to fund it. Under this approach, govern-ments essentially are funding both sides of the tertiary financ-ing equation—operational support of institutions and the pay-ment of fees by students and families—until the stream of loanrepayments is sufficient to provide significant privateresources. Even a country as wealthy as Australia has foundthat it needed to reduce HECS subsidies by lowering theincomes that qualify for nonrepayment and raising the HECSfees to make the system sustainable. In addition, manyAustralian institutional officials would claim that public sup-port of higher education has been reduced to make ends meet.

Model Three: Increased cost sharing combined withhigher levels of student aid. This model of growth is one in which more significant costrecovery through higher fees is introduced at a wide range ofpublic institutions. This plan is usually combined with greaterreliance on student aid to ensure that economically disadvan-taged students are not discouraged from attending when high-er fees are charged. Over the past quarter century, the UnitedStates, New Zealand, and Canada are examples of countriesthat successfully pursued this approach to expand resources tomeet rapidly growing demand.

Raising fees for all public-sector students is typicallythought of as the basic policy response for greater cost sharing.In reality, countries raise fees in a number of different ways toincrease the degree of cost sharing. Many Eastern Europeancountries established a system of parallel fees in which stu-dents who do not qualify for the “free seats” based on gradesand merit can enroll in the same courses of study by payingtuition fees that are set at or near the full cost of education.This plan is not recommended as it introduces or reinforcessystem inequities.

However, other ways of raising fees selectively make a greatdeal of sense for spurring growth and introducing greater equi-ty. These methods include dual fee systems in which studentsin state-funded fields pay low, subsidized fees, while studentsin high-demand fields such as business or law pay higher“market-based” fees equal or close to full costs. Australia is aprime example of a country that has moved to a dual fee struc-ture in which HECS students pay (or repay) government-setfees, whereas all foreign students and a growing number ofdomestic students pay at much higher levels. Differential feesby level of study are another common strategy for increased

international higher education

2

cost sharing. Groups of students pay different levels of fees:lower fees for domestic undergraduates and higher fees forgraduate students, international students, and in someinstances adult learners.

Model Four: Expansion of a private sector of institu-tions. This model of growth expands enrollments in private institu-tions to take up the slack created from restrictions in the sizeand growth of the public sector of tertiary education. This hasoccurred in a number of countries around the world either asa matter of deliberate government strategies or simply as anindustry developing in response to unmet demand. In theMiddle East and some countries in Asia, the number of pri-vate-sector institutions and students has grown particularly invocational programs, although private universities have beenthe primary source of growth in some countries such as Japanand Korea. Poland is an example of an eastern European coun-try that has become a mass higher education system largelythrough the growth of a private sector.

In some countries, the private institutions are for-profitwhile in others their organization is typically not-for-profit,with surpluses reinvested in the institution. What is commonis that most enrollment growth occurs in the private sectorwhile the number of students enrolling in public-sector insti-tutions remains stable or grows very slowly as additional pub-lic funds are not made available. One way to encourage moreenrollments in the private sector is to make students enrollingin these institutions eligible for the full range of student grantsand loans. Another way to encourage private-sector growth isfor governments to facilitate the approval of programs thatmeet minimal quality standards.

The four models of growth described above demonstratethat there are different routes for countries to achieve the goalof mass or universal tertiary education.

Universities and Development:Goals of SuccessMohamed H. A. Hassan

Mohamed H. A. Hassan is executive director of the Academy of Sciencesfor the Developing World (TWAS) in Trieste, Italy. E-mail:[email protected]. For additional information about TWAS, seewww.twas.org.

In the 1970s, universities in many developing countriesenjoyed strong support from their governments. Staffed by a

youthful and well-trained faculty, equipped with adequateclassrooms and laboratories, and spurred by the excitementand sense of purpose associated with new enterprises, institu-tions of higher education across the developing world seemedpoised to gain additional strength in the future. For example,the University of Khartoum in Sudan, where I taught andserved as dean of the school of mathematics for more than adecade, was one of the best universities not only in Africa butalso throughout the developing world.

So what happened? How did such promising circumstancesturn into such a dismal situation in the late 1980s and 1990s?How did universities, especially universities in the world'spoorest countries, become hollow, largely destitute institutionswhere little learning and even less research took place?

Part of the answer lies in forces well beyond the influence ofscientists and scientific communities in developing countries.Political instability often accompanied by deadly violence;declining investments in higher education by both govern-ments and international lending agencies; the rise ofHIV/AIDS and other public health issues; and many other crit-ical concerns, which demanded immediate responses, distract-ed attention from higher education and, more specifically,adversely impacted investments in science and technology inthe developing world.

At the same time, aid agencies increasingly concluded thatdeveloping nations should focus on getting their economichouse in order, usually by reducing governmental expendi-tures to curb public debt. They also came to believe that scien-tific research was a luxury that developing nations could notafford in light of the critical social and economic issues thatthey faced. The science and technology that developing coun-tries needed, aid agencies reasoned, could be acquired fromothers.

As a result, throughout the late 1980s and into the early1990s, governments in many developing countries substan-tially reduced their investment in higher education. Aid agen-cies, meanwhile, devalued the importance of building indige-nous capacity in science and technology in the developingworld.

The irony of this strategy was this: The critical issues thatdeveloping countries faced—whether a desire to reducehunger and malnutrition, provide greater access to safe drink-ing water, curb disease and improve public health, or constructreliable energy systems—all necessitated the widespread appli-cations of science and technology. Indeed, such effortsrequired not just any science and technology but appropriate

3


Throughout the late 1980s and into the early

1990s, governments in many developing countries

substantially reduced their investment in higher

education.

homegrown science and technology that could effectivelyaddress critical indigenous problems.

Why, then, were universities not turned to as ideal places tostudy, research, and demonstrate science-based solutions tocritical problems? Universities and professors in developingcountries bear part of the responsibility for their marginaliza-tion. Having trained in universities in the developed world;having pursued dissertation topics of interest to the developedworld; having forged joint research projects with colleagues inthe developed world; and having defined a successful career bystandards set by their counterparts in the developed world, sci-entists in the developing world—more often than not—foundthemselves disengaged from their societies.

After more than two decades spent largely exiled in devel-oped countries or as castaways in their own nations, scientistsin the developing world are now being welcomed back intotheir societies. This time, however, governments are insistingthat investments in science and technology provide a payoff interms of improvements in economic and social well-being.And this time, scientists are increasingly recognizing that theyneed to be responsive to their societies' concerns if the fund-ing is to continue.

This rapprochement between science and society in thedeveloping world has not been easy. Yet many signposts alongthe way have signaled the advances. These signposts include,for example, Brazil, China, and India's success in promotingscience-based development; the growing maturity of universi-ty systems in these and other countries that has led institutionsof higher education to embrace long-term responsibilities foreducation, research, and community service; and expandingefforts at South-South cooperation marked not only byexchange programs such as the South-South fellowship pro-gram of the Academy of Sciences for the Developing World forpostgraduate and postdoctoral research, which provides some250 fellowships a year, but the China-Brazil Earth ResourcesSatellite program, begun in 1998, which has led to the launchof two Earth-imaging satellites, with two more launchesplanned by 2008. Indeed signposts, both large and small,abound, creating a sense of positive direction and optimism forthe future of higher education in the developing world that isunprecedented.

Despite the recent progress, we must examine and evaluateon an ongoing basis what individual scientists and scientificinstitutions are contributing to society—in terms of improvednutrition, better health, more reliable energy supplies,enhanced communications, a cleaner environment and, per-haps most importantly, overall efforts to break the cycle ofextreme poverty that has afflicted too many places in the devel-oping world for decades.

Nevertheless, the key to success, especially for universitydepartments and faculties of science lies in excellence. That'sbecause science without excellence is not science. But success,as I have argued here, also lies in relevance. That's becausewithout responding to the needs of society, university science

departments will find it difficult to sustain society's support.Moreover, without educating and training students in waysthat make them employable within their own countries, youngscientists and technologists will not stay home once they grad-uate.

As recent history in the developing world shows, successfulinstitutions of higher education without societal purpose willnot be successful for long.________________This article is reprinted, with permission, from IAU Horizons 12

(34), 2006. © International Association of Universities.

Exam Trends and Global TalentFlowsJohnette Peyton and Veronica A. Garcia

Johnette Peyton is a manager of applied research at the GraduateManagement Admission Council®. Address: 1600 Tysons Boulevard, Suite1400, McLean, VA 22102, USA. E-mail: [email protected]. Veronica A.Garcia is research writer/editor at the Graduate Management AdmissionCouncil®. E-mail: [email protected].

In a recent issue of the Harvard Business Review, RichardFlorida identified students as the leading indicator of global

talent flow, stating that countries and regions that attract stu-dents have an advantage on retaining them and attracting addi-tional pools of talent. If Florida’s statement holds true, thennew data from the Graduate Management Admission Council(GMAC) appear to demonstrate evidence of this new competi-tive landscape.

GMAC, a global not-for-profit education organization ofleading graduate business schools and owner of the GraduateManagement Admission Test (GMAT), publishes GeographicTrend Reports identifying migratory trends among GMATexaminees. Findings are based on voluntary responses to theGMAT background information questionnaire along withscore report and registration information in a given testingyear. The most recent report data include 212,532 examineerecords in 2001 and 200,503 in 2005. Approximately two-thirds had US addresses at the time of registration in bothyears.

Test report submissions are used to gauge interest in study-ing in a particular region, as GMAT scores often accompanyapplications to graduate business programs. GMAC findingssuggest geographic trends for examinees shifted drastically insome regions from 2001 to 2005. Data from both years identi-fy a strong preference for US programs overall with a slightdecline from 2001 to 2005, as well as increasing interest inprograms located in England, France, India, and Greece.


4

However, changes in Greece are primarily linked to increasedexaminees from Greece.

North Americans Stick Close to HomeUS citizens sent nearly 99 percent of their score reports to pro-grams in the United States both years. Canadians, thoughslightly more diverse, sent 95 percent of their score reports toprograms in North America (about 62 percent to Canadianprograms and 32 percent to US programs).

Among US citizens, schools located in England made thegreatest gains, and Spain doubled their percentage. Canadians,though consistent in their preference for North America, didshow slightly increased interest in England, France, and HongKong from one year to the next.

Major Shifts in Western Europe, Central Asia, and theMiddle EastCitizens of Western Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle Eastdisplayed dramatically reduced interest in US programsbetween 2001 and 2005. (Regional categories by countrydivide the continent of Asia into two categories: Asia andCentral Asia.) Among all citizens of Western Europe, the datashow an increasing desire to remain close to home. Programsin Greece experienced the greatest percentage gain among allexaminees from Western Europe, moving from sixth to fourthoverall.

From citizens of Central Asia, which includes India accord-ing to the GMAC regional breakdown of the report, Indiagained the most market share from the decreased interest inUS programs. In addition, citizens of Central Asia displayedincreased interest in studying in England, Singapore, andCanada from 2001 to 2005.

The majority of GMAT examinees from the Middle Eastregion, as defined in the report, are from Israel. Perhaps thatexplains why examinees from the region place programs locat-ed in Israel at the top of their list. Citizens of the Middle Eastregion additionally displayed increased interest in programslocated in Canada, Lebanon, and England. Also, the UnitedArab Emirates, which was not ranked in 2001, ranked seventhin 2005 for Middle Eastern examinees.

Minor Shifts in Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, and LatinAmericaTest takers from eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, and LatinAmerica consistently prefer US programs, but slight declineswere noted from 2001 to 2005. In eastern Europe, this declinein US programs was countered by increased interest in pro-grams located in England and France.

Asians, who include Chinese, continue to place Canadianprograms as a distant second to programs in the United States.In third place, however, England replaced Hong Kong amongAsian citizens between the two years, and Thailand, which wasnot in the top 10 in 2001, ranked 10th among Asian citizens in2005. Asian citizens also displayed increasing interest in

England, China, France, the Netherlands, and Singapore.For Africans, England replaced Canada as second behind

the United States, and South Africa, Kenya, and Egypt contin-ue to be popular. Declining interest in US programs from citi-zens of the Mexico/Caribbean/Latin America region was pri-marily replaced by increasing interest in Canada, England,France, Spain, and the Netherlands. Germany also debuted forthe first time among citizens of Mexico/Caribbean/LatinAmerica in 2005.

Oceania Bucks the TrendContrary to trends noted for all other world regions, citizens of

Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands (Oceania, col-lectively), displayed increased interest in US programs over theyears reported, but other countries also witnessed increasedinterest from this region. The percentages of examinees send-ing scores to England, France, and Ireland all increased whilethe percentage of score reports sent to schools in Australia,Hong Kong, and Canada decreased. Interest in New Zealandprograms also rose for the Oceania group overall.

DiscussionUS business programs, which have long been the primary des-tination of GMAT examinees, are facing increasing competi-tion from England, France, and India. Interest in Canadianprograms, though consistently second on the list overall, isfluctuating by region, and programs in the Middle East andwestern Europe are experiencing the greatest increases fromtheir own citizens in recent years.

If these trends are indicative of long-term talent flows, aspredicted by Florida, then we may in fact be witnessing subtleshifts in market advantage around the world. A comparison ofcompanies listed in the top 100 of the Fortune Global 500 listfor 2005 shows US companies generated nearly three timesthe revenue of their nearest competitors combined—inGermany, followed next by those in France, the UnitedKingdom (particularly England), and Japan. Given the currentseparation between revenues, it may be difficult for any onearea to overtake the lead position in the near term, but there iscertainly evidence of opportunity if talent continues to favor amore diverse distribution. And this opportunity will be partic-ularly evident if the population of students educated abroadgrows from 1.7 million in 2001 to more than 8 million by 2025,as estimated by UNESCO.

The full report, including regional category descriptions and fur-

5


US business programs, which have long been the

primary destination of GMAT examinees, are fac-

ing increasing competition from England, France,

and India.

ther information on trends in specific European and Asian countries,is available at www.gmac.com/researchreports.

The Dominance of English inGlobal Scholarly Publishing

Mary Jane Curry and Theresa Lillis

Mary Jane Curry is assistant professor of education at the Warner GraduateSchool of Education, University of Rochester. Address: PO Box 270425,Dewey Hall, Rochester, NY 14627, USA. E-mail:[email protected]. Theresa Lillis is senior lecturer in languageand communication in the Centre for Language and Communications atthe Open University, UK. For more information on their project seewww.paw.open.ac.uk.

In an era characterized by globalization, the enterprise of aca-demic research would ideally capitalize on contributions

from scholars all over the world. Yet language barriers canpresent a considerable obstacle to the global circulation ofresearch findings. The dominance of English as the languageof scholarly publishing means that scholars around the worldare under increasing pressure to publish their research inEnglish. This situation is problematic in two important ways.First, scholars outside of English-dominant contexts faceissues of equity in their access to publishing venues, particu-larly high-status English-medium research journals. Whilesuch scholars experience increasing pressure to publish inEnglish (as a major criterion for promotion and researchgrants), they often have uneven access to the means to do so,including monies for conference travel and research collabora-tion, library and other resources, and time to write in English.Second, even as multilingual scholars’ material conditionsmay hinder their English publishing, the global research com-munity suffers from not receiving their research findings,insights, and methodologies. The result may be the emergenceof what Polish scholar Anna Duszak calls an “academic mono-culture.”

The Challenges of Publishing in EnglishSince 2001 we have been conducting a study of some 50 schol-ars in southern and eastern Europe to understand the effectsof the dominance of English on global academic knowledgeproduction. Multilingual scholars attempting to publish in

English face a number of challenges, the least of which may betheir technical competence in English. Typically, publishing inEnglish entails more than direct translation of academic writ-ing. Rather, a key to scholars’ success in publishing is theirinteractions with “literacy brokers”—gatekeepers such as jour-nal editors and peer reviewers as well as disciplinary and lan-guage specialists who may help at various points in the trajec-tory of writing and publishing research articles.

Gaining access to literacy brokers can be difficult but mayhappen through participation in local, regional, and interna-tional scholarly research networks, whether formal or infor-mal. The most useful types of “brokers” appear to be discipli-nary specialists who are attuned to the key research questions,current discussions, and debates of the field and methodolo-gies preferred by linguistic “center”-based journals. However,the interventions of some brokers may result in pressure onmultilingual academics to skew their writing to achieve publi-cation by matching the preferences of center-based journals.Our research provides evidence of the relegation of peripheryscholars to roles in which they consume and confirm center-based research but are not allowed access to platforms fromwhich to contribute different perspectives and findings.

The Global Politics of LanguageThe global dominance of English in scholarly publishing hasimplications for international higher education along twomain lines: (1) for gatekeepers of scholarly publication and par-ticipation in international academic conferences to understandthe challenges that multilingual scholars confront; and (2) fornational governmental and institutional policymaking bodiesto consider the effects of the premium placed on English-medi-um journal publishing.

First, in terms of the gatekeeping activities of journals and

conferences, it is important for journal reviewers and editors,conference organizers, and proposal reviewers from theEnglish-dominant center to understand the burdens of time,money, and access to research that may hinder multilingualscholars from disseminating their work in English. These con-straints may be reflected in submissions that do not referencethe most up-to-date literature from English-medium journals,or use nonstandard features of English. The topics and ques-tions that periphery scholars engage with may also not be per-ceived as “relevant” to current center academic debatesbecause what counts as relevant is often determined byAnglophone center scholars and institutions. Anglophone con-


6

The dominance of English as the language of schol-

arly publishing means that scholars around the

world are under increasing pressure to publish their

research in English.

texts are often more valued as objects and sites of research thanresearch coming from periphery areas. To respond to the grow-ing institutional and governmental pressures to publish inEnglish-medium outlets, multilingual scholars writing fromthe periphery may need support in the form of bibliographicresources and guidance on shaping manuscripts to meet theconventions of particular journals. Scholars from the periph-ery may also need support in finding ways to collaborate withscholars in center contexts. At the same time, center gatekeep-ers should examine the preferences given to particularresearch contexts, topics, and questions.

Second, English-medium publications increasingly func-tion as criteria for a range of institutional evaluations of indi-vidual scholars, their departments, their institutions, andresearch grant awards. While using English-medium publica-tions as a marker of quality may offer policymakers the senseof creating uniform standards, such policies may not take intoaccount the challenges facing scholars. Such policy innova-tions are not always accompanied by the resources needed tosupport scholars in attaining these goals. Discussions ofEnglish-language dominance therefore need to be placed onpolicy agendas for international higher education.

As the academic sphere becomes increasingly globalized,

the question of linguistic imperialism and the premium ofEnglish in scholarly publishing needs to become a topic of dis-cussion at international and national governmental and insti-tutional levels. These discussions should include raisingawareness of how native English speakers or those working inAnglophone contexts are highly advantaged in the global aca-demic marketplace compared with multilingual scholars writ-ing from the periphery. Questions about the effects that privi-leging English may have on the evolution of local languages,particularly the development of academic registers, and onlocal research cultures should also be explored further. Whilethe dominance of English as an academic lingua franca isunlikely to shift in the near future, consideration can be givento ways to renegotiate the conditions under which globalknowledge is produced and disseminated. Under globaliza-tion, the multidirectional circulation of knowledge from aca-demic research has greater potential for benefit than does aunidirectional flow outward from Anglophone countries.

Mobilizing Marginalized Talent:The International FellowshipsProgramJürgen Enders

Jürgen Enders is professor at and director of the Center for HigherEducation Policy Studies (CHEPS), University of Twente, Enschede, theNetherlands. Address: CHEPS, University of Twente, POB 217, 7500 AEEnschede, Netherlands. E-mail: j.enders.utwente.nl.

In November 2000, the Ford Foundation and theInternational Institute of Education created the

International Fellowships Program (IFP) to provide graduatefellowships for individuals from 22 countries in the “GlobalSouth.” This 12-year, $280 million program is the largest ini-tiative in the foundation’s history and has recently been extend-ed by another 2 years and $75 million in supplementary funds.IFP gives talented students from excluded or marginalizedbackgrounds the opportunity for advanced study in universi-ties at home and abroad. In 2002, CHEPS was asked to imple-ment an evaluation of the program regarding its implementa-tion and development.

A Different ApproachIFP supports mobile scholarships of up to three years of post-graduate study at accredited universities anywhere in the worldin a variety of academic fields so that students may choosewhere and what to study. Fellowships are reserved for talentedindividuals from the South lacking systematic access to highereducation for reasons such as poverty, geographical isolation,ethnicity, race, or gender. The program defines its target groupof undergraduates based on their leadership potential, com-mitment to the development of their countries or communi-ties, as well as academic performance and potential. The fel-lows, through their further training and scholarly work, areexpected to contribute to academic fields relevant to the econ-omy and social justice and to take a leadership role in theseareas in their own countries and worldwide.

An innovative and challenging approach has been chosenfor IPF: finding and attracting bright students from marginal-ized backgrounds in the South for international graduate workwho want to make a difference in their societies.

CHEPS FindingsSurveys and interviews by CHEPS show that the IFP has so farbeen successful in the implementation and development of theprogram. IFP has received nearly 100,000 applications in thecompetitions of 2001–2005. In addition to fulfilling unmetdemand and potential among excluded communities andgroups, IFP attracts and mobilizes interest in regions rangingfrom the Anambra State in Southeastern Nigeria, to the Mixtec

7


Anglophone contexts are often more valued as

objects and sites of research than research coming

from periphery areas.

Indian community in Mexico, and to China’s GuizhouProvince.

The program mainly recruits fellows from among peoplewith a sociodemographic and sociobiographic profile that fitsthe program’s goals. The target group criteria of “exclusion”and certain regional and local contexts are well reflected in theprofile of the fellows. About 90 percent of them are first-gen-eration students with a poor socioeconomic background whohad to overcome experience of social injustice to achieve theirundergraduate studies. IFP supports the fellows through vari-ous voluntary and paid community services as well as relatedleadership activities in a broad range of areas including com-munity-based organizations, social movements, and non-governmental organizations.

The program offers pre-placement training and support tostudy at more than 400 universities in some 40 countries.Surveys among fellows—most of them outside their countriesfor the first time—show that they highly value their postgrad-uate study experience and maintain contact with their homecommunities while building up a network that includes otherIFP fellows. The graduation rate of IFP alumni is 85 percent,and so far 75 percent of them have returned to their homecountries while most of the others continue their studies or gofor further studies/training abroad.

Factors of SuccessThe IFP can rely on a financial commitment made via theestablishment of the International Fellowship Fund. Thebiggest postgraduate fellowship program ever, the programneeded to establish structures and processes on a global scalethat focus at the same time on local context. This achievementwould probably have been impossible without a substantialand long-term financial commitment.

IFP has created a worldwide partnership of organizationsaround its central unit in New York. This partnership involves20 organizations in the IFP countries or regions (e.g., theAssociation of African Universities, the IndonesianInternational Education Foundation, and the Economic andSocial Research Foundation in Tanzania), international place-ment partners (e.g., the Institute of International Education,NUFFIC in the Netherlands, and the British Council) as wellas strategic partnerships with certain universities. Global out-reach and local presence are thus based on a network of organ-izations, building upon their expertise and contacts.

The IFP has not developed a detailed standard framework tocarry out its target group criteria on a global scale. Instead, ithas set up an intense and ongoing process of consultation ineach country and region to discuss the nature of access to high-er education and to identify target groups and communitiesthat lack access. In this process certain cultural, social, and eco-nomic indicators of exclusion have been identified as prioritiesfor country or subregion. Techniques were discussed andimplemented for the outreach of the IFP to the respective tar-get groups. Ongoing exchange on “lessons learned” and “good

practice” forms part and parcel of the challenging furtherdevelopment of this global/local program.

What IFP will achieve in the long run needs to be exam-ined—for example, by studying the progress of the alumni andgrowing networks. The IFP’s experiences and established prac-tices will represent information of great interest concerninginternational student exchange and sustainable developmenton a global scale.

Internationalization BringsImportant Benefits as Well asRisks Jane Knight

Jane Knight is adjunct professor at the Comparative, International andDevelopment Education Centre, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education,University of Toronto. E-mail: [email protected].

While the process of internationalization affords manybenefits to higher education, it is clear that there are seri-

ous risks associated with this complex and growing phenome-non. According to the results of the 2005 InternationalAssociation of Universities (IAU) Survey there is overwhelm-ing agreement (96 percent of responding institutions from 95countries) that internationalization brings benefits to highereducation. Yet, this consensus is qualified by the fact that 70percent also believe there are substantial risks associated withthe international dimension of higher education. (Informationon the 2005 IAU Global Survey Report on theInternationalization of Higher Education: New Directions,New Challenges is available at [email protected].)

The top three risks associated with internationalization arecommercialization and commodification of education pro-grams, the increase in the number of foreign “degree mills”and low-quality providers, and brain drain. It is a sign of thetimes that each of these risks relates more to the cross-borderaspects of internationalization than the campus-based activi-ties. It is somewhat surprising that both developing and devel-oped countries identified commercialization as the number-one risk over brain drain—a clear testimony to its importance.

It is also revealing that the loss of cultural or national iden-tity, jeopardy of the quality of higher education, and thehomogenization of curriculum were identified as the leastimportant risks. When these results are compared to a similar2003 IAU Internationalization Survey, brain drain was consid-ered as the greatest risk. Thus, we are seeing a definite shift


internationalization trends8

over the last three years toward mounting concern about com-mercialization, commodification, and marketization trends. Itis fascinating, but also of some concern, that about 60 percentof the institutions were not aware of the General Agreementon Trade in Services, which proves that GATS is not the pri-mary catalyst for the distress about the commercialization ofinternationalization.

Regional Views of Risks Eighty-one percent of the universities in Africa, versus only 58percent of those in North America, indicated the importanceand existence of risks related to internationalization. This isprobably a sign that more African institutions are vulnerable tothe threats of commercialization and low-quality cross-borderproviders than their counterparts in North America.

Latin America stands out from the rest of the regions as itranks commodification and commercialization lower inimportance than brain drain, elitism, and loss of cultural iden-tity. This perception may be related to the fact that private edu-cation at the domestic level is a fundamental and long-termpart of higher education provision, and to date for-profit cross-border education is not as prevalent in Latin American coun-tries as in other regions of the world. In the Middle East, theloss of cultural identity is definitely the number-one riskattached to the process of internationalization. Increasingattention is being given to the importance of the internationaldimension of higher education in the Middle East. It will berevealing to see whether increased involvement in internation-alization brings new and different threats to higher educationin this region over the next three years when the IAUInternationalization Survey will again be distributed. This tri-annual survey meets the imperative need that we have a long-term perspective and regular monitoring of changes and chal-lenges facing the international dimension of higher educationinstitutions around the world.

Benefits on Student and Faculty DevelopmentThe two most important benefits identified by higher educa-tion institutions are more internationally oriented staff/stu-dents and improved academic quality. The three least-impor-tant benefits according to these same institutions are nationaland international citizenship, revenue generation, and braingain. To some, it may seem hard to believe that revenue gener-ation is seen as such a low-priority benefit (and rationale). Onemight ask whether this was a “socially desirable response” onthe part of the responding universities. While this is a fairquestion, a more accurate explanation may rest on the fact thatinstitutions from 95 countries responded to this survey—58were from developing and 37 from developed countries. Whenall responses are tallied, they show that income generation isstill not a primary reason or a benefit associated with interna-tionalization. Little evidence exists at this time that internation-alization is seen primarily as a profit-making enterprise for themajority of universities around the world. While international-

ization is a top priority for some institutions, this policy per-spective is limited to probably 8 or 10 out of the 95 countries.

Again, there are noteworthy differences among regions interms of perceived benefits. Of interest is the high prioritygiven to academic quality in both Africa and Latin America.The benefit to foster national and international citizenship isgenerally seen to be of low importance, but more institutionsin North America see it as an important benefit than in anyother region of the world. Revenue generation also has an over-all low ranking, but more universities in Asia Pacific see it asboth an important rationale and benefit. Brain gain ranks low-est for the majority of the regions, except the Middle East.

Perspectives on Benefits in Developing and DevelopedCountriesA gap between developing and developed countries exists interms of the importance attributed to the benefit of more inter-nationally oriented students and staff. Developed countries seeit as the number one benefit but developing countries rank itin fourth place. The developing countries put more emphasison the benefits of academic quality, research, and curriculum,which are fundamental elements of any higher education insti-tution. Developing countries may assume that these elementsneed to be firmly in place before it is possible to reap the ben-efits of more internationally oriented students and staff.

Interestingly enough, there is no difference in the low

importance given to brain gain between developed and devel-oping countries. One might have expected developed countriesto see internationalization bringing more benefits in terms ofbright foreign students and promising faculty members orresearchers. There are active campaigns in developed coun-tries to attract the best and brightest to augment nationalhuman resource capacity and to replace retiring and mobilefaculty. Many experts believe that international braindrain/gain, a term that most educators are uncomfortablewith, is one of the most critical issues for the next five years asthe higher education sector faces demographic changes,increased labor mobility, and growing national competitive-ness for knowledge production and distribution.

The findings from the IAU survey paint a relatively positivepicture of the sustained importance attributed to international-ization and the increase in the number of institutions that havemoved to a planned approach to internationalization. The pic-ture is less encouraging at the national level as institutionsbelieve that national governments are giving inadequate atten-tion to international education and do not play the role that

9


internationalization trends

Little evidence exists at this time that international-

ization is seen primarily as a profit-making enter-

prise for the majority of universities around the

world.

they should in terms of national policy and funding to facilitateinternational research, mobility, and development projects.The benefits are clearly articulated but so are the risks. Thefuture of internationalization faces many challenges as thetrends of commercialization and commodification are seen tothreaten the human development, research, and nationalcapacity benefits of internationalization.

Entering International Markets:New Zealand’s ProblemsMa Xiaoying and Malcolm Abbott

Ma Xiaoying is lecturer in the English Department at the North ChinaElectric Power University, in Beijing, China. E-mail: [email protected] Abbott is a research associate at the Center for Research inInternational Education, 28A Linwood Avenue, Western Springs, Auckland,New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected].

In recent years a number of universities have sought to takeadvantage of the increased willingness of students to study

abroad. In the New Zealand case, the number of internationalstudents at the universities rose from 3,402 in 1998 to 28,195in 2004. The total number of international students in NewZealand at all educational institutions rose from 26,021 in1998 to peak at 115,197 in 2003. Since 2004, international stu-dent numbers have declined sharply in New Zealand, reducingan important export income for the country and forcing anumber of universities to retrench staff.

The international student market is a potentially lucrativeone but one that is also more unstable than that of mostdomestic markets. For the universities of New Zealand, theincome from international students has proved to be ratherunstable. Not only do universities face stiff competition ininternational markets, but they also face exchange rate risksthat can affect their potential income.

International Students in New ZealandThe presence of international students at New Zealand’s edu-cational institutions is not a recent phenomenon. From the1950s until the late 1980s the country hosted a number ofinternational students. Some of these students came to NewZealand under formal assistance schemes such as theColombo Plan, while others came privately, mainly fromMalaysia and Singapore. These students did not, however, payfull fees for their tuition, and it was only after changes in 1989that educational institutions were able to recover costs fully.

Through the 1990s the eight universities in New Zealand

(all publicly owned) attempted to recruit full-fee-paying inter-national students. At the same time vocational education,foundation studies, secondary schools, and English schools(both public and private) also began to attract international stu-dents. With slow growth in domestic student numbers and theNew Zealand government keeping a fairly tight reign on grantsto educational institutions, many of them sought to supple-ment their revenues by actively attracting international stu-dents.

International students are attracted to New Zealand becauseof the lower cost of living in that country compared to Canada,the United States, and the United Kingdom. As well, a numberare attracted through the possibility of immigrating andbecause of the ease of entry to students with low standards ofEnglish. In the New Zealand case there is no English standardfor entry whereas in countries such as Australia students musthave an IELTS (International English Language TrainingSystem) score of 5.0 to enter an English school.

Growth in international student numbers in New Zealandwas promoted by the government to create additional exportincome. In 2003 and 2004 export education generated over$NZ 2 billion per annum in foreign exchange, making it thecountry’s fifth-largest export earner after dairy, tourism, meat,and timber products.

Relying on ChinaDespite its strong growth, New Zealand’s education exportindustry was very narrowly based. In the late 1990s nearly allof the growth in international student numbers in NewZealand came from China. Rapid growth in incomes in Chinaover the past 20 years, coupled with a sharply rising level ofhigh school participation and a lagging supply of places in state

universities and colleges in China led to a surge in the num-bers of Chinese students seeking an education abroad. In NewZealand, Chinese student numbers in the universities rosefrom only 93 in 1998 to peak at 16,523 in 2004. From virtual-ly zero, Chinese student numbers rose to 58 percent of allinternational students at universities in New Zealand and 10percent of overall university enrollments.

The universities in New Zealand became overly dependentupon this single market. The universities were dependentupon a supply chain that reached down through the secondary,vocational, English, and foundation schools of New Zealand.(A foundation school prepares students for university-levelstudy.) The majority of international students in New Zealandattend these preuniversity schools. In particular, English



The year 2006 has been a traumatic one for the export

education industry in New Zealand as the impact of

the retrenchment and closure of English schools has

gradually begun to flow up to the universities

schools, vocational diploma schools, and foundation schoolsenroll a very large part of international students in NewZealand. A number of the secondary schools have also beenvery active in recruiting international students. The universi-ties recruit mainly from the English, foundation, secondary,and diploma schools. In recent years the numbers in theseschools (of all types) have dropped sharply, especially the num-ber of Chinese students, which peaked in 65,999 in 2003 andfell to 49,569 in 2005. Indications are that in 2006 the figurehad fallen further.

A combination of factors has led to this downturn. In thelast few years there has been substantial investment in highereducation by both state authorities and private entrepreneursin China, leading to the creation of many more higher educa-tion places in that country. Competition for Chinese studentsin international markets has also intensified, and a risingexchange rate in New Zealand has choked off the country’sreputation as a low-cost country.

DownturnThe year 2006 has been a traumatic one for the export educa-tion industry in New Zealand as the impact of the retrench-ment and closure of English schools has gradually begun toflow up to the universities, which for perhaps the first time intheir histories have seen their student numbers and incomedecline. Retrenchment of staff in a number of the universitieshas taken place, and this process could quite easily continueinto 2007 as the number of students studying in the variousschools in New Zealand are far smaller than they were a fewyears ago.

Given that New Zealand’s universities have relied uponrecruiting international students from educational institutionswithin New Zealand, growth in numbers at universities couldtake a few years before it picks up again. Even when it does theuniversities are going to have to broaden their attraction awayfrom China if they are going to be able to regain the positionthey held just a few years ago.

US Accreditors Should NotEvaluate Foreign CollegesAlan L. Contreras

Alan Contreras has been administrator of the Office of DegreeAuthorization of the Oregon Student Assistance Commission since 1999.His views do not necessarily represent those of the commission. Address:ODA/OSAC, 1500 Valley River Dr. No. 100, Eugene OR 97401, USA. E-mail: [email protected]. Web site: http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/.

The recent dispute between Hawaii's Office of ConsumerProtection and the American Academy for Liberal

Education, as well as the supporters of each side, raises ques-tions worthy of attention. As the Chronicle of Higher Educationreported (“Accreditation of College in Former Soviet RepublicRaises Questions of Oversight,” September 8, 2006), the acad-emy accredited the American University for Humanities,Tbilisi Campus College, in the Republic of Georgia. That enti-ty is linked to a Hawaiian degree mill, the American Universityof Hawaii.

The American Academy for Liberal Education did what sev-eral US accreditors do: it accredited a school in a foreign coun-try. That is not illegal. However, there is no federal oversight ofAmerican accreditors’ work with any foreign college. Althoughthey must operate within certain parameters when they accred-it an American college or university, they are not obligated todo so when they evaluate a foreign institution, and the USDepartment of Education has no jurisdiction over their activi-ties outside the United States. Most people, even educationofficials in other countries, do not know this.

US accreditors that operate in foreign countries are doing soonly as private organizations with no US government connec-tion. That is not widely known in other countries. In fact, thereis no such thing as a federally recognized accreditor once theaccreditor steps outside the United States, and any accreditorthat refers to itself that way in a foreign country is comingclose to deception. Non-US governments should not allow USaccreditors to call themselves “federally recognized” whenrecruiting members outside the United States.

Should Foreign Evaluators Accredit US Colleges?If American accreditors continue to operate outside their coun-try, foreign accreditors may want to do the same. If anAmerican accreditor offers its good name to MonashUniversity in Australia, should the Australian QualificationsFramework operate in the United States so that it can makesure that degrees from Oregon State University meetAustralian standards? That kind of entanglement poses prob-lems because degrees and institutions vary so much fromcountry to country.

Even inside the United States, accreditorial oversight can benominal, and many other countries have very limited capacityfor meaningful oversight. It is impossible to do more thanscratch the surface of a large institution. We cannot expectAmerican accreditors to do more than a basic walk-through offoreign institutions, and our accreditors have no way to use themechanisms of foreign governments to check on key points astime passes. The recent uproar over operations of Indianapolis

11



Accreditation is a minimalist exercise, conducted

for the purpose of limited quality control.

University in Greece provides a fine example of why oversightat a distance does not work.

Accreditation is a minimalist exercise, conducted for thepurpose of limited quality control—although it is better suitedfor financial oversight than for academic quality assurance.Even on the financial side, I am aware of a case in another statein which an accredited institution moved millions of dollarsinto its accounts before a reapproval and afterward moved themoney right back out again. That review was one of the regu-lar evaluations conducted by a state government; states, notaccreditors, have the power to decide whether institutions canoperate within their borders and what degrees they can offer.

Meaningful Evaluation Is Neither Easy Nor CheapGenuine, meaningful oversight is expensive. The natural incli-nation of governments and organizations is to want to do itquickly, cheaply, and infrequently. This is a recipe for poorenforcement, lack of awareness, and substandard educationaloutcomes. Within the United States, accreditors have only lim-ited knowledge of changes in faculty composition, financialpolicies, and the award of credits during the typical 10 yearsbetween accreditations. That is one reason why states general-ly use a much shorter review cycle: Oregon, for instance,reviews every program under our jurisdiction every three yearsand after two years for a new program.

All an American accreditor can really do for foreign collegesand universities is to rent them its reputation. The institutionsget to mention the accreditor's name, though the standardsthat the accreditor chooses to apply overseas may be extremelylow. Who will know?

The Tbilisi case shows how complex international evalua-tion can be. The government agency that screens foreigndegrees in the Netherlands and the American Association ofCollegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, which does thesame for many American universities, consider degrees fromthe American University for Humanities to be invalid or sub-standard. The American Academy for Liberal Education con-siders the program to be acceptable. National education offi-cials in Sweden treat the degrees as legally issued but are notyet convinced they are equivalent to Swedish degrees.

The bottom line is that American accreditors should notevaluate foreign colleges and universities. Other nations havethe right to set their own standards, whether high or low.American colleges should be free to use customary academicnorms and their own standards to decide whether a foreigndegree is suitable for purposes of admission or employment.Do not rely on unsupervised accreditors that freelance in for-eign lands.

________________

This essay is revised from a version that first appeared in theChronicle of Higher Education, December 1, 2006, and is print-ed here with permission from the Chronicle.

Internationalizing Canada’sUniversitiesRoopa Desai Trilokekar and Glen A. Jones

Roopa Desai Trilokekar is a doctoral student and Glen A. Jones is a profes-sor in the Higher Education Group at the Ontario Institute for Studies inEducation, University of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario,Canada, M5S1V6. E-mail: [email protected]. This article reflectssome of the discussions at a recent conference on InternationalizingCanada’s Universities: Practices, Challenges and Opportunities, held atYork University (Toronto) in March 2006.

In Canada education is the responsibility of the provinces,and unlike many other federal systems, no national ministry

or legislation exists that establishes a national framework forhigher education. Several federal departments invest in specif-ic international education program initiatives within theiroverall policy framework. For example, the Department ofForeign Affairs and International Trade, as part of its publicdiplomacy portfolio, supports bilateral educational exchangeagreements, international scholarship programs, the Canadianstudies initiatives abroad, international youth programs, andinternational marketing initiatives. The Department ofHuman Resources and Social Development Canada invests ininternational academic mobility programs within NorthAmerica and Europe. The Canadian InternationalDevelopment Agency (CIDA) contributes to university interna-tional initiatives by funding development projects—for exam-ple, through the University Partnerships in Cooperation andDevelopment program. More recently, through its new CanadaCorps initiative, CIDA supports international internships forstudents and joint projects delivering governance program-ming in developing countries engaging both faculty and stu-dents in Canada and partner countries. Several other federaldepartments such as Industry Canada and Citizenship andImmigration Canada also contribute to the overall internation-al education and research portfolio.

While a range of federal departments support initiatives inthis area, the overall level of federal government support isextremely modest. In a 1994 report the Department of ForeignAffairs and International Trade estimated that Canada’s per



Genuine, meaningful oversight is expensive.

capita investment in international cultural relations and educa-tion was CDN$3.08, while France spent CDN$26.58, GermanyCDN$18.49, United Kingdom CDN$13.37, and JapanCDN$12.60. International student recruitment receivesalmost no support and the budgets for international scholar-ship programs are frequently threatened.

The Canadian system needs to provide policy coordinationand communication across federal departments and agencies.The absence of a federal ministry with responsibility for high-er education means that leadership in this policy area becomesan enormous challenge.

Federal-Provincial Relations and Responsibilities While education is the responsibility of the provinces underthe Canadian Constitution, the federal government plays amajor role in a variety of policy areas that intersect with theinternationalization agenda—including research and develop-ment—and has explicit responsibility for Canada’s internation-al relations. Federal and provincial governments find them-selves, almost constantly, in conflict over issues of territory andresponsibility for international education.

While most provinces have developed some form of interna-tional education policy or invested in specific initiatives, theseinitiatives have emerged independently of one another withoutan overall national framework or policy context or a “Canadian”brand. The initiatives are regional in their objectives andapproaches. A classic example is the provincial government of

Quebec, which is one of the larger investors given its uniquerationale and approach to international education and culturalprograms. Without a formal “Canadian” policy approach tointernationalization, what is defined as a Canadian approach isin fact a piecemeal combination of various federal and provin-cial departmental initiatives. Further, given the Canadian fed-eral context, governments are cautious in considering anynational policy that would facilitate pan-Canada funding andprogram initiatives.

Canadian University ApproachesSince Canadian universities operate within a highly decentral-ized policy environment, each institution constructs its owninstitutional policy framework. Institutions vary in terms ofthe role of internationalization in strategic plans and priorities,the level of institutional investment, and the overall approach.At some institutions internationalization approaches are beingcritically examined within the context of broader pedagogical

principles, in particular their relation to aboriginal, diasporic,and postcolonial education. Both curriculum and teachingpractices are challenged, and strengthened, to meet the needsof an increasingly diverse domestic student body, while alsoattempting to internationalize higher education. The ethics of“internationalization” is a core debate at several Canadian cam-puses as the agenda for internationalization expands to includenewer stakeholder groups from government and the publicsector with a more neoliberal agenda.

Contested in part by the task of defining and articulating

this complex phenomenon, internationalization also relates tothe Canadian challenge of addressing the needs of an increas-ingly diverse, multicultural, and multiracial domestic studentpopulation. The boundaries between international/global andlocal objectives begin to blur.

Lack of a National Policy FrameworkMost universities would concur that the absence of national

funding and policy initiatives weakens their ability to accom-plish objectives. For example, with international marketingefforts, universities operate with little if any organizational andstructural support at the provincial or national level. TheCanadian Educational Centers established by the Canadianfederal government, based on Australia’s educational centersmodel, have now become private nonprofit enterprises. Unlikemost developed countries, Canada lacks official educationaland cultural centers, other than the ad hoc activities sponsoredby individual Canadian missions abroad. Canadian universi-ties depend on their own resources to establish credibility andmarket educational resources, even though the Canadian gov-ernment at both the federal and provincial levels has deter-mined international educational marketing as a key strategicpriority. Canadian institutions receive limited national fundingto promote international scholarship and research, interna-tional study programs, or international student mobility.

A diverse range of institutional practices and initiatives haveemerged in a way that a focused, directive national policyframework might have prevented from occurring. In somerespects Canada’s federal structure may act as a buffer andessentially prevent governments from directly steering interna-tional educational policy objectives and outcomes.

Internationalization as a Policy AgendaInternationalization seldom represents an issue of higher edu-cation policy. In fact, the international education and highereducation policy communities in Canada remain relatively dis-

13



Canada needs to engage higher educational poli-

cymakers and researchers in the debate and dis-

cussion on internationalization and to integrate

internationalization into higher education policy.

While education is the responsibility of the

provinces under the Canadian Constitution, the fed-

eral government plays a major role in a variety of

policy areas that intersect with the internationaliza-

tion agenda

tinct. Discussion of internationalization and higher education-al policy occurs in separate silos. As in the European Unionand several other jurisdictions, internationalization of highereducation has to be addressed within the overall framework ofCanadian higher educational policy. Canada needs to engagehigher educational policymakers and researchers in the debateand discussion on internationalization and to integrate inter-nationalization into higher education policy.

The International BranchCampus: Models and TrendsLine Verbik

Line Verbik is deputy director of the Observatory on Borderless HigherEducation. Address: Woburn House, 20-24 Tavistock Square, LondonWC1H 9HF, UK. E-mail: [email protected]. Web site: www.obhe.ac.uk.

The number of international branch campuses hasincreased significantly over the past decade. Since under-

taking its first study of offshore campuses in 2002, theObservatory on Borderless Higher Education has followeddevelopments in this area and recently published a majorreport, identifying over 80 offshore campuses. The definitionof a branch campus is still less than straightforward and lacksglobal consensus. The term is used in this article to designatean offshore operation of a higher education institution run bythe institution or as a joint venture in which the institution isa partner and uses the name of the foreign institution. Uponsuccessful completion of the study program, students areawarded a degree from the foreign institution.

The study shows that the majority of branch campus provi-sion is from North to South. While American institutions con-tinue to dominate this type of overseas delivery, institutionsfrom more countries are engaging in branch campus develop-ment. Driving rationales for sending institutions include fullcontrol over delivery, prominence in an increasingly competi-tive transnational education market, greater opportunities forexternal funding, and changing regulations in some host coun-tries. The sites for branch campus operations are becomingequally diverse, although findings point to a higher level ofactivity in countries where financial incentives are provided.

Model A: Fully Funded by the InstitutionOf the 68 branch campuses for which a funding model hasbeen identified, 37 percent have been established solelythrough funding from the home institution. However, thisapproach to offshore operations might become less commonas institutions seek more collaborative approaches. The size of

the investment required to establish a fully fledged branchcampus and the institution’s accountability for any losses dis-courage many institutions from operating on this model.Advantages connected to this approach include the lack ofrequirements from partners regarding expected investmentreturns, repayment, and a time frame for the operation tobreak even.

Of the 16 branch campuses in Model A where a date ofopening could be ascertained, 6 were opened after 2000.However, many of the projects are among the first branch cam-puses established (e.g., operations in Austria and theNetherlands of the US Webster University in 1981 and 1983,respectively, and the campus in Mexico of the US AlliantInternational University in 1970) or were established by a for-profit institution (e.g., the operations in Canada and theNetherlands of the University of Phoenix and DeVryUniversity). Both of the latter institutions operate from multi-ple campuses in their home countries and have raised capitalfor their continued expansion through stock offerings.

A number of other projects might be best characterized assmaller-scale operations (with limited program offerings andfacilities). These include the campuses in London andSingapore of the University of Chicago School of Business,which offer Executive MBA programs, and the facilities inBelgium of Boston University, which focus on business-relateddiploma and degree programs. The concentration on potential-ly profitable fields such as business and the limited expendi-ture of capital on campus facilities may represent attempts toaccelerate returns on the institution’s investment.

Model B: External FundingThirty-five percent of the branch campuses in the study fallunder this model, which can be divided into two main subcat-egories: (1) recipients of host (central or regional) governmentfunds/support and (2) recipients of external support from pri-vate companies or other organizations in the host or homecountry. In some cases funding comes from more than oneexternal source; for example, a financial contribution from thehost government and support from the home governmentthrough state-approved loans. Institutions wishing to establisha presence abroad seem to be increasingly opting for fundingthrough Model B. With the exception of three operations, allbranch campuses included in this category have been estab-lished in the last decade and 70 percent in 2000 or later.

Most branch campuses in receipt of financial or other assis-tance from the host government have established a presencefollowing an invitation from central or regional authorities.While there are advantages in gaining host government sup-port and funding, an institution needs to evaluate whether theproject is in line with its overall mission and institutionalgoals. In addition, the institution must consider whether it iswilling to cover the costs beyond the host country’s contribu-tion. Examples of projects in this category include some of theoperations established under Singapore’s “World Class



Universities” initiative, including the new campus ofAustralia’s University of New South Wales due to open nextyear, the branch campus of the US Carnegie Mellon Universitycurrently under establishment in the Australian state of SouthAustralia, the campus of the UK University of Nottingham inNingbo, China, and the campus of Australia’s SwinburneUniversity of Technology in Sarawak, Malaysia.

A range of branch campus establishments has been created

with contributions from external private and public organiza-tions. The opportunities and challenges are almost exactly theopposite of those stated in Model A, with the advantages beingthe financial contribution and shared risks, and the disadvan-tages the expectations of the investors in terms of return oninvestment and their influence on the operation.

Examples of campuses in receipt of investment from publicor private organizations include the operation of the Universityof Nottingham in Malaysia, the US Temple University inJapan, and George Mason University in Ras Al Khaimah, in theUnited Arab Emirates.

Model C: Facilities ProvidedModel C is perhaps the latest development within branch cam-pus funding models, but a category that already accounts for28 percent of the establishments in the study. With the excep-tion of one institution, all developments in this category havebeen established within the last six years.

Campuses established through Model C make use of facili-ties provided by a company or a national government often asan enticement to draw foreign providers to the host country.Examples include the Knowledge Village in Dubai, UnitedArab Emirates and Education City in Qatar. In both cases, adesignated zone with academic and student facilities is provid-ed for institutions, which depending on individual arrange-ments either lease or take over the facilities. The main advan-tage for institutions operating through this model is the reduc-tion in the start-up funds required. The potential drawbacksinclude the regulatory environment for the operation (e.g.,Knowledge Village operates outside the jurisdiction of theUnited Arab Emirates and under the guidelines of the compa-ny that owns the site) and potential changes in costs outsidethe institution’s control, such as rent increases.

Model C operations are currently found in the economical-ly advanced states of the Gulf. The reasons for this concentra-tion likely include the available public and private funding for

such initiatives, lack of capacity and maturity of the domestichigher education system, and developed strategies to changethe main foundation for the economy (i.e., to become lessdependent on oil). Other countries (e.g., South Korea andJapan) are in the process of establishing special zones for for-eign investment, including in education. However, none ofthem seem to have local investments on the scale of the twoexamples cited above.

Examples include: five US institutions (e.g., Texas A&MUniversity and Carnegie Mellon) operating in Qatar’sUniversity City and more than 15 institutions (e.g., UKMiddlesex and Heriot-Watt Universities, India’s ManipalAcademy of Higher Education, and Canada’s University ofNew Brunswick) in Knowledge Village.

ConclusionInstitutions appear to be increasingly reluctant or unable tocarry the entire costs and risks associated with establishing acampus, leading to a larger number of recent operations beingestablished under Models B and C. While the institutionsincluded in this study are more or less spread evenly across thethree models, it is suggested that with time, Models B and Cwill become more prominent. That being said, further reportsof uncertain operating environments (for example, concernsover licenses and rent) could potentially lead to institutionsbeing less willing to operate through a model affording themlimited control over certain aspects of the operation. ________________For further details, please see L. Verbik, and C. Merkley, TheInternational Branch Campus: Models and Trends,Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, 2006,http://www.obhe.ac.uk/products/reports/.

Mainland Chinese Students inHong Kong and MacauMei Li

Mei Li is senior lecturer in the Institute of Higher Education at East ChinaNormal University. Address: Institute of Higher Education, School ofEducational Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai, 200062,China. E-mail: [email protected].

The cross-border mobility of students represents a crucialaspect of the internationalization of higher education. The

outflow of students from mainland China has long been astriking phenomenon given the imbalance between highereducation supply and demand at home. While serving as amajor source of foreign students in the United States, the

15



The concentration on potentially profitable fields

such as business and the limited expenditure of cap-

ital on campus facilities may represent attempts to

accelerate returns on the institution’s investment.

United Kingdom, Australia, and Japan, mainland China alsosends increasing numbers of students to Hong Kong andMacau (former British and Portuguese colonies, respectively),which became China’s special administrative regions (SARs)in 1997 and 1999. Hong Kong has US$24,000 per capitaGDP and a population of 6,940,000 and Macau US$18,000and 498,000, respectively, in 2005. As parts of China, but dif-fering from the mainland in laws, currencies, and educationalsystems, the two SARs can be considered hybrid systems thatcombine Western elements into Chinese settings—betweendomestic and foreign. They play a dual role as destinations inthemselves and as stepping-stones for mainland students’international mobility.

The flow has changed rapidly with the expansion and diver-sification of mainland Chinese students in Hong Kong andMacau in the postcolonial era. Hong Kong institutions com-pete fiercely with mainland counterparts for high-quality stu-dents, raising the alarm of competition. In 2006 Hong Kongand Macau recruited 1,300 and 1,200 mainland undergraduatestudents, respectively, and most are fee-paying ones.

A questionnaire-based survey of 323 mainland students wasconducted in 2003, searching mainland students’ perceptions.In each SAR, the focus was on two institutions: the Universityof Hong Kong, the Hong Kong University of Science andTechnology, the University of Macau, and the MacauUniversity of Science and Technology. Among the samples,85.9 percent of the respondents in Hong Kong were postgrad-uate students on scholarships. By contrast, 89.7 percent inMacau were self-financed undergraduate students. Differenceswere found in degree level, academic background, age andfinancing, which led to distinctions of their perceptions on rea-sons, motivations, and career plan.

Why Students Choose Hong Kong and MacauThe three main reasons why mainland students chose HongKong and Macau were different: in Hong Kong the reasonsaffirmed were scholarships (73.4%), the quality and reputationof host institution (55.9%), and convenience regarding homevisits (25.4%); while in Macau they were the possible opportu-nity to go abroad (60.3%), easy admission (50.7%), and thevalue of degree in terms of employment (43.2%). Many stu-dents identified Macau as a stepping-stone to destinations out-side China, while most students in Hong Kong were attractedby the scholarships and reputation of the host university.

The top three reasons given by respondents for not havingchosen universities on the mainland were as follows: the lowerhigher education quality levels in China (50.0%), the lack ofinternationalization (44.9%), and the inability to secure schol-arships (33.5%) in Hong Kong. The problems in their home-land mentioned by mainland students in Macau were: lack ofinternationalization (44.5%), difficulty to improve foreign lan-guages (35.6%), and lack of suitable programs (29.5%).

These findings indicate consistent views on the absence ofinternationalization of universities on the mainland, which

reflects that mainland institutions do not conform to interna-tional practice and have limited global links and a small per-centage of international faculty and students. Institutions inHong Kong and Macau mostly adopt a bilingual (English andChinese) medium of instruction. The University of HongKong and Hong Kong University of Science and Technologyuse English as the official language of administration andteaching.

The respondents, 20.3 percent in Macau and 3.4 percent inHong Kong, indicated that they could not gain admission inmainland China. Thus the majority of enrollments in the sur-vey represented differentiated rather than excess demand; butthis pattern was especially prominent in Hong Kong.

When asked why they did not go further afield for theirstudies, 80.6 percent in Hong Kong and 95.1 percent in Macaucited the difficulty of applying, getting visas, and securingplaces. However, these figures may reflect perceptions ratherthan reality: in practice it may be not so difficult to gain accessto at least some overseas universities. Overseas study does,however, require language competence; and 37.8 percent ofMacau respondents viewed their foreign-language competenceas inadequate for study abroad, compared with 10.3 percent ofHong Kong respondents. The absence of required foreign-lan-guage proficiency in Macau and the partial absence in HongKong increase the attractiveness of the territories in compari-son with foreign locations.

Student MotivationsThe data show that students’ priorities varied among different

groups. The postgraduate students maintained a stronger aca-demic rationale than the undergraduates, who placed morestress on economic interests. The self-financed students paidmore attention to the economic benefit than the scholarshipholders, who focused more on professional and academicenhancement. However, all students cared much more abouttheir personal interests and self-development than the broadersocial benefits.

Mainland students in Hong Kong anticipated these fourbenefits from the degrees pursued: academic ability (69.0%),



The three main reasons why mainland students

chose Hong Kong and Macau were different: in

Hong Kong the reasons affirmed were scholarships

(73.4%), the quality and reputation of host institu-

tion (55.9%), and convenience regarding home

visits (25.4%); while in Macau they were the possi-

ble opportunity to go abroad (60.3%), easy admis-

sion (50.7%), and the value of degree in terms of

employment (43.2%).

social and cultural experience (63.3%), income level (51.7%),and competitive ability in the employment market (45.2%). InMacau, students cited economic income (77.2%), competitiveability in the employment market (65.8%), social and culturalexperience (51.0%), and academic ability (42.1%). Thus themainland students in Macau valued economic factors muchmore than their counterparts in Hong Kong; and the studentsin Hong Kong valued academic enhancement. Both groupsvalued the social and cultural benefits.

Career Plans Many respondents stated that they planned to go abroad aftergraduation—28.4 percent in Hong Kong and 44.8 percent inMacau. In addition, 45.2 percent in Hong Kong and 39.6 per-cent in Macau looked forward to going wherever they couldfind opportunities for personal development. In Hong Kong,23.3 percent of respondents indicated that they would return tothe mainland, while the proportion in Macau was 4.9 percent.Only 2.8 percent in Hong Kong and 11.0 percent in Macauindicated that they would stay in the host territory.

These findings reveal the distinctive characteristics of main-land students in the SARs, compared with their counterpartsin mainland China and in foreign countries. Many chose to goto SARs because they saw the territories as a transit station andthe several years as a stage in preparation for lifelong careersor for going abroad. Compared with students who remainedon the mainland, these mobile students might be somewhatmore international. However, compared with Chinese studentsin foreign countries, they were less distant from their homesand had a stronger potential to return.

To some extent, Hong Kong and Macau still play the role asthe bridges for mainland students’ international mobility.However, this role has been challenged by the increasing directcooperation and exchange between foreign institutions andmainland Chinese universities and by the enhanced interna-tionalization of mainland higher education.

India: The New Private Sector

Asha Gupta

Asha Gupta is a PROPHE affiliate, a former college principal, and theauthor of the forthcoming book, Looking Beyond Universities: HigherEducation in the 21st Century. E-mail: [email protected].

IHE devotes a column in each issue to a contribution fromPROPHE, the Program for Research on Private HigherEducation, headquartered at the University of Albany. Seehttp://www.albany.edu/dept/eaps/prophe/.

India has a long tradition of private higher education, datingback to the Gurukul system thousands of years ago. Under

this system, the select few, mostly from the Brahmins (thelearned) and the Kshatriyas (the warriors), attained knowledgeby staying with the guru at his private dwelling over a long

period of time. They did not have to pay tuition fees, but afterthe completion of their education-cum-training the guru couldask for a dakshina (financial payment). Today, talking about pri-vate higher education in India usually involves for-profit pri-vate professional institutions.

In 1947/48, India had just 20 universities and 496 colleges.By 2005/06 the numbers grew to 348 universities and 17,625colleges. The private sector comprised 57 percent of the totalhigher education system by the 1980s and rose to 75 percent inthe 1990s, absorbing students but also raising the demand forhigher education by making it accessible and affordable. Therise of private higher education can be seen as the fallout of theeconomic liberalization policy launched in 1991. Whereas theold private higher education sector depended mostly on thegovernment for financial support, the new private institutionsare basically self-financed and career oriented.

The New Private InstitutionsMost of the new private universities—such as the NationalInstitute of Information Technology and Aptech—have eitherbeen established under the private universities acts passed byvarious state governments or registered with the Ministry ofTrade and Commerce. A private institution can also be estab-lished as a “deemed” university that specializes in academicfields comparable to university programs and undertakes voca-tional programs in emerging areas relevant to society in gener-al.

With the massification of higher education and decline inpublic funding—if the goal is to provide higher education to atleast 20 percent of the student-age cohort—the governmenthas no choice but to rely on the private sector. Currently, only11 percent of the age cohort has access to higher education.

Of the 17,625 colleges in India today, only 5,386 are govern-ment aided; the rest are mostly self-financed. The number ofstudents seeking professional training in the fields of engi-neering, medicine, management, information technology, andteacher training outside the public universities has grownfrom less than 15 percent in the 1990s to 50 percent today.According to some reports, up to 75 percent of higher educa-tion institutions in India are privately managed.

17


private higher education

Notably, India’s private primary and secondary

schools have greater credibility than private higher

education institutions.

Some of the new private institutions—such as the TimesSchool of Marketing and the Kirloskar Institute of AdvancedManagement—hardly bother to obtain recognition from theUniversity Grants Commission’s All India Council forTechnical Education. Being market oriented, these institutionshave the capacity to absorb their trainees in their own enter-prises. Thus they enjoy more autonomy and less accountabili-ty.

Issues at Stake Notably, India’s private primary and secondary schools havegreater credibility than private higher education institutions.The prevailing ambiguity about the quality of education provid-ed by the new private institutions creates skepticism. Mosthave thrived primarily because of the craze among Indians for“degrees” and “diplomas.” Only a tiny number of private high-er education institutions are quality conscious. They do notface mandatory evaluation by the National Assessment andAccreditation Board, nor does the system protect the interestsof students under the Consumers Act.

Ambiguity prevails over the very nomenclature of “privatehigher education”—making it difficult to distinguish govern-ment-aided private institutions from the nonprofit public orfor-profit private ones. Most of the new private institutionsfunction under the guise of charitable trusts. Though these

institutions are not allowed to earn any profits, most of themsucceed in making huge profits by charging substantial feesand making underhand dealings at the time of admission.They are able to take advantage of anxious students, and theirfamilies who are not absorbed by the public universities.

The private institutions have succeeded in converting thetraditional “temples of learning” into market-oriented “diplo-ma mills.” They know how to take advantage of the surge indemand for higher education and professional training in acountry with a growing middle class of 350 million and 60 per-cent of the population below the age of 25. The neoliberals andround-the-clock media have succeeded in spreading the myththat the more you study the better your job prospects. Privatehigher education in India has thus become a lucrative busi-ness.

The government and the judiciary are now bent on curbingthe commodification and commercialization of higher educa-tion by the new private institutions in the name of equity andsocial justice. In a caste-ridden and hierarchical society, highereducation remains the sole hope for the vast majorities towardsocial mobility. That is why the current coalition government isinsisting upon reservation of up to 49.5 percent for the sched-uled castes, scheduled tribes, and other backward classes

through the 93rd constitutional amendment act. We also findfrequent judicial interventions over trivial administrative mat-ters pertaining to the common entrance exam, fee structure,and management quota.

In fact, two bills dealing with the contentious issues ofreservation and regulation of private higher education are cur-rently under active consideration in Parliament. Though pas-sage of the earlier bill introduced in the Rajya Sabha (upperhouse) in August 1995 was blocked by resistance from the pri-vate sector itself, some states—such as Uttar Pradesh,Uttaranchal, and Chattisgarh—succeeded in passing the pri-vate universities acts in the last several years. These develop-ments have resulted in conflicts between the central and stategovernments and feuds between the judiciary and the execu-tive.

Planning for Higher EducationChange in Madagascar Fred M. Hayward and Hanitra Rasoanampoizina

Fred M. Hayward is an independent higher education consultant who hasworked in Africa, Asia, and the United States. Hanitra Rasoanampoizinais a research assistant and quality assurance specialist at the Ministry ofNational Education and Scientific Research in Madagascar. E-mails: [email protected]; [email protected]. Addresses: 3628 VanNess St. NW, Washington DC, USA; lot IVC 104, Ambatomitsangana,Ankadifotsy, Antananarivo 101, Madagascar.

For the last year, work has been under way on a strategy forhigher education reform, quality improvement, and a

transformation in Madagascar. After some delay, that processhas been joined by the major tertiary institutions.

Higher education in Madagascar developed in the 1950s aspart of the French Institut des Hautes Etudes. The Universityof Antananarivo was established on this base in 1961 with 723students focusing on law, medicine, pharmacy, science, andthe arts. Five regional centers were established in 1975, becom-ing regional universities in 1988. In 1989/90 the universitieswere required to admit all students who passed the baccalaure-ate. From 1975 to 1990 the number of students more thanquadrupled, to 37,000. Judging that experiment a costly fail-ure, the government returned to competitive admissions,reducing the total number of students to an average of 20,000from 1994 through 2002. Increases since that time have beenmodest. In 2006 the total student population at the six publicuniversities was 37,152.

Private tertiary institutions developed primarily during thepast decade. Most provide training in business, languages,


africa focus18

The private institutions have succeeded in convert-

ing the traditional “temples of learning” into mar-

ket-oriented “diploma mills.”

management, and computer science. In 2005, the 50 recog-nized private higher institutions had 6,778 students (19.50percent of the total). The total number of students in tertiaryeducation is 3 percent of the college-age group, compared to 8percent for Africa as a whole.

ChallengesAmong the most difficult challenges is to stem the tremen-dous loss of students from secondary school to graduation.Only half the 25,000 students who passed the baccalaureate atthe end of secondary school were admitted to a university.Thirty-five percent of students fail in the first year, and 18 per-cent repeat—with devastating consequences for students and awaste of resources. Of those admitted, 42 percent will earn adiploma. Part of the problem is inadequate preparation in sec-ondary school, as well as the fact that many go to universitiesbecause it is expected and because students receive little coun-seling about other opportunities.

Much of the university curriculum is out of date. Only 64percent (2006) of the faculty have PhDs or their equivalent.Few do any research or publish. A recent study shows only 87publications in major refereed journals in 2004 and 121 in2005. Research experience is limited, which undermines theability of faculty to train and to stimulate students. Teachingand learning are not highly valued or rewarded. There is a pub-lic perception that about half the university graduates areunemployed, although there have been no studies to verifythis.

University faculty are aging. The system suffers from a hir-ing freeze of more than a decade. As a result, the average ageof faculty members is 56 years, with only 15 faculty members

in all six universities under the age of 40. Gender equity among students is less of a problem in

Madagascar than in many other developing countries, with 46percent of students being women. On the other hand, only 29percent of the teaching faculty are women at public institu-tions and only 18 percent in private tertiary institutions.

Finance is a critical problem for universities. Governmentcommits 18.2 percent of its budget to education and only 9.4percent of that to higher education—the equivalent of $390per student. Government policy of scholarships for most stu-dents (82 percent in 2006) without a means test has becomean automatic budget liability, and 25 percent of recipients arefrom wealthy families. Students pay fees, but their contribu-tion is limited. Attempts to increase fees or reduce scholar-

ships would pose serious political risks. Added to these prob-lems is the growing demand for access.

The system suffers from inertia. Senior university adminis-trators resisted suggestions for reform until 2006 when newelections of presidents brought in leaders who are aware thatMadagascar is far behind most of the rest of Africa and com-mitted to improving quality. The new administrators, too, facethe challenge of mobilizing support for reform.

Planning for ChangeA new minister of education, Haja Nirina Razafinjatovo, wasappointed in 2004 and is committed to making major changesin higher education. He brought dynamism and a new spirit tothe ministry and recognized that transformation would requirebroad mobilization. He made a major commitment to qualityimprovement that is now part of the Madagascar Action Plan(2006) with “international norms and standards” as the firstpriority for higher education.

The minister’s initial efforts to encourage change throughthe university presidents were largely rebuffed. His second ini-tiative, a broad task force, was also unsuccessful. In the mean-time, the minister worked with his staff and with some donorsupport in three areas. These initiatives were largely success-ful, including the first major faculty recruitment in more thana decade, establishment of the foundation for accreditation, adigital library, and a plan for PhD training abroad for promis-ing MA/MS students.

The minister established a task team of ministry staff tobegin work on an overall strategy for the transformation ofpostsecondary education. In early 2006 he began work withthe newly elected presidents on an outline for change; inAugust he appointed a groupe de réflection made up primarily ofuniversity presidents and a working group of vice-presidents,leaders in education, and senior ministry personnel.

By October, significant progress had resulted in an outlinefor higher education changes, including accreditation, facultydevelopment, a credit system, articulation between universi-ties, upgrading and expansion of distance education, centers ofexcellence for regional universities, prioritization of recruit-ment priorities, improved governance, and enhancement ofuniversity finances.

In addition, a great deal of thought was given to alternativesto university education—expansion of technical training,establishment of a US community colleges–type institution toprovide job skills and entrepreneurial training.

ProspectsWhat has been impressive about the ministry leadership, thegroupe de réflection, and the working group is their commit-ment to change, their thoughtful exploration of options, coop-erative spirit, and recognition of the difficulties ahead. Indeed,if transformation is to occur, it will require widespread supportof the faculties, students, staff, the public, and government.Universities will need to improve their own efficiency, but

19


africa focus

Only half the 25,000 students who passed the bac-

calaureate at the end of secondary school were

admitted to a university. Thirty-five percent of stu-

dents fail in the first year.

there are few areas in which substantial savings can occur.Government and funders, too, will need to make a major com-mitment of additional funding—one-time upgrades to labora-tories; ICT (information, communications, and technology);building repair; long-term commitments to quality improve-ment, faculty recruitment, training, and retention; andenhanced teaching and research facilities. The universities andthe ministry will need to make the case to the public forincreased higher education funding. Nonetheless, the opportu-nity to transform higher education exists in Madagascar todayin ways it did not even a year ago. The prospects are good forreal transformation and quantum improvements in the highereducation system as a whole.

A Policy Shift in Botswana’sHigher Education LandscapeIsaac N. Obasi

Isaac N. Obasi is a senior lecturer in the Department of Political andAdministrative Studies at the University of Botswana and secretary of theTertiary Education Research Seminar. Address: Private Bag 0022,Gaborone, Botswana. He is also a regular columnist on higher educationfor the Daily Champion newspaper, Lagos, Nigeria. E-mail:[email protected] and [email protected].

Acountry with about 1.7 million people, Botswana is gener-ally described by development scholars as an exceptional

African success story. Politically it has been a model of democ-racy on a continent where military dictatorship reigned for toolong. It is also an economic miracle, having transformed itselffrom one of the poorest countries in the world at its independ-ence in 1966 to its present status of a middle-income country.Presently, the country’s tertiary education sector consists ofone university and a number of other postsecondary institu-tions. A key feature of its higher education landscape is publicownership and control. However, as elsewhere, the forces ofglobalization and internal demands for expansion of access areexerting tremendous pressures for change. Consequently, inline with global trends, a new tertiary education policy is beingproposed.

Pressures on the Higher Education LandscapeAs the major actor, the government sponsors almost all tertiaryeducation students both at home and abroad through the pro-vision of student loans. Since 1990, the government has beenspending on average 1 percent of GDP on tertiary education,which is a reasonably high level compared to other Africancountries. However, enrollment figures at all tertiary institu-tions remain below the level of demand for access, with only 12

percent of the 18–24 age cohort presently at the range of insti-tutions (awarding certificates, diplomas, or degrees)—as low as6.9 percent of the higher education subsector.

The existing order has increasingly come under pressurefor change. Proponents cite the inability of the existing univer-sity to expand access, which has already led to the idea of a sec-ond university. Designated as an international university of sci-ence and technology, the new university has been planned tointroduce a new market orientation into the higher educationlandscape. Proponents also cite the overdependence of the uni-versity on government funding as both precarious and unsus-tainable. The decreasing support in the last two years is a dan-ger signal. In the 2005/06 fiscal year, government fundingprovided about 66 percent of the university’s budget.

The Direction of the Emerging Policy In 2004, the Tertiary Education Council (TEC) established aWorking Group on the Tertiary Education Policy for Botswana.The TEC wants the government to adopt a tertiary educationpolicy that will be “cognizant of global trends and pressuresthat are impacting on tertiary education in Botswana” and“responsive to specific societal challenges and needs.”

Although the TEC proposes wider changes in line with glob-alization, it also provides an affirmation of some policies andpractices that are already in place. For example, some yearsago, the University of Botswana implemented a restructuringpolicy in line with global trends of managerial-oriented leader-ship, privatization, the outsourcing of such services, and thecommercialization of some services. At the level of the state,the government has already adopted some neoliberal policiessuch as privatization, public-private partnership, and outsourc-ing of selected services.

In the education sector, the government has cautiouslyintroduced a partial cost-sharing policy at the secondary schoollevel as a testing ground for the future. Furthermore, owner-ship of tertiary education institutions has been liberalized andthe extent of private providers is growing. It is estimated thatin 2004, over 100 private providers registered with theMinistry of Education, mainly for the running of nondegreetechnical and vocational programs. However, there are otherforeign private providers running professional and master’sdegree programs. For example, the Limkokwing University inMalaysia has been offered registration by the TEC to run bothdiploma and degree programs. So far only a few private highereducation providers have been registered and accredited by theTEC.


africa focus20

For example, some years ago, the University of

Botswana implemented a restructuring policy in

line with global trends of managerial-oriented

leadership, privatization, the outsourcing of such

services

Fear of Losing the “Only Son” StatusCritics of the envisaged policy fear that funding, academicstandards, state sponsorship of students, and the internationalcharacter of academic staff may be adversely affected when theUniversity of Botswana loses its status as the “only son” in thehigher education landscape. Greater reduction of governmentsupport may have a negative impact on its ability to retain sen-ior-level expatriate staff and maintain academic standards.Over the years, the University of Botswana has played a criticalrole in the training of the required manpower for the country’srapid development. The university has attracted expatriatescholars, who constitute 35 percent of its academic staff. It isfeared that further reductions in government funding mayaffect the ability of the university to maintain its competitiveedge in Africa. Such a loss of status might challenge theUniversity of Botswana’s vision of serving as “a leading aca-demic center of excellence in Africa and the world.”

A concomitant issue concerns alternative and sustainablesources of funding. In line with globalization trends else-where, the adoption of a cost-sharing policy by the university isa likely option. However, this approach may be more controver-sial than in other developing countries, for citizens are longused to what a recent report by a government-appointed coun-cil (the Business Economic Advisory Council) called “a cultureof entitlements” and of living in a “comfort zone.” The coun-cil’s characterization of Botswana as “a relatively low-incomecountry with a high-income lifestyle” does not raise any hopethat a cost-sharing policy would be easy to implement.

Violence in Pursuit ofKnowledge: African Victims ofXenophobiaDamtew Teferra

Damtew Teferra is associate professor (research) of higher education anddirector of the International Network for Higher Education in Africa(http://www.bc.edu/inhea) at the Center for International HigherEducation, Boston College. E-mail: [email protected].

On February 4, 2006, CNN featured horrific pictures of thebrutal beating, maiming, and killing of African students

by a fringe neo-Nazi group in Russia. While this was one of themajor international media to broadcast such a story, in Russiaand former Eastern European bloc countries, numerous otherattacks on foreign students and scholars, typically Africans andother dark-skinned people, have been reported.

According to an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education

(September 30, 2005), Russia's minister of education and sci-ence conceded that the government could not protect foreignstudents from racist attacks and called on colleges to workmore closely with the police in dealing with the widespreadproblem. In Ukraine, the former president, Leonid Kuchma,once ordered the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry ofEducation and Science, and the city administration in Odessato investigate attacks and killings of foreign students. In the

former East Germany, students and scholars from Congo,Cameron, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, and Sudan havebeen beaten, stabbed, killed—and even castrated.

The Education MarketToday, around 2.2 million students in the world study outsidetheir borders, and this trend is expected to rise significantly inthe next decade. Many of these students study in institutions inthe Western hemisphere. While geopolitical developments fol-lowing September 11th have had some chilling effect on themobility of students and scholars, this scenario has had a shortand temporary impact across the major centers of education.

The former Eastern bloc, led by the former Soviet Union,played an important role in training a considerable number ofAfrican students during the Cold War era as part of the broad-er campaign to build global solidarity and influence. ManyAfrican countries sent thousands of students to these coun-tries with full scholarships. With the decline in geopoliticalinfluence, shift in ideology, and consequent lack of interest andcapacity to train the African intelligentsia, the number ofAfrican students studying in eastern Europe has dropped dra-matically.

However, many African students still pursue their studiesin this part of the world. For instance, 15,000 students werereported as studying at St. Petersburg, Russia in 2005; as manyas 20,000 students now study in Ukraine. Students in easternEurope are attracted by low tuition and cost of living and rela-tively lax visa regulations, among other factors. Earning a med-ical degree in the former Soviet republics costs only a fractionof expenses in the West, and especially the United States.While it has become increasingly onerous to acquire visas forcountries in the North, post–September 11th, with proper doc-uments visas could be obtained in as short a time as 24 hoursin these countries.

Beyond Lip ServiceMost African governments have ignored these growing brutalattacks on their citizens. Only a few governments haveexpressed their concern and lodged formal complaints through

21


africa focus

Earning a medical degree in the former Soviet

republics costs only a fraction of expenses in the

West, and especially the United States

diplomatic avenues. The deafening silence toward such xeno-phobic atrocities committed against knowledge-seeking citi-zens is obvious.

In many former Eastern bloc countries, institutions havelaunched programs in English largely prompted by the lan-guage’s growing popularity and benefits. Along with the lowcost of studying in eastern Europe, the provision of English-language medium of instruction will attract even more stu-dents from poor countries, necessitating the need to createmore awareness about the xenophobia.

Destination CountriesIt is imperative that African students and scholars who aregoing to study abroad, especially eastern European countries,become fully informed about the social, cultural, and politicalrealities in their countries of study. Guidance on appropriateprecautions and informed decisions to avoid such attacks areimperative. Embassies of host countries can play an active rolein providing students and scholars updated and candid infor-mation on what they should expect in the countries andregions. Moreover, such a responsibility should be fullyassumed by host universities not only by providing ampleguidance on “survival tools” regularly but also raising aware-ness on the academic, social, and financial significance of for-eigners on campus. It is important that institutions make itclear that they are fully committed to the safety and security oftheir foreign students.

Source Countries and InstitutionsSending countries and institutions need to engage in the wel-

fare of their intellectual communities abroad at various levels.The first necessity is to ensure that students not leave homewithout proper guidance and information to destination coun-tries.

Foreign service staff could actively raise the awareness oftheir citizens to the concerns in destination countries.Embassies, consulates, and other diplomatic missions, espe-cially in eastern Europe, could become more actively engaged.In cases where their citizens have been attacked, African diplo-matic missions should lodge formal complaints and pursueinvestigations. African citizens could also play a role by organ-izing peaceful protest marches targeting respective embassies.Associations such as the Association of African Universities,the Southern African Regional Universities Association, theAssociation of Commonwealth Universities, and the African

Union could play an active role in addressing these issues.

Students and ScholarsAfrican students and scholars must be conscious about xeno-phobia and its serious consequences. It is imperative that theypay special attention to social, political, and cultural nuances inthe countries of their study. The ultimate burden for takingcare of their welfare rests on them.

Foreign students and scholars need to be advised to use avariety of communication sources as well as survival tools.Electronic communication sites are ideal means. These sitesmay feature, among other topics, institutions where attack isrampant, places and times where crimes are common, and thenature of attacks.

ConclusionThe deafening silence of African governments on attacksagainst their citizens searching for knowledge overseas is sim-ply deplorable. National governments, regional and interna-tional organizations, universities in respective countries, diplo-matic missions abroad (and locally), and nongovernmentalorganizations need to do more to curb this growing problem.Moreover, host countries must take serious measures toaddress this rising mobility threat. The responsibilities ofsource countries should also not be underestimated.

The Minnow and the Whale:Singapore-China Relations inHigher EducationAnthony Welch

Anthony Welch is an associate professor in the Faculty of Education andSocial Work, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. E-mail:[email protected].

Most internationalization literature still focuses onadvanced Western states or student and staff flows from

South to North. Regional internationalization retains a narrow-er focus, although the rise in regional trading and politicalblocs—sometimes supported by student mobility schemessuch as ERASMUS—can mean that student mobility becomeslargely regional. One little-known regional case involves thetiny island nation of Singapore and its giant and sometimestroubling cousin, China. The changing context includes China-ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations) trade rela-tions, which is substantial and growing swiftly, and China’saccession to the WTO and worldwide rise in service-sector


countries and regions22

It is imperative that African students and scholars

who are going to study abroad, especially eastern

European countries, become fully informed about

the social, cultural, and political realities in their

countries of study.

trade (estimated at US$30+ billion in higher education alone).

Higher Education in China and SingaporeWithin the Asia Pacific region, demand for higher educationoutstrips supply, which explains why the region contributesmore international students to major host countries than any-where else—45 percent of the total for countries that are mem-bers of the Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment.

Nonetheless, China and Singapore each maintain ambi-tious plans to extend capacity and enhance quality. With anannual economic growth of almost 10 percent from 1990 to2000, China has shown an intense commitment to learning(common to much of East Asia), issued in key higher educa-tion reforms—notably programs to develop world-class institu-tions for the 21st century. From 1993, the 211 Project selected100 institutions and key disciplines for special attention andinvestment. The later, much more selective 985 Programinvested an additional RMB30 billion (about US$4 billion) inthe top 10 or so universities. Given the more than 1,000 high-er education institutions in China, most missed out frombeing selected, while still coping with annual enrollmentincreases since 1998 of about 20 percent—without muchincrease, if any, in staffing. Quality, then, is highly differential.

Singapore, with a population of around 4.5 million (smallerthan many of China’s cities), has long been a net importer ofeducational services. More recently, however, it announcedplans to become a regional “eduhub” and invested accordingly.This policy included initiatives like the new Lee Kwan YewSchool of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore;recruiting selected overseas staff (especially in the biosciences)via generous salary packages and research support; and found-ing the first fully owned and operated foreign campus, operat-ed by the University of New South Wales, Australia.

Singapore’s Failed Suzhou VentureNotwithstanding its militant anticommunism, Singapore’s rel-atively long-standing relationship with China includes a suc-cessful record of service-sector exports to the region. Around5,000 Singaporeans live and work in China, mostly inShanghai, while China is Singapore’s largest recipient of for-eign direct investment. Nonetheless, Singapore’s early attemptto develop a joint, high-tech science park in Suzhou, Chinaproved to be a disaster, with annual losses of US$24 million.The failure also involved a considerable loss of face and provid-ed a lesson in differences over what constituted a legal con-tract. This venture remains a taboo subject (especially in frontof foreigners), in Singapore: round one to the whale.Nonetheless, Singapore’s painful experience has not haltedfurther China partnerships in higher education, which are nowstrong.

Current LinkagesThe diverse Singapore-China connections in higher education

consist of joint consortia membership, bilateral frameworkagreements, and institutional partnerships.

Regional consortia include the ASEAN Universities Network,which has commenced collaboration with Chinese institu-tions; and the Association of Pacific Rim Universities, whichincludes the National University of Singapore and Peking,Fudan, Zhejiang, and Tsinghua University, among others. Theglobal consortium Universitas 21 brings together the NationalUniversity of Singapore, Fudan, Peking, and Hong KongUniversity.

Framework agreements date from 1999, when the twoMinistries of Education signed a memorandum of understand-ing, promoting exchanges between teachers, scholars,researchers, and students. A memorandum of understandingin 2002 formalized student exchange programs. Embracing50 from each side, the agreements are directed at broadeningChina-Singapore ties, particularly among students. Chineseuniversities included the Beijing Language University, BeijingPost and Communication University, Beijing University forForeign Studies, and Tsinghua University.

Institutional agreements focus mainly on business, adminis-tration, and the development of Asia-Pacific expertise. TheNational University of Singapore inaugurated its ShanghaiCollege in 2003—with Fudan University and major Chinesefirms. Offering Shanghai internships with high-tech compa-nies (often international) of up to 12 months duration, studentstake entrepreneurship courses at Fudan (also in its own start-up companies). Courses and internships form credits toward adegree from the National University of Singapore. TheInternational Master of Business Administration program is acollaboration between the National University of Singaporeand Peking University, with modules in both English andChinese. Again, the goal is to develop bilingual graduates,equipped with East-West business knowledge. Offered inSingapore and Beijing, full-time annual fees are $18,000. InDecember 2003, Singapore’s Nanyang Technology University,School of Business established a joint Executive MBA programpartnership with China’s leading Shanghai Jiao TongUniversity’s Aetna School of Management. NanyangTechnology University has also investigated collaboration withPeking University and Tsinghua, in the area of humanities, aspart of its plan to develop a leading Chinese studies depart-ment.

Singapore’s senior civil servants can join TsinghuaUniversity’s Executive Program for Senior Singapore CivilServants, which has been running for some years. TheNational University of Singapore’s new (2004) Lee Kuan YewSchool of Public Policy signed letters of intent in late 2005with three of China's most prestigious universities: PekingUniversity, Tsinghua University, and Fudan University. Eachpartner will establish double-degree public policy/publicadministration graduate programs; students will spend oneyear at their “home” institution, the second at the “partner”institution, and will earn degrees from both.

23


countries and regions

Private-sector partnerships include an exchange program ofthe new Singapore Management University, established in2000 as the first publicly funded private university, with afocus on business and management. A one- or two-semesterexchange is offered with three Chinese partners: NankaiUniversity, Sun Yat Sen University, and Xiamen University.Singapore’s Ministry of Trade and Industry offers AsianBusiness Fellowships to such exchange students.

ConclusionThese collaborations illustrate several key points about interna-tionalization. First, Singapore’s misplaced optimism that led toits failed science park venture in Suzhou underlines the factthat presumed cultural and linguistic affinity does not serve asan adequate basis for international partnerships (especiallybeyond the first-generation diaspora). Second, the fact thatmost of the partnerships indicated above are in the area ofbusiness and administration underlines a more widespreadbias in such agreements. Thus, the prospects for developingeffective partnerships in areas such as the social sciences andhumanities do not appear strong. Third, the strength of region-al partnerships and agreements is a refreshing reminder thatnot all internationalization occurs between “the West and therest,” or between elite institutions in the West.Internationalization is a broad river, with many fascinating ifstill largely unexplored tributaries.

China’s Soft Power Projection inHigher EducationRui Yang

Rui Yang is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Education, MonashUniversity, Australia. Address: Wellington Road, Clayton, Victoria 3800. E-mail: [email protected].

Commensurate with China’s rise as an economic and polit-ical power has been a concurrent rise in Chinese soft

power. China’s emerging status as a world leader has becomean issue that urgently needs to be examined. The realm ofhigher education has been the focus of China’s most systemat-ically planned soft power policy. Despite the significance of thesubject, little attention is being directed to this rise of China’spower. There has been no research on the role of higher edu-cation in China’s projection and on the strategies and policytools Beijing has used to boost its soft power through highereducation.

The Concept of Soft PowerCoined by Harvard University political scientist Joseph Nye tomean the ability to change what others do or shape what theywant, the term soft power is usually defined as culture, educa-tion, and diplomacy and providing the capacity to persuadeother nations to adopt the same goals. This approach has beena fundamental part of military thinking in China for over 2000years. Generations of Chinese leaders have adopted the strata-gems and long-term planning stated in Sunzi’s Art of War ofthe 4th century BCE—a part of statecraft that looked to an inte-grated strategy to “win victories without striking a blow.”Another component of the concept, moral leadership by exem-plar, also resonates in Chinese tradition. A main paradigm ofChinese governance is Confucianism, which operates on areciprocal and ethical basis. A ruler is supposed to demon-strate moral excellence, taking wise decisions on behalf of his(very rarely her) subjects, to keep the state secure and prosper-ous.

Soft Power through Higher EducationToday, “winning hearts and minds” still composes an impor-tant part of the international higher education equation.Educational exchange falls under the rubric of soft power.Connections between institutions of higher education are astabilizing and civilizing influence. China has been conscious-ly promoting international exchange and collaboration in edu-cation. Indeed, China has been skillfully employing soft powerto expand its global influence. One effective policy strategy hasbeen the combination of higher education with the appeal ofConfucianism—to offer Beijing a comparative advantage in itsapproach.

China’s soft power gambit is most evident in Africa. Chinahas committed to contributing to the development of humanresources in Africa. As of 2003, over 6,000 Africans had beentrained as part of the program. Scholarships for over 1,500African students are annually awarded by China, and manyChinese universities have established relationships withAfrican institutions. China sent 10 teams of experts andlaunched 14 workshops in African countries over the past 5years covering library science, dossier management, archaeol-ogy, biology, dance, and acrobatics. Chinese technical aid toAfrica is becoming increasingly important in building China’sinfluence in the region. Medical, agricultural, and engineeringteams have provided technical aid to African countries fordecades to support everything from building projects to treat-ing AIDS patients. This support for education improvesChina’s image, builds grassroots support in local communi-ties, and creates a better understanding of China among theeducated elite.

Soft power can be “high,” targeted at elites, or “low,” target-ed at the broader public. Though soft power stems from bothgovernments and nongovernmental actors, one can identifystrategies and policy tools Beijing has consciously used to


countries and regions24

25


countries and regions

boost its soft power and thus increase its legitimacy as anemerging superpower. Their desires for national revivalinclude returning to the position China had before a risingEurope began to eclipse it in the 18th century. Beijing’s inno-vative and most systematically planned soft power policyinvolves a two-way strategy: hosting international students andbuilding up the Confucius Institutes worldwide.

Hosting International StudentsTraining future generations of intellectuals, technicians, andpolitical elites from other nations is a subtle yet importantform of soft power. This was the role of Great Britain at itsimperial zenith and of the United States ever since the 1950s,and now China increasingly fills this role. China is recruitingstudents from all parts of the world, with particular focus ondeveloping countries. These future generations of elites willcertainly be sensitized to Chinese viewpoints and interests,with knowledge of the Chinese language, society, culture, his-tory, and politics.

Increasing numbers of foreign students are attracted toundergraduate or postgraduate study in China. The enroll-ment of foreign students from 178 countries studying foradvanced degrees at China’s universities has tripled in 2004 to110,800 from 36,000 over the past decades, surpassing theflow of Chinese students to foreign universities, marking a 10-year high—an increase of over 40 percent from 2003. Thebelief that to get ahead, it behooves you to go to China, repre-sents what 10 years ago people said about the United States.China’s Ministry of Education plans to host 120,000 foreignstudents annually by 2007, most of them in programs ofChinese language and culture. China is investing in promotionof Mandarin as one of the global languages.

The Confucius InstitutesThe National Office for Teaching Chinese as a ForeignLanguage (Hanban) is establishing Confucius Institutes tospread the teaching of Mandarin and Chinese culture aroundthe world. The goal is to quadruple the number of foreignersstudying Chinese to 100 million by 2010. The first ConfuciusInstitute was inaugurated in Seoul in November 2004. Sincethen, the institutes have opened in cities such as Stockholm,Perth, and Nairobi. More than 85 of these institutes have beenestablished worldwide, and Beijing aims eventually to opensome 100 of them. In many ways the institutes are patternedafter the British Council, Goethe Institute, or AllianceFrançaise. The Chinese government recently committed near-ly US$25 million a year for the teaching of Chinese as a foreignlanguage.

However, the Confucius Institutes differ in significant waysfrom the long-established agents of French and German cul-ture. Those European organizations are government agenciesand fully dependent on state funds for their operations, butthey locate their offices in normal commercial locations, wher-ever their governments can rent appropriate space. There is no

attempt to integrate them into their host societies via institu-tional linkups. In contrast, the Confucius Institutes are beingincorporated into leading universities around the world as wellas being linked to China not only through their Hanban con-nections but also by supportive twinning arrangements withkey Chinese universities. The London School of Economics,for example, is setting up an institute using arrangementsunder which it will cooperate with Tsinghua University. Notonly will the Confucius Institutes immediately benefit fromthe prestige and convenience of becoming parts of existingcampuses, the latter will also have a vested interest in supply-

ing the institutes with staff and funds. The more successful theinstitutes, the greater potential for them to be used as agents ofBeijing’s foreign policy in the future. The institutes are a smallbut significant part of what seems to be the equivalent of a soft-power offensive via the promotion of Chinese language andculture as well as preparing the way to raise Mandarin towardthe status currently enjoyed by English.

ConclusionChina’s projection of soft power in higher education has chal-lenged both the traditional and more recent explanations of thepolitical economy of international higher education—charac-terized, respectively, by North-South imbalances and asymme-tries and a strong orientation for international market share.Moreover, this is happening as China aspires to become thenew focal point of educational and research excellence, butmany Western countries are reducing investment in their flag-ship universities, and Japan is disinclined to increase the sci-entific capacity of its greatest institutions of higher education.China’s use of international exchange and cooperation in high-er education as an exercise of soft power is unprecedented andhas gone far beyond the comfort zone of the traditional theo-ries. It is thus both theoretically and practically significant toobserve how Beijing endeavors to create a paradigm of global-ization that favors China, portrays itself as a world leader, andattempts to better position itself in a multipolar, post–Cold Warenvironment.

China’s projection of soft power in higher education

has challenged both the traditional and more

recent explanations of the political economy of

international higher education.


departments26

New Publications

Acker, Duane. Can State Universities BeManaged? A Primer for Presidents andManagement Teams. Westport, CT: Praeger,2006. 236 pp. $39.35. ISBN: 0-275-99193-8 .Address: Greenwood Publishing Group, 88Post Rd. West, Westport, CT 06881, USA.

A witty guide to prospective leaders ofAmerican public universities, this volume dis-cusses all aspects of the university presidency,from the process of selection, to administra-tive structures, constituencies, management,and others. A special section on funding—including the role of the state and donors—isuseful as is a discussion of the role of relatingto students, faculty, and governing boards.

Agarwal, Pawan. Higher Education in India: TheNeed for Change. New Delhi: Indian Councilfor Research on International EconomicRelations, 2006. 178 pp. (pb). Address:ICRIER, 4th flr., India Habitat Centre, LodhiRd., New Delhi 110 003, India.

A comprehensive overview of Indian high-er education, this working paper discussessuch topics as financing higher education, theshape of the system, the research function ofhigher education, regulations and qualityassessment, and current trends. Current sta-tistics are included.

Bleiklie, Ivar, and Mary Henkel, eds. GoverningKnowledge: a Study of Continuity and Change inHigher Education—A Festschrift in Honor ofMaurice Kogan. Dordrecht, Netherlands:Springer, 2006. 275 pp. (hb). ISBN 1-4020-3489-X. Address: Springer Publishers, POB 17,3300 AA Dordrecht, Netherlands.

This interesting potpourri of essays coversthree main themes—the governance of aca-demic institutions, the organization of knowl-edge through disciplines and in other ways,and how universities can function in a chang-ing social and economic environment.

Breneman, David, Brian Pusser, and Sarah E.Turner, eds. Earnings from Learning: The Rise ofFor-Profit Universities. Albany, NY: SUNY Press,2006. 212 pp. (pb). ISBN 0-7914-6839-9.Address: State University of New York Press,194 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12210, USA.

A wide-ranging analysis of the growing for-profit higher education industry in the UnitedStates, this book maps the for-profit market.Among other themes discussed are theUniversity of Phoenix, distance higher educa-tion, markets and the public good, the rela-

tionship between for-profit and nonprofit high-er education, Wall Street and the higher educa-tion market, and others.

Chace, William M. 100 Semesters: MyAdventures as Student, Professor, and UniversityPresident, and What I learned Along the Way.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,2006. 368 pp. $24.95 (hb). ISBN 0-691-12725-5. Address: Princeton University Press, 41William St., Princeton, NJ 08540, USA.

The engagingly written reflections of anexperienced higher education administrator(dean at Stanford University, and president ofboth Wesleyan and Emery Universities), thisbook discusses both Chace’s experiences andalso broader trends in higher education andpolicy. Issues such as the tenure system, diver-sity, the role of leadership, and professorialissues are considered.

Cloete, Nico, Peter Maassen, Richard Fehnel,Teboho Moja, Trish Gibbon, and HelenePerold, eds. Transformation in HigherEducation: Global Pressures and Local Realities.Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2006. 322pp. (hb). ISBN 1-4020-4005-9. Address:Springer Publishers, POB 17, 3300 AADordrecht, Netherlands.

This somewhat mistitled book concernsSouth African higher education developmentssince the democratic elections of 1994.Among the themes discussed are patterns offunding, changes in staff and leadership, cur-riculum and leadership, and the process ofchange.

Currie, Jan, Carole J. Petersen, and Ko HoMok. Academic Freedom in Hong Kong.Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2006. 204 pp.$70 (hb). ISBN 0-7391-1081-0. Address:Lexington Books, 4501 Forbes Blvd., LanhamMD 20706, USA.

Hong Kong, part of China yet governed sep-arately, has a strong tradition of academic free-dom in its well-developed university system.This book examines the idea of academic free-dom and how it plays itself out in the HongKong context. The view of academics, policy-makers, and others are discussed as well ascurrent issues that affect academic freedom inHong Kong.

Global University Network for Innovation.Higher Education in the World 2007:Accreditation for Quality Assurance: What Is atStake? Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave-Macmillan,2007. 415 pp. £34.99. (pb) ISBN 978-0-230-

00047-6. Address: Palgrave-MacmillanPublishers, Houndsmills, Basingstoke,Hampshire RG21 6XS, UK.

The 2nd annual publication of the GlobalUniversity Network for Innovation (GUNI),this comprehensive volume focuses broadlyon accreditation and quality assurance issues,although some other themes, such as leaguetables, are included. A series of reports onquality assurance and accreditation in the var-ious world regions is at the heart of the book,and there is much original data included inthese chapters. Statistical data as well asanalysis are provided.

Gornitzka, Ase, Maurice Kogan, and AlbertoAmaral, eds. Reform and Change in HigherEducation: Analyzing Policy Implementation.Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2005. 361pp. (hb). ISBN 1-4020-3402-4. Address:Springer Publishers, POB 17, 3300 AADordrecht, Netherlands.

The focus of this book is on the process ofthe implementation of reform worldwide. Casestudies consider how countries, systems, andinstitutions have interpreted and implement-ed mostly government-directed reform efforts.Among the countries considered are Finland,South Africa, Mexico, the United States, theUnited Kingdom, Australia, Norway, theNetherlands, Portugal, and others.

Hunt, Lynne, Adrian Bromage, and BlandTomkinson. The Realities of Change in HigherEducation: Interventions to Promote Learningand Teaching. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2006.173 pp. (pb). ISBN 0-415-38580-6. Address:Routledge Publishers, 2 Park Sq., Milton Park,Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN, UK.

Focusing on aspects of change and reformin higher education and using examples main-ly from the United Kingdom and Australia, thisbook discusses such topics as quality assur-ance, national policies and higher educationreforms, the development of teaching andlearning centers for change, the role of tech-nology, and related themes.

Knight, Jane. Internationalization of HigherEducation: New Directions, New Challenges.Paris: International Association ofUniversities, 2006. 172 pp. EUR 35 (pb). ISBN92-9002-177-2. Address: IAU Secretariat, 1 rueMiollis, F-75732 Paris 15, France.

This important survey of the views aboutthe internationalization of universities world-wide provides data from 176 higher educationinstitutions from 66 countries. Although

27


departments

response rates vary—from 9 percent in LatinAmerican to more than 50 percent inEurope—the results are illustrative. In addi-tion, 102 university associations were sur-veyed, although only 18 responded. This is thesecond survey sponsored by the InternationalAssociation of Universities—the first one wasin 2003. Seventy-three percent of respondinguniversities indicated that internationaliza-tion is a high priority. There are many reasonsfor internationalization—surprisingly, incomegeneration did not have a high priority. Theonly study of the views of universities con-cerning internationalization, this is a very use-ful book and a benchmark for further analysis.

Kogan, Maurice, Marianne Bauer, IvarBleiklie, and Mary Henkel, eds. TransformingHigher Education: A Comparative Study (2nded.). Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2006. 200 pp.(hb). ISBN 1-4020-4656-1. Address: SpringerPublishers, POB 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht,Netherlands.

This study of governmental policy and itsimplications on universities (management,the academic profession, and other aspects)is one of the few that were designed as a com-parative analysis (Norway, Sweden, andEngland). Based on interviews and otherresearch tools, this book provides a detailedanalysis of the impact of reform. This is the2nd revised version of this research.

Kremen, Vasyl, and Stanislav Nikolajyenko.Higher Education in Ukraine. Bucharest,Romania: UNESCO European Centre forHigher Education, 2006. 99 pp. $20 (pb).ISBN 92-9069-181-6. Address: CEPES, 39Stribei Voda St., RO-010102 Bucharest,Romania.

One of the center’s series of publicationson countries in central and eastern Europe,this volume on Ukraine features discussion ofthe history of the higher education system,the organization and legal arrangements forthe system, institutional governance, andrelated themes.

Medik, V. A., and A. M. Osipov. RussianUniversity Students: Way of Life and Health.Moscow: UNESCO Moscow Office, 2005. 133pp. (hb). ISBN 5-225-04013-6.

Based on a study of student health issuesat Novgorod State University in Russia, thisbook focuses on how students see healthissues on campus and how they deal withthese issues. Specific health issues are dis-cussed, including how students see medical

practice.

Neave, Guy, Kjell Blückert, and ThrostenNybom, eds. The European ResearchUniversity: An Historical Parenthesis? NewYork: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. 190 pp. (hb).ISBN1-4039-7014-9. Address: PalgraveMacmillan, 175 Fifth Ave., New York, NY10010, USA.

A critical discussion of the contemporaryEuropean research university, this bookincludes analyses of the future of theHumboldtian university tradition in Europe,Swedish university funding and research, uni-versity research and politics, a historical per-spective on European research universities,and other topics.

Olivas, Michael A. The Law and HigherEducation: Cases and Materials on Colleges inCourt. (3rd ed.). Durham, NC: CarolinaAcademic Press, 2006, 1072 pp. $225 (hb).ISBN-10: 1-59460-224-7. Address: CarolinaAcademic Press, 700 Kent St., Durham, NC27701, USA.

The relationship between law and higher and education in the United States hasbecome increasingly important, as highereducation issues have been litigated in court.This book provides cases and related materi-als on a wide variety of legal cases concerningall aspects of higher education.

Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment. Education at a Glance: OECDIndicators 2006. Paris: OCED, 2006. 447 pp.(pb). ISBN 92-64 –02531-6. Address:[email protected].

This annual survey of education indicatorsfor the OECD countries (mainly WesternEurope, North America, Japan, and Korea) isa valuable source for accurate statistical andcomparative data. Although the book dealswith education at all levels, the material onhigher education covers, for example, eco-nomic returns to education, public and pri-vate investment in educational institutions,tuition fees charged by postsecondary institu-tions, participation rates in secondary andhigher education, and other topics.

Schomburg, H., and U. Teichler. HigherEducation and Graduate Employment inEurope: Results from Graduate Surveys inTwelve Countries. Dordrecht, Netherlands:Springer, 2006. 167 pp. $99 (hb). ISBN 1-4020-5153-0. Address: Springer Publishers,POB 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, Netherlands.

The report of a survey of 40,000 students

from nine EU countries, plus the CzechRepublic, Norway, and Japan, this book dis-cusses the views of university graduates con-cerning employment. Such issues as theprocess of searching for a job, early careerissues, the relationship between higher edu-cation training and work, job satisfaction, andcareer development are discussed.

Teixeira, Pedro N., D. Bruce Johnstone, MariaJ. Rosa, and Hans Vossensteyn, eds. Cost-sharing and Accessibility in Higher Education: AFairer Deal? Dordrecht, Netherlands:Springer, 2006. 356 pp. (hb). ISBN 1-4020-4659-6. Address: Springer Publishers, POB17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, Netherlands.

This book provides series of studies offunding patterns in Europe and the UnitedStates. Among the themes are the impact oftuition fees on access in the United Kingdom,Canadian experiments with cost-sharing, theGerman fee debate, access and equity inFrance’s state-funded system, and some oth-ers. Several comparative analyses are alsoincluded.

Tierney, William G., ed. Governance and thePublic Good. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2006.217 pp. (pb). ISBN 0-7914-6876-3. Address:State University of New York Press, 194Washington St., Albany, NY 12210, USA.

The focus of this book is on governance atthe state level—what Europeans call “steer-ing.” Authors consider themes such as thegoverning public higher education in an era ofprivatization, the role of governing boards,and institutional autonomy and stateaccountability. The book is concerned withhow state and public authority can be exer-cised for the public good in higher education.

Vik, Ales. Higher Education and GATS:Regulatory Consequences and Stakeholders’Responses. Enschede, Netherlands: CHEPS,2006. 285 pp. (PB). ISBN 90-365-2372-9.Address: CHEPS, Posatbus 217, 7500AE,Netherlands.

This doctoral dissertation discusses howGATS is affecting higher education systemsand particularly the ability of governments to“steer” academic systems. Case studies ofthe Netherlands and the Czech Republic areincluded along with a broader discussion ofthis theme.

international higher educationdepartments28

New CIHE Publications

We are pleased to announce the publication of two books.

Philip G. Altbach, Leslie A. Bozeman, Natia Janashia, andLaura E. Rumbley. Higher Education: A Worldwide Inventory ofCenters and Programs. This book features information about199 programs and centers focusing on higher education world-wide. It also includes a listing of 191 journals in the field ofhigher education and an essay analyzing the development andcurrent status of the field of higher education worldwide. Thisbook is published in a commercial edition by Sense Publishers,

Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Readers in developing countriesmay request the book free of charge from the CIHE. Othersmay order from Sense Publishers, POB 21858, 3001 AWRotterdam, the Netherlands.

Philip G. Altbach. International Higher Education: Reflections onPolicy and Practice. A compilation of 35 essays from the Center’spublication, International Higher Education. Among the topicsincluded are globalization and internationalization, corruptionin higher education, research universities, the academic profes-sion, and others. Readers may request a free copy of this bookfrom the CIHE.

THE CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL HIGHEREDUCATION (CIHE)The Boston College Center for InternationalHigher Education brings an international con-sciousness to the analysis of higher education. Webelieve that an international perspective will con-tribute to enlightened policy and practice. To servethis goal, the Center publishes the InternationalHigher Education quarterly newsletter, a bookseries, and other publications; sponsors confer-ences; and welcomes visiting scholars. We have aspecial concern for academic institutions in theJesuit tradition worldwide and, more broadly, withCatholic universities.

The Center promotes dialogue and cooperationamong academic institutions throughout theworld. We believe that the future depends on effec-tive collaboration and the creation of an interna-tional community focused on the improvement ofhigher education in the public interest.

CIHE WEB SITEThe different sections of the Center Web site sup-port the work of scholars and professionals ininternational higher education, with links to keyresources in the field. All issues of InternationalHigher Education are available online, with asearchable archive. In addition, the InternationalHigher Education Clearinghouse (IHEC) is a sourceof articles, reports, trends, databases, online

newsletters, announcements of upcoming interna-tional conferences, links to professional associa-tions, and resources on developments in theBologna Process and the GATS. The HigherEducation Corruption Monitor provides informationfrom sources around the world, including a selec-tion of news articles, a bibliography, and links toother agencies. The International Network forHigher Education in Africa (INHEA), is an informa-tion clearinghouse on research, development, andadvocacy activities related to postsecondary educa-tion in Africa.

THE PROGRAM IN HIGHER EDUCATION ATTHE LYNCH SCHOOL OF EDUCATION,BOSTON COLLEGEThe Center is closely related to the graduate pro-gram in higher education at Boston College. Theprogram offers master’s and doctoral degrees thatfeature a social science–based approach to thestudy of higher education. The AdministrativeFellows initiative provides financial assistance aswell as work experience in a variety of administra-tive settings. Specializations are offered in highereducation administration, student affairs anddevelopment, and international education. Foradditional information, please contact Dr. KarenArnold ([email protected]) or visit our Web site:http://www.bc.edu/schools/lsoe/.

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

We welcome correspon-dence, ideas for articles,and reports. If you wouldlike to subscribe, pleasesend an e-mail to: [email protected], includingyour institutional affilia-tion, your position (gradu-ate student, professor,administrator, researcher,policy maker, etc.), andarea of interest or expert-ise. There is no charge fora subscription.

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

the boston college center for international higher educationgoals of success mohamed h. a. hassan...

Documents