INTERNATIONALHIGHEREDUCATIONT H E B O S T O N C O L L E G E C E N T E R F O R I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N

International Higher Education is the quarterly publication of the Center for International Higher Education.

The journal is a reflection of the Center’s mission to en-courage an international per-spective that will contribute to enlightened policy and prac-tice. Through International Higher Education a network of distinguished international scholars offer commentary and current information on key issues that shape higher edu-cation worldwide. IHE is pub-lished in English, Chinese, and Russian. Links to all editions can be found at www.bc.edu/cihe.

Number 65 :: Fall 2011

Rankings again

2 “Anchoring”theWorldUniversityRankings Nicholas A. Bowman and Michael Bastedo

3 Rankings:DoesWhatGetCountedGetDone? Ellen Hazelkorn

inteRnational issues

5 EnglishandtheRest:UnderstandingtheLanguagesofScience Jorge Balán

7 IsThereaFutureforBranchCampuses? Philip G. Altbach

10 WhatInternationalStudentsThinkaboutUSHigherEducation Patricia Chow

the Middle east

12 TheArabSpring:AHigherEducationRevolutionYettoHappen André Elias Mazawi

13 EgyptianPrivateHigherEducationataCrossroads Daniel C. Levy and Manar Sabry

afRica focus

15 PartnershipsinAfrica Damtew Teferra

17 ResearchNetworksinAfrica Piyushi Kotecha

19 InternationalLessonsforAfricanHigherEducationandEconomy Pundy Pillay

financing higheR education: ecuadoR and aRMenia

20 WhoBenefitsfromFreeTuition? David Post

22 “Free”PublicUniversities:TooMuchofaGoodThing? Mateo Estrella

24 ReformingHigherEducationFinancinginArmenia Arthur M. Hauptman, Levon Barkhudaryan, and Sergey Balasanyan

countRies and Regions

25 StudentServicesinChina Karen D. Arnold and Hong Zhu

depaRtMents

28 NewPublications31 NewsoftheCenter

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N2 Rankings Again

“Anchoring”theWorldUniversityRankingsNicholas A. Bowman and Michael Bastedo

Nicholas A. Bowman is assistant professor, at Bowling Green State University, Ohio. E-mail: nbowman@bgsu.edu. Michael Bastedo is as-sociate professor, at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. E-mail: bastedo@umich.edu. This article is adapted (with permission) from Higher Education, Anchoring Effects in World University Rankings: Exploring Biases in Reputation Scores; more can be read about their rankings research at http://www.umich.edu/~bastedo.

Indeed institutional leaders are quite concerned abouttheirpositioninrankingsandleaguetables.Theybelieve

thatmanyconstituentswithinandoutsideofhigheredu-cationrelyon internationalornational rankings torevealwhichuniversitiesare“good”or“great.”Ifthisistrue,thentheserankingsmaybecomevirtuallysynonymouswithin-stitutionalreputationovertime.

It is suspected that rankings might influence reputa-tionthroughaphenomenonknownastheanchoringeffect(or anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic). That is, peopleoftenrelyonsomestartingpointwhenmakingjudgmentsforwhichtheanswerisambiguous,suchasestimatingthenumberofjellybeansinajar.Forexample,peoplewhoareinitiallyaskedwhetherthenumberofjellybeansishigheror lower than a high number (e.g., 2,000) will generallyprovidehigherestimatesfortheexactvaluethanthosewhoareinitiallyaskedwhetheritishigherorlowerthanalownumber(e.g.,100).Researchhasdemonstratedthattheseanchoringeffectscanoccurevenamongexpertsinavarietyofimportant,real-worldsettings,suchasassessingreales-tatevaluesanddeterminingthelengthofprisonsentences.

Untillessthanadecadeago,thereputationsofdiverseuniversities throughout theworldwerealsocharacterizedby considerable uncertainty. While many people wouldhave agreed that Oxford and Harvard are in the top 10,where should the University of Melbourne or TsinghuaUniversitybe ranked?Andwhichof these two schools is“better”?Therefore,theintroductionofTimes Higher Edu-cation Supplement (THES) World University Rankings in2004providedanaturalexperimenttoconsidertheeffectof rankings on the decision-making processes of reputa-tionalarbitersaroundtheworld.AfterthefirstsetofTHES rankings,peoplewhowantedtoidentify“top”schools—ortoseewhere theirowninstitutionstackedup—hadafor-mallistthattheycouldperuse.Whenaskedtoidentifytopschoolsinfuturesurveys,somereputationalratersproba-blyreferredtothelistdirectly;andotherswhohadseenthe

listpreviouslymayhavereportedmorefavorableratingsfortheinstitutionsatthetopoftheTHESrankings.

Examining Anchoring Effects on University Reputation

ToexploreempiricallywhethertheearlyTHES worlduni-versity rankings provided an anchoring point for subse-quent assessments of institutional reputation, this articleexaminesthefirstthreeyearsoftheTHESrankingsandthecorrespondingreputationratings,whichwereprovidedbyavarietyofacademicsworldwide(e.g.,faculty,administra-tors,lecturers).

Three hypotheses were supported by the data. First,consistentwithanchoringtheory,theinitialTHESrankingswereassociatedwithincreasesinreputationalassessments.Thus,theacademicswhowereaskedtoprovidereputation

ratingsinthesecondandthirdyearsofthesurveyappearto have been influenced—whether consciously or uncon-sciously—by the first year of rankings. Furthermore, therelationship between rankings and reputation was muchstrongerinthesecondyearofthesurveythaninthefirstyear, which means that rankings and reputation becamemorecloselyalignedinaveryshortperiodoftime.

Wehadnoreason toanticipate that theoppositepat-ternwouldoccur(namely,thatreputationwouldleadtoim-provementsinrankings),andwedidnotfindsuchalink.This “non-finding” supports the interpretation that rank-ingscauseimprovementsinreputation,notviceversa.

Becausethefirstyearofrankingsisparticularlyinfor-mativeforpotentialraters(byprovidinganovelformalizedhierarchyamonginstitutions),weexpectedthattheeffectsofrankingsonreputationwouldbestrongestfor thefirstyearofrankingsthanforthesecondyear.Indeed,thefirstyearofrankingswasassociatedwithincreasedreputationinthefollowingtwoyears,butthesecondyearofrankingshadnosignificanteffect.

Conclusion and ImplicationsOneofthemanyusesofrankingsistoprovideusefulinfor-mationtoconsumersastheymakedecisionsaboutcollegechoices.Formanyyears,therehasbeenconcernaboutthe

It is suspected that rankings might in-

fluence reputation through a phenom-

enon known as the anchoring effect (or

anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic).

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 3Rankings Again

useofrankingsbasedonequityandvalidity.Thereputationassessments of the rankings have come under particularcriticism,muchofitwelldeserved.

Ourresearchprovidesfuelformanyoftheseconcerns.Itseemshighlylikelythattheanchoringeffectswefoundare influentialacrossrankingschemesworldwide,as thisis based on a well-established psychological effect. Whenalsoconsideringthefactthatthedifferencesbetweenrank-ings and reputation are becoming vanishingly small overtimeandthatrankingsarestableovertime,itisdifficulttomaintainthefantasythatreputationalscoresareindepen-dentfromtherankingsthemselves.

Engineeringeffectivereputationalsurveysisadifficultproposition.Asmentionedearlier,oneofthemajorissuesisthatrespondentsareaskedtoratecollegesaboutwhichthey have little first-hand knowledge, and there are long-timelagsbetweenchangesinqualityandsubsequentrepu-tation.Therefore,onesolutionwouldbetoaskrespondentsonlytorateuniversitiesaboutwhichtheyhavedeepknowl-edge. Unfortunately, this will likely generate a conflict ofinterest:Universitiesgenerallyhavethedeepestknowledgeoftheirclosestcompetitors,andtheseinstitutionscompeteforhigherrankings.

Indeed,manipulationof reputational surveysmaybeamajorproblemwithsomecollege-rankingssystems.Anorganizationthatconductscollegerankingsmusthavespe-cificcriteriaforidentifyingsurveyresponsesthatshowevi-denceofmanipulation,anditmustensurethatinformantshavedeepknowledgeof the institutions they rank.More-over,samplingalargesampleoffacultyfrommanydiverseinstitutionsandfromawiderangeofacademicfieldswouldimprovethevalidityofthesurveyresults.Andbecauserep-utational surveysare likelyhere tostay, it is important touse empirical research to make them as informative andunbiasedaspossible.

Simplyeliminatingreputationalsurveysisnotthean-swer.Our“objective”measuresofinstitutions—likethoseusedintheShanghaiAcademic Ranking of World Universi-ties—arenotstrongenough toprovidea real senseofac-ademic quality. In addition, the more that objective mea-

sures are weighted, the more likely it is that institutionswill simply purchase the Nobel prize winners and highlycitedscientiststhattheyneedtoriseintherankings,withfairlynegligibleimprovementsinacademicprogramqual-itymorebroadly.

Finally,thereissimplyademandforknowledgeaboutinstitutionalreputation,andsomeonewillbetheretopro-videit.Itisbettertoencouragethosewhoseektodoitwellthantoleaveittothosewhowilldoitpoorly.

WethinkthenewWorldUniversityRankingsareastepintherightdirection.Byaskingpeopletorateprogramsintheirowndiscipline, it ismore likely that theratingswillbevalidandreliable.Academicskeeptabsononeanotherquitewellintheirownareaofinterest,andrankingsshouldtakeadvantageofthat.Withsociologistsratingsociologistsandphysicistsratingphysicists,youhavethebestchanceofascertainingaprofessionalconsensusaboutprogramqual-ity.

Rankings:DoesWhatGetsCountedGetDone?Ellen Hazelkorn

Ellen Hazelkorn is vice president of research and enterprise, dean of the Graduate Research School, and head of the Higher Education Policy Research Unit, Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland. E-mail: Ellen.hazelkorn@dit.ie. This article is based on Rankings and the Reshap-ing of Higher Education. The Battle for World-Class Excellence, published by Palgrave MacMillan, 2011. (http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?pid=391266).

Much of the debate around rankings has focused onmethodological problems—which indicators and

weightings, the credibility of the statistical process, andwhy (or why not) inconsistencies arise. There are alsocomplaintsabouttheoverrelianceonresearchratherthanteaching.Yet, therehasbeen littlecommentaryabout theincreasinguseofquantitativemethodologiestodrivedeci-sionmakingat thenationalor institutional level—what Icallpolicymakingbynumbers.Thesameissuesariseaboutperformanceindicators,ingeneral.

Have rankings accelerated this trend? And, becauseindicators incentivize behavior, are we measuring whatcountsorarewedoingwhatgetsmeasured—aclassiccaseof“goaldisplacement”?

The academics who were asked to pro-

vide reputation ratings in the second

and third years of the survey appear to

have been influenced—whether con-

sciously or unconsciously—by the first

year of rankings.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N4 Rankings Again

Selectivity Student-entry levels are generally considered a good in-dicator for student achievement, on the assumption thata student’s performance is roughly similar throughouttheirhighereducationcareer.Forexample,USScholasticAchievementTestscorescorrelatestronglywithgraduationand retention rates, future incomes, and graduate schooladmissions. Other higher education systems and institu-tionsusecollege-entryscores,preparatoryexaminations,orsecondaryschoolscoresforthesamereason.

Thispracticeisreinforcedbyuniversityrankings,suchasUS News & World ReportandtheTimes Higher Education WorldUniversityRankings,whichusestudententryscoresas a proxy for educational quality—worth 15 percent and9.5percent,respectively.Thegreaterthenumberofsmartstudents are admitted, the higher a university can score.

High-ability and second-generation students—the latterfrom Asian backgrounds (or non-US citizens)—wantinga doctoral, medical, or law degree are especially sensitivetorankings.Avirtuouscircleiscreatedduetothelinkbe-tweenrankings,reputation,andselectivity.

Selectivityisbecomingaperversedriverofhigheredu-cationandstudentbehavior.Universitiesseekto improvetheir rankbya rangeofenrollmentmanagementpractic-es—including influencing the number of applications re-ceived,whileretainingthesamenumberofavailableplac-es.Inthisway,theselectivityindexrises.Highereducationinstitutionsmay limitclassorcohortsize.Theymayalsousehighertuitionfeestosignalselectivity;thatthemajor-ityofUKuniversitieshavechosenthemaximum£9,000(US$14,700) tuition fee is symptomatic of this mind-set.Others use financial aid to attract high-calibre studentsratherthanstudentswiththegreatestneed.LikemanyUSuniversities,theUKgovernmenthasencourageduniversi-tiestooffer“specialdeals”tohighachievers.

Completion RatesToday,policyisconcernednotjustwiththenumberofstu-dentswhoenteraninstitutionbutthenumberwhoactuallycompleteandgraduatewithinadeterminedtimeframe.Inthis way, responsibility shifts to the institution to ensure

thatstudentsprogresssuccessfullythroughthesystem.US News & World ReportandtheEuropeanUnion’snewU-Mul-tirankmeasurean institution’spredictivegraduationrate;the latter also measures graduate (un)employability. Thisaspect is often captured by surveys of employer groups,suchasthoseconductedbyQS World University Rankings.

However,performanceis influencedbymanyfactors,includingstudentsocioeconomicprofile.Measuringgradu-ationratesmaybedisadvantageoustolowersocioeconomicand ethnically disadvantaged groups or mature students,whose lifeor family circumstancesdisturbnormal study;while measuring graduation rates can encourage institu-tionstoabandoneducationalstandards.

Thismayundermineinstitutionsthatareworkinghardtoprovidewideningparticipationopportunitiestonewstu-dentgroupsortostudentswhomightusethisopportunitytotransfertohigher-rankedorotheruniversities.Thereisalreadyevidencethatinstitutionsareabandoningprogramsaimedatwideningaccessorestablishingarms-lengthcol-leges,sothat thepoorer-performancescoresdonotaffectthe university’s overall ranking. Others, as mentionedabove,arechangingtheconditionsoftheirscholarships.

Amajorhandicapforfirstdestinationemploymentdataisthetimeframe;surveysusuallyconcentrateonthefirstsixtoninemonthspostgraduation,whichisinadequateformanytypesofcareersandisunabletodistinguishbetweenemployment on graduate-level jobs or underemployed.Whilethetimeframemayprovideusefulinformationdur-ingaperiodofactiveeconomicgrowth,istheinformationanaccuratereflectionofeducationalqualityduringareces-sionsuchasthecurrentone?

Measuring ResearchMeasuring researchproductivity and impact throughbib-liometricandcitationdataisawidespreadmethodologyforassessingacademicandresearchqualityandisakeyindica-torforvariousrankings.Arelatedpracticeisrankingjour-nals,wherebythequalityofajournalisdeterminedbyitslocal,national,orworldwidescientificreach.TheShanghaiAcademic Ranking of World Universities awards20percentofitsscoretojusttwopublications,Science and Nature; andSCImagousesthejournals’scientificprestige,theSJRindi-cator,torankjournalsbasedoncitations.

Quantityiscorrelatedwithquality—despitenormaliza-tionfordiscipline, institutionsize,andage.Thistendstorewardlargerandolderuniversitiesandthephysical, life,andmedicalsciences—duetotheirpublishinghabits.Thismeans other important sources or publication formats—suchas,booksandconferenceproceedings,contributiontointernationalstandardsorpolicyreports,electronicformatsoropensourcepublications,etc.—areallignored.Nation-ally relevant, interdisciplinary, but non-English-language

Yet, there has been little commentary

about the increasing use of quantitative

methodologies to drive decision making

at the national or institutional level—

what I call policymaking by numbers.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 5International Issues

researchisunder-reportedandundervalued.Manygovernments,researchagencies,andinstitutions

link this exercise to resource allocation. Not surprisingly,thesetrendsarealreadyproducingdistortionsinresearchfocus and research management: encouraging academicstowritejournalarticlesratherthanreflectivebooksorpol-icypapers,discouraging intellectual risk taking—favoringthe“hardsciences”overthearts,humanitiesorsocialsci-ences,andinforminghiringandfiring.

LessonsThese brief examples raise questions about the way inwhichindicatorscanshapepolicydecisionsandincentivizebehavior.Indeed,thereismountingevidencethatgovern-mentsandhighereducationinstitutionsaroundtheworldare using rankings deliberately in this way, rolling theminto key performance indicators, to inform targets andawardresults.Inotherinstances,governmentsaremakingprofoundstructuralchangestotheirnationalsystemsinor-dertopushafeweliteuniversitiesintothetop20,50,or100ofglobalrankings.

The history of rankings shows measuring the wrongthingscanproducedistortions.TheUSNationalGovernorsAssociationCenterforBestPracticesimilarlycautionedin2009 against relying on methodologies that can inadver-tentlycreateperverse incentives.Thisshouldbeacriticallessonforallgovernmentsandinstitutions.

EnglishandtheRest:Under-standingtheLanguagesofScienceJorge Balán

Jorge Balán is a senior research scholar, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University. E-mail: jb3369@columbia.edu.

The dominance of English in international academicpublications has increased manifolds during the last

fewdecades.Thevastmajorityofindexedsciencejournals,including those previously published in other languages,haveshiftedtoEnglish;lessmarkedamongtraditionalplay-ershasbeenthechangefromFrenchandRussian.Journalsprefer English to acquire a broader international author-shipandreadershipand to reachhigher impact (numberofcitations).English-languagejournalshaveincreasedtheproportionofauthorsfromnon-Anglocountries—althoughproportionally theircommunitiesareunderrepresented—whilenon-English-language journalshavebecomemostlynationalorregionalinscope.

Yet,thenumberofscientificpublicationsinlanguagesother than English keeps growing even more rapidly asthescientificcommunitiesinnon-Anglocountries(forin-stance,inChina,Indonesia,Iran,Turkey,southernEurope,and Latin America) expand and diversify. The proportionofallscientificperiodicalsworldwidethatarepublishedinEnglishisactuallydeclining.However,thevastmajorityofhigh-impactjournalsareinEnglish.Medicineisagoodex-ampleofbothtrends:thedevelopmentofacentralcoreofthemostimportantmedicaljournalsworldwidepublishedalmostentirelyinEnglishandindexedintheUSNationalLibraryofMedicine’sdatabase,Medline;andtherapidlyex-pandingperipheriespublishedinotherlanguages,servingcontinuingmedicaleducationorresearchonthedeliveryofcarewithinthelocalnationalhealthsystems.Theseperiph-eriesincludeformerlydominantlanguagesintheworldofmedicalresearch,suchasGermanandFrench,andmanyothers. Communities of professionals and scientists usetheprevailingnational languagestocommunicateamongthemselves,withpolicymakers,andwithclients.Englishisthemaingloballinguafrancaofscientificcommunication,buttherearemanyotherlanguagesofanationalorinter-nationalscope—suchasmandarinChineseorBahasaIn-donesia,amongtheformer,andSpanishorFrench,amongthelatter.

Englishdominanceandthedistinctionbetweencentralandperipherallanguagesarelessmarkedinthesocialsci-

In addition to our Web site and Facebook page, we are now tweeting. We hope you will consider “following” us on Twitter!

Measuring research productivity and

impact through bibliometric and cita-

tion data is a widespread methodology

for assessing academic and research

quality and is a key indicator for various

rankings.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N6 International Issues

encesand thehumanities.A smallermajorityof interna-tionalindexedjournalsarepublishedinEnglish,andsocialsciencesandhumanities–basedindexesdiffermarkedlyintheirlanguagecoverage.Manyjournalsoffernowtranslat-edversionsofarticlesinEnglish,sidebysidewithoriginalversionsofarticlesinotherlanguages.Inseveralcountries,notably China, English-language journals are now pub-lished as a venue for previously published articles in thenational language. Much less common in social sciencesandhumanitiesistheshiftofjournalstoEnglish,althoughithasincreasedinsomedisciplines,suchaspsychology.Inmanyofthesefields(e.g.,literature,history,andanthropol-ogy) books are still more important than journal articles.Booksarepublishedfirstinthenationallanguage;fewareeventuallytranslatedintoEnglishorotherlanguages.

Social sciences and humanities scholars are underpressure topublish inEnglish, inorder tobecome inter-nationallyvisibleandtocontributetotheglobalrankingoftheircountriesandinstitutions,measuredthroughindexedpublications of high impact. However, these scholars arecounterbalancedby thepressure toreachrapidlygrowingdomesticacademicandpolicycommunities.Inmanycoun-tries,internationalizationandlanguagepoliciesruninop-positedirections,thefirstfavoringEnglishandtheotheranationalorregionallanguage.

Costs and Risks of International (English) Publication

The underrepresentation of non-native-English-speakingscholars in international English journals attests to themanydisadvantagesencounteredwhencomparedtonative-English-speakerauthors.Mostcitedproblemsrelatetothecostsintimeandeffort,sincetypicallynon-nativeresearch-ersinalldisciplinesneedmoretimetoturntheirpapersinEnglish,oftenrelyingonprofessionaltranslators.Interna-tionalindexedjournalsoftenrequestauthorstohavepapersreviewed by native speakers in order to turn them into a“standard”English-languageversion.Researchonsciencejournalsfoundstrikingdifferencesinacceptanceratesfor

non-native compared to native authors as well as longerprocessesofrevisionandresubmission,addingtothecostsandloweringtheproductivityofresearcherswhoarenon-native-Englishspeakers.

Scholars in eliteuniversities indeveloping countries,suchasChina,usuallyreportcross-pressures.Ontheonehand,publicationinEnglishforaninternationalaudience,preferably in international indexed journals, is supportedbyacademicadministrationsfocusedoninternationalrank-ings.Ontheother,publicationinthenationallanguageisrequired to reach domestic audiences and obtain greaterlegitimacyinpublicopinionandpolicymakingcircles.Do-mesticEnglish-languagetranslationsofferachanceofdualpublication but lack the prestige of international indexedjournals.

IntheArabworld,accordingtoSariHanafi,themaindilemmafacedbysocialscientistsistopublishgloballyandperishlocallyversustopublishlocallyandperishglobally.Elite universities, where teaching is often conducted inEnglishorFrench, assess facultyproductivity in termsofacademicpublicationsininternationalpeer-reviewedjour-nalsusinginternationalstandards.Localorregionalpubli-cation,inAraborotherlanguages,doesnotcountforpro-motion,thusdrawingresearchawayfromthoseissuesthatmightbedeemedimportantbylocalorregionalaudiences.Nationalpublicuniversities,ontheotherhand,arelocallyoriented—faculty members publish locally, in Arabic andthus perish globally. This segmentation by language anddomestic/international focus seems to affect entire disci-plines,suchaseconomicsandpsychology,throughoutthedevelopingworld.

International Universities and the Rest of the WorldMany universities in western Europe, East Asia, or theMiddle East are now considering themselves truly inter-national inthattheirstudentbodyandtheirfacultycomefrom all over the world. These international universitiestendtoteachinEnglishor,specifically,insomevarietyofEnglish—oftena“linguafranca”thatdepartsinsignificantwaysfrom“normal”academicEnglishaspracticed in theEnglish-speakingcountries.Furthermore, theadoptionof

The underrepresentation of non-native-

English-speaking scholars in interna-

tional English journals attests to the

many disadvantages encountered.

The proportion of all scientific periodi-

cals worldwide that are published in

English is actually declining. However,

the vast majority of high-impact jour-

nals are in English.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 7International Issues

Englishasalanguageofinstructiondoesnotprecludetheuseofotherlanguagesforinteractionoutoftheclassroom.Scandinavianresearchers,forinstance,havebeenstudyingtheusesofmanylanguages, inandoutoftheclassroom,ininternationaluniversitieswithintheregion.ManyhavealsonoticedthatlinguafrancaEnglishhasnotoriousdiffer-encesbetweencountriesandregions,sothatinternationaluniversities in theNetherlands,Singapore,orChinamayactuallydifferconsiderablyinthelanguagesusedindiffer-entsettingsorfrom“standard”English.Sinceinternationaluniversitiesaremeanttobepartoftheworldofinternation-alresearch,wherepublicationsaredominatedbyEnglish,apressurestillexiststowardstandardizationinthewrittenlanguage. In theUnitedStates and theUnitedKingdom,manual styles have been prepared to guide internationaldoctoral students writing their dissertations in English—inconformitywithawaytopresenttheory,methods,data,andconclusions.Shouldthesestandardsbeadoptedbyin-ternationaluniversitiesinnon-English-speakingcountries,thediversityassociatedwithlanguageandculturaltraditionwouldbelost.

The vast majority of universities and academic pro-grams outside English-speaking countries, which are en-rollingagrowingstudentbody,conducttheireverydayac-tivitiesinthenationalor local languages.Thisis thecasebothforundergraduateandprofessionaleducation.Englishisbecomingthepreferredsecondlanguageforamajorityofstudentsworldwide,butitisnotthelanguageinwhichtheyareeducatedortrainedfortheprofessionsembeddedinnationalrealities.Withfewexceptions—inscientificdis-ciplinesandmathematics—atthegraduatelevel,amajorityofthebibliographyusedbythosestudentstendstobeinthenational languages, either original or in translation. Last,butnotleast,theincreaseduseoftheInternetforacademicpurposes also is reflecting the growth of languages otherthanEnglishintheworldofelectroniccommunication,un-tilrecentlydominatedbytheEnglishlanguage.

ConclusionLanguagesotherthanEnglishareheretostayintheworldof higher education and research. Globalization requires,in order to be effective, a greater effort in translation, sothataccesstothemanyvarietiesofscholarlyproductionbe-comesmoreeffectivelyavailabletoreadersworldwide.Cer-tainly,translationintoEnglishisameanstoexpandacces-sibilitybothinEnglish-speakingcountriesandelsewhere.

IsThereaFutureforBranchCampuses?Philip G. Altbach

Philip G. Altbach is Monan professor of higher education and director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College.

Branchcampusesseemtobetheflavorofthemonthor,perhaps, the decade. Universities, mostly but not ex-

clusivelyfromthedevelopedandmainlyEnglish-speakingcountries,haveestablishedoverseasbranchesworldwide—mainlyindevelopingandemergingeconomies.TheObser-vatoryonBorderlessHigherEducationcounted162branchcampusesin2009,withAmericanuniversitiesaccountingfor48percentofthetotal.Nodoubt,thenumberofbranch-eshasincreasedsignificantlysincethen.TheArabianGulfhas received a great deal of global attention since severalcountrieshavewelcomed—andpaidfor—branchcampus-es,aspartoftheirhighereducationgrowthstrategies.Forexample,EducationCityinDoha,Qatar,currentlyhostssixAmericanuniversitiesandonefromBritain.Bahrain, theUnitedArabEmirates,andotherGulfcountrieshaveaddi-tionalbranchcampusesofforeignuniversities.SingaporepredatestheGulfasahighereducationhub.

Given this boom in branches, several fundamentalquestions need to be raised: what are branch campuses?Are they sustainable over time? What unique service dotheyrendertostudentsandtheacademiccommunity?

What Is a Branch?There isnogenerally accepteddefinition.Mostobserversseemtoagreethatan“internationalbranchcampus”isanentitypertainingtoauniversitywhoseprimarylocationisin one country, which operates in another and offers itsown degree in that country. Upon successful completionofthecourseprogram,fullyundertakenattheunitabroad,studentsareawardedadegreefromtheforeigninstitution.This definition excludes joint-degree programs, twinningarrangements, overseas campuses serving students fromthehomeuniversity,degreefranchising,andotherinterna-tionalventures.Inafewcases,branchcampusesoffertheopportunityforstudentsatthebranchtostudyatthehomeuniversityforpartoftheirprogram,andsomeoffer“studyabroad”facilitiesforstudentsfromthehomecampus.

Thissimpledefinitionmustbeconsideredinafunda-mental way. Are the students at the overseas campus re-ceivingessentiallythesameeducationalexperienceastheywouldexperienceon thehomecampus? Is thequality ofinstructionequivalent?Aretheprofessorsfromthehome

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N8 International Issues

campus?Arethefacilitiesbroadlyequivalent—takingintoaccountthatitwouldbeimpossibletoduplicateNewYork’sWashingtonSquarecampusinAbuDhabi?Inotherwords,is a studentexperiencing thesame,or close to the same,educationasatthehomecampus?Itisnotenoughtoputauniversity’snameonthedegree.Theactualqualityandatleastasemblanceoftheacademicexperienceandcultureatthehomecampusmustbeprovidedforabranchcampustodeservetoofferauniversity’sdegree.Anythingless“dilutesthebrand”andshouldnotbecalledabranch.

Questions of SustainabilityWithafewexceptions,branchcampuseshavebeenestab-lishedfairlyrecently,sothattherearefewclearlessonstobe drawn yet from limited experience. Still, a number ofquestionsconcerningsustainabilitymustbeasked.

Enrollments.Willbranchcampusesbeabletoenrollstu-dentsof thesamequalityas theirhome-campusstudentsovertime?Anumberofproblemsinthisrespectarealreadyevident.TheUniversityofNewSouthWales,forexample,closeditsbranchcampusinSingaporein2007,afterlessthanayear—due to lowenrollments.Mostof theAmeri-canbranchesintheGulfarereportedlyunderenrolled.Inthat region, particularly, it is unclear whether there are asufficientnumberofyoungpeoplewiththerequisiteinter-estsandacademicaccomplishmentsfilltheexistingbranchcampuses,nottomentionnewones.

Someofthebranchesseepossibilitiesforenrollmentfrom the Indian subcontinent, with its large populationofunderservedstudents.Yet,arecentsurveyshowedthatprospective Indianstudentsprefer tostudy in theUnitedStates rather than at an American branch campus in theGulf or, for that matter, in India itself. They would likethefullexperienceofAmericancultureand,perhaps, thepossibilityof staying in theUnitedStates towork follow-ing graduation. However, studying at a branch campusprovidesneitherof theseopportunities.Data fromChinaindicatethatstudentsarenotwillingtopayUS-leveltuitionat branch campuses of American universities in China,andtheyworryaboutthequalityoffacultyandprograms.

Branchcampuses in theGulfarecountingonsignificantnumbers of female students from the region, assumingthat many families will not want to have their daughtersstudying in the West but would prefer a regional institu-tion—although 21 percent of Saudi Arabian studentsabroad, largely inWesterncountries, arewomen.Clearly,theassumptionsarefaulty.Furthermore,thesmallpopula-tionbaseintheGulfmeansthatthenumbersofstudentswith high-academic qualifications are limited. To makemattersevenmorecomplicated,boththebranchcampusesandlocaluniversitiesoftenneedtoprovideuptoayearofpreparatorystudyformanystudentsbeforefulladmissionispossible—due toacombinationof inadequateEnglish-languageskills and inadequate secondary schoolprepara-tion.Forselectiveuniversities,likeCarnegieMellonorNewYorkUniversity,itishighlyquestionablewhetherthepoolofqualifiedcandidateswillbelargeenoughtobecomesus-tainableovertime.

Whileharddataareimpossibletoobtain,somereportshaverevealedthatmostbranchcampuseshavenotasyetmetenrollmenttargets.Enrollmentsarehardtopredictanddependonmanyvariables,includingchangingpoliticalandsocialcircumstances.ItisnotclearhowthecurrentunrestintheMiddleEastwillimpactthebranchcampusesintheregion.Asmorebranchcampusesareestablishedineduca-tionalhubsworldwide,therewillbeincreasedcompetitionamongthem.

Faculty and staff.Abranchcampusrequireshomecam-pus faculty to provide a real academic experience of thesponsoring university. This does not mean a few facultymembersjustflyinfor“intensive”weekendcourses.Willbranchcampusesbeabletolurefacultymembers,forase-mesteror longer, fromthehometoanoverseascampus?Residentialfacultyarenecessary.Moreover,temporaryad-junct faculty located in the region or local residents withdoctoratesawardedby themaincampusof theuniversitywillnotsuffice.Homecampus facultymustbewilling toteachatthebranchforayearormore.Again,theideaofabranchcampusistoreplicatetheacademicandotherexpe-rienceofthehomeuniversity.Similarly,keyadministratorsandsupportstaffinstudentaffairsandotherareasmustbe-longtothehomecampustoprovidethespiritofthehomeuniversityoratleasthaveexperienceatthehomecampus.

Experienceshows that it isquitedifficult toconvincehomecampusfacultytoteachinanoverseasbranchcam-pusforextendedperiodsoftime,evenwhensalaryandoth-erbenefitsareattractive.Yet,evenoncethesmallgroupofinternationallymindedfacultyandstaffhavevolunteeredtogoabroad,convincingotherstogoisallbutimpossible.Up-rootingworkingspousesandchildrenisnoteasy.Research-

Are the students at the overseas cam-

pus receiving essentially the same edu-

cational experience as they would expe-

rience on the home campus?

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 9International Issues

activefaculty—especiallyinthehardsciences,wherelabo-ratories at the branch cannot match those at home—willalsobereluctanttoleavetheirlabs.

Funding.Branchcampusesofprestigiousuniversitiesreceivegenerousstart-upfundingfromhostcountries,in-stitutions,propertydevelopers,orotherentities.Typically,littleup-frontinvestmentisprovidedbythehomeuniver-sityand insomecases, suchas theGulf,heftysubsidies.However, significant nonmonetary expenses include thetime spent by a myriad of administrators and faculty forplanning,negotiationswithhostgovernmentsandinstitu-tions,andotheraspects.Developingcurricula,implement-ingpersonnelpolicies,andworkingwithavarietyofstake-holdersallinvolvetime—and,indirectly,money.

Sustained funding as the branch campus developsis another challenge. Most universities do not want thebranch tobeadrainonhomecampusresources,and in-deedsomeinstitutionsexpectoverseasventurestoearna

profit.Forpublicuniversities,legalrequirementsonpublicfundsareanaddedchallenge,givenrestrictionsonspend-ingpublicfundsoverseas.Branchcampusesmaybeunderconsiderablepressureto“breakeven”quickly.Wheretherearesponsorswithdeeppockets,as in theGulf,pressureswillbelessintense,butthebranchcampuseswilleventu-allyneedtobefinanciallysustainable.

Whiletherearelittleifanydataavailable,itseemsthatthemostfinanciallysuccessfulbranchcampusesarethosesponsoredbyless-prestigiousuniversitiesandothereduca-tionalproviders,whichofferprogramsthatareinexpensivetoprovideandhaveaready interestabroad.Qualitystan-dards are often low, and careful attention is given to the“bottomline,”withlittleregardforlocalrelevance.

Aquality-branchcampus,even if it is small andspe-cialized, requires careful financial planning in a context,whichincludesmanyvariablesthataredifficulttomeasureorpredict.Thecostofcoordinationandadministrationatthe home campus, direct instruction, maintaining appro-priateenrollmentandincomelevels,andothervariablesareextraordinarilydifficulttoforecast.

Academic FreedomWorrieshavebeenraisedaboutacademicfreedomatbranchcampuses.Althoughkey leadersandrelevantagreementsguarantee academic freedom, many faculty are worried.Whathappens, somesay, if a facultymemberat aDubaibranch invites an Israeli speaker, orone inChina invitestheDalaiLamaorwritesanop-edhighlycriticaloftheau-thorities.Howwillauthoritiesincountrieswithoutastellaracademicfreedomrecordhandlethebranchcampuses?

Home Campus PoliticsBranch campus initiatives are typically proposed by topuniversitymanagementandnotbythefacultyorstudents.Theymaybeseenasawayofboostingtheuniversity’sglob-al image, contributing to internationalization, earning in-come,orawaytoaddressotherinstitutionalstrategicgoals.Thelargeracademiccommunityisseldominvolvedinei-ther planning or executing the branch campus initiative.Indeed,itisoftenhardtoconvincethefacultyandstudentsthatbranchcampusesareworththeadditionalwork,risk,andcommitmentsrequired.Withoutfaculty“buyin,”suc-cess isdifficult.ReportsofsignificantcampusgrumblingatNewYorkUniversityhavebeenpublished,andcampusoppositionwascitedasoneof the reasons for the failureofMichiganStateUniversity’sbranchcampusintheGulf.

Mostrecently,criticismatYaleUniversityconcerningthatuniversity’spartnershipwiththeNationalUniversityofSin-gapore,duetoconcernsaboutacademicfreedomandotherissues has emerged in the media. International ventureshavefrequentlybeensubjecttoconsiderablecomplaintsinAustralian universities as well, with members of the aca-demiccommunitycriticizingcommercialmotivationsandopposingstrayingfromtheuniversity’scoreacademicmis-sion.Pressreportsconcerningvirtuallyallbranchcampusinitiatives have featured disputes between administratorsandsegmentsofthefaculty.

Overseas Uncertainties and Changing PoliciesThe 21st century is the age of globalization. It is also aneraofpoliticalinstabilityandthetransformationofnationalpoliciesandprioritiesinmanypartsoftheworld.Branch

A quality-branch campus, even if it is

small and specialized, requires careful

financial planning in a context, which

includes many variables that are diffi-

cult to measure or predict.

While hard data are impossible to ob-

tain, some reports have revealed that

most branch campuses have not as yet

met enrollment targets.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N10 International Issues

campusesoperateinanationalcontext.ThecurrentArabSpringpoliticalandsocialunrestisanexampleofhowdras-ticallyandunpredictablypoliticalcircumstanceschange.Itis impossible toknowhow thepolitical andsocial transi-tionsintheMiddleEastwillaffectbranchcampusesinthemediumandlongrun.

Thecurrentdebate inIndia—oneof theworld’s larg-estpotentialstudentmarkets—aboutgovernmentpoliciesrelatingtobranchcampusesandotherforeignhigheredu-cationinitiatives—isyetanotherexampleofhowunpredict-ablethisenvironmentcanbe.Thetermsandconditionsofinternationalinvolvementwillbedramaticallyaltered;andthe practical aspects of how these policies will be imple-mented, inacountry famous foropaqueregulations,willonlyemergeovertime.Branchcampusesarevulnerabletochangingandsometimesunstableenvironments.

Differing ExpectationsExperienceshowsthatattimesconflictingexpectationsofthesponsoringuniversityandthehostcountryorsponsorcan result in serious problems. Contractual agreementsmay be interpreted alternatively—sometimes leading toconflicts among participating parties or even the closureofthebranch.Anumberoftheseconflictsresultingfromdifferingorinterpretationsofagreementsare,eveninthisearlystageofthebranchcampusphenomenon,alreadyevi-dent.Theproblemsmaybeexacerbatedwhenoneside—usuallythehostcountry—isinvestingthebulkofthefunds.

A Bubble?Obviously, numerous and fundamental problems are fac-ingbranchcampuses.Even if thebasic concept is viable,the risks are substantial. If one accepts the enthusiasticcommentsandtherangeofplansandstart-ups,theremaybe a bubble in the making. A necessary episode to recallisthat20ormoreAmericanuniversitiesrushedtoJapaninthe1980stostartbranches,butonly2survived.Exactlythesamekindsofmisunderstandings,insufficientadvanceplanning,unrealisticexpectationsonbothsides,andcross-nationalconfusionthatcanbeseentodayledtothefailureofmostoftheJapaneseventures.

Thelesson—caveateveryone!

In addition to our Web site and Facebook page, we are now tweeting. We hope you will consider “following” us on Twitter!

WhatInternationalStudentsThinkaboutUSHigherEducationPatricia Chow

Patricia Chow is on the staff of the research and evaluation depart-ment, at the Institute of International Education, New York. E-mail: iieresearch@iie.org (for more information or a copy of the complete report).

AccordingtotheOpen Doors Report on International Edu-cational Exchange,in2009/10,theUnitedStateshost-

ed a record high of 691,000 international students fromover200placesoforigin.WhiletheUnitedStatesdoesnotpracticeanationalstrategyfortherecruitmentofinterna-tionalstudents,strategiesimplementedbyotherhostdesti-nations,bothtraditionalandemerging,arecreatingacom-petitiveglobalenvironment for recruiting top talent fromaround the world. In recent years, many host countrieshaverampedupeffortsto internationalizetheiracademicinstitutions,andstudentsaroundtheworldarenowchoos-ingtostudyabroadinamuch-widervarietyofdestinations.

TocomprehendtheconceptsofpotentialinternationalstudentsaroundtheworldaboutUShighereducation—theInstitute of International Education, in cooperation withthe US Department ofState’s BureauofEducational andCulturalAffairsandEducationUSA,conductedaseriesofperceptualandattitudinalsurveysin11keyoriginalplaces.The following research questions are explored: Why dostudentsfromothercountrieswishtostudyintheUnitedStates?Whatcourseofstudydotheyintendtopursue?Dothey prefer the United States to other key destinations?What barriers do students face who wish to study in theUnitedStates?TheInstituteofInternationalEducationbe-gansurveyingstudentsinVietnamandIndiain2009;fol-lowedbyMexico,Thailand,andHongKonginspring2010;Brazil,Germany,Turkey,andtheUnitedKingdomduringsummer2010;andNigeriaandSouthAfricainfall2010.Atotalof9,330validresponseswerereceived.

Profile of RespondentsThemajorityofrespondentsworldwide(55%)werefemale;35percentwerecurrenthighschool students;40percentwereundergraduatedegreestudents(orhadcompletedanundergraduatedegreebutnograduatedegree);15percentwere graduate students; and 10 percent had another aca-demiclevel,includingnondegreestudentsandstudentsattwo-yearcollegesortechnicalschools.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 11

Preferred Study DestinationsThe most popular first-choice destination chosen by re-spondents worldwide was the United States, with 75 per-centofprospectivestudy-abroadstudentslistingtheUnitedStates as their first-choice destination in an open-endedquestion.TheUnitedKingdomwasthenextmostpopularfirst-choicedestination,with8percentofthetotal,followedbyCanada(5%)andAustralia(3%).

Thepreferreddestinationschosenbyrespondentsre-flect theexistingpatternsofglobal studentmobility.Cur-rently,theUnitedStateshosts20percentofthe3.3millionstudents worldwide who are pursuing higher educationoutsidetheirhomecountries.TheUnitedKingdomhasthenext-largest fraction,with13percentof the total, followedbyFrance(8%),Germany(7%),China(7%),Australia(7%),Canada(4%),andJapan(4%)(ProjectAtlas,www.iie.org/projectatlas). While Spain does not figure among the topeight host destinations worldwide, it is a popular study-abroaddestinationforstudentsfromLatinAmerica.

Impressions of Key Host DestinationsThemajorityofstudentsratedtheUnitedStatesmoreposi-tivelythanotherpotentialdestinationsinmostoftheareassurveyed.Thiswasexpectedgiven that thestudentswereprospectingstudyintheUnitedStates;however,themag-nitudeofthepreferencewasquitelargeinmanycases.Forexample,overthree-quarters(76%)ofrespondentsworld-wideperceived theUnitedStates tohaveawide rangeofschools and programs, as compared with 35 percent fortheUnitedKingdomand28percentforCanada—thehostdestinations with the next-highest percentages. Similarly,over three-quarters (76%) of respondents worldwide alsoperceived the United States to have a high-quality highereducation system, as compared with 50 percent for theUnitedKingdom,33percentforCanada,and31percentforGermany—thehostdestinationswiththenext-highestper-centages.Inaddition,overtwo-thirds(69%)ofrespondentsworldwidefeltthattheUnitedStateswelcomesinternation-al students, as compared with 42 percent for Canada, 34percentforAustralia,and33percentfortheUnitedKing-dom—thehostdestinationswiththenext-highestpercent-ages.

TheUnitedStateswasalsoperceivedtobeahostdesti-nationwithmanyscholarshipopportunitiesandgoodstu-

dentsupportservicesbyoverhalfofrespondents(59%and57%,respectively).Thisisasignificantlyhigherproportionthan the other host destinations received (22% and 30%,respectively, for Canada—the next highest). However, 60percent of respondents worldwide felt that tuition in theUnited States is expensive—the highest among all of thehostdestinations.Only theUnitedKingdomwas roughly

comparable,with51percent.Inaddition,49percentofre-spondentsfeltthattheUnitedStateshaddifficultorcom-plexstudentvisaproceduresandalsothehighestofanyofthehostdestinations.Only23percentofrespondentsfeltthattheUnitedKingdomhaddifficultorcomplexstudentvisaprocedures—thehostdestinationwiththenext-highestpercentage.TheUnitedKingdomwasratedahostdestina-tionwithahighcostoflivingbythehighestnumberofre-spondentsworldwide,at54percent,followedbytheUnitedStateswith45percent,Japanwith34percent,andFrancewith33percent.

With regard to language, Japanwas ratedahostdes-tinationwithasignificantlanguagebarrierbythehighestnumberofrespondentsworldwide,at97percent;followedbyGermanyandFrance,with56percenteach.

Theresultsofthesurveyindicatethatdespitenothav-inganynationalpoliciesdesignedtoattractstudentsfromothercountries,theUnitedStatesremainswell-positionedin the international student marketplace—with various“pullfactors”(causingstudentstochooseaspecificdestina-tionoverothers) attracting students to theUnitedStates.Among these, the high quality and diverse range of UShighereducationinstitutionspredominate.TheperceptionthattheUnitedStatesisawelcomingcountryforinterna-tionalstudentsisalsosignificant.However,“anti-pushfac-tors”(roadblocksforstudentswhootherwisemightwishtostudy internationally) alsoexist,withcostpredominating.Thedifficultyofobtainingastudentvisaisalsoanegativefactor,althoughitisnotperceivedtobeasgreatabarrierascostandvariesbycountry.

International issues

Why do students from other countries

wish to study in the United States?

What course of study do they intend to

pursue?

With regard to language, Japan was rat-

ed a host destination with a significant

language barrier by the highest number

of respondents worldwide, at 97 per-

cent; followed by Germany and France,

with 56 percent each.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N12 The Middle East

TheArabSpring:TheHigherEducationRevo-lutionThatIsYettoHappenAndré Elias Mazawi

André Elias Mazawi is professor in the Department of Educational Studies, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia, Van-couver, British Columbia, Canada. He is also affiliate professor, at the Euro-Mediterranean Centre for Educational Research, University of Malta, Malta. E-mail: Andre.Mazawi@ubc.ca.

ForletPhilosopherandDoctorpreachOfwhattheywill,andwhattheywillnot—each

IsbutoneLinkinanexternalChainThatnonecanslip,norbreak,norover-reach.

—OmarKhayyam(translatedbyEdwardFitzgerald)

The overthrow of the Tunisian and Egyptian rulers,following widespread demonstrations for regime

change—subsequently, spreading fromAlgeria toYemen,aswellastoLibya,Syria,Jordan,andBahrain—hasraisedhopesforanewpoliticaldawnacrosstheArabregion.Lik-enedtoa“volcano”bysomeobservers,protestmovementscallfornewformsofcitizenshipandfortheestablishingofnewbasesofstatelegitimacy.Commentatorsrefertoalongoverdue “political spring.” Others invoke the notion of a“renaissance”orarenewed“Arabawakening.”Others,still,refertoawatershedof“revolutions”usheringinnewformsofpolitics,attunedtoquestionsofhumanrightsandpub-licparticipation.Inresponse,reforminitiativeshavebeenfreneticallyintroducedbyrulingelitesintheirattemptstocontainandnavigatetheensuinglegitimacycrisis.Atthisjuncture,onewondershowdo theunfoldingpoliticalup-heavals across the Arab region and the reform initiativesintroducedbybesiegedrulingelitesaffectstate–highered-ucationrelationsmoreparticularly?

Higher Education and Regime LegitimacyHighereducationinstitutionsintheArabregionplayakeyroleinupholdingaregime’sself-projectedimageofbenev-olentrule.Theyprovideaccesstoeducationalcredentialstoyoungergenerationsofhighschoolgraduates,particularlythoseoriginatingfromless-establishedsocioeconomicstra-taandwhodesperatelyseekentryintostructurallyconfinedlabormarkets.Equally,theysecurestablecivil-servicejobsto academics and intellectuals, affiliated with the middleand middle-upper classes. The latter represent a mount-

ingpolitical force,disposed toengagea rangeofpoliticalideologiesnot always alignedwith regimeorthodoxy.Notleast, theyofferrulingelitesaspacefromwhichtheycanrecruitorco-optstateministers,seniorprofessionalcadres,andpolicymakersfromamongtheprofessoriate.

Rulingelitesregulateappointmentstoleadershipposi-tionswithinhighereducationinstitutions.Some“reforms”were undertaken in view of limiting faculty and studentparticipation in governance and containing oppositiongroups.Forinstance,inEgypt,law142of1994addeddeanstothelistofsenioruniversityofficialswhoareappointedbytheministerofhighereducation.Consequently,universitycouncils included members who were largely ministerialappointees,with little (ifany)space left fornonappointedvoices,suchasfacultymembersandstudents.

Contradictory or Complimentary Policy Agendas?

The state’s involvement in the political subordination ofhighereducationoccursalongsidepoliciesthatseektore-alignhighereducationwithlabormarket“needs,”throughincreased accountability and economic liberalization, inanattempt to foster innovative academic andadministra-tiveleadershipcapacitiesandimprovegovernance.Egypt’sHigher Education Enhancement Project (funded by theWorldBank),andSyria’sQualityUniversityManagementandInstitutionalAutonomyframework(aspartoftheEu-ropean Union’s Tempus Project) are pertinent examples.Policymakersalsoinvokethelowrankingofuniversitiesoninternationaluniversitylistsasanadditional“evidence”tojustifyhighereducationrestructuring.

Thus,politicalsubordinationandeconomicliberaliza-tionfeedoneachother.Ontheonehand,thestate’spoliti-calsubordinationofhighereducationinstitutionssubvertsthe emergence of an authentic academic leadership andemphasizes authoritarian modes of decision making. Ontheotherhand,reformsseekingtopromotetheeconomiccontributions of higher education introduce layers of ac-countabilityandnewconditionsofacademicwork,withoutensuringacademicfreedomorquestioningexistingauthor-itarianmodesofgovernance.Viewedaspartof thebuild-ing of a so-called “Arab knowledge society,” liberalizationreforms (part of fiscal restructuring schemes) introducenewformsofhighereducationprovision—suchasprivate,international, and for-profit institutions, in an attempt tocreatealternativeoptionstostate-sponsoredhighereduca-tion.Thishasbeenthecase,forinstance,inTunisia,Egypt,Jordan,andthesmallerGulfCooperationCouncilstates—differencesbetweenthesecontextsnotwithstanding.

Rulingelitesandpolicymakersreconciletheseostensi-blycontradictorypolicydiscoursesbylimitingdiscussionsonhighereducationtoissuesassociatedwith“humancapi-

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 13The Middle East

tal.”Emphasisisplacedonmeasurableindicatorsofhighereducation performance, in terms of engaging labor mar-kets,employability,andeconomicreturnsofgraduates.Atthe same time, the political contexts under which highereducationinstitutionsmaybestthriveareneglected.Thus,questionspertainingtofacultyandstudentparticipationinhighereducationgovernance,andtheireffectsonthefos-teringofaresearchculture,areleftentirelyunattended—fuellingresentment,alienation,anddisillusionmentinre-lation toboth thestateandhighereducation institutions,alike. The subordination of higher education institutionsfurther erodes the public respectability these institutionshavetraditionallyenjoyed.Italsolaysbare—associologistM’hammedSabourhasshowninThe Ontology and Status of Intellectuals in Arab Academia and Society—themarginalityoftheacademic,whoveryoftenlacksthecapacity“tospeaktruthtopower”fromwithininstitutionalplatformswithoutriskingtheregime’sretaliationandreprisal.

With an overwhelming reliance of the Arab state onforeignconsultanciesandimportedknow-how,higheredu-cation institutions are further limited in their capacity toproductivelyengagedevelopmentchallengesorcontributetotheindigenizationofknowledgethroughviablecontext-basedapproachestoresearch—particularlyinthefieldsofthesocialsciencesandeducation.Paradoxically,whiletherestructuringreformsprecedingthecurrentwaveofregimecontestationhaveexpandedhighereducationopportunitiesbeyondrecognition,oftenoverquiteabriefperiodoftime,these reforms have nonetheless exposed the reliance ofboththestateandhighereducationinstitutionsonprecari-ousvisionsofmodernityandglobalization.

Reconstructing Higher Education from WithinItisnotyetclearwhatconfigurationsofstatehigheredu-cationrelationswouldemergeoutof thecurrentpoliticalcontestation. Nor is it clear whether and how the contes-tationwitnessedsofarwouldaffecthighereducationgov-ernance more particularly. What is clear, however, is thatforthegenerativecapacitiesofhighereducationtoflourish,boththestateandcivil-societygroupsandmovementsmust

recognizethatthepolitical,cultural,andeconomicrolesofhighereducation institutionscannotbeapproachedsepa-rately.

Whatisequallyclearisthatacademicsneedtoturntheirresearch tools inward,bycriticallyunpacking the founda-tionsofthehighereducationstructuresinwhichtheyworkand by critically reflecting on their implication with statepower.Suchacriticalengagementwouldhelpreclaimnotonly the centrality of academic work in development butwouldalsoconnecttheacademicworkplacewithcommu-nityengagementandsocialtransformation.Theprospectsofthisreclaimingarenotsolelycontingentongovernancereformsforgreaterfacultyandstudentparticipationorontheoverthrowingofdespoticregimes,asimportantastheseare.Theseoutlooksareprimarilycontingentontheardu-ousstruggleofacademicsinvolvedinbuildinganinclusive“knowledge culture” and in constructing a knowing selfforwhomthe“capacitytoaspire”andthecapacitytodifferareinalienablerights,whichnoregimenorotherformsofpowercan“slip,norbreak,noroverreach.”

EgyptianPrivateHigherEducationataCrossroadsDaniel C. Levy and Manar Sabry

Daniel C. Levy is distinguished professor and director of the Program for Research on Private Higher Education, State University of New York at Albany, Albany, NY. E-mail: dlevy@albany.edu. Manar Sabry has worked in international and Egyptian policy agencies. He holds a PhD from the University at Albany. E-mail: msabry@buffalo.edu.

IHE devotesacolumnineachissuetoacontributionfromPROPHE, the Program for Research on Private HigherEducation,headquarteredat theUniversityatAlbany.Seehttp://www.albany.edu/.

TherevolutionthattoppledtheMubarakregimeopensthe door to uncertain political, economic, and social

futures.Thesefutureswillconditionhighereducationout-comes. One important development to scrutinize is thefateofprivatehighereducation.Willtheprivatesectorseecontinuedgrowthorbeconstrainedbypoliticalpopulismortakesomedifferentcoursealtogether?Revolutionshaveoftenbeenantitheticaltoprivatehighereducation.

It is not yet clear what configurations of

state higher education relations would

emerge out of the current political con-

testation.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N14 The Middle East

TheEgyptianRevolutioncomesamidaperiodofna-tionalandgeneralregionalgrowthofprivatehighereduca-tion.Indeed,theMiddleEastisthelastregiontoestablishtheprivatesectoracrossthebreadthofitscountries.ApartfromafewprecursorssuchastheAmericanUniversityinCairo,theprivatesectorisbasicallyacreationofthelasttwodecades.Egyptfirstallowedprivateuniversitiesthrougha1992law.Asinmanymatters—social,cultural,andpoliti-cal—EgyptcanbethemostinfluentialcountryintrendsintheArabregion.

Private Size and Growth Reflectingtheirrecency,privateuniversities’shareinEgyptisstillsmall.Theyhavejust4.2percent(2010)ofthecoun-try’s nearly 1.8 million university enrollment. However,that level is more than double its share over the last fiveyears, while the number of private universities has risento20outofthecountry’s39.Severaloftheseprivateuni-versitiesarenewandnotyettalliedinenrollment,buttheyholdpotentialforprivate-sectorgrowth.Theprivatesectoralreadymaintainssome83percentofnonuniversityenroll-ment. Although these total enrollments are short of halfamillion, theprivatenonuniversity share is sohigh that,allinall,theprivateuniversitiesaccountfor19percentofEgyptianhighereducationenrollment.

Suchaprivateshareisbelowtheglobalprivatehighereducationproportionof31percent,butnotunusualfortheArabregion.Althoughnonuniversityprivatehighereduca-tionexistedinmanyMiddleEastcountries,untilthe1990spubliceducationwasthenorminallcountriesexceptLeba-non. But the private sector—including private universi-ties—hasspread toalmostallArabcountries, thoughen-rollment varies by country. The private share reaches 66percentinBahrainand55percentinLebanon,36percentinJordan,28percentinOman,and21percentinYemen.ButSyria,Morocco,SaudiArabia,andTunisiaareamongcountrieswithunder10percentprivateatleastontheuni-versityside.

On the other hand, gauging private enrollment inEgyptandmanyotherArabcountriesisconfoundedbythephenomenonof“private”studentsinpublicuniversities.In

effect,thebudgetforpublichighereducationfailstomeetthe heavily increasing demand for higher education, butpolitical or constitutional commitment to free educationpreventsuniversitiesfromchargingtuitionfeestoincreaserevenues. One outlet is growth of private institutions. Asecondisthefee-payingstudentsin“parallelprograms”inpublicuniversities.Preferringpublicuniversitiesfortheirquality, status, and legitimacy, many students who fail tomaketheregularquotaarewillingtopaysubstantiallymorethantheirstudentcounterpartswithinthesamepublicin-stitutions.Theseparallelprogramshavebeenunderattackfortheirlowqualityandchargesoftenleveledagainstpri-vateuniversities,aswell.

In Egypt, the parallel programs have recently beenabolished.Thisdoesnotrepresentarevolutionaryattackonanyprivatehighereducation,however.Infact,thedecisionwasmadeintheMubarekadministrationandcarriedoverbytheinterimgovernment.

RegulationButwhatpolicymightbedirectlychallengingprivatehigh-ereducation?Theinterimgovernmenthasnotdonemuchbut,tothechagrinoftheopposition,hasdoneratherlittlein higher education overall. The just-appointed minister,formervicepresidentofgraduatestudiesandresearchatCairoUniversity,hasalsobeenavicepresidentattheBrit-ish-relatedprivateuniversityandaconsultanttoitsFrenchcounterpart. This seems no portend of imminent anti–private higher education policy. What might happen nextunderanelectedgovernmentisofcoursespeculative,butsomegeneralperspectivesareworthconsidering.

For one thing, there is no sign of a revolutionary at-tack on private higher education, in general. The idea ofthatsectorisaccepted(exceptontheMarxistleft).Further-more,theprivatesectorisnothighonanyparty’seducationagenda,atleastforthetimebeing.Mostofthereformrhet-oricabouthighereducation isvague,cherishing idealsof“justice,” “equity,” and “transparency.” Nonetheless, suchideals often lend themselves to regulations that undercutprivatehighereducation,evenifwithouthostileintent.

Prior to his appointment, the new minister had spo-kenofthechallengesfacingprivateuniversities,regardingthelowqualificationsofadmittedstudents.Heemphasizestheneedforexplicitadmissionscriteriaaswellasresearchandgraduatestudy.Butthequestionishowtoaccomplishappropriate admissions criteria and maintain or expandenrollment? Additionally, research is rarely a major un-dertaking in private higher education outside the UnitedStates.Infact,regulationsalreadyonthebooksdealwithadmissions scores,maximumenrollment, andminimumpercentagesoffull-timefaculty.Yet,avitalquestionforthe

The Egyptian Revolution comes amid a

period of national and general regional

growth of private higher education.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 15Africa Focus

private sector is often how (and how much) such regula-tionsareenforced.Theministeralsocallsforprivatehighereducationtorelylessonpublicuniversityprofessors.

Whatwillpublicpolicyinsistuponasfarasprivatedis-tinctivenessfrompublic?Ontheonehand,thenewministersaysprivateuniversitiesshouldbedistinctive,not“duplicat-ing”publiconesandthusofferingnewprograms—perhapsanunfriendlyviewtotheideaofdirectintersectoralcompe-tition.Ontheotherhand,givenrevolutionaryconcernwithequityandtheprivilegedsocialbackgroundofmostprivatehighereducationstudents,regulationsaboutaccesscannotberuledoutnorcancapsontheamountof tuitionrises.Alreadyevidentisapublicpolicyorientationtodiscouragefor-profitprivatehighereducation,theinstallationofwhichispopularly associatedwith theMubarak regime’s crony-ismwithbusiness.Again,thenewministerencouragestheexpansionofnonprofitprivateuniversities.Notionsofap-propriateparticipationmightconceivablyalsoleadtoregu-lationsaboutrepresentationonuniversitybodies.

Regulationwillofcoursenotbetheonlydeterminantofprivatehigher education’sprospects.Willbroadpublicpolicyswingmuchawayfromthecapitalistroadthathadbroughtwealthbutheightened inequality?Willeconomicgrowthresume,withthefavorableprospectsitheldforpri-vatehighereducationexpansion,orwilltoday’seconomicuncertaintycloudtheprospects?

PartnershipsinAfricaintheNewEraofInternationaliza-tionDamtew Teferra

Damtew Teferra is the founding director of the International Network on Higher Education in Africa at the CIHE. E-mail: teferra@bc.edu.

Oneofthepopularapproachestorevitalizehigheredu-cationinAfricaandthebuzzwordofthesectoriscur-

rentlypartnerships.Tobesure,highereducationinAfricahasalwaysbeenaninternationalaffair,owingtoitshistoryandtrajectory;and,thus,thisdevelopmentmaynotappearsurprising.Thisarticleanalyzesemergingtrendsinhighereducation partnerships in Africa and explores opportuni-tiesandchallenges,basedonrecentdevelopmentsandpastexperience.

Marketplace of Higher Education PartnershipsItwasoncethoughtthatAfricawouldbecomelessattrac-tivetotherestoftheworldwiththecessationofhostilitiesbetweentheColdWar–erarivals.In20years,thatpredic-tionprovedtobewrongasthecontemporaryeconomicand(geo)politicalrealitieshavepromptedthere-engagementofboth“historical”andemergingpowersregardingAfrica.

Aspartofthatlargerglobalreality,highereducationinthe region has also reignited interest globally—includingtheEuropeanUnion,theUnitedStates,Canada,China,In-dia,andBrazil.Thesnapshotofsomeofthesepartnershipsfollows.

Africa-US higher education initiative. In July 2007, agroup of universities, based in the United States and Af-rica, came together to launch a partnership initiative tostrengthenAfricanhighereducation’scapacity tocontrib-uteinpriority-developmentareas.The2010USOmnibusAppropriationsbillcommitsUS$15millionforthepartner-ship(http://www.aplu.org).

Canada–Africa higher education partnership. TheAsso-ciationofAfricanUniversities(AAU),inpartnershipwiththe Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada(AUCC), has launched “Strengthening Higher EducationStakeholderRelationsinAfrica.”Thisplan’sthreecompo-nentsinclude:StrengtheningAfricanUniversityOutreach,University-Industry Linkages, and Strengthening AAUStakeholderRelationsworkinginpartnershipwithAUCC(http://www.aau.org).

Southern Africa–Nordic partnerships. University coop-eration between Southern African countries and Nordicuniversity cooperation (SANORD) is a partnership of 25research-ledhighereducationinstitutionsfromDenmark,Finland,Iceland,Norway,andSweden;andinstitutionsinMalawi,SouthAfrica,andZambia.SANORDaims toad-vance multilateral academic collaboration between insti-tutions in theNordiccountriesand theSouthernAfricanregions,addressingchallengesofinnovationanddevelop-ment(http://sanord.uwc.ac.za/).

European Union–African Union partnership in higher education. The European Union and African Union arepartnering,indifferentschemes,tovitalizethehigheredu-cationsectorinAfrica.TheseincludethelaunchingoftheIntra-ACPMobilityScheme,whatisnowcalledtheNyrereConsolidated Scholarship Program, Harmonization andTuningProject,andthePanAfricanUniversityInitiative.

Scandinavian partnerships.PartnershipsbetweenScan-dinavianandAfricanuniversities isprobably amost sus-tainedandimpressivecooperation.NorwayandSwedeninparticularhavecommittedalargesumoffundsforseveraldecades,evenwhensupportforhighereducationinAfricawasoutoffavor.AtaNationalSeminaronNorwegianSup-

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N16 Africa Focus

porttoHigherEducationinTanzaniainDaresSalaam,inNovember2010,itwasreportedthatNORADgrantedinexcessof750millionNOK.

The German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD). Formorethantwodecades,DAADhasalsobeenasignificantplayerofuniversitypartnershipsinAfrica.Currently,thereare more than 35 partnerships with one or more Africanpartners. Additionally, five new African centers of excel-lenceandfivenewinternationalcentersofexcellencewithparticipation from African universities are supported. Anew partnership approach enables the collaboration ofDAAD and the German University Association with uni-versityassociationsandhighereducationregulatorsonthedevelopment of quality-assurance systems (http://www.daad.de).

The “Historical” PartnersGuided by a variety of objectives and interest, numerousuniversitycooperationsbetweenAfricaanditsother“his-torical”partnersnowexist.TheseincludetheAustrianPart-nership Program in Higher Education and Research forDevelopment (APPEAR), the University Commission forCooperation with Developing countries (CUD, Belgium),theIrishAfricanPartnershipforResearchCapacityBuild-ing (IAP), theNetherlandsOrganizationforInternationalCooperationinHigherEducation(NUFFIC),andtheUnit-edKingdom’sEducationPartnershipsforAfrica(EPA).

The Emerging PartnersEmergingeconomicandpoliticalpowers—suchas,Brazil,China,andIndia—arealsoengagedinahostofuniversity-developmentsupport,aswellasthecapacity-buildingeffortinAfrica.Russiaandother formereasternbloccountriesarealsothrowingthemselvesintotheact,aftertwodecadesof absence from educational engagement in the region.SouthAfrica, the regionalpowerhouse, is also striving toestablishuniversitypartnershipswithotherAfricancoun-tries.

Internationalization as Instrument of Capacity Building

Needlesstosay,partnershipsarevitalforcapacitybuildinginteaching,learning,andresearch.Joint-researchactivitiesplayanimportantroleinfosteringresearchcapacity,nur-turing research culture, pushing the frontiers of knowl-edge,aswellasbenchmarkingquality.Meticulouslydevel-oped long-term, joint-research partnerships have shownsuccessfulresults.

InEthiopia, for instance, interuniversitycooperationssustained through the support of the Swedish Interna-tionalDevelopmentAgency(SIDA)andtheFlemishInter-university Council–University Development Cooperation(VLIR-UOS), in Belgium, have had impressive results. Alarge pool of PhDs produced; numerous programs havebeendeveloped;andsustainablecapacitieshavebeenputinplace.Thesame is true forTanzania throughNORADsupport.Manyagree thatsuchresultswouldhavesimplybeen impossible without the financial, logistical, and hu-manresourcesmadepossiblethroughlong-termjointcom-mitment.

Nurturing the Good and Uprooting the BadWhencapacitybuildinginthecontextofuniversitycooper-ationisofteninvoked,theperceptionsarethatthesouthernpartnersarethepredominant,ifnotthesole,beneficiariesof cooperation.Evenmoredisenchanting is that thisper-

ceptionisofteninternalizedbythesouthernpartners.Yet,while their benefits have not been clearly, and explicitly,documented,thenorthernpartnersalsogainfromthepart-nershipsinmanyways.

Evenwithoutregardtotheimmediateandvisibleben-efits,theknow-howtoaddresssuchproblemsgeneratesin-stitutionalandnationalknowledgecapitalforthenorth.Inthecurrentglobalrealities,wheretheglobalislocalandthelocalisglobal,themutualbenefitsfromsuchcooperationshouldnotbeunderestimatedand,forsure,notoverlooked.

Whilethemodalityandscopeofpartnerships—tobe-comespecifichighereducationpartnerships—arediverse,complex,andnumerous,thesepractices,however,arenotalways successful; nor are they effective. In many cases,

This plan’s three components include:

Strengthening African University Out-

reach, University-Industry Linkages,

and Strengthening AAU Stakeholder Re-

lations

The European Union and African Union

are partnering, in different schemes, to

vitalize the higher education sector in

Africa.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 17Africa Focus

partnerships do not simply live up to expectations for anumberofreasons:frompaltryfinancialresourcestoweaklogistical support, frompoorplanning to substandardex-ecution, from bad policy to cumbersome guidelines, andfromunstableleadershiptoinconsistentfollow-up.

ConclusionWiththedeclarationofhighereducationasavitaldevelop-menttool,multilateralandbilateralregimes,foundations,andotherdevelopmentpartnersnowfavorthesupportofthesector,thoughstillwithconstrainedenthusiasmasthelatestAfricanCommissionReport (2010) indicates.How-ever, prevalence of competing donor-driven agendas, lackofsustainability,unpredictabilityofdonorresources,poorharmonization, and weak coordination and managementstillhamperthisdevelopment.

Asthenumberofinstitutionalpartnershipsgrow,theirimpact on institutional resources (time, funding, and in-frastructure)andinstitutionaldynamics(cohesion,compli-mentarity,andpriorities)maybeconsiderable.Thismaybeparticularlysoincountrieswithfew“partnerable”institu-tions, in a region that tends to attract more developmentsupport.

Finally,itisimperativethatthemarketplaceofpartner-shipsdiscoursedintheregionisguidedbywell-informed,responsible,andpragmaticstakeholders in thesouthandthenorth.Attheend,itisinthebestinterestofallthestake-holders,bothinthenorthandthesouth,tohaveasustainedimpactandmeaningfuloutcomeinthereengagementwithAfrica.

TheValueofResearchNet-worksinAfricaPiyushi Kotecha

Piyushi Kotecha is chief executive officer of the Southern African Re-gional Universities Association. E-mail: piyushi@sarua.org.

MuchofthediscoursearoundhighereducationinthesouthernAfricanregionpromotestheimperativeofa

knowledgeeconomy.However,participationintoday’sglo-balizedeconomyrequiressignificantinvestmentincapacityandsystemsneededtogenerate,use,andshareknowledge.

The past three years have witnessed unprecedentedimprovementsintelecommunicationsinfrastructureintheSouthAfricanDevelopmentCommunity region,bringing

the goal of a knowledge economy within closer reach ofSADC’s15-membercountriesandtheirresearchandeduca-tionalinstitutions.However,withoutconcertedsupportforthecreationofresearchandeducationnetworksthatcon-nectnationstateswitheachotherandtherestoftheworld,thefullopportunitiespresentedbyrecenttechnologicalde-velopmentsareunlikelytoberealized.

Connectivity: Recent DevelopmentsAttheendof2007,onlythreeofthe15SADCcountries—Angola,SouthAfrica,andMauritius—hadaccesstoasingleinternationalsubmarinecableknownasSAT3/SAFE.TheinternationalbandwidthofmostSADCcountrieswasstillbelow100megabitspersecond(Mbps),while landlockedcountries—such as Malawi, Zambia, and Zimbabwe, andtheislandnationofMadagascar—hadnoexternalfibercon-nectivityatall.

By2010,however,theregionhadaccesstothreesub-marinenetworksandnowhasthepotentialtobenefitfromlowerconnectivitycosts.Allcountries,with theexceptionof the Democratic Republic of Congo, had high-capacity-fiberconnectionstotheirneighborsandonward,totherestoftheworld.Allcountrieshadover100Mbps,withSouthAfricaregisteringseveralgigabitsofinternationalfibercon-nectivity—afirstinAfrica.

Thefuturecontinuestolookhighlypositive:by2012itisenvisagedthatallSADCcountrieswillhavefiberconnec-tivitytoatleasttwonetworksatcompetitiveprices,andtheregionwillbeconnectedtoEuropebyatleastsixsubmarinecables.

Broadlyspeaking,improvedinformationandcommu-nicationstechnologiesmeanthatuniversitiesandresearch-ers gain more ability to access global research facilities,collaborate with experts in the continent and the world,conductcomplexresearchand,essentially,build,store,andsharetheirownknowledgebases.IntheSADCregion,inparticular,thistendencygivescountriestheopportunitytoparticipate in emerging regional research facilities—suchastheSquareKilometreArrayradiotelescope—ortakead-vantageofhighperformancecomputingfacilitiesbeinges-tablishedinSouthAfrica.

However,withoutnationalresearchandeducationnet-works,whichconstitutethebuildingblocksforaninclusiveregionalnetwork, the fullbenefitsof the telecommunica-tions liberalizationcurrentlysweeping throughAfricaareunlikelytoberealized.

Networks: National and Regional AssetsStudies inEuropesupport the idea thatnationalresearchandeducationnetworksareanationalassetforeconomicgrowth and prosperity (http://www.serenate.org/publica-tions/d21-serenate.pdf).Notonlyaresuchpracticesafun-

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N18 Africa Focus

damental source of innovation, allowing researchers topursuecomplexresearch;buttheyprovideafastandwide-spreadtechnologytransfertosocietyandindustry—unlock-ingthepotentialoftheoreticalresearchtoproducebothso-cialbenefitsandcommercialapplications.Thesenetworksareconsideredvitalnationalassets that support research,innovation,andcollaborationinallfields,withdirectcontri-butionstoknowledgeproductionandadvancementintheareasof education,health, environmentandclimate,bio-technology,andscienceandtechnology.

Ataregional level,notonlydonetworksimprovetheacademic and research project by linking academics andresearchers across borders, but they can be a powerfuleconomic tool. InAfrica, inparticular,where thecostsoftelecommunication remain relatively high, they have thepotential,asarguedbyDuncanMartinina2010SouthernAfricanRegionalUniversitiesAssociation’sreport,toplayaroleas“anonprofit-seekingaggregatorof[educational]in-stitutions’buyingpower.”Hegoesontostatethatnationalresearchandeducationnetworkshave“ever-wideningop-portunities” to deliver more bandwidth at lower costs, bybecoming operators themselves and by developing theirowninfrastructure—wherethismakeseconomicsense.

Inthecontextofrelativescarcityintheregion,poolingfacilitiesandresourcestoachieveanefficient,high-speed,interconnected regional network with a conducive policyenvironment would give all countries the chance to reapbenefits.

Challenges for the SADC RegionAll countries in Europe, North America, and (to a largeextent)Asia,LatinAmerica,andNorthAfricahaveestab-lishednational researchandeducationnetworks.Yet, theSADCregionlagsbehindsignificantly,withonlytwofunc-tional national networks—in South Africa and Malawi—whilemostotherSADCcountrieshavenetworksinforma-tiononly.

The challenges facing SADC countries are not insig-nificant: they range from limited national telecommuni-cations facilities to poor-campus infrastructural facilities.

Therearealsoproblemsassociatedwithalackofcoherentpolicies,strategies,andplansforresearchnetworkingatalllevels—aswellastheabsenceofnationalregulatoryframe-worksinwhichtopromotecross-borderconnectivity.

Lackofgovernment investment is anotherchallenge.Greater commitment from individual SADC-memberstatesisneededtostimulatetheoperationofthenetworksineachcountryandenablerelevantstakeholders tofocusonthepromotionofcross-borderlinksthroughtheregionalnetwork.

The Importance of LeadershipStudies suggest that in the developed world, high-speedconnectivityforacademicandresearchpurposeshas,inthemain,beentheproductofdirectgovernmentinterventionand support. The establishment, based on South Africangovernment funding, of the South African National Re-search Network—with Gigabit-speed connectivity for aca-demic and research networking—shows what is possiblewhen forward-thinking leadership intersects with innova-tion.Already,thisnetworkislinkingmajoruniversitiesinSouthAfrica’sGautengprovince,thusacceleratingcutting-edgeresearchanddevelopment.

Otherdevelopmentsserveapotential impetusforthedevelopment of a regional network in Africa and the op-erationalizationofnascentnationalresearchandeducationnetworks. These procedures include the establishment oftheUbuntunetAlliance,recognizedbytheEuropeanUnionasapossibleoperatorofaregionalresearchandeducationnetwork, comprising cross-border links between nationalresearchandeducationnetworksineasternandsouthernAfrica. The West and Central African Research and Edu-cationNetwork—aregionalresearchnetworkforwestandcentralAfrica—hasalsobeenformed.

Also encouraging is the recent interest by the Euro-pean Union, through the AfricaConnect Project, in pro-vidingstimulusfundsforAfricanresearchandeducationnetworks operation. AfricaConnect is a poverty reductionprogramthataimstoharnessthepotentialofinformationandcommunicationstechnologiesforsustainabledevelop-mentoftheregion

The past three years have witnessed

unprecedented improvements in tele-

communications infrastructure in the

South African Development Community

region.

The future continues to look highly

positive: by 2012 it is envisaged that all

SADC countries will have fiber connec-

tivity to at least two networks at com-

petitive prices.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 19Africa Focus

Quo Vadis?Ideally, the development of regional networks should bepartofabroadercross-borderregionalprogramforinfor-mationandcommunications technology inhighereduca-tion.Suchanambitiousandwide-rangingprojectrequiressupport and investment—not only from national govern-mentsbutfromtheprivatesector,donorcommunity,andthe regional higher education sector itself. It is only inbringingtogethersuchrole-playersthattheregionislikelytotaketangiblestepstowardrealizingitsidealoffullpar-ticipationintheglobalknowledgeeconomy.

InternationalLessonsforAfrica’sHigherEducationandEconomyPundy PillayPundy Pillay is professor of economics and public finance at the Gradu-ate School of Public and Development Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. He has been head of the Policy Unit in the South African Presidency. E-mail: pillayp@mweb.co.za and pundy.pillay@wits.ac.za.

Whatpossiblelessonscanpolicymakersdrawfromthehigher education and economic development expe-

rienceofFinland,SouthKorea,andNorthCarolina(US)?This article contends that African countries should focusonthefollowingareas:economicandeducationplanning;high-qualityschooling;institutionaldifferentiation;theroleof the state; regional development; and cooperation andnetworks.

Economic and Education PlanningAll three systems illustrate the benefits of maintaining acloselinkbetweeneconomicandeducationplanning.Like-wise, in Finland, policy decisions were taken to focus onthedevelopmentofaknowledgeeconomy.InSouthKorea,thegovernmenthasbeenunashamedly interventionist inbothsectorstopromoteoverallsocialandeconomicdevel-opment.NorthCarolinadoesnotholdaformalstategov-ernment-inducedplanningineithertheeducationoreco-nomicsectors.However,acloseworkingrelationshipexistsbetweentheeducationandeconomicbureaucraciesinthestate government, the private-business sector, and publichigher education institutions—to achieve the educationandtraining,aswellasresearchandinnovationobjectives,necessaryforeconomicandbroaderdevelopment.

High-Quality Schooling BoththeFinnishandSouthKoreanmodelsshowhowcru-cialhigh-qualityschoolingisforthedevelopmentofahigh-quality higher education system. Unlike in Finland andSouthKorea,thequalityofschooling(andofhighereduca-tion)inNorthCarolinavariessubstantiallyacrossthestate.

Institutional DifferentiationAdual/binaryhighereducationsystemcanbeeffectiveinmeeting national development goals and has been devel-oped invaryingdegrees in the threesystems.InFinland,the two higher education subsectors have fundamentallydifferent roles. In South Korea, there is clear functionaldifferentiationbetweencollegesanduniversities.InNorthCarolina,thepostsecondarysector—includinguniversitiesandcommunitycolleges—isappropriatelydifferentiatedtocatertothedifferingneedsofthepopulationandtheecon-omy.However,withlittledifferentiationwithintheuniver-sitysector,almostallof themaspire tobecoming“world-class”researchinstitutions.

The State’s RoleThe Finnish system demonstrates that the state throughits role—inter alia, in funding—can ensure the develop-ment of a higher education system that is appropriate tothecountry’sneeds.InSouthKorea,thestatehaschosentoplayamuchmoredominantroleinthedevelopmentoftheschoolingsystem—comparedtohighereducation,whichislargelyprivate.InNorthCarolina,theroleofthestateisthatofafacilitatorandaseriousfundingsource.Asafacilitatorithasdrivenimportantpartnershipswiththeprivate-busi-nesssectorandhighereducationinstitutions.

Regional DevelopmentIn Finland, universities and polytechnics spread over theentirecountryincollaborationwithoneanotherandwithlocal government and business to ensure greater equityin regional development. South Korea is now addressingregionaldevelopmentthroughsuchinitiativesastheNewUniversityforRegionalInnovation.

Cooperation And NetworksThe Finnish system is characterized by a high degree ofconsensusbuildingandcooperationbetweenstakeholdersin the higher education system—including institutions,government,public-fundingagencies,andtheprivatesec-tor.Thishasbeenakeyfactorinstimulatingefficiencyandeffectivenessinthedistributionofresourcesandthedevel-opmentofappropriateeducationandresearchoutcomes.

In Korea, the hand of government is clearly “visible”inallcomponentsoftheeducationsystem,includingover-sight of the private sector. Historically, an important net-

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N20 Financing Higher Education

workhasbeenthecollaborationbetweentherelevantgov-ernment ministries, the public-research institutions, andthelargeprivate-sectorcompanies(chaebols)—withrespecttoresearchanddevelopment.Increasinglytoday,universi-ties,particularlythelargepublicinstitutions,arebecominganimportantfourthcomponentofthisgroup,astheyde-veloptheirresearchanddevelopmentcapacity.

TheNorthCarolinacasestudyshowshoweffectivere-lationshipscanbedevelopedbetweenthehighereducationsystem,ontheonehand,andgovernment,theprivate-busi-nesssector,andcivilsocietybroadly,ontheother—topro-mote economic, social, and environmental development.None of these affiliations have been legislated, but theyhavecomeabout throughacommoncommitment to thedevelopmentofthestate.

From the above, there are several important reasonswhypolicymakersinsub-SaharanAfricancountriesshouldtakenoteoftherelevanceofhighereducationforgeneraldevelopmentandeconomicdevelopment,specifically.Therelationship between higher education and economic de-velopment is incontrovertible. Through its education andtrainingaswellasresearchfunctions,highereducationcanenablecountriesbothtoraiseeconomicgrowthratesandincrease participation in the knowledge-based economy.Intheglobalizingworld,Africancountriesdonotneedtobase theireconomiessolelyontheproductionofprimarycommodities and manufactured goods, requiring skillsprovided by primary and secondary education. It is pos-siblefordeveloping/poorcountriestofocuslikewiseontheproduction of value-adding goods and services, requiringskillsprovidedbythehighereducationsystem.Theadvan-tageof the latter strategy is that it can raisegrowth ratesmuchmorerapidly—enabling, interalia, thegovernmenttoexpandtheprovisionofeconomicandsocialservicestopeopletrappedinpoverty.

China and India provide the best current examplesof how developing countries have abandoned traditionalpatterns of economic development that characterized thegrowthpathsoftoday’sindustrializedcountries.Toenablecountriestodevelopacomponentoftheknowledgeecono-mywithintheirbordersrequiresthedevelopmentofapro-

ductivehighereducationsystem.Obviously,thispracticeislimitedbyresourceconstraintsandintersectoralcompeti-tionforresources(e.g.,schooling,health).

ConclusionThe case for African policymakers to undertake highereducation seriously is a strong one from a developmentperspective.Inthisregard,considerationmustbegiventothe following factors: (1) improving access to and qualityinschooling;(2)linkingeducationand,specifically,highereducationtoeconomicdevelopmentpolicies; (3)ensuringclearinstitutionaldifferentiationtoenableoptimalutiliza-tionoflimitedresourcesandmoreefficientattainmentofdevelopmentgoals; (4)committingtothedevelopmentofanequitablehighereducationsystemin termsofgender,socioeconomicstatus,andregion.

WhoWillPayandWhoBenefitsfromEcuador’sNewFreeHigherEducation?David PostDavid Post is professor of education policy at Pennsylvania State University and editor of Comparative Education Review. He spent 2009/10 as a visiting researcher at FLACSO (Latin American School of Social Sciences), Quito, Ecuador. E-mail: post@psu.edu.

Who benefits from “free” higher education can be atouchyquestion.Structuraladjustmentsandcondi-

tioned World Bank loans forced many countries to scalebackoninvestment inpublicgoods,andmanydefendersofpublic subsidymadeargumentscenteredonsocial eq-uity. Subsidies of universities do have spill-over benefitsforsociety—citizenship,trust,thearts,andlocallyrelevantresearch. But an empirical question, difficult to avoid, iswhich groups of children most benefit from subsidy tohighereducationwhentheyentertheworkforce.

Ecuadorhasbecomethe latest testinggroundfor theattempttousehighereducationtoreversedecadesofracialandsocial inequality through itsprohibition—followinganewconstitutionin2008—offeesforallpubliceducation(includingpublicuniversities).Equitywasthemainreasonformakingeducation“free”foruniversitystudents.Butthepreliminaryresultsofthisexperimentarenotencouraging:sofar,thosewhohavebeenmostrewardedbythesuspen-sionoffeesaremembersofgroupsthatwerealreadyadvan-tagedandlikelytoattend.

A dual/binary higher education system

can be effective in meeting national

development goals and has been de-

veloped in varying degrees in the three

systems.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 21Financing Higher Education

Full Family Costs of University EducationReasonsarenotdifficulttofathom.Universitiesareexpen-siveforfamiliesinLatinAmericaandinmuchoftheworld,notbecauseofthefeestheycharge.ThiswasespeciallynotabarrierforpublicuniversitiesinEcuadorpriorto2009,becauseuniversitiesusedaslidingscalebasedonincome.Insteadofdirectfees,thebiggestexpensecomesfromtheyears of sacrifice by families when they encourage theirchildren to study and eventually to pass competitive en-tranceexams,asopposedtoworkingtosupportthehouse-holdeconomy.Inrecentyears,althoughabout80percentofeachbirthcohortenteredsecondaryschools,therewasalargedropoutrateamongthepoor.Onlyabouthalfofeachcohortfinishessecondaryschoolingandisthuseligiblefor“free”universityattendance.

TheeliminationofstudentfeesatpublicuniversitiesinEcuadorexpressestheidealsenshrinedinthe2008Consti-tution.Article356(unofficialtranslation)states:

Public higher education will be free through the undergraduatelevel.Admissiontopublichighereducationin-stitutionswillberegulatedthroughasystemofevaluationdefinedunderthelaw....regardlessofwhetherpublicorprivate,equalityofopportunityinaccessisguaranteed,aswellasequalityinpersistence,mobility,andexit,withtheexceptionofthefeeschargedbyprivatehighereducation.

Butthetranslationofgoodintentionsinpublicpolicyiscomplicated,and idealsoftenproduceunintendedcon-sequences.

A Look at the DataIfoneexaminesEcuador’s2001populationcensus,togeth-er with more recent nationally representative householdemploymentsurveys,onecandetectagrowinggapinaccessbyrace,income,andhomelanguage.Forexample,amongthosebornin1990,universityattainmentrateswereonlyabout5percentforthoseself-identifyingas“Black”and8percentforthoseself-identifyingas“indigenous.”Therateswereabout20percentforthosewhodescribedthemselvesas“mestizo”and25percent for thosewhowere“White.”Thesegapshavenotbeenaccuratelymeasureduntilnow.It

isworrisomethatthegapsseemtobegrowing,anditwastoreversesuchtrendthattheconstitutiondeclaredthatpublichighereducationwouldbefreeofdirectcoststostudents

Despiteanadmirablegoal,ifoneanalyzessurveyscon-ducted a year after the suspension ofuser fees, it ispos-sibletoobserveawideninggapinaccesstoEcuador’spub-licuniversities,followingthesuspensionoffees:thereisagrowingattendancegapbetween themore-privilegedandless-privilegedpopulationsofthecountry.

Consider two findings from these analyses. First, wecan consider postsecondary access depending on the lan-guagespokenbyachild’sparents.Usingthe2009surveysalongsidethosefrom2008and2007,wecanestimatewithhigh-statisticalcertaintythepercentagesofEcuadoriansineach language group who entered a public university in2007(justbeforetheconstitutionalreform),in2008(theyearof thenewconstitution),andin2009(theyearafter“free”publiceducationarrived).Only4percentofcollege-agechildrenwhoseparentsspokeanindigenouslanguagewereinpublicuniversitiesin2007,andthisincreasedonlyto 5 percent by 2009, with “free” tuition. By contrast, in2007,thecollege-goingratewas13percentforthosewhoseparentsspokeonlySpanish,andtheirrateincreasedto17percentby2009.Consequently,thegapbetweengroupsisgreaternowthanin2007.Second,considerasimpleindica-toroffamilypoverty.Ecuadorusesasophisticatedmetricofincomeandhouseholdwelfaretodefinewhichhouseholdsare qualified to receive a monthly supplement of US$38.From2007to2009,oneseesaslightincreaseintherates

(from4% to7%)of childrengoing to auniversitywhosemothersreceivedtheHumanDevelopmentBondandwhothuscouldbeconsidered“poor.”Thisisthegoodnews.Butthegreatestbeneficiariesafter2008werenotthispopula-tion.TherewasamuchbiggerjumpinattendanceamongchildrenwhosemothersdidnotreceivetheHumanDevel-opment Bond: from 16percent to 24percent. Again, thegapbetweenpoorandmiddle-classchildrengrewlarger.

Reducing the Opportunity GapThosemostlikelytoforegoemploymentandfinishsecond-aryeducationarechildrenwhoseparentsdonotspeakin-digenouslanguages,thosewhoaremestizoorwhite,those

Ecuador has become the latest testing

ground for the attempt to use higher ed-

ucation to reverse decades of racial and

social inequality.

How could Ecuador level the playing

field? Most important, Ecuador would

need to invest resources to improve the

quality of its basic education.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N22 Financing Higher Education

with upper-income fathers, and those with highly edu-catedmothers.For this reason, thebeneficiariesof“free”universityeducationwillnecessarilycomefromthemost-advantagedpopulationsofEcuador—unlessthequalityofprimaryandsecondaryeducationimproves,allowingmoredisadvantaged children access to higher education. HowcouldEcuadorleveltheplayingfield?Mostimportant,Ec-uadorwouldneedtoinvestresourcestoimprovethequal-ity of its basic education and keep all students in schooluntiltheyareeligibletoattenduniversity.Thisis,infact,apossibleoutcomeofconstitutionalreformbecause, inad-dition to free public university, the constitution also sus-pended user fees in primary or secondary schools. If thegovernmentisnowabletoimprovethequalityofprimaryand secondary education, then more children from poorfamiliesandwith indigenousrootswillpersist togradua-tion. Eventually they will become eligible for the benefitsoffreepublichighereducation.Butwherewillthemoneycometoimprovebasiceducation,ifsomuchisneededtoreplace suspended student fees? Eliminating fees for allcurrentuniversitystudents(intheabsenceofmeanstest-ingorfinancialaidfortheneediestfamilies)placesanenor-mousnewfinancialresponsibilityonthegovernmentandforces it to spend money for higher education that couldhavebeenused to improvebasiceducation.Toavoid thisperverseconsequence,Ecuadorshouldinstituteatranspar-ent,needs-basedsystemoffinanceassistanceandpayforthefeesonlyofthosestudentswhocannototherwiseaffordtoattend—ratherthancontinuingtosubsidizeitsmost-ad-vantagedpopulations.

“Free”PublicUniversitiesinEcuador:TooMuchofaGoodThing?Mateo Estrella

Mateo Estrella is dean at the Universidad de Cuenca, Ecuador. E-mail: mateo.estrella@ucuenca.edu.ec.

ManyobserverswouldenvyEcuador’spublicuniversi-ties,followingadoptionofanewgoverninglawand

the2008Constitution,whichabolishedallstudentfees.Butits25publicuniversitiesareintheoddpositionofgettingtoomuchofagoodthing.Elsewhere,advocatesforpublicuniversitieslamentatrendtowardmarketizationandpriva-

tization and decry shrunken financial contributions fromgovernment.HighereducationinEcuadorisabouttofindout if therecentreformscouldbeproblematic,asstringstighten thathave justbeenattached touniversitiesunderaboldexperiment. There is aparticularworryabout thethreattouniversityautonomy.Althoughthehighereduca-tionsysteminEcuadorisstillintheprocessofconsolida-tionandgrowth,thisarticleoffersageneralviewofwhereitismovinginresponsetopresidentialandlegislativeini-tiatives.

Autonomy, the Market, and the 2008 Constitution

Ecuador’s first governing Law of Higher Education datesbacksonlyto1938;anditcontains—alongsidetheprincipleof autonomy—provisions for cogovernance and academicfreedom. Revisions of the law in 1946, 1982, and 1990configuredthesystemofhighereducationincludingthees-tablishmentoftheprincipleofself-governmentbythesys-temofhighereducationinstitutionsasawhole.Theoverallsystemconductedallocatingtheannualbudgetprovidedbythecentralgovernment.Butthependulumhasswungawayfromthisno-strings-attachedautonomy,becausecriticsob-jected to growth of higher education that was unplannedanddetachedfromnationaldevelopmentgoals.

In2007,RafaelCorreaassumedthepresidencyasan“outsider” to Ecuadorian politics, thanks to broad publicsupporttochangethesystem.In2005,thiseconomicspro-fessorattheprivateSanFranciscoUniversity(witha2001PhD from the University of Illinois) had been briefly ap-pointedasEcuador’sministeroftheeconomy.Inhisfirstpresidentialcampaignhepresentedhimselfprimarilyasanintellectualwithexperienceintheuniversity.

The underlying higher education dilemmas facingPresidentCorreawerethesamefacingotherLatinAmeri-can nations, where decades-long, haphazard growth ofhigher education (especially private) denied governmentleadersoneofthetoolstheybelievedcouldshapecivilsoci-ety,harnesseducationtodevelopmentgoals,andpreservetheir own political power. When President Correa amplywonarun-offelectionin2007,heproclaimeda“Citizen’sRevolution” that was inspired by “Socialism for the 21stCentury.”OneofhisfirstproposalswastoconveneaCon-stitutionalAssemblythatwouldprepareanewconstitution(subsequentlyapprovedinanationalreferendum).

Trading Subsidy for Quality Control by the Government

The 2008 Constitution promulgated many changes: ex-pandingpresidentialpower,changingland-tenancyrights,natural-resourcemanagement, and lawsabout communi-cationsmedia.But,amongthesemanyprofoundchanges

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 23Financing Higher Education

inthestate-societyrelations,oneofthemostexpensivehasbeenthereformofhighereducation.

Until 2008, the student fees of Ecuador’s 25 publicuniversitieswerelowcomparedtothecountry’s38privateuniversities. In 2008, most public universities charged amaximumofaboutUS$800,usingascalebasedonfamilyincome.Thoughrelativelymodest,thesefeescoveredasig-nificantshareofoperatingbudgets.Studentdemandsforparticularprogramshelped justify andfinance them.Butstudent fees were constitutionally eliminated beginningin 2009. Today, public universities must depend almost

exclusively on annual, supplemental appropriations fromthecentralgovernment,whichhasbegundirectlytounder-writeuniversitybudgetswithout regard tostudentenroll-mentsordemand.Asyet,Ecuadorhasnoformulalinkingnumbers of students to appropriations, and it is unclearwhether increases in appropriations will follow growingnumbersofstudents.

Undecided: Upcoming Higher Education Planners

Ecuador’s2010lawestablishesasecretaryofscience,tech-nology,highereducation,and innovation.This is in itselfinnovative in a countrywherehigher educationhasbeenautonomousandinsulatedfrompoliticalpower.Thedepen-denceofhighereducationonnationalpoliciesandtheneedofuniversitiestoreporttoacentraladministrativebodyisasharpbreakfromthetotalautonomythatprevailedinthepast.Thenewsecretaryhasresponsibilitybothformanag-ingfinancialappropriations topublicuniversitiesand forlinkingpostsecondaryeducationtothenationalplanning.

The Peril of Total FinancingDespite some positive consequences of the government’sdirect control of higher education planning and funding,pervasivedoubtsexistinpublicuniversitiesabouttheirfu-ture.OneproblemrelatestograduateeducationinEcuador.Allapprovalsfornewprogramsnowrequireapprovalfrom

theMinistryofHigherEducation.Theproceduresforap-provingnewgraduateprogramshavebeenstalled.Anotherconcerninvolvesthedailyrelationshipsbetweenthesecre-taryandtheuniversities,especiallyinregardtothestabilityof theirfinance.There is aneed foralternativemeasurestoovercomethebudgetarylimitationsimposedbythefreeeducation. Although the “Socialism of the 21st Century”hasrejectedamarket-drivenenrollmentmodel,itisnotyetclear what criteria the government will use to decide thenumbersofstudentswhocanenrollwithfullfinancinginparticularuniversitiesandwhichprogramswillreceiveap-provalforexpansion(orbetargetedforclosure)?Naturally,thegovernmentseekstoalignsuchbasicand(nowexpen-sive)decisionswiththenationaldevelopmentplanandwithprimaryandsecondaryeducation.Finally,universitieshavelittleabilitytoplanforconstructionandrenovationofbuild-ings,facilities,andlaboratories.

Final Caveat: The PrivatesInEcuador,privateuniversitiesareakeypartofthehighereducationsystem,andseveralareconsideredhighlyeffec-tive. But there are many credentialing, “storefront” busi-nesses,aswell.Inthelastofficialaccreditationprocess,ofthe 11 universities ranked in the highest category, 7 werepublic and 4 private. By contrast, of the 26 institutionsranked in the lowest category, only2werepublic and24private.

Thefutureoftop-privateuniversitiesdependsontheirown abilities, because they do not have the same budgetconstraintsasdothepublicuniversities.Theycreate(andtake advantage of) market pressures and opportunities,therebymovingtheoverallsystemofhighereducationevenfurtherfromstatecontrol.

Ifquality inpublichighereducationdeclinesasare-sultof reduced funding, themiddleclassmayexitpublicuniversitiesjustastheyalreadyhavedepartedfrompublicprimaryschools.Inanycase,thegrandbargainoftotalsub-sidywillimposesevereconstraintsonEcuador’sabilitytoinvestinotherareasoftheeducationsystem.

Ecuadorianhighereducationwasalongstaticsystempriortotheconstitutionalreform,anditrequiredchange.However,acomprehensivevisionforthefutureofuniver-

Although the higher education system

in Ecuador is still in the process of con-

solidation and growth, this article offers

a general view of where it is moving in

response to presidential and legislative

initiatives.

Today, public universities must depend

almost exclusively on annual, supple-

mental appropriations from the central

government.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N24 Financing Higher Education

sity education is lacking. “Free”public educationwillnothelptransformteachinginstitutionsorbroadentheirmis-siontoincluderesearchornationaldevelopment.

ReformingHigherEducationFinancinginArmeniaArthur M. Hauptman, Levon Barkhudaryan, and Sergey Balasanyan

Arthur Hauptman is public policy consultant—based in Arlington, VA, specializing in higher education finance issues. E-mail: hauptman_a@yahoo.com. Levon Barkhudaryan is vice rector of the Armenian State Economic University and was twice minister of finance of the Republic of Armenia in the 1990s. Sergey Balasanyan is an educational finance expert and member of the higher education financing strategy prepara-tion group.

To understand Armenian higher education today, it isnecessary initially to recall the breakup of the Soviet

system in the late 1980sandearly 1990s,when thenewArmeniangovernmentundertookmanyreformsinallas-pectsofitseducationsystem—includinghighereducation.Reformsinhighereducationinthemid-1990sincludedal-locatingpublicfundsaslumpsumstouniversities(insteadoftheline-itembudgetingusedbefore).Inaddition,legisla-tion in2004providedArmenianuniversitieswithahighlevelofautonomyintheiroperations.

Several trends in thepast twodecadesserveasapri-mary stimulus for further reforms. Student enrollmentsinArmenia’spublicuniversitieshavegrownsubstantiallysince2003,butfee-payingstudentsaccountedforthisen-tire increase as the number of full scholarship recipientshardlychangedatall.Asaresult,tuition-feerevenuesnowaccount for more than 80 percent of education funds inArmenianpublichighereducation.Thisgrowthisunsus-tainable,whichrepresentsanunderlyingmotivationforthesector’snewfinancingstrategy.

Current Financing StructureArmenia’sfundingmodel,similartothekindwidelyusedintheformerSoviet-bloccountries,hastwokeycharacter-istics:dual-tracktuitionfeesandpublicallocationstouni-versities, based on quotas where the government decideseachyearthenumberofspecialiststhatthecountryneedsandawardsscholarshipsviauniversitiesforthistask.Theamount that the government allocates for scholarship re-cipientsisbasedonnormativecostfiguresthattypicallyare

wellbelowtheaveragespendingperstudent.This iswhyfees fromstudentsnot receivingscholarshipsareused tosubsidizethescholarshiprecipientsandrepresentmostoftherevenuesthatuniversitiesreceive.

While enrollments have grown, the amount of statefundingforhighereducationhasdeclinedovertime,bothin real terms and on a per student basis. Most observersbelievethat,asaresult,thequalityofbothinstructionandresearch has deteriorated significantly because of under-fundingfrompublicsourcesandtheabsenceoftheeffec-tivequality-assuranceprocess.

Main Problems and ChallengesArmenian higher education faces key challenges that aresimilar to those facing many other countries. These in-clude: inadequate access and equity, uneven quality andrelevance,andlowlevelsofproductivity.

Inadequate access and equity.Althoughenrollments inArmenian higher education have increased rapidly in re-cent years, participation rates remain substantially belowinternationalaverages.Inaddition,accessisuneven.Low-income students and those from rural areas are severaltimes less likely to enroll in Armenian higher educationthanstudentsfrommorewell-offfamiliesandthosefromthecities.

Low quality and relevance. There are many reasons tobeconcernedabouttheunevenqualityofArmenianhighereducation.Oneisthatcurrentquality-assuranceproceduresarenotinlinewithrecognizedEuropeanpractice.Anotheristhatthereismuchcorruptionintheclassroom.Lackofrelevance is also a major concern in Armenia. While thecurrent employment situation and the job prospects ofgraduates have improved somewhat, the structural mis-match between the profile of graduates and labor-marketdemandisapparent.Lessthanone-thirdofuniversitygrad-uates are currently employed, and their salaries are onlyslightlyabovetheearningsofnongraduates.

Low productivity. A striking statistic regarding Arme-nianhighereducationisthelowlevelofstudent/facultyra-tios.Theaveragestudent/teacherratioislessthan10to1inArmenianhighereducation,lessthantwo-thirdsoftheOr-ganization for Economic Cooperation and Development–basedaverage.Analysesofthestudent/teachingstaff,stu-dent/nonteachingstaffratios,andtuitionfeesalsoshowaninverse correlation between student/teaching (nonteach-ing)staffratiosandtuitionfees.

Designing a Financing StrategyTo meet these challenges, a higher education financingstrategyisbeingdevelopedinArmenia.Thesereformswillbedesignedtoincreaseparticipation,reduceinequality,im-provequalityandrelevance,andraiseoverallproductivity

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 25countries and Regions

ofthesector,aswellasachievinggreaterconformancewiththeBolognaprocess.

Performance-based payments to institutions.Akeyreformistomovetowardamoremodernfundingsystembasedoneitheroutputsoroutcomes.Asystemisproposedinwhichthegovernmentannuallywouldpaypublicandprivatein-stitutions for each graduate who receives a degree. To bemosteffective,theamountofpaymentwouldbebasedona revised cost norm that more accurately reflects currentand projected labor market conditions and to qualify forpayments.Inaddition,thedegreesawardedwouldneedtoconformtostrengthenedquality-assuranceprovisionsandBolognaprocessspecifications.

Scholarships based on merit and need.Toincreasetheeffi-ciencyofanewperformance-basedstructure,itisproposedthat the current system of scholarships and stipends bereplacedwithanewscholarshipprogram—basedonbothmeritandneed.Thespecificationsofsuchanewprogrammight include merit-based criteria similar to those cur-rently used to identify scholarship recipients, need-basedcriteriabasedonofficial-governmentmeasures,andeasilyverifiablecriteriasuchasfamilyelectricbillstodeterminewhoispoor.

Student loans.One instrumentoftenused to increasethe accessibility of higher education consists of studentloans.InArmenia,apilotprogramformaster’sdegreestu-dentsinrelevantfieldsofstudymaybeinitiatedaspartofthenewfinancingstructure.

Competitive innovation fund.Toencourageuniversitiesto raise thequalityof their instructionand to implementmuch-neededinnovations,thegovernmentplanstocreateacompetitivefund.

Financing capital expenditures. A fundamental weak-nessofthecurrentfinancingstructureinArmeniaisthatthetuitionfeeschargedtocurrentstudentsconstitutetheprimary means for financing capital expenditures. Thus,currentstudentsarepayingthefullcostsofcapitalforthebenefitof future students.Therefore, government shouldcreate a capital budget or allow universities to borrow inordertofinancecapital.

Strengthening quality assurance.Recognizingtheprior-ityofstrengtheninghighereducationqualityassurance,acenterforqualityassurancehasbeenestablishedtodevelopand approve standards and guidelines for implementingmuch-improved,quality-assuranceactivities.Itisproposedthatbothpublicandprivateinstitutionswouldhavetobeaccreditedby theNationalCenter forProfessionalEduca-tionQualityAssurancetoreceivepublicfunds.Inaddition,therewillbeeffortstoreducecorruptionintheclassroomandtorequireinstitutionstoprovidemoredata,aspartoftheaccreditationprocess.

Integrating research and instruction. Another majorshortcomingof the currenthigher education structure inArmeniainvolvesthatmostresearchisconductedinsepa-rate research institutes, which prevents most universitiesfrom offering a high-quality education experience. Onemethod to improvequality throughgreater integrationofresearch and instruction is to require research institutesto collaboratewithuniversities, inorder to receivepublicfunding.

Encouraging greater private investment.Toattractgreaterfinancialsupportfromtheprivatesector,itisproposedthatprivateinstitutionsbeeligibletoreceiveperformance-basedpaymentsandgovernmentfundsforscholarships,aswellastoqualifyforotherprofit-taxreductions.Inaddition,taxincentiveswouldhelpcorporationstocontributetoscholar-ships,libraries,anduniversity-basedresearch.

TheintentofthesereformsistoallowArmenianhighereducationtomoveawayfromoutdatedandineffectivepoli-ciestoonesthatplaceitaheadofthetrendinternationally.

StudentAffairsinChinaKaren D. Arnold and Hong Zhu

Karen D. Arnold is associate professor in higher education at Boston College. E-mail: karen.arnold@bc.edu. Hong Zhu is assistant professor at the Graduate School of Education, Peking University, China. E-mail: hongzhu@pku.edu.cn.

Chinese higher education moved rapidly from an elitesystemtoamasssystemover thepast threedecades.

Propelled by a markedly larger and more diverse studentpopulationandtheadoptionofmarketprinciplesinhighereducation, student-affairs administration is beginning toemergeinnewformsinChinesehighereducation.Often

Armenia’s funding model, similar to the

kind widely used in the former Soviet-

bloc countries, has two key character-

istics: dual-track tuition fees and public

allocations to universities.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N26 Countries and Regions

translated as “ideological education,” psychological andcharacterdevelopmenthasbeenpartoftheChineseuniver-sityundertheorganizationalstructuresandactivitiescom-prising“ideologicalandpoliticaleducation.”

Themainpurposeofideologicalandpoliticaleducationis to prepare college-educated future generations for na-tionaldevelopmentandthemaintenanceofsocialstability.Substantively, ideological and political education includesrequired courses in political theory, history, and doctrineforundergraduateandgraduatestudentsacrossacademicmajors.Beyondtheclassroom,itpermeatesstudentextra-curricularactivitiesandstudentgovernancethroughstruc-turessuchas theuniversitystudentunion.Organization-ally, the ideological and political education profession inChinesehighereducationconsistsofstaffandprogramsinbureacraticunitsattheuniversity,school,anddepartmentlevel under each institution’s committee of the ChineseCommunistParty.

In 2004, the Chinese government issued “Views onFurtherStrengtheningandImprovingIdeologicalandPo-litical Education for Students in Higher Education.” Thisdocument called on universities to prepare professionalstudent-affairsadministrators todevelopstudents’values,beliefs,andmoralaction.Studentdevelopmentisdescribedasdesiredoutcomesintermsofpoliticalorthodoxyandpa-triotism,intheserviceofnationaladvancement.Thisisnotadeparturefromtheexistingideologicalandpoliticaledu-cationprofessioninChinesehighereducation.

It is no accident, however, that the government di-rective has emerged at this point in time in response toa number of converging pressures that have rupturedthe older indoctrination model of youth formation andmade college student services an urgent concern. Mostprominent among these pressures is the rapid massi-fication of higher education in China. While the pushto increase enrollments has been wildly successful, ex-panded postsecondary participation has come togetherwith accompanying economic and social conditions, toresult in high levels of student dissatisfaction and stress.

Why Student Affairs?In the late 1980s, as part of its larger move to a marketeconomy,Chinainstitutedtuitionforuniversityenrollmentand abolished government job allocation for new gradu-ates.Therequirementtofindone’sownjobupongradua-tionisproblematicbecauseofunclearcareerpathwaysandthe inability ofmanygraduates tofindwork inpreferredgeographiclocations.CompetitionforcollegeentranceviathenationalexaminationisafamiliarpressureamongChi-nese youth, but continuing fierce competition and perva-siveuncertainty about future careerprospects amongen-rolled students is anewphenomenon.Largenumbersofunemployedorunderemployedcollegegraduatesthreatensocialstability.Evenchoosingacareerpathisproblematicbecausestudentsarefrequentlybarredfromenteringtheirpreferred academic major and nearly always preventedfrom changing their specialization. The one-child policyalsoplaysaroleinthecurrentstudentproblems.Forbothparents, status and parental retirement prospects rest onthesinglechild.Havingbeenindulgedandprotectedfromuncertaintyandobstacles,thisgenerationofcherishedon-ly-childrenmightbeparticularlyill-equippedtowithstandthese pressures. Nor can students turn to professors forpersonalsupport;severalempiricalstudiesinChinarecent-lyconcludedthatthereislittleinteractionbetweenstudentsandfacultyoutsidetheclassroom.

Existing university organizational and administrativestructureshaveprovenunequaltodealingwiththisvolatilecombination of competition, uncertainty, and fragility. Inacademicwork, cheating is endemic.Student suicidehasescalatedsharply.Incidentsofstudentviolencearealsoontherise.Untreatedmentalhealthproblemsarecommon.Althoughuniversitieshavemadesignificantimprovementsininfrastructure,overcrowdeddormitoriesremainaprob-lem, and students are dissatisfied with campus teachingand extracurricular facilities. Discrimination against stu-dentsfromlowsocial-economicbackgroundsisincreasing.

Inresponsetotheseseriousstudentproblems,andinkeeping with government policy, universities throughoutChinaareestablishingnewandreconfiguredadministrativepositionsandstructureschargedwithnonacademicstudentservicessuchascareeradvising,mentalhealthcounseling,and financial-aid advising. Universities have establishedmaster’s and doctoral programs to train student-affairsadministrators. Higher education scholars have begun toconduct student research for evidence-based institutionalpolicy, for instancewithTsinghuaUniversity’s large-scalestudy of student experience at a representative sample ofChineseuniversities.PekingUniversity is conductingan-other major research project, a government-sponsoredstudy of student engagement across all higher education

The main purpose of ideological and

political education is to prepare college-

educated future generations for nation-

al development and the maintenance of

social stability.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 27Countries and Regions

institutions in Beijing. A small but growing scholarly lit-erature on Chinese student affairs consistently points tounstandardized training, poor professionalization, lack oftheoreticalfoundations,andlowstatusofstudentaffairs.

Potential DirectionsTheimpetusforstudentaffairsinChinaisclear.Lessclearat this early stage is the shape the profession will take.Structurally,thecurrentadministrativesystemhastwosep-arate branches. Student-affairs units that provide studentservices fall under a general administration branch. Theoversightofstudentdevelopment—suchas,ideological,po-litical,andmoralformation—isorganizedbytheuniversitydivision of theChineseCommunistParty. Theway theseseparateunitsmightcollaboratewillplayanimportantroleinstudentaffairs.

Conceptually, threerelativelyseparatediscussionspo-tentially bear on the question of the trajectory of studentaffairs. Most obvious is the government call for more ef-fective ideological and political education. This discourseemphasizesorganizationaldirectionandguidanceof stu-dents.Chinesehighereducationadministratorsandhighereducation scholars are also investigating mature modelsof student affairs, most notably in American higher edu-cation. Fundamental questions are raised about whetherstudent affairs should be constituted as student manage-ment,studentservices,orstudentdevelopment.Thethirdand final consideration focuses on advancing its leaders’creative thinkingcapacitiesand the related issuesofgen-eral educationand reform inpostsecondary teachingandlearning.Together,thesethreediscussionshavethepoten-tialtoframestudentaffairsasbothcommunityandstudentcentered,concernedwithholisticstudentdevelopment,andconnectingacademicandnonacademicstudentexperience.Conversely, if these three deliberations remain separate,studentaffairsmayevolveasamanagerial function,withlimitedreachandlittlephilosophicalcoherence.

Itseemsclearthatmoreuniversitieswillestablishpro-fessional graduate-degree programs in higher educationadministration and student affairs. Student-affairs staff

will continue to proliferate, especially in career-advisingandstudent-supportareas.Theproductionofempiricalre-searchoncollegestudents’experiencewillintensify,alongwithresearchonstudent-affairsprofessionalsandorgani-zational structures. The Chinese government will watchthe results of experiments with liberal arts curricula andresidentiallybasededucationattopuniversitiesandwillacttospreadpromisingmodels.Proliferatingandambiguousmodelsofstudent-affairsgoalsandprofessionalroleswillalmostcertainlyresultinaperiodinwhichtheshapeandstatusofstudentaffairsremainaninflux.

Strengths and ChallengesChinesehighereducationalreadyfeaturesastrong-cohortmodel of students who live and study together. Cohort-based counselors, academic department-sponsored activi-ties,andtheCommunistPartyYouthUnionumbrellaforsocial activities and leadership development are amongother existing structures that foster community and stu-dentlearning.Chinawillneedtodevelopitsowntheoreti-calfoundationsandprofessionalnormsforstudentaffairs.Universitiescanbuildoncurrentpracticesthatcanbemod-elsforstudentsupportandholisticpersonaldevelopment.Moreresearch isneeded toassesshow institutionalprac-ticesandorganizationalarrangementsaffectstudentlearn-ingandwell-being.

Havingexpandedpostsecondaryenrollmentssoquicklyanddramatically,China’semphasisonthequalityofhighereducationhasopenedthepossibilityofsignificantchangeinhowinstitutionsstructurestudentlearningandpersonaldevelopment. The recently issued government document“NationalEducationReformandLong-termPlanningPro-gram” emphasizes the holistic development of universitystudents.Suchofficialstatements,alongwithresearchproj-ectsandinstitutionalefforts,pointtoanemergentstudent-developmentmovementinChina,whosecontoursarestillforming.

The main purpose of ideological and

political education is to prepare college-

educated future generations for nation-

al development and the maintenance of

social stability.

In addition to our Web site and Facebook page, we are now tweeting. We hope you will consider “following” us on Twitter!

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N28 New Publications

New Publications

Albornoz, Orlando. Breves Notas sobre la Autonomía y la Libertad Académica [Brief Notes on Autonomy and Academic Free-dom]. Caracas, Venezuela: Universidad Central de Venezuela, 2009. 297 pp. (pb). ISBN 980-00-2592-5.

During the last few years, the Venezu-elan government has made several attempts to compromise university autonomy. As-suming a critical position toward the Hugo Chavez government, Albornoz tackles the complex topic of university autonomy and academic freedom in Venezuela. With the 20 chapters, this book is part of a trilogy, provid-ing both a historical view and an internation-al comparison. For this book, Albornoz relied on interviews with professors, researchers, and academic leaders (rector and vice rec-tors) and firsthand knowledge of Venezuelan higher education. The book provides an anal-ysis of the Venezuelan political context for higher education, as well as insights about the implementation of public policy.

Arum, Richard, and Josipa Roksa. Academi-cally Adrift: Limited Learning on College Cam-puses. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2011. 259 pp. $25 (pb). ISBN 978-0-226-02856-9. Web site: www.press.uchicago.edu.

In this influential and controversial book, the authors argue that students do not learn enough in most American colleges and universities. Using the Collegiate Learn-ing Assessment, which measures students in their first semester and at the end of their second year, the authors note little improve-ment in academic skills, critical thinking, and related themes.

Bader, John B. Dean’s List: 11 Habits of High-ly Successful College Students. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 2011. 269 pp. $19.95 (pb). ISBN 978-0-4214-0081-5. Web site: www.press.jhu.edu.

Focusing mainly on American high- prestige colleges and universities, this book points to factors that contribute to the suc-cess of undergraduate students. Bader, an undergraduate dean, with the assistance of colleagues from a dozen or more schools,

distills key knowledge. His “habits” include: focus on learning, not on grades, approach the curriculum like a great feast, understand that majors are not careers, work smart and not just hard, learn from diversity, and oth-ers. While this book is aimed at students, it will be of interest to those responsible for un-dergraduate education.

Bank, Barbara J., ed. Gender and Higher Education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 2011. 434 pp. $44.95 (pb). ISBN 978-0-8018-9782-5. Web site: www.press.jhu.edu.

A comprehensive 50-chapter survey of key aspects of gender and higher education in the United States, this volume includes up-to-date analysis. Among the themes con-sidered in this book are coeducational col-leges and universities, community colleges, liberal and radical feminisms, college student development, queer theory, administrative leadership styles, students’ rights, athletics, sororities, and many others. Theoretical as well as practical perspectives are included.

Barratt, Will. Social Class on Campus: Theo-ries and Manifestations. Sterling, VA: Stylus, 2010. 238 pp. $24.95 (pb). ISBN 978-157-9225728. Web site: www.styluspub.com.

Aimed at a student audience, this book provides some basic information on social class in the United States and then focuses on the university campus, as a way of looking at how social class affects students and the university.

Beach, J. M. Gateway to Opportunity? A His-tory of the Community College in the United States. Sterling, VA: Stylus, 2011. 192 pp. $29.95 (pb). ISBN 978-1-57922-452-3. Web site: www.Styluspub.com.

This book provides a brief history of the community college concept in the United States, an analysis of some of the literature on the topic and a discussion of the contem-porary problems and accomplishments of community colleges in California.

Bhandari, Rajika, Raisa Belyvina, and Rob-ert Gutierrez, eds. Student Mobility and the Internationalization of Higher Education: Na-

tional Policies and Strategies from Six World Regions. New York: Institute of International Education, 2011. 140 pp. $39.95 (pb). ISBN 978-0-87206-341-9. Web site: www.iiebooks.org.

Sponsored by Project Atlas, an inter-national effort to track international student mobility, this book features reports for 17 countries in six world regions. Chapters fo-cus mainly on two themes—policies and plans relating to international student popu-lations in the 17 countries and the numbers of students in the country. Current data is provided.

Bowen, William G. Lessons Learned: Reflec-tions of a University President. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 2010. 168 pp. $24.95 (hb). ISBN 978-0-691-14962-2. Web site: www.press.princeton.edu.

One of America’s most successful elite university presidents, William Bowen has written a book about some of the lessons of the university presidency. He examines faculty affairs, governance, the role of trust-ees, strategic decision making, student ad-missions, fund raising, and other topics. Although the book reflects the American ex-perience, it will be relevant to research uni-versities worldwide.

Bringle, Robert G., Julie A. Hatcher, and Steven G. Jones, eds. International Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Re-search. Sterling, VA: Stylus, 2011. 400 pp. $39.99. ISBN 978-1-57922-339-7. Web site: www.styluspub.com.

The book offers a framework for re-search and the development of curriculum, as well as comparisons to past research on study abroad, service learning, international aspects, teaching, and other topics. This volume focuses on the experience of North American students in international service learning, but the last of the book’s four sec-tions examines North American international service learning from a South African per-spective.

Chow, Patricia, and Rajika Bhandari. Open Doors 2010: Report on International Educa-tional Exchange. New York: Institute of In-

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 29New Publications

ternational Education, 2010. 120 pp. (pb). ISBN 978-0-87206-336-5. Web site: www.iie.org.

The standard annual analysis of inter-national exchange for the United States, this book provides statistics on the numbers of international students and scholars coming to the United States, where they come from, what and where they are studying, and other useful information. Total international stu-dent numbers are up 3.5 percent, to 690,000.

Clotfelter, Charles T., ed. American Univer-sities in a Global Market. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2010. 512 pp. $99 (hb) ISBN 978-0-226-11044-8. Web site: www.press.uchicago.edu.

From the perspective of economic analy-sis, this volume discusses how international forces are affecting American higher educa-tion and what may become the longer-term implications of global higher education de-velopments. Among the themes considered are international-student trends in the United States, overseas programs of US universities, current academic trends in China and India, patterns of career changes of US-trained Ko-rean graduates, and others. The chapters are based on detailed data and analysis.

Deardorff, Darla K., ed. The Sage Hand-

book of Intercultural Competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2009. 542 pp. ISBN 978-1-4129-6045-8. Web site: www.sagepublications.com.

This handbook offers a rather compre-hensive reflection on the concept of inter-cultural competence. The first section con-tributes a theoretical framework for analysis, while subsequent sections offer a more practical examination of the concept’s defi-nition and manifestations. Essays written by well-known scholars in this field consider the meaning of intercultural competence within different national and professional contexts and, finally, its importance as an ongoing area of research.

De Wit, Hans. Trends, Issues and Challenges in Internationalization of Higher Education. Amsterdam: Center for Applied Research on Economics and Management, Hoge-

school van Amsterdam, 2011. €30 (pb) 127 pp. ISBN 978-90-817122-1-7. Orders: g.konig@hva.nl.

This book is a compilation of nine pre-viously published articles by Hans de Wit, professor of internationalization at the Ho-geschool van Amsterdam, the Netherlands, alone or with a coauthor: four of them on trends and issues in internationalization of higher education, three on student mobility, and a new one on research and resources.

Fetters, Michael L., Patricia G. Greene, Mark P. Rice, and John Sibley Butler, eds. The Development of University-Based Entre-preneurship Ecosystems: Global Practices. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2010. 203 pp. $99.95(hb). ISBN 978-1-84980-263-5. Web site: www.e-elgar.com.

Case studies of university-based entre-preneurial ecosystems on four continents constitute the core of this volume. Seven success factors for such programs were iden-tified. These include senior leadership vision, program and faculty leadership, sustained commitment over time, financial resources, and other factors.

Gallant, Tricia Bertram, ed. Creating the Ethical Academy: A Systems Approach to Understanding Misconduct and Empower-ing Change in Higher Education. New York: Routledge, 2011. 225 pp. (pb). ISBN 978-0-415-87469-4. Web site: www.routledge.com.

Misconduct and ethical malfeasance in higher education are things that academics do not like to consider, but they are unfortu-nately of significance. Writing from an Ameri-can perspective, the authors of this volume consider such themes as problems with standardized testing, research misconduct, ethical dilemmas in university governance, and others. The final section of the book dis-cusses ways to enhance ethical behavior and norms in higher education.

George, Abraham, ed. College Autonomy in India: Performance and Prospects. Delhi: Authors Press, 2011. 308 pp. Rs. 825 (hb). ISBN 978-81-7273-569-2.

The purpose of this volume is to advo-cate for the legitimacy and expansion of au-

tonomous colleges in India—undergraduate colleges that are fully independent of the bu-reaucracy of the universities to which most colleges are affiliated. The authors argue that autonomy will help reform efforts, quality, diversity, and provide new energy to India’s higher education system.

Harper, Shaun R., and Jerlando F. L. Jack-son, eds. Introduction to American Higher Education. New York: Routledge, 2011. 477 pp. $64.95 (pb). ISBN 978-0-415-80326-7. Web site: www.routledge.com.

A discussion of key issues in American higher education, this book is divided into main sections on the faculty, curriculum, teaching and learning, students, organiza-tion and governance, and policy. The 25 chap-ters are reprinted from material published previously.

Hayhoe, Ruth, Jun Li, Jing Lin, and Qiang Zha. Portraits of 21st Century Chinese Uni-versities: In the Move to Mass Higher Educa-tion. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong, 2011. 483 pp. (pb). ISBN 978-988-1785-23-7. Web site: www.hku.hk/cerc.

The core of this informative volume are 12 case studies of representative Chinese universities—three public comprehensive universities, three education-related uni-versities, three science and technology uni-versities, and three private universities. In addition, the authors provide a discussion of some of the overarching concerns of Chi-nese higher education and the possibility of an emergence of a “Chinese model” of the university.

Hazelkorn, Ellen. Rankings and the Reshap-ing of Higher Education: The Battle for World-Class Excellence. Houndsmill, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. 259 pp $85 (hb). ISBN 978-0-230-24324-8. Web site: www.pal-grave.com

Focusing on international academic rankings in the context of globalization, this original volume asks university leaders and others in several countries and institutions what they think about rankings and how the rankings shape academic thinking and in-

29

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N30 New Publications

stitutional and governmental policymaking. The author also discusses in some detail what the main international rankings mea-sure and some of the key issues in the de-bates about them.

Hermanowicz, Joseph C., ed. The Ameri-can Academic Profession: Transformation in Contemporary Higher Education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 2011. 371 pp. (pb). ISBN 978-0-8018-9978-2. Web site: www.press.jhu.edu.

A consideration of some of the central issues facing the American professoriate, this book makes for sobering reading. The challenges it presents are daunting, and well documented by the authors. Among the themes are reforms in teaching and learning, the socialization of future faculty, the profes-sionalization of graduate teaching and men-toring, academic freedom and professional autonomy, and others.

Kezar, Adrianna, and Cecile Sam. Under-standing the New Majority of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty in Higher Education. San Fran-cisco: Wiley Periodicals, 2010. 133 pp. $29 (pb). ISBN 978-1-1180-0266-7. Web site: www.josseybass.com.

A majority of American academic staff are no longer on the tenure track. They are part-time of contract appointees—often called contingent faculty. The book discusses this new reality and how it is affecting both universities and the staff members them-selves. Practical suggestions for dealing with the new reality are offered.

Macready, Caroline, and Clive Tucker. Who Goes Where and Why? An Overview and Analysis of Global Educational Mobility. New York: Institute of International Educa-tion, 2011. 154 pp $39.95 (pb). ISBN 978-0-87206-342-6. Web site: www.iiebooks.org.

This comprehensive overview of inter-national student flows from the perspective of the host countries provides a wealth of statistical information and some analysis. The book is divided into two parts. The first is a global analysis of student mobility that discusses the direction and some causes for mobility at both the tertiary level and in

secondary education as well. The chapter discusses why students move and how they choose destinations, and it includes brief dis-cussions of the national policies and statis-tics of 15 main host countries. The second chapter is detailed discussion of the United States as a case study.

Maranto, Robert, Richard E. Redding, and Frederick M. Hess, eds. The Politically Cor-rect University: Problems, Scope, and Re-forms. Washington, DC: AEI Press, 2009. 326 pp. $25 (pb). ISBN: 978-0-8447-4317-2. Web site: www.aei.org.

A conservative critique of trends in American higher education, this book brings together analysts to discuss such themes as the ideological profile of the American aca-demic profession, the problems of conser-vatives obtaining promotions and admin-istrative positions, the roles of alumni and trustees, and others. The critiques are gener-ally labeled as “political correctness” and ar-gue that liberal and left ideologies dominate American higher education.

Mullen, Ann L. Degrees of Inequality: Cul-ture, Class, and Gender in American Higher Education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 2011. 248 pp. $50 (hb). ISBN 978-0-8018-9770-2. Web site: www.press.jhu.

A case study of students at Yale Univer-sity and Southern Connecticut State Universi-ty—elite and nonelite American universities, respectively—this book focuses on student thinking about where to study, attitudes to-ward their education, and their experiences at school. The stress is on understanding how social class affects decisions and expe-riences. The author finds that the university experience tends to replicate the social in-equalities in society.

Radder, Hans, ed. The Commodificaton of Academic Research: Science and the Modern University. Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. of Pitts-burgh Press, 2010. 360 pp. $50 (hb). ISBN 978-0-8229-4396-9. Web site: www.upress.pitt.edu.

A consideration of the commodification and ethics of scientific research from a largely critical perspective, this volume provides a

multifaceted discussion of several themes. Many of the contributing authors write from a philosophical background. Among the themes are financial interests and the norms of science, commercialization of biological data circulation, knowledge transfer from the university to industry, the commercialization of academic culture, and others.

Research Institute on Higher Education, Hiroshima University. Producing Qualified Graduates and Assuring Education Quality in the Knowledge-Based Society: Roles and Issues of Graduate Education. Hiroshima, Japan: Research Institute on Higher Edu-cation, 2010. 80 pp. (pb). ISBN 1978-4-902808-59-9.

Based on a conference concerning grad-uate education, analyses of trends in global movements in research labor and doctoral students, trends in graduate education in Japan, recent reforms and student develop-ment in China, and excellence in graduate education are provided in this book.

Rhoten, Diana, and Craig Calhoun, eds. Knowledge Matters: The Public Mission of the Research University. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 2011. 560 pp. $75 (hb). ISBN 978-0-231-15114-6. Web site: www.cup.co-lumbia.edu.

The focus of this book is on the public responsibility and role of higher education, in general, and research universities, in par-ticular. Underlying most of the analysis is a critique of the growing privatization and mar-ketization of higher education around the world. Several of the chapters discuss broad themes of the role of research in public uni-versities, the distorting role of rankings, qual-ity assurance, and global hegemony in higher education. Others consider how such reali-ties play out in Russia, several Asian coun-tries, Africa, the United Kingdom, and the American land-grant universities.

Ryan, Janette, ed. China’s Higher Education Reform and Internationalization. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2011. 261 pp. (hb). ISBN 978-0-415-58225-4. Web site: www.rout-ledge.com.

The chapters in this wide-ranging vol-

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 31News of the Center

ume discuss China’s higher education in-ternationalization in its various aspects, in-cluding Chinese students studying abroad and other themes. Several chapters provide a case study of Chinese students in Australia, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere. Con-siderable attention is paid to cross-cultural education in the Chinese context. Just a few chapters focus on the impact of higher edu-cation reform and internationalization in China.

Saarikaillo-Torp, Mila, and Jannecke Wi-ers-Jennsen, eds. Nordic Student Abroad: Student Mobility Patterns, Student Support Systems, and Labor Market Outcomes. Hel-sinki: Social Insurance Institution of Fin-land, 2010. 150 pp. (pb). ISBN 978 951 669 834 5. Web site: www.kela.fi/research.

Detailed case studies of outward stu-dent mobility from the Nordic countries are provided in this book. Among the countries analyzed are Iceland, Faroe Island, Denmark, Norway, and Finland. Such issues as support services, funding, brain drain concerns, and others are discussed.

Shattock, Michael. Managing Successful Universities, 2nd ed. Maidenhead, UK: Mc-Graw-Hill, 2010. 224 pp. £28.99 (pb). ISBN

978-0-335-23743-2. Web site: www.openup.co.uk.

A revised version of Shattock’s well-known guide to university management, this book focuses on such themes as the charac-teristics of a successful university, financial management, leadership, governance, en-trepreneurialism, retrenchment, and others. While written from a British perspective, this book has wide international relevance.

Sternberg, Robert J. College Admissions for the 21st Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 2010. 224 pp. $23.95 (hb). ISBN 978-0-674-04823-2. Web site: www.hup.harvard.edu.

Focusing mainly on elite American col-leges and universities, Sternberg argues that the admissions patterns that focus mainly on standardized tests and high school grades do not measure creativity. He provides an alter-native admissions strategy, in which students submit standard criteria but provide addi-tional material in open-ended questions that focus on a range of activities and interests.

Sursock, Andree, and Hanne Smidt. Trends 2010: A Decade of Change in European High-er Education. Brussels: European Univ. Fed-eration, 2010. 122 pp. €20 (pb). ISBN 978-

90-78997177. Web site: www.eua.be.An analysis of European higher educa-

tion trends in the “Bologna decade,” this vol-ume discusses changes in areas such as de-gree structures, internationalization, student services, building flexible curricula, and oth-ers. Data are based on questionnaires and other sources. Recommendations for future action are provided.

Walsh, Taylor. Unlocking the Gates: How and Why Leading Universities Are Opening Up Ac-cess to Their Courses. Princeton, NJ: Princ-eton Univ. Press, 2011. 296 pp. $29.95 (hb) ISBN 978-0-14874-8. Web site: www.press.princeton.edu.

Online higher education is a rapidly growing phenomenon. This book focuses on case studies of several efforts to provide ac-cess to courses and to online access. Several of the case studies, Fathom and AllLearn, are defunct. Others, such as Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s well-known Open-CourseWare program and Carnegie Mellon’s Open Learning Initiative have provided a new perspective on the topic. Programs at Yale, the University of California, Berkeley, and in India are also discussed.

News of the Center

The Center is pleased to announce that International Higher EducationisnowpublishedinaSpanishedition.TheUniversidad Andrés Bello in Santiago, Chile, has taken re-sponsibilityforourSpanishversion.IHE willsoonbeavail-ableinSpanishinprintandonline.

Center director Philip G. Altbach will be assisting theFacultyofEducationat theUniversityofHongKonginde-veloping its higher education program. He will also give aseriesoflecturesinChina,includingXiamenUniversityandagroupof four talksatkeyuniversities inBeijing—PekingUniversity, where he is a Guest Professor, Tsinghua Uni-versity, Renmin University, and Beijing Normal University.HewillalsospeakattheWorld-ClassUniversityconferenceinShanghai,wherehewillparticipate intheadvisorycom-mitteeoftheGraduateSchoolofEducationatShanghaiJiaoTongUniversity,whichhechairs.

PhilipG.AltbachandLizReisbergwillbetravelingtoCo-penhageninSeptember,toattendtheEuropeanAssociation

forInternationalEducationconferenceandalsotoparticipateinmeetings toplanthe thirdInternationalConferenceandExhibition on Higher Education in Riyadh, scheduled forApril2012.

Philip G. Altbach, Liz Reisberg, and Laura Rumbley’sTrends in Global Higher EducationhasrecentlybeenpublishedinanArabiceditionbytheMinistryofHigherEducationinSaudiArabia.

TheCenterwelcomesDavidStanfield,whojoinsourre-search staff. David is pursuing a doctoral degree in highereducationatBostonCollege,aswell.Hehas,mostrecently,been on the staff of Carnegie Mellon’s branch campus inQatar.YukikoShimmiandIvánF.Pachecocontinueat theCenter.KazObaraofTamagawaUniversityinJapan,SuaadAl-HarthiofPrincessNoraUniversity inSaudiArabia,andCibeleYahndeAndradeofCampinasUniversityinBrazilarethecurrentvisitingscholars.

PRESORTEDFIRST-CLASS MAIL

U.S. POSTAGEPAID

N. READING MAPERMIT 258

Center for International Higher EducationBoston CollegeCampion HallChestnut Hill, MA 02467-3813USA

editoR

Philip G. Altbach

publications editoR

Edith S. Hoshino

editoRial assistant

Salina Kopellas

editoRial office

Center for International Higher EducationCampion HallBoston College Chestnut Hill, MA 02467USA

Tel: (617) 552-4236Fax: (617) 552-8422E-mail: highered@bc.eduhttp://www.bc.edu/cihe

We welcome correspondence, ideas for articles, and reports. If you would like to subscribe, please send an e-mail to: highered@bc.edu, including your position (graduate stu-dent, professor, administrator, policymaker, etc.), and area of interest or expertise. There is no charge for a subscription.

ISSN: 1084-0613©Center for International Higher Education

The Center for International Higher Education (CIHE)

The Boston College Center for International Higher Education brings an international consciousness to the analysis of higher education. We believe that an international perspective will contribute to enlight-ened policy and practice. To serve this goal, the Center publishes the International Higher Educa-tion quarterly newsletter, a book series, and other publications; sponsors conferences; and welcomes visiting scholars. We have a special concern for academic institutions in the Jesuit tradition world-wide and, more broadly, with Catholic universities.

The Center promotes dialogue and cooperation among academic institutions throughout the world. We believe that the future depends on ef-fective collaboration and the creation of an in-ternational community focused on the improve-ment of higher education in the public interest.

CIHE Web Site

The different sections of the Center Web site support the work of scholars and professionals in interna-tional higher education, with links to key resources in the field. All issues of International Higher Education are available online, with a searchable archive. In ad-dition, the International Higher Education Clearing-house (IHEC) is a source of articles, reports, trends, databases, online newsletters, announcements of

upcoming international conferences, links to profes-sional associations, and resources on developments in the Bologna process and the GATS. The Higher Education Corruption Monitor provides information from sources around the world, including a selection of news articles, a bibliography, and links to other agencies. The International Network for Higher Edu-cation in Africa (INHEA) is an information clearing-house on research, development, and advocacy ac-tivities related to postsecondary education in Africa.

The Program in Higher Education at the Lynch School of Education, Boston College

The Center is closely related to the graduate program in higher education at Boston College. The program offers master’s and doctoral degrees that feature a social science–based approach to the study of higher education. The Administrative Fellows initiative pro-vides financial assistance as well as work experience in a variety of administrative settings. Specializa-tions are offered in higher education administration, student affairs and development, and international education. For additional information, please con-tact Dr. Karen Arnold (arnoldk@bc.edu) or visit our Web site: http://www.bc.edu/schools/lsoe/.

Opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for International Higher Education.