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 offers commentary and current information on key issues that shape higher education worldwide. IHE is published in English, Chinese, Russian, and Spanish. Links to all editions can be found at www.bc.edu/cihe.

Number 73: Fall 2013

International Student Recruiting

2 ThePursuitofInternationalStudentsinaCommercializedWorld Philip G. Altbach and Liz Reisberg

4 InSearchofSolutionsfortheAgentDebate Rahul Choudaha

6 InternationalRecruitment:OversightandStandards David Engberg

7 InternationalAdmissions:EthicalChallenges Daniel Zaretsky

9 BarefacedCheatinginChina’sBullMarketforFraud Jon Marcus

International Issues

11 Professors:TheKeytoInternationalization Gerard A. Postiglione and Philip G. Altbach

Africa Focus

13 GovernmentandGovernanceReformsinAfrica N. V. Varghese

14 NewReformsinKenya Ishmael I. Mumene

Quality Assurance Issues

16 QualityRegimesinAfrica Juma Shabani

18 TheProblemswithCross-BorderQualityAssurance Kevin Kinser and Jason E. Lane

Private Higher Education

20 ChallengestoTop-RankedPrivateUniversitiesinPoland Joanna Musial-Sadilek

Countries and Regions

21 TheFoundingofUniversityoftheChineseAcademicofSciences Qiang Zha and Guangli Zhou

23 VenezuelanHigherEducation’sLegacyUnderChávez Orlando Albornoz

24 StrenghteningHigherEducationinLaos Jane Knight

26 NewMissionsandAmbitionsforRussianUniversities Tatiana Kastouéve-Jean

Departments

28 NewPublications30 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 International Student Recruiting

IntroductionAlthough this publication has tended toward more

scholarlycontent,theeditorbelievesthatthepolicydebateaboutinternationalstudentrecruitmentmeritsdiscussionhere.Asmoreinstitutionsworldwidepursueinternationalenrollmenttomeetdifferentobjectives, theprocessofre-cruitingstudentsisundertakeninnewwaysthatbringintoquestion ethical standards of practice and raise concernsabouthowtoprotecttheinterestsofvariousactors,particu-larlystudents.Thearticlespresentedherediscussaspectsofthistopicfromseveralperspectives.

The Pursuit of InternationalStudents in a Commercial-izedWorldPhilip G. Altbach and Liz Reisberg

Philip G. Altbach is Research Professor and director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College. E-mail: altbach@bc.edu. Liz Reisberg is president of Reisberg & Associates. E-mail: reis-berg@gmail.com.

Global student mobility creates big business. Approxi-mately 3 million students are studying abroad, con-

tributingmorethanUS$75billiontotheglobaleconomy.There are multiple reasons for choosing to study abroad,amongthemadesiretoincreaseemployabilityinthehomelabormarket,theinabilitytofindrelevantstudyopportuni-tiesathome,andthedesireformigration.

Themotivationsofcountriesanduniversitiesrecruit-inginternationalstudentsareequallycomplexandincreas-inglycommercial.Manycountriesandinstitutionsdependoninternationalstudentenrollmentstobalanceacademicbudgets. In some cases (Australia, for example), govern-mentpolicyhasidentifiedinternationalhighereducation—includingforeignstudyinAustralia,branchcampuses,andotherinitiativesasasignificantincomestreamforhighereducation. The United Kingdom similarly views interna-tionaleducationasasourceof income,chargingnon-Eu-ropean Union foreign students higher fees. Increasingly,American universities also see international education asanincomestream.Atleasttwostates,WashingtonandNewYork, are consideringhigher tuition for international stu-dents.

Recentresearchshowsthatinternationalstudentscon-stitutethelargemajorityofstudentsinsomescience,tech-

nology,engineering,andmathematicsfieldsinanumberofkeydevelopedcountries,includingtheUnitedStates.Thus,a recentstudynoted thatmore than95percentofgradu-atestudentsinelectricalengineeringandcomputerscienceareinternationalstudentsatsomekeyAmericanuniversi-ties.ManyAmericanuniversitieshavebecomedependentoninternationalstudentstoserveasgraduateteachingandresearchassistants.

Getting Information and GuidanceTraditionally, when a student wanted to study abroad, heorsheelectedadestinationcountry, researchedacademicinstitutions,locations,degreeavailability,andcostsandap-plieddirectlytoanacademicinstitution.Inthepast,mostpeopleseekingforeignstudywerelookingforgraduateorprofessionalqualificationsandweretypicallyfromfamilieswithsomeinternationalexposure.Aslongasthenumberswere modest, this informal system of obtaining informa-tion through personal networks worked reasonably well.Additionally,prospectivestudentscouldacquireadditionalinformationandsupportfromanumberofgovernmentanduniversity-sponsored agencies—such as, EducationUSA,theBritishCouncil,CampusFrance,theGermanAcademicExchangeService(DAAD),andothers.Theseorganizationsmaintaincentersinmajorcitiesaroundtheworldandpro-videobjectiveinformationaboutacademicopportunitiesinthecountrythatsponsorsthem.WiththeriseoftheInter-netanduniversityWebsites,itbecameeasiertosearchforuniversitiesdirectlyfromtheirrespectiveWebsites.

Asnumbersofmobilestudentshavegrownanddiver-sifiedduringthepastdecade,thisindependentapproachtoresearchingopportunitiesceasedtomeettheneedsoflesscosmopolitan students and families from theburgeoningmiddleclasses,particularlyincountriessuchasChinaandIndia,whoseekstudyopportunitiesabroad.

Thereareprivateprofessionaladmissionsconsultantsinmanymajorcitieswhoprovideadvisingservicestoorientprospective students to appropriate opportunities abroad.Theseconsultantsmayalsoguidetheirclientsthroughtheunfamiliarterrainoftheadmissionprocess.Themostpro-fessional consultants develop a broad knowledge of over-seasinstitutionsandadmissionpracticesandseektomatchastudent’sneeds,academicabilities,andobjectives toanappropriate overseas destination. They receive a fee fromthestudentforthisservice.Althoughtheymaydevelopre-lationshipswithadmissionsofficersaround theworld, inordertoremainuptodatewithcurrentinformation,therearenocontractualagreementswithanyforeignuniversities.Manyoftheseconsultantsbelongtoprofessionalorganiza-tions—suchas, theAssociationof InternationalGraduateAdmissionsConsultants—tocollectdata,shareexperience,anddefineethicalstandardsofpractice.

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 3International Student Recruiting

Agents and Recruiting ShortcutsPerhapsthelargestandcertainlythemostcontroversialre-centdevelopmentistheemergenceofagentsandrecruit-erswhoworkforspecificuniversitiesandfunnelstudentstheirinstitutionalclients.AgentsandrecruitershiredonacommissionbasishavebecomebigbusinessinChinaandIndia,buttheyexistthroughoutthedevelopingworld.Nooneknowsforsurehowmanyagentsareoperatingintheworld—nostatistics are available—and their activities areunregulated. Most agencies are staffed by entrepreneurswhomayormaynothaveanyknowledgeabouthigheredu-cationinthecountriestowhichtheyaresendingstudentsother than the information supplied by their universityclients. There are a few large agencies with internationalbranch offices and international events—such as the In-ternationalDevelopmentProgramme,anAustralian-basedcompanywithoperationsworldwide—butmostaresmallershopswithlimitedstaff.

Inessence,agentsworkforalimitednumberofuniver-sitieswheretheyreceiveacommissionforeachsuccessfulplacement.Thecommissionpaidvariesbutoften falls intherangeof15to20percentofthefirst-yearfees—thiscanamounttoUS$4,000–6,000ormore.Obviouslythisisanattractiveincentiveforagentstopushspecificinstitutions.Some US universities use large numbers of agents. Forexample,theUniversityofCincinnati listsmorethan120agentsonitsWebsite,including46inIndiaalone.

Questions RaisedHowever,noonedoubtsthatthetaskofresearchingstudy-abroadopportunities isdaunting.Thequestion ishow toacquire the information and support needed and how torecognizetherisks.Agentsareappealingshortcutsforstu-dents as well as for universities that wish to enroll inter-national students, but using agents present a number ofdilemmas.

First,thereisnowaytoguaranteewhethertheinstitu-tionsrecommendedbyagentsarethebestchoicesforthestudentclient.Frankly,itisdifficulttoimaginethatifagentsearn their living from commissions from institutions A,B,andCthat theywill recommendinstitutionS,whenitoffersaparticularlyappropriateprogramforastudent.Infact,itisdoubtfultoimaginethattheagentwillknowaboutprogramsotherthanthoseatA,B,andC.

Further,itisdifficult,ifnotimpossible,toknowexactlywhattakesplacebetweentheagentandstudent,periodicin-spectionsnotwithstanding.Anecdotalreportssuggestthatmanyagents“help”clientsbydoctoringacademicrecords,writingessays,preparinglettersofrecommendations,andprovidingotherkindsofdubious“assistance.”Ithasbeenestimated that 80 percent of applicants helped by agentsincludefakedcredentials.

Insomecases,agentsarereportedtochargeboththestudentandtheuniversity,apracticeofquestionableethics.

Who Determines What Is Ethical?TheAmericanInternationalRecruitmentCouncil(AIRC),anonprofitorganization,was launched in2008 to repre-senttheinterestsoftheagentcommunityandtheuniver-sities that employ them,and laterbegan to certify agentsthat meet that council’s ethical standards. The process isexpensive,beginningwithaUS$2,000nonrefundableap-plicationfee,aUS$5,000precertificationfee,andfollowedby the travel costs of the evaluation team and a first-yearmemberfeeofUS$3,000.MembershipmustberenewedannuallyatanadditionalcostofUS$2–3,000.Thisputsthecost of certification beyond the budgets of many smalleragencies.

One of many concerns about AIRC is that this orga-nizationisentirelyself-validating;itsmembersareuniver-sities and agents who benefit from the ethical cover thatcertificationprovides.AIRCwascreatedtovalidatetheem-

ploymentofagentsonthesuppositionthatethicalpracticescouldbeassured.Thereisnoindependentcorroborationoftheeffectivenessofthemethodologyorresults.

In June 2013, after two years of study, the NationalAssociation of Collegiate Admissions Counsel (NACAC),theAmericanorganizationofprofessionalsinthefieldofcollege and university admissions established in 1937, is-suedareportonagentsandrecruiters.AfterconsiderablepressurefromAIRCmembers,thatdocumentbackedawayfromapreviousstatementthataNACACmember“couldnot”workwithagentstoagentler“shouldnot”workwithagents. The NACAC national conference in fall 2013 willconsiderthereport.

TheAmericanAssociationofCollegiateRegistrarsandAdmissions Officers has also created a task force to con-siderprofessionalstandardsforrecruitmentsandotherac-tivitiesrelatedtointernationalactivity.

Universitiesarebeingaskedtodisclosethattheyworkwithagentsandwithwhomtheywork.Thisis,atamini-mum, a basic ethical obligation. Yet, agents also need todisclosetostudentsandfamiliesthattheyarecontractedbyuniversities,andthattheyareprovidinginformationtostu-

The motivations of countries and uni-

versities recruiting international stu-

dents are equally complex and increas-

ingly commercial.

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 International Student Recruiting

dentsonbehalfofonlythosespecificuniversitiesandnot pretendthattheyareprofessionaladmissionsconsultants,whoaredescribedabove.

What Can Be Done? Fromourperspective,agentsandrecruitersshouldnotbecondonedintheadmissionsprocessfordomesticorinter-nationalstudents.Thus,studentsshouldhaveafullrangeof information about the universities to which they aremostsuitedandwhenagentshaveavestedinterestinlim-itingoptionsto thesmallnumberofuniversities thatpaycommissions.Further,thepossibilitiesforcorruptionoftheadmissionsprocessseemgreatandwidelyevident.

Thechoiceaboutwheretostudyoverseasisanimpor-tant commitment of family resources and student time.Studentsandtheirfamiliesneedtotakeaproactiverolere-gardlessofhowdifficultthetaskandnotleavetheirfatetoagentsorotherswhomightnothavetheirbestinterestinmind.

Internationalstudentmobilityreflectsamassphenom-enon,andamultifacetedapproachisneeded.Manyareal-readyoperatingbutneedstrengthening.

•Universitieshavetheresponsibilitytoprovideinfor-mative,honest,user-friendlyWebsiteswithclearinforma-tion about academic programs, admissions procedures,graduationrequirements,costs,andstudentservices.

•Universitiesmustassignstafftorespondindividuallyto prospective students, with information and assistance,during the admissions process. This will not be inexpen-sive,butifsomeofthebudgetnowonagentscanberedi-rectedtothistask,thefundswillbewellspent.

•Universityandotheracademicassociationsinthere-ceivingcountriesorregionsshouldprovideWebsiteswithclear and complete information about academic systemsandstudyopportunitiesopentointernationalcandidates.

• Governments must increase support to educationinformation centers in the primary sending countries toprovideon-site informationwithwell-trainedprofessionalstaffwhocanofferworkshopsandguidancetoprospectivestudents.

•Professionaleducationconsultants,whoprovideob-jectiveinformationaboutstudyopportunitiesandcarefullyassess theneedsofpotentialapplicants tomatchthemtoappropriate academic programs without the influence ofcommission,shouldbedistinguishedfromagents.

• Universities should discourage students and theirfamilies from turning decisions over to agents, much asCornellUniversityhasdone.

ConclusionWithoutquestion,globalstudentmobilityisofgreatimpor-tance—for countries, academic institutions, and perhaps

mostcruciallyforindividualstudents.Keytothisenterpriseisensuringthatthestudentismatchedwiththebestpos-siblestudyopportunity.

InSearchofSolutionsfortheAgentDebateRahul Choudaha

Rahul Choudaha is the director of research and strategic development at World Education Services, in New York. E-mail: rahul@wes.org.

Theuseofcommissionedagentsforrecruitinginterna-tionalstudentshadbeenadivisivedebate,withsome

strongviewpointsandweakactionpoints.TherecentreportbyNationalAssociationofCollegeAdmissionsCounseling(NACAC), on the practice of commission-based interna-tionalstudentrecruiters,attemptedtobringclaritytothisdebatethroughacomprehensiveandinclusiveprocess.Al-thoughithassomethingforeveryonetojustifytheirargu-mentsfororagainsttheuseofcommission-basedagents,itleftmostofussearchingforsolutions.Atthesametime,the report aptly addressed two critical pieces, often over-lookedinthedebateandhaveimplicationsforfuturedirec-tions—diversityandtransparency.

Diversity of Institutions, Students, and AgentsThe NACAC report rightfully acknowledges that just be-causecommission-basedagentsareusedinothercountries,theyare suitable in theUScontext. In theUnitedStates,internationalstudentsarehighlyconcentratedinresearchuniversities. Of nearly 4,500 postsecondary degree-grant-inginstitutionsintheUnitedStates, just108universitiesclassifiedas“ResearchUniversities(veryhighresearchac-tivity)”byCarnegieClassification,enrollednearlytwo-fifthofallinternationalstudents.Mostoftheseuniversitiesarenot engagedwith theagentdebate, as theyhavea strongbrand visibility among prospective international studentsandalsoperceivetheuseofagentsasarisktodelegatetheirbrandpresencewithathirdparty.Granted,thereareexcep-tionsliketheUniversityofCincinnati,whichwasanearlyadopteroftheagentmodel.

ThediscourseontheuseofagentsingeneralandtheNACACreportinparticular,hasimplicationsprimarilyoninstitutions beyond these 108 research universities (veryhighresearchactivity).Withinthissegment,publicuniver-sitiesareincreasinglyinterestedinrecruitinginternationalundergraduate students. Diminishing state support ren-

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 5

ders undergraduate international student enrollment animportantrevenuestream,andagentsarebeingpositionedasacost-effectivemeasureforfindingthem.Thisiswheresomeinstitutionshavehastilystartedusingagentswithoutconsideringthefitwiththetypeofstudentstheywantandhowthosestudentsmakechoices.

AreportbyWorldEducationServices—NotAllInter-nationalStudentsAretheSame—addressedthisinforma-tiongap tobetterunderstandstudents.Thereport identi-fied four segments of international students—explorers,strivers, strugglers, and highflyers—based on financialresources and academic preparedness. These segmentshavediverse informationneeds;and thisshapesnotonlywhetherornottheyuseagentsbutalsowhytheyusethem.For example, only 24 percent of explorers (high financialresourcesandlowacademicpreparedness)reporteduseofagentsascomparedto9percentofstrivers(lowfinancialresourcesandhigh-academicpreparedness).

Thequalityofagents, intermsoftheirreliabilityandethicalbehavior,isequallydiverse.Asegmentofstudentsandinstitutionsmaystillwanttoworkwithagents,duetoa variety of constraints related to market intelligence, re-sources,andcapacity.AnykindofoutrightbanfromNA-CACwouldhavebeenimpracticalandunfair,as itwouldhaveignoredthesediverseinstitutionalneeds.Atthesametime,claimingthatcommission-basedagentsareagoodfitforallsegmentsofinstitutionsisanoverstatement.

Institutional ResponsibilityDecisionsofwhethertousecommission-basedagents,ornot,dependontheinstitutionalcontextandneeds.Thereisnothingprimafacieunethicalorillegalaboutsuchcon-clusions;however,basedonautonomyprofessionalrespon-sibilitymustuphold thehighest standards.This iswhereacommission-basedagencymodelincreasestherisksandmayresultinactionsbyagentsthatarenotinthebestinter-est of students and even the institutions paying commis-sion.Attheendoftheday,foragents,ifthereisnoadmis-sion,thereisnocommission.

Considerthecaseoflackoftransparencyinanagent-student relationship. A forthcoming research report byWorldEducationServicessurveyed international studentsandasked them“Hasyoureducationalconsultantsharedwith you whether he or she receives a commission fromcolleges/universities for each student recruited?” Only 14percentofprospectiveinternationalstudentswhoreportedtouseeducationconsultantswereinformedthattheagentwould receive commission from institutions, 43 percentwereunaware,and45percentreported“don’tknow/can’tsay.”

The finding highlights that the issue of informationasymmetry—whereonepartyinthetransactionhasmoreinformationthantheother—providesanunfairadvantagetothecommission-basedagents,oftenattheexpenseoftheinstitutional brand. At the same time, it is nearly impos-sibletomanageorenforcethe“codeofconduct”onagentsandtheirnetworkofsubagentsinothercountries.

Thisiswhereinstitutions’responsibilityofsettingstan-dardsoftransparencyattheirendbecomesevenmoreim-portant.TheNACACreportrecommends“Providingclearandconspicuousdisclosureofarrangementsbyagentswithinstitutions for students and families.” Higher educationinstitutionsusingcommission-basedagents shouldcomeforwardandexplicitlystateontheirWebsitesiftheyworkwithagents,whatcommissionstheypay,andmakethisin-formation available to prospective students. For example,theUniversityofNottinghamtransparentlyoffers this in-formationtostudentsandalsopublisheshowmuchcom-missionitpaystoagents.

The acid test for institutions that are using commis-sion-based agents is in their proactive enforcement oftransparencyinengagementsbetweenthemselves,agents,andprospectivestudents.Iftheyareconfidentabouttheirpractices,whatdotheyneedtodisclose?Thisemphasisontransparency will bridge the information asymmetry andwillsetthestandardfrominstitutionsthatthereisnothingsecretiveabouttheuseofcommission-basedagents.

ConclusionManyareinsearchofguidelines,however,inthecontextofseeking solutions to their increasingproblems in recruit-ing international studentsproactivelyandquickly.This iswhereaglobalindustryofagentnetworkshaspositionedit-selfasthepanaceaforallinstitutions.Thefactremainsthatthequick-fixsolutionofusingcommission-basedagentstorampupinternationalstudentnumbersmayincreasetherisk to the institutionalbrand,admissionsstandards,andeventhequalityofstudentsadmitted.

International Student Recruiting

The recent report by National Associa-

tion of College Admissions Counseling

(NACAC), on the practice of commis-

sion-based international student re-

cruiters, attempted to bring clarity to

this debate through a comprehensive

and inclusive process.

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

In this context, the NACAC report attempted to in-vestigateandhighlightseveralissuesrelatedtotheuseofagents—including,institutionalaccountability,transparen-cy,andintegrity.Atthesametime,itdidnotresolvethecoreissues related to incentivepayments as “theCommissionwasunabletoachieveunanimousconsensus.”

Thisputsevenmoreonusonuniversitiesusingorcon-sideringtheuseofcommission-basedagentstoassessthesegmentsof students theywish to recruit, theirdecision-making processes, and institutional readiness to retainthem.Inaddition,institutionsneedtotakeproactivestepsinsettingstandardsoftransparencytobreaktheillsofse-cretivepracticesandinformationasymmetry.

InternationalRecruitment:OversightandStandardsDavid Engberg

David Engberg is executive director of the Global Opportunities Group, a US-based international education services organization. E-mail: dave@g-o-group.com.

Theuseofpaidagentstorecruitinternationalstudentsremains a contentious issue in US higher education.

Proponents argue that paying agents is inconsistent withwell-establisheddomesticstudentrecruitmentpractices,in-centivizesagentstoputtheirownfinancialinterestsaheadofstudents’academicinterests,andcontributestoapplica-tionfraud.Advocatesclaimthatworkingwithpaidagentscostslessandisalowerriskthanmanaginginternationalrecruitmentontheirownand,byprovidingaccesstomul-tiple markets, that it helps diversify international studentenrollments.

InMay2013,theNationalAssociationforCollegeAd-missionCounseling(NACAC)releasedamuch-anticipatedcommissionreportoninternationalstudentrecruitment.Itdetailedconcernsrelatedtocommission-basedagents,butrecommendedthatNACACeliminatesitsbanonmemberinstitutionsusingpaidagents.

Sinceitspublication,thereporthasbeenwidelycriti-cized by individuals on both sides of the debate. ThoseopposedtoworkingwithagentsbelievethatNACACcom-promisesitsintegrityandcredibilitybyallowingapracticethatrisksputtingrevenueaheadofstudents’interests.Thecentral complaint among supporters of lifting the ban is

thatthereportdoesnotadvancediscussionsrelatedtoin-ternationalrecruitmentstandardsandqualityintheUnitedStates.

Thiscriticismisespeciallysalient.Given(1)theinter-nationalspikeindemandforadmissionatUSinstitutions,especiallyattheundergraduatelevel,(2)theabilityofinter-nationalstudents(ortheirgovernments)topaythefullcostofinstruction,and(3)thefiscalchallengesfacedbymanyinstitutions,itcanbeanticipatedthatadditionalcampuseswill seek to enroll more and more international studentsandusethird-partyagenciestohelpthem.

Current StatusThe United Kingdom and Australia are well-known fortheiruseofagentstorecruitinternationalstudentstotertia-ryinstitutions.Eachhaswell-developedregulatorysystems,providingoversightofagent-university relationships—notsointheUnitedStates.Here,thefederalgovernmentgivesoff mixed signals. State Department-funded EducationU-SAofficesaroundtheworldareprohibitedfromworkingcommercial recruiters, for fear that doing so would cre-ate a perception of bias; the Departments of CommerceandHomelandSecurityarebothinvolvedinactivitiesandeventsthatbringuniversitiesandcommercialrecruitmentagencies together and encourage them working together.

WiththeexceptionoftheAmericanInternationalRecruit-mentCouncil (AIRC),aWashington,DC-basednonprofitfoundedin2008,therearenoUSorganizationsdedicatedtotheoversightofinternationalstudentrecruitment.

According to its organizational principals, AIRC’smission is todevelopstandardsofethicalpractice relatedto international student recruitment, certify agencies de-terminedtobeincompliancewithAIRC’sstandards,anddevelopbestpracticesandtrainingtoaidagenciesandinsti-tutionstobetterservestudents.Toreceivecertification,anagencymustcompletea self-evaluationreport,undergoasitevisit,andpassavotebyAIRC’sBoardofDirectors.Cer

International Student Recruiting

Ultimately, the best advice for US edu-

cational institutions interested in part-

nering with an international student

recruitment agency, or agencies, is to

develop their own set of standards and

procedures.

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 7

tificationlastsfiveyears,duringwhichtimeapprovedagen-cies may use AIRC’s logo to market their services. Oncecertified, agenciesmust submit annual reports to remainingoodstandingandpayanannualmembershipfee.Afterfive years, they must repeat the entire self- and external-reviewprocesstoberecertified.

GiventheabsenceofotherUSorganizations,activelyinvolved in international recruitment standards develop-mentandoversight,AIRC’swork is laudable.Theircerti-ficationprocessislacking,however,inseveralsubstantiveways. It is time consuming and expensive: AIRC’s Website instructsagencies toplan foraneight-to-ninemonthcertification process, with a first-year cost of $10,000.Eachyear,thereafter,smallagencies(lessthan500studentplacementsper annum)mustpay a$2,000membershipfeetoretaintheircertification.Forlargeagencies, thean-nual fee is $4,000. Small “mom and pop” agencies stilldominatetherecruitmentmarketinmanycountries,espe-ciallyinAsia.TheircostofAIRCcertificationandmember-ship—$20,000overfiveyears—meansthatmostwillnotseekcertification.

ThesubjectivenatureofAIRC’sstandards isanotherconcern,making themdifficult toquantifyandreview. Isitpossible,forexample,tomeasurewhetherallofanagen-cy’s employees “are competent, well informed, reputable,andactatalltimesinthebestinterestoftheapplicantandinstitutions”? About determining whether the agency ismanaging itsfinancial resources tobesteffect, represent-ingitselfhonestlyinadvertisingmaterialsorensuringthatsubagentsorothersemployedoffsitetomanage,allorpartoftherecruitmentprocessareincompliancewithAIRC’sstandards?

Finally,andperhapsmostsignificantly,AIRC’sreview/certificationprocessisdesignedtocertifyagencies,ratherthan the individuals working at agencies. As a result, itdoeslittletoensurethatthecounselorswhoareinteractingwithstudentsactuallyunderstandtheUShighereducationsystem, how admissions offices function, or the nuancesof the US immigration system. AIRC, or another US or-ganization, would do well to offer targeted training, likeInternational Consultants for Education and Fairs (ICEF)andtheBritishCouncildoinEurope,orcertification,likeAustralian-basedProfessionalInternationalEducationRe-sources(PIER)doesfor theactualcounselorsresponsibleforstudentplacementsintheUSmarket.

The Path ForwardUltimately,thebestadviceforUSeducationalinstitutionsinterested in partnering with an international student re-cruitmentagency,oragencies,istodeveloptheirownsetofstandardsandprocedures.Somecampuses—theUniversi-

tyofCincinnatiandWichitaStateUniversity,forexample—havedonethissuccessfully.Mosthavenot,however,andareill-preparedtoeffectivelypartnerwithagencieswhentheycomecalling.Forinstance,atmanyinstitutions,singlein-dividualsareresponsibleforbothinternationalrecruitmentandadmissions,anarrangementthatcanleadtoconflictsofinterest.Inaddition,manycampuses,eventhoseseek-ingtoenrollmoreinternationalstudents,lackpoliciesforvetting,contractingwith,andevaluating theperformanceofcommission-basedagents.Thus,regardlessoftheexter-nalorganizationsengagedinrecruitmentagencystandardsand quality assurance, campuses that chose to outsourceaspects of their international recruitment must establishplansandbestpracticesappropriatetomeetingtheirownenrollmentobjectives.

InternationalAdmissions:EthicalChallengesDANIEL ZARETSKY

Daniel Zaretsky is chief ideas officer of Higher-Edge, a Toronto-based international higher education consulting firm, in Canada. E-mail: dani@higher-edge.com.

In its May 2013 Report of the Commission on Interna-tional Student Recruitment (http://www.nacacnet.org/

media-center/Documents/ICR.pdf), the National Associa-tionforCollegeAdmissionCounseling(NACAC)exploresthe contentious arena of commission-based internationalstudentrecruitmentcontracts.Theexclusivefocusoncom-missionpaymentsismisplaced.Themostdisturbingabus-esaremorecloselytiedtomoneypaidbystudentstoeduca-tionagentsthancommissionsfrominstitutionstoagents.Thelackofoversightbyinstitutionsof their internationalstudent recruitment practices, including their contractswithagents,istheissue.Inadditiontoclarifyingterms,thesubstantivestepsthat institutionsoughttotaketoensuretheyareoperatingacleanhousearearticulatedbelow.

Do All Agents Receive Commissions?Aneducationagentisacompanyoranindividualrecruit-ingstudentsseekingtostudyinothercountries.Educationagentsmaybe“stand-alone”orpartofatravelagency,im-migrationconsultancy,orothercommercialoperation.

TheNACACreportneatlycategorizesthreetypesofed-ucationagents(p.40)butadditionalclarificationisneeded.Thoseearningfeesonlyfrominstitutions,ascommission

International Student Recruiting

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

paymentsorotherfees,shouldbecharacterizedas“institu-tionrecruitmentagents.”Thoseearningfeesonlyfromstu-dents shouldbe characterized as “student agents.”Thoseacceptingfeesfrombothshouldbecharacterizedas“mixedfeeagents”(thereportcallsthis“double-dipping,”p.13).

What Are the Abuses?The NACAC report rightly links commissioned recruit-ing—i.e., thepaymentof incentivecommissions foreachrecruited student—with the possibility of an “array ofmisrepresentations” (p. 10). But the recruitment arena islitteredwithfarworsetransgressions,includingthewide-spreadfakingordoctoringofacademicandfinancialdocu-mentsandsystemicattemptstocheatongloballyadminis-teredentranceexaminations.

Howwidespread?AccordingtooneTimes Higher Edu-cation (London)articleofJune13,2013,aNAFSA:Associa-tionofInternationalEducatorsreportconcludedthat“90percentofrecommendationlettersforChineseapplicantsto Western universities had been falsified” (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/fraud-fears-rocket-as-chinese-seek-a-place-at-any-price/2004704.article). Theseabusesaresanctionedbystudentsortheirparents,whopayfeesfortheseservices.

Thereisaneedtofocuspolicyon“high-fraudhigh-vol-ume”countrieswherethemosttroublingpracticesoccur.

Are Commission Fees the Problem? Commissionsfrominstitutionsincreaseincentivestomis-representinformation.SomeagentssteerstudentsfromaninstitutionorprogramthatpaysnoorlittlecommissiontoalesssuitableonethatpaystheagentUS$1,000,US$2,000,or significantly more. Agents usually represent a suite ofinstitutionsthatpayandpaycomparably.

The more lucrative model for earning large sums ofmoneyisthroughstudentfees.Chargesforroutineservicelike filing an application offer high earnings. The sameTimes article notes that agencies in China are paid up toUS$10,000bythestudentandattimesdoubleforadmis-siontohighlyrankedinstitutions.Handsomefeescanbechargedfordocumentfabricationorarrangingforaroguetest-taker.Further,high-volume feesareearned fromstu-dents’quixoticpursuitofadmissionevenwhentheagentknowsthestudentwillberefused.

Universitiesknowmoststudentstheymeetabroadwillnotshowupontheirshores.Experiencedagentsknowthatmostprospectswilldecide tostayathomefor theirstud-ies,useanotheragent,attendanotherinstitutionnotintheagent’s portfolio, or be refused a visa. Since only a smallpercentageofprospectswillultimatelyearnacommissionforanagent,manyareinclinedtotrytocapturelargerfees

fromstudentsfortheapplicationprocessthanrelyonthesmall commissions that might be earned from those can-didates successfully placed abroad. In China and India,agentsearnfarmorefromfeeschargedtostudentsthanispaidtothemfrominstitutioncommissions.

What is the Root Cause of the Trickery?For the much wider array of unethical practices, such asdoctoringanacademicrecordorcheatingonexaminations(suchasSAT),therootproblemlieswiththestudentand,toooften,parents,pushingforanadmissions(orscholar-ship)advantage.Agentsserveasago-betweenforguidanceandexecution.

When the SATs were cancelled nationwide in SouthKoreainMay2013,theWall Street JournalonMay9,2013(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323744604578472313648304172.html) reported that the mo-tivations tocheatwere impelledbyparents.Similarly, thegross,rampantgradeinflationfoundinhighschoolsestab-lishedforstudentsseekingtostudyabroadisnotthefault

ofagents.Theschoolsaresimplysatingparentalappetitesfor topacademicresults for theirchildrentoenhancead-missionprospectsatoverseasinstitutions.

Solutions: Supervision of AgentsThe NACAC report correctly emphasizes institutional ac-countabilityinitsopeningCommissionRecommendationRelativetotheStatementofPrinciplesofGoodPractice.In-stitutionsshouldgowellbeyondthereport’srecommenda-tionsforgreateraccountability(p.45).Applicationsshouldrequire declarations of truthfulness from students andelaboratetheconsequencesofdishonesty.Studentsshouldbeexplicitlyinstructedaboutwhatisunacceptable,suchasalteringorfakingacademicrecords.Studentsshouldbere-quired todeclarewhetherandwhat third-partyassistancewasprovided.ThoseadmittedshouldbenotifiedinadvancethatEnglish-languageproficiency test resultswillbeveri-fieduponarrival and that theywillbe interviewedbrieflyandaskedtowriteanessay.

International Student Recruiting

The NACAC report rightly links commis-

sioned recruiting—i.e., the payment of

incentive commissions for each recruit-

ed student—with the possibility of an

“array of misrepresentations.”

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 9

Inhiringagents,agreementsshouldspecifythetermsand limitations of the relationship and that malfeasancewillleadtoimmediateterminationandpossiblereferraltocriminallawprocedures.Periodiccheckingshouldbedoneatthediscretionoftheinstitution.

Theserepresentlow-cost,andevenno-cost,measuresforwhichnoinstitutioncanclaimalackofresources.Be-yondthesemeasures,dependingonthescaleofoperations,institutions can deploy delegations with expertise in thecountry inquestion to checkwhether agency agreementsare being honored. Are students being appropriately ad-vised? Are agency fees in compliance with the institu-tion’sagreement?Doesstudentcounselingevinceaccurateknowledge of the institution? Are documents genuine?Certainly,thisisnoeasytask.Agentsorparentsmaysendfakeddocumentsandthestudentmaybeanunwittingac-complice.Institutionsmaynothavecontractswithagentsandyetstillreceivetheirapplicationsfromthem.Butthischallengeonlyaccentuatestheneedforcarefulrecruitmentstrategieswithoutshortcuts.

Solutions Institutional ProprietyThe NACAC report states “(A) critical consideration forpolicymakers is theabilityand/orwillingnessofcollegestoestablishand takeseriouslysuchprocedures toensureagainstmisbehavior”(p.42).

NACAC’suseof“willingness”questionswhether“abil-ity”isactuallytheissue.Perhaps,itisnotalackofinstitu-tionalgravitasbutratheracannyrecognitionthatmoredili-gence in their relatinshipswithagentscouldmean fewerstudentsandlowerrevenues.

Without capacity or resources for rigorous enforce-ment, organizations that train, accredit, or license agentscloak institutions avoiding serious accountability. Thisavoidancehasattractedincreasinggovernmentaloversightin the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada,amongstothers.

Institutions’financialdependenceoninternationalstu-dent fees significantly undermines an inclination towardstrict oversight of recruitment practices. Admitting un-qualifiedstudents,theunwarrantedpassingofstudentsincourses,orparticipatingindealsofdubiousproprietywithagentsandevenoverseas institutions,areallexamplesofdesperateactsthatriskinstitutionalreputationinthelongrun.

ConclusionTherearesubstantialfinancialincentivesforagentstoactimproperly. Focusing on commission payments tends todistractfromthebiggerproblem.Therearelargenumbersofindividualspayinglargesumstoagentsforavarietyofad-vantagesintheadmissionprocesses.Particularly,inashort

listofhigh-fraudhigh-volumecountries,agentscommandlargefinancialrewardsbyexploitinggenuinebutpoorlyin-formedoreasilymanipulatedprospects.Complicatingtheproblemareeducationalinstitutionsdesperateforinterna-tionalstudentfeesthatmaybewillingtocompromisetheiracademicstandards,andbewillfullyignorantofimpropri-etiescommittedbyagents,students,andparents.

Thereismeaningfulscopetocleanupthefieldofinter-nationalstudentrecruitment,butthisrequiresinstitutionstopayfortheirresponsibilitiesandacceptonlyhonorablereturns.

BarefacedCheatinginChina’sBullMarketforAcademicFraudJohn Marcus

Jon Marcus is the North American correspondent for the Times Higher Education magazine, London. E-mail: jmarcus@hechingerreport.org. This article first appeared in Times Higher Education.

A17-year-oldstudentattheJiangsuCollegeforInterna-tionalEducationinNanjingChina,JiaoYizhouhopes

tostudyenvironmentalengineeringattheGeorgiaInstituteofTechnologyintheUnitedStates.

Likemanyapplicantstouniversity,however,heisanx-ious about the entrance tests and essays. He knows thatotherChinesestudentscheatontheapplications,persuadetheirteacherstofalsifysecondary-schoolgradesandrecom-mendations,andhireagentswhopurportedlywritethead-missionessaysforthem.

“Thiskindofthingdoesnotbotherme,becauseIdidittherightway,andtheuniversityofficialsarenotstupid,”Mr. Yizhou said. “They can know which applications arerealandwhicharefake.”

But increasingcompetition for spots inWesternuni-versities,andhugeannualincreasesinthenumberofap-plicantsfromChina,dohaveadmissionsofficialsworriedaboutwhatexpertssayisawidespreadandgrowingpracticeofcheating.

“Idon’tmeantocaricaturethisashappeningateveryschool,” saidLindaMcKinnishBridges, associatedeanofadmissionsanddirectorofprogramdevelopmentinChinaforWakeForestUniversity.“ButsomeschoolsI’vevisitedhavesaidtome,‘WewillworkwithyouinanywaywecantogetthesestudentsintotheUnitedStates.’”

International Student Recruiting

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

NinetypercentofrecommendationlettersforChineseapplicantstoWesternuniversitiesarefalsified,accordingtoresearchbyNAFSA:AssociationofInternationalEducatorsand theUS-basededucational consultingcompanyZinchChina.

The two organizations, which conducted interviewswith250studentsat the top-rankedsecondary schools inChina,alsoconcludedthat70percentofadmissionsessaysarewrittenbysomeoneotherthantheapplicant,halfofsec-ondary-school transcripts are doctored, and many awardsandachievementsarealsofake.

“FraudulentapplicationsarepervasiveinChina,drivenby hyper-competitive parents and aggressive agents” whocan earn financial bonuses for getting students into topWesternuniversities,saidtheresearchers,whocalledthis“agrowingtrend.”

Theysaidthephenomenonwasdrivenmostlybymid-dle-class Chinese parents determined that their childrenstudyabroad,80percentofwhompayagentstohelpthem.

Thegoingrateforthis,perstudent,isuptoUS$10,000—andasmuchasdoubleiftheagentcangetthestudentintoauniversityatthetopoftheinfluentialU.S. News & World Reportrankings.

“TheculturalnorminChina is toconsidera17-year-oldnotyetcapableofmanagingadecisionasimportantashisorhercollegeeducation,”theZinchandNAFSAreportsaid.Or, asDr.Bridgesput it,Chineseparents “havegotonechildandforthatonechildyouwilldoeverythingyoucantohelpthatchildgetahead.”

Agents, the researchers said, will ghost-write admis-sionsessaysorhirerecentreturneesfromWesternuniver-sities,orexpatriateEnglish-speakingteachersinChina,todo it. There are also separate essay-writing services avail-able.

Chineseofficialsacknowledge theproblem.It’sa“le-gitimateconcern,”saidRobCochrane,theAustralian-borninternationalprogramsmanagerat theJiangsuProvincialDepartmentofEducation.Buthesaid that theblame lieswiththeapplicationprocess.“Justthenatureofthatprocessover distance provides a huge opportunity for the not-so-

ethically minded to perhaps fudge their credentials,” Mr.Cochrane said. “The whole idea of a written applicationfromasecond-languageapplicant,whetherfromChinaoranywhereelseontheplanet,isfraughtwithdanger.”

NorisChinatheonlyplacewhereapplicantstoWest-ernuniversitiesallegedlycheat.InMay,theUSEducationalTesting Service canceled the scheduled administration oftheSATentranceexaminSouthKorea,wheretest-prepa-rationservicesreportedlygotcopiesofthequestionsinad-vance.“Theissueisabouttheprocessratherthanaboutthepeoplewhoareapplying,”Mr.Cochranesaid.

Whateverthereasonforit,allofthischeatingisvastlycomplicatingtheworkofadmissionsofficersburiedinap-plicationsfromChina,atuniversitiesacceptingmoreandmoreofthemtohelpbringinmuch-neededrevenue.

UNESCOestimates that440,000Chinese are study-ingabroad,andtheUnitedStatesandtheUnitedKingdomarethefirst-andsecond-mostpopulardestinations.

Chinasends,byfar,morestudentstotheUnitedStatesthan any other country—nearly 200,000 a year, almostfourtimesasmanyasitdidatthestartofthemillennium,representingfullyoneinfouroftheinternationalstudentscomingtothecountry—andthenumberhasgrownby20percentormoreineachofthelastfiveyears.Inspiteofvisachanges, the number of Chinese students in the UnitedKingdomalsoiscontinuingtorise.Itwasup8percentlastyear.

AtWakeForest,whichhasgonefrom79applicationsfromChinatomorethan600annuallyinjustthelastfiveyears,Dr.Bridges,whospeaksfluentMandarin,visitsChi-nesesecondaryschools,andheandotheradmissionscoun-selors conduct interviews in English with students overSkype,whilehavingthemsimultaneouslycompletesamplewritingassignments—alltoweedoutfraud.“Ifthatstudentisverystrong,butIhavesomereservationsabouttheirEng-lishability—ifthestudentdoesnotunderstandandIhavetoreverttoMandarin—thenthatstudentisnotcomingtoWakeForest,”shesaid.

AnothersurveybyZinchChina,whichtestedthelan-guageskillsof25,000prospectiveChinesestudents,foundthat two-thirds did not speak English well enough to useit in a classroom discussion. That is up from 38 percentwhose English skills were judged deficient last year. Theproportionofstudentswhoselanguageskillswerejudgedas“strong”fellfrom18percentto4percent.

Mr. Cochrane said that Chinese students become sogoodattakingstandardizedtests,includingtheTestofEng-lishasaForeignLanguage,that,“Itwouldn’tbeunfairtosaythat,withdecentpreparationandpractice,theywouldprobablybeabletogetascoremarginallyhigherthantheiractualcommunicativeskills”merit.

International Student Recruiting

But increasing competition for spots in

Western universities, and huge annual

increases in the number of applicants

from China, do have admissions offi-

cials worried.

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

Talkofcheatingmayresult inchanges inChina,Mr.Cochranespeculated.“There’sa lotof talkabout itatourend. Cheating is not accepted here as being the norm,though lotsofpeople askme thatquestion.TheChinesepeopleareaproudpeople.Theydon’twanttobebrandedpariahsontheeducationsystem.”

Onesolution,hesaid,wouldbetorequiretheaccredi-tation of agents—another: accepting hard-to-counterfeitdigitalportfoliosofChinesestudents’academicwork.

In theWest, the issue is likely tobe addressedmoreforcefullywhenChinesestudentscontinuetoarriveunpre-paredforeducationinEnglish.Asvaluableasfull-tuition-payingChinesestudentsmightbetouniversitiesthatneedthemoney,thatwouldbeoffsetbythepriceofhavingthemdropoutlater.“Thecostofnotbeingabletokeepthatstu-dent,istremendous,”Dr.Bridgessaid.“Theincentive,themotivatorthatmightchangethis,isretentionandattrition.”

That loss of face could alter the behavior of Chinesesecondary schools, whose students leave to study in theWestbutthenreturnwithoutdegrees—orthatarecaughtfalsifying grades and transcripts. Dr. Bridges said she nolonger accepts applications from the school whose head-mastertoldherhewoulddoanythingittooktogethisstu-dentsintoWesternuniversities.

“If thesestudents thathavebeenpushed into thisbysomeeagerprincipal, someeageragent, someeagerpar-ent, and then goes home having failed, at that point [theChinese]willseethisisalong-termproblem,”shesaid.

Back in Nanjing, Mr. Yizhou’s classmate, Zhu Yi, ishopingtogotoBostonUniversityintheUnitedStates.He,too,knowsthatotherChinesecheat,hesaid.“Frankly,it’strue.Butnoteverybodydoesthat,”Mr.Yisaid.“Mostpeo-pledothosethingsintherightway.”

Professors:TheKeytoInter-nationalizationGerard A. Postiglione and Philip G. Altbach

Gerard A. Postiglione is professor of education and director of the Wah Ching Center for Education in China at the University of Hong Kong. E-mail: gerry@hku.hk. Philip G. Altbach is research professor and direc-tor of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College. E-mail: altbach@bc.edu.

Universitiescontinuetopositiontheirprofessoriatesforinternationalization.Astheheartbeatoftheuniversity,

theprofessoriateclearlyhasaspecialroleinhelpingdrive

knowledgeeconomies.Thisisparticularlytrueindevelop-ingcountrieswithaspirationsforacloserintegrationintotheglobalsystem.However,internationalizationisadoubleedges sword for many countries. A university can hardlybecomeworldclasswithoutit.Yet,itwildlyskewsthebal-anceofbrainpowerinthedirectionofthosefewcountrieswithworld-classuniversities.Inordertogetthebestoutofglobalization,theprofessoriateinallcountrieswouldneedtoincreaseitsprofilesandattitudesgearedtowardinterna-tionalization. At present, the willingness of the academicprofession everywhere to deepen their international en-gagementappearsstalled.

Itwouldseemobviousthatthosewhoteachatauniver-sity,theacademicstaff,arethekeytoanyacademicinstitu-tion’sinternationalizationstrategy.Afterall,theprofessorsare thepeoplewhoteachtheclassesatabranchcampus,create the curricula for franchised programs, engage incollaborative research with overseas colleagues, welcomeinternationalstudentsintotheirclassrooms,publishinin-ternationaljournals,andthelike.Indeed,withoutthefull,active,andenthusiasticparticipationoftheacademics,in-ternationalizationeffortsaredoomedtofail.

Withouttheparticipationofthefaculty, international-izationeffortsoftenbecomehighlycontroversial.Examplesinclude Yale and Duke universities in the United States,where major international initiatives planned by the uni-versity president quickly became contentious on campus.ManyoftheNewYorkUniversity’sfacultymembershavequestioned some of that institution’s global plans. Therearemanyadditionalexamplesoffacultymembersrefusingtotakeinternationalassignmentsfortheuniversity,beingunsympathetic to international students in their classes,andingeneralnot“buyingin”totheinternationalmissionsexpressedbymanyuniversities.Thus, the challenge is toensurethattheprofessoriateis“onboard.”

However, data from the two major international sur-veysoftheprofessoriaterevealapuzzlingarrayofindica-torswithrespecttointernationalization.

International Issues

The relevance of this research is that

the academic profession globally seems

to be less internationally minded than

might be expected—with inevitable im-

plications for internationalization.

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 International Issues

What the Data Show Thetwoimportantinternationalstudiesoftheattitudesandvaluesoftheprofessoriate,oneundertakenin1992bytheCarnegieFoundationfortheAdvancementofTeachingandanother known as the Survey of the Changing AcademicProfessionin2007,havesurveyed14and19academicsys-tems,respectively.

These studies included a number of questions aboutthe internationalcommitmentsandinterestsof thefacul-ty.IntheUnitedStates,academiclifeisalreadyknowntobefarmoreinsularthaninotherpartsoftheglobe.MostAmericanacademicsearnedalltheirdegreesintheUnitedStates,includingtheirhighestdegree.Lessthanone-thirdcollaboratewithforeignpartnersonresearch,eventhoughagoodnumberofthemareforeign-bornacademicswork-ingatAmericanuniversities; and theyare theonesmostlikelytoconstitutetheinternationalcollaborators.Only28percentofAmericanacademicshavepublishedinanaca-demic journaloutsideof theUnitedStates,andbarely10percenthavepublishedinalanguageotherthanEnglish.

Yet, unlike universities in Japan or Korea, Americanuniversities are open to foreign born and foreign trainedfaculty.Infact,inmostcountries,nearlyallacademicsarecitizensofthecountry,andthepercentofnoncitizensareinthesingledigits—evenintheUnitedStateswith9percent.ThepercentagesaresomewhathigherinafewotherEng-lish-speakingcountriessuchastheUnitedKingdom(19%noncitizens),Canada(12%noncitizens),andAustralia(12%noncitizens).TheonlyotherexceptionsaresmallEuropeancountrieslikeTheNetherlandsandNorway,wherebordercrossing reflects the new reality of the European Union.TheHongKongsystem isextraordinarilyuniquewith43percent of academics being noncitizens, something thatundoubtedlycontributestoitshavingthehighestconcen-trationofgloballyrankeduniversitiesinonecity.

Besides noncitizenship, doctoral study location alsodrives internationalization.Ineightcountriessurveyed in2007,morethan10percent(andasmanyas72%)ofaca-demicsearnedtheirdoctoratesinadifferentcountrythantheoneinwhichtheyareemployed.Onlyafewcountrieswereinthatcategoryinthe1992survey.ExceptionsincludeJapanand theUnitedStates,wheremostacademicsearn

doctoratesdomestically.It shouldbenosurprise thatacademicsnearlyevery-

where say that they emphasize international aspects intheirteachingandresearch.Largenumbersincludeinter-national content in their courses,butnotnearlyasmanyhaveengagedinstudyorteachingabroad.Inagoodmanycountries,lessthan10percenthavetaughtabroad.OnlyinplaceslikeHongKongorAustraliahavelargenumbersofacademics taught elsewhere.Thus, academicattitudes to-wardinternationalizationarenotahindrancetoacountry’seffortstointernationalizeitsuniversities,butitistheactualengagementoffacultythatmattersmore.

Academics in developed countries often resist theiruniversities’ efforts to establish international campuses,andtheprofessoriate inresearchuniversitiesofsomede-velopingcountriesoftenfacesobstaclestobecominginter-nationallywiredduetostatecontrol.Surprisingly,theper-centofacademicscollaboratinginternationallyinresearchhas dropped in many countries since the 1992 survey.Thereasonsaresurprisingandworthyofconcern.Junioracademicsarecollaborating less than theiroldercounter-parts,andeverywherejunioracademicsareunlikelytohavetaughtabroad.Thefactisthatthemostproductiveacadem-ics, in terms of referred publications, are those with themost international collaboration, including copublicationofarticlesandpublishinginaforeigncountry.Again,theUnitedStatesistheexceptionwithlessofagapinresearchproductivity,betweenthosewhodoanddonotcollaborateinternationally.

The international survey reveals what is perhaps oneofmajorhurdlesforinternationalizingtheprofessoriate—theeconomicdriveroftheuniversitysystem.Unlikestateorprofessordrivensystems,marketeconomieshavehighproportions of academics who view their universities asbureaucratically onerous. Moreover, academics in marketeconomiesaremorelikelytoviewtheiruniversitiesasbe-ingmanagedbyadministratorswhoarelessthancompe-tent.Thisnaturallyworksagainsttheprofessoriatehavingahighlevelofinstitutionalaffiliation.Theresultmeanstheyarelesslikelytosupportthevisionoftheiruniversitylead-ership’sabouthowtointernationalize—includingoverseascampuses.

Onthemorepositiveside,thosewhopublishinafor-eigncountryjournalincreasedsince1992inallcountriessurveyed, except Australia, Japan and the United States.ThosewhohavepublishedinaforeignlanguageincreasedmoreincountriessuchasMexicoandBrazil(presumablyinEnglish).Therelevanceofthisresearchisthattheaca-demicprofessiongloballyseemstobelessinternationallymindedthanmightbeexpected—with inevitable implica-tionsforinternationalization.

However, data from the two major in-

ternational surveys of the professoriate

reveal a puzzling array of indicators with

respect to internationalization.

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 13Africa Focus

GovernmentandGovernanceReformsinHigherEduca-tioninAfricaN. V. Varghese

N. V. Varghese is Head, Governance and Management in Education, International Institute for Educational Planning, UNESCO, Paris. E-mail: nv.varghese@iiep.unesco.org.

Higher education was considered a “public good”worthy of public support in Africa, during the first

decades of independence, and most countries adopted astate-funded and heavily subsidized model for universityexpansion.Withthefiscalcrisisofthe1980s,publicfund-ingdeclinedanduniversities fell intoa stateofdisrepair,leadingtoadeteriorationofphysicalfacilities—adeclineinstudentenrollmentandteachingstandardsandadepletionofresearchcapacities.Reformstorevivethesectorbecamenecessaryandunavoidable.

Mostreformsredefinedtheroleofthestateinhighereducationdevelopmentandinthegovernanceandmanage-mentof institutions.The institutional governancemovedfroma“state-control”toa“state-supervision”model,lead-ingtoincreasedinstitutionalautonomy,ontheonehand,andrelianceonmarkettoolsofincentivesandaccountabil-itymechanismstosteerinstitutionstowardpolicygoalsontheother.Someofthesereformshelpedexpandthesystem,revitalizethesector,andimproveinstitutionalgovernance.

State and Governance in AfricaHighereducationinAfrica,likeintheWest,wascenteredon institutions fundedandmanagedby thestate.Hence,state control was the most-common pattern of universitygovernancethatevolvedinAfrica.Headsofstate,servingaschancellorsofuniversities,becamecommoninsomecoun-tries.Realizingthelimitationsofrelyingonstatefunding,countries inAfrica introduced several reforms todevelopfinancingalternativestoexpandthesystemandreformstogovernandmanageinstitutionsmoreefficientlyandeffec-tively.

Thesereformsinhighereducationreducedstatecon-trol on institutions, made them autonomous, and movedthem closer to markets. The widespread privatization ofpublicinstitutionsandproliferationofprivateinstitutionsoverthepasttwodecadesareareflectionofthistrend.Re-sultantly, a good share of additional enrollment in Africahastakenplaceinthenonstate-fundedsegmentofpublicinstitutions(privatestudents)orinprivateinstitutions.

Many countries created buffer bodies to support andimplementpolicy,allocateresources,monitorperformance,

andensureaccountability.NationalCouncilsofHigherEd-ucation or their equivalents were established in most an-glophone African countries. The more-common practiceamongfrancophonecountrieshasbeentocreateseparateministriesofhighereducation.Thistrendischangingandhigher education councils are being established in someofthefrancophonecountries.However,itseemsthattheymostlyplayanadvisoryroleand,perhaps,a less-substan-tiveroleinpolicyformulationanditsimplementationthantheircounterpartsintheanglophonecountries.

Institutional Autonomy and New Governance Institutionalautonomyisseenasamediatingpositionbe-tweenstatecontrolandmarketoperations.Autonomyhashelpeduniversitiestomaintaintheimageofpublicinstitu-tions,whileenforcingmarketprinciplesintheoperations.Autonomy expects institutions to set priorities, evolvestrategies,developstudyprogramsandcourses,select in-stitutionalleaders,recruitstaff,diversifyfundingsources,decideoninternalresourceallocationcriteria,andallocateresourcesaccordingly.

The granting of autonomy was accompanied by newstructures of governance and accountability measures atthe institutional level.Governingboardswereconstitutedto oversee the overall functioning of an institution. Theytakepolicydecisionsincludingthoserelatedtostaffrecruit-ment,appointmentofheadsofinstitutions,andfinances.

The governing boards in francophone countries are veryoftencomposedmostlyof internalmembers,while thoseof anglophone countries have larger numbers of exter-nalmembers,at timesincludinginternationalexperts.Incountries,suchasKenya,thereareseparatemanagementboardsattheinstitutionalandschoollevels.

Thenewsetsofaccountabilitymeasuresincludedstra-tegic plans, result-based management, performance con-tracts,performanceindicators,monitoringandevaluationreports,institutionalaudits,andexternalandinternal,qual-ity-assurancemechanisms.Nationalaccreditationagencieshave become common in many countries and internal,quality-assuranceunitsarebeingestablishedinseveralin-stitutions.

National accreditation agencies have

become common in many countries and

internal, quality-assurance units are be-

ing established in several institutions.

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 Africa Focus

Governance Reforms and Their EffectsThereforms,nodoubt,helpeduniversitiestodesigntheirownsurvivalstrategies,whentheywereinastatedisrepair.Privatization measures—cost recovery and income-gener-atingactivities—helpedmanyuniversitiesinAfricasurviveinthe1990sandprosper inthe2000s.Forexample, thereformsinitiallyhelpedMakerereUniversitytomove“backfromthebrink”and laterhelpedworkingand livingcon-ditions, increaseenrollment, improvestaffsalaries,arreststaff depletion, improve the market relevance of courses,andreducerelianceonstatefunds.

Studies conducted by the International Institute forEducational Planning show that higher education gover-nancereformsinAfricahelpedinstitutionstoreducetheirrelianceonthegovernmentandtofocusonservingmarketandlocalrequirements.Thereformsalsohelpedtodiver-sify the resource base and decentralize internal resourceallocations. In countries such as Ethiopia, the line-item,budget-basedresourcetransferhasbeenreplacedbyblockgrants;publicuniversitiesinGhanaareexpectedtogener-ate30percentoftheirbudgetaryrequirements;andNigeriahasintroducedcompetitiveresearchfunding.PerformancemonitoringincreasedresearchoutputsinSouthAfricaandimproved operational efficiency in Ghana, while perfor-mancecontractsimprovedaccountabilityinKenya.

The reforms made public institutions more marketorientedintheirapproachandresultdrivenintheiropera-tions. It seems the reforms contributed to a widening ofinequalitiesinaccesstohighereducationandsubsequentlyto the employment market. The market processes favorthosewhohavethecapacitytopayandseemlessfriendlytoequityconcerns.Sinceinstitutionalpressurestoexpandstemmorefromfinancialrather thaneducationalconsid-erations, the market orientation seems to have promotedentrepreneurialisminuniversitiesandacademiccapitalisminhighereducation.

Manyofthereformsaresupportedbythedevelopmentpartners.Itseemsthatthesamereformsthathelpedreducerelianceonnationalgovernmentshave increasedrelianceonexternalagencies.Theimplicationsofthechangingre-lationshipsbetween thegovernment, institutions,andex-ternalagenciesneedcloserexamination,especially in thecontextofglobalization.

ConclusionThe reforms introduced in the 1990shelpedhigheredu-cation institutions inAfricasurvive, systemsexpand,andtheregionexperiencedthehighest,global-growthratesinhighereducationinthe2000s.Themarketorientationofthereformshas,nodoubt,destabilizedthetraditionalwaysof organizing university activities and governing institu-tions.Afteraninitialinertia,institutionsinAfricashowed

resilienceandbecamepartofthechangeprocess.Thereformscenteredonautonomyandmarketorienta-

tionhaveraisedissuesrelatedtoleadership.Theleadershipattheinstitutionallevelischallengedtofindanappropri-atebalancebetweenexpansionandquality improvement,between academic priorities and financial considerations,betweenefficiencyandequityconcerns,andbetweenlocalrelevance, global standards and rankings, among others.The transferofpowerandauthority to institutions isnotalwaysnecessarily accompaniedbymeasures to reinforceleadershipcapacities—tomakegovernanceefficientandin-stitutionsmoreeffective.

Thefastexpansionof thesystem, theproliferationofproviders,andadiversificationofstudyprogramsposechal-lengestogovernandmanagethesystem.Theentryoffor-eignprovidersandtheflowofteachers,students,andstudyprogramswithinandoutsidetheregionnecessitatefocusedattentiononharmonization,investmentinquality,andtheestablishment of global standards. These challenges maynotbeeffectivelyaddressedbythemarketforces,sincetheyrequirepoliciesbasedmoreonlong-termperspectivesthanonshort-termfinancialconsiderations.Therefore,theneedisnottomoveawayfromthestatebuttoengagethestatemoreactively todevelopa futuristicperspective, a frame-workforoperation,andforregulatingthesystemthanforfunding,controlling,andmanagingtheinstitutions.

NewHigherEducationRe-formsinKenyaIshmael I. Mumene

Ishmael I. Mumene is associate professor of education, Northern Arizo-na University, Flagstaff, Arizona. E-mail: Ishmael.Munene@nau.edu.

In the age of massification, ensuring education qualitypresentsaformidablepolicychallenge.Therecentlyen-

actedhighereducationlawinKenya—theUniversitiesAct2012—seeks to level the playing field in quality enforce-ment between public universities, which have operatedas self-regulating entities, and private universities, whichhavebeensubjecttostrictregulatorycontrol.Thenewlawisanacknowledgmentthat,whileprivateuniversitieshavecomeofage,publiconeshavebeguntoshowsignsofageanddecay.Currently,thecountryboastsofaround23full-fledgedpublicuniversitieswithatotalenrollmentofover197,000studentsand28privateuniversities,15chartered

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

and13withLettersofInterimAuthority,withanenrollmentofover37,000students.

Thoughthecountryembracedtheneoliberaltenetsofmarketizationandprivatizationasstrategiesforuniversitydevelopmentthe1990s,theprevioushighereducationlawfailedtokeeppacewithemergingchallengesofpublicandprivateuniversitydevelopmentsinthepoststatedominanceera.Inathree-prongedstrategy,thenewlawseekstoensureparity in three quality-related areas: regulatory oversight,studentadmissions,anddepoliticizationofgovernance.

AccreditationToensureregulatoryoversightofalluniversities, thenewlawprovidesfortheestablishmentoftheCommissionforUniversity Education whose mandate covers both publicandprivateuniversities.Hitherto,onlyprivateuniversitieswererequiredtoobtainchartersfromtheCommissionforHigher Education after meeting stringent conditions intermsofphysicalfacilities,staffingandlearningresources.Consequently,asqualityimprovedintheprivateuniversi-ties, it deteriorated in the public ones. While the growthof private universities was regulated, public universitiesopenedphonycampusesalloverthecountryinaconcertedbid to shore up their shrinking bottom lines. One publicuniversitywithastudentcapacityof30,000studentshasaround60,000enrolled.

Allpublicuniversitiesnoware required to applyandobtainchartersfromtheCommissionforUniversityEdu-cation by July 2013. As part of the stringent charter re-quirements,theyneedastudent-instructorratio,basedonprogram;ensurearightmixof instructorswithPhDandmaster’sdegreequalifications;providefirst-ratelaboratoriesforscientificandtechnicalcourses;upgradetheirlibraries;andrationalizethedevelopmentoftheirsatellitecampuses.Failuretoadheretothesequalityindexeshashaddisastrousconsequencesforpublicuniversities.TheSchoolofLawattheUniversity ofNairobihad its accreditationwithdrawnbytheCouncilforLegalEducation,whilethatofMoiUni-versity’swasputunderapendingstatus.Incontrast,alllawschoolsinprivateuniversitieshavefullaccreditation.Simi-

larly,theInstitutionofEngineersofKenyahasdeclinedtoregister engineering graduates from Kenyatta UniversityandMasindeMuliroUniversityofScienceofTechnology.Likewise,theKenyaMedicalLaboratoryTechnologistAsso-ciationhasdeclinedtoacceptmedicaltechnologygraduatesfromKenyattaUniversity.Inallinstancestheseprofession-albodiescouldnotvouchfortheveracityofthecurriculumandfacilitiesattheinstitutions.

AdmissionsUntil now, public universities—through the Joint Admis-sions Board—have admitted all government-sponsoredstudents. These are the top high school graduates whomeettheJointAdmissionsBoard’scriteriaandpayahighlysubsidizedtuitionfeeofaround$400peryearincontrastto $2,000 paid by privately sponsored students in publicuniversities and $4,000 by those in private institutions.Locked in public universities, many government-spon-sored students who cannot be admitted in competitiveprograms—like medicine, engineering, and law—end uppursuingother courses. In contrast, those with lower ad-missionscoresandthewherewithalcanpursuethepopu-larcourses,asprivatelysponsoredcandidatesinpublicorprivateuniversities.Therichhavechoicebutnotthepoor.Asystemdesignedtocushionthedisadvantagedendeduppunishingthem.

ThenewlawabolishestheJointAdmissionsBoardandcreatestheKenyaUniversitiesandCollegesCentralPlace-mentServicetomanageadmissionsinalluniversities,pub-licandprivate.Government-sponsoredstudentswillbeeli-gibleforadmissionsinprogramsoftheirchoicewhetherinpublicorprivateuniversities.ThatCentralPlacementSer-vicewillalsoworkwiththeHigherEducationLoansBoardtodeterminestudentseligibleforbursariesandloans,be-sidesofferingcareerandguidanceservicestoallstudents.The net effect is to provide disadvantaged students addi-tionalinstitutionalandprogramchoices,whileincreasingstudentdiversityacrossalluniversitiesandprograms.

Depoliticization of Governance Therelativeadvantagethatstateuniversitieshaveenjoyed—intermsofminimalregulatoryoversight,studentfunding,and admissions—are due to the political patronage theyhaveenjoyed.Underthedefunctlaw,eachuniversityoper-ated under its own act of parliament that recognized theheadofstateorhisnomineeasthechancelloroftheuniver-sity.Thechancellorappointedtheuniversitycouncilmem-bersaswellasthevice-chancellor(thechiefexecutiveoffi-cer).Withsuchpoliticalassociations,thegovernmentcouldsteeruniversitiesinspecificdirections,regardlessofimpactonacademicquality,whileuniversitiescouldextractmajorconcessionsfromthestate.Thus,thepublicuniversityvice-

To ensure regulatory oversight of all uni-

versities, the new law provides for the

establishment of the Commission for

University Education whose mandate

covers both public and private universi-

ties.

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 Quality Assurance Issues

chancellorswere automaticmembersof theCommissionof Higher Education board, which only regulated privateuniversities. The government has occasionally sought in-creasedenrollmentinstateuniversitiesbeyondcapacityasthedemandforuniversityeducationsurged.

The University Act of 2012 abolishes the individualuniversity acts, discontinues the head of state chancellor-shipofpublicuniversities,andeliminatespublicuniversi-tiesvice-chancellors’membershipinthenewCommissionfor University Education board. University alumnae andthe university senates will now appoint the chancellor, acommunity leaderofhigh-moral integrityasprovided forintheconstitution.Thevice-chancellorswillbeappointedbytheuniversitycouncils,followingacompetitivesearchinthemarketplace.Theobjectiveistodepoliticizetheuniver-sity administrations, while strengthening internal sharedgovernanceasameansofimprovingqualityassurance.

The Quality ConundrumIncreasing student choice and reconfiguring governancemay be the easy parts of the reengineering, but whetherthenewlawwillradicallyimprovequalityinKenya’shighereducationremainstobeseen.Aslongasthedemandforuniversity education remains insatiable and the govern-mentcontinuestobeakeyactor insettingtheuniversityagenda,itishardnottoenvisiontheeffectsofthemarketleavingnoscarsintheuniversities.Forinstance,thegov-ernmentincreasedthenumberofpublicuniversitiesfrom8to23within6monthsfromOctober2012toMarch2013.Further,thenew47countygovernments,electedinMarch2013, are each contemplating opening a university, not-withstanding the critical manpower shortfalls bedeviling

the existing universities. It is also noteworthy that exceptStrathmoreUniversityandtheUnitedStatesInternationalUniversity, all private universities have mimicked publicones in establishing the much-derided, poorly resourcedbutrevenue-enhancingsatellitecampusesacrossthecoun-try.MountKenyaUniversity,thelargestprivateinstitution,hasevensurpassedpublicuniversitiesinthesatellitecam-pus race and even launched transnational campuses inSouthSudanandRwanda.

QualityRegimesinAfrica:RealityandAspirationsJuma Shabani

Juma Shabani is director at the UNESCO Office in Bamako, Mali. E-mail: j.shabani@unesco.org.

Since themiddleof2000,anumberof initiativeshavebeen launched in Africa to develop common frame-

works for comparable and compatible qualifications, topromoteacademicmobility.Qualityandqualityassuranceplayacrucialroleintheseinitiatives.Thisarticleidentifiesandanalyzesthevarioushighereducationqualityregimesandbrieflydiscussesthechallengestoimplementingqual-ityassurance,aswellastheaspirationsofAfricancountriesidentifiedinrecentcommissionedresearch.

ItisgenerallyagreedthatoverthelasttwodecadesthequalityofhighereducationhasdeclinedinseveralAfricancountries,mainlydue to rapid increase instudentenroll-ments, poor standards of libraries and laboratories, inad-equate pedagogic training of academic staff, and limitedcapacityofquality-assurancemechanisms.Severalquality-assuranceagencieshavebeenestablishedtoenhancequal-ityofhighereducationatnational,subregional,andconti-nentallevels.

National LevelThefirstnationalquality-assuranceagencywasestablishedin1962, inNigeria.By2012,21Africancountrieshadal-readyestablishedsuchagencies,andadozenothercoun-tries were at relatively advanced stages in this direction.FrancophoneAfricaislaggingbehind,withonlyfivecoun-triesinsub-SaharanAfricawithquality-assuranceagencies.

Such agencies were initially established to ensurethe quality of programs delivered by private institutionsthrough the face-to-face mode. This mandate has gradu-allybeenexpandedtoincludepublicinstitutionsandothermodesofdelivery.

Subregional LevelThe African and Malagasy Council for Higher Educationwas established in 1968, with the main objective of har-monizingacademicprogramsandpoliciesrelatedtostaffrecruitment and promotion in its member states. Since2005,thecouncilimplementsharmonizationofprogramsthroughareformthataimsataligningthedegreesstructureinFrancophonecountriestothethreeAnglophonebache-lor’s,master’sandPhDdegrees.However,thisreformfacessomechallenges,mainlyduetothelackofnationalquality-assurancemechanisms.

The University Act of 2012 abolishes the

individual university acts.

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 17

The Inter-University Council for East Africa has theresponsibilityofensuringinternationallycomparablestan-dards in thefivememberstatesof theEastAfricancom-munity:Burundi,Kenya,Rwanda,Tanzania,andUganda.Thismandate is implemented through theestablishmentand use of a subregional quality-assurance framework.This council’shandbookhasbeendevelopedandused toinstruct quality-assurance trainers and reviewers who arenowinstrumentalinstrengtheningthecapacityofquality-assuranceunitsinmemberinstitutions.

Continental LevelThe Association of African Universities implemented in2010–2012theEurope-AfricaQualityConnectPilotProjectin collaboration with the European Universities Associa-tion.Theprojecthashelpedtoenhanceinstitutionalevalu-ationcapacitiesinfiveAfricanuniversities.

TheAssociationofAfricanUniversitiesalsohoststheAfricanQualityAssuranceNetwork,whichimplementsitsmainmandateofpromotingcollaborationamongquality-assuranceagenciesthroughcapacitybuildingandtheAfri-canQualityAssurancePeerReviewMechanism.Currently,thenetworkisfacingfinancialchallengestoimplementitsactivities.

TheAfricanUnionCommissionimplementsthreeini-tiatives.Thefirst initiative, theAfricanHigherEducationHarmonization Strategy, was adopted in 2007 to ensurecomparability of qualifications and therefore to facilitateimplementationofthe“revisedArusha”convention—origi-nally the UNESCO Regional Convention on the Recogni-tionofStudies,Certificates,Diplomas,DegreesandotherAcademicQualifications inHigherEducation in theAfri-canStates,adoptedin1981inArusha,Tanzania.Aconfer-enceofAfricanMinistersofEducationwillbeheldinMarch2014toadoptandsigntherevisedArushaconvention.

TherevisionoftheArushaconventionbeganin2002.Since 2007, this process, which is not yet completed, isjointly coordinated by UNESCO and the African UnionCommission. The progress made on the harmonizationstrategyandtherevisionoftheArushaconventionarelim-ited.Thismaybepartlyexplainedbythepoorinvolvementofhighereducationandquality-assurancestakeholdersintheseinitiatives.

Someoftheresultsexpectedfromtheharmonizationstrategy will not be achieved by 2015, as anticipated bytheworkplanapprovedbytheConferenceofMinistersofEducationin2007.TheseincludetheestablishmentofanAfricanRegionalQualificationsFrameworkandthedevel-opment of an African Credit Transfer and AccumulationSystem,whicharekeyinstrumentsfortheimplementationoftheArushaconvention.

Thesecondinitiative,theTuningAfricaPilotProject,isanticipatedtopromotethe implementationof theharmo-nizationstrategy.Thisprojectwaslaunchedin2011tocon-tributetothedevelopmentofaqualificationsframeworkinfivesubjectareasincollaboration—withnearly60Africanuniversities, the Association of African Universities, andotherhighereducationpartners.Theprojectfocusesonin-tendedlearningoutcomes,skills,andcompetences.Effortsareunderwaytoexpandthescopeofthisproject.

Thethird initiative, theAfricanQualityRatingMech-anism, encourages higher education institutions to as-sess their performance on a voluntary basis against a setofestablishedcriteria.Thisone isdifferent fromrankingsystems.IthelpstoputAfricanuniversitiesinclustersac-cordingtoprescribedstandards.In2009/2010,32highereducationinstitutionsfrom11countriesparticipatedinthispilotproject,undertakenonthebasisofself-assessment.AprojectreportproducedbytheAfricanUnionCommissionnotedsomeshortcomingsandsuggestedtorevisitthesur-veyandimplementanotherpilotphasepriortoscalingupthemechanismtoallhighereducationinstitutions.

Challenges and AspirationsToday,qualityassuranceisattheheartofalleffortstowardrevitalizinghighereducationinAfrica.Theseeffortshaveledtoarapidincreaseinthenumberofquality-assuranceagencies. However, at least 60 percent of these agencieslackthehumancapacityneededtoimplementtheirman-dateseffectively.

Since2006,UNESCOanditspartnershaveorganizedfive international conferences that have helped to trainmorethan700expertsinseveralkeyissues—suchas:Ac-creditationatProgramandInstitutionallevels;QualityAs-suranceofTeaching,LearningandResearch;InstitutionalAuditandVisitation;andUseofICTinQualityAssurancePractices.UNESCOhasalsodevelopedaguidefortrainingquality-assurance trainers. The annual conferences haveplayedapositiveroleonhumancapacitybuilding,fosteringawarenessofmajoractors,emergenceofseveralagenciesandthepromotionofregionalcooperationinqualityassur-ance.

quality Assurance Issues

It is generally agreed that over the last

two decades the quality of higher edu-

cation has declined in several African

countries

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

Throughout the continent, the major aspiration is tobuildanAfricanHigherEducationandResearchSpace.Toinformtheprocessofbuildingitin2010,theAssociationfortheDevelopmentofEducationinAfricaWorkingGrouponHigherEducationcommissionedseveralanalyticalstud-ies,includingafeasibilitystudyontheestablishmentoftheAfricanRegionalQualityAssuranceFramework.TheAfri-canUnionhasrecentlylaunchedtheprocessofestablish-ingtheAfricanAccreditationFramework.Theseinitiativesand the Tuning Africa project will provide a strong basisforthedevelopmentoftheAfricanRegionalQualificationsFrameworkandthecredittransfersystem.

ConclusionIn the last decade, quality-assurance efforts have experi-encedmajordevelopmentsandprogressinAfrica.Despitethese achievements, major challenges and questions thatrequire further attention and research still abound. First,theBolognaProcesswaspartlybuiltontheimplementationoftheEuropeanConventiononmutualrecognitionofqual-ifications.WhatroleshouldtheArushaConventionplayintheprocessofestablishingAfricanHigherEducationandResearch Space? Second, how should the African HigherEducationandResearchSpaceharmonizationstrategyin-volvehighereducationandquality-assurancestakeholderstoenhanceimplementationoftheArushaConvention.Fi-nal,whatlessonscanbelearnedforthereforminFranco-phonecountriesfromtheexperienceofAnglophonecoun-triestoestablishviablemechanismsofqualityassuranceatnationalandsubregionallevels?

TheProblemswithCross-BorderQualityAssuranceKevin Kinser and Jason E. Lane

Kevin Kinser is an associate professor and chair of the department of Educational Administration and Policy Studies at the State University of New York, Albany. E-mail: kkinser@albany.edu. Jason E. Lane is the Associate Provost for Graduate Education and Research at the State University of New York. E-mail: jason.lane@suny.edu. They codirect the Cross-Border Education Research Team.

IHE dedicates an article in each issue to a contributionfrom the Cross-Border Education Research Team (C-BERT),headquarteredattheStateUniversityofNewYorkatAlbany.MoreinformationaboutC-BERTcanbefoundatwww.globalhighered.org.FollowusonTwitterat@Cross-BorderHE.

With the rapid expansion of branch campuses andotherformsofforeigneducationaloutpostsinboth

developedanddevelopingnations,quality-assuranceagen-cies are becoming more engaged in the challenging pro-cessofevaluatingcross-borderhighereducation.Wearguethechallengeisgreaterthansimplyhelpingindividualstomakedistinctionsofacademicqualityininternationalcon-texts.Inpart,becausethereisnogloballyshareddefinitionofquality,aproblemofthisworkisonlyheightenedasin-stitutionsandprogramsincreasinglycrossborders.

The Tale of Two CountriesDespiteongoingdiscussionsofcreatingmultinationalqual-ity-assurance regimes,externalqualityassurance remainsnationallyorganized.Whenaninstitutionestablishesafor-eignoutpost,itisobligatedtoabidebythelawsofthehostcountry(usuallyinadditiontothelawsofitshomeland).Inmostcases thatweareaware (DubaiandHongKongaretwonotableexceptions),thehostcountryeithermodifiesitsexistingqualityassurancetomeet theuniquecharacteris-ticsofcross-borderhighereducationorforcesthecampus

tomodifyitsoperationstomeettheexistingquality-assur-ancemeasures.Thebottomlineisthatthehostcountryandhomecountryeachhavetheirownrules.Theresultisase-riesof idiosyncraticbarriersandsometimescontradictorypolicies for institutionswishing toexpandgeographically,aswellaslogisticalchallengesforthosechargedwithmain-tainingqualitystandardsathome.Withoutatruetransna-tional quality-assurance regime, nationally based policieswillremainasourceofconflict.Callsforstricterstandardswillnotsolvethisinherentdilemma.

Legitimate Differences in QualityAsnotedabove,qualityisnotoriouslydifficulttodefine.Butevenassumingashareddefinitionofquality, therewouldbelegitimatedifferencesamonginstitutions.Notallinsti-tutions have the resources of the Ivy League, and an im-portant place exists for programs providing training thatdivergesfromtheresearch-basedstandardsofmanyworld-class institutions. With new models of education emerg-ingfromtheprivatesector,innovativeattemptstoprovide

Quality Assurance Issues

When an institution establishes a for-

eign outpost, it is obligated to abide by

the laws of the host country (usually in

addition to the laws of its homeland).

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 19

high-quality learning opportunities to students can lookquite different from the traditional campus-based form.Few(ifany)standardsoccurbywhichallinstitutionscanbejudged,andlittleagreementonhowqualityshouldbemea-suredevenforfundamentalaspectscommontoallformsofhighereducationsuchasteaching.Giventhevarietyofmodelsandfunctionsofcross-borderhighereducation,es-tablishingathresholdofqualityforallforeignoutpostsisadifficultproposition.

Market ForcesCross-border higher education is often designed to meetmarketdemandinthehostcountry,whetherthat is fromstudents seeking degrees or government officials lookingforcapacitydevelopment.Thisisforgoodreasonasmostsuchcross-borderactivitiesareexpectedtobeself-support-ingorhelpachievethegoalsofthelocalgovernment,pro-vidingasubsidy.However,asisclearfromtheprevalenceofdegreemillsandotherfraudulentpurveyorsofacademiccredentials,demandoftenisnotbasedonquality.Privati-zationfurtherencouragesmarket forces tooperate in theeducational realm, by placing monetary value on studentenrollmentsthroughthepaymentof tuitionandfees.Re-gardless of market demands, however, quality-assuranceagencies are intended to support the public good by en-suring legitimate, reliable, and sustainable institutions ofhighereducation.Inaconflictbetweenthemarketandthepublic good, it takes a strong regulatory presence to winout.Inmostcountriesquality-assuranceagenciesarearela-tivelynewandweakentity,andthepressuresofthemarketoftenhighlighttheirstruggletobeeffective.

Internal Processes at the Home CampusQuality assurance is not just sustained through externaloversight;internalprocessesareneededaswell.Proceduresthatworkwellwhenappliedacrossthecampusquad,how-ever,maynothave thesamesuccesswhen their target ishalf a world away. Educational traditions vary along withstudentpreparation for advanced study, andprinciplesofacademicfreedomandfacultygovernancehavecontradic-tory interpretations. Yet, a hub-and-spoke model prevails,wherequalityassumptionsestablishedathomeareexpect-edtobeappliedabroad.Thechallengeofcross-borderqual-ityassurance, then, is toestablishasrigorousproceduresabroadasexistonthehomecampus,butwithappropriatelyaccounting for local differences. The infrastructure to dothis,however, ismostly lacking in the typicallysmallandnarrowly focused overseas locations. Internal oversight,therefore,continuestooperateatconsiderabledistance.

TrustFormerUSpresidentRonaldReaganwasfamousforusing

theexpression“trustbut verify” to indicatehis stanceoninternational treaties. The phrase has relevance for inter-nationalqualityassurance,aswell.Mostquality-assuranceprocessespresumethattheinstitutionbeingevaluatedcanbetrustedtohonestlyrevealdetailsofitsownperformanceandthatpeerreviewerswillactwithintegrityinassessingtheactivitiesofaninstitutionthatcouldbeadirectcompeti-toroftheirown.Butifthetrustthatundergirdstheprocessis lacking,theveracityoftheentirereviewprocesscomesintoquestion.Inthisrespect,skepticismofassessmentsbyotherentities isembeddedinmostquality-assurancepro-ceduresandlimitsthetractionthatatransnationalsystemneedstobesuccessful.However,toomuchtrustmayalsobeaconcern.Ifthehomeandhostcountriesbothassumetheotherhasprimaryresponsibility,orsimplyreliesonin-ternal institutionalprocesses tomaintainquality, thennooneiswatchingtheship.Withouttrustintheintegrityoftheinternationalhighereducationplayersandthereciproc-itynecessary toworkacrossborders, internationalqualityassurancewillremainabuyer-bewareworld.

ConclusionPoor-qualityinstitutionsexistwithinthecross-borderhigh-ereducationmarketplace,astheydoinpublicandprivateeducationsectorsinallnations.However,byfocusingthediscourse about quality assurance in cross-border highereducation on concerns about safeguarding students frombeing preyed upon by shady operators, larger issues thatmake quality assurance in the cross-border context prob-lematic have become overshadowed. Quality assuranceremainsalargelynationallybasedphenomenon;however,cross-border institutionsandprogramsmustdealwithatleasttwonationsand,thus,twoquality-assuranceregimes.Such arrangements highlight the well-known problem ofthelackofaglobaldefinitionofquality,whilealsoraisingquestionsabouthowmarketforces,legitimatedifferencesofquality,andconceptionsoftrustimpactqualityassuranceofforeigneducationoutposts.

Quality Assurance Issues

Cross-border higher education is often

designed to meet market demand in the

host country, whether that is from stu-

dents seeking degrees or government

officials looking for capacity develop-

ment.

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

ChallengestoTop-RankedPrivateUniversitiesinPolandJoanna Musial-Sadilek

Joanna Musial-Sadilek recently completed her dissertation on Polish private higher education at the University at Albany. E-mail: jmusi-al9@gmail.com.

IHE publishesoccasionalarticlesfromPROPHE,thePro-gramforResearchonPrivateHigherEducation,headquar-tered at the University at Albany. See http://www.albany.edu/.

Afteryearsofdramaticincreaseindemand,Polishhigh-ereducationenrollmentwilldeclinesharplybetween

nowand2025.AsMarekKwiekshows,public-policyalter-nativeswillinfluencethescopeofthedeclineinthepublicand private sectors (fall 2012 IHE issue). DemographicspresentathreattoPolishenrollmentingeneralandtotheprivate sector in particular—one of the largest in Europe(518,200students,a29%shareofPoland’stotal)in2011.Theprivatesectorhasalreadydeclinedby18percentinab-soluteenrollmentand4percentinenrollmentshareinjustthelast twoyears.However, thequestionarises:will lead-ingprivatehighereducationinstitutionsbeabletofacethedemographicchallenge inways thatspare themfromthefate of the private sector generally? The first years of thedemographicdeclinehavenotravagedtheleadingprivateinstitutions. The 20 top-ranked private higher educationinstitutionsshowadeclineofonly8percentinrawenroll-mentandanincreaseof3percentintheirshareofPoland’stotalenrollment.

The Demographic Challenges to the Private Sector ThepublicsectorispreferredovertheprivateinPoland,asinalmostallofEurope. Ithashighstatusand legitimacyandprovidesqualityeducationwithouttuitionforfull-timestudents.Incontrast,themajorityofprivatehighereduca-tion institutionshave comparatively lowstatus and legiti-macy and provide low-quality education, while chargingsubstantial tuition. Hit by reduced demand, public insti-tutionsmayeaseselectionrequirementsand increasinglyacceptstudentswhointhepastwouldsettleforprivatein-stitutions.

However, the demographic challenge is not uniformthroughouttheprivatesector.Polandprovidesagoodcasewithinwhichtoconsidersubsectoraldifferences.Itsprivatesectorsubsumes largedifferentiation,prominentlywithasmallminorityof“semielite”privateinstitutions.Thatmi-

norityoftop-rankedones,however,holdsanotinsignificantshareofprivateenrollment:thetop-ranked20ofPoland’s330privatehighereducationinstitutionshad20percentoftheprivateenrollmentin2009(thetop10holding10%oftheenrollment).

Eventhesetop-rankedinstitutionsshareseveralchar-acteristicsofthegeneralprivatesectorthatleavethemvul-nerable to the demographic changes. First, their limitedresearch restricts their academic legitimacy and status,making them less attractive to candidates who can enterthepublic sector.Second,andmorestarkly, full-timestu-dentspaysignificanttuitionatallprivatehighereducationinstitutions,whereaspublicsectorcounterpartsdonotpaytuition.Asthenumberofprospectivestudentsdecreases,itbecomeseasiertoenterpublicinstitutions—mostofwhichmust fill seats with some students they would previouslyhave rejected. A natural question arises: why should stu-dentspay forprivatehighereducation institutions if theycanattendfreepublicprograms?Meanwhile,eventhetop-rankedprivate institutionssimplydonothavesubstantialnontuition income, which limits their financial ability tobuildattractiveofferings.

Top-Ranked Private Institutions and the Challenge Top-ranked private institutions are more vulnerable thanpublicuniversitiestothedemographicchallenge,fortheyare inmanyrespects likeotherprivate institutions.How-ever,theyaresimultaneouslydifferentfromthemajorityofprivateinstitutionsinwaystoshieldtheminpartfromde-mographicchallenge.ThehugemajorityofPoland’sprivateinstitutionsaroseafterallas“demandabsorbers,”growingquickly and easily as the 1989 fall of Communism un-leashedhugedemandandbrokethepublicmonopoly.Logi-cally, such institutionsare ingreat troublewhendemanditselfplummets.Incontrast,top-rankedprivateinstitutionsstrivetobeinstitutionsofchoiceandprovidemoretotheircustomersthanjustaplaceinthehighereducationsystem.

Polishtop-rankedprivateinstitutionstendtohavethesemielite characteristics of high student status and highquality of faculty members, compared to average ones.Manyoftheirstudentscomefromfamiliesabletopaythesubsector’shightuition.Theyarewillingtopaybecausetheinstitutionsbenefitisenoughtomakeitworthwhile,evenasthestudentshaveincreasingoptionselsewhere.

Anessentialseriouspart is the faculty.These institu-tions employ well-known and respected professors. Con-centrated in large cities—academic and economic cen-ters—these institutions facilitated the attraction of theseprofessorsandtheabilitytopaycompetitivesalaries.Simi-larly, these institutions canattract, aspart-timers, expertsinprofessionalfieldsthattheuniversities’teachingempha-sizes.

Private Higher Education

21I 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

There isa reasonablesense thatmanypublicuniver-sityfacultydevotethemselvesprimarilytotheirresearch.Incontrast,top-rankedprivatesconcentrateonteachingmuchmorethanresearch,andadministratorsexpecttheirfacultytodevotethemselvestoseriousteachingefforts.Nonethe-less,thetop-rankedprivatesdomoreresearchthanaverageprivateinstitutionsdo,whichbringsknowledgeandstatusto students. Thus, again the top-ranked privates attain alevelofacademiclegitimacynotpossibleforthedemand-absorbingprivateinstitutions.Differentiatedfromaverageprivate institutions, the top-ranked ones manage to com-petewithgoodpublichighereducationinstitutions.

The top-rankedprivatesdonot competewithpublicsacrosstheboard.Justastheydonotexcelinresearch,theycannot usually prevail in many expensive fields of study.Yet, private institutions instead concentrate (more thanpublics do or wish to) on “in demand fields.” With theircombinationoffacultyqualityandadministrativeacumenjoinedwithbusinessties,theycanindeedcompeteinfieldssuchasbusinessadministration,law,andpsychology.

The agility of the top-ranked private institutions istheir international orientation, which may help, in twoways,toexpandthepossiblepoolofprospectivestudents.First, by building an international image—through inter-national partnerships, exchange programs, and summerprograms—institutionsattractstudentsfromforeigncoun-tries,mostlytotheeastofPoland.Second,bythisinterna-tionalism,top-rankedprivatehighereducationinstitutionstrytoattractdomesticstudentswhovalueinternationalismand seek opportunities to experience diversity or expandtheirskillsthroughlanguageopportunities.Ofcourse,in-ternationalismhasagoodchanceonlyifthequalityandsta-tusoftheinstitutionarejudgedhighenoughbystudents.

CONCLUSIONDemographicchangewillunavoidablyshapethehighered-ucationsysteminPoland.Asnotedinothercountries,theprivatesectorwillbemoreaffectedthanthepreferred(pub-lic)sector;butnotallprivateinstitutionsneedtobeaffectedtonearlythesamedegree.Asmallnumberoftop-rankedprivateinstitutionsenjoysemielitecharacteristicsthatmayshieldthem,notfullybutpartly,fromthenegativeimpactofthedemographicdecline.

TheFoundingofUniversityofChineseAcademyofSciencesQiang Zha and Guangli Zhou

Qiang Zha is an associate professor at the Faculty of Education, York University, Toronto, Canada. E-mail: qzha@edu.yorku.ca. Guangli Zhou is a professor at the School of Education, Renmin University, Bei-jing, China. E-mail: guanglizhou@ruc.edu.cn.

Following the Soviet model, Chinese Academy of Sci-ences(CAS)wasfoundedinNovember1949,asaland-

markofChina’sresearchanddevelopment(R&D)system.TheCAS,togetherwithChineseAcademyofEngineeringandChineseAcademyofSocialSciences(bothgrownoutofformerdivisionswithintheCAS),standforChina’stopresearchorganizations,formingaseparateresearchsystemfromtheuniversitysectorandequippedwith thebest re-search resources. The founding of University of ChineseAcademyofSciences(UCAS)inJuly2012,onthebasisofformer Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Sci-ences (GSCAS), should be viewed as a meaningful eventoccurringinChina’sR&Dsystem,andintheuniversitysector.Assuch,theUCASwasbornwith“asilverspoon.”ItsharesapresidentwiththeCAS,anditsprogramofferingareasandschool/collegearrangementsmatchwellwiththesixacademicdivisionsofthelattersystem.

Amongits10,599facultyare282CASmembers(outofatotalof694acrossthecountry)and5,335doctoralstudentsupervisors. These figures far exceed those of TsinghuaUniversity (currentlyhaving41CASmembers,1,832doc-toral student supervisors, and 9,357 doctoral enrollment)andPekingUniversity(nowwith63CASmembers,around1,700doctoral supervisors, andapproximately7,000doc-toralstudents),thetwomostprestigiousuniversitiessofarinChina.ThoughtheUCASwillnotopenitsdoortoun-dergraduatesuntilfall2013,ithasinheritednearly40,000graduatestudentsfromtheGSCAS,amongwhomonehalfaredoctoralstudents.In2011alone,theUCAS—whilestillunderthenameof theGSCAS—conferred4,832doctoraldegrees.ThisfigureitselfwouldenabletheUCAStositonthetopcategoryintheCarnegieClassificationandtobeateventhosemostfertileAmericancampusesintermsofpro-ducingdoctorates.WiththefoundingoftheUCAS,Chinaseems to have had a world-class university overnight. Atthispoint,aquestionisnaturallyraised:whydoestheCASmakethismove,whichseemstohaveturneditself intoauniversity?Furthermore, is thefoundingoftheUCASanisolatedstoryorapreludetosomethingmoresignificant?

Countries and Regions

After years of dramatic increase in de-

mand, Polish higher education enroll-

ment will decline sharply between now

and 2025.

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

The Support For Research in Chinese Universities TherehavelongbeendiscussionsanddebateswithrespecttoreformingChina’sR&Dsystem,inparticularsurround-ingtheCAS.Eversinceitsfounding,theCASismandatedasto“definingscientificresearchorientations”and“outlin-ingstrategiesforthenation’sfuturescientificandtechno-logicaldevelopment,”whiledevoting itself toaccomplish-ingresearchprojects.Assuch,itplaysacombinedroleofthenation’ssupremeR&DadvisorybodyandthenationalflagshipR&Dcenterinsciencesandtechnologies.Howev-er,eversinceChinastartedtoboostresearchinuniversitiesinthemid-1990s,throughlaunchingaseriesofeliteuni-versityschemes(i.e.,Projects211and985),therehasbeenanincreasingwishtooptimizethecountry’sR&Dsystemandusinguniversitiesasthebackboneforbasicresearch.

In a 2009 article, the former president of PekingUniversity, Xu Zhihong (who is himself a CAS member)argues thestateshouldrecognize thepredominantstatusofresearch-intensiveuniversities,citingsuchadvantageofuniversitiesoverresearchinstitutesasconcentrationofre-searchers, integrationofresearchandeducation,compre-hensivenessofprogramsandsubjects,andcollegialethos.Heassertsthoseadvantagesarecrucialnotonlyforbasicre-searchbutalsoforappliedresearch,whichnowincreasing-ly requires a multidisciplinary approach. He benchmarksthekeyresearchperformanceandoutcomesof10Project985universities, against thoseof theCASbetween2004and 2008, and affirms their combined research strengthhas outmatched the CAS. Notably, China now has 1,129universities,including112research-intensiveonesthatareselectedonProjects985and211.In2007,universitiespro-duced 84.6 percent of China’s research papers that werepublishedininternationalsources.

Some other universities adopt more critical tones to-ward the CAS’s bureaucratic and less efficient style, sug-gestingtoregenerateitfollowingthemodeloftheFrenchCentreNationaldelaRechercheScientifiqueortheUSNa-tionalAcademyofSciences—toalignitwithascienceandtechnologypolicyadvisoryroleaswellasasupremehonorsociety, while most of its subordinate research institutesshouldbedelegatedtouniversities.TheCAShasbeenar-guedasalegacyoftheplannedeconomyandaroleasboththenation’ssupremescienceandtechnologyadvisorybodyandexecutingarmofthekeyresearchprojects,puttingit-selfinacontroversialandawkwardquandary.Furthermore,especially basic research can hardly attain breakthroughsunderaplannedregime.Notably,suchcontentionsareof-tenechoed in a socioeconomic context,where thehighereducationpatternshavealreadyshiftedawayfromtheSo-vietmodelandtowardtheAmericanone.

TheNationalOutlineforMedium-andLong-TermSci-

enceandTechnologyDevelopment(2006–2020)fullyrec-ognizesuniversitiesas“aprincipalplayerinbasicresearchand original technology innovation,” and sees the “estab-lishment of high caliber universities, particularly world-class researchuniversities”as “aprerequisite forenhanc-ingthenation’sS&Tinnovationandinstitutinganationalinnovation system.”Following this initiative, theChinesegovernmentlaunchedProject2011inearly2012,whichex-clusivelysupportsuniversitiestoexpandtheirresearchandinnovationcapacity,throughintegrativecollaborationswithresearch institutes and industry. Most recently, the Opin-ionsonDeepeningScienceandTechnologyStructuralRe-formandAcceleratingtheMakingofNationalInnovationSystem(releasedinSeptember2012)promulgatesapolicytoturnindustryintoamajorR&Dspenderandtheback-bone of technological innovation (like Boeing, LockheedMartin, Microsoft, or Pfizer in the United States), while

maintainingtopushforworld-classresearchuniversitiesinChina’sefforttooptimizeitsR&Dsystem.Indeed,in2011,China’sindustrycontributed74percenttothecountry’sR&Dspending.Againstthisbackdrop,thefoundingoftheUCASappearstoaffirmanongoingshiftofChina’sR&Dfocustotheuniversitysector.

What Is Coming Next?FollowingtheUCAS,abrandnewShanghaiTechUniver-sitywasfoundedinJanuary2013,whichisalsopatronizedbytheCAS(andtheShanghaimunicipalgovernment).Theacademicareasof thisuniversity’sprogramofferingscor-respond with those of the research institutes of the CASShanghaiBranch.Also,itsharesanexecutiveheadwiththelatter. The possibility could never be ruled out that moreuniversitiesofthistype(orspin-offversions)wouldcomeforth.Therefore,apreliminaryconclusioncouldbedrawnatthispointthat,iftheroleoftheCASasaresearchexecut-ingentityiscomingtoanendsoonanditssubordinatein-stitutesaregoingtouniversities,Chineseuniversitieswillenjoyagreat leap in termsof their researchcapacityandconditions.Afterall, theCAShadanannual researchex-penditureof$3.6billion,over100nationalkeylaboratories,and45,400researchers(allfiguresasof2010).IftheCASstaysasis(forashortwhileoralongerterm),Chinawould

Countries and Regions

There have long been discussions and

debates with respect to reforming Chi-

na’s R & D system, in particular sur-

rounding the CAS.

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 23

probablyseeanexpanding listof itsstarresearchuniver-sities,andmanyotherChineseuniversitieswouldbenefitfromtheirgrowingandclosercollaborationswiththeCASresearchinstitutes,whichisboostedbyChina’snewpolicyinitiativesanddouble-digitR&Dfundingincreases.

VenezuelanHigherEduca-tion’sLegacyUnderChávezOrlando Albornoz

Orlando Albornoz is professor at the Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas. E-mail: oalborno@reacciun.ve.

Hugo Chávez, who is now gone, was in power for aratherlongperiod,1999–2013,andtriedtointroduce

manychanges inhighereducation.While therehasbeenanongoinglineofpolicyinoperationofthissystem,hedidnot manage to oppose that plan. In 1830 the universitieswerenationalized.However,in1953theprivatesectorwasallowedtoparticipate inthisacademicmarket.In1958,ademocratic revolution tookpower, and theuniversity sys-temwasexpandedandmodernized.Ofcourse,theChávezBolivarian revolution intended to change all that. He ranout of time, however, and the higher education systemremainsin2013muchliketheoneheinheritedin1999.While thestructureandorganizationofhighereducationhavenotchanged,in1999thestate(i.e.,public)universi-tieshad510,917studentsandin20111,132,306;theprivatesectorhad299,664studentsin1999and555,198in2011.Yet,thegrowthofstateinstitutionshadsloweddowninthelastthreeyears.

While the higher education system in Venezuela didnotbeginorwillendwithhim,HugoChávez,however,leftalegacyinthesystem.Heopenedtwouniversitiesthatareright now the largest in the country—opening access tothousandsof studentswhootherwisewouldnothaveen-teredhigher education.Partly, lacking the requiredquali-ficationsandmembersof thepoorpopulation, thosestu-dentsalsohadfewerexpectationstoenterhighereducation.Thus, itwouldbearisk toearnprofessionaldegrees thatwouldopenthelabormarkettothem,evenif itwasstateemployment.ThisexpansionfollowstheCubanmodelofthemunipalizaciónof theuniversities, and full controlbythe state, in this case eliminating the role of the autono-mousuniversities.Chávezonlyhadavisionoftheuniversi-ties,asgoalsoftherevolution.Thus,heestablishedthese

universitiesonaMarxist-doctrinarianapproach,whichwillimpedetheseuniversitiesfrombecomingavariousknowl-edgesection.

Modernization: 1958 In 1958, the Venezuelan higher education system estab-lishedmoderncharacteristicsofautonomy,democraticgov-ernance,theprofessionalizationoftheacademicstaff,theestablishment of many diverse institutions, larger mem-bersofthepopulation,notonlywiththedominantroleoftheupper class, and theuniversities responding to socialdemands.Thehigher education systemexpanded strong-ly throughoutthecountry.In1990,thecountryopenedageneralplantoidentifyandfinancescientificresearch,andgraduatestudiesbegantobeopenedinseveralstateinstitu-tions.Inthosefourdecades,thesystemwasasuccessandmanaged to create the political leaders and professionalsin all positions—to point out that a new social class wascreatedandlegitimatedthemiddleclass.However,thesys-temwasinefficient:itcouldnotopenpositionsatuniversi-tiesforthegrowingdemands.Inspiteofpositivetraining,professionalswereunabletoadvancetoopenupresearchuniversities,whichwerebeingestablishedallthroughLatinAmerica.

The Higher Education SystemChávez inheritedhigher educationbasedonawell-estab-lishedanddiversifiedsystem,withuniversities andotherinstitutions covering the needs of society, with both thestateandtheprivatesectorprovidingagoodservicetoso-ciety.However,majormistakeswereintroducedaswell.In1975,thestateopenedavastprogramthatprovidedscholar-shipforuniversitystudentstogoabroad,tryingtoacceler-atethetrainingofhumanresources.ThousandsofVenezu-elanstudentsweresent toEuropeand theUnitedStates,notallof themreturningwith theirprofessionaldegrees.Thiswasdoneinsteadofdoingwhatwasmostlyneeded—strengtheningthequalityof theuniversitiesandbringingfromabroadthenecessaryacademicstaff.Chávezcommit-tedasimilarerrorwhenhesentthousandsofstudentstoCuba.

However,Chávezleftthehighereducationsystemun-changed,inspiteofalltherhetoricabouthispoliticalandideologicalrevolution.Heappliedpoliciestoexpandaccess,triedtofollowintototheCubanmodeloftheuniversity—absolute state control. The universities under his govern-ment control became institutions dedicated to train staffbased on the revolution rather than professionals for themarket—bothmilitarizedandrununderstrictdoctrinarianlinesofthoughts.Inhisschemetogoverntheuniversities,theuniversitiesweretoberunnotbythemembersofthe

Countries and Regions

24 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

staffandthestudentsbutalsowiththeparticipationofad-ministrativeemployeesandmanualworkers.

Insteadoftryingtoissuepoliciesthatwouldbeappliedtoalluniversities,Chávezcreatednewinstitutions,tocovertheneedsoftherevolution,notofsociety.Heleftthecon-ventionalsystemtooperatebutintroducedhisowngroup.

Quality and the FutureThe Venezuelan higher education system exhibits the in-ability tosupportadvances inquality,whichare thegoalsinmanycountriesandinstitutions.SomedataprovidedbyboththeShanghaiandtheTimes Higher Educationuniver-sityrankingsshowthattheVenezuelanuniversitiesarelag-gingbehindmostcountriesoftheregion.Solely,therevo-lutiontriedtocreateitsownsocialistvision,isolatedfromtheinternationalflowofknowledge,whichisobtainedviaglobalizationandinternationalization.

As for the future, the higher education system de-pendsonthepoliticalaswellastheeconomicsituation.IfChávez’s successors were able to remain in power, regu-lation would be accelerated and the state would take fullcontrolofhighereducation.Thefact is,however, that theyearsofthefinanciallargesseofthegovernmentduringtheyearsofChávezhavefinished.Venezuelaisabouttoenteraperiodofreduction,whichwouldcauseconflictsattheuni-versities.Ofcourse,thissocietyseemstoworkwellwhenfundsareavailablewithoutrestriction—includingtheaca-demic system. There is plenty of room for a reform thatcouldputtheuniversitiesbackontrack.

Closing the Venezuelan MindChavez’sachievementsonhighereducationweremodestinperformanceandgreatlyexaggeratedbythegovernmentpropaganda.Thedamagestotheautonomousuniversitiesand to theacademicdevelopmentofVenezuela,however,areserious.Asthe lackofpublicsupportandthemisun-derstandingabout theroleofhighereducation insociety,stepsweretakenbythenowdeceasedleaderduringhis15yearsinpower—expandingstudentaccessandclosingtheVenezuelanmind.

StrengtheningHigherEducationinLaosJane Knight

Jane Knight is adjunct professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Canada. E-mail: jane.knight@uto-ronto.ca.

Internationalization plays a critical role in building uni-versitycapacity,especiallyindevelopingcountries.Inthe

currentworldofhighereducation—withcompetitiveness,branding,andcommercializationfrontandcenter—inter-national development cooperation is often relegated to alow priority. Status building networks with elite partnersare receiving more attention and support than capacity-buildinginitiativeswithdevelopingcountryinstitutions.

Itistimetoreemphasizetheimportanceofhigheredu-cationinternationalizationasaprocessofworkingcollab-orativelywithrecentlyestablishedhighereducationinstitu-tionsindevelopingnations.Thesekindsofinitiativesbringdifferentbutmutualbenefits,toallpartnerinstitutionsandreflectthesocialresponsibilityandsolidarityofmoreestab-lishedandexperienceduniversities.

The Higher Education System In LaosLao People’s Democratic Republic presents an excellentcasestudywherehighereducationreformiscriticaltona-tionaldevelopment,andinturn,internationalacademicco-operationisfundamentaltobuildingandstrengtheningitshighereducationsystem. InLaos, totalpopulationof6.6millionin2012,thepublichighereducationsectorislessthan20yearsoldandconsistsoffiveuniversities.TheNa-tionalUniversityofLaos,locatedinthecapitalVientiane,istheleadinguniversity,andwasestablishedin1996.Threeregional universities were founded in the last decade—Champasak (2002), Souphanouvong (2001), and Savan-nakhet(2009).Theyaresmallerinstitutions,meetingtheneedsoftheirregionalpopulationandeconomies.TheUni-versityofHealthSciences,foundedin2007,isdedicatedtoeducatinghealthprofessionalsandislocatedinVientiane.

The Asian Development Bank has supported theStrengthening Higher Education Project in Laos since2009. One of the key components is professional devel-opment for university staff with teaching, research, andadministrative responsibilities. This is especially true fortheregionaluniversities.Asanexample,SouphanouvongUniversity, located in the north, enrolls 3,700 students—primarilyundergraduates.Thereare6faculties,19depart-ments,and320facultymembers—ofwhom3havePhDs,about60havemaster’sdegrees,andtheresthaveunder-

Countries and Regions

Chavez’s achievements on higher edu-

cation were modest in performance and

greatly exaggerated by the government

propaganda.

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

graduate degrees. Not surprisingly, professional develop-ment,especiallydegreeupgradingisatoppriorityandcom-plementsotherareasofdevelopment—suchastextbooks,informationtechnology,infrastructure,graduateprograms,researchcapacity,qualityassurance,andothers.

Sholarships for Degree Upgrading of University StaffInLaos,degreeupgradingforthemajorityofLaouniversityteachersandresearchersreliesonacollaborationwithfor-eignuniversities,primarilythroughscholarships.Laoscan-notproduceenoughPhDsbecauseitdoesnothavegradu-ateprogramsinalldisciplineareasorenoughspaces.

TheDepartmentofHigherEducationhasestablishedan ambitious target for faculty development—requiringthat10percentofuniversityacademicstaffhaveaPhD,60percentamaster’s levelcredential,and30percentanun-dergraduatedegree.Theenormityofthistask,forexample,involvesaregionaluniversitysuchasSouphanouvong, inwhichabout83percentofthecurrentacademicstaffhaveanundergraduatedegree,16percentamaster’sdegree,and.01percenthaveaPhD.

Achievingthistargetiscontingentoninternationalco-operation with universities who can provide the graduatetrainingand,secondly,foreigngovernmentsandmultilat-eralagencieswhocanprovidethefinancialsupport.Schol-arships for enrollment at foreign partner universities arethepreferredmodality.OfferinggraduateprogramsinLaosbyforeignuniversitiesisoneoption,butacriticalmassofstudentsisnecessary.Whilethisispossibleforsomesub-jects—suchasbusinessmanagementorteachertraining—itisnotfeasibleformorespecializedgraduateprogramsinthenaturalsciences,engineering,andhumanities.

Thus, faculty members normally need to leave thecountry for graduate studies. The implications includemany—for example, language requirements for studyingabroad and the impact on the teaching load at the homeuniversity. In Laos, all foreign scholarships require addi-tionallanguageskills,exceptperhapsinneighboringThai-land;buteventheremanyofthenewinternationalmaster’sdegreeandPhDprogramsarecommonlyoffered inEng-lish.Thus,a fundamental requirement for furthereduca-

tionisknowledgeofanother language.Todate,Japanese,Vietnamese, Korean, Chinese, French, and English arecommon language requirements, given the source coun-tryofscholarships.But,accessinghigh-levelskillsintheselanguagesforregionaluniversitystaffisachallenge.Provi-sionforlanguageinstructionisoftenneededaspartofthescholarship.

Short-Term Professional Development OpportunitiesItisnotsurprisingthatscholarshipsareseenasthemostserious way for university staff to upgrade their teachingand research knowledge and skills and to ultimately im-prove higher education in Laos. But scholarships are nottheonly typeofneededandbeneficialprofessionaldevel-opment. Short-term and more-focused training courseson site—in regional centers or nearby universities—areequally useful. In Laos, university staff assume teaching,research, and administrative roles. It is common for allsenior administrators—such as, rectors, vice-rectors, andheadsoffinance,personnel,andplanning—tohaveteach-ing responsibilities. This is also true at the departmentallevel,asmanyoftheteachersassumeadministrativetasks.The ultimate aim is to professionalize the administrativestaffoftheuniversitiesandcolleges,sothatacademicscanspendmore timeon teachingand researchactivities;butthis is a long-term proposition. In the meantime, short-term professional development opportunities oriented toteachingandlearningmethods;curriculumdevelopment,research design and analysis, quality assurance, financialmanagement, human resources development, and infor-mationtechnologyareneeded.

Laos isonlyonecountry—nearbyMyanmar isanoth-er—which needs to collaborate with foreign universitiesforcapacitybuilding,especiallystafftraining,anddevelop-ment.Internationalpartnershipsneedtobringmutualandmultiplebenefits,andtheinternationalcooperationdepart-mentsofuniversitiesinLaosarecommittedtodevelopingstrategiestoensurebenefitsforallpartners.

Lao People’s Democratic Republic

presents an excellent case study where

higher education reform is critical to na-

tional development.

Achieving this target is contingent on

international cooperation with universi-

ties who can provide the graduate train-

ing and, secondly, foreign governments

and multilateral agencies who can pro-

vide the financial support.

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

Internationalengagementhasneverbeenmoreimpor-tantasastrategicpriorityinuniversities.Yet,canweaffordto let the current preoccupation with commercialization,competitiveness,andrankingsjeopardizeinternationalco-operationforcapacitybuildingincountriesthataredevel-opingandstrengtheningnewhighereducationinstitutionsandsystems?Theanswerisno.But,thiswillrequireashiftinthevaluesthataredrivinginternationalization.

NewMissionsandAmbi-tionsforRussianUniversi-tiesTatiana Kastouéva-Jean

Tatiana Kastouéva-Jean is a research fellow at the French Institute of International Relations, Paris. E-mail: jean@ifri.org.

Russian universities are facing many new challenges.On the domestic level, Russian authorities ask them

notonlytotrainhighlyqualifiedpersonnelforthenationaleconomybuttoalsobecomeimportantactorsinresearchanddevelopmentand innovation.Thisrolewas tradition-ally played by the Russian Academy Sciences, but it hashad trouble reforming itself and thushas lost legitimacy.Onaninternationallevel,PresidentVladimirPutinwantsfiveRussianuniversitiesintheglobaltop100by2020.Inadditiontoeconomicdividendsfromattractingforeignstu-dents, having such leaders should improve the image ofRussiaasaninternationaleducationalandscientificpower.Inspiteofefforts(forexample,RussiajoinedtheBolognaprocessin2003),internationalizationofRussianhighered-ucationremainsweak:in2010,Russiahosted3.9percentofinternationalstudentsworldwide,theoverwhelmingma-joritycomingfromCommonwealthofIndependentStatescountries(formerSovietUnion).OnlytwoRussianuniver-sitiesappearinShanghaiAcademicRankingofWorldUni-versities:MoscowStateUniversityin80thlevelandSaint-PetersburgStateUniversityinthelast100th.Russia’sroadtointernationalleadershipseemstobealongone.

Difficult Starting ConditionsInthe1990sandinthebeginningof2000s,Russianuni-versitieswent throughadifficultperiodof transitionandinsufficient state funding. During these lean times, theyhadtodevelopstrategiesforsurvival:universities, includ-ing public establishments, offered more payment of edu-

cationalservices(asaresult,60%ofstudentsareenrolledtodayforafee)andopenedregionalbranchesanddepart-mentsteachingnon-coredisciplinesthatwereindemand(especially law, economics, andmanagement).Agingandbadly paid faculty members combined positions in mul-tipleestablishmentswithprivatelessons,inordertomakealiving.Thesimultaneousgrowthinthesocialprestigeofdiplomas, with the democratization of higher education,encouragedthespreadofcorruptpractices,plagiarism,andtheoutrightpurchaseofdiplomas.Withonlyafewexcep-tions,thequalityoftrainingdeteriorated.

Inadditiontothischallenginglegacy,studentdemogra-phyisaworryingfactorforfuture.Becauseoflowbirthratesinthe1990s,thenumberofyoungpeoplebetween14and19yearsolddroppedfrom11millionin2007to7.6millionin 2012. In a short and medium term, this demographicsituationisachallengeforuniversities.Closures,reorgani-zations,andmergerswillobviouslybenecessarytomanagesurpluscapacity inhighereducation.Theseprocessesarealready underway: between 2008 and 2012, 88 establish-mentsdisappearedandthenumberofstudentpopulationshrankby1,460,000.Clearly,competitionbetweenuniver-sitiesforcandidateswillbehardinthecomingyears.

Things Change...Since2005,thegovernmenthassoughttoreversethenega-tive trends in the sector and to modernize the educationsystem.Statefundingforhighereducationincreasedfrom119billion rubles in2005 ($4billion) to402.4billion in2011 ($13billion). InOctober2012,PrimeMinisterDmi-tryMedvedevpromisedthatspendingoneducationwillbeequaltothedefensebudgetby2020.ItisthefirsttimeinRussianhistorythateducationanddefensehavebeengiventhesamelevelofpriority.However,theaveragespendperstudentremainsextremelyloweveninleadinguniversities($8,000 versus $14,000 on average in the OrganizationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopmentcountriesor$30,000onaverageintheUnitedStates).

ThreeExcellenceInitiativeswerelaunchedinordertoselect the most promising universities. The new quality-labels“Nationalresearchuniversities”and“Federaluniver-sities”(createdbymergersinregions)werecreated,repre-senting5percentofallRussianuniversities.Thesereceivedsignificantadditionalfundingandsomenowhavemodern

On an international level, President

Vladimir Putin wants five Russian uni-

versities in the global top 100 by 2020.

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

equipmentandlaboratoriesthatwouldmakeevenWesternuniversitiesgreenwithenvy.Variousmeasureswereunder-takeninordertointegrateteachingandresearch,tobringuniversitiesclosertocompanies,andtoencouragethemtocreatestartupsandbusinessincubators.TheRussiangov-ernmentisclearlyinspiredbytheMassachusettsInstituteofTechnologyandtheStanfordUniversitymodel.

…But Not Enough?Somefactorshavebeenoverlooked.Thus,thesuccessofre-formshasbeenputatrisk.First,thehumancapitalofteach-ingandresearchprofessionsneedstobereconsidered.Thiswillrequireanappropriatesalary—atpresentthatremainsapromiseforthemajorityofuniversities—andanincreaseofsocialprestigeinordertoattractthemostlyhighlytalentedprofessors.Thisshouldreplacerecruitmentbycooptation;insomeuniversities,90percentof teachersarerecruitedfromamongformerstudents.Coursespreparedina“copyand paste” manner, compartmentalization between disci-plines, and old methods of teaching should be changed.The scientific reputation of each researcher should be asimportantasanappropriatesalary.Recently,alongseriesofrecentscandalsoverplagiarizeddissertationsdemonstratednotonlythedegreeofcorruptioninthehighereducationsystem but, as well, the overall weak level of research inRussia.Thebarriersbetweenresearchandteachingshouldbeabolished:forinstance,teachershaveadifferentstatusandsalarytoresearchersandthenumberofteachinghoursisthreeorfourtimesmorethaninWesterncountries.

This traditional separation between teaching and re-search is a second core handicap to the achievement ofthenewnationaland internationalmissions foruniversi-ties.In2010,universitiesaccountedforonly15percentofallnational researchorganisms, employed6.4percentof

personnel in research and development nationally, whiletheirshareofdomesticexpenditureonresearchanddevel-opmentrepresented8.4percent.TheaveragefigureoftheOrganizationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopmentcountriesisatthesamemomentbeing26.6percent.Itisclearthatuniversitieshaveprogresstomake.

Third,thestateseekstoestablishtheidealmodelinashortline.Suchamechanisticapproachdoesnottakeintoaccountnumerousobstacles: thedurationofnaturalpro-cesses,relationswithanumberofsocioeconomicfactors,the interestsof theparties, the inertiaof thesystem,andinstitutionalresistance.Thiscouldencourageamechanicalandsuperficialimplementationofquantitativeindicatorsofdevelopmentprogramsinordertosatisfytheministryandthus preserve the volume of state funding. For example,thenumberofstartupscreatedcanbeimpressive,buttheirturnoverisoftenweak,theirproductsarenotcompetitive,andtheirviabilityinrealeconomicconditionsisquestion-able.

Fourth,despitethenewlycreatedstatusofautonomousestablishments, even leadingRussianuniversities remainimpededwiththedominantroleandoverwhelmingcontrolexercised by the ministry, which decides everything fromthenumberof“budget”(free)placesforstudentsbyregionandbyspecialization towagesandutilizationof funding.Atatimewhenambitiousdevelopmentprogramsarenotaccompaniedbyappropriateimplementationmechanisms,thereisariskthatintheshorttomediumtermthereformofRussianeducationwillgetstuck.Consideringtoughin-ternational competition, Russian universities risk beingoustedtotheperipheryoftheglobaleducationalspaceper-manently.

Doyouhavetimetoreadmorethan20electronicbulletinsweeklyinordertostayuptodatewithinternationalinitiativesand trends?Wethoughtnot!So,asaservice, theCIHEre-searchteampostsitemsfromabroadrangeofinternationalmediatoourFacebookandTwitterpage.

Youwillfindnewsitemsfromthe Chronicle of Higher Ed-ucation, Inside Higher Education, University World News, Times Higher Education, the Guardian Higher Education network UK, the Times of India, the Korea Times, just tonamea few.Wealsoincludepertinentitemsfromblogsandotheronlinere-sources.Wewillalsoannounce internationalandcompara-tivereportsandrelevantnewpublications.

Unlike most Facebook and Twitter sites, our pages arenotaboutus,butrather“newsfeeds”updateddailywithnotic-

esmostrelevanttointernationaleducatorsandpractitioners,policymakers, anddecisionmakers.Think “newsmarquis”inTimesSquareinNewYorkCity.Here,ataglance,youcantake in the information and perspective you need in a fewminuteseverymorning.

Tofollowthenews,press“Like”onourFacebookpageat:http://www.facebook.com/pages/Center-for-International-Higher-Education-CIHE/197777476903716. “Follow” us onTwitterat:https://twitter.com/#!/BC_CIHE.

Wehopeyou’llalsoconsiderclicking“Like”onFacebookitemsyoufindmostusefultohelpboostourpresenceinthisarena.Pleasepostyourcomments toencourageonlinedis-cussion.

Critical International News at a Glance on Facebook and 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 Departments

New Spanish-Language Book Series on Higher Education

Universidad de Palermo, Cátedra UNESCO-UNU. Colec-cióndeEducaciónSuperior(HigherEducationSeries).Website: http://www.palermo.edu/cienciassociales/investiga-cion-publicaciones/coleccion-educacion-superior/index.html.

The School of Social Sciences at the Universidad dePalermo(Argentina)anditsUNESCO-UNUCátedra(chair)have issued a series of books on higher education. Cur-rently,theseriesconsistsof20titles,includingtranslationsintoSpanishofseveral“classics”oftheUnitedStates’litera-tureonhighereducation,suchasRosovsky’sUniversity: An Owner’s Manual,Thelin’sA History of American Higher Edu-cation, or Clark’s Sustaining Change in Universities. Othertitlesprovideaviewfromothereducationalsystems,suchasRussell’sAcademic Freedom(UK),Tuiller’sHistory of the Universities of Paris and the Sorbonne, Altbach’s Compara-tive Higher Education,orMilaretandVidal’sWorld History of Education.

Most of the books focusing on Argentina are collec-tionsofchapterswrittenbyseveralauthors;thebooktitlesinclude La Actividad Científica [Scientific Activity]; Finan-ciamiento de la Universidad[UniversityFinancing];Entre la Tradición y el Cambio[BetweenTraditionandChange];andDesarrollo Económico, Educación y Corporaciones Transnacio-nales: los Casos de México, Corea del Sur y Argentina [Eco-

nomicDevelopment,Education,andTransnationalCorpo-rations:theCasesofMexico,SouthKoreaandArgentina].De la Educación Popular[OnPopularEducation]isareprintofthebookbyformerArgentinianPresident(1868–1874)DomingoFaustinoSarmiento.

ThisseriesfillsagapinSpanish-languageliteratureonhighereducationbymakingworld-renownedauthorsandtexts more accessible to the Spanish-speaking world, andbyaddressingkeyissuessuchasfinancing,admissions,de-velopment, internationalization, andacademic freedom—all of which are topics of immense concern across LatinAmerica.

A launchceremonyhasbeenheld foreachbookandhas included a presentation in which local experts dis-cussedsomeofthemostimportanttopicsunderconsider-ation.Thesepresentationsareavailableonlinethroughthecollection’s Web site: http://www.palermo.edu/cienciasso-ciales/investigacion-y-publicaciones/coleccion-educacion-superior/index.html.BymakingthesetitlesaccessibletoaSpanish-speakingaudience,theUniversidaddePalermoiscontributing to the vibrant debate of higher education inLatinAmerica.

IVÁNF.PACHECO

NEW PUBLICATIONSBowen, William G. Higher Education in the Digital Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer-sity Press, 2013. 172 pp. $26.95 (hb). ISBN: 978-0-691-15930-0. Web site: www.press.princeton.edu.

Bowen, former president of Princeton and one of the top analysts of American high-er education, focuses on issues of the cost of higher education and the possible role of distance education and MOOCs (massive open online courses) in possible solutions. Originally, given as several lectures, thought-ful commentary follows the analysis.

Carnoy, Martin, et al. University Expansion in a Changing Global Economy: Triumph of the BRICS? Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2013. 383 pp. $60 (hb). ISBN 978-0- 8047-8601-0. Web site: www.sup.org.

This volume examines the BRICS coun-tries in the context of global higher education

expansion, the knowledge economy, and eco-nomic return issues. Among the themes ana-lyzed are financing of higher education in the BRICS, quality, BRICS strategies, universities in the process of change, and others.

de Wit, Hans. ed. An Introduction to Higher Education Internationalization. Milan, Italy: Vita e Pensiero, Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 2013. 193 pp. €18. (pb). ISBN 978-88-343-2445-5.

This collection of essays focuses on as-pects of internationalization, including the role of joint and double degrees, international recruitment in the United States, internation-alization of the curriculum, changing para-digms of internationalization, and others. This volume is related to the new Center for Higher Education Internationalization at the Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore in Milan.

Grimaldo Durán, Humberto, and Francisco López Segrera, eds. La Internacionalización de la Educación Superior a Nivel Mundial y Regional: Principales Tendencias y Desafíos. [Higher Education Internationalization at Global and Regional Levels: Major Trends and Challenges]. Bogotá, Colombia: Uni-versidad Católica de Colombia. 275 pp (hb). ISBN 13: 978-958-42-3238-0.

This book consists of an introduction and 12 chapters. The 3 chapters with a global perspective are written in English (by P. G. Altbach & J. Knight; C. Brock; and L. Doug-las). The other 9 chapters—providing region-al, country, or case-based overviews—are in Spanish and include the works of S. Didou, J. J. Brunner, J. Gacél-Ávila, N. Fernández, J. Cortadellas, M. L. Neves, X. Zarur, and R. Hernández. (Iván F. Pacheco)

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 29Departments

Gross, Neil. Why Are Professors Liberal and Why Do Conservatives Care? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013. 387 pp. (hb). ISBN 978-0-674-05909-2. Web site: www.hup.harvard.edu.

Sociologist Gross focuses in this book on the common assumption that, in the Unit-ed States, most academics are on the political “left.” He argues that there is a self-selection among people who choose the academic pro-fession, as well as socialization once in the profession. Fewer conservatives choose aca-deme as well. While the analysis concerns the United States, there is international relevance to the broad theme of the political opinions and values of the academic profession every-where.

Hao, Ping. Peking University and the Origins of Higher Education in China. Los Angeles: Bridges21 Publications, 2013. 421 pp. $80 (hb). ISBN 978-1-936940-37-0. Web site: www.Bridge21.us.

A detailed history of the development of Peking University from its establishment in 1898 until the end of the monarchy in 1912, this volume provides a discussion of the so-cial and political context for the university’s development. The author, a senior Chinese academic leader, provides detailed documen-tation.

Hendrickson, Robert H., Jason Lane, James T. Harris, and Richard Dorman. Academic Leadership and Governance in Higher Educa-tion: A Guide for Trustees, Leaders, and Aspir-ing Leaders of Two- and Four-Year Institutions. Sterling, VA: Stylus, 2013. 418 pp. $45 (hb). ISBN 978-1-57922-481-3. Web site: www.Sty-luspub.com.

Intended to provide a guide to academic administration in the context of American higher education, this book considers most of the key elements shaping academic insti-tutions. Among the specific topics discussed are the global engagement of universities and colleges, student experience, the academic profession, the roles of the states and the federal government, the role of academic de-partments, the presidency, the legal system, and others.

Kleypas, Kathryn L., and James I. McDou-gall, eds. The American-Style University at Large: Transplants, Outposts, and the Global-ization of Higher Education. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2012. 305 pp. (hb). ISBN: 978-0-7391-5020-7. Web site: www.Rowman.com.

Written mostly from the perspective of English and humanities scholars, this volume examines unusual facets of the growing pat-tern of “American style” universities around the world. Several chapters focus on English departments worldwide, including in Taiwan. Others discuss aspects of neocolonialism in the American-style university, transplanted universities in the Arab Gulf States, interna-tionalizing the field of composition studies, and others.

Montgomery, Scott L. Does Science Need a Global Language? Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013. 225 pp. $22.50 (hb). ISBN 978-226-53503-6. Web site: www.Press.uchicago.edu.

Geologist Montgomery has provided a fascinating and very relevant discussion of the role of English as the global scientific language. He discusses the historical devel-opment of the role of English and how other languages earlier played this role. Native speakers are now outnumbered by nonnative speakers of English, and this is changing the nature of scientific communication.

Olivas, Michael A. Suing Alma Mater: Higher Education and the Courts. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013. 221 pp. $32.95 (pb). ISBN 978-1-4214-0923-8. Web site: www.press.jhu.edu.

An analysis of current trends relating to the legal system in the United States and uni-versities, this book provides a wide discus-sion of contemporary legal trends. One-hun-dred-twenty legal cases are examined and six carefully analyzed to discern legal trends in the past half century, particularly in the con-text of the expansion of interest groups focus-ing on the legal aspects of higher education.

Palmer, John D., et al., eds. The Interna-tionalization of East Asian Higher Education: Globalization’s Impact. New York: Palgrave,

2011. 230 pp. (hb). ISBN 978-0-230-10932-2. Web site: www.palgrave.com.

While not all of the chapters are con-cerning internationalization, this volume pro-vides insights into the impact of globalization on several East Asia countries. Topics include English courses in Taiwan, and others.

Paulsen, Michael B., ed. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. 28. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2013. 728 pp. $239 (hb). ISBN 978-94-007-5835-3. Web site: www.springer.com.

The 2013 annual edition of the handbook provides 13 in-depth essays, some 50 pages in length, on a range of higher education themes from an American perspective. Vol-ume 28 includes such subjects as the mean-ing of markets in higher education, research integrity and misconduct, social networks, the history of teacher preparation in the Unit-ed States, student engagement, public policy and student attainment, and several others.

Shils, Edward. The Order of Learning: Essays

on the Contemporary University. (Edited and with an introduction by Philip G. Altbach). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2013. 375 pp. $34.95 (pb). ISBN 978-1-4128-5154-1. Web site: www.transaction.pub.com.

Sociologist Edward Shils, a prominent scholar of higher education, wrote about the development of the European university, aca-demic freedom, the academic profession, the problems of contemporary higher education, and related issues. This volume includes a comprehensive bibliography of Shils’ writ-ings.

Smart, John C., and Michael B. Paulsen, eds. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. 27. Dordrecht, Nether-lands: Springer, 2012. 564 pp. $239 (hb). ISBN 978-94-007-2949-0. Web site: www.springer.com.

This annual publication, now in its 27th year, provides in-depth essays on research themes in higher education. The focus of the volume is on American research and themes, but there is international salience to most of the chapters. Authors are among key re-searchers in their fields. For volume 27, the

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 Departments

News of the Center

Philip G. Altbach continues to serve as director of the Center, although he is no longer teaching at Boston College. Associate direc-tor Laura E. Rumbley is assuming more of the day-to-day responsi-bilities for Center leadership. The Center—in collaboration with the Graduate School of Education at Shanghai Jiao Tong University and with IHERD (Program on Innovation, Higher Education, Research, and Development) and SANTRUST—is coordinating the first inter-national conference of heads of higher education research centers. This conference, taking place in Shanghai in November 2013, will result not only in discussions about the increasingly important role of higher education centers in research and policy development but will also result in a special theme issue of Studies in Higher Educa-

tion, a major journal.The Center’s fruitful collaboration with the Laboratory for Insti-

tutional Analysis of the Higher School of Economics (HSE) in Mos-cow continues with a new research project on the topic of “inbreed-ing” of the academic profession in seven different countries. The research group will meet in Boston in December 2013. Our current project with HSE, concerning the challenges facing young faculty members, is nearing completion. The results will be compiled in a book to be published by the State University of New York Press. The project is coordinated in Moscow by Vice Provost Maria Yudkevich at HSE.

Work on a 3rd edition of our global inventory of higher edu-cation research centers and academic programs focused on the study of higher education is also continuing. The Center continues to publish frequent postings on its blog, “The World View” (http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/world-view), in collaboration with InsideHigherEd.com

Associate director Laura E. Rumbley will be joining the editorial team of the Journal of Studies in International Education. She is cur-rently serving as chair of the Publications Committee of the Europe-an Association for International Education (EAIE) and will represent the Center at EAIE’s annual conference in Istanbul in September. She will also deliver a talk on trends in the internationalization of American higher education at Hiroshima’s University’s Research Institute for Higher Education in early December.

Center director Philip G. Altbach was the keynote speaker at the German Academic Exchange Service’s GATE conference in Bonn in July. He will keynote a conference at the University of KwaZulu-Natal

in South Africa and will speak at an education policy meeting in Abu Dhabi, both in September. His work with the Russian Minis-try of Education’s Committee on the Competitiveness of Russian Universities continues.

Although the International Network for Higher Education in Africa (INHEA) retains a presence on the CIHE Web site, responsi-bility for INHEA has now shifted to the University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa, under the leadership of INHEA’s founding director, Dr. Damtew Teferra, who obtained his PhD at Boston College. The Center looks forward to continuing to support this exciting and im-portant work on African higher education.

In June, the Center hosted a delegation of administrators from (fellow Jesuit institution) Sogang University in Korea for a week of meetings and professional development activities. We also received a delegation of doctoral students from the University of Basel in Switzerland, who are participating in the Global Perspectives Pro-gram, a collaboration between Basel and Virginia Tech in the United States, designed to cultivate international insights and understand-ing among young academics.

We are pleased to note that the Spanish translated edition of International Higher Education is now published at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile in Santiago. We would like to thank the Andres Bello University for their collaboration for the past several years.

The Center welcomes Ariane de Gayardon as a graduate as-sistant. David Stanfield continues in his graduate assistant role; and Yukiko Shimmi, a doctoral candidate, continues to provide some ad-ditional staff support. We also welcome Dr. Hanife Akar, a Fulbright scholar from Middle East Technical University in Turkey, and Dr. Xiong Geng, of Nankai University in China. Professor Ivar Bleiklie of the University of Bergen in Norway returns to the Center as a visiting scholar. In July, we were pleased to have hosted Dr. Alberto Roa of the Universidad del Norte in Colombia.

themes include the sociology of academic careers, the role of international organiza-tions in higher education, state merit aid programs for undergraduates, privatization of higher education, and others.

Smith, Larry, and Abdulrahman Ab-ouammoh, eds. Higher Education in Saudi Arabia: Achievements, Challenges, and Op-

portunities. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Spring-er, 2013. 194 pp. $129 (hb). ISBN 978-94-007-632-3. Web site: www.springer.com.

This book adds to general knowledge about Saudi Arabian higher education and includes essays on key facets of academic realities. Among the topics discussed in the chapters, which are all coauthored by a Saudi scholar and an international scholar, are pri-

vate higher education, medical education, academic staff, accreditation and quality as-surance, teaching and learning, and others.

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 31

In order not to miss any future issues of IHE, please be sure that you are a registered subscriber! If you do not receive an electronic copy of the newsletter, you probably are not regis-tered in our database. To avoid being dropped from the dis-tribution in the future, please update your registration online.

Go to:

http://www.bc.edu/content/bc/research/cihe/ihe.html

Click on: “Subscribe to IHE” in the navigation panel on the left side

of the screen.

Click on the link: Click here for our subscription form.

Choose your subscriber status: New Subscriber/Existing Subscriber/Not a Subscriber[If you are not sure, choose “New”]

Skip “Expert Status”

Complete the remainder of the form and click “Submit”

If you have any questions, contact us at highered@bc.edu

Protect your International Higher Education subscription!

Center Sponsors Successful Conference

OnApril5,aconferencetitled“AttheForefrontofInterna-tionalHigherEducation”washeldatBostonCollegetocel-ebratethecareerandscholarlycontributionsoftheCenter’sfounding director, Philip G. Altbach. The event attractedmore than 100 researchers, scholars,policymakers,univer-sityadministrators,andstudentsfromseveralcountriesandfeatured discussions of key issues in international highereducation.AmongthespeakerswereJ.DonaldMonan,S.J.,HansdeWit,JamilSalmi,D.BruceJohnstone,NianCaiLiu,Henry Rosovsky, Judith Eaton, Patti McGill Peterson, andothers.Thesymposiumwasmadepossiblethroughthegen-erous support of the American Council on Education, theAssociation of International Education Administrators, the

EuropeanAssociationforInternationalEducation, theFordFoundation,theNationalResearchUniversity-HigherSchoolofEconomics,JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,theLuminaFoundation,theTalloiresNetwork,SAGEIndia,Ms.MariamAssefa,Dr.HansdeWit,andDr.TomParker.Arelatedbook,At the Forefront of International Higher Education,coeditedbyAlmaMaldonado-MaldonadoandRobertaMaleeBassett,willbepublishedbySpringerlaterin2013.Avideooftheconfer-encecanbefoundathttp://www.youtube.com/bostoncolleg-ecihe.

Departments

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.