the boston college center for international higher education23 The Reinvention of Undergraduate Education in Hong Kong Martin J. Finkelstein and Elaine M. Walker International Issues

international higher educationthe boston college center for international higher education

number 55 spring 2009

The Global Financial Crisis2 US Higher Education and the Current Recession

David W. Breneman

3 Chinese Graduates’ Employment: The Impact of the Financial CrisisMucun Zhou and Jing Lin

4 The Poor and the Rich in US UniversitiesJohn Aubrey Douglass and Gregg Thompson

Departments24 New Publications

27 News of the Center

Countries and Regions

6 Regional Citation IndexesNobuko Miyairi

7 Wolves in Chancellors’ ClothingGeorge D. Gollin

Patterns and Problems of Internationalization

23 The Reinvention of Undergraduate Education in Hong KongMartin J. Finkelstein and Elaine M. Walker

International Issues

Statistical Challenges19 A Closer Look at the OECD’s Tertiary Statistics

Arthur M. Hauptman

21 International Comparisons: What Your Fourth-Grade Math Can RevealClifford Adelman

Private Higher Education18 Problems in China’s Private Universities

Osman Ozturgut

9 The Bologna Process: A Weary Leap ForwardRainer Hoell, Josef Lentsch, and Sebastian Litta

11 Poland: Problems of InternationalizationBianka Siwinska

12 Double- and Joint-Degree ProgramsJane Knight

13 International Students in the United StatesPatricia Chow and Rachel Marcus

15 The Centrality of the Academic ProfessionPhilip G. Altbach

17 The Academic Profession: Colombia’s 2019 VisionIván Pacheco

The Academic Profession

US Higher Education and theCurrent RecessionDavid W. Breneman

David W. Breneman is University Professor and director of the master's pro-gram in public policy at the Currie School of Education, University ofVirginia, Charlottesville, VA, 22903, USA. E-mail: [email protected].

Areview of the past four recessions, prior to the current one(1973–1975, 1980–1982, 1990–1991, and 2001–2003)

reveals that on balance higher education in the United Statesweathered each of these economic storms reasonably well(Chronicle of Higher Education, October 10, 2008). But mostobservers agree that the current recession, offi c i a l l yannounced as having begun in December 2007, is a differentbreed, with disconcerting similarities to the Great Depressionof the 1930s. In particular, the current recession appears likelyto become long-lasting, is global in nature, originated in thefinancial sector, has rendered relatively ineffective monetarypolicy, and is accompanied by sharp drops in consumer andinvestor demand. After years of neglect, Keynesian economicpolicy is being reintroduced via aggressive fiscal actionsdesigned to increase aggregate demand in the economy. A pro-longed depression seems unlikely for the world, since thecountry has learned from the mistakes made in the 1930s.However, the economic outlook is cloudy at best, with condi-tions likely to be more severe than in other post–World War IIrecessions. What might the current crisis mean for higher edu-cation in the United States?

Early Signs of DifficultyWhile no definitive evidence has yet been revealed, early warn-ing signs abound. Most state governments are experiencing asharp drop in tax receipts. Thus, as states must operate withbalanced budgets, expenditure cuts are being reported daily. Inrecent days, for example, the states of Washington, Nevada,Texas, Oregon, Idaho, and South Carolina have announcedcuts in state appropriations to public colleges and universitiesranging from 10 to 36 percent, and few states, if any, will avoidsuch cuts. While state support for public higher education hasbeen declining as a share of institutional revenues for morethan two decades, the severity of the current cuts may pushpublic institution leaders to reduce enrollments, which theyare normally reluctant to do. For example, California StateUniversity and the University of California system have recent-ly announced plans to reduce entering undergraduates by sev-eral thousands of students. The new round of state cuts willprompt yet higher public tuitions, further dampening demand.

In past recessions, enrollment rates have actually jumped,as the opportunity cost of forgone earnings for the newlyunemployed declines. While not yet definite, such an enroll-ment surge may not be happening this time around—in part

because institutions are reluctant to keep expanding when rev-enues drop but also because of the rising student charges anduncertainty about the economy. The United States has been ona borrowing binge fueled by low interest rates for several years.Moreover, the economic downturn includes an unwinding ofunsustainable debt levels, both in families and in businesses.Higher education has become more dependent on debt tocover student bills, but not only is the credit market now hard-er to tap but increasing numbers of would-be students may bereluctant to borrow more for higher education.

This phenomenon may particularly affect potential graduateand professional students, including those who might other-wise embark on PhD programs. The drop in state support andfalling endowment levels have sharply reduced the number ofnew tenure-track positions being filled this year. Adding to thecosts of college and university budgets will also be the drop innumber of retirements, as many academics have experienced a40 percent drop or more in the value of their defined contribu-tion plans. Rather than retire and open up a position for a newPhD at a lower salary cost, many academics will now stay onwell into their 70s.

Both public and private universities have highlighted pri-vate fund raising and the building of sizable endowments inrecent years as a way to diversify revenues. Numerous univer-sities have reported endowment losses of 25 percent or morein 2008, as virtually all asset classes have fallen in value. Thelogic of limiting spending from endowments to roughly 5 per-cent annually means that either less must be drawn from thissource or spending will increase to unsustainable long-termlevels. It is also unclear whether major donors will be able orwilling to continue to provide substantial new gifts at previousrates in the current climate.

ProspectsMuch depends on what happens in 2009 and whether the fis-cal stimulus developed by the Obama administration willrecharge the economy. However, a prolonged recession andslow recovery may provide the context in which institutionswill reexamine their policies and practices and bring an end tosome of the extravagances that critics of higher education haverailed against for years. Many outlays have been driven by com-petition for status and prestige, as well as to provide studentswith accommodations, services, and facilities approaching aluxury level. If families are forced to scale back in their spend-

international higher education

the global financial crisis2

Higher education has become more dependent ondebt to cover student bills, but not only is the cred-it market now harder to tap but increasing numbersof would-be students may be reluctant to borrowmore for higher education.

ing and expectations (or do so on their own volition), this pres-sure will surely be brought to bear on the colleges and univer-sities where their children enroll. Just as cultural change is call-ing for “green” campuses and worksites, pressure might cometo pass for a leaner, more austere academic experience, at alesser charge to students.

Institutional leaders, board members, and government edu-cational officials face the following challenge: There is no evi-dence that the needs for a highly skilled and well-educatedworkforce are going to diminish, whatever course the economytakes toward recovery. At the same time, the conditions thatprovide access and opportunity to complete various forms ofpostsecondary education and training are languishing in thiscountry, with essentially flat performance over the past quartercentury. Furthermore, other developed countries are surpass-ing the United States now in percentage of the younger popu-lation with degrees and certificates, so the US first-mover sta-tus toward mass higher education has been eroded. Findingthe will and the way to use the most effective educationalresources is now both a moral and an economic obligation.

Chinese Graduates’Employment: The Impact of theFinancial CrisisMucun Zhou and Jing Lin

Mucun Zhou, a doctoral candidate of the Department of Philosophy,Peking University, is currently a visiting student at University of Maryland,College Park. E-mail: [email protected]. Jing Lin is professor of educationin the Department of Educational Leadership, Higher Education andInternational Education at the University of Maryland. E-mail:[email protected].

Based on the statistics of the Ministry of Education, in 2009higher education graduates will include more than 6.11

million in China, while in 2002 the total number comprisedonly 1.45 million. However, the employment rate of graduatesin 2008 consisted of less than 70 percent. The increasingnumber of graduates seeking employment has been challeng-ing for the Chinese government. The current economic crisiswill surely deteriorate the condition further. Very likely, in2009, close to 2 million graduates may not find jobs—many ofwhom are postgraduates, even doctoral graduates.

Causes of Employment ProblemsSeveral factors are responsible for the dire situation of Chinesegraduates’ employment. The massive expansion of enrollmentsince 1999 is one issue. At the end of the last century China'sexports were badly influenced by the Asian financial crisis that

began in 1997. China's economic growth declined sharply,while at the same time domestic demand was not high enoughto maintain the momentum of economic growth. To increasedomestic demand the central government of China reducedinterest rates dramatically for saving accounts. Yet this meas-ure proved noneffective in getting people to increase theirspending. In 1999, the Chinese government was encouragedto stimulate domestic demand by increasing higher educationenrollment. This policy was accepted by the government. By2008, the new enrollment of students in universities rose byabout 6 million, providing Chinese universities close to 24million students in total.

While enrollment expanded, enrollment has not been care-fully matched with student employment prospects. Before1978, China adopted a centrally planned economic system.Beginning in 1978, a market economy was introduced intoChina, and the country opened its door to foreign investment.But this market-oriented policy was not adopted in China'shigher education. Even today the new enrollment of studentsat almost all levels (with the exception of a small number ofprivate colleges) is first arranged by universities and collegesand then approved by governments at various levels, oftenwithout a survey of market needs. With demands in the jobmarket changing constantly, the tension created by the gapbetween the supply of graduates and the demand of employeeshas intensified. Co n s e q u e n t l y, too many graduates havemajored in accounting, Chinese language and literature, law,and computer science, whereas jobs related with these fieldsare limited. At the same time, many companies cannot findqualified employees working in specific technical fields.

The major economic crisis that originated in the UnitedStates in 2008, also affects China. Amid the global financialcrisis, China's economy has started declining in a surprisingspeed since summer 2008. Tens of thousands of foreign-invested companies in the eastern provinces of China, such asGuangdong and Zhejiang, collapsed, and millions of peoplelost their jobs. Employment in China has receded. Fewer posi-tions are available for graduates and will be limited in 2009and the next few years. For instance, in a job fair held byDonghua University, more than 30,000 graduates competedfor 1,700 positions provided by foreign firms.

Measures by the Chinese Government The Chinese government has taken some measures to try tosolve the crisis of graduates’ employment. The Chinese gov-ernment hopes that injecting a huge investment into the econ-omy will create jobs and relieve much of the pressure of grad-

3


the global financial crisis

Very likely, in 2009, close to 2 million graduatesmay not find jobs—many of whom are postgradu-ates, even doctoral graduates.

uates’ unemployment. However, some experts predict thatbuilding infrastructure will only provide manual jobs for ordi-nary workers and will thus benefit college graduates muchless.

Another measure is to expand postgraduate enrollments.The Ministry of Education plans to expand enrollment of mas-ter's degree students by 5 percent and doctoral students by 1.7percent. Given the job decline, many graduates choose to studyfurther. This year, 1,246,000 undergraduate degree holderswill be taking the postgraduate entrance exams. Yet, expandingpostgraduate enrollments cannot solve the problem of gradu-ates’ employment; the trend can only offer some relief to orpostpone the current employment pressure. In fact, in recentyears the employment of master's degree graduates hasbecome problematic.

Diverting graduates to the rural area is a third measure.However, a vast gap exists in terms of developmental level,opportunities, and living conditions between urban and ruralareas. Thus, most graduates prefer to work in cities. To encour-age the graduates to go to the countryside, the government hascome up with policies such as preferential treatment whengraduates (after two-years service) apply to become govern-ment officials or extra points are added to their scores in theexamination for graduate study. These policies are not attrac-tive as given the low salaries graduates can earn in these areasof the country.

ConclusionRecently, the Ministry of Education has been calling for thewhole society, including overseas Chinese, to contribute ideasto improve Chinese education overall. Promoting creative andvocational education has been raised as a way of providing newgraduates with creative education and job skills to meet theneeds of the market and face the challenges of a changingworld in the decades to come. Perhaps this approach consti-tutes a more fundamental strategy that will eventually solve theproblem of employment of university graduates, but theimpact will take many years to become apparent.

The Poor and the Rich in USUniversitiesJohn Aubrey Douglass and Gregg Thompson

John Aubrey Douglass is senior research fellow at the Center for Studies inHigher Education at the University of California, Berkeley and a co-princi-pal investigator of the Student Experience in the Research UniversityProject and Consortium (SERU). E-mail: [email protected]; GreggThomson is executive director of the Office of Student Research andCampus Surveys at UC Berkeley and is also a co-principal of the SERU proj-ect. For access to the related study “The Poor and the Rich,” see:http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/publications.php?s=1.

In the United States, socioeconomic mobility has declinedover the past three decades, with lower-income levels and

wage and benefit losses among many middle-income families.Of course, the current global financial downturn might onlyextenuate this divide in the United States and throughoutmuch of the world—despite the best efforts and plans ofnational leaders, including President Obama.

A number of national studies have pointed to highly selec-tive and elite US private and public universities becoming lessaccessible to lower-income students. The general assumption,minus any good analytical studies, views students from lower-income families as doing less well in academic performanceand sense of belonging at these universities than their morewealthy counterparts.

Disaggregating InstitutionsA closer look at first-degree students in a group of highly selec-tive public and private universities tells a more nuanced story.Our study, “The Poor and Rich,” focusing on low-incomeundergraduate students who receive federal Pell Grants (gen-erally for students with less than $40,000 of family income),found considerable differences in the presence of low-incomestudents among selective universities. Further, the findingschallenge the prevailing notion that low-income students havesignificantly less-satisfactory experiences and outcomes thantheir more wealthy peers—at least in highly selective universi-ties.

On issues of affordability and access, foreign as well asmany US observers of American higher education often fail todisaggregate its network of colleges and universities. Wetracked the presence of low-income students among a group of32 public and private selective higher education institutions,including the eight Ivy League institutions and flagship stateuniversities. With some key caveats, public universities aregenerally much more accessible to low-income students—despite the claims of private institutions that they effectivelyprovide generous discounts in tuition rates and financial aid.


the global financial crisis4

Given the job decline, many graduates choose tostudy further. This year, 1,246,000, undergraduatedegree holders will be taking the postgraduateentrance exams.

A stark difference exists between the East Coast Ivy Leagueand the University of California (UC)—the latter with some180,000 undergraduates, the nation's largest and arguablymost prestigious public research university system.Collectively, only 11 percent of students in the Ivy League arelow income compared to 31 percent in the UC system. The UCcampuses of Berkeley, Davis, and Los Angeles each have morePell Grant students than all the 8 Ivy League institutions com-bined. Cultural, demographic, and regional differences partlyexplain why selective private institutions have relatively smallnumbers of low-income students, in addition to generallymuch lower tuition among public institutions and the greateravailability of financial aid relative to cost.

For instance, UC draws the vast majority of its studentsfrom a demographically diverse California population, many ofwhom are low income and more than half with recent immi-grant backgrounds. UC is not only more accessible than a far-away elite university; it welcomes community college transferstudents as part of its mandate to serve the people ofCalifornia.

In contrast, private institutions seek a national pool for stu-dents, have very few transfer students, and tend to be biased intheir admissions policies toward students with certain academ-ic characteristics, like high standardized test scores and certainfinancial and cultural profiles.

A number of public universities enroll relatively low num-bers of low-income students as well, correlated with theirregional draw of students. The case of the University ofMichigan, the University of Wisconsin, and the University ofVirginia (with only 12, 11, and 8 percent, respectively, of theirstudents with Pell Grants) have initiated efforts at privatizationthat includes enrolling largely wealthy out-of-state students tobring in more tuition income.

New InitiativesTo mollify criticism regarding their low number of low-incomestudents, a number of high-profile private and wealthy univer-sities and colleges have recently initiated “progressive” tuitionrates, in which up-front tuition costs are lower for low- andsome middle-income students. Yet this change still looks liketoo little too late.

In the coming years the income profiles of students at IvyLeague and many other selective privates are likely to changeonly marginally. The recent dive in the endowments of theseinstitutions will probably make them even less able, and will-ing, to provide adequate financial aid to bring in more low-

income students. Furthermore, their impact on providingaccess to the less wealthy is limited, in part because most stu-dents attend public colleges and universities. The 50 “best” lib-eral arts colleges in the United States, for example, enrolledcollectively less than 0.6 percent of all Pell Grant enrollmentsin 2006.

Perhaps the most effective policy for low-income studentsin the United States would require not institutionally derivedaid but, rather, increases in thus far inadequate federal grantsand loans. Thus, elite public and private institutions mightbecome within the grasp of a low-income student.

The US government needs to rethink and expand financialaid to low- and middle-income students as their numbersgrow. The US Department of Education recently estimated thatdemand for Pell Grants exceeded projections by some800,000 students; total applications for the grant program areup 16 percent over the previous year. Fortunately, as part of itseconomic stimulus plan the Obama administration is takingsome steps in the right direction by proposing an additional $8billion to be added to the Pell Grant's current budget of $19 bil-lion.

Academic PerformanceHow do lower-income students perform academically and inother gauges of engagement when compared to more wealthystudents? We explored this issue by using a unique data setthat combines more than 57,000 responses from a spring2006 Census survey of all undergraduates in nine UC cam-puses with institutional data.

This survey is part of a larger Student Experience in theResearch University Project and Consortium that we havedeveloped with colleagues, including all the UC campuses, aninitial group of six other universities of the Association ofAmerican Universities, and soon some international partners.The purpose is to develop new information on students to pro-mote institutional self-improvement and scholarly exploration.Knowing more about the socioeconomic background of stu-dents and their experiences and academic performance is amajor frontier not yet competently explored by most universi-ties—in the United States and globally.

In our Poor and Rich study, we found that low-income(“poor”) students at the University of California generally fareas well academically as high-income (“rich” with familyincome above $125,000) students. At the same time, three inevery four Pell Grant recipients are either first- or second-gen-eration immigrant students and one in every three has at least

5


the global financial crisis

A number of national studies have pointed to high-ly selective and elite US private and public universi-ties becoming less accessible to lower-income stu-dents.

On issues of affordability and access, foreign as wellas many US observers of American higher educa-tion often fail to disaggregate its network of collegesand universities.

one parent with a four-year college degree, suggesting the needto rethink the assumption that “low-income” students are also“first-generation college-going” (and vice versa).

At the same time, Pell Grant recipients at UC have onlyslightly lower GPAs than their wealthy counterparts; this istrue in math, science, and engineering and in humanities andsocial science fields. Poor students at UC generally have thesame levels of satisfaction with various aspects of their under-graduate experience (e.g., overall satisfaction and quality ofadvising received) and in their sense of belonging within acampus community as rich students.

We also found some small but intriguing differences acrossUC campuses with poor students less satisfied relative to theiraffluent peers at those campuses with smaller proportions oflower-income students. Having a “critical mass” of low-incomestudents may be extremely important in retaining and boost-ing their academic performance, and therefore we might seedifferent results among, for example, the Ivy League campus-es.

Without an equivalent data source to the survey StudentExperience in the Research University Project and Consortiumat other US universities currently, we sense that the increasedpresence of immigrant groups and their relatively high aca-demic performance will grow as a phenomenon across thenation, as well as in Europe and other relatively open societiesthat depend economically on in-migration.

We also think it relatively safe to say that, in the case of theUnited States, public institutions will remain the primaryentry point for middle- and lower-income students. Indeed,there may be a further market shift in which demand increas-es significantly for public institutions in light of significantshifts in the economic status of families during the currenteconomic crisis—that is, if public universities gain the fundingto take on growing enrollment demand.

Regional Citation Indexes: AGlobal Research PriorityNobuko Miyairi

Nobuko Miyairi is Research Solution Consultant of the Healthcare &Science business of Thomson Reuters and is based in Tokyo, Japan. She pro-vides an Asia-wide audience with data analyses and consultation forThomson Reuters' academic research solutions. E-mail:[email protected].

In 1955, Eugene Garfield, the founder of the Institute forScientific Information (ISI, now part of Thomson Reuters),

introduced his ideas to create “citation indexes for science.”Garfield addressed the use of cited references in a scholarly

paper as descriptors of the “molecular unit of thought” of theauthor. The basic challenges of traditional subject-based index-es were, as he pointed out, that human indexers cannot antici-pate the infinite number of possible scientific approaches eachscientist may take and that those indexers were required to befamiliar with the subject matter. Compared to human index-ing, the recording of all cited references in a given paper is amindless task. Therefore, it can overcome those challengeswhile maintaining the interlinking relationship of literature bymaking proper references from one to another. The citationindex was proposed as an information retrieval tool to trace thedevelopment of a particular topic over time, through cited ref-erences.

The first edition of the Science Citation Index was pub-lished in 1963 in five volumes with 102,000 source articlesfrom 613 journals, and the cited references yielded 1.4 millionitems. As technology advanced, the citation index evolved fromprint format to microfiche, to compact disc, and to the Webdatabase. Today, the Web of Science® database indexes morethan 10,000 journals of natural and social sciences and thearts and humanities. Its depth of coverage has been expandedto cover the period from 1900 to the present. In 2008 alone itindexed more than 1.6 million records with 41 million citedreferences. Over 20 million users in 90 countries use Web ofScience.

Citation Indexes for Quantitative AnalysisWhile the original motivation in creating citation indexes wasto enhance the retrieval of scientific information, the inventorand his supporters foresaw more purposes—as monitoring thegrowth and structure of scientific activities or measuring thes i g n i ficance of someone’s research indicated by citationimpact. The ever-growing scale of scientific research, as well asits interdisciplinary nature, sometimes hampered objectiveand fair research assessment, even when done by a field expert.

Moreover, what was once considered as a time-consumingexercise—to capture a sizable body of scholarly literature andindex all the cited references—turned out to be a cost-effectiveenterprise accelerated by the advancement of information tech-nology and computing. The bibliometric study, where publica-tion and citation counts are the basic units, became widelyadopted to complement human judgment in assessing scien-t i fic research outcomes of countries, institutions, andresearchers.


international issues6

Today, the Web of Science® database indexes morethan 10,000 journals of natural and social sciencesand the arts and humanities.

Regional Citation Indexes and the Global ViewIt was only in recent years since the 1990s that citation index-es and bibliometric research drew the attention of Asian coun-tries. By that time, bibliometric applications had been widelyexercised in Western countries for the purpose of measuringscientific output and research performance. The need for cita-tion indexes to cover non-English literature was a naturalresponse from Asian research communities, as the ISI citationindexes focused on internationally recognized “high-quality”journals, the majority of which were written in English. Thelack of complete coverage of scientific literature was not neces-sarily an argument against the original citation index Garfieldhad envisioned. Rather, it was created as a “starting point” forvirtually all researchers working on any given topic in any field.

When adopted for research evaluation purposes, however,the pressing need became obvious to adequately supplementwhat was already provided by ISI with locally collected materi-als. Especially in the regions where scholars publish not onlyin English but also in their local language, there has been agrowing demand of indexing local journals to form their owncitation indexes.

These regional citation indexes are available in China,Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. Recently, in those countries whereEnglish is more commonly used, such as India, there is discus-sion of the benefit of creating their own versions of citationindexes.

Globalization of Scholarly ResearchIn 2005, ISI (then Thomson Scientific) reported the UnitedStates’ declining share of the world’s science output. Thistrend had been observed since the early 1990s and the USshare has since been surpassed by the European Union coun-tries’ output share. The output share from the Asia Pacificregion has shown a steady rise since the early 1990s, and it hasbeen predicted that, at that prevailing rate, the Asia Pacificregion would likely outstrip the share of the United States by2011. In fact, by 2007 Asia Pacific accounted for 28.62 percentof the total number of papers published in the world, while theUS share came down to 30.95 percent from what was once39.14 percent in 1981.

The overall number of papers published in most countrieshas been increasing, even as the percentage share from eachmay have fluctuated. These fluctuations can be caused by

many factors, each of which may have influenced another. Oneobvious pattern is an increasing frequency of research involv-ing international collaboration, resulting in many authors con-tributing to a paper from diverse locations around the globe.

ConclusionWhile having been motivated primarily to satisfy the researchassessment needs of the local scientific community, regionalcitation indexes have now inspired a global audience to seekscientific collaboration with them. Garfield's citation index hasstimulated many groups to create additional options to expandwhat was originally envisioned as the Web of Science.

Beyond the transformative role of citation indexes in infor-mation retrieval, the citation counts have ushered in a new erain research performance assessment. One that demonstratesquality, as implied by citation impact, is more important thanmere quantity of output. The regional citation indexes willreveal which institutions, people, and papers have had aninfluential place in moving science forward at the local level.

Wolves in Chancellors’ ClothingGeorge D. Gollin

George D. Gollin is professor of physics at the University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign and a member of the board of directors of the Councilfor Higher Education Accreditation. E-mail: [email protected].

Software engineers realize that their new operating systemswill be deployed into a perilous networked environment.

Aerospace engineers build their jets with an eye toward unex-pected thunderstorms and engine failures. These profession-als understand that scrupulous attention to system integrity inhostile environments is part of the design process for any com-plex system.

The higher education community, however, has not yetevolved a similar professional culture: our organizationalstructures can be naïve, unintentionally opening new channelsfor substandard degree providers to misrepresent their legiti-macy. We would do well to learn from our engineering col-leagues who build systems that are expected to come underattack.

Pay-to-play and the US Medical Licensing ExamThe Foundation for Advancement of International MedicalEducation and Research maintains the barrier between theUnited States Medical Licensing Exam and students from non-US medical schools. Only graduates from schools in the foun-dation's International Medical Education Directory can take

7


international issues

The bibliometric study, where publication and cita-tion counts are the basic units, became widelyadopted to complement human judgment inassessing scientific research outcomes of countries,institutions, and researchers.

the exam. The directory is compiled from information provid-ed by national ministries of health. But without an independ-ent means to verify received information, the directory can beno more accurate than its input data.

The American owners of the “St. Luke School of Medicine”took advantage of the catastrophic civil war in Liberia to claim,without governmental challenge, to be training medical stu-dents in Monrovia. (They weren’t.) In 2004 the Liberian gov-ernment declared St. Luke to be operating illegally. In 2005 USembassy personnel in Liberia visited St. Luke and found “noevidence of anything resembling a functioning, credible med-ical school.” Even so, St. Luke remained in the InternationalMedical Education Directory database at least through 2005,

entitling its customers to sit for the licensing exam.The “University of Science Arts and Technology” pretends

to teach medicine in Montserrat and sports an imaginarypseudopod named the “Medical College of London.” Theowner holds an MD from a diploma mill, while the “dean” alsoworks for the St. Luke School of Medicine. In spite of this, the“university” retains its directory listing.

The International Medical Education Directory suffers thelinked problems of unreliable input information and inade-quate investigative capacity. The Foundation of InternationalMedical Education and Research could develop an early warn-ing system that would raise flags for further action. A mecha-nism to receive unsolicited expert information, in combinationwith sensible metrics for reliability (“is the country in thethroes of a horrific civil war?”) would improve the directory'saccuracy.

fear of litigationAccredited US universities host Web sites in the “.edu” top-level domain. The Colorado-based EDUCAUSE, a nongovern-mental organization that focuses on information technology inhigher education, has managed this domain under contractwith the US Department of Commerce since October 2001.New .edu domains are only issued to accredited postsecondaryinstitutions. However, domains issued before October 2001are “grandfathered”: registrants are not required to hold insti-tutional accreditation. About 2,400 of the approximately 7,000existing .edu domains belong to organizations that would notqualify for the domain today. One is held by a firehouse.Dozens belong to diploma mills.

The St. Luke School of Medicine uses www.stluke.edu,

“Southern Pacific University” holds www.spuni.edu, “AdamSmith University” uses www.adamsmith.edu, and so forth.Sometimes diploma mills tout their .edu domains as attesta-tions of legitimacy. In 2004, the St. Regis degree mill declared:“it is virtually impossible for a ‘bogus’ college or university toobtain a web address with an ‘.EDU’ suffix. Colleges are thor-oughly scrutinized before domain naming authorities willgrant an EDU domain name.” (But it should be noted thatSaint Regis never obtained a domain through EDUCAUSE,instead using the Liberian domain, saintregis.edu.lr.)

EDUCAUSE will not review the grandfathered domains,eliminating those that do not meet the current standards. Theorganization's logic includes the complexity of the task and thepotential cost of litigation from the owners of diploma mills.EDUCAUSE posts no meaningful disclaimer on its Web siteexplaining that an .edu domain is not a reliable indicator oflegal authority to issue degrees. Even the vile St. Luke Schoolof Medicine retains its .edu domain.

Perhaps a Department of Commerce directive to reevaluate(or eliminate) the grandfathered domains would give EDU-CAUSE adequate legal cover. The current situation is unsatis-factory.

French ProblemsFrench universities can award academic credit for life experi-ence. The VAE (Validation des Acquis de l’Expérience) pro-gram is improperly identified by some diploma mills as legit-imizing their degree-selling activities. Examples include “ÉcoleSupérieure Universitaire Robert de Sorbon,” as well as “ÉcoleSupérieure Universitaire Adam Smith.” These disreputablebusinesses incorrectly claim that French law grants them

degree-awarding authority.The French Ministry of Education describes the regulations

governing VAE, but says little to warn of abuses by unrecog-nized degree providers. A “blacklist” of VAE diploma millswould do much to solve the problem.

Misleading Business Licenses Some jurisdictions do not control use of the words “university”or “college” in the names of enterprises receiving businesslicenses. Diploma mills display images of these licenses ontheir Web sites, misidentifying them as guarantees of academ-ic legitimacy. “Concordia College and University,” run fromBelgium, does this with its Mississippi business license.Southern Pacific University uses its Delaware papers to similareffect.


international issues8

Our organizational structures can be naïve, unin-tentionally opening new channels for substandarddegree providers to misrepresent their legitimacy.

The French Ministry of Education describes the reg-ulations governing VAE, but says little to warn ofabuses by unrecognized degree providers.

Higher education associations’ government relations staffshould discuss regulatory protection of the terms “university”and “accreditation” with legislators.

Open Lists into Which Bad Things Crawl The United Kingdom’s Department for Innovation,Universities, and Skills maintains “white lists” of recognizedpostsecondary institutions. But the department’s Web site alsodirects visitors to the “UK Register of Learning Providers” with“information sources on education and training organizations.. . .” No quality assurance is implied by inclusion in the regis-ter, and no controls are imposed requiring legitimacy of enti-ties listed.

Two years ago, “Marquess College London” announced ithad “registered as a learning provider” with the Register ofLearning Providers. Ho w e v e r, Marquess (now called “St.

Simon’s College, London”) is a diploma mill run by individualswith close ties to “École Supérieure Universitaire Robert deSorbon” and “St. Regis University.” Marquess/St. Simon's usesits insertion into an uncontrolled government-identified list tofoster an illusion of legitimacy.

National agencies that allow unrecognized entities to appearon their rosters, even when no recognition is implied, providecover for degree mills. The UK Department for Innovation,Universities, and Skills should not associate itself with anyunscreened list of postsecondary organizations.

Nongovernmental organizations make the same mistake,sponsoring unfiltered lists and community blogs. Sloan-C, anonline learning consortium, opened its membership in 2005.The owners of St Regis immediately injected a half-dozenunsavory “schools” into Sloan-C and placed the Sloan-C logoon their Web sites. Sloan-C restricted its membership andremoved the list of members from public display, eliminatingthe problem.

Concordia College & University penetrated unprotectedblogs at the University of Illinois, EDUCAUSE, SyracuseUniversity, Michigan Technical University, Boston College, andthe Citadel. Concordia uploaded advertising material and thenposted links to the blogs, identifying them as indicators ofrecognition. Most of the schools responded as soon as theybecame aware of the problem.

Paying AttentionEffective quality assurance is a complex challenge for interna-tional higher education, even in an ideal world of honorableparticipants. Attracted by the world's enormous annual expen-

ditures on higher education, the wolves that masquerade aslegitimate schools lie in wait in the shadows. Our planningmust always include an awareness of these beasts.

The Bologna Process: A WearyLeap ForwardRainer Hoell, Josef Lentsch, and Sebastian Litta

Rainer Hoell, Josef Lentsch, and Sebastian Litta are master of publicadministration candidates at the Harvard Kennedy School and haveworked extensively in higher education projects in Germany and Austria.E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected].

The Bologna process, originated in 1999 by the secretariesof education of 29 European countries and joined later by

17 more, has included ambitious aims: a unified Europeanhigher education area with comparable bachelor's and mas-ter's degrees, enabling students to move freely and withoutbureaucratic hurdles between universities.

The goals appear laudable, and the efforts to reach them inthe last decade proved enormous. The resulting gains in trans-parency and the move toward competence deserve the praisereceived by the Bologna process these days. At the same time,h o w e v e r, many Europeans will be disappointed withBologna—particularly in self-perceived front-runner countrieslike Germany and Austria. Focusing on these two countries,this article will analyze issues of disappointment.

Implementation ManagementTo guarantee comparability of degrees across subjects andcountries, Bologna’s aim is to encompass all academic disci-plines. However, some of the most popular study programshave refused to switch to the new bachelor's and master'sdegree system. The nonparticipating fields include law andmedicine—in Germany and Austria as well as in otherEuropean countries. In France, the grandes écoles, the tradition-al cadre universities for the political and business elite, try toavoid Bologna entirely.

The official 2010 deadline for the implementation in all par-ticipating countries will by no means be met. As a case inpoint, in Germany, 35 percent of all freshmen still begin theirstudies in the “old” degree system (Ma g i s t e r, Diplom, orStaatsexamen). The Bologna process required universities tochange their administrative and curricular structures funda-mentally and to document these in tens of thousands ofpapers, reports, and module descriptions. Many universities,however, have not received significant additional funding, fac-

9


patterns and problems of internationalization

National agencies that allow unrecognized entitiesto appear on their rosters, even when no recognitionis implied, provide cover for degree mills.

ing instead financial stagnation or budget cuts. Hence, univer-sities were often compelled to design new structures withinsufficient planning and assessment.

The Risks of Self-Proclaimed GoalsThese difficulties may typify teething problems and could beresolved in the coming years. However, even a fully imple-mented Bologna system may not meet all its intended effects.For example, no hard data have yet guaranteed a positive ornegative impact of Bologna on student mobility. But manyaspects of the process raise concerns.

Many university professors have displayed a kind of conser-vatism in the form of favoring traditional degree structures. Toensure that students do not learn less than their longer educat-ed predecessors, the entire content of a five-year Diplom orMagister program is compressed into the new three-year bach-elor’s program. This has left students with little time to planand prepare for time abroad.

According to a report by the European UniversitiesAssociation (EUA), 47 percent of higher education institutionsstated that some students face problems with the recognitionof their credits gained abroad. A course in economics taken atone university might not be recognized elsewhere because thecourse descriptions do not match. Even if module descriptionsadequately correspond, the country-specific application of theEuropean Transfer Credit System (ECTS) leads to a differentassessment of the courses, further complicating mobility. TheEUA admits that while almost 75 percent of all European uni-versities are using the new system, “incorrect or superficial useof ECTS is currently still widespread.”

Apart from student mobility, the Bologna process was con-

sidered in Germany as instrumental for tackling one of themost crucial problems of higher education—high dropoutrates and comparatively long periods of study, especially in thehumanities and social sciences. However, in a 2007 study byBerlin’s Freie Universität, the university had to admit thatthese goals could not be attained. Dropout rates soared. In2006, for example, more than 30 percent of geography stu-dents in the new bachelor's program had left after the secondyear. In the still existing Diplom program the dropout rate for2006 was 6 percent. This reflects the national figures inGermany. The dropout rate in the German higher educationsystem overall has increased to 21 percent. In bachelor's pro-grams, the rate is 30 percent. The problems are also reflectedin the number of students in need of psychological or stresscounseling, which has gone up since Bologna’s kickoff.

A Missed Opportunity Which qualifications and skills will be critical in the 21st cen-tury? What knowledge should a 22-year-old university graduatepossess today? These questions should have been asked duringthe planning phase of the Bologna process. However, in manyparticipating countries—particularly Germany and Austria—the opportunity to develop a new vision of education, beforereform implementation, was unfortunately missed.

Many US universities discuss these questions on a regularbasis, to address the challenges posed by a changing world.The 2004 report of the curriculum review task force ofHarvard College suggested that students should learn the toolsto go out into the world and “lead productive lives in nationaland global communities”—not too far from the concept of thefounding fathers and mothers of the Bologna system. The taskforce actually contemplated which specific tools could be usedfor this objective. Why have so many European countries notseized the moment to start such a debate?

A major crisis is that German professors usually do notregard undergraduate education as significant. And whyshould they? Professors’ advancement and tenure status areentirely dependent on their research performance. No incen-tives for good teaching exist for professors or for universitiesthemselves. The government-funded excellence competitiontwo years ago selected nine “Excellence Universities”—accord-ing to their research proposals. With this neglect of teaching,the Bologna process is still perceived as a bureaucratic burdenimposed on underfinanced institutions and not as the incen-tive for a creative process in each individual university.

No Time for FatigueOverstretched human and academic resources have led to a“Bologna fatigue.” After years of countless committee meet-ings related to the reform, professors, administrators, and stu-dents have become weary. One of the greatest dangers facingthe Bologna process is slowing down or even stopping.

Undoubtedly, Bologna has introduced much progress andmomentum into higher education in Europe. Still, muchneeds to be accomplished. A solution of mobility obstacles andpersistently high dropout rates will need to involve a better sys-tem of supervision and counseling for students, especially atthe transition from secondary school to university. When stu-dents are expected to graduate after three years, universitiesshould have the responsibility to guarantee a highly structuredand effective introductory phase. To achieve this, Europe has toconsider a potential move to four-year bachelor's degree pro-grams. All this, however, only makes sense if all Europeancountries embed it in a profound discussion of the aims ofhigher education. A “great curriculum debate,” as formerHarvard president Derek Bok called it, needs to start right nowat every European university.


patterns and problems of internationalization10

Some of the most popular study programs haverefused to switch to the new bachelor's and mas-ter's degree system.

The Problems ofInternationalization in PolandBianka Siwinska

Bianka Siwinska is an editor in chief of the monthly Perspektywy. Address:Perspektywy Education Foundation, Nowogrodzka 31, 00-511 Warsaw,Poland. E-mail: [email protected].

The 2007 report of the Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development (OECD), “Review of

Tertiary Education in Poland,” summarizes in rather unflatter-ing words the state of internationalization of Polish highereducation:

“There is no national policy to stimulate activities directedtowards internationalization . . . [and] no clarity about any

legal instruments that might need to be put in place to fosterthe internationalization of the system. . . . At the same time,internationalization is very limited in scope.”

As the report confirms, the main problem of international-ization in Poland is a lack of coherent national strategy. Theinvolvement of the government in the process is very limited.To make Polish tertiary education more international, attemptshave been undertaken by higher education institutions them-selves or in cooperation with specialized nongovernmentalorganizations. These bottom-up initiatives no longer appearsufficient.

The Polish higher education system is already sufferinginconvenient outcomes. With only 13,695 international stu-dents, 0.71 percent of a 2 million student population (3,989from Ukraine, 1,805 from Belarus, 1,039 from Norway, 749from the United States, and 354 from China), Poland has oneof the lowest number of international students among thecountries of the OECD. Within Erasmus, the Europeanexchange program, for every three Polish students who goabroad only one exchange student travels to Poland.

The Czech Republic, with a population four times smaller(about 10 million) and comparable with Poland in other areas,is ahead not only in percentage but in absolute numbers aswell. Twenty-six thousand foreign students in the CzechRepublic constitute over 8 percent of the total student popula-tion. The proportion in the Erasmus exchange is 3:2 in favor ofoutgoing students.

Promotion, Stupid!Certain trends have kept Polish higher education institutionsfrom attracting foreign students. Only a limited number ofgood programs are being taught in English. Poland lacksworld-class centers of academic excellence. The two best Polishuniversities rate only among the 400 lowest institutions in theacademic ranking by Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Last butnot least, the OECD report states that Polish institutions “have

no strategy for attracting foreign students [and] typically theyhave not developed a proactive policy for international market-ing.”

In Germany, the main role in promotion of internationalhigher education is played by DAAD—an organization with a300 million euro annual budget; the United Kingdom andFrance also have agencies engaged in international educa-tion—the British Council and CampusFrance. The only organ-ization in Poland that serves a similar function is thePerspektywy Education Foundation, a nongovernmentalorganization. Perspektywy receives no public funds and reliessolely on the support of universities. Polish authorities do notseem fully aware of the importance of the internationalizationprocess.

The Bologna ProcessExternal pressure for change has increased since Po l a n dbecame a member of the European Union in 2004. The imple-mentation of the Bologna process started five years earlier, andPoland was a cosigner of the Bologna pact establishing bench-marks for the creation of the “European higher education area”in 1999. The most significant policy involved introduction ofthe three-cycle system (bachelor’s+master’s+PhD), theEuropean Credit Transfer System, and implementation ofmobility programs.

In preparation for the new international requirements,Polish higher education started some serious reforms. Basedon the European education programs for academic staff, abuildup of expertise on internationalization of universities is

under way. Polish higher education institutions have becomemore active internationally.

MilestonesThe formula determining government funding of a universityhas been changed to include an incentive to internationalize.Consequently, universities started to integrate internationaliza-tion into their agenda. This approach had been preceded by thePerspektywy Education Foundation, which included interna-tionalization issues in the Polish university ranking. At pres-ent, the level of internationalization influences university rank-ings by about 10 percent.

In May 2005, the Conference of Rectors of AcademicSchools in Poland and the Perspektywy Education Foundationestablished the Study in Poland program with the aim tostrengthen internationalization. A consortium was created ofthe 40 best universities interested in internationalization. This

11



Certain trends have kept Polish higher educationinstitutions from attracting foreign students. Only alimited number of good programs are being taughtin English.

program has undertaken the organizing conferences and pro-fessional workshops and publishing handbooks and studies ofimportant education markets. Study in Poland has promotedPolish higher education in China, India, Vietnam, Thailand,

Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Russia, Ukraine,Kazakhstan, and the United States, as well as in Spain,Belgium, the Netherlands, and France. During the period sincethe program started, the number of foreign students in Polishhigher education institutions increased by 30 percent.

The ruling political party, Platforma Obywatelska (liberal),in its 2007 election program declared support for internation-alization of higher education in Poland and for the Study inPoland program. As yet no steps have been taken in this direc-tion, but lobbying efforts are in progress.

The FutureThe Conference of Rectors of Academic Schools in Poland hasaffirmed that, to become truly international, Polish higher edu-cation institutions will need to activate the field of transnation-al education, enact policies to attract international studentsand academic staff, and develop international curricula.Without greater understanding of the international highereducation landscape, the process of marginalization of Polishschools will continue. Because of the centralized nature of thepublic system, funding will be needed to ensure international-ization.

Double- and Joint-DegreePrograms: Double Benefits orDouble Counting?jane knight

Jane Knight is adjunct professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies inEducation, University of Toronto, Canada. E-mail: [email protected].

In the current landscape of higher education, internationaljoint-, double-, and combined-degree programs perform an

important role and will likely rise in numbers and influence inthe coming years. This internationalization strategy bringsimportant benefits to individuals, institutions, and nationaland regional education systems. Regarding these programs,

interest is expanding, but confusion is also rising about whatthey characterize and entail.

For many academics and policymakers, double- and joint-degree programs are welcomed as a natural extension ofexchange and mobility. For others, they are perceived as a trou-blesome development leading to double counting of academicwork and the thin edge of academic fraud. A broad range ofreactions exist because of the diversity of these program mod-els, the involvement of different types of institutions, theuncertainty related to quality assurance and qualifications, andthe ethics used in designing the academic workload or newcompetencies required for the granting of a joint, double, mul-tiple, or combined degree.

Proposed Working Definitions A plethora of words are used to describe these programs—dou-ble, multiple, trinational, joint, integrated, collaborative, com-bined, concurrent, consecutive, overlapping, conjoint, parallel,simultaneous, and common. These terms convey different

meanings among people within and across countries, compli-cating the situation. The following definitions may provideclarity and common understanding: A joint-degree programawards one joint qualification upon completion of the collabo-rative program requirements established by the partner insti-tutions. A double-degree program awards two individual qual-ifications at equivalent levels upon completion of the collabo-rative program requirements established by the two partnerinstitutions. A combined-degree program awards two differentqualifications at consecutive levels upon completion of therequirements established by the partner institutions.

Benefits Collaborative-degree programs can lead to a deeper and moresustainable relationship than many internationalization strate-gies and create such academic benefits as innovation of cur-riculum, exchange of professors and researchers, andincreased access to expertise and research networks. Studentsare attracted to double degrees for enhanced career opportuni-ties, an international study and life experience, and the percep-tion that “two degrees for one” means decreased workload andtuition fees. At the national and regional level, they are seen tocontribute to increased status, competitiveness, and capacitybuilding.

Challenges The benefits of joint-, double-, and combined-degree programs



The formula determining government funding of auniversity has been changed to include an incentiveto internationalize.

For many academics and policymakers, double-and joint-degree programs are welcomed as a nat-ural extension of exchange and mobility.

are numerous and diverse but so are the problems. Differentregulatory systems, academic calendars, credit systems, tuitionand scholarship schemes, teaching languages and approaches,and examination requirements create only some of the techni-cal requirements to be met by the participating institutions.

National and university regulations and customs differamong countries and present challenges for the design andimplementation of international collaborative programs—reg-ulations preventing students from enrolling in more than oneuniversity at a time, laws requiring students to spend their lastyear or semester at the home university, or practices mandat-ing the recruitment and selection of students. Nonrecognitionand limitations on the number of courses or credits taken at apartner university raise additional barriers. Dissimilar academ-ic years can create problems for student mobility but may pro-vide more opportunities for faculty exchange. Ev a l u a t i o nrequirements and procedures often present obstacles to dou-ble-degree programs.

Quality assurance and accreditation constitute fundamentalfactors, but national accreditation systems do not exist in allcountries or may differ enormously. Some bodies focus on theprogram and others on the institutional level; many concen-trate on inputs, and others look at process or outputs.Currently, the best-case scenario involves the completion ofaccreditation by each partner institution in the double-, joint-,or combined-degree program. Certain professional programsare evaluated by international accreditation agencies like ABETor EQUIS, but currently institutions are more likely to havetheir home programs accredited than the double- or joint-degree programs. A relevant issue concerns whether national,regional, or international accreditation is the best route forinternational collaborative programs.

Recognition of the qualifications from the various collabora-tive programs forms the most vexing issue. Only a few coun-tries, although the numbers are rising, allow a domestic uni-versity legally to confer a joint qualification in partnership witha foreign institution. The student would get a formal diplomafrom one university and an unofficial certificate from the other,or others, indicating that it was a joint collaborative program.For some students, the international nature, rather than thequalification, of the academic program composed the most sig-nificant aspect. For many though, this is not the case as creden-tialism is increasingly relevant for students and their careers.

Employers, academic institutions, and credential evaluationagencies must be aware of the granting and recognition of dou-ble or multiple qualifications. Some double, multiple and com-bined degrees are perceived as more “legitimate” than others,

but this impression is difficult to prove. Much of the concernrests with the double counting of the same course credits andworkload for two or more qualifications. This has led to the“two for the cost of one” label for double degrees. Cost in thiscase is not only measured in monetary terms but also studentworkload.

The diversity of models used to determine the completionrequirements for double- and multiple-degree programs isproblematic. No clarity exists on whether requirements arebased on (1) the number of completed courses and credits, (2)the student workload, or (3) required outcome and competen-cy. These three approaches lead to different explanations andarguments to support the legitimacy of the double and multi-ple degrees awarded. Many would argue that attributing thesame course workload toward two or more degrees from two ormore institutions in different countries devalues the validity ofa qualification. Others believe that if students meet the statedlearning outcomes and competencies required for a qualifica-tion the credential is legitimate. This logic infers that doubleand multiple degrees, based on a set of core courses or compe-tencies, are academically legitimate; and it is the process forrecognizing these qualifications that requires more attentionnot the completion requirements per se. Both arguments havevalidity, but the variety of program models prevents a clear res-olution to the question of perceived and actual legitimacy.

The higher education sector must work out a commonunderstanding of joint, double, and combined programs andiron out the academic issues concerning working in differentnational regulatory frameworks, cultures, and practices. A rig-orous debate on the vexing questions of accreditation, recogni-tion, and legitimacy of the qualifications needs to take place toensure that international collaborative programs and theirawards are respected and recognized by students, higher edu-cation institutions, and employers around the world.

International Students in theUnited States: Open DoorsSurveyPatricia Chow and Rachel Marcus

Patricia Chow is senior program officer and Rachel Marcus is research offi-cer at the Institute of International Education. E-mail: [email protected] Doors Web site: http://opendoors.iietnetwork.org.

During the 2007/08 academic year, the number of interna-tional students in the United States reached a record high

of 623,805, a 7 percent increase over the prior year and the firstsignificant increase since 2001/02. Students enrolling for the

13



Much of the concern rests with the double countingof the same course credits and workload for two ormore qualifications

first time at a US campus often represents a more sensitivemeasure of growth than total enrollment, and these newenrollments increased 10 percent this year, to 173,121 students.The Institute of International Education annually surveysapproximately 3,000 accredited US higher education institu-tions on various aspects of international educational exchangeand has collected data on international students in US highereducation in the form of the Open Doors project since 1954.

International Student Origins—2007/08For the eighth consecutive year, India was the leading place oforigin of international students in the United States, with94,563 Indian students in 2007/08. The People's Republic ofChina remained in second place this year, with 81,127 students,and the Republic of (South) Korea remained in third place,with 69,124 students. All three countries experienced largeincreases this year, as did two other top-sending countries inAsia: Vietnam and Nepal. The number of international stu-dents from Asia increased by 10 percent overall this year andaccounted for 61 percent of all international students. Thenumber of students from the Middle East also increased thisyear (11 percent), driven by a large increase (25 percent) fromSaudi Arabia, the result of a Saudi Arabian government schol-arship program launched in 2005. Enrollments from LatinAmerica saw a slight decline (less than 1 percent), despite a 7percent increase from Mexico. Africa also saw a slight declineof less than 1 percent. Both Europe and Oceania saw smallincreases this year, following declines the previous year. Thisyear marks the first increase from Europe since 9/11, althoughthe current total still remains far below the peak of 95,697 stu-dents in 2001/02.

Student Profile—2007/08As has been the case since 2001/02, international graduatestudents outnumbered international undergraduate studentsin 2007/08. Forty-nine percent of enrolled international stu-dents were graduate-degree students, 43 percent were under-graduate-degree students, and 8 percent were nondegree stu-dents. The number of nondegree students grew 12 percentover the past year, driven by large increases from China, India,and Vietnam.

Almost two-thirds (62 percent) of all international studentsare self-funded, with 82.5 percent of undergraduates and 77percent of nondegree students paying for their education withpersonal and family funds. At the graduate level, about half (46

percent) are self-funded.One-fifth of all enrolled international students in the United

States are studying business and management, the most pop-ular field of study for international students. The science, tech-nology, engineering, and mathematics fields are also very pop-ular, and together account for 40 percent of all enrolled inter-national students.

Changes since 2001/02After 9/11, the number of enrolled international students inUS higher education experienced its first decline after nearly50 years of increases. While the overall enrollment numbershave now rebounded, substantial shifts have appeared in thecomposition of the international student body. With someexceptions, the general trend has been extended largely towardthe top countries of origin (now exceeding pre-9/11 levels),accompanied by declines from many predominantly Muslimcountries and places outside of Asia.

While the total number of international students in theUnited States has advanced 7 percent since 2001/02, the num-ber of students from Asia rose 17 percent during the same peri-od. This movement is attributable to large increases fromIndia, China, South Korea, Nepal, and Vietnam, and theseincreases have completely overshadowed substantial declinesfrom other major Asian countries of origin—including Japan,Indonesia, Thailand, Pakistan, and Malaysia.

The picture from the Islamic world is similarly nuanced.There was an average decline of 15.5 percent in the number ofstudents from predominantly Muslim countries studying inthe United States in 2007/08 compared to 2001/02. However,this drop raises the number of students coming to the UnitedStates from several countries in the Muslim world, mostnotably Saudi Arabia, which saw a 77 percent increase duringthis period, despite seeing a loss of 46 percent between2001/02 and 2004/05. A similar trend was seen for NorthAfrica: although there was a 31 percent loss between 2001/02and 2007/08, this past year the number of students fromNorth Africa grew by 4 percent, the first increase since2001/02.

Other world regions saw mostly moderate declines of stu-dents in the United States between 2001/02 and 2007/08:from Africa a 5.5 percent decline; from Europe 12 percent(despite an increase of 1.5 percent this year); and from LatinAmerica 6 percent. North America (comprised of Canada andBermuda) and Oceania saw increases during this period of 9percent and 3 percent, respectively.



For the eighth consecutive year, India was the lead-ing place of origin of international students in theUnited States, with 94,563 Indian students in2007/08.

While undergraduate enrollments increased 25 per-cent, graduate enrollments rose 160.5 percent

Changes since 1981/82The number of international students in the United Statesnearly doubled between 1981/82 and 2007/08 (from 326,299to 623,805). But while undergraduate enrollments increased25 percent, graduate enrollments rose 160.5 percent during thesame period, and as a consequence, the proportion of under-graduate students has declined.

Among the top places of origin, students from Iran in1981/82 comprised the largest cohort of international studentsin the United States, followed by students from Taiwan andNigeria. These top three places of origin accounted for 23 per-cent of all international students in the United States in1981/82. Since then, not only have the top places of originshifted, a clear trend has appeared of greater concentrationfrom the top places of origin, with the current top three placesaccounting for 39 percent of all international students in2007/08.

ConclusionWhile there has been enormous growth in the number ofinternational students in the United States since 1981/82, it isalso clear that the students come from different countries andare enrolled at different academic programs than their peersfrom the past, as changing economies and political situationsat home, as well as the changing landscape of higher educationaround the world, have created both new opportunities andbarriers for internationally mobile students.___________Authors' Note: Open Doors has received support from the Bureau ofEducational and Cultural Affairs of the US Department of State since1972. The opinions expressed in this article are entirely those of theauthors.

It's the Faculty, Stupid!The Centrality of the AcademicProfession

Philip G. Altbach

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

In 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president of the UnitedStates in considerable part by emphasizing the importance

of the economy. His mantra—“It's the economy, stupid!”—

focused this point. For higher education, the mantra should be“it's the faculty, stupid.” In fact, no university can achieve suc-cess without a well-qualified, committed academic profession.Neither an impressive campus nor an innovative curriculumwill produce good results without great professors. Highereducation worldwide focuses on the “hardware”—buildings,laboratories, and the like—at the expense of “software”—thepeople who make any academic institutions successful. Look atthe often-criticized rankings. What do they measure? Numbersof Nobel prizewinners, the research productivity of professors,grants obtained by faculty, and the quality of the students arecentral. Budgets and facilities are less important in the rank-ings.

Almost everywhere, the faculty is forgotten in the rush tocope with ever increasing enrollments and in the midst ofdeepening financial problems. If higher education is to suc-ceed, “It's the faculty, stupid!” must be a central rallying cry foruniversities worldwide.

It is depressing, but quite essential, to examine the status ofthe academic profession worldwide. A few examples will illus-trate global realities. One issue involves the fact that the aca-demic profession is aging in many countries. In much of theworld, half or more of the professoriate is getting close toretirement. In many countries, too few new PhDs are beingproduced to replace those leaving the profession, and manynew doctorates prefer to work outside of academe. Too fewincentives for advanced doctoral study and an uncertainemployment market for new PhDs, along with inadequatefinancial support in many fields, deter enrollment and ensurethat many students drop out of doctoral programs. Countrieswith rapidly growing higher education systems are especiallyhard hit. Vietnam, for example, requires 12,000 more academ-ics each year to meet expansion goals, and only 10 percent ofthe academic profession currently hold doctoral degrees.

Global examples of the current state of the academic profes-sion will illustrate contemporary deteriorating. These exam-ples are chosen to highlight widespread realities.

The Rise of the Part-Time ProfessionTo be most effective, professors need to be truly engaged inteaching and research. They must have full-time academicappointments and devote attention exclusively to academicresponsibilities and to the universities and colleges thatemploy them. The full-time professoriate is a dying breed.Latin America is the homeland of the part time “taxicab” pro-fessor, rushing between teaching jobs or between class andanother profession. Except for Brazil, in almost all LatinAmerican countries up to 80 percent of the professoriate isemployed part time. Paid a pittance, they have little commit-ment to the university or to students. It is not surprising thatthere are almost no Latin American universities among the top500 and little research productivity. In the United States, onlyhalf of newly hired academics are full time on the “tenure

15


the academic profession

track”—scholars who can hope for a career in higher educa-tion. The rest are part-time “contingent” faculty who are paidpoorly for each course and have few benefits. A new class offull-time contract teachers has grown in recent years as a wayfor universities to ensure flexibility in staffing. Traditionaltenure-track academic appointments tend to be most commonin the upper-tier colleges and universities, thus increasinginequalities in the academic system as a whole.

In many countries, universities now employ part-time pro-fessors who have full-time appointments at other institutions.Many eastern European countries, China, Vietnam, Uganda,and others are examples of such a higher education sector.Academic salaries are sufficiently low, and the universitiesexpect that faculty will earn extra funds to supplement theirown incomes and in some cases to subsidize the university'sown budget. At some Chinese universities, professors areexpected to practice consulting and other outside work as part

of their academic duties. In other cases, universities set upadditional degree-granting colleges and ask the faculty to per-form extra teaching at those schools, enhancing university rev-enues and individual salaries at the same time. It is also thecase that professors at state universities in much of the worldhelp to staff the burgeoning private higher education sector by“moonlighting.”

The decline of a real full-time professoriate is undermininghigh-quality higher education. If professors cannot devotetheir full attention not only to teaching and research but also tomaintaining an academic culture, working with students out-side of the classroom, and participating in the governance oftheir universities, academic quality will decline. As the Britishsay, “penny wise and pound foolish.”

The Dumbing Down of the ProfessoriateIt is possible that up to half of the world's university teachershave only earned a bachelor's degree. No one knows for sure.What we do know is that the academic profession is growingrapidly, and facilities for advanced degree study are not keep-ing up—nor are salary levels that encourage the “best andbrightest” from joining the professoriate. In China, the world'slargest academic system, only 9 percent of the academic pro-fession has doctorates (although 70 percent do in the topresearch universities). Thirty-five percent of Indian academicshave doctoral qualifications. In many countries, significantparts of the profession have a bachelor's degree, and somehave not even attained that basic degree. In most developingcountries, only academic staff at the most prestigious universi-ties hold a doctoral degree—usually under 10 percent of the

total. The expansion of graduate postbaccalaureate programshas been identified as a top priority worldwide, but expansionhas been slow because the demand for basic access is so great.

The Pauperization of the ProfessionIt is no longer possible to lure the best minds to academe. Asignificant part of the problem is financial. Academic salarieshave not kept up with remuneration for highly trained profes-sionals everywhere. A recent study of academic salaries in 15countries shows full-time academic staff can survive on theirsalaries. However, they do not earn much more than the aver-age salary in their country. Relatively few of the most qualifiedyoung people undergo the rigorous education required for jobsin the top universities. However, highly trained individuals fre-quently flee to higher paying jobs in other professions or, inthe case of developing countries, leave for academic or otherjobs in Europe or North America.

The Bureaucratization of the ProfessoriateIn years past, even if academics were not well paid, they held agood deal of autonomy and control over their teaching andresearch as well as their time. This situation has changed inmany academic systems and institutions. In terms of account-ability and assessment, the professoriate has lost much of itsa u t o n o m y. Assessment exercises and other accountabilitymeasures require a lot of time and effort to complete. The pres-sure to assess academic productivity of all kinds is substantial,even if much of that work is in fact quite difficult or impossi-ble to accurately measure. Much criticism has been aimed atthe British Research Assessment Exercises, which many claimhas distorted academic work.

Universities have also become much more bureaucratic asthey have grown and have become more accountable to exter-nal authorities. Heavy bureaucratic control is deleterious to asense of academic community and generally to the faculty'straditional involvement in academic governance. The power ofthe professors, once dominant and sometimes used by them toresist change, has declined in the age of accountability andbureaucracy.

What Is To be Done?It is not difficult to identify the path to a restored academic pro-fession—and thus successful higher education systems. Theacademic profession must again become a profession—withappropriate training, compensation, and status. This meansthat academic programs to provide master's and doctoral


the academic profession16

In years past, even if academics were not well paid,they held a good deal of autonomy and control overtheir teaching and research as well as their time.

The decline of a real full-time professoriate is under-mining high-quality higher education.

degrees must be significantly expanded. The rush toward part-time teachers must be ended and, instead, a sufficient cadre offull-time professors with appropriate career ladders appointed.Salaries must be sufficient to attract talented young scholarsand to keep them in the profession.

In a differentiated academic system, not all professors willfocus on research—typically the gold standard in terms ofprestige and status. Most academics mainly teach, and theirworkloads should reflect this. It would also be impossible toreturn to the days of unfettered autonomy and little if any eval-uation of academic work. Yet, accountability and assessmentcan be done in ways that are appropriate to academic workrather than punitive exercises.

If there is any good news in this story it is that more profes-sors enjoy what they are doing and feel a loyalty to the profes-sion. The 1992 international Carnegie study of the academicprofession found surprisingly high levels of satisfaction, andthe 2007 Changing Academic Profession global survey foundmuch the same result. Despite their problems, academic lifehas significant attractions. The challenge is to ensure that theacademic profession is again seen by policymakers and thepublic as central to the success of higher education.

In the current environment, the popular press as well assome university administrators and many government officialsare happy to criticize professors as the root of academe's prob-lems. In fact, the opposite is the case—the professors are theroot of the unprecedented success of higher education. Thereis always room for improvement, but professor bashing willlead to neither reform nor greater productivity.

The Academic Profession:Colombia's 2019 VisionIván F. Pacheco

Iván Pacheco was the Director of Quality Assurance for higher education inthe Colombian Ministry of Education for more than three years. He is cur-rently a doctoral student in higher education at Boston College. E-mail:[email protected].

The emergence of the knowledge economy poses dramaticchallenges for developing nations that have to struggle to

insert themselves in a highly competitive market. Colombia’scase illustrates this situation.

Colombia’s government planning is focused on 2019, its200th anniversary of independence. Policymakers concentrateon their country’s movement into the knowledge economy aswell as the role researchers and highly skilled workers play inthat process. However, the country’s current reality of academ-

ic human capital will present a challenge in reaching this goal.Not enough high-quality researchers work in the higher educa-tion sector, in part because Colombia lacks the conditions toattract and retain talented academics.

Colombian teachers’ salaries are not competitive in theinternational context, as illustrated in a recent study by theBoston College Center for International Higher Education, inwhich Colombia was ranked among the four lowest-paid coun-tries within a group of 16. In addition, the country has not suc-ceeded in developing alternative incentives to counterbalancethe limited monetary rewards—such as, availability of goodlaboratories, supportive academic communities, and job stabil-ity. Although a few official documents have considered theimportance of attracting foreign scholars, compensation andother mechanisms to retain local faculty and attract foreign tal-ent have not yet been analyzed in depth. A picture of how fac-ulty are hired and paid in Colombia illustrates the urgency forchanges in its enrollment and remuneration structure.

Compensation at Public and Private InstitutionsThe institution's nature (public or private) is perhaps the mostrelevant factor to explain how teachers are paid in Colombia.Among the 272 higher education institutions in the countryonly 81 are public, but they account for about 50 percent of thenation's enrollment.

Full-time and part-time teachers at public higher educationinstitutions are considered public servants and are subject tospecial legal statutes. Faculty at private institutions, however,are subject to the general labor law applied to any other work-ers in the country.

To enter the academic track as a public employee, facultymust participate in a meritocratic process in which candidates’curriculum, academic productivity, and other elements areevaluated. A probation period can also be part of this process.Once the candidate is formally incorporated as a professor heor she will be tenured, under very similar conditions as for anyother public employees in the country. Salaries are calculatedbased on a set of tables established by the central government,with little room for negotiation.

Two types of teachers at public higher education institutionsare not considered public employees: the so-called occasionalteachers and those hired through an hourly based contract,called profesores de hora cátredra. Conceived in the law as anexception, these two groups, usually referred to as “temporaryteachers,” are a significant portion of the total teaching person-nel in the public sector—in 2005, representing 64 percent ofColombian higher education instructors, compared to only 25percent of full-time teachers.

17


the academic profession

Colombian teachers’ salaries are not competitive inthe international context,

Teachers at private universities usually do not possesstenure, and the majority are hired through contracts of lessthan a year. These contracts tend to be renewed, but an institu-tion can decide not to renew a contract without notice or pay-ing severance. As in public universities, teachers at private uni-versities can be hired on hourly based contracts, part time orfull time; other positions are also possible but less frequent.Private institutions possess greater flexibility to negotiate fac-ulty salaries; for this and other reasons, salary information inprivate institutions is limited and difficult to study.

Faculty QualificationsThe minimum requirement to become a professor at a publicuniversity is a bachelor’s degree. However, occasionally, peoplewithout such a degree are hired. There is no specific regulationon the minimum academic degree for private university facul-ty, but in general teachers have at least a bachelor’s degree.Some exceptions may be found in technical institutions andprograms associated with the arts. In 2005, about 1.86 percentof Colombian higher education teachers had qualificationsbelow a bachelor’s degree; 36.7 percent had a bachelor’sdegree; and 61 percent had a postgraduate degree, including3.3 percent holding a doctoral degree.

Looking Toward 2019Colombia's development plan includes research and the pro-duction and application of knowledge as important compo-nents in most sectors. The draft of the education sector's 2019strategic plan includes the goal of acquiring at least 30 percentof full-time-equivalent faculty with a doctoral degree, startingwith a baseline of 8 percent of these teachers holding such adegree.

Colombia will have to create a flexible environment in pub-lic universities, improve faculty members’ stability at publicand private institutions, and consider competitiveness as a goalfor researchers. Low salaries, precarious working conditions,and weak academic communities do not make a strong case toattract the best and the brightest to academe.

At present, just 10 years away from 2019, the countryshould evaluate whether it will import foreign talent toimprove its research capability. Given that salary plays animportant role, the country should evaluate the convenienceand viability of creating competitive salaries to attractColombians and foreigners who have earned the desired qual-ifications to push the development plan forward. Faculty remu-neration should be determined in light of the nation's vision

and not only under the scope of the salaries' impact on thecountry's budget.

Problems in China’s PrivateUniversitiesOsman Ozturgut

Osman Ozturgut is the coordinator of advising and teacher certification,Division of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, University ofMissouri-St. Louis, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA. E-mail: [email protected].

After approval by the Beijing government, private universi-ties began appearing in almost every major province in

China. If obtaining any education is seen as the main goal, itwould seem fair to say that these private colleges are providinggreat opportunities—given that they are accepting studentswith lower Chinese University Examinations scores and fillingthe enormous need for higher and continuing education inChina. However, a focus on the quality of education (includingfacilities, equipment, and teaching and administrative staff )raises concern that the private colleges are not nearly as effec-tive as even second-tier Chinese public universities.

Successful examples of private universities do exist in China(see Jing Lin and Ruth Hayhoe, “China's Private Universities:A Successful Case Study,” International Higher Education, no.51) that are certainly providing high-quality education.However, these schools may be the exceptions, and today thereare many more not-so-successful private universities in China.This article by no means intends to undermine the teachingand administration at effective institutions but attempts to pro-vide a starting point for discussing the future of such privateuniversities in China.

Instructors and AdministratorsThe instructors at private universities mainly constituteyounger faculty members with bachelor’s degrees and limitedteaching experience. They teach 16 to 20 hours a week, withthe remaining time left for chatting with other instructors,given the absence of research or professional developmentopportunities. The instructors usually stay at these institutionsfor only one or two semesters before moving on to their “real”jobs at public universities. They are paid an average salary of2,500 RMB (around $US350) a month and are provided a stu-dio apartment on campus. While they pay their instructorssalaries similar to those of private universities, public universi-ties also provide job security and prestige.

The top management of the private institutions includes


private higher education18

Teachers at private universities usually do not pos-sess tenure, and the majority are hired through con-tracts of less than a year.

largely people from the business world with aggressive market-ing experiences. Vice presidents may change three or fourtimes during an academic year. Lower-level managers also fre-quently undergo shifts of positions or are transferred to differ-ent departments.

Party representatives are given executive vice president posi-tions, with other executive management positions being filledby employing relatives. These executives, with minimal or non-existent educational experience, view these universities ashighly profitable businesses. For example, at a relativelyrenowned private college in Southern China, a former partysecretary was hired as the executive vice president; and broth-ers, sisters, children, and cousins were given highly responsi-ble jobs.

Living and Learning ConditionsFacilities provided for these students, who pay around 12,000RMB (around US$1,750) for the year, are similar to the facili-ties at public universities. Students are offered mediocre livingquarters in a six-student dormitory room, which includes nofurniture other than a desk and stool for each student, twohours of hot water a day, no TV, and very slow (given a trend allaround China) and time-limited Internet access. Student cafe-terias, grocery stores, and bottled water services are usuallyowned and run by owners of the universities, leaving studentswith no other options regarding what they should eat and howmuch they should pay. Students may not be allowed to usecash on campus and forced instead to use school-issued debitcards, onto which they must first place a minimum of 50 RMBat a time. This initiative is of course a matter of convenienceand security, among other benefits; but the lack of a refund pol-icy for the money unspent is a rather aggressive business strat-egy. Moreover, students are charged extra for Internet access,hot water usage, and electricity—occasionally three or fourtimes more than what the Electricity Bureau charges theschool—even before they use it and, again, without a refundpolicy. Most of these universities are located outside city cen-ters; and with little public transportation available, students areleft with no choice but to stay on campus.

Humble and desperate Chinese students, socially outcast bylower examination scores, are still willing to pay top dollar forliving in mediocre quarters and being taught in classroomswithout climate control (brutally hot during the summer andfreezing cold during the winter) by unmotivated and inexperi-enced young faculty members. It should be noted that the stu-dents at these private universities receive the same living con-ditions offered at a public university, which charges students

less than half as much as private institutions. Paying a highertuition fee should certainly ensure better living and learningfacilities, in addition to providing a global and competitive edu-cation.

ConclusionThe relatively low ranking of private colleges and the thusrather negative public perception of the graduates of suchschools cause students to be treated as helpless customers withnowhere else to go. Recruiters make promises during recruit-ment fairs, focusing entirely on parental satisfaction but ignor-ing the needs of these students. Students go unheard, unableto complain due to the cultural barriers of losing face and dis-appointing their parents and relatives. Local chat rooms, whileproviding a platform to voice their opinions, are not significanttools to promote change in China's private universities.

These students are paying high prices and deserve bettereducation and treatment. Instead of using the desperation ofthese students, China's private universities need to open theireyes to the reality of aggressive competition, from foreignjoint-venture universities or other private universities. Theexamples in this article are based on my teaching experience atfour different private colleges and universities in China, eachof them with an average student population of 20,000. One ofthese institutions has recently been designated by the Beijinggovernment as among “China's Top Ten Privately ManagedEducational Institutions.” These institutions should start offer-ing more services with better training to make their studentsmore marketable in the real world.

Again, if any education is better than no education, eventhese problematic private universities provide useful service toChina. However, with the need for more colleges and universi-ties in China, the low-end private universities should startfocusing on giving quality education and good living condi-tions to students who are paying high tuition fees.

Taking a Closer Look at theOECD Tertiary StatisticsArthur M. Hauptman

Arthur M. Hauptman is a public policy consultant based in Arlington,Virginia and specializes in higher education finance issues. E-mail:[email protected].

The statistics that the Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development regularly reports on tertiary

education in its annual Education at a Glance publication areincreasingly used to compare the performance of OECD coun-

19

international higher educationstatistical challenges

The instructors at private universities mainly consti-tute younger faculty members with bachelor’sdegrees and limited teaching experience.

tries. However, the many problems with how some of the keyindicators are calculated and reported can limit their utility inproducing international comparisons. Much of the data iseither incorrect or misleading.

As a result, a number of the key data elements regularly col-lected and reported upon by OECD require a serious reconsid-eration, including: enrollment ratios; persistence rates; thelack of connection between enrollments and attainment rates;spending per student figures; and financial commitment—theshare of GDP devoted to tertiary education.

Enrollment RatiosParticipation rates traditionally constitute how tertiary educa-

tion systems are compared internationally. Martin Trow usedthem more than three decades ago to develop his typology ofhigher education systems as elite, mass, and universal. TheOECD calculates enrollment ratios—its version of participa-tion rates—by dividing all students enrolled by the populationof traditional college age in a given year. Several problems withthis approach do limit its utility as a measure of participation.

One problem is that the OECD enrollment ratios includeolder students and overseas students in the numerator but notin the denominator; this tends to overstate participation incountries with large numbers of these kinds of students. Inthat way, the OECD enrollment ratios for some countries canoccasionally equal or even exceed 100 percent.

In addition, the number of students reported to OECD asenrolled often does not cover all students actually in tertiaryprograms because of data collection limits. For example, mosttrade school students enrolled in the United States are not inthe OECD tertiary enrollment figures. Similarly, in Canadamany community college students are not listed in the OECDfigures because federal data collectors for various reasons donot report all enrollments in provincially run community col-leges. In some OECD countries, some or all further-educationstudents are not counted as tertiary.

Perhaps most important, counting currently enrolled stu-dents fails to reflect those individuals who have already com-pleted their tertiary studies. For example, 23-year-olds whocomplete their undergraduate degree at age 22 are not includ-ed in statistics on currently enrolled students aged 18–24. Yetclearly these students should be included in any reasonablemeasure of participation.

Persistence Rates OECD reports two types of persistence rates—completion

rates and graduation rates. Completion rates compare thenumber of degrees awarded in one year with the number ofstudents who begin a program at a typical amount of timebeforehand. The other OECD-reported measure of persist-ence—graduation rates—divides graduates in one year by thepopulation at the typical age of graduation.

Like enrollment ratios, both these persistence rates areproxies because most OECD countries do not track how manystudents in a cohort complete their program of study (althoughOECD admirably is trying to collect cohort rates from a num-ber of member countries). Also as in the case of participation,the proxy nature of the OECD-reported persistence rates oftenmeans that they do not measure what they purport to measure.It also can send confusing signals about where countries rank.Take New Zealand—on completion rates, it ranks near the bot-tom of all OECD countries, just ahead of Hungary, the UnitedStates, and Italy and just behind Mexico. But when graduationrates are calculated, New Zealand is one of the leaders, rankingthird among OECD countries.

Enrollment and Attainment StatisticsThe growing reliance on using attainment rates as reported byOECD to compare countries is a very positive development asthese statistics tend to be collected consistently across coun-tries through labor force surveys and reflect measures of bothaccess and success. However, an examination of the OECD

enrollment and attainment data reveals a large disconnectbetween the two measures. Although Canada has the highestattainment rate for subbachelor's degrees, the number of stu-dents reported as enrolled in those programs simply could notgenerate the attainment rates that OECD reports. A majorcause of this disconnect is that OECD enrollment figures aregenerated from reports by institutions, whereas the attainmentdata come from surveys of workers who are asked about thehighest degree they have attained.

Costs per Student Despite efforts to weed out noneducational costs, the educa-tional-cost figures reported by OECD often include spendingoutside the educational process. For example, OECD reportsthat the United States had educational costs of $18,000 perstudent in 2005 but several recent US reports peg educationalcosts per student in the United States closer to $14,000,including both public and private institutions. The OECD dataalso may ignore cultural differences. For example, in someOECD countries such as Spain and Portugal many enrolled


statistical challenges20

One problem is that the OECD enrollment ratiosinclude older students and overseas students in thenumerator but not in the denominator; this tendsto overstate participation.

A major cause of this disconnect is that OECDenrollment figures are generated from reports byinstitutions.

students do not regularly attend class. This may be a boon foruniversity finances but not for quality education.

Research is the other major component of OECD-reportedspending per student. Here the measurement issue is that pre-senting research spending on a per student basis, as the OECDdoes, makes little sense. An elite system would show a higherlevel of research spending per student, while in a mass systemresearch spending per student would be lower. But this doesnot accurately reflect a country's commitment to research. Itwould be much more sensible to consider research spendingas a share of GDP, as various publications (and the OECD) dofor the broader category of research and development.

Financial Commitment In addition to measuring costs per student, OECD also reportsfinancial resources spent on tertiary education as a percentageof GDP. As discussed above in the context of research spend-ing, measuring a country's financial commitment by what itspends as a percentage of GDP can be preferable to looking atper student spending figures. But as is the case in educationalspending, the OECD-reported commitment figures mayinclude spending items for some countries that are not includ-ed in the figures submitted by others. Again, to use the UnitedStates as an example, it has the highest commitment of allOECD countries by a wide margin; but its leadership comes

from its very high level of private resources, which include uni-versity hospitals as well as endowments that are not shown ordo not exist in data for many other OECD countries. The pub-lic commitment in the United States is actually quite modest;it ranks 15th among OECD countries in public resources devot-ed to tertiary education.

This review of some key OECD statistics for tertiary educa-tion suggests that they should be used with great care in com-paring the effort and the accomplishments of various coun-tries. It also suggests that in a number of instances we shouldbe trying to develop better measures to compare OECD coun-tries on these and other key variables.

International Comparisons:What Your Fourth-Grade MathCan RevealClifford Adelman

Clifford Adelman is a senior associate at the Institute for Higher EducationPolicy in Washington, DC. E-mail: [email protected]. The original ver-sion of this article appeared in the online Inside Higher Education,December 15, 2008.

It's not that the latest rhetorical trope in the bad news presen-tation of US higher education is to say—wherever improve-

ments are acknowledged—“Wait a minute! But other countriesare doing better!” and rush out a rash of Organization forEconomic Cooperation and Development (OECD) populationratios that show the United States has “fallen” from 2nd to 9thor 3rd to 15th place in whatever indicator of access, participa-tion, and attainment is at issue.

The trope is not new in any country. Want to wake up yourlocal or national policymakers? Tell them someone is down,and that someone is us. For some odd reason, educators every-where, in countries large and small, love self-flagellation. Inthe metrics of international economic comparisons, we treattrade balances, GDP, and currency exchange rates the sameway.

Except in matters of higher education, the metrics are false,and our use of them both misguided and unproductive. Forpostindustrial nations, the most visible reports on higher edu-cation lead off with OECD population ratios drawn from itsannual Education at a Glance, assuming they were passeddown from Mt. Sinai as the tablets by which we should bejudged. The population ratios, particularly those concerninghigher education participation and attainment for the 25–34age cohort, will serve the preferred tendency of education lead-ers and policymakers to engage in a national destructive orgythat purposefully neglects some very basic and obvious facts. Iurge colleagues from countries outside the OECD not to fallinto this trap.

You do not need more than fourth’grade math to see theproblems with population ratios, whether you are a large shipor small skiff in the human harbor. None of the reports usingOECD data bothers to recognize the relative size of the US shipor the relative diversity of races, ethnicities, nativities, reli-gions, and native languages that characterize our 310 millionresidents. They would blithely compare our educational land-scape with that of Denmark, for example, a country of 5.4 mil-lion, where 91 percent of the inhabitants are of Danish descentand 82 percent belong to the same church. They would exaltFinland in higher education matters, another racially and lin-

21


statistical challenges

Like enrollment ratios, both these persistence ratesare proxies because most OECD countries do nottrack how many students in a cohort complete theirprogram of study

guistically homogenous (bilingual, to be sure, in Finnish andSwedish) country of 5 million, with a population growth rate of0.1 percent and a net immigration rate of 1 percent (principal-ly from eastern Europe), where the capacity of the higher edu-cation system was expanded by one-third in the 1990s with 11new polytechnic institutions known as AMKs (for the UnitedStates to do something equivalent would require establishing600 new four-year colleges) and where tuition is fully subsi-dized. Even so, the median age of entrance to higher educationin Finland is 23 years (compared with 19 in the United States),and the median age at which Finnish students earn bachelor's

degrees is 28 years (compared with 24–25 in the UnitedStates). Is comparing Finnish and US higher educationdynamics a fair sport? That is an obvious rhetorical question.Is comparing any long-established but postcolonial higher edu-cation system with newly established postcolonial systems(e.g., Argentina vs. Senegal) a fair sport? That is another obvi-ous rhetorical question.

It’s not that one shouldn’t compare one's records to those ofother countries; it’s just that population ratios are not the wayto do it.

Another Demographic PlanetOECD has used census-based population ratios to bypass ahost of inconsistencies in the ways its 30 member countriesreport education data. However, as it turns out, the countriesalso employ different census methodologies, so the compo-nents of the denominator from Sweden are not identical withthe components of the denominator from Portugal. Moreover,when ordinary folk who have no stake in education propagan-da look at those 30 countries and start asking questions aboutfertility rates, population growth rates, net immigration rates,and growth in foreign-born populations, they cannot help butobserve that the United States lives on another planet. Only 4countries out of the 30 show a fertility rate at or greater thanreplacement (2.0)—France, New Zealand, Mexico, and theUnited States—and of these, Mexico has a notable negative netmigration rate. Out of those 30 countries, 7 have negative orzero population growth rates and another 5 show growth ratesthat might as well be zero. On the other hand, the US popula-tion growth rate, at 0.9 percent, is in the top 5. In net immigra-tion through 2008, only Australia, Canada, and Ireland wereahead of us (and we count only legal immigrants). TheMigration Policy Institute shows the percentage growth in for-

eign-born populations in the United States over the past 15years at 45.7 percent—more than double the rate for Australiaand Canada. It is no state secret that our immigrant populationis (a) young, (b) largely schooled in other countries with lowercompulsory schooling ages, and (c) pushing the US populationdenominator up. Looking ahead to 2025, Census projectionsshow an increase of 4.3 million in the 25–34 age bracket. Ofthat increase, 74 percent will be Latino, and another 14 percentAsian. Can you find another country, OECD or otherwise,where an analogous phenomenon is already in the cards? Asnoted, the United States lives on a different demographic plan-et.

It's the Math, Stupid!More to the point is your fourth-grade math. The EuropeanUnion projects a decline of 9 million in the traditional college-age population by 2025, and Japan expects its population todrop by 11 percent. Now, what happens to a fraction—and thepercentage based on a fraction—when the denominatordeclines dramatically and the numerator either remains flat,rises slightly, or declines slightly? And, on the other side of thatfourth-grade calculation, what happens when the denominatorrises considerably and the numerator remains flat or risesslightly? This is a no-brainer: the gap between US bachelor'sdegree attainment rates in the target-age-bracket population,and those of most countries with whom we are normally com-pared by the bad-news bears will continue to expand for as faras the eye can see. Unfortunately, given the propagandisticmotivation of the reports that use self-flagellation to gain poli-cy influence (and business), trying to teach basic math andhuman geography to putatively intelligent adults is like talkingto stones. They don't want to hear it.

The Bologna FactorWhy is all this important? OECD itself understands the limita-tions of population ratios for education a lot better in 2008than it did a scant five years ago and is now offering such indi-cators as cohort survival rates in higher education. Driving thisnew sensibility is the Bologna process in 46 European coun-tries, under which, depending on country, anywhere from 20to 80 percent of university students are now on a three-yearbachelor's degree cycle. Guess what happens to the graduation-rates fraction when one moves from the legacy four- and five-year degrees to the new three-year degree? Couple this trendwith declining population bases, and some European coun-tries’ population ratio-based attainment will climb to stratos-


statistical challenges22

None of the reports using OECD data bothers torecognize the relative size of the US ship or the rel-ative diversity of races, ethnicities, nativities, reli-gions, and native languages that characterize our310 million residents.

OECD has used census-based population ratios tobypass a host of inconsistencies in the ways its 30member countries report education data.

pheric levels. That trend will suit the crisis mongerers just fine,except none of it will help anyone understand their own situa-tion or where international comparisons truly matter. And fornon-OECD countries where census methodologies and cover-age have not fully matured, population ratio comparisons areeven more problematic.

And that is the more important point. The numbers do nothelp us do what we have to do. They steer us away from thetask of refashioning the pieces of paper we award into mean-ingful documents, representing learning that helps our stu-dents compete in a world without borders. Instead of obses-sion with ratios, we should look instead to the action lines ofthe Bologna process: degree qualification frameworks, a “tun-ing” methodology that creates reference points for learningoutcomes in the disciplines, the discipline-based benchmark-ing statements that tell students precisely what to expect oftheir educational journey and the public precisely what learn-ing our institutions should be accountable for, DiplomasSupplements that warrantee student attainment, more flexibleroutes of access, and ways of identifying and targeting for par-ticipation underrepresented populations through geocoding.Slowly but surely, these features of Bologna are shaping a newglobal paradigm for higher education, and in that respect othercountries are truly doing better. We should all be studying thesubstance, perhaps experiencing an epiphany or two abouthow to turn the big ship or the small skiffs on which we travelinto the currents of global reform.

The Reinvention ofUndergraduate Education inHong KongMartin J. Finkelstein and Elaine M. Walker

Martin J. Finkelstein is professor of higher education at Seton HallUniversity, South Orange, NJ, USA. He was a Fulbright Senior Specialistin Hong Kong. E-mail: [email protected]. Elaine M. Walker is a visitingscholar at Seton Hall University and the University of Hong Kong.

In 2004/05, the government of Hong Kong authorized amajor reform of its eight public universities—known as the

“3-3-4 reforms.” To be implemented in 2012, the three-yearundergraduate degree program, focused exclusively on a pro-fession or academic field, will be changed to a four-year under-graduate degree program, including a substantial componentof nonspecialized or general education. While many factorscontributed to the government's action, two overriding factorswere a desire to ensure the future competitiveness of Hong

Kong in the global knowledge economy and to align HongKong's educational pipeline with those in the Chinese main-land, the United States, and the European Union.

On the face of it, Hong Kong's 3-3-4 reforms representanother classic case of government imposing far-reachingchanges on universities. Two factors, however, distinguish theHong Kong “experiment” from typical government interven-tion: first, the mandates encourage distinctiveness in theresponse of individual institutions according to their missionsand history; and second, the universities have received consid-erable lead time and a modest infusion of additional resourcesfrom the government.

The eight public universities funded through the UniversityGrants Committee include three historically research-intensiveuniversities (the English-language University of Hong Kong,the bilingual Chinese University of Hong Kong, and theUniversity of Science and Technology); two former polytech-nics (Polytechnic University and City University); the HongKong Baptist University (founded by American Baptists in the1950s and incorporated into the University Grants Committeepublic system in 1987); Lingnan University (with a focus onundergraduate liberal arts); and the Hong Kong Institute forEducation (with a specialized teacher training and master'slevel focus).

Current DevelopmentsNearly all the universities have established faculty and admin-istrative task forces within the formal academic governancestructure to drive the institutional planning process; and sever-al have established new administrative positions to direct theprocess. Providing reports to the University Grants Committeeis required biennially. While all institutions have focused theirefforts on designing a first-year transitional undergraduateexperience, most are concentrating as well on a redesign of them a j o r, to promote specific learning objectives—includingrenewed emphasis on outside the classroom experiences (e.g.,internships and service learning off campus) and foreign-exchange study opportunities on the mainland and across Asiaand the world.

Academic Staffing ChallengesSuch broad-based curricular redevelopment poses severalmajor challenges: Who will do the curricular development anddelivery? What incentives will entice the “best” faculty to

23


countries and regions

To be implemented in 2012, the three-year under-graduate degree program, focused exclusively on aprofession or academic field, will be changed to afour-year undergraduate degree program

become engaged in these new initiatives at the expense of theirresearch and publication activity? Research intensive institu-tions will have to create approaches to bring the faculty intothis reinvention in a way not viewed as threatening to theirlong-term career interests. If this approach fails on a sufficient-ly large scale with the regular research faculty, will new kindsof academic staff need to be recruited to undertake this specialgeneral education work?

All of these new educational opportunities are very laborintensive for institutions to mount effectively, on a small aswell as large scale. Who will carry out work? Current faculty? Anew breed of academic staff? At what cost and with what ben-efit in the long term? Ultimately, Hong Kong's universities,and especially its research institutions, must balance attentionon this innovation of their educational role, with the need toproduce relevant research to advance their place in the globalknowledge economy.

Assessment ChallengeFinally, there is the assessment challenge. The reforms man-dated appropriate assessment methods to demonstrate thateducational goals are being achieved. How will institutionsdetermine whether the panoply of new courses, internshipopportunities, and foreign study is actually achieving theintended outcomes? This question must be answered at multi-ple levels ranging from the individual academic program, tothe faculty, to the institution, and ultimately to the entire high-er education sector. These assessments will be vital both as abasis for improvement (or quality assurance) and for determin-ing the costs and benefits of the new educational order. Bycomparison, the assessment of the research mission hasalready come a long way.

New Opportunities?A number of universities, especially the three focused on

research, are using the 3-3-4 reforms as an opportunity togrow—augmenting their academic staffs by 10 to 20 percentand expanding professional staff in the student service area.This hiring expansion provides a stunning (once in a lifetime)opportunity to recast and reform the academic staff in serviceof a new order.

Over the coming decade, Hong Kong will be a system towatch—a virtual laboratory for the examination of change inhigher education that conjoins government mandates withenlightened government support.


departments24

Such broad-based curricular redevelopment posesseveral major challenges: Who will do the curriculardevelopment and delivery? What incentives willentice the “best” faculty to become engaged inthese new initiatives at the expense of their researchand publication activity?

New Publications

Ackers, Louise, and Byrony Gill. Mo v i n gPeople and Knowledge: Scientific Mobility in anEnlarging European Union. No r t h a m p t o n ,MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009. 288 pp.$125 (hb). ISBN 978-1-84376-985-9. Web site:www.e-elgar.com.

An analysis of patterns of migration of high-skill people in the European Union, this vol-ume discusses the circulation of talent,including patterns of return. It also looks atnetworks, the migration process, the impacton children and families, and the experiencesof receiving and sending countries.

Angulo, A. J. William Barton Rogers and theIdea of MIT. Baltimore: Johns Ho p k i n sUniversity Press, 2009. 220 pp. $55 (hb).ISBN 978-0-8018-9033-8. Web site:www.press.jhu.edu.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology

is a special and unusual university. Its rootsare in the development of technical highereducation in the United States in the mid-19th century. Rogers, the founder of MIT andits leading thinker, is a unique figure in thehistory of American higher education. Thisvolume combines a biography of Rogers witha history of the ideas and developmentsbehind the early years of MIT.

Bastiaens, Jo. International Assistance andState-University Re l a t i o n s. New Yo r k :Routledge, 2009. 239 pp. $95 (hb). ISBN978-0-415-99074-5. Web site: www. r o u t-ledge.com.

A detailed study of international donorassistance for Indonesian higher education,this book discusses how government agenciesand international donors interrelated in theprocess of assistance programs. Dutch pro-grams in Indonesia are the main focus of thes t u d y. The results, while relating to

Indonesia, have relevance to donor-govern-ment relations internationally.

Byram, Mike, and Fred Dervin, eds. Students,S t a ff and Academic Mobility in Hi g h e rE d u c a t i o n . Newcastle, UK: Ca m b r i d g eScholars Publishing, 2008. 313 pp. (hb). ISBN978-1-847186034. Web site: www.c-s-p.org.

A multifaceted discussion of student mobil-ity worldwide, this volume features chaptersfocusing on a variety of European countriesand Israel. Several comparative analyses areincluded, as are a few chapters focusing onfaculty mobility.

Ehrenberg, Ronald G., and Charlotte V. Kuh,eds. Doctoral Education and the Faculty of theFuture. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,2009. 320 pp. $35 (hb). ISBN 978-0-8014-4543-9 Web site: www. c o r n e l l p r e s s . c o r n e l l.edu.

The concern of the authors of this book is

25


departments

the looming shortage of faculty in many fieldsin American higher education. Among thethemes discussed are the Council of GraduateSchool's doctoral completion project, time-to-degree issues, minority access to doctoralstudy, attracting women to doctoral study(particularly in the sciences), and others. Asection analyses the internationalization ofdoctoral education.

Enders, Jürgen, and Ben Jongbloed, eds.Public-Private Dynamics in Higher Education:Expectations, Development and Outcomes. NewBrunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2007. 525 pp.$49.95 (pb). ISBN 3-899942-752-1. Web site:http://dnb.ddb.de.

The underlying theme of this book is theincreasing lack of clarity between public andprivate higher education worldwide. In differ-ent ways, public higher education is becom-ing more privatized, and the role of the pri-vate sector is growing more complex. Casestudies from many countries illustrate thesepoints and provide evidence of both conver-gence and divergence of public and privatesectors.

The Evolving Regulatory Context for PrivateEducation in Emerging Economies: DiscussionPaper and Case Studies. Washington, DC:World Bank, 2009. 65 pp. (pb). ISBN 978-0-8213-7778-9. Web site: www.worldbank.org.

This book contains a short essay focusingon the regulation of private higher educationand such topics as quality assurance mecha-nisms, rules relating to the establishment ofprivate academic institutions, and otherthemes. This is followed by nine brief analy-ses of developing and middle-income coun-tries.

Gumprecht, Blake. The American Co l l e g eTo w n. Amherst, MA: University ofMassachusetts Press, 2008. 438 pp. (hb).ISBN 978-1-558849-671-2. Web site: www.umass.edu.umpress.

Towns that are dominated by universitiesare common in the United States, althoughthe model of the “college town” can be foundin some other countries as well. This bookanalyzes a number of American college townssuch as Manhattan, Kansas; No r m a n ,Oklahoma; Ann Arbor, Michigan; and others.The historical development of these townsand their relationships with the university arediscussed, as is the more recent growth ofhigh-tech and other research-based industriesthat have located near these universities.

Ja c o b y, Barbara, ed. Civic Engagement inHigher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,1009. 262 pp (hb). ISBN 978-0-470-38846-4.Web site: www.josseybass.com.

Civic engagement includes undergraduatestudents in service learning activities, citizen-ship development, and campus involvement.This volume examines programs andapproaches to civic engagement in the UnitedStates. Among the topics discussed are civicengagement and general education, first-yearexperiences, intercultural competence andcivic engagement, measuring civic engage-ments, and others.

George Keller. Higher Education and the NewSo c i e t y. Baltimore, MD: Johns Ho p k i n sUniversity Press, 2008. 188 pp. $26.95 (hb).ISBN 978-0-8018-9031-4. Web site: www.press.jhu.edu.

In this extended essay on how demograph-ic and other societal trends, especially tech-nology, are affecting American society andhigher education, Keller argues that academemust take these changes into account as wellas keeping a focus on its traditional values.

Kezar, Adrianna, and Jaime Lester. OrganizingHigher Education for Collaboration: A Guide forCampus Leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,2009. 289 pp. $40 (hb). ISBN 978-0-470179368. Web site: www.josseybass.com.

The focus of this book is on how campus-based collaboration can take place. The vari-ous constituencies of collaborative work inresearch, management, and programs arediscussed with the goal of improving the cam-pus climate for collaborative work.

Lamont, Michèle M. How Professors Think:Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,2009. 329 pp. $27.95 (hb). ISBN 978-0-674-03266-8. Web site: www. h u p . h a r v a r d . e d u .

A highly original study of the peer reviewprocess in academe, this book analyzes howdecisions are made by review panels of schol-ars in six academic disciplines. The panelswere involved in selecting people for fellow-ships and research projects. While the studydeals with the United States, the authorargues that there is considerable relevance forother countries.

Lin, Justin Yifu, and Boris Pleskovic, eds.Higher Education and Development: AnnualWorld Bank Conference on DevelopmentE c o n o m i c s . Washington, DC: World Bank,2008. 285 pp. $29.95 (pb). ISBN 978-8213-

7123-7. E-mail: [email protected] collection of papers from the World

Bank's annual conference on developmenteconomics, this volume focuses broadly oneconomic issues relating to higher education,mainly in developing countries. Among thethemes discussed are skilled labor and theinternational economy, global economicreturns to higher education, higher educationand migration, financing higher education indeveloping economies, and higher educationand innovation.

Martin, James, and James E. Samels, eds.Turnaround: Leading Stressed Colleges andUniversities to Excellence. Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009. 306pp. $45 (hb). ISBN 978-8018-9068-0. Website: www.press.jhu.edu.

Discussing American academic institutionsthat are “at risk” of survival because of finan-cial difficulties, natural disasters, enrollmentproblems, or other severe difficulties, theauthors examine how institutions can solvetheir problems. Themes such as the effectiveuse of data, legal challenges, public relations,and the effective use of leadership are ana-lyzed. Although the book concerns the UnitedStates, there is relevance for other countries.

Martinez Alemán, Ana M., and Kathryn LynkWartman. Online Social Networking onCampus: Understanding What Matters inStudent Culture. New York: Routledge, 2009.153 pp. (pb). ISBN 978-0-415-99020-2. Website:www.routledge.com. An American study of the use of Facebook forstudent communication, this book is basedon interviews and focus groups with studentsand illustrates the rapidly changing world ofcomputer-based social networking on cam-pus. The authors stress the importance ofunderstanding student communication pat-terns for student culture and campus life gen-erally.

O’Meara, KerryAnn, Aimee Lapointe Terosky,and Anna Neumann. Faculty Careers andWork Lives: A Professional Growth Perspective.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008. 221 pp.(pb). ISBN 978-0-4704-3971-5. Web site:www.josseybass.com.

The purpose of this volume, which is part ofthe Association for the Study of Hi g h e rEducation's Research Report series, is to ana-lyze current research on key topics relating tohigher education. The focus is on the chang-ing working lives of the academic professionin the United States. By examining current

research and analysis, the authors point tokey themes such as the attacks on the tenuresystem, growing pressures for accountability,demographic changes in the professoriate,and others.

Palfreyman, David, and Ted Ta p p e r, eds.Structuring Mass Higher Education: The Roleof Elite Institutions. New York: Routledge,2009. 345 pp. (hb). ISBN 978-0-415-42604-6. Web site: www.routledge.com.

The role of elite universities in mass high-er education systems is examined in this vol-ume. Too often, research universities areseen as separate from the rest of the highereducation system. The book provides casestudies of how systems are coping withresearch universities. Among the countriesand regions included are Latin America,Germany and its excellence initiative,Norway, the United Kingdom, Poland, andseveral others. Elite institutions are exam-ined in the US Ivy League, Japan, France,and several other countries.

Reinventing Higher Education: To w a r dParticipatory and Sustainable Development.Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok, 2008. 120 pp.(pb). ISBN 978-92-9223-205-4.

The results of a conference sponsored byUNESCO's Asia and Pacific Regional Bureaufor Education, this volume focuses on therole of the university in sustainable develop-ment. Short chapters discuss quality assur-ance, community service learning, interna-tional service, and participatory research, aswell as other themes.

Research Institute for Higher Education,Hiroshima University. The ChangingAcademic Profession in InternationalComparative and Quantitative Pe r s p e c t i v e s .Hiroshima, Japan: Research Institute forHigher Education, 2008. 432 pp. (pb). ISBN978-4-902808-45-2.

An interim report on the important CAP(Changing Academic Profession) compara-tive study, this volume includes severaloverview essays concerning the CAP projectand its methodology, and case studies ofmost of the countries involved in it from allcontinents.

Ricard, Ronyelle Bertrand, and M. Christo-pher Brown II Ebony Towers in Hi g h e rEducation: The Evolution, Mission, andPresidency of Historically Black Colleges andUniversities. Herndon, VA: Stylus Publishing,2008. 150 pp. $29.95 (pb). ISBN 1-57922-

274-1. Web site: www.Styluspub.com.A study of the attitudes and perspectives of

the presidents of a group of historically blackcolleges and universities in the UnitedStates, this book focuses particularly on themissions of this group of American institu-tions from the presidential viewpoint.

Shattock, Michael, ed. Entrepreneurialism inUniversities and the Knowledge Economy:Diversification and Organizational Change inEuropean Higher Education. Ma i d e n h e a d ,UK: Open University Press, 2099. 237 pp.(pb). ISBN 978-033523571-1. Web site:www.openup.co.uk.

The broad theme of this book is entrepre-neurialism in European higher education.Based on a research project sponsored by theEuropean Union, the book features research-based studies on such themes as organiza-tional change, private higher education,internationalization and the knowledge soci-ety, and the European knowledge economy.

Smith, Bruce L. R., Jeremy D. Mayer, and A.Lee Fr i t s c h l e r. Closed Minds: Politics andIdeology in American Universities.Washington, DC: Brookings InstitutionPress, 2008. 278 pp. $32.95 (hb). ISBN 978-0-8157-8028-1. Web site: www. b r o o k i n g s.edu.

Many conservatives claim that Americanuniversities are dominated by the left andthat there is a liberal bias in teaching. Thisbook, using survey data, interviews, andother data, shows that neither teaching norresearch are biases in a liberal direction. Theauthors argue that American universitieshave become less political and as a result arenot fulfilling their mission.

World Bank. Accelerating Catch-up: TertiaryEducation for Growth in Sub-Saharan Africa.Washington, DC: World Bank, 2009. 180 pp.(pb). ISBN: 978-0-8213-7738-3. Web site:www.worldbank.org.

A comprehensive policy-oriented report onhigher education in sub-Saharan Africa byWorld Bank staff members, this volume dis-cusses the importance of investment in high-er education for Africa's future developmentand strategies for improving the perform-ance of universities and colleges in Africa.

The Sense Publishers Global Perspectives onHigher Education series:

The Global Perspectives series is edited byPhilip G. Altbach and affiliated to the Centerfor International Higher Education. All ofthe books in the series are published inpaperback editions. There are currently 14titles available. Most of the volumes are avail-able for US$45 in paperback editions. Forfurther information, contact Se n s ePublishers. Web site: www.sensepublishers.com. The newest books are:

Jane Knight. Higher Education in Turmoil: theChanging World of Internationalization. 241pp. (pb). ISBN 978-90-8790-520-0.

Eleven of Jane Knight's key essays on inter-nationalization are included in this book.Among the themes discussed are cross-bor-der higher education, the financial aspects,GATS, and models for understanding inter-nationalization.

Simon Schwartzman, ed. University andDevelopment in Latin America: Su c c e s s f u lExperiences of Research Centers. 269 pp. (pb).ISBN 978-90-8790-523-1.

The focus of this book is on the researchrole of universities in Latin America and par-ticularly their contribution to research thatcontributes to national development. Amongthe topics considered are intellectual proper-ty and the research role, university-industrylinkages, academic entrepreneurship, andothers. Case studies from Argentina, Brazil,Chile, and Mexico are included.

Hebe Vessuri and Ulrich Te i c h l e r, eds.Universities as Centers of Research andKnowledge Creation: An Endangered Species?269 pp. (pb). ISBN 978-90-8790-478-4.

Stemming from research sponsored by theUNESCO Forum on Higher Education,Knowledge, and Research, the focus of thisbook is the research role of universities. Thisglobal perspective on the broad researchfunction of the universities has the underly-ing theme of the challenges to research inthe changing academic context worldwide.Most of the authors argue that the academicenvironment is less favorable to research,and especially basic and developmentally rel-evant research. Case studies mainly fromdeveloping and middle income countries areincluded, as well as a few chapters concern-ing the United Kingdom, Poland, and theNetherlands.


departments26

News of the Center

The Center's partnership with the Shanghai Jiao To n gUniversity's Graduate School of Education now includes theregular publication of International Higher Education i nChinese as part of the Journal of International Hi g h e rEducation (Guoji Gaodeng Jiaoyu), the Graduate School ofEducation's new online publication. In addition, CIHE directorPhilip Altbach serves as chair of the school's international advi-sory board. He will participate at the world-class university con-ference in Shanghai in November and, in October, will partici-pate in a conference on international higher education spon-sored by Tohoku University in Tokyo.

The CIHE, in cooperation with the World Bank, is beginning aresearch project on the development of research universities indeveloping and middle-income countries. The focus of thisresearch is to understand how research universities can devel-op and flourish. Case studies will be analyzed. Jamil Salmi,head of the Bank's higher education program, will be workingon this project.

The CIHE's research on academic salaries in 15 countries(Rumbley, Pacheco, and Altbach, International Comparison ofAcademic Salaries), has attracted significant attention, includingstories in Times Higher Education, the Chronicle of HigherEducation, Inside Higher Education, University World News, andother publications. We hope to be able to expand this researchproject in the future.

Laura Rumbley recently completed work on a book chapterwith Ben DeWinter on “The Diversification of EducationAbroad Across the Curriculum,” which will appear in a specialpublication of the Forum on Education Abroad entitled “AHistory of Study Abroad: 1965 to Present,” to be published laterthis year. She is working on “Internationalisation in theUniversities of Spain: Changes and Challenges at Fo u rInstitutions,” which will be included in Globalisation and

Internationalisation in Higher Education: Theoretical andInternational Perspectives, edited by Nick Foskett and FelixMaringe.

Higher Education Experts DatabaseThe Center for International Higher Education at BostonCollege now hosts an expert database that allows visitors to findscholars and practitioners around the world who have expertisein specific areas of international higher education. This newsearchable database can be accessed from the CIHE homepage:<http://www.bc.edu/cihe>. For anyone who would like to belisted in the database, there is a form online at:h t t p : / / w w w. b c . e d u / b c _ o r g / a v p / s o e / c i h e / f o r m / s u b s c r i p t i o n.htm.

New PodcastsThe newest installment of the CIHE Podcast Initiative is nowavailable (http://www.bc.edu/cihe/podcast). This piece featuresan interview with Jamil Salmi, coordinator of the World Bank'snetwork of tertiary education professionals. The conversationwith Dr. Salmi centers on his latest book, The Challenge ofEstablishing World-Class Universities, which was published bythe World Bank in February 2009. There are now a total of 14original podcasts from 2007–2009 available on our site, aswell as two special video supplements and one special audiosupplement. We are also working to line up two new interviewsin the next several months, one with Dr. David Skorton, presi-dent of Cornell University, and another with Dr. WilliamTierney, Director of the Center for Higher Education PolicyAnalysis at the University of Southern California. The interviewwith Dr. Skorton will focus on the international dimension atCornell and US university engagement with Africa and theMiddle East more broadly. The discussion with Dr. Tierney willcenter on his current research on higher education in failedstates, such as Afghanistan.

Your Subscriber Profile

Please visit the CIHE Web site to complete your subscriber profile (especially your e-mail and subscription preferences!).

Consider signing up as an “expert” in your field to be included in our new onlineExperts Database. The database will allow students and colleagues to locate scholarsworldwide by their area(s) of research.

The form is available at: http://www.bc.edu/cihe_subscription.

27


departments

THE CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION

(CIHE)

The Boston College Center for International Higher Education

brings an international consciousness to the analysis of high-

er education. We believe that an international perspective will

contribute to enlightened policy and practice. To serve this

goal, the Center publishes the International Higher Education

quarterly newsletter, a book series, and other publications;

sponsors conferences; and welcomes visiting scholars. We

have a special concern for academic institutions in the Jesuit

tradition worldwide and, more broadly, with Catholic universi-

ties.

The Center promotes dialogue and cooperation among aca-

demic institutions throughout the world. We believe that the

future depends on effective collaboration and the creation of

an international community focused on the improvement of

higher education in the public interest.

CIHE WEB SITE

The different sections of the Center Web site support the work

of scholars and professionals in international higher educa-

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

International Higher Education are available online, with a

searchable archive. In addition, the International Higher

Education Clearinghouse (IHEC) is a source of articles,

reports, trends, databases, online newsletters, announce-

ments of upcoming international conferences, links to profes-

sional associations, and resources on developments in the

Bologna Process and the GATS. The Higher Education

Corruption Monitor provides information from sources

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

liography, and links to other agencies. The International

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

mation clearinghouse on research, development, and advoca-

cy activities related to postsecondary education in Africa.

THE PROGRAM IN HIGHER EDUCATION AT THE LYNCH

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, BOSTON COLLEGE

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

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

and doctoral degrees that feature a social science–based

approach to the study of higher education. The Administrative

Fellows initiative provides financial assistance as well as work

experience in a variety of administrative settings.

Specializations are offered in higher education administra-

tion, student affairs and development, and international edu-

cation. For additional information, please contact Dr. Karen

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

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

editorPhilip G. Altbach

assistant editorSalina Kopellas

editorial officeCenter for International

Higher Education

Campion Hall

Boston College

Chestnut Hill, MA 02467

USA

Tel: (617) 552–4236

Fax: (617) 552–8422

E-Mail: [email protected]

http://www.bc.edu/cihe

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

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

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


28 departments

Documents

the boston college center for international higher education23 The Reinvention of Undergraduate Education in Hong Kong Martin J. Finkelstein and Elaine M. Walker International Issues