1

International Issues

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATIONThe Boston College Center for International Higher Education

Number 36 Summer 2004

2 The Deteriorating GuruPhilip G. Altbach

3 Opportunity Costs and International Quality StandardsJudith S. Eaton

5 African Declaration on GATS and Interntionalization

7 War and Geopolitics in the Arab StatesAndré Elias Mazawi

9 Palestinian Universities Under SiegeFouad Moughrabi

11 State and Universities in Revoluntionary IranShahrzad Mojab

13 Privatization of Kenyan Public UniversitiesWycliffe Otieno

14 The Transition to Privatization in IsraelRachel Pasternak

16 Nonpublic Higher Education in VietnamNgoc Minh Le and Mark A. Ashwill

17 China: Private TrendsJing Lin

18 International Students in RussiaAnna Smolentseva

20 Missing Data in Russian International Higher EducationAlex Kuraev-Maxah

22 Access and Family Education in Latin AmericaSebastian Donoso and Ernesto Schiefelbein

23 Papua New Guinea: Striving for QualityDick Rooney

25 Ontario’s Double CohortSue Winton and Glen A. Jones

27 Ross University: Cash Cow or Pig in a Poke?Alan L. Contreras

28 News of the Center30 New Publications

Departments

Universities Under Siege in the Middle East

Privatization: A Growing Trend

Russia: Internationalization Issues

Countries and Regions

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION2

E-Learning International Issues

The Deteriorating Guru:The Crisis of the ProfessoriatePhilip G. AltbachPhilip G. Altbach is Monan professor of higher education and directorof the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College.

Universities worldwide are becoming marketized,privatized, differentiated, and otherwise changed

to meet the demands of an academic environment thatstresses accountability and mass access. Higher educa-tion is increasingly seen as a “private good”—a com-modity that should be subject to the logic of the market.These changes have had a profoundly negative impacton the academic profession—the heart of any academicenterprise. Working conditions and career paths for theacademic profession are deteriorating. Universities of-ten cannot attract the “best and brightest” and may evenhave problems luring the “reasonably intelligent andabove average.”

The real crisis will be how to maintain an academicenvironment that will attract able scholars and scientiststo the universities and at the same time recognize thechallenges of mass higher education and the financialrealities of the 21st century. At present, academic systemsare without thinking damaging the core of the universityby ignoring the needs of the professoriate. Thoseresponsible for decision making, (e.g., senioradministrators, boards of trustees, and governmentofficials) are ignoring the academic profession as theygrapple with the increasingly difficult problems facinghigher education. It should be recognized that withouta strong, committed academic profession, highereducation cannot provide effective teaching or top-quality research. In knowledge-based economies,universities must have academic staff who are wellqualified, well trained, and committed to academic work.

Traditional RealitiesNot long ago, in the more successful academic systems,academics could plan on a career that was reasonablysecure and offered the satisfactions of teaching and someresearch. Many saw university teaching as a “calling”and were attracted to the life of the mind. In the UnitedStates, most were appointed to tenure-track positionsthat led to secure jobs once the rigorous review processfor promotion to tenure was completed. In much of Eu-rope, academics had appointments to the civil serviceand the job security and status that came along with thatstatus. Salaries were not high and did not match the in-comes of other professionals with similar qualifications,but they permitted a middle-class lifestyle. There waslittle serious evaluation of academic performance, but a

general conviction existed that almost all academics weredoing a decent job. Academics enjoyed a high degree ofautonomy as well as fairly secure academic freedom. Thefew research “stars” were rewarded mainly with highstatus rather than large salaries, and most were teacherswho did little research. Even in many developing coun-tries— such as India, China, Nigeria, and others—aca-deme was an honorable profession that, even if ill paid,provided high social status and job security.

Some would argue that it is high time for professorsto be forced to compete and be subjected to the samepressures as in other occupations. Accountability andevaluation will, it is argued, get rid of unproductive“deadwood.” It is not so simple as that. The traditionalculture of academe worked reasonably well, even in thecontext of mass higher education. Academics had adegree of autonomy, and the academic communitydecided on such matters as curriculum, the organizationof studies, and the like. In a few places, such as Italy, thestructural problems of the academic system and theconservatism of the professoriate created problems. Butgenerally, the academic system provided acceptablequality of teaching and produced research. Theconditions of academic work, even without high salaries,were generally acceptable. The academic professionattracted bright scholars who appreciated the specialcircumstances of university life. The combination ofintellectual freedom, autonomy, and a relative lack ofday-to-day accountability created an environment inwhich creative work could be accomplished.

Universities have responded to societal

pressures by changing the nature of aca-

demic work dramatically.

New CircumstancesMuch has changed almost everywhere in the past sev-eral decades. Universities have responded to societalpressures by changing the nature of academic work dra-matically. Academic salaries have not kept up either withinflation or with remuneration in other professionalfields. In many countries, there is no longer the expecta-tion of a secure career. In the United States, fewer thanhalf of new academic appointments are tenure track andfull-time. Many are part time while others are a new cat-egory of full-time term positions. A decline in the num-ber of full-time jobs means greater competition, and thishas led to some unemployment of new Ph.D. graduates.Many of the most able Ph.Ds are taking jobs in otherfields, including government and business where sala-ries are better and there is better chance for a secure fu-

3

ture. A growing divide exists between the minority oftenured faculty and the rest, creating a kind of two-tieracademic profession.

Everywhere, increased accountability has

subjected academics to bureaucratic con-

trols and has weakened academic au-

tonomy.

In other countries, the situation is similarly grim.The traditional employment security of the academicprofession is being weakened by moving academics fromthe civil service. In Britain, tenure was abolished as partof a major university reform aimed at making the entireacademic system more competitive. In Germany, mostnew academic appointments do not permit promotion,forcing many academics to compete for new positionsat other universities. In Central Europe and the coun-tries of the former Soviet Union, the traditional academicprofession has been greatly weakened by changes inworking conditions, deteriorating salaries, and loss ofstatus. It is common in developing countries for academicsalaries to be so poor that even full-time professors musthold more than one job. In Latin America, traditionalreliance on part-time teachers has prevented the emer-gence of an effective professoriate.

Everywhere, increased accountability has subjectedacademics to bureaucratic controls and has weakenedacademic autonomy. As universities have become moreoriented to student interests and market demands,traditional academic values have been undermined. Therise of the private sector in higher education—the fastestgrowing segment worldwide—has meant furtherdeterioration of the profession because privateinstitutions seldom provide full-time positions nor dothey provide much security of tenure. A profession thatthrived on autonomy and a certain detachment fromdirect competition is now exposed to the vicissitudes ofthe market.

ConsequencesThe future of the academic profession is uncertain, whichis a problem for the success of the academic enterprisegenerally. What will attract bright young people to studyfor the doctorate when the careers—and salaries—avail-able are marginal at best? Will academic work continueto be organized in a way that supports and rewards ba-sic research? How will the traditional links betweenteaching and research be maintained so that those re-sponsible mainly for teaching will keep abreast of cur-rent developments in their fields? Universities depend

on a full-time professoriate—not only to teach but alsoto participate in governance and curriculum develop-ment. New patterns of managerial control vitiate tradi-tional patterns of collegial governance and furtherweaken both the morale and the commitment of the aca-demic profession. Academic morale is deteriorating inmany countries, and many have noted declines in boththe abilities and the numbers of those pursuing doctoralstudy with the aim of joining the professoriate.

The FutureWithout an able and committed professoriate, universi-ties will fail in their major mission—to provide high-quality teaching and engage in research. Without adoubt, there must be adjustments in academic work andin the organization of universities to meet the needs ofmass higher education and of the knowledge economies.Further differentiation in professorial roles, more exten-sive measurement of academic performance, and greaterflexibility in appointments are probably necessary. If theacademic profession continues to decline, higher edu-cation may continue to produce graduates, but the in-tellectual quality of those graduates and their ability toparticipate in society will be placed in question. Just asimportant, the basic research that universities have pro-duced will be less innovative and valuable. The futureof the university lies in the hands of the professoriate.

The Opportunity Cost of thePursuit of International QualityStandardsJudith S. EatonJudith S. Eaton is president of the Council for Higher Education Accredi-tation (CHEA). Address: CHEA, One Dupont Circle, Room 510,Washington DC 20036, USA. E-mail: chea@chea.org.

During the last several years, spurred in part by theWorld Trade Organization (WTO) and the current

round of negotiations of the General Agreement on Tradein Services (GATS), efforts to establish a single set of in-ternational standards for higher education quality havepicked up considerably. WTO/GATS sets the stage forattention to international standards by (1) includinghigher education as a “service” to be regulated for pur-poses of trade and (2) calling for “liberalizing” (expand-ing) trade in higher education by removing restrictionsto market access and barriers to competition.

GATS does not specifically call for internationalquality standards for higher education as part of a trade

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION4

regime. However, two multinational organizations—theUnited Nations Educational, Scientific, and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO) and the Organisation forEconomic Cooperation and Development (OECD)—inpart reacting to GATS, are developing government-basedinternational quality standards on the premise that thesestandards are essential to colleges and universitiesseeking to be full participants in a global society. Theirefforts build on earlier work undertaken by, for example,the International Association of University Presidents(IAUP) to establish a “Worldwide Quality Register”—ameans to scrutinize accreditation and quality assuranceorganizations based on a set of quality standards.

OECD has joined forces with UNESCO to

establish an international database of reli-

able or “recognized” higher education in-

stitutions.

Two Major Efforts to Establish International Quality StandardsUNESCO, through its Global Forum on InternationalQuality Assurance, Accreditation and Recognition ofQualifications, has developed a Global Forum ActionPlan that would include an “education regulatory frame-work” for higher education quality, perhaps throughupdating and expanding the various UNESCO conven-tions to operate as “educational agreements providinginternational standards in the context of the growing lib-eralization of trade in services.” The plan also calls fordevelopment of national and regional quality assurancecapacity, information tools for students, and sustainabledevelopment of higher education systems.

OECD has joined forces with UNESCO to establishan international database of reliable or “recognized”higher education institutions. OECD also seeks todevelop nonbinding guidelines for cross-border highereducation, intended to provide student protection, toassure clarity of information and to encourageaccreditation and quality assurance cooperation amongcountries. The guidelines may address higher educationinstitutions, quality assurance and accreditationorganizations, recognition and credential evaluationagencies, and professional bodies.

The likely outcome of these efforts remains to beseen. Government-based solutions to internationalquality issues are attractive to some countries as theyexpand their international higher education activity.And, if there is to be international regulation of highereducation quality, a number of countries prefer that thistake place outside WTO/GATS. The key actors,UNESCO and OECD, are large, complex organizations

with diverse constituents, and arriving at consensus willbe time consuming. And, given the diverseconstituencies, there is the risk that “success” may be apaper tiger: vaguely worded standards of quality thatare not sufficiently robust to build trust and confidencein their reliability.

Moreover, these efforts take place in a complexenvironment of other —perhaps competing—efforts atstandard setting driven by geographic area, mode ofeducational delivery, or the traditions of individualcountries. Europe is engaged in a major effort, based onthe Bologna Declaration, to develop regional qualitystandards for higher education. There are discussions ofregional quality initiatives—for example, in LatinAmerica and the Gulf states. The International Councilfor Open and Distance Education (ICDE), based inNorway, has developed international quality standardsfor distance learning. In the United States, with its longtradition of institutional autonomy, academic freedomand self-regulation of academic quality through privateaccreditation bodies, many people remain concerned thatinternational quality standards may erode thesetraditions so vital to the success of U.S. higher education.How might these alternative efforts and traditions bereconciled—or at least coexist?

Whether or not these efforts to establish

international quality standards can succeed,

there are significant opportunity costs as-

sociated with their pursuit.

Opportunity CostsWhether or not these efforts to establish internationalquality standards can succeed, there are significant op-portunity costs associated with their pursuit. By creat-ing an environment where attention to higher educationquality in an international setting is defined almost ex-clusively by a debate about a single set of standards, thekey actors, however inadvertently, draw energy awayfrom other vital quality issues.

The first opportunity cost relates to developingcountries. Focus on international standards appears tobe at the price of the key actors giving enough priorityto the needs of individual countries. At a recent OECD/UNESCO meeting in Paris, those assembled were toldthat at least 40 percent of UNESCO member nationslacked a reliable quality assurance capacity. How canindividual countries benefit from international standardsin the absence of a robust national capacity? To thecontrary, they may be harmed. Absent individual nationsin a position to assert their own values and culture

5

through their own quality assurance enterprise, thedevelopment of international standards may bedominated by more developed countries, perhapschoking off the traditions of countries that enjoy fewerresources. Although the UNESCO plan acknowledgesthis need, it is not clear that addressing it is a priority.

The second opportunity cost relates to highereducation institutions. The focus on internationalstandards as a government activity appears to be at theprice of the key actors providing vital support to thedevelopment of a strong international voice for highereducation institutions worldwide. UNESCO and OECD,organizations of governments, at least thus far preferworking outside the ambit of higher education and forthe most part do not engage institutional leaders,policymakers, and academics in their deliberations. Yet,colleges and universities are among the oldest“international” institutions in the world, and their adviceabout whether to implement international qualitystandards might be quite useful. The development ofinternational standards without the involvement of theacademic community raises fundamental questions aboutwhether such standards will ever be taken seriously—unless they are forced on institutions by government.

The development of international standards

without the involvement of the academic

community raises fundamental questions

about whether such standards will ever be

taken seriously.

The third opportunity cost relates to other initiativesthat these actors might undertake if they were not focusingon international quality standards—initiatives that mightprovide greater added value than the debate aboutinternational standards. One conspicuous example isattention to the worldwide flourishing of dubiousproviders of higher education: “degree mills” and“accreditation mills.” An international dialogue and frameof reference to address shoddy higher education in aninternational setting are badly needed. It is difficult forany single country to address this. Legal constraints areone factor here and technology is another—distancedelivery of degree mills cannot be effectively addressedby a single country. The key actors would help all of highereducation by working with institutions and accreditation/quality assurance organizations around the world todevelop means to (1) identify rogue providers, (2) developtools to aid students and the public in distinguishingbetween rogue and reliable providers, and (3) exploreeffective practices to discourage rogue providers.

ConclusionThe multinational actors described here are devotingsignificant energy to creating international quality stan-dards for higher education. While it is too soon to deter-mine whether these efforts will be successful, it is nottoo soon to acknowledge that there are significant op-portunity costs associated with these efforts. Importantquality-related issues that these actors could profitablyaddress are receiving little, if any, attention. These in-clude aiding developing countries in building nationalquality assurance capacity, contributing to the creationof a strong international voice for academic institutionsabout higher education quality, and addressing suchpressing issues in the international environment as iden-tification of degree mills and accreditation mills.

Accra Declaration on GATSand the Internationalization ofHigher Education in AfricaEditor’s note: The following declaration was issued by a confference held in Accra, Ghana in April, 2004. Participants from16 African countries discussed the implications of GATS andinternationalization and agreed on the following document. Theconference was organized by the Association of African Universi-ties, UNESCO, and the Council on Higher Education (SouthAfrica). It is presented here to provide an African perspective onthe continuing worldwide debate on GATS and related issues.

Preamble

It is imperative to reaffirm the role and importanceof higher education for sustainable social, political

and economic development and renewal in Africa in acontext where ongoing globalisation in higher educa-tion has put on the agenda issues of increased crossborder provision, new modes and technologies of pro-vision, new types of providers and qualifications, andnew trade imperatives driving education. Higher edu-cation in Africa has to respond to these challenges in aglobal environment characterised by increasing differ-ences in wealth, social well-being, educational oppor-tunity and resources between rich and poor countriesand where it is often asserted that ‘sharing knowledge,international co-operation and new technologies canoffer new opportunities to reduce this gap (“Preambleto World Declaration on Higher Education for the 21stCentury,” 1998, p. 19).

We participants in this workshop on theImplications of WTO/GATS for Higher Education inAfrica assembled in Accra, Ghana from 27-29 April 2004:

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION6

Recalling• the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (1948),Article 26, paragraph 1, which affirms that ‘Everyonehas the right to education’ and that ‘higher educationshall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit

• the World Declaration on Higher Education for the21st Century (1998), which affirms the role of higher edu-cation in the ‘consolidation of human rights, sustainabledevelopment, democracy and peace, in a context of jus-tice’, and which asserts that ‘international co-operationand exchange are major avenues for advancing highereducation throughout the world’, and further that the‘principles of international co-operation based on soli-darity, recognition and mutual support, true partnershipthat equitably serves the interests of the partners andthe value of sharing knowledge and know-how acrossborders should govern relationships among higher edu-cation institutions in both developed and developingcountries and should benefit the least developed coun-tries in particular’

• the “AAU Declaration on the African University inthe Third Millennium” (2001), which calls for ‘therevitalisation of the African University and for a renewedsense of urgency in acknowledging the crucial role itshould play in solving the many problems facing [the]continent’, and which urges African universities to ‘givepriority to effective and positive participation in the glo-bal creation, exchange and application of knowledge’and urges African governments to ‘continue to assumethe prime responsibility for sustaining their universities,in partnership with other stakeholders’ because of the‘critical role of universities in national development’

Noting

• the negative impact of decades of structural adjust-ment policies and inadequate financing on the viabilityof higher education institutions as teaching and researchinstitutions in Africa

• the fact that the regeneration of higher education in-stitutions in many African countries is at an early andvulnerable stage

• the fact that regulatory regimes for the licensing/registration, quality assurance and accreditation ofhigher education institutions and programmes are un-developed in many African countries or in early stagesof development accompanied by problems of poorresourcing and capacity

• the fact that various forms of internationalisation inhigher education, including cross-border provision, arealready underway and that national, regional and inter-national mechanisms to foster and regulate international

co-operation in higher education have been establishedby national governments, by regional associations andby UNESCO and other bodies

• the ambiguities, silences and lack of ªlarity in GATSprovisions, the lack of transparency in GATS delibera-tions, and insufficient knowledge and understanding ofthe full implications of GATS for higher education, es-pecially in developing country contexts

Declare

• a renewed commitment to the development ofhigher education in Africa as a ‘public mandate’ whosemission and objectives must serve the social, economicand intellectual needs and priorities of the peoples ofthe African continent while contributing to the ‘globalcreation, exchange and application of knowledge’(“AAU Declaration on the African University in theThird Millennium”). We therefore caution against thereduction of higher education, under the GATS regime,to a tradable commodity subject primarily to interna-tional trade rules and negotiations, and the loss of au-thority of national governments to regulate highereducation according to national needs and priorities.• continued support for multiple forms ofinternationalisation in higher education which bringidentifiable mutual benefits to African countries as muchas to their co-operating partners in other countries andregions. We therefore re-affirm our commitment to re-ducing obstacles to international co-operation in respectof knowledge creation, exchange and application, to theenhancement of access to higher education and to in-creasing academic mobility within Africa itself.

• a commitment to the strengthening of national in-stitutional capacity and to developing national and re-gional arrangements for quality assurance, accreditationand the recognition of qualifications, and to greater co-operation and exchange of information on quality as-surance issues relating to cross-border provision,including active support for and participation in activi-ties to give effect to the Arusha Convention and toNEPAD objectives.

• a commitment to engagement with the political, edu-cational and economic implications of GATS for highereducation in Africa. We therefore call on African gov-ernments and other African role players to exercise cau-tion on further GATS commitments in higher educationuntil a deeper understanding of GATS and the surround-ing issues is developed and a more informed position isarrived at on how trade related cross-border provisionin higher education can best serve national and regionaldevelopment needs and priorities on the African conti-nent.

7

Resolve to

• promote greater availability of information on GATSand Higher Education in Africa, and more debate anddiscussion among relevant stakeholders in order to in-crease understanding of the potential dangers and/oropportunities from having cross-border higher educa-tion regulated by GATS.

• promote further research on the nature and extentof cross-border provision in Africa and on quality assur-ance and accreditation systems appropriate for the de-velopment of higher education in Africa.

Wars, Geopolitics, andUniversity Governance in theArab StatesAndré Elias MazawiAndré Elias Mazawi teaches in the Department of Educational Studiesat the University of British Columbia. Address: Faculty of Education,University of British Columbia, 2125 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T1Z4, Canada. He is a research associate at the Centre for Policy Stud-ies in Higher Education and Training. E-mail: andre.mazawi@ubc.ca.

Universities in the Arab states expanded consider-ably, from 10 universities in 1939, to 47 in 1975, and

to 184 in 2003. In 2004, 40 of the 149 universities affili-ated with the Association of Arab Universities were pri-vate. Whereas there were roughly 30,000 students in1945, 5 million were registered in a “tertiary course” in1999 (out of a population of 240,000,000). Enrollmentrates range from 7 percent of the 18-to-23 age group inSudan to 49 percent in Libya. Gender inequality is mostpronounced in Yemen and Iraq, placing women at a dis-advantage, while at Gulf universities women are over-represented. According to the 2003 Arab HumanDevelopment Report, universities are overcrowded,underfunded and “lack a clear vision.”

Universities, Civil Wars, and Military ConflictsPolitical instability, civil wars, and military conflicts af-fect the governance of Arab universities in many ways.Following independence or military coups, higher edu-cation institutions were brought into the orbit of thestate’s agenda. The appointment of university presidentsand deans and the election of student unions are regu-lated, restricting participation in university affairs. Thereis no separation between universities and the state, withthe exception of Lebanese and Palestinian universities.

In Sudan, the prolonged civil war triggered extensivebrain drain, leaving many university departmentsdevoid of senior academic staff. The consequences for

the quality of research and teaching are incalculable.Moreover, following a 1989 coup, Sudanese universitiesfounded during the 1990s were part of Arabization andIslamization policies, fueling conflicts over the aims ofhigher education in a country populated by differentcultural and sociolinguistic groups.

In Lebanon, as in Algeria, universities were affectedby civil wars during the 1970s and 1990s, respectively.In Lebanon, the civil war “fragmented” universities as aresult of assaults on infrastructure, faculty, and students.Munir Bashshur observes that during post-civil-warreconstruction an effort was made to accommodatecultural and political diversity, while striking a balancebetween the state’s supervisory role and the universities’autonomy. In a country where all universities are privatesave one, about half the student population is enrolledon the various campuses of that one public university. Abook by Mahmoud Abu-‘Ishsha, The Crisis of HigherEducation in Algeria and the Arab World ([Arabic] Beirut:Dar Al-Jil, 2000), presents a professor ’s candiddescription of university governance in the context ofpolitical conflict and division and the precarious stateof academic ethics, quality, and standards.

The worldwide contested and opposed

American and British-led military invasion

and occupation of Iraq in spring 2003 trig-

gered student rallies and heated demonstra-

tions on university campuses across the

Middle East and beyond.

Across the region, military spending weaponspurchased from Western countries, coupled withWestern hegemonic machinations and dependentregimes and depleted resources, have decimatedgenerations of students and academics and intensifiedbrain drain. Wars and geopolitical conflicts have exactedtheir toll as well. Iraq’s invasion and occupation ofKuwait in the summer of 1990 resulted in extensivedamages and destruction to Kuwait University.Subsequent U.N. sanctions imposed on Iraq hamperedteaching and research in universities for over a decade.Faculty and students lacked access to up-to-datepublications, computers and software, textbooks, andinternational conferences. The increased incursion of theIraqi state during the 1990s into universityadministration and decision making sought to containthe repercussion of the sanctions within Iraq.

The worldwide contested and opposed Americanand British-led military invasion and occupation of Iraqin spring 2003 triggered student rallies and heated

E-Learning Universities Under Siege in the Middle East

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION8

demonstrations on university campuses across the MiddleEast and beyond. The war has inflicted heavy casualtiesand losses on a weakened Iraqi civilian population. Withthe collapse of the Baath regime, the looting of universitiesand other facilities ensued. With hostilities still ongoing,the occupying authorities hastened to control universitiesand other state institutions, implementing a wide-scale“de-baathification” policy. At the same time, U.S.AID wasfunding partnership programs with American universities.In the Chronicle of Higher Education (September 12, 2003),Daniel del Castillo reported that “thousands of professorsand all university deans and presidents” were “dismissed”from their positions by occupation authorities. Earlier(September 5, 2003), del Castillo had also reported that anAmerican former college president, and current presidentof a consulting firm, was appointed as “senior adviser tooversee the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education andScientific Research,” with “broad powers to set a coursefor the future of higher education.” The long-term impacton higher education governance in Iraq of the American-British military occupation is difficult to predict at this time.Many people recognize that any developmentsdetermining the structures of the Iraqi state will affect notonly eventually prevailing future academic models but alsothe status and autonomy of Kurdish universities operatingin Iraq’s northern provinces.

The first Gulf War also indirectly affected

Jordan’s higher education system.

The first Gulf War also indirectly affected Jordan’shigher education system. Private university ventures wereundertaken by Jordanians and Palestinians forced to leavethe Gulf. Facilitated by economic restructuring policies,the number of universities doubled, fueling debatesregarding the quality and regulation of private highereducation.

On the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Palestinianuniversities emerged from the early 1970s onward underIsraeli military occupation, within the context of thePalestinian struggle for national self-determination. Sincethe Intifada erupted in 2000, universities continue to becritically affected by the stagnation of political negotiationsbetween Israel and the Palestinians. Israeli militaryoperations exact heavy human and infrastructural losses,hindering the proper carrying out of research, teaching,and exams. The isolation of the West Bank from the GazaStrip prevents students, faculty, and officials from movingfreely between and within regions to attend universities.System planning, coordination, admissions, and staffingare stalled.

The Geopolitics of Academic ModelsWithin this context, the shift from the continental to theAmerican academic model in some Arab countries de-serves attention. The continental academic model isbased on year-long required courses and end-of-yearexams. Prevalent in North Africa, and partially in Leba-non and Syria, it is mainly a legacy of French colonialrule. The American academic model, built around acredit-point course system, includes mandatory and elec-tive components and more frequent exams.

The shift from the continental to the Ameri-

can academic model in some Arab countries

deserves attention.

The seeds of the continental model were brieflyintroduced in Egypt following Bonaparte’s 1798military invasion and occupation. The model tookroot under vice-regal rule, surviving British rule andthe British-controlled monarchy. It became theacademic norm in post-1952 republican Egypt. Duringthe 1950s and 1960s, Egyptian professors acted ascarriers of the continental model, coupled with pan-Arab ideology, into other Arab states, notably Libyaand the Gulf states. These movements counteractedthe influence of American, British, and Frenchinstitutions operating in Egypt, Lebanon, and Sudan,as well as monarchic Arab regimes. The founding ofthe Khartoum branch of Cairo University and theArab University of Beirut were part of this powerstruggle. Egyptian academics were also instrumentalin the operation of nascent Gulf universities.

From the early 1970s onward, under the impactof revenues generated from the “oil boom,” Gulfuniversities expanded, adopting the credit-pointsystem. This shift gradually eroded Egyptianacademic influence. Yet, it also signaled greater U.S.and U.K. involvement in the Gulf in the 1980s; andan involvement intensified by local economicrestructuring policies introduced in the 1990s,following the first Gulf War. The establishment ofAmerican and other private universities in most Gulfstates during the 1990s crowned this process, leadingJames Coffman to observe, in the fall 2003 issue ofInternational Higher Education, that the Americanacademic model “rules supreme” in Gulf universities.One American consultant in the United Arab Emiratesnoted that a new university is “designed to reflect thetypical design of colleges and universities in the US . . .to facilitate transfers to US institutions and entrance toUS graduate programs.”

9

Gulf universities are being structurally“synchronized” with American universities, whileexposure to other Arab, most notably Egyptian,universities is being considerably narrowed in scope.Some view these shifts as reflecting globalization andinternationalization trends in higher education, in anincreasingly competitive market. Yet, one should alsoconsider the geopolitical corollaries. TheAmericanization and privatization of Gulf universitiesare occurring in conjunction with regional and globalrealignments of strategic military and economic alliances.The mechanisms underpinning this process still awaitsolid research, not only with respect to the role academicmodels play in mediating foreign policies but also theimpact academic models exert on regional economic andpolitical (dis)integration.

Universities in the Arab states are precari-

ous and contested institutions.

Reconceptualizing Globalization and InternationalizationUniversities in the Arab states are precarious and con-tested institutions. Colonial legacies, stateauthoritarianism, civil wars, and military conflictsweaken their societal and economic impact, expectationsto the contrary notwithstanding. Academic freedom,university autonomy, quality of higher education, andthe enduring brain drain raise grave concerns. State ad-ministrators often prevail in decision making, at the ex-pense of faculty and student participation, regardless ofthe academic model in place. In The Ontology and Statusof Intellectuals in Arab Academia and Society (Aldershot:Ashgate, 2001), M’hammed Sabour shows that modesof governance and administration reproduce withinuniversities clientelism and patrimonial relations.

The impact of wars and geopolitics on universitygovernance, as illustrated above, points to the urgentneed to refine the concepts of globalization andinternationalization, taking into account the dynamic ofwars and the subtleties of geopolitical struggles in anycredible account of university restructuring. Theeconomic retrenchment of the state and thecorporatization of universities represent just one aspectof a story dominated by economic rationality anddiscourse. Military and geopolitical conflicts unleashother forces associated with globalization andinternationalization, leading states to implement policiesthat play a hegemonic role in university reforms. Statesare retrenching, economically speaking, but they havenot yielded the trenches. At this juncture, whitheruniversities?

Palestinian Universities UnderSiegeFouad MoughrabiFouad Moughrabi is professor of political science at the University ofTennessee, Chattanooga. He is also director of the Qattan Center forEducational Research and Development, Ramallah, Palestine. Address:Department of Political Science, University of Tennessee, Chattanooga,Chattanooga, TN 37403, USA. E-mail: fouad-moughrabi@utc.edu.

In a comprehensive review of the history and prob-lems of Palestinian higher education, the late Profes-

sor Ibrahim Abu-Lughod points out that “Palestine’s in-stitutions of higher education were developed under themost trying social, political, and economic circumstances,the result of a military occupation determined todisempower Palestinian society” (Palestinian Higher Edu-cation: National Identity, Liberation, and Globalization, DukeUniversity Press, 2000). These conditions have prevailedfrom the start of the June 1967 Israeli occupation untiltoday. The story of how Palestinian education has with-stood the cumulative effects of a harsh military occupa-tion needs to be told because it illustrates both theresilience of the Palestinian people and the futility ofIsrael’s politics of force.

“Palestine’s institutions of higher education

were developed under the most trying so-

cial, political, and economic circumstances,

the result of a military occupation deter-

mined to disempower Palestinian society.”

Eleven Palestinian universities, 5 university colleges,and 26 community colleges operate in the West Bank andthe Gaza Strip, serving a population of 3.5 million people.Nearly all the institutions were established after 1971,when a small university opened its doors in Hebron.According to the 2002 census, 3,474 teaching faculty serve83,408 students at all Palestinian higher educationinstitutions.

By 2003, nearly three years into the Intifada and as aresult of Israel’s major military assault against Palestiniansociety (curfews, closures, checkpoints, house demolition,forced entry, and destruction of public buildings—including the two ministries of education), Palestinianinstitutions of higher education suffered serious human(24 teachers, 194 students, and 7 employees killed and 1,245students injured) and material losses (estimated at $4.85million). Overall casualty figures are in excess of 3,000 deadand nearly 20,000 injured.

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION10

Societies can easily recover from materialdestruction. However, damage to human capital—in theform of death, injury, psychological impairment,malnutrition, school dropouts, and the emigration ofskilled labor—can have irreversible consequences at thelevel of individual families. As a result of incomecompression, nearly 20 percent of the student body inPalestinian higher education is no longer able to pay itsfees.

Access to higher education institutions by studentsand faculty has become very difficult as a result of longcurfews and other drastic restrictions on freedom ofmovement. In many cases, however, university facultybegan to communicate with their students via theInternet in an attempt to overcome Israeli-imposedrestrictions on freedom of movement. A newphenomenon of distance learning began to emerge,leading to a student-centered kind of education. In somecases, universities tried to find alternate venues forholding classes and seminars in neighboring cities. Theproblem here is that not every student has access to e-mail and many students are scattered in villages awayfrom urban centers.

The financial crisis facing higher education

presents a much more difficult challenge.

So strong is the belief in the positive value of educationthat most students would brave checkpoints, curfews, andlife-threatening restrictions in order to arrive at theirschools. At the same time, most of the faculty, despite thefact that they have not received their full salaries for monthson end, would also put up with tremendous difficulties tomeet their classes. Simply attending school and meetingclasses become major acts of defiance, turning universitiesand schools into sites of resistance. In addition, familiespool their limited resources to help defray the costs ofeducation for their sons and daughters.

The financial crisis facing higher education presents amuch more difficult challenge. A 2003 World Bank report(“Two Years of Intifada: Closures and Palestinian EconomicCrisis”) states that “Palestinian institutions face the worstfinancial crisis over the last thirty odd years and theircontinued operation without emergency assistance is inserious doubt.” Some institutions will reduce offerings,increase class size, and rely on part-time or unqualifiedinstructors. An exodus of qualified faculty was alreadyunder way even before the Intifada. The crisis hasexacerbated this phenomenon as capable teachers beginto look for better-paying opportunities in the variousnongovernmental organizations working in the country.

Some universities have moved in the direction ofsetting up new degree programs and graduate programsthat have higher tuition rates. They also began relaxingadmissions requirements as a way of increasing revenue.Library holdings have begun to decline and journalsubscriptions are not being renewed mainly as a result oflack of funding and the unreliability of postal delivery. Allof these factors eventually will lead to a precipitous declinein quality, something that Palestinians can ill afford andmay take many years to remedy.

In general, the Ministry of Higher Education has triedto deal with this crisis in three ways: tuition and fees haveincreased sharply as a percentage of the overall budget(now at 70 percent); a student revolving-loan fund wasinitiated to enable needy students to obtain low-interestloans to cover tuition; a voucher system was also created,although not yet implemented, whereby universitiesreceive public funding by cashing in student vouchers.

The Ministry of Higher Education has succeeded inthe creation of an autonomous, semiofficial commissionresponsible for the accreditation and licensing of newprograms and institutions. This commission reviewsexisting criteria, develops new criteria for accreditation,and produces procedures for an ongoing assessment ofall programs that grant academic degrees. All this is basedon a two-tier methodology of self-evaluation and externalreview.

Other possible developments, including streamlining,the modernizing of management systems, and theestablishment of consortia are being delayed because ofthe crisis. These measures relate mostly to the financialcrisis and are aimed not only at trying to make do inabnormal conditions but also in the long run, paving theway for future reform. It is not clear whether thesemeasures will enable the universities to withstand thecumulative effects of a protracted war situation and anendemic financial crisis.

As the World Bank report points out, any so-

ciety that has undergone such a massive and

debilitating assault would have collapsed

long ago.

As the World Bank report points out, any society thathas undergone such a massive and debilitating assaultwould have collapsed long ago. The fact is that thePalestinians have shown incredible resilience in the faceof adversity. How long they can continue to suffer is notclear especially since a political resolution of the conflictwith Israel still appears very far off.

11

State-University Power Struggleat Times of Revolution and Warin IranShahrzad MojabShahrzad Mojab is associate professor and director of the Institute forWomen’s Studies and Gender Studies, Department of Adult Educationand Counseling Psychology at OISE/University of Toronto. Address:252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V6, Canada. E-mail:smojab@oise.utoronto.ca.

Universities in Iran are part of the state structure.They are founded, financed, and governed by the

state, although state-controlled private institutions haveemerged in recent years. At the same time, the univer-sity has been a major center of opposition and revoltagainst the state. Students are a main force challengingthe state. More than half a century of unceasing studentstruggles for democracy and freedom in Iran has beento some extent documented. Throughout this bloodystruggle, the objectives and scope of the student opposi-tion to the state have changed. While the student move-ment was reformist (demanding the constitutionalizationof the monarchy) until the mid-1960s, beginning in theearly 1970s, and especially during the revolutionary cri-sis of 1977–1979, students campaigned for the overthrowof the monarchy.

Today, 25 years later, students are calling for areferendum to separate state and religion and, thus, tobring an end to the reign of Islamic theocracy. This powerstruggle has taken place in the context of two wars: first,an internal ideological and political battle over the ruleof Islam versus the rule of secularism and democracy.This struggle was, in the realm of education, known asthe “Islamic Cultural Revolution” (1980–1987), whichaimed at fusing religion and education by Islamizing allaspects of education from teacher-student relations totextbooks, curricular and administration. Second, therewas an external war—the invasion of the country by Iraq,which had been supported by the United States (1980–1988).

Iranian students, both in Iran and abroad, played aprominent role in the overthrow of the monarchy.However, while Khomeini emerged as the leader of thisrevolution and became the architect of the Islamictheocracy, the campuses remained in the control ofradical and leftist students and faculty. They closed downthe headquarters of the secret police from the campusesand abolished the surveillance system the shah hadinstalled at all universities. Leftist students and faculty,most of them secular, by then were in control of thecampuses. Radical students and faculty claimed bothlegitimacy and the right to run the institutions. This

legitimacy had been won through decades of unceasingstruggle under the most difficult conditions; theuniversities are known in Iran as sangar-e azadi (bastionof freedom).

The Khomeini EraKhomeini, despite his popular base and a history of op-position to the shah, was far from being a historical matchfor the students. The universities, rather than the semi-naries, were seen as the ‘bastion of freedom.’ As a result,the new regime was initially very cautious in its attemptto control the campuses. While the government was in-creasingly using its administrative power to rule overthe campuses, students continued to resist. As a result, asituation of dual power emerged. Students were in con-trol of the classroom, the physical space, and campuspolitics. The state was the owner and administrator atthe top. The Islamic regime did not tolerate this state ofdual power, although it was not yet in a position to useviolence in order to conquer the campuses. One tacticwas to subdue the most important institution, TehranUniversity, by conducting Friday prayers on its campus.In order to conduct this nationally televised event everyweek, students, faculty, and staff were forced off cam-pus and security forces controlled the entire space onThursdays and Fridays. However, even this abuse ofstate power could not bring the campus under full statecontrol.

While the government was increasingly us-

ing its administrative power to rule over the

campuses, students continued to resist.

By the end of 1979, Khomeini was growing impatientwith the universities. In his New Year’s message onMarch 21, 1980, he ordered an attack on the universities.On April 18, Khamene’i, in his Friday Prayer sermon,ordered a holy war (jihad) against the students. Heaccused the students of turning the campuses into “warrooms” against the Islamic state. After the prayers, armedgangs attacked three campuses. Within the next fewdays, the gangs wounded hundreds of students andkilled at least 24. Students were driven off the campuses,and the government took over all the premises.

The assault on the universities was soon called theIslamic Cultural Revolution. Khomeini appointed aCultural Revolution Council to lead the project ofintegrating the universities into the Islamic state.Campuses were closed down for two years, and all thestudents, faculty, and staff considered disloyal to theIslamic state were purged.

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION12

IslamizationThe process of “Islamization” of higher education coin-cided with Iraq’s invasion of Iran. What is unique, andpeculiar, about higher education in Iran is the presenceof two overlapping forces causing chaos, unrest, confu-sion, and turmoil. First, the process of Islamization un-der the rubric of Islamic Cultural Revolution (1980–1987)seized the public policy space. Second, the country wasentering into a war for which neither country was pre-pared or had a reason to wage (1980–1988). In order toconcentrate on the war, the Islamic state tightened itspolitical grip internally. This included, among otherthings, unprecedented control over universities, the sup-pression of national minorities demanding autonomy,and more aggressive Islamization of gender relations. Itshould be emphasized that the changes that transformedthe universities in Iran would have taken place evenwithout the Iran-Iraq war; the war only speeded up theprocess, silenced opposition groups, and further legiti-mized state control. Therefore, in this context, the warand the Islamic Cultural Revolution should be consid-ered as two sides of the same coin—both divergingsharply from the democratic path that universities andthe society dreamed of following.

One mechanism for controlling the campus

was to readmit students after conducting a

full check on their political loyalties.

One mechanism for controlling the campus was toreadmit students after conducting a full check on theirpolitical loyalties. Government agents would go to theaddresses where students had lived to find out whetherthey and their family members had attended the localmosque before the revolution. New students wereadmitted only if a “local investigation” could prove thatthey were loyal to Islam and the Islamic regime. Whilenonloyal students and faculty were purged, those whohad defended the regime and volunteered for fightingin the war against Iraq were admitted through a systemof quotas—including members of the armed forces,families of martyrs, and war veterans. This quota policypursued two objectives: using the admission ofapplicants devoted to the Islamic regime to create a safesocial base for the state within the unruly student body;and providing a very important material incentive tothose who participated in a war that had becomeextremely unpopular.

The Islamic Cultural Revolution led to the silencingof the campuses. Students not affiliated with thegovernment were no longer allowed to form any

organizations, write slogans, post any writing anywhere,or distribute literature. Muslim student associations weregiven the mandate to spy on students and faculty.Academic freedom, which had been won through thestruggle against the shah’s regime, came to an abruptend. Repression was so extensive that the student bodyfor the first time since 1941 turned apolitical. By the endof the decade, however, the era of postwar“reconstruction” began with immense consequences foruniversities. In response to the growing social unrest, adevastated economy, and a ruined society, the statepursued a policy of “relaxation” and “reversal.” Inpractice, on campuses this meant easing gendersegregation and reopening most of the disciplines towomen. Lack of financial and human resources forcedthe state to halt the gender segregation of universityclassrooms by using dividers or simply separatingfemale/male students by a curtain. Some facultymembers were invited back to resume their teaching,even if the state was in doubt concerning their loyaltiesto Islamic doctrine. Many purged students were alsoinvited to apply so as to be considered for admission.

The policy of relaxation of the iron fist of the statedid not extend to the governance of universities. Theinstitutions had to be loyal to the state and its ideologicaland political line. The ideal Islamic university, asdesigned during the Islamic Cultural Revolution, shouldnot aim at achieving autonomy from the state. Since theIslamic theocracy aims at the unity of state and religion,the education system should also combine knowledgeand religion. This is expected in both state-run and theexpanding private institutions of higher education. Thesetenets continue to shape the policy of the state, althoughthere are differences between the two major factions—conservatives and reformists—that are contending forpower on the campuses.

A situation of relaxation prevails everywhere

from the enforcement of women’s dress

codes, to censorship of the media, to limi-

tations on foreign trade.

A situation of relaxation prevails everywhere fromthe enforcement of women’s dress codes, to censorshipof the media, to limitations on foreign trade. In the caseof the universities, state control is challenged by variousforces, especially the faculty and the students, the latterbeing the main force in turning the campuses into thesite of struggle against the state. It is also important tonote that the conservatives have lost credibility andsupport everywhere. The population has been on the

13

E-Learning Privatization: A Growing Trend

offensive since the late 1990s. This offensive moodmanifests itself in everyday resistance in public spaces,where people openly challenge the values, symbols,language, and repressive organs of the theocratic state.Thus, much like the situation in the monarchical regime,while the state is still in charge of the administration ofpublic universities and while private institutions areadministratively and politically loyal, the student bodyhas seriously challenged the state, and some have calledfor the overthrow of the regime through a nationwidereferendum. Under these conditions, while the politicalatmosphere of the campus has changed, faculty andstudents enjoy no academic freedom and there is anoticeable absence of university autonomy.

Student ReactionsIronically, soon after the end of eight years of war withIraq (1988), Islamist students began protesting the poli-cies and practices of the government, its corruption andrepression, and its inability to improve the economicconditions of the country. A decade later, these “unrulysubjects” (i.e., students) began a major uprising, in July1999, in response to a brutal midnight attack on a dor-mitory by security forces. The six-day protest shook theIslamic state, but was violently suppressed. On the fourthanniversary of this uprising (July 2003), the studentmovement was even more radical. Some of the sloganscalled for the overthrow of the Islamic theocracy. Now,25 years after the revolution, the student movement iscalling for separation of the state and religion. It aims toachieve this goal through a national referendum, whichis expected to put an end to a quarter century of Islamictheocracy.

The Privatization of KenyanPublic UniversitiesWycliffe OtienoWycliffe Otieno is a PROPHE researcher and a lecturer in the Depart-ment of Education Administration and Planning at Kenyatta University,P. O. Box 43844, Nairobi, Kenya. E-mail: wotieno@e-parse.or.ke.

IHE devotes a column in each issue to a contribution from PROPHE, theProgram for Research on Private Higher Education, headquartered atthe University at Albany. See http://www.albany.edu/~prophe.

Research on private higher education, from studiesby Daniel Levy onward, has analyzed private-sec-

tor challenges to public dominance in higher education.As the contemporary Kenyan case shows, however, wenow also see public-sector challenges to recent privategrowth. Worldwide, one challenge lies in the public rules

or regulations, such as accreditation. Another, the sub-ject of this article, lies in the (partial) privatization ofpublic universities.

Private universities in Kenya grew in num-

ber, going from 3 to 17 in just two decades.

Kenyan private higher education has a longerhistory, compared to most of Africa, and antedates thepublic privatization movement. The private sector’saccelerated expansion, rising status, and officialrecognition from the late 1980s led to concern andreaction from the public sector. Private universities inKenya grew in number, going from 3 to 17 in just twodecades. In comparison, there have been only 6 publicuniversities during the four decades since independence.As elsewhere in Africa, private expansion sprang forthlargely due to the public system’s failure to meet thedemand for higher education. Private higher educationhas registered steady increases in enrollment. Someuniversities—such as the United States InternationalUniversity (USIU), the largest of the privates—havewaiting lists of applicants. Public universities respondedto this development by mounting privately sponsoredModule II programs. Such programs are increasinglycommon not only in Africa but also in Eastern Europeand other regions that have seen rapid emergence andgrowth of private higher education and now see public-sector reaction.

For one thing, tuition is as high in Kenya’s ModuleII programs as in similar programs at Kenya’s privateuniversities (sometimes even higher because thepublics have the advantage of more qualified staff,better facilities, and, crucially, name recognition). Thepublic Module II programs include some fields onlyperipheral to the curriculum at private universitiesin Kenya (medicine, engineering) but that privates insome countries have been able to build up over time.The Module II programs include some that have been“safe havens” for privates (e.g., business). Forinstance, while total enrollments at the USIU (popularfor its business courses) was 2,931 in 2002–2003,Module II business programs at the largest publicinstitution, the University of Nairobi (UoN), aloneenrolled 2,683 students. Overall, just over half ofUoN’s 27,839 students were enrolled in Module IIprograms. All its (1,220) nondegree (diploma)students were in Module II, and at the postgraduatelevel there were twice as many as in regular programs.Thus, in 2002–2003, the university raisedU.S.$15,914,639 from these programs. This is

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION14

equivalent to two-thirds of direct governmentfunding and one-third of the university’s total income.At Kenya’s four major private universities, tuitionincome averages 72 percent of total income.

One result is that while public universitiesincrease their enrollments and financial health—thanks to privatization—and despite there being threetimes as many private as public universities, theprivate share of enrollments is declining. From 20percent in 1999 and 16 percent in 2001, the enrollmentshare fell to 13 percent in 2003. Privatization of thepublics thus appears to be occurring at the expenseof private growth. The sustainability of this tendencyis contestable, but all indications are that enrollmentsin the Module II programs have yet to surge. Thispoint does not negate the fact that private enrollmentscontinue to grow (by 16 percent over the last threeyears) and that the public-sector increase has muchto do, as in China, with previously low publicenrollments.

The privates seem to have been unprepared

for the current privatizing trends in the pub-

lics.

Pointedly, the privates seem to have beenunprepared for the current privatizing trends in thepublics. A fundamental question then is what the futureholds for the privates and the publics. Clearly,privatization will continue—whether at public orprivate institutions. The privates would have to chartout effective responses to the privatizing publicinstitutions and innovate to remain competitive.Initially, at least, the privates have failed to uphold thebehavioral characteristics of business, not counteringfresh competition effectively, despite having some clearcomparative advantages.

While Kenya’s privatizing public universitieschallenge their private counterparts, both face increasingentrepreneurial challenges from foreign universitiesoperating with local Kenyan colleges. Examples includethe University of South Africa, University of London,Technikon of South Africa, the University of Free State,the Australian Studies Institute, and a consortium of Britishuniversities represented by the British Council. Foreignuniversities have taken advantage of the liberalizedenvironment and have brought the competition to the doorof local universities. Only the public universities seem tomount credible responses to this challenge, interestinglyby franchising local private tertiary colleges to offerprograms on their behalf.

In conclusion, while private higher educationclaims internationally to represent the entrepreneurialalternatives and future growth, Kenya shows thelimitations of this trend. It appears that public andforeign institutions might fight for entrepreneurialterrain, thus placing a fresh challenge before privateuniversities.

Transition to Privatized,Globalized Higher Educationin IsraelRachel PasternakRachel Pasternak is on the faculty of the College of Management, 22Hadar-Josef St., Tel-Aviv. 69705, Israel. E-mail: rachelp@macam.ac.il.

The gap between the high demand for and low sup-ply of higher education has created pressure to open

Israel’s institutions of higher learning to a wider circleof potential students. This pressure, accompanied byeconomic strains, has instigated changes in the system.The awarding of academic degrees was no longer theexclusive role of Israeli universities. Privatization, be-gun in 1974, was joined by globalization in the mid-1990s.The entire process occurred in four stages over 30 years:the establishment of the Open University (1974),academization of the teacher training colleges (1981), pas-sage of legislation concerning the status of colleges (1995),and the opening of foreign university extensions (1998).

Establishment of the Open University, 1974The Open University delivers courses leading to the B.A.by means of long-distance teaching. In contrast to otherinstitutions of higher learning, its minimal entrance con-ditions—no high school matriculation diploma or col-lege entrance examinations are required—permit allapplicants to be accepted. The number of studentsstudying at the Open University reached almost 25,000in 2003. The median age of its students—30 to 35—ishigher than that of students at the universities. The OpenUniversity enrolls a larger proportion of students: about25 percent versus 9 percent, respectively. In addition,the geographic spread of its students is wider, with stu-dents residing throughout the country, although the eth-nic distribution of its students resembles that found inthe universities. The Open University is autonomouslygoverned, is state supported with funds provided bythe State Planning and Grants Committee, and operatesby the authority of the Council of Higher Education. Asof the 1990s, the university has been licensed to awarda master’s degree in a limited number of disciplines.

15

Academization of Teacher Training CollegesSince 1981, teacher training colleges in Israel have ex-perienced a process of academization—that is, the trans-formation into colleges with the authority to grant B.Ed.degrees. A similar process is under way in NorthAmerica and in Europe. The practical implications ofacademization in Israel include the four-year (formerlythree-year) course of study, programs devised accord-ing to Council of Higher Education recommendations,a rising level of the teaching staff competence, and theestablishment of more rigid admission criteria (e.g., afull matriculation diploma, college entrance examina-tions, and a personal interview). This process stimulatedan increase in the number of applicants during the 1980s(10 times the number applying in the 1970s) and pro-vided a new route to earning an academic degree and,subsequently, an M.A.

These colleges, which charge high tuition

fees, receive no financial aid from the Plan-

ning and Grants Committee but remain un-

der the jurisdiction of the Council of Higher

Education.

The Opening of Private CollegesEconomic, social, and political constraints gave birth to anamendment of the Council of Higher Education Law in1995 that allowed the opening of colleges licensed to awardacademic B.A. degrees. This law authorized the foundingof 14 regional academic colleges in Israel’s periphery. Al-though these institutions were originally treated as sub-sidiaries of the universities, they have since acquiredautonomy. In addition, 3 private colleges were founded.These colleges, which charge high tuition fees, receive nofinancial aid from the Planning and Grants Committee butremain under the jurisdiction of the Council of HigherEducation. In 2000, attendance reached 53,089, as com-pared with 113,010 in the universities. With respect to the20-29-year-age group, in 2000, about 10 percent of studentsattended universities whereas 4.3 percent attended col-leges. We can conclude that academic recognition of thecolleges stimulated a rise in the number of students study-ing for a B.A. at these institutions. It is estimated that in2003, the number of students studying toward a B.A. atcolleges will be greater than the number studying towardthe same degree at universities.

Extensions of Foreign UniversitiesPrivatization of higher education has brought about a sig-nificant increase in the number of individuals holding aB.A. degree. A large percentage of these graduates also

aspire to continue their studies to advanced degrees,particularly the M.A. Although the universities lack thecapacity to absorb the majority of these applicants, theCouncil of Higher Education refused to permit the col-leges to award advanced degrees for some time. Due togrowing demand and sustained privatization, the glo-balization of higher education received greater impetus.These trends eventually brought about the establishmentof extensions of foreign universities in Israel.

Privatization of higher education has

brought about a significant increase in the

number of individuals holding a B.A. degree.

The Council of Higher Education has since licensedseveral of the foreign universities interested in enteringthe Israeli market to teach courses leading toward theacquisition of academic degrees. In 1998, legislation waspassed that required these extensions to operate underCouncil of Higher Education oversight. About 25extensions—from universities in the United States, theUnited Kingdom, Europe, and Africa—currently operatein Israeli, with about 9,000 Israel students enrolled intheir programs.

At the turn of the 21st century, the system continuesto evolve: colleges that were permitted to grant B.A.degrees are requesting licenses to grant M.A. degrees.The Council of Higher Education, loath to relinquish itsmonopoly, raised barriers and issued negative responses.Yet, just as economic, social, and political forcescombined to legitimate the colleges’ award of B.A.degrees despite the obstacles put up by the Council ofHigher Education, these same forces are again acting infavor of the colleges. In April 2003, three teachers collegeswere licensed to award M.Ed. degrees; in July 2003, otherprivate colleges were licensed to award M.A. degrees. The major implication of privatization and globaliza-tion in higher education is the benefits of greater distri-bution of knowledge and of making that knowledgeaccessible to a broad population that had previously beendeprived of this opportunity.

Internet Resources

Visit our website for downloadable back issues ofInternational Higher Education and other publicationsand resources at http://www.bc.edu/cihe/.

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION16

A Look at Nonpublic HigherEducation in VietnamNgoc Minh Le and Mark A. AshwillNgoc Minh Le is a Ph.D. student in Comparative Education in the De-partment of Educational Leadership and Policy, State University of NewYork at Buffalo. Address: Baldy Hall, SUNY-Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260,USA. E-mail: ngocle@buffalo.edu. Mark A. Ashwill is director of theWorld Languages Program and Fulbright Program adviser at SUNY/Buffalo. He is also executive director of the U.S.-Indochina EducationalFoundation, Inc. (USIEF). Address: World Languages Program, ClemensHall, SUNY-Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA. E-mail:ashwill@buffalo.edu.

Vietnam has a population of over 80 million. Thecountry’s promise and potential are embodied in

its young people, the generation born after 1975; about65 percent of the population is under the age of 30.The decree on family planning, issued by the govern-ment early in 2003, sets no limit on the number ofchildren couples can have. Though the birthrate hasremained stable at 2 percent per year, this change inpolicy will likely lead to an increase in the birthratefor the foreseeable future. Vietnam has been successfulin universalizing primary education and aims to makelower secondary education universal in the next 20years. Demand for upper-secondary education will in-crease, which will then place additional strain on an al-ready overburdened higher education system.

Overview of Nonpublic Higher EducationIn 1986, after a decade of poverty and starvation causedby a half century of war, a U.S.-led trade embargo, andfailed policies, the government implemented sweepingeconomic reforms known as doi moi. The private sector,previously forbidden in a Marxist-Leninist economy,was encouraged to develop, albeit incrementally. It soonbecame apparent that the spirit of the economic reformsalso applied to universities and colleges as a way to meetthe rapidly growing demand for tertiary education.From 1991 to the 2001–2002 academic year, the totalnumber of higher education students in Vietnamjumped from 190,000 to nearly 1 million. Added to thisnumber are about 200,000 freshmen—a 7 percent in-crease over last year—of which 24,500, or 12 percent,will attend nonpublic institutions.

The first nonpublic higher education institution, ThangLong University, was founded in 1989 on an experimentalbasis by a group of intellectuals. By 2002–2003, there were23 nonpublic higher education institutions in Vietnam, ofwhich 16 were “people-founded” universities, one asemipublic university, two people-founded colleges, andfour semipublic colleges.

authority at the central, provincial, district, or communallevel, while people-founded institutions are owned andmanaged by nongovernmental organizations or privateassociations such as trade unions, cooperatives, youthorganizations, and women’s associations. There maysoon be a third type of nonpublic institution, which willbe owned and operated by private individuals.

The first and only foreign-owned university campus,established by the Royal Melbourne Institute ofTechnology (Australia), opened in fall 2003 in Ho ChiMinh City. RMIT University Vietnam offersundergraduate programs in computer science,information technology and multimedia, softwareengineering, and commerce, as well as graduateprograms in leadership and management, tertiaryteaching and learning, and business administration. Anew campus (Saigon South), which will accommodate3,000 students, is currently being built at a cost of $15.5million through loans from the Asian Development Bank,the International Finance Corporation, a benefactor, andRMIT.

Nonpublic institutions have proven to be an

effective alternative means of increasing

access to higher education.

Nonpublic institutions have proven to be an effectivealternative means of increasing access to highereducation. They account for more than 20 percent ofthe total number of higher education institutions inVietnam and accommodate ten percent of the nation’sstudents. Majors are offered in English, business,management, computer science, and technology. Themajority of students at nonpublic institutions comefrom wealthy families. The admissions criteria (i.e.,the total score on three exam subjects) are usually notas demanding as those at public universities. In manycases, for example, the total score is only half of whatis required by the public institutions.

Current Issues, Challenges, and RecommendationsThe Second Regional Seminar on Private Higher Edu-cation, organized by the UNESCO Asia and PacificRegional Bureau for Education in June 2001 inBangkok, identified several problems related topeople-founded higher education in Vietnam—suchas a lack of long-term strategic planning, insufficient

There are two different types of nonpubliceducational institutions in Vietnam. Semipublic facilitiesare owned and operated by the state and a public

17

administrative oversight, and a shortage of policies thatare specific in nature and issued in a timely fashion.

There is not yet a well-developed legal infrastructurethat defines the precise relationship between nonpublicinstitutions and the Ministry of Education and Training(MOET). Since 1993, when the first nonpublic universitywas officially established, MOET has issued only oneregulation on people-founded institutions. The fifth draftof provisional regulations on semipublic and privateinstitutions was discussed at a meeting held in December2002 at the ministry. The draft consists of numerousconflicts and inconsistencies between chapters andarticles such as those on mission and ownership.Participants were resentful about prematurely discussingthe draft in detail, comparing the current state of affairswith “putting the cart before the horse”—in reference toregulations on higher education in Vietnam that do notyet exist.

The lack of a regulative framework and anaccreditation system has adversely affected publicconfidence in the nonpublic sector. Administrators at anumber of nonpublic universities and colleges haveabused their power, taking financial advantage of bothstudents and their parents. The Taiwan AsianInternational University (AIU), for example, which wasestablished in cooperation with Hanoi University ofForeign Languages in 1995, turned out to be a hoax. Afterfive years of operation, AIU left more than 2,000 studentsand their families with no place to go after losinghundreds of thousands of dollars. This led to the removalof MOET vice minister, Vu Ngoc Hai. In another incident,Dong Do University recruited twice as many studentsas capacity allowed.

There is a pressing need to require

nonpublic institutions of higher education

to be subject to routine auditing and to sub-

mit transparent annual financial reports.

Clearly, there is a pressing need to require nonpublicinstitutions of higher education to be subject to routineauditing and to submit transparent annual financialreports. In addition, there should be healthy competitionbetween public and nonpublic higher educationinstitutions for government grants. While publicinstitutions are encouraged to carry out entrepreneurialactivities to increase their revenue, it is unfair to leavenonpublic institutions on their own while in fact theyare easing the burden of excess demand on the state.

Given the dismal state of nonpublic highereducation, the government should establish a special task

force that would consider relevant experience of othercountries. Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, andIndonesia have a long history of private education.China, Vietnam’s role model in some respects, recentlypassed a private higher education law that could serveas a useful guide. Instead of holding more conferenceson provisional regulations with heated debates that areoften unproductive, Vietnam must take a much morepractical and proactive approach in order to learn fromother countries’ successes as well as their mistakes—inthe finest tradition of comparative education.

Private Higher Education inChina: A Contested TerrainJing LinJing Lin is associate professor in the Department of Educational Policyand Leadership at the University of Maryland. Address: Benjamin Build-ing, College Park, MD 20742. E-mail: Jinglin@wam.umd.edu.

Private higher education in China has been a contestedterrain with regard to control and autonomy. Pri-

vate universities are calling for a loosening of govern-ment controls. Government officials argue that theprivate sector requires vigorous supervision and con-trol. Both sides can cite convincing reasons, but neithercan convince the other.

Private universities have been complaining that thegovernment has maintained too much control overeverything, giving them little autonomy. For example,institutions cannot decide what programs to offer orhow many students to admit, and they cannot issue theirown degrees. They are also critical of the governmentpulling the carpet from under them: the government inrecent years has allowed public universities to set upprivate colleges—called second-tier colleges—that usestate property and rely on the reputation and resourcesof public universities to run profit-making educationbusinesses.

Today, there are 300 second-tier colleges, and thenumber is increasing fast. The first such organizationwas formed by Zhejiang University. Called CityCollege of Zhejiang University, the college was jointlyowned by Zhejiang University, which sent in itsadministrators and teachers; by the Postal Universityof Hangzhou, which offered its campus as the site ofthe college; and by the local government, whichprovided one-third of the funding. Governmentofficials consider second-tier universities to be aneffective way to expand opportunities. In Zhejiang,more than 33 percent of higher learning opportunitiesare provided by the private universities and second-tier colleges. Private universities, however, see this

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION18

policy as a clear violation of the 2002 Law for thePromotion of Private Education, which establishes thatprivate schools and universities are to be privatelyestablished and administered.

Government officials claim that private uni-

versities seek to manipulate official policy

in the interest of profit making, in the pro-

cess damaging or undermining the rights

of students and parents.

In contrast, government officials claim that privateuniversities seek to manipulate official policy in the interestof profit making, in the process damaging or underminingthe rights of students and parents. They complain thatprivate universities lack “self-discipline.” Governmentofficials see themselves as standing on higher ground tosafeguard student interests and to monitor the behaviorof private universities. It is thought that controls are neededor chaos would ensue.

Who is at fault? How can one find the right mixbetween government control and autonomy for privateuniversities? Private universities see their priorities asbased on market needs and believe they should be allowedto operate on market terms, with their admissions policiesand program offerings driven and regulated by the market.They stress that they are not public universities. In contrast,government officials, who are responsible for potentialcrises, see education as too sensitive and delicate an arenato allow big mistakes to occur. Therefore, governmentofficials insist on executing close supervision of privatehigher education. Private university presidents have beenasking how government supervision can be maintainedwithout strangling the vitality of private universities.Government officials have been asking how autonomy canbe granted to private universities without creating chaos.These are issues that seem very difficult to resolve in Chinatoday.

The 2002 Law for the Promotion of Private Educationwas praised for the support it gave private education.However, in October of last year, participants at aconference in Nanjing bemoaned the fact that the “winterof private education” had set in—first of all because thislaw had been so very unimplementable. It is called an“immature law,” with many details still under intensedebate, especially the clause that “private investors canhave a reasonable return on their investment.” While thelaw makes society believe that they are equal to publicuniversities, private universities still face great difficultyin getting permission from the government to offerbachelor’s degree programs; they are still kept from

admitting students until after public universities haveadmitted theirs. They can now easily be charged withrunning “illegal operations,” since many activities thatwere once considered “borderline” and were dealt withby government offices with “one eye closed and one eyeopen” have become illegal under the law. Governmentofficials in many local areas have been deliberately vagueabout their attitudes toward private education.

The new law requires many government offices tomake definitive decisions on the performance of privateschools and universities. Private universities thus havecharged that the new law fails to give private universitiesthe expected protection but rather opens the way forgovernment schools, state banks, and local governmentsto combine resources to edge out private universities. Asense of crisis has been looming for many privateuniversities, which came into existence in the 1980s andhave been growing since then. The collaboration betweenpublic universities and local governments in setting upprivate colleges has instantly taken away the advantagesof private institutions, which were able to respond tothe needs of the economy with their highly flexibleadministrative structure and programs.

In summary, the passing of the private highereducation law has not created a big boom for privateuniversities. The balance between autonomy and controlis hard to maintain. Private universities in China willneed many years to establish their credibility andreputation and gain the autonomy they have coveted.They face competition on all fronts and now have aneven bigger challenge of surviving the advent of pseudo-private second-tier colleges.

International Students inRussiaAnna SmolentsevaAnna Smolentseva is a research fellow at the Center for SociologicalStudies at the Moscow State University. Address: 11 Mokhovaya Ul,Moscow 103009 Russia. E-mail: anna@opinio.msu.ru.

Presently, about 100,000 international students are en-rolled at Russian higher education institutions. Theirexpanding numbers are considered one of the mostimportant trends in Russian tertiary education.Policymakers emphasize that higher education, alongwith oil, has the potential to become a key export in-dustry in the Russian economy that will earn billionsof dollars, as is the case in the United States, Austra-lia, and other countries. However, currently the pres-ence of international students in Russia yields onlyabout U.S.$150 million annually.

E-Learning Russia: Internationalization Issues

19

OverviewThe Soviet system of international education had virtu-ally broken down by the early 1990s, and only in recentyears has the number of international students in post–Soviet Russia begun to increase. Over the last decadetheir number has more than doubled, and qualitativechange has taken place as well. In Soviet times, mostforeign students studied tuition free under intergovern-mental agreements. Today, international education is notoriented toward Soviet propaganda, but rather towardeconomic benefit, which means that the majority of in-ternational students pay tuition. Foreign students rep-resent an important source of nonstate financing, whichenables many Russian higher education institutions tosurvive under conditions of financial constraint.

The countries of origin of international students havealso changed over the last years. Whereas in the early1990s, citizens of the Commonwealth of IndependentStates (CIS)—the countries that were at one time part ofthe Soviet Union—comprised the majority ofinternational students, at present they make up aboutone-third of the total number of foreigners studying inRussia. Approximately the same number of students arefrom Asian countries, mostly China. Other places oforigin include the Near East and North Africa (12.8percent), Europe (7.5 percent), Africa (5 percent), andLatin America (3 percent). But the situation may differamong universities. For example, at Moscow StateUniversity, an institution with a strong internationalreputation, the share of foreigners is about 10 percent ofthe total student body, almost half of them from the CISand Baltic countries (45 percent), and another half fromAsia (49 percent).

The most popular fields of education forinternational students have not changed significantly;these remain engineering, medicine, economics, businessadministration, and the humanities.

The policy is based on the conviction that

Russian institutions of higher learning have

traditionally provided higher education for

foreign students and still have the potential

to achieve a significant place in international

higher education.

Great ExpectationsA federal policy in support of educating foreign nation-als in Russian educational institutions was approved inOctober 2002 by the president of the Russian Federationand launched by the Ministry of Education. The policyis based on the conviction that Russian institutions of

higher learning have traditionally provided higher edu-cation for foreign students and still have the potential toachieve a significant place in international higher edu-cation. In Russia, it is believed that the attraction of Rus-sian higher education lies in its high quality, qualifiedfaculty, and comparatively low tuition fees and cost ofliving. Surveys on international students in Russia haveshown that the quality of Russian higher education isone of the most important reasons that foreign studentschoose to study in Russia.

Russia’s active participation in international educa-tion and attracting foreign students would support thelong-term economic and political interests of Russia inthe world and especially in those developing regions thathave had strong ties with the USSR, Russia, and Rus-sian education. In addition to the economic benefits, thehope is that Russia will also gain the opportunity to ex-ert political influence in those regions. Thus, the plan isto continue with the system of Russian federal fellow-ships for foreign students studying in the country. A re-lated effort will be the attempt to expand the influenceof the Russian language and Russian culture by estab-lishing a network of Russian centers abroad and throughexport of education. At the institutional level, foreignstudents would represent, above all, a stable source ofincome. However, all those goals will be very hard toachieve for many reasons.

The most important challenge involves qual-

ity assurance and degree recognition.

ChallengesThe most important challenge involves quality assuranceand degree recognition. In fact, Russian degrees are notrecognized in the developed world or in a number ofdeveloping countries—such as India, which refused toacknowledge Russian diplomas in 2002. That is whystudying in Russia does not make sense for many po-tential students. Nevertheless, joining the Bologna pro-cess, which occurred in 2003, should foster theconvertibility of Russian degrees and strengthen theposition of Russia in the international educational mar-ket.

Another barrier to increasing the number of foreignstudents in Russia is language. The Russian languagelost the status won for it by the Soviet Union, makingeducation in Russia inaccessible for foreigners. But evenafter learning Russian in their home countries or inpreliminary language courses in Russia, many foreignstudents enrolled in Russian higher educationinstitutions lack the necessary proficiency in the

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION20

language to take full advantage of their studies. Toresolve the language problem, some universities arestarting pilot programs that offer courses in certainforeign languages—English, French, and German.

Other issues include the absence of information oneducation in Russia for perspective students, the inabil-ity of most Russian universities to compete on the inter-national market, and the lack of marketing skills. Surveyshave shown that most foreign students come to Russiaon the recommendation of family members or friends,or are sent by their governments.

One of the perils facing international education isthe avid desire of some institutions to earn money byenrolling tuition-paying students (most Russians are ableto study for free). International students have thus be-come one of the vital sources of revenue. Some universi-ties are ready to overlook everything in order to get astudent who pays money. They wink at a student’s edu-cational qualifications, achievements, and progress whilestudying. This approach influences the general level ofthe student body of an institution and the quality of edu-cation.

Other issues include the absence of infor-

mation on education in Russia for perspec-

tive students, the inability of most Russian

universities to compete on the international

market, and the lack of marketing skills.

In addition, conditions on campus—housing and theoverall level of services—particularly in some regions,cannot be seen as an asset of Russian higher education.Furthermore, the personal safety of international stu-dents, especially those from Africa and Asia, is a seriousissue in many Russian cities.

These problems raise concerns about the policyof attracting international students to Russianuniversities. Undoubtedly, the major famousinstitutions are able to compete and attract goodstudents who are eager to study and complete theirdegrees. But there are students who enroll at otherRussian universities and do anything but study. Anumber of reports have appeared in the press aboutinternational students, mostly from developingcountries, who are involved in illegal businessactivities or narcotics distribution. In the absence ofwork permits or adequate support from theirgovernments, families, or sponsors, internationalstudents have to earn a living by all means possible.

In conclusion, today Russia is outdone by manycountries in the number of international students in its

higher education system. Also lacking in Russia is theunderstanding that a policy of attracting foreigners willrequire much effort, financial resources, and time. InRussia, the current situation with regard to internationalstudents and future prospects has not been examinedwell enough and will require serious research.

International Higher Educationin Russia: Missing DataAlex Kuraev-MaxahAlex Kuraev-Maxah is a doctoral student in higher education at BostonCollege. Address: 207 Campion Hall, Boston College, Chestnut HillMA 02467, USA. E-mail: kuraev@bc.edu.

Throughout its history, the Soviet Union was widelyconsidered to be a “closed society.” Examples of the

country’s profile include restrictions on foreign travel, alack of transparency, and keeping the outside world ig-norant about conditions within the country. A commonthread was the lack of publicly available data or the pro-vision of false data on a variety of topics. Perestroikaput an end to that isolation and opened doors to the glo-bal integration of the former Soviet nations. However,some of the old Soviet habits die hard. Anyone involvedin research on higher education in Russia knows it isvery difficult to obtain accurate statistics on the subject.The database on foreign student mobility continues tobe restricted and problematical, which makes it impos-sible to assess internationalization of Russian highereducation.

The Current SituationThe former Soviet leadership proudly proclaimed theUSSR to be a world leader in higher education, provid-ing impressive statistics on the numbers of foreign stu-dents studying in the country. Fact sheets from Soviettimes claim that “all the advantages and high quality ofSoviet education attracted in 1989 over 130,000 foreignstudents from more than 160 countries.” At the sametime, specific information concerning this topic was con-sidered classified and thus kept in the “restricted sec-tion” of the Federal State Archive. Even today, the datahave yet to be released.

Given the right to engage in internationalcooperation on the institutional level by the 1992 FederalEducation Act, Russian universities initiated a nation-wide movement to attract foreign students. For the lastdecade, data collection concerning international studentshas occurred at the institutional level and been submittedto the Ministry of Education. It would be reasonable to

21

assume that with the introduction of reforms in themanagement of the Russian university system, the issueof data inaccessibility would be eased.

This change has not, however, taken place. Statisticson foreigners studying in Russia reported in localpublications are very limited and are often contradictory.Based on the same data source, the Ministry of HigherEducation, two national statistical reports show verydifferent figures for the total number of foreign studentsin Russia in the 2000–2001 academic year: 95,957 and61,426, respectively. The same problem of inconsistencycharacterizes almost all of the published information oninternational students in Russian universities.

Next comes the question of how foreign stu-

dents are counted in Russia and, to a cer-

tain extent, attempting to analyze that

process creates more questions than an-

swers.

Data CollectionNext comes the question of how foreign students arecounted in Russia. To a certain extent, attempting to ana-lyze that process creates more questions than answers.First, all the approximately 35,000 students from theformer USSR republics studying in Russia are now clas-sified as foreigners—identified as students from the“near abroad.” Confusingly, published statistics in Rus-sia usually present the annual numbers of students fromclose and distant foreign countries separately, provid-ing no unified system for counting the total number ofinternational students.

Another difficulty is the complexity of the Russianuniversity system, in which anyone taking eveningclasses or external courses is considered an “enrolledstudent.” A person might live and have a full-time jobin the Ukraine, return to Moscow twice a year to passexams and collect course materials, and still be counted asa fully enrolled foreign student from Europe. Trainees orresearchers from abroad are also counted as students, evenif they are students in their home countries. The officialwebsite of the Russian Ministry of Education, invitesforeigners to come and study in Russia, presents 13different categories available in the Russian highereducation system for foreign students. It is difficult tomake sense of these different categories.

If Russia is to take advantage of the manyopportunities for collaborative research andinternationalization, there needs to be better access topertinent and useful data and more accurate statistics.

International Network forHigher Education in AfricaLaunched

A new initiative called the International Network forHigher Education in Africa (INHEA) has recently beenlaunched here at the Center for International HigherEducation. The Network is intended for use by schol-ars, experts, practitioners, policymakers, funding orga-nizations, students, and others engaged in research anddevelopment on higher education in Africa. As interestin higher education in Africa grows and as research andrelated publishing expands, this new resource will pro-vide valuable information and strengthen communica-tion and collaboration.

Many institutions and organizations are engagedin activities that relate to higher education developmentin Africa. These activities include research and advocacy,conferences and workshops, cooperative relationshipswith and among African institutions, and other effortsto gauge the state of higher education institutions inAfrica. Most organizations focusing on Africa operateindependently and often are unable to exchangeinformation with others. The creation of this forumpermits the easy changes of ideas, data, and news ofactivities and initiatives.

The Network features centers and institutionsaround the world that are engaged in work on Africanhigher education. It also provides a list of experts andresearchers (and their contact addresses) engaged inhigher education in Africa. An effort will be made toprovide information on current and upcoming highereducation conferences and meetings that have relevanceto higher education in Africa.

The Network also provides a rich source ofbibliographical information that includes references tobooks, articles, and reports, as well as doctoraldissertations on African higher education. Thereferences are conveniently organized by country andtheme. Also provided are higher education profiles forevery country in Africa. References and country profileswill be updated as regularly as possible.

The idea for INHEA stems from the Center’s twomajor initiatives concerning African higher education—African Higher Education: An International ReferenceHandbook, and the Journal of Higher Education in Africa(JHEA). The network may be accessed at http://www.bc.edu/inhea. The Network is directed by Dr.Damtew Teferra, founding editor-in-chief of the Journalof Higher Education in Africa and senior editor of African

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION22

Higher Education: An International Reference Handbook(Indiana University Press, 2003). He is a research assistantprofessor in the Boston College Lynch School of Education.This project is supported by the Ford Foundation.

Family Education and Access toLatin American HigherEducationSebastian Donoso and Ernesto SchiefelbeinSebastian Donoso is associate professor in the Department of Educa-tion at the University of Talca, in Chile. E-mail: sdonoso@utalca.cl. ErnestoSchiefelbein is chairman of the board of trustees of UniversidadMetropolitana de Ciencias de la Educacion and a research fellow atthe CIDE research center in the Universidad A. Hurtado, in Chile. E-mail: pschiefe@cide.cl.

While 95 percent of each age group enrolls in gradeone, less than 10 percent of the Latin American

adult population has attained higher education. Nev-ertheless, only half of the applicants admitted intohigher education are the first in their families to at-tend a university. The difference shows the impact offamily education level in determining educational at-tainment. One out of every five students starting firstgrade will eventually be admitted into higher educa-tion.

Ultimately, about half of the population in eachage group will attain only primary education, giventheir low reading comprehension levels (mainly thosestudents from families with lower levels ofeducation). On average, one-third of each age groupwill graduate from high school and one-fifth willreach the minimal reading and reasoning levelsrequired for being admitted into higher education.The outcome is somewhat better in the six countrieswith the highest reading achievement levels in LatinAmerica—where about half of each age groupgraduates from high school and one-third is admittedinto higher education. In these countries educationalattainment is also linked to family education.

The close linkage between educational attritionrates and family income or educational level is shownin household surveys now available in most LatinAmerican countries. Household surveys show thatstudents from wealthy families keep studying at theuniversity during their 20s, while at that ageyoungsters from poorer families have alreadydropped out of school (most males in the poorestquintile have already joined the labor force).

Furthermore, high school graduates’ access to theirpreferred (free or subsidized) public university andcareer depends on their score on a national entranceexam (that is influenced by family education). To succeedin the examination system—the vestibular in Brazil oraptitude entrance tests in Chile, Colombia, or CostaRica—families “invest” in good private secondaryschools and pay for their children to attend “cram highschools” (preuniversitarios, similar to the Japanese jukus),to prepare for entrance exams. Those who can pay forprivate education or coaching (solely for the purpose ofpassing the entrance exams) tend to secure entrance intospecific universities and careers. In addition, the publicprimary and secondary school system is abandoned bythe elites (even the bureaucrats managing the publiceducation system are usually alumni of private schoolsand send their own children to private schools).

The impact of family background increases

at each stage of the selectivity process, and

peaks for those accepted at subsidized uni-

versities.

The impact of family background increases ateach stage of the selectivity process, and peaks forthose accepted at subsidized universities. Researchcarried out on the Chilean admissions process in1998–1999 sheds light on the role of familybackground, and the findings are likely to bereplicated in other Latin American countries. Chilehas a national entrance exam for admission to allpublicly financed universities (monitored by anational university board). In December 1998, 107,663of the high school graduates (about 44 percent of the18-year-old population) signed up for taking theAcademic Aptitude Test (PAA), and one-fourth(26,239) were eventually admitted in the 1999university academic year (a similar number enrolledin nonsubsidized private higher educationinstitutions). There were also 52,715 students fromolder age groups that took the PAA exam in December1998 (most of them had taken a PAA exam before), ofwhom almost half (22,281) were admitted in the 1999academic year. In both groups of candidates, familybackground was closely associated with admission.

The rapid expansion of higher education has notreduced the impact of family background. The gapbetween the percentage of Chilean males (15 years ofage or older) with higher education (13.9 percent)and the corresponding percentage for parents ofstudents that signed up for the entrance exam (33.6

E-Learning Countries and Regions

23

percent) shows the rapid expansion and the criticalimpact of family education.

But this gap is also linked to low education levels ofparents of students who are not completing primary orsecondary education (parents with poor education areunable to help their children master basic skills). Mostof the 40 percent of fourth grade students who cannotunderstand a 100-word passage (and eventually dropout or barely graduate from primary education) hadparents with less than secondary education accordingto the socioeconomic analysis of the national test for thatgrade. Given the link between parents’ education andeconomic income it can be concluded that few studentsfrom families with an income below the national averagesit for the entrance examination for subsidizeduniversities. Most of the 23,000 students who graduatedfrom high school in 1998 but did not sign up for theentrance exam had less-educated parents.

The entrance examination shows an associationbetween students’ achievement (at the end of secondaryeducation) and parents’ education. One-third of thestudents (57,909) revealed a low ability to understandwritten questions and to carry out relativelystraightforward reasoning (the test is focused on abilityrather than knowledge). Parents of those students (scoringbelow the minimum required for admission to subsidizeduniversities) have less education (only 17.1 percent hadhigher education) than parents of the average student thatsit for the entrance exam (33.6 percent).

Family education is also linked to the ability

to invest in preparing for an additional en-

trance exam.

Family education is also linked to the ability to investin preparing for an additional entrance exam. Theeducation of parents of older students who had taken thePAA exam previously (35.7 percent with higher education)was somewhat higher than the average parent of studentswho signed up for the entrance exam (33.6 percent). Thisdifference is consistent with the education of parents of26,664 students who scored over the minimum (requiredfor admission to subsidized universities) but realized thattheir chance of being accepted in their preferred field oruniversity was remote and thus did not apply foradmittance in 1999. Their families were also more educated(39 of the parents had higher education) than the averageparent of students who signed up for the entrance exam.

In summary, students mastering basic abilities arebeing promoted to upper educational levels andeventually admitted into higher education. At the same

time, education enrollments at all levels are increasingat a rapid pace. This rapid expansion is reflected in thefinding that half of the students being admitted intouniversities are the first in their families to enroll at auniversity. However, further expansion of the highereducation system will require an increase in achievementlevels in primary education, both on grounds of qualityand equality.

Note: The full version of this analysis of the Chilean admis-sions process (in Spanish) can be downloaded from the IIDEwebsite www.iide.cl/publicaciones/libros.

Higher Education in PapuaNew Guinea: Striving forQualityDick RooneyDick Rooney was the chief writer of the Papua New Guinea Commis-sion for Higher Education Institutional Accreditation document. He wasalso director for academic quality assurance at Divine Word University,Madang, from October 2001 until November 2003. Address: VSO,PO Box 1061, Madang, Papua New Guinea. E-mail:Dick.Rooney@hotmail.com.

Papua New Guinea, one of the world’s least-developed countries, has set in motion a plan to try

to improve the quality of its universities, but it will haveto struggle against poverty and low capacity to achievethe necessary changes.

The higher education sector in Papua New Guinea(PNG) is mixed and disorganized in structure. Each ofthe six universities (four public, two private) was basedon separate enabling legislation, with enrollmentsranging from 400 to 3,000 full-time students. Most of the26 institutions of higher education are single-disciplineinstitutions (8 are teacher education institutions and 8health education institutions). Higher educationenrollments are estimated to number 6,345, representingabout one percent of the 19-to-24-year age cohort. Thenumbers enrolled at the universities have increased by22 percent since 1997.

Key ChallengesThe lack of clear accreditation procedures means thatmost of these institutions, with only a few notable ex-ceptions, are offering a narrow range of similar courseswith quality that goes unchecked and probably variesfrom good to very poor. PNG’s Commission for HigherEducation has adopted a new framework for accredita-

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION24

tion of higher education institutions. The commission isintended to give universities the leading role in deter-mining how the sector will develop in the future. A cer-tain amount of rationalization in higher education isbeing achieved through the amalgamation and affilia-tion of smaller colleges with larger institutions and byclosures. The Ministry of Higher Education, Research,Science and Technology, which overviews the sector andworks with the Commission for Higher Education andthe Office of Higher Education, provides policy advice,coordination, planning, and other services. Although thecommission has taken the lead role in formulating policyconcerning academic quality assurance and institutionalaccreditation, progress has been slow, hampered by lackof finances and also lack of commitment from some ofthe institutions themselves. Some international provid-ers have entered the higher education market to fill ex-isting gaps, but most offer small business-related anddistance-education courses. The main overseas involve-ment comes through the two church-based private uni-versities that rely heavily on the expertise of expatriatestaff.

The country is extremely fragmented with

more than 800 distinct cultural groups, each

with its own language.

Although rationalization is taking place, it isdifficult to organize anything on a national scale inPNG. The country is extremely fragmented with morethan 800 distinct cultural groups, each with its ownlanguage. About 85 percent of PNG’s population,estimated at 5.3 million, live in isolated scattered ruralsettlements. Literacy rates are low, at about 45 percentand even lower for English literacy (the language ofinstruction in PNG), at about 29 percent. It can bedifficult to get reliable statistics about the country butthe United Nations estimates that only 23 percent ofPNG 15-to-19-year-olds are enrolled at secondaryschool and 31 percent of 5-to-14-year-olds, at primaryschool.

There are doubts among key players, such as theCommission for Higher Education and the Office ofHigher Education, that universities have the capacityto undertake the necessary work to improve quality.Public institutions are handicapped by low salariesand demoralized staff. PNG’s own brand of nepotism,known as wantokism , undermines the highereducation sector as it does public life generally.Although there has recently been much publiccondemnation of corruption, people are still

appointed to jobs on the basis of their family and clanconnections rather than their ability to perform. Atthe same time many students are awarded places inacademic programs on the basis of whom they knowand not what they know.

Universities struggle to produce coherent andtransparent strategies in curriculum content anddesign, teaching and learning, and assessment. Someuniversities and the CHE have been working closelywith overseas’ universities, especially those withchurch affiliations in neighboring Australia andnearby Philippines. The two private universities ofPNG’s six universities have strong links with Catholicand Adventist international communities.

Accreditation PolicyA National Higher Education Quality Assurance andAccreditation Committee set up by the Commission forHigher Education and with representatives from allPNG’s universities took nearly three years to finalize thenew accreditation policy. A variety of stakeholders wereinvolved in the process, but the main thrust came fromwithin the universities themselves. Their final recom-mendations were adopted by the commission and pub-licly launched by the prime minister in November 2003.

The new accreditation methodology is in line withinternational trends, with self-evaluation and peerreview central to the process. Universities will needto find suitably qualified people to make up a pool ofexperts from which a committee will be drawn up tovisit an institution and ascertain its suitability foraccreditation.

The universities and higher education

sector will have to struggle to create a

timetable for implementation and find a

budget to pay for it.

The six universities will be the first institutionsto undergo accreditation. In the PNG system allhigher education–level programs offered atinstitutions will need to be affiliated to one of theuniversities. The new process creates great challenges.The universities and higher education sector will haveto struggle to create a timetable for implementationand find a budget to pay for it. PNG is currentlyundergoing one of its frequent periods of fiscalrestraint. In 2003, universities did not get their fullallocation of funding from the government to paystudent tuition fees and living expenses. A repeatperformance is expected this year.

25

Universities and DevelopmentPNG universities have the potential to offer education,training, and research programs that can support thecountry’s development. A labor force is being trained,especially for basic and secondary education and thecountry’s health needs, as well as future government,civil service, and business leaders. PNG universities alsobelieve they should impart cultural values, attitudes, andethics that can help to construct a healthy civil societyand support good governance and a democratic politi-cal system. Another objective is to produce graduateswho are keen and able to contribute to their immediatecommunities and the country.

However, there are many problems facinguniversities: overcrowding, limited or obsolete libraries,insufficient equipment, outdated curriculum, andunderqualified teaching staff, to name just a few. Untilquality is improved, graduating students every year fromweak programs almost certainly means that, howevercommitted or capable the students, they will be ill-equipped to satisfy the development needs of the countryor to compete internationally.

The Challenge of Ontario’sDouble CohortSue Winton and Glen A. JonesSue Winton is a doctoral student in educational administration andGlen A. Jones is associate professor of higher education, at the OntarioInstitute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto. Address:OISE, 252 Bloor St. W., Ontario, Toronto M5S IV6, Canada. E-mail:gjones@oise.utoronto.ca.

The “double cohort,” a perhaps unfamiliar conceptoutside Ontario, Canada, has been a source of angst

for tens of thousands of students, their parents, and theprovince’s postsecondary institutions since 1997. Thisconcept refers to the unique situation of two cohortsgraduating from high school at the same time. Thechallenge of accommodating the double cohort inOntario’s universities and colleges ultimately forcedthe government to fund a dramatic expansion ofpostsecondary education.

In 1995, a neoliberal government led by PremierMike Harris was elected in Ontario under thecampaign slogan “Common Sense Revolution.”Canada’s unique federal structure and decentralizedapproach to educational policy made it possible forthis new provincial government to move quickly toreduce the government’s expenditures on education,increase university and college tuition fees, andreduce taxes.

In June 1997, Ontario’s Ministry of Education andTraining announced that it would eliminate the 13th yearof schooling with the introduction of a new four-yearsecondary school curriculum, effective September 1999.The new curriculum would be phased in one year at atime, but the plan also created a situation in which twocohorts would graduate from high school in 2003: onefrom the old five-year secondary program and one fromthe new four-year program. The challenge ofaccommodating the double cohort in Ontario’suniversities and colleges prompted new policies andpromises from the provincial government.

Following the government’s announce-

ment, Ontario’s colleges and universities

expressed concerns about their capacity to

accommodate substantial increases in en-

rollment.

The Need for ExpansionFollowing the government’s announcement, Ontario’scolleges and universities expressed concerns about theircapacity to accommodate substantial increases in enroll-ment. In addition to the double cohort, demographicchanges associated with the baby boom echo and anoverall increase in postsecondary participation rateswere also expected to increase demand. The advocacygroups of Ontario’s colleges and universities—the As-sociation of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technologyof Ontario (ACAATO) and the Council of Ontario Uni-versities (COU)—argued that substantial investment incapital projects, technology, academic infrastructure,and operating grants were crucial.

In the 1999 budget, the government announced theSuperBuild Growth Fund. The new fund wouldconsolidate Ontario’s entire infrastructure spendingunder one program. Over $740 million was allocated topostsecondary institutions to build and modernize inanticipation of an expanded student population; $660million of the total was designated for new capitalprojects, but with private sector contributions thisamount was expected to increase significantly. In May2000, the SuperBuild investment in new capital andfacility renewal was increased in hopes of creating 73,000new student spaces.

While the higher education sector welcomed newcapital funding, university and college leaders becameincreasingly concerned about the absence of increasedgovernment commitments in the form of operating grantsupport for expansion. With the double cohort only threeyears away, the operating grant announcements for 2000–

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION26

2001 did little but raise the level of anxiety. Only modestfunds were directed toward expansion. The governmentalso announced that tuition fee increases for mostprograms would be capped at 2 percent each year overthe next five years.

Funding ExpansionBy late 2000, both the ACAATO and the COU were con-sidering how best to lobby the government for increasedoperating funds. The COU published a brief arguing thatprovincial grant increases were needed to hire facultyand meet the demands of increased enrollment.ACAATO established a funding advocacy group thatincluded business, community leaders, students, andalumni.

In May 2001, the government announced a three-year commitment to increase operating grants in directproportion to the projected enrollment growth and anadditional $100 million to address current and deferredmaintenance expenses. Funding was also committed toimprove equipment and facilities for apprenticeshipprograms in colleges to double the number of newstudents in skilled trade programs. Plans for the creationof a new public University of Ontario Institute ofTechnology were also announced.

The double cohort was now receiving con-

siderable attention in the popular media,

and the postsecondary sector signaled that

the government’s announced funding plans

were inadequate.

The double cohort was now receiving considerableattention in the popular media, and the postsecondarysector signaled that the government’s announcedfunding plans were inadequate. With only two yearsbefore the double cohort graduated from secondaryschool, leaders within the decentralized highereducation policy sector struggled to plan for what mightbecome the largest single-year expansion ofpostsecondary education in the province’s history,without knowing whether a government that wasideologically committed to reducing the size and roleof the public sector would provide the necessaryfunding.

The target of these plans was also moving. Byspring 2002, it became apparent that the estimates ofthe number of new spaces needed to meet theincreased demand were too low. Both communitycollege and university enrollments had already exceededprojections. The number of applications for the fall were

also higher than anticipated. ACAATO ran ads innewspapers across Ontario that called for an immediateinfusion of $125 million per year into communitycolleges to meet the demands of the double cohort.

The double cohort had become a political pressurecooker. Several Ontario university campuses were nowamong the largest construction sites in the nation. Mediareports focused on the concerns of parents, the intensecompetition among secondary students for high grades,the increased stress within schools associated with a newcurriculum, and the uncertainty of how many studentswould be admitted to postsecondary institutions in 2003.With an unusual level of political capital at their disposal,institutions signaled their willingness to respond as soonas the government committed the necessary funding.

With an unusual level of political capital at

their disposal, institutions signaled their

willingness to respond as soon as the gov-

ernment committed the necessary funding.

The 2002 BudgetThe 2002 budget committed the government to provid-ing full average cost funding for enrollment growth. Italso announced a new round of SuperBuild capital fund-ing, a new equipment and renewal program for the com-munity colleges, and increased funding forapprenticeship programs. By 2003 the government wasannouncing it had approved capital constructionprojects that would eventually create a total of 135,000new student spaces in the system.

When the Ontario university and college applicationcenters released their application statistics for September2003 admissions, the figures became one of the topprovincial news stories of the day. The number of studentsapplying to university directly from high school increased46.7 percent in 2003, compared with 2002 (an increase ofalmost 70 percent from the 2001 applicant pool). Collegeapplications from students applying directly from highschool rose by 9.9 percent, and the number of applicationsfrom adult learners increased by 17.5 percent.

With only a few months to go before the arrival ofthe double cohort, public doubts about thegovernment’s ability to deliver on its promise of a spacefor every qualified and willing student remained.ACAATO continued to voice concerns about the impactof the influx of additional students on the alreadyunderfunded system. Finally, in March, the 2003 budgetoffered some much-needed reassurance. Operatinggrants were again increased beyond the originalcommitments, bringing the total to $443 million more

27

in 2003–2004 than in 2000–2001. Two Quality AssuranceFunds were also created.

Maintaining AccessWhile the official number of first-year students regis-tered at colleges and universities is not yet available, theCOU expected universities to enroll the usual propor-tion of applicants from Ontario’s high schools—a re-markable achievement. In June 2003, close to 72,000students had accepted positions in the province’s uni-versities, and 42,600 confirmed they would attend first-year classes at one of the community colleges.

Ontario’s double cohort is a fascinating case studyin the politics of higher education. While governmentsfrequently come under pressure to maintain or increaseaccess, few are forced to address these concerns in thecontext of a media flurry focusing on the countdown ofa very public timeline to address the needs of a specificcohort.

Ross University: Cash Cow orPig in a Poke?Alan L. ContrerasAlan L. Contreras is the administrator of the Oregon Office of DegreeAuthorization, 1500 Valley River Drive No. 100, Eugene OR 97401.The views expressed in this article are his own. E-mail:alan.L.contreras@state.or.us.

DeVry University, a reputable regionally accreditedU.S. college that provides a variety of mainly tech-

nical programs, announced in spring 2003 that its cor-porate parent, DeVry Inc., was buying Ross University’smedical and veterinary schools in the Caribbean in or-der to improve and expand DeVry’s offerings. It is notunheard of for such international acquisitions to takeplace, but this one was special: the Ross veterinary schoolis on the Caribbean island of St. Kitts.

The St. Kitts SituationRoss has no authorization to issue degrees anywhere inthe United States; its office in New Jersey is expresslylimited by that state’s laws to noninstructional adminis-trative functions. Therefore, under U.S. law it is a for-eign institution, and its degrees must be evaluated asforeign degrees.

Meaningful academic oversight on St. Kitts is doubt-ful at best. This is the country that once authorized aperson in Texas to issue degrees as Eastern CaribbeanUniversity. It also hosts Berne University, which recentlylost its Title IV approval because of findings by the Gen-

eral Accounting Office (the investigatory office of theU.S. Congress) and the U.S. Department of Educationthat its programs are not equivalent to a U.S. univer-sity, its award of credit is inappropriate and excessive,and its finances are questionable.

Multinational SuppliersWhat exactly is the Ross veterinary school? It is not listedby UNESCO (not that this means much for good or illanymore, since UNESCO has no screening). It does notappear on international lists of universities. The Ameri-can Association of Collegiate Registrars and AdmissionsOfficers international evaluation office (relied upon bymany U.S. colleges for international evaluations) hasnever seen its degrees. The respected Florida evaluationfirm Silny and Associates, which has seen its degrees,considers it only equivalent to an unaccredited U.S. col-lege. It apparently has only a business license from thegovernment of St. Kitts, the college oversight standardsof which are, shall we say, opaque.

Has DeVry purchased an overstuffed pig in a foreignpoke? Can this reputable U.S. chain school convert thisexpensive offshore porker that falls well below thenormal accreditation radar horizon into a cash cow?Some observers speculate that DeVry assumed that itsinstitutional accreditation from the U.S. North CentralAssociation would automatically extend to cover Ross.Not so, according to the accreditor. Ross is not a unit ofDeVry University but a freestanding unit of DeVry, Inc.,a parent corporation. Fair enough. Ross must thereforeundergo its own evaluation. But by whom and as what?

Has DeVry purchased an overstuffed pig in

a foreign poke? Can this reputable U.S.

chain school convert this expensive off-

shore porker that falls well below the nor-

mal accreditation radar horizon into a cash

cow?

Nonexistent OversightDeVry has no apparent plans to make Ross a U.S. ac-credited school. According to the U.S. Department ofEducation, DeVry Inc. intends to keep Ross a foreignschool for purposes of maintaining eligibility for U.S.financial aid, a much easier approval standard at the fed-eral level in the United States since it requires no proof ofacademic oversight or quality, just fiscal management anda foreign business license. It appears that neither DeVrynor the Department of Education cares that the Ross vet-

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION28

erinary school has its “approval” from a nation whoseapprovals are widely considered substandard.

Ross will therefore become an academic version of Dr.Doolittle’s Pushmepullyou, a llama-like creature aimed intwo directions at once, but worse: it will be of two species,lurching about to provide a chosen face depending on whois looking. No U.S. college or accreditor could possiblytreat a school authorized by St. Kitts as having equivalentforeign approval to issue degrees—yet DeVry clearlyconsiders this irrelevant.

The U.S. Department of Education piously cites itsown rules, which say that foreign schools don’t need theequivalent of U.S. accreditation to be eligible for U.S.financial aid money. They just need whatever the localbusiness license is, and if it is labeled “accreditation,”well, that is good enough for the U.S. government. SoDeVry has bought a U.S.-certified foreign college thatnever requires external oversight by a legitimate nationalcollege oversight body in the United States or in its homecountry. Forever.The fact that degrees issued on St. Kitts are illegal foruse in places like Oregon is perhaps too minor a consid-eration to affect DeVry’s corporate strategy. We are surethat a large, lawyer-filled educational provider likeDeVry has already figured out that buying a school lo-cated on an island with low oversight standards is apretty good deal. Like everyone who observes the rela-

tionships between U.S. and foreign colleges, legitimateand bogus providers, we watch in anticipation, since thefuture of the Ross colleges is likely to be both entertain-ing and creative.

College OwnershipThis picture—a reputable U.S. school purchasing adoubtful offshore degree supplier—may seem strangetoday but will be seen more often in the future. Un-fortunately, the common pattern is not likely to beproductive mergers between reputable providers inmultiple countries, but the St. Kitts pattern: wealthyU.S. proprietary schools absorbing “approved”schools in small foreign countries, whether or not thatapproval means anything, and using them as one-waydrainage tubes through which money can flow.

There will be no meaningful screening from theU.S. Department of Education, which lacks thestructure, staff, funding, inclination, and politicalsupport to undertake such unpopular enforcementactivity. Only a few states and evaluation firms, withlimited ability to sail upwind in an expensive politicaland legal environment, are pointing out that certaincolleges have no clothes. We hope that U.S. colleges andaccreditors have the vertebrae to maintain standards inthe face of such economic and political pressures.

News of the Center

On May 3, the Center hosted a conference of the main researchers on international higher education fundedby the Ford Foundation, at Boston College. The discussions focused on how international and comparativehigher education might be strengthened in the United States. Work on the Center’s research project on women’scolleges and universities worldwide has now been completed. A book entitled Women’s Universities and Col-leges: An International Handbook, by Francesca Purcell, Robin Matross Helms, and Laura Rumbley will be pub-lished by the Center, with a commercial edition from Information Age Publishing, Inc. The Center ’scollaboration with the Program for Research on Private Higher Education at the University at Albany hasconcluded with the publication of Private Higher Education: An International Biblography, by Alma Maldonado-Maldonado, Yingxia Cao, Philip G. Altbach, Daniel C. Levy, and Hong Zhu. CIHE and PROPHE jointly pub-lished the book, and a commercial edition will be available from Information Age Publishers, Inc. PROPHEwill also provide web-based access to the bibliography.

The Center’s website has achieved the distinction of being at the top of several of the major search enginessubject directories. When a user looks for “international higher education” or a related topic, the CIHE site isshown at the top of the lists for Google, Yahoo, and MSN. This is a considerable distinction and indicates thatour website is widely used and that those who visit the site spend a significant amount of time on it.

For the 2004–2005 academic year, there are several changes to note in CIHE staff. Hong Zhu will be workingfor the Boston College Institutional Review Board. Francesca Purcell has received her doctorate for a dissertationon women’s higher education in the Phillippines and and has joined the staff of the Massachusetts Board ofHigher Education. Robin Matross Helms has taken a position with the Institute of International HigherEducation in Washington, DC. Deirdre McMyler will join the Center as a graduate assistant. She is currentlyworking as an administrator at Harvard University.

29

Philip G. Altbach participated in a UNESCO seminar on higher education in Tokyo in May. He will speak at aconference in Bergen, Norway in September and will give a series of lectures in India in the fall. His coedited (withToru Umakoshi) book, Asian Universities: Historical Perspectives and Contempoary Realities, will be published by theJohns Hopkins University Press in late 2004. A Chinese translation will be published by the China Ocean Univer-sity Press, and a Japanese language edition is also being planned. Dr. Damtew Teferra, editor-in-chief of the Journalof Higher Education in Africa and research assistant professor at the Center was on a panel on “International Mobil-ity Perspectives” at a conference in Lisbon, Portugal in February 2004 and spoke at the 10th Harvard InternationalDevelopment Conference at Harvard University on “Reinventing African Universities Toward a New Develop-ment Agenda in a Globalizing World” that took place in April 2004.

The Center has received a grant for work on a handbook for academic leaders in developing countries. Workproceeds as well on a research project on globalization and higher education. This work is coordinated by LauraRumbley and Hong Zhu.

Center related book series and publicationsRoutledgeFalmer Studies in Higher Education, a book series that mainly publishes excellent doctoral dissertationsin the field of higher education, is edited by Philip G. Altbach. The series has published more than 20 books on avariety of topics including university-industry collaboration, women’s studies, governance in public universities,the use of information technology in Africa, the development of Catholic higher education in China, and othersMore information can be obtained from Kimberly Guinta, RoutledgeFalmer Publishers, 29 W. 35th St., New York,NY 10001, USA.

The Center for International Higher Education’s book series now includes 13 titles, most of which remain in print:Philip G. Altbach. Comparative Higher Education: Knowledge, the University and Development, 1997. (Commercial edi-tion published by Ablex Publishers)

Philip G. Altbach, ed. Private Prometheus: Private Higher Education and Development in the 21st Century, 1999. (Com-mercial edition published by Greenwood Publishers, Westport, CT). A Japanese language edition of this book willbe published by the Tamagawa University Press in Tokyo in 2004. A Spanish language edition already exists.

Philip G. Altbach and Patti McGill Peterson, eds. Higher Education in the 21st Century: Global Challenge and NationalResponse, 1999. (Published in cooperation with the Institute of International Education, New York)

Philip G. Altbach and David Engberg. Higher Education: A Worldwide Inventory of Centers and Programs, 2000. (Com-mercial edition published by Oryx Publishers, Phoenix, Arizona)

Philip G. Altbach, ed. The Changing Academic Workplace: Comparative Perspectives, 2000. (Also published as aspecial theme issue of Higher Education, vol. 41, nos. 1–2, January–March, 2001)

Philip G. Altbach and V. Selvaratnam, eds. From Dependence to Autonomy: The Development of Asian Universities,2002. (Commercial edition published by Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands)

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

Philip G. Altbach, ed. The Decline of the Guru: The Academic Profession in Developing and Middle-Income Countries,2002. (Commercial edition published by Palgrave Publishers, New York and London) A Spanish language editionwill be published in 2004 by the UAM Press in Mexico City.

Glenda Kruss and Andre Kraak, eds. A Contested Good? Understanding Private Higher Education in South Africa, 2003.(Copublished with PROPHE, University at Albany)

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION30

Alma Maldonado-Maldonado, Yingxia Cao, Philip G. Altbach, Daniel C. Levy, and Hong Zhu, Private Higher Educa-tion: An International Bibliography, 2004. (Copublished with PROPHE at the University at Albany). (Commercialedition published by Information Age Publishers, Westport, CT)

Free copies of most of these books are available to institutions in developing countries on request.

New Publications

Alexander, F. King, and Ronald G.Ehrenberg, eds. Maximizing Revenue inHigher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003. 92 pp. (pb). ISSN 0271-0579.Address: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 989Market St., San Francisco, CA 94103,USA.This volume, part of the quarterly “NewDirections for Institutional Research”series, discusses the problems of gener-ating financial resources for academicinstitutions. Writing from an economicsperspective, the authors in this volumediscuss such topics as generating rev-enues during a recession, problems withendowments, annual donations at pri-vate universities, determining thc costsof transfer students, and others. The dataand analysis relate to the United States.

Birnbaum, Robert. Speaking of HigherEducation: The Academic’s Book of Quota-tions. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004. 283pp. (hb). ISBN 0-275-98071-5. Address:Praeger Publishers, 88 Post Rd. West,Wesport, CT 06881, USA.This unique volume features thou-sands of quotations about all aspectsof higher education from a vast arrayof sources, from author Oscar Wilde,Muhammed, and Greek philosophers,to 18th-century Harvard students, andan array of American university presi-dents. Among the topics for quota-tions are reform of higher education,the role of the president, students andtheir habits, and the academic profes-sion and its foibles. While most of thetopics relate directly to the UnitedStates, as do the quotations, the rel-evance is worldwide.

Blackwell, Richard, and Paul Blackmore,eds. Towards Strategic Staff Developmentin Higher Education. Maidenhead, UK:Open University Press, 2003. 232 pp.(pb). ISBN 0-335-21209-3. Address: OpenUniversity Press, McGraw Hill House,Shoppenhangers Rd., Maidenhead,Berks SL6 2QL, UK.With a broad multidisciplinary focus onstaff development in a British context,this volume discusses not only the needsof academic staff but also of research andsupport personnel. There is discussionof e-learning, departmental develop-ment, lines between teaching and re-search, and other topics.

Brown, David G., ed. Developing Facultyto Use Technology. Bolton, MA: AnkerPublishing Co., 2003. 365 pp. $39.95 (hb).ISBN 1-882982.62-2. Address: AnkerPublishing Co., POB 249, Bolton MA01740, USA.The focus of this volume is on improv-ing teaching through the use of technol-ogy. The volume consists of 70 casestudies from many disciplines and on avariety of academic institutions in theUnited States relating to the classroomuse of technology. All aspects of technol-ogy are considered, such as the use ofthe Internet for teaching, learningspaces, and many others. Issues relatingto the failure of technology in teachingare considered as well.

Chin, Hey-Kyung Koh. Open Doors: Re-port on International Educational Exchange.New York: Institute of InternationalEducation, 2003. 96 pp. $42.95 (pb). ISBN0-87206-276-7. Address: Institute of In-ternational Education, 809 United Na-tions Plaza, New York, NY 10017, USA.

This annual publication provides de-tailed information concerning interna-tional student and scholar enrollmentsin the United States. Statistics concern-ing countries sending students to theUnited States, fields of study, institutionshosting large numbers of internationalstudents, numbers of American studentsstudying abroad, and related informa-tion are provided. Open Doors shows thatfor the first time in many years, interna-tional student enrollments in the UnitedStates have not increased.

Gayle, Dennis John, BhoendradattTewarie, and A. Quinton White, Jr. Gov-ernance in the Twenty-First-Century Uni-versity: Approaches to Effective Leadershipand Strategic Management. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 2003. 139 pp.$24 (pb). ISBN 0-78769-7174-X. Address:Jossey-Bass Publishers, 989 Market St.,San Francisco, CA 94103, USA.This book presents a study of the atti-tudes of senior academic administratorstoward a variety of governance issues,including the involvement of faculty ingovernance, information technology,and other issues—based on a number ofsurveys.

Geiger, Roger L. To Advance Knowledge:The Growth of American Research Univer-sities, 1900-1940. New Brunswick, NJ:Transaction, 2004. 325 pp. $29.95 (pb).ISBN 0-7658—560-X. Address: Transac-tion Publishers, 35 Berrue Circle,Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA.A republication of a classic history of thegrowth of the research university in theUnited States, this books analyzes theperiod of shaping the nature of this cen-tral American higher education institu-tion. Special attention is paid to the

31

privately funded research system andthe emergence of research as a key fac-tor.

Gornitzka, Ase. Science, Clients, and theState: A Study of Scientific KnowledgeProduction and Use. Enschede, Neth-erlands: CHEPS, 2003. 261 pp. (pb)ISBN 90-365-1996-9. Address: CHEPS,University of Twente, PON 217, 7500AE Enschede, Netherlands.This doctoral dissertation concernsthe production and use of scientificknowledge, focusing on case studiesof the fields of agriculture and fisher-ies in Norway. The author points tothe strong ties between science andpublic administration in the Norwe-gian context.

Hohendahl, Peter Uwe, ed. GermanStudies in the United States: A Histori-cal Handbook. New York: Modern Lan-guage Association, 2003. 576 pp. $28(pb). ISBN 0-87352-989-8. Address:Modern Language Association, 26Broadway, New York NY 10004, USA.A detailed study of the developmentof the field of German language andliterature studies in the United States,this volume provides both a histori-cal analysis and discussion of currentissues. Among the topics included arethe history of German departments inU.S. universities, the pedagogy ofteaching German, the professoriate inthe field, and trends in research onGerman studies over time. This bookprovides a thorough examination ofan academic field.

Knight, Peter, and Mantz Yorke. As-sessment, Learning and Employability.Maidenhead, UK: Open UniversityPress, 2003. 245 pp. (pb). ISBN 0-335-21228-X. Address: Open UniversityPress, McGraw Hill House,Shoppenhangers Rd., Maidenhead,Berks SL6 2QL, UK.The focus of this book is on the mea-surement of educational outcomes foremployment as well as for standardeducational purposes. The various as-pects of assessment are discussed, in-cluding formative and summativeassessment and the various alterna-tive means available.

Lee, Molly N. N. Restructuring HigherEducation in Malaysia. Penang, Malay-sia: Universiti Sains Malaysia, 2004.130 pp. (pb). ISBN 983-40982-1-9. Ad-dress: School of Educational Studies,Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang11800, Malaysia.This volume contains a series of es-says on the broad theme of Malaysianhigher education. Among the topicsconsidered are the development ofprivate higher education, the chang-ing academic profession, academiccorporatization, and global trends asthey affect Malaysia.

Musselin, Christine. The Long March ofFrench Universities. New York:RoutledgeFalmer, 2004. 175 pp. (hb).ISBN 0-415-93497-4. Address:RoutledgeFalmer Publishers, 29 W.35th St., New York NY 10001, USA.An analysis of the historical develop-ment and contemporary challenges ofFrench higher education, this book fo-cuses on the organizational develop-ment of French universities. Theauthor examines the emergence of thedisciplines, the role of the faculty, andthe involvement of government in theevolution of the academic system inFrance.

National Education Association. TheNEA 2004 Almanac of Higher Education.Washington, DC: National EducationAssociation, 2004. 136 pp. $35 (pb).ISSN 0743-670X. Address: NationalEducation Association, 1201 16th St.,NW, Washington DC 20036, USA.This valuable annual publication looksat the American academic professionand collective bargaining. The almanacis sponsored by the National EducationAssociation, the largest union of teach-ers and educational professionals in theUnited States and is intended to providedata and analysis relating to NEA con-cerns. Among the topics discussed inthe 2004 almanac are the evaluation ofteaching and research, funding patternsfor higher education in the 50 states,shared governance, and bargaining is-sues relating to workload. A CD-Romcontaining data on faculty salaries, col-lective bargaining issues, and other in-formation is provided.

Newfield, Christopher. Ivy and Industry:Business and the Making of the AmericanUniversity, 1880–1980. Durham, NC: DukeUniversity Press, 2004. 304 pp. $232.95(hb). ISBN 0-8223-3201-9. Address: DukeUniversity Press, 905 W. Main St.,Durham, NC 27701, USA.This book traces the historical links be-tween American universities and busi-ness and applied knowledge, on the onehand, and the humanities and criticalanalysis, on the other. These two trendshave generally produced a productivetension. The author points out that U.S.universities have been “managed” for along time and that there are often conflictsbetween academic values and the ethosof management—with management of-ten gaining the upper hand in recentyears.

Shattock, Michael. Managing SuccessfulUniversities. Maidenhead, UK: Open Uni-versity Press, 2003. 200 pp. (pb). ISBN 0-335 209610-0. Address: Open UniversityPress, Shoppenhangers Rd., Maidenhead,Berks. SL6 2QL, UK.Written by one of the most successfuluniversity administrators in the UnitedKingdom, this volume distills Shattock’sexperience on such topics as the charac-teristics of successful management, finan-cial issues, entrepreneurialism,organization, and collegiality and leader-ship. Although the analysis deals with theUnited Kingdom, this volume will be ofinterest internationally.

Shen, Hong, and Wenli Li. A Review of theStudent Loans Scheme in China. Paris: In-ternational Institute for Educational Plan-ning, 2003. 115 pp. (pb). ISBN92-9223-001-8. Address: IIEP, 7-9 rue Eu-gene Delacroix, 75116 Paris, France.Loans, often provided or guaranteed bygovernments, are an increasingly impor-tant part of the funding of higher educa-tion worldwide. This book describes andanalyzes China’s student loan system.The authors argue that the loans do notnecessarily reach the targeted low-incomegroups and that repayment problems ex-ist.

Siaya, Laura, and Fred M. Hayward.Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Cam-puses. Washington, DC: American

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION32

An Initiative in International Higher Education

ISSN: 1084-0613

Editorial Office

Center for International Higher Education Campion Hall Boston College Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 USA Tel: (617) 552-4236 Fax: (617) 552-8422 E-Mail: highered@bc.edu http://www.bc.edu/cihe/

Editor: Philip G. Altbach Assistant Editors: Robin M. Helms and Deirdre M. McMyler

International Higher Education is publishedquarterly by the Center for InternationalHigher Education. We welcome correspon-dence, ideas for articles, and reports. If youwould like to be placed on our mailing list,please write to the editor on your businessletterhead.There is no charge for a subscription.

Material in this newsletter may be repro-duced. Please cite the original source ofpublication. Opinions expressed here donot necessarily reflect the views of the Cen-ter for International Higher Education.

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION

Our WebsiteThe Center’s award-winning website is a useful source of information and analysison higher education worldwide. All back issues of International Higher Education areavailable, and an index provides easy access to articles by topic and country. Centerpublications are also available, and links to relevant higher education websites andinformation are provided. We are a featured e-link of the World Bank and otheragencies.

The Program in Higher Education in the Lynch School of Education, Boston CollegeThe Center is closely related to the program in higher education at Boston College.The program offers master’s and doctoral degree study in the field of higher educa-tion. The program has been preparing professionals in higher education for threedecades. It features a rigorous social science–based approach to the study of highereducation, combining a concern with the broader theoretical issues relating to highereducation and an understanding of the practice of academic administration. TheAdministrative Fellows initiative provides financial assistance as well as work ex-perience in a variety of administrative settings. Specialization is offered in highereducation administration, student affairs and development, international higher edu-cation, and other areas. Additional information about the program is available fromDr. Karen Arnold, coordinator of the program in higher education, Lynch School ofEducation, Campion Hall, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467, USA. Fax: (617)552-8422. E-mail: <arnoldkc@bc.edu>. More information about the program—in-cluding course descriptions and degree requirements—can be found on-line at theprogram’s website: <http://infoeagle.bc.edic/bc_org/avp/soe/hea/JEA/html>.International Higher Education is available full-text on our website. Web-based sub-scriptions are also available.

The Boston College Center for International Higher Education provides a unique service to colleges and universities worldwide by focusing on the global realities of higher education. Our goal is to bring an international consciousness to the

analysis of higher education. We are convinced that an international perspective will contribute to enlightened policy and prac-tice. To serve this goal, the Center publishes International Higher Education, a book series on higher education, and other publica-tions. We sponsor occasional conferences on key issues in higher education and maintain a resource base for researchers andpolicymakers. The Center welcomes visiting scholars for periods of study and reflection. We have a special concern for academicinstitutions in the Jesuit tradition worldwide, and more broadly with Catholic universities. The Center is also concerned withcreating dialogue and cooperation among academic institutions in industrialized nations and in developing countries. We areconvinced that our future depends on effective collaboration and the creation of an international community focused on theimprovement of higher education in the public interest.Our work is supported by the Ford Foundation and by the Lynch School of Education atBoston College. We are indebted to these funders for core sponsorship.

Council on Education, 2003. 116 pp. $35(pb). Address: ACE Fulfillment Service,#191, Washington, DC 20055, USA.A summary of a major research projectfocusing on the internationalization ofundergraduate education in Americancolleges and universities, this report con-cludes that while there have been signifi-cant efforts to internationalize in recentyears, U.S. universities are not signifi-cantly internationalized, and most stu-dents have little exposure to international

experiences as part of their education. Thereport recommends more emphasis onstudy abroad as well as the enhancing ofon-campus international initiatives.

Singh, Amrik. Fifty Years of Higher Educa-tion in India: The Role of the UniversityGrants Commission. New Delhi, India:Sage Publications, 2004. 257 pp. (hb).ISBN 0-7619-3216-X. Address: Sage Pub-lications, B-42 Panchsheel Enclave, NewDelhi 110 017, India.

The Indian University Grants Commis-sion is a somewhat unique agency. Its roleis mainly to encourage reform and inno-vation in Indian higher education by pro-viding central government funding tospecific institutions and projects. Theagency also supports several central gov-ernment–sponsored universities. Thebook provides a critical analysis of the roleof the UGC during its half century of op-eration and discusses such topics as therole of accreditation, professionalizing theprofessoriate, and others.