Showing papers by "Philip G. Altbach published in 1999"

American Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century: Social, Political and Economic Challenges.

Abstract: First published in 1998, American Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century offers a comprehensive entree to the central issues facing American colleges and universities today. This thoroughly revised edition brings the volume up to date on key topics of enduring interest. Placing higher education within its social and political contexts, leading scholars discuss finance, federal and state governance, faculty, students, curriculum, and academic leadership. Contributors also address major changes in higher education, especially the influence and incorporation of the latest technologies and growing concern about the future of the academy in a post-Iraq War setting. No other book covers such wide-ranging issues under the broader theme of higher education's relationship to society. Highly acclaimed and incorporating cutting-edge research, American Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century remains the standard reference in the field. Contributors: Philip G. Altbach, Benjamin Baez, Michael N. Bastedo, Robert O. Berdahl, Marjorie A. E. Cook, Melanie E. Corrigan, Judith S. Eaton, Peter D. Eckel, Gustavo Fischman, Roger L. Geiger, Lawrence E. Gladieux, Sara Goldrick-Rab, Patricia J. Gumport, Fred F. Harcleroad, D. Bruce Johnstone, Adrianna Kezar, Jacqueline E. King, Aims C. McGuinness Jr., Amy Scott Metcalfe, Michael Mumper, Michael A. Olivas, Robert M. O'Neil, Gary Rhoades, Frank A. Schmidtlein, Sheila Slaughter, Daryl G. Smith, John Willinsky

Private Prometheus: Private Higher Education and Development in the 21st Century

Abstract: Preface Comparative Perspectives on Private Higher Education by Philip G. Altbach When Private Higher Education Does Not Bring Organizational Diversity: Argentina, China, and Hungary by Daniel C. Levy Will the Invisible Hand Fix Private Higher Education? by Claudio de Moura Castro and Juan Carlos Navarro Accreditation of Higher Education in Chile and Latin America by Luis Eduardo Gonzalez Private Higher Education in Mexico: Growth and Differentiation by Rollin Kent and Rosalba Ramirez Private Higher Education in the Philippines: Private Domination in a Developing Country by Andrew Gonzalez Emerging Trends and Evolving Public Policies in India by Jandhyala B. G. Tilak Corporatization, Privatization, and Internationalization of Higher Education in Malaysia by Molly N. N. Lee Private Higher Education in Hungary: The Market Influences the University by Judit Nagy-Darvas and Peter Darvas In Search of the Missing Link between Education and Development by Xabier Gorostiaga Select Bibliography by Yoshikazu Ogawa Index

The logic of mass higher education

Abstract: The distinguishing characteristic of postsecondary education in the past half century has been expansion -- the emergence of mass higher education worldwide. Now, many industrialised countries educate forty percent or more of youth in postsecondary education, and developing countries are rapidly expanding as well. Mass higher education brings with it certain inevitable changes in higher education. Among these are a diversification of academic institutions, less homogenous student populations, alterations in patterns of academic work and of the academic profession itself, an increase in managerial control of academic institutions, and, recently, a reliance on distance methods of delivering instruction. These changes are part of the logic of mass higher education, and will be increasingly apparent in the 21st century.

Global Challenge and National Response: Note for an International Dialogue on Higher Education

Abstract: A a conference on international higher education held in Washington, D.C. on December 3 and 4, 1998, there was general agreement on the similarity in the central issues facing higher education around the world. Organized by the Institute of International Education (IIE) and the Council on International Exchange of Scholars (CIES)-the Fulbright Program, the meeting brought together nine key experts from around the world to discuss current and future trends in higher education. The group responded to a theme paper prepared by Philip Altbach, director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College, and Todd Davis, research director at the IIE. The paper can be found in this issue of IHE. The conference featured one day of discussions of major trends and developments with a larger group of Washington-area policymakers and international education experts. Among the groups represented were the Inter-American Development Bank, the U.S. Department of Education, the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), the Organization of American States, the U.S. Information Agency, and others. A second day of discussions with the core group of experts was held to discuss future directions for in-

The Perils of Internationalizing Higher Education: An Asian Perspective

Abstract: T is the era of academic globalization. The developing countries, along with Eastern Europe, are experiencing a growing multinational trend—with foreign academic institutions, working with local institutions, or setting up shop on their own, offering academic programs and degrees “off the shelf” or based on models from Europe, the United States, or Australia. Distance education, using the Internet, is beginning to be used to deliver degrees. In a way, it is a repetition of colonial era imports of institutions and ways of thinking, but this time the foreigners are welcomed with open arms. It is time to stand back and assess the impact of the explosion of foreign higher education models in Asia. The announcement in January that Sylvan Learning Systems—a for-profit American company so far mainly involved in selling test preparation, English-language, and other vocational programs in the United States and abroad—will set up universities overseas, starting with the purchase of a Spanish private university, is a signal that the Americans, so far slow to expand overseas, will enter the market. Hardly a week goes by without a critical article in the British press concerning the “demeaning” of traditional British academic standards overseas. Similar criticism is now heard in Australia, which has been a major exporter of academic programs to Asia. Internationalism in higher education is hardly new. All of the world’s universities do, after all, stem from medieval European institutions. In some cases, such as Japan, the Western model was adopted voluntarily. In many other countries, Western institutions were imposed under colonialism. For centuries, Latin was the common language of higher education. In the late 19th century, when universities entered the research arena, German was the main language of science. Now, English has become the Latin of the 21st century, and is the most widely used medium of scientific communication and increasingly of intellectual discourse worldwide. There are well over a million students studying outside their home countries—the majority of them from Asia and studying in the United States, Britain, Canada, and Australia. The current wave of internationalism has a late 20th century flavor. It is largely in the private sector. It is motivated by profits rather than by either government policy or goodwill. It is, for the most part, unregulated. The goals are to meet market demand and to create a market niche for an “educational product.” Those providing the product, mainly academic institutions and other educational providers in English-speaking countries, are to a considerable extent motivated by a need to export in order to make up budget shortfalls at home. There are a variety of educational products being sold. Foreign study remains a big business. The flows are largely from Asia to the West. Marketing is increasingly sophisticated, and despite the economic crisis in Asia, numbers continue to grow. Between 1996 and 1998, for example, the number of students going from Korea to the United States increased by 15.5 percent, from India by 10.4 percent, and from China by 10.5 percent. Japan, still the largest sending country to the United States, increased by just 1.7 percent, and Hong Kong declined by 11.7 percent. The United States hosts 481,000 overseas students, the large majority of whom pay all of their expenses. Related to foreign study are major ancillary industries devoted to teaching English and preparing students for a myriad of entrance examinations and other tests, assisting students with university applications and related formalities, student recruiting enterprises, and others. Most of these are entirely unregulated.

Survival of the Fittest: The University of Buenos Aires Model for the Future of Higher Education

Abstract: T University of Buenos Aires (UBA), Argentina’s largest and most prestigious institution of higher education has put into place an educational model that, in a perverse way, has lessons for higher education policy worldwide. UBA is an institution of more than 180,000 students. It has been shaped by the educational ideas of the 1918 Cordoba reform, and these have calcified into rigid policy. Study at UBA is based on the Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest— everyone can enter, but only a small minority of the students who enroll eventually earn degrees—and they do this often by sheer persistence. The UBA model should appeal to World Bank planners and other budget cutters since it provides both access to many and a decent education to a few—all at a low per capita expenditure. The cost per graduate may be high but the expenditure per student is very low in most faculties. The infrastructure is terrible (poor libraries and laboratories), but large numbers are processed through the institution.

Survival of the Fittest: The University of Buenos Aires—A Model for the Future?

Abstract: (1999). Survival of the Fittest: The University of Buenos Aires—A Model for the Future?. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning: Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 46-48.

Students: Politics and Revolution

Abstract: I July, university students in Iran came close to overthrowing the regime. They failed when conservatives within the government mobilized counter demonstrators and mounted their own street demonstrations. It is worth recalling that the downfall of the Shah two decades ago was precipitated by students from Tehran University. Less than a year ago, Indonesian students took to the streets and, after protracted demonstrations that resulted in major riots and deaths, forced the resignation of President Suharto and paved the way for recently concluded elections. These are but two examples of the power student movements have to influence politics and cause social unrest. Students have played a pivotal role in the political and cultural history of many countries. They were central players in the independence movements that brought freedom to many developing countries. Campus social and political movements have been harbingers of change in many societies, from the pro-Nazi student fraternities in pre-Hitler Germany to the U.S. civil rights and antiwar movements in the 1960s. Student political movements might be compared to the proverbial canary in the coal mine—they may be a sign of a social explosion to come or of a building political crisis. Yet not all student movements signal impending social crisis, and they are by no means always successful. If a regime is stable and has a modicum of legitimacy, it can usually survive. The government can sometimes use overwhelming repression to put down student revolts. This can be dangerous, since it can easily backfire. This occurred on the streets of Jakarta, when troops killed students at one of Indonesia’s most prestigious universities, inflaming campus opinion and causing the mass media to turn against the government. In contrast, the Chinese authorities were able to use massive force to end the demonstrations at Tienanmin Square in 1989 by moving decisively and keeping control of the mass media. Further, the Chinese regime had better control over the security apparatus and greater legitimacy than President Suharto. Student movements can topple governments only when the political system is already weakened and the regime has lost much of its legitimacy. Students have never caused the government of an industrialized country to fall. This is because the political systems are relatively stable and there are many competing political interests, organizations, and movements—from labor unions to political parties and the media. Only in the volatile 1960s did students cause significant unrest in Western countries. In France, President DeGaulle was forced to flee to a French military base in Germany and the survival of the government seemed precarious. In America, the anti-Vietnam War movement, led by students, forced President Lyndon Johnson not to run for re-election although it did not threaten the political system. In West Germany, radical students were a potent political force. The reasons for the power of students at this time were similar in each country—society was polarized and the established political parties were not functioning effectively. In the United States, Pres. Johnson’s pledge to scale back in Vietnam was not honored and the war escalated; in France, DeGaulle had weakened parliament; and in Germany, the “grand coalition” of the two major parties left the country without an effective opposition and the students stepped in with an “extraparliamentary opposition” that expressed the views of a growing sector of German opinion.