Showing papers by "Philip G. Altbach published in 2015"

The Dilemmas of Ranking

Abstract: Rankings of academic institutions, programs, and departments are all the rage worldwide. National rankings are ubiquitous and at least two worldwide rankings exist. These operations are widely criticized for questionable or flawed methods as well as for the concept itself, but everyone uses them. When done well, they can be valuable to consumers, policymakers, and to academic institutions themselves as they compare themselves with peer institutions at home or abroad. Rankings range from irresponsible musings by selfappointed experts and money-making schemes by commercial organizations to, at their best, serious efforts by academic or research organizations. Publications—including U.S. News and World Report in the United States, the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) and the Financial Times in Britain, Der Spiegel in Germany, Reforma in Mexico, and Asiaweek (now defunct), and others—have sponsored rankings. A few outlets, such as U.S. News and THES, have achieved a degree of respectability. Rankings have achieved a degree of public legitimacy and an aura of credibility because respected research and policy organizations have sponsored some of them. The research and teaching assessments carried out by the funding councils in the United Kingdom, the rankings of disciplines done by the National Research Council in the United States, and some others are examples. This past year, Shanghai Jiaotong University and the THES have published worldwide university rankings.

Higher Education and the WTO: Globalization Run Amok

Abstract: Higher education is increasingly seen as a commercial product to be bought and sold like any other commodity. Higher education commercialization has now reached the global marketplace. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is considering a series of proposals to include higher education as one of its concerns, ensuring that the import and export of higher education be subject to the complex rules and legal arrangements of the WTO protocols and free of most restrictions. In the United States, the National Committee for International Trade in Education and a group of mainly for-profit education providers are supporting this initiative. The established higher education community, including the American Council on Education, is not involved in this undertaking. The WTO initiative poses a severe threat to the traditional ideals of the university, as well as to the national and even institutional control of education, and therefore needs careful scrutiny. We are in the midst of a true revolution in higher education, a revolution that has the potential to profoundly change our basic understanding of the role of the university. The implications are immense and as yet little discussed or understood. It is especially alarming, but not surprising, that the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Office of Service Industries is behind the effort to commercialize higher education in the United States and worldwide. I am not arguing against globalization either as a reality or as a concept. Higher education institutions everywhere are subject to global trends—massification and all of its implications, the impact of the new communications technologies, accountability of academic institutions to government, an increasingly international and mobile academic profession, global research networks, and other phenomena. Many of these developments link academic institutions and systems globally. The use of English as the lingua franca for scientific communication and for teaching, especially when combined with the Internet, makes communication easier and quicker. The advent of multinational higher education institutions makes it possible to disseminate new curricular and other innovations quickly and to meet the immediate needs of students and the national economies of countries that lack adequate providers of higher education. For centuries, universities were seen as institutions that provided education in the learned professions (law, medicine, and theology) and scientific disciplines. Universities, as independent and sometimes critical institutions, preserved and interpreted, and sometimes expanded, the history and culture of society. In the 19th century, research was added to the responsibilities of the universities, followed a little later by service to society. Academic institutions were, in the main, sponsored by the state or the church. Even privately sponsored institutions were defined by the service mission. Higher education was seen as a “public good,” as something that provided a valuable contribution to society and was therefore worthy of support. Universities were places for learning, research, and service to society through the application of knowledge. Academe was afforded a significant degree of insulation from the pressures of society—academic freedom— precisely because it was serving the broader good of society. Professors were often given permanent appointments— tenure—to guarantee them academic freedom in the classroom and laboratory to teach and do research without fear of sanctions from society.

Perspectives on Internationalizing Higher Education

Abstract: Other Examples Other countries offer alternatives to American thinking. In Western Europe, tuition remains low, or in some cases entirely free. There is still a commitment to the public good argument. The European experience shows that modern postindustrial societies can support public higher education systems and provide access to growing numbers of students. In Australia, where there has been a U.S.-style shift to the private good idea, the funding system is based on a concept of a tax on the earnings of university graduates—degree holders pay back the cost of their higher education, over time, based on their incomes. There is less of an immediate burden on individuals and a greater degree of equity. These examples show that there are other ways to think about financing large higher education systems.

Why Branch Campuses May Be Unsustainable

Abstract: Branch campuses are sprouting around the world, like mushrooms after a heavy rain. According to the Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, the number of branch campuses have increased by 43 percent to a total of 162 between 2006 and 2009 (See Rosa Becker’s article in this issue of IHE). Definitions are slippery; the Observatory's description will suffice: “An international branch campus is an off-shore entity of a higher education institution operated by the institution or through a joint venture in which the institution is a partner (some countries require foreign providers to partner with a local organization) in the name of the foreign institution. Upon successful completion of the course program, which is fully undertaken at the unit abroad, students are awarded a degree from the foreign institution.” Many of the growing mushrooms may only hold a limited life span and a few might be poisonous. Let us be honest about branch campuses. With a few notable exceptions, they are not really campuses. They are, rather, small, specialized, and limited academic programs offered offshore to take advantage of a perceived market. Not surprisingly, the most popular programs offered are in business management and information technology—with fairly low setup costs and significant worldwide demand. Except where generous hosts—such as in the Arabian Gulf, Singapore, and a few other places—provide facilities and infrastructure, branch campuses become rather spartan places, resembling office complexes rather than academic institutions.

What Counts for Academic Productivity in Research Universities

Abstract: Measuring research productivity in universities is a complicated and problematic process. Yet, such measurements are important for calculating the productivity of institutions, individual researchers, and academic systems. They count for a lot in the rankings. Current measures undercount the social sciences and humanities, and don’t pay sufficient attention to books. Further, the ways that knowledge is communicated is changing.

Internationalization and Global Tension Lessons From History

Abstract: Increasing political and military tension in several parts of the world will inevitably affect international higher education. Nationalist, religious, and ideological conflicts challenge the origin...

Academic Inbreeding: Local Challenge, Global Problem

Abstract: Why examine “academic inbreeding,” a seemingly small and peripheral aspect of the academic profession, involving the appointment of faculty members who graduated from the institution employing them? Academic Inbreeding and Mobility in Higher Education: Global Perspectives had its origins in a concern at the National Research University — Higher School of Economics in Moscow that the common practice in Russia of hiring one’s own graduates for faculty jobs has profound implications for academic culture, productivity, and the essential nature of the university. This interest led to a research project collaboratively organized by the Higher School of Economics and the Boston College Center for International Higher Education and centered on an examination of academic inbreeding in eight different countries: Argentina, China, Japan, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, South Africa, and Ukraine. We quickly discovered that faculty inbreeding is common worldwide — and not just a concern in Russia. Indeed, hiring one’s own graduates is not considered either unusual or problematic in many countries. The pattern has been in place for many years — often for centuries — and is quite often considered a point of pride for a higher education system, as clear evidence that the system is able to retain its best intellectual talent.

Globalization and Forces for Change in Higher Education

Abstract: What is globalization and how does it affect higher education policy and academic institutions? The answer is deceivingly simple and the implications are surprisingly complex. For higher education, globalization implies the broad social, economic, and technological forces that shape the realities of the 21st century.

The Imperial Tongue: English as the Dominating Academic Language

Abstract: to the securing of equal rights for women under the constitutional scheme and has campaigned for the past 16 years on women's right to free speech and their right against censorship by state and private actors. It has provided counselling and legal aid to women victims of violence; provided training to organisations in rural areas in Andhra on designing and implementing programmes that are gender sensitive; supported networks of persons with disabilities in the state; organised women writers, published anthologies of creative writing by women, dalit and Muslim writers, and has initiated campaigns on secularism and diversity. Women's World (India) is part of a worldwide network of women writers that works to counter censorship and protects the right to free speech. Formally launched in 2003 it has more than 200 members and was one of the first to protest against the smear campaign against actor Khushboo in Tamil Nadu. It also protested against the ban by the West Bengal government on Taslima Nasreen's autobiography and offered her protection and support after the initial fatwa was taken up by Women's World (International). Writers likeNabaneeta Dev Sen, Jeelani Bano, Mridula Garg, Rukmini Bhaya Nair, Abburi Chaya Devi, Bama are members of the network.

The Asian Higher Education Century

Abstract: The 2009 world university rankings showed a modest increase in the number of universities in Asia that have entered the top 100—in the Shanghai Academic Ranking of World Universities from 5 to 6, and in the Times Higher Education/QS rankings from 14 to 16. Commentators immediately referred to the academic rise of Asia and a concomitant decline of the West.

Global university rankings: The “Olympic Games” of higher education?

Abstract: Global university rankings are often thought of as games, defined by roles and rules that universities must play in order to confirm their legitimacy and gain visibility as actors in the global academic market. While some countries are well represented at the top of rankings charts, others are just joining the race and testing out different strategies to improve their positions. We use the metaphor of the Olympic Games to highlight some important characteristics of the high-stakes, highly competitive contests represented by global university rankings, and the role of rankings in the international higher education system in general. This comparison also allows for a better understanding of the limitations that exist in using ranking positions as an indicator of system success, and why universities should approach the rankings game with caution.

Academic Corruption: The Continuing Challenge

Abstract: grams or services offered and the local presence (and investment) by the foreign provider. Credits and qualifications are awarded by the foreign provider (through foreign, local, or selfaccreditation methods) or by an affiliated domestic partner or jointly. The key question remains who monitors and recognizes the “legitimacy” and “recognition” of the qualification for future study and employment purposes. The forms of crossborder provider mobility include branch campuses, merger with or acquisition of domestic providers, independent institutions, study and support centers, virtual delivery, plus other types of innovative affiliations. A distinguishing feature between program and provider mobility is that with provider mobility the learner is not necessarily located in a different country than the awarding institution as is the case with program mobility; and this raises other issues and challenges.

Rankings Season Is Here

Abstract: With the arrival of the new academic year in much of the world, the rankings season must be under way. The major international rankings have appeared in recent months—the Academic Ranking of World Universities ([ARWU] the “Shanghai Rankings”), the QS World University Rankings, and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE).

Franchising—The McDonaldization of Higher Education

Abstract: Almost 20 percent of students studying for a British first academic degree are not residing in the United Kingdom but rather pursuing their degree at one of Britain’s 13 branch campuses or, much more likely, at a foreign institution that has franchised a British degree. More than 400 franchise arrangements were reported in 2008.

Is There a Future for Branch Campuses

Abstract: Branch campuses seem to be the flavor of the month or, perhaps, the decade. Universities, mostly but not exclusively from the developed and mainly English-speaking countries, have established overseas branches worldwide—mainly in developing and emerging economies.

The Pursuit of International Students in a Commercialized World

Abstract: The use of agents and recruiters are increasingly common by universities to attract international students. This article focuses on some of the criticisms and problems related to agents and recruiters, and points to ways that universities and governments can best serve their own needs as well as the needs of prospective students.

Twinning and Branch Campuses: The Professorial Obstacle

Abstract: Branch campuses, twinning arrangements, and other manifestations of cross-border higher education are booming. Universities in Europe, Australasia, and North America see a huge market by offering their degrees in other countries. At the same time, Singapore and several of the states in the Arabian Gulf have identified themselves as educational centers and are attracting international higher education providers. In the Gulf, there is even competition for attracting overseas universities. China has opened its doors to foreign institutions, and India is moving in this direction. While there are no accurate numbers, more than 500 branch campuses exist worldwide—plus thousands of “twinned” programs. In addition, the phenomenon of the “American University of . . .” manifests another trend in crossborder higher education. There are a dozen or more such universities, some of which have a direct link with a US university while many simply use the name “American” and offer a US-style curriculum in English in a non-US setting. If the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) becomes part of the structure of international academic arrangements, the numbers of all kinds of cross-border institutions will increase even faster. One significant problem exists with these arrangements. Who is teaching the students at these branch campuses? What does a degree from a university signify if the teaching staff are not from the university offering the degree? To use the McDonald's analogy—is the meal (degree) a true McDonald's hamburger if only the recipe (the curriculum) comes from McDonalds. The rest of the process—the ingredients (facilities) and the cooks (professors)—are local, rather than from the sponsoring institution. Should a university in the United Kingdom (or another country) claim to offer a degree overseas if only the curriculum is from the sponsoring school, perhaps along with an element of quality control? With little data indicating the proportion of faculty members from the home universities teaching at branch or twinning campuses, anecdotal evidence shows that the numbers are small and most of the teaching is carried out by professors who are not faculty from the sponsoring institution. Even when they do come from the home university, faculty teaching at branch or twinned campuses are generally not the “star” research-active professors. It is not known if some of the recent high-prestige universities that have entered the branch campus business—the University of Chicago, the Cornell University Medical School, the University of Nottingham, and others—have a different profile than the many more average institutions thus far engaged.

Massification and the Global Knowledge Economy: The Continuing Contradiction

Abstract: Two of the challenges of the past half century will continue to be among the key drivers of higher education realities, for the coming several decades—providing greater access to tertiary education and sustaining research centers that will contribute and disseminate the knowledge essential to modern societies. These two key forces are contradictory and pull academe in different directions. Global enrollments now stand at more than 150 million, having doubled in just a few decades, and it is likely that there will be another 100 million added by 2020. A significant part of that growth will be in just two countries— China and India. Providing postsecondary education to larger segments of the population is not only necessary, as increasingly sophisticated economies demand higher levels of training, but as key to social mobility and more attractive employment. Massification has placed great stress on government finances and has led to a rapidly growing private higher education sector. Shortages of qualified academic staff and newer, underresourced institutions often accompany this rapid expansion; as a consequence, overall quality has declined, in some countries dramatically. Yet, many millions have now obtained academic qualifications and in general achieved better lives as a result. At the same time, the global knowledge economy requires more sophisticated and top-quality higher education to educate graduates who are capable of participating in the globalized 21st century economy. Universities must support research in the pursuit of new scientific endeavors, as well as serve as repositories of knowledge in all disciplines. Research universities, the engines of the global knowledge economy, are complex institutions, and are the foci of international networks. Although powerful, they are also fragile institutions, requiring autonomy, shared governance, and academic freedom. These universities are expensive and complex. They are, with few exceptions, public institutions requiring unqualified state support; these are the worldclass universities that dominate the rankings. Yet, it is often difficult for governments to understand these expensive yet necessary universities. There is a seeming dichotomy between the necessity of providing postsecondary education for large numbers of students and, at the same time, supporting elite research universities. Yet, both are necessary parts of a differentiated academic system, and both serve important functions in the global knowledge economy—one to provide the increasingly sophisticated needs of the economy, as well as the general knowledge to function as effective citizens, and the other to educate the most able students, to provide both basic and applied research. Both are absolutely essential to a successful national economy, as well. Supporting these two-core objectives is a necessity for the coming decades. Yet, there are signs in many countries, mass “demand absorbing” higher education is proving too heavy a burden for governments. Also, a growing private sector, often for-profit, tends to fill the gap, often providing lower-quality education. At the same time, expensive and largely public research universities are confronting alarming budget cuts. A key challenge is to ensure that both key aspects of higher education are appropriately supported.

AHELO: The Myth of Measurement and Comparability

Abstract: AHELO, the OECD’s pilot programs to measure student achievement cross-nationally is about to be implemented internationally. This article argues that it is very difficult to measure learning cross-nationally—and recommends that AHELO be scrapped.

The Tyranny of Citations

Abstract: Comparing Citations Across Disciplines When using citations as any kind of measure of quality, it is important to recognize the huge differences between disciplines. For example, a very highly cited social scientist (say, one of Harvard’s best professors) might have a lifetime citation score of around 3,000–4,000, whereas a top molecular biologist could have a score of over 15,000–20,000. The discrepancies in citation levels across disciplines are demonstrated in the number of new cited references that appear in ISI every week. The sciences generate approximately 350,000 new cited references weekly, the social sciences 50,000, and the humanities 15,000. Bibliometric indicators have been used more consistently across the sciences than in the humanities and social sciences. Such use is most evident in the natural and life sciences. These disciplines publish more journal articles and have a higher prevalence of coauthorship. In the social sciences, it is now quite common for there to be up to three authors attributed to an article, but any more is unusual—whereas in the sciences, coauthors can easily extend to the tens or twenties.

Access Means Inequality

Abstract: It seems a contradiction that access would bring inequality to higher education, but that trend is the usual case. Students, and institutions, while catering to mass access, provide vastly different quality, facilities, and focus than do elite institutions at the top, and this gulf has widened as access has expanded worldwide.

Higher Education as a Projection of America’s Soft Power

Abstract: This chapter examines the use and effectiveness of Japan's soft power. It describes the objectives, actors, and budget of Japan's public diplomacy, and compares them with those of other countries. The chapter then evaluates the effect of Japan's soft power on the relationship between Japan and the United States. It also evaluates the effectiveness of Japan's use of soft power in achieving its foreign policy objectives toward the United States. It is difficult to determine the relative weight given to public diplomacy in the overall structure and activities of Japan's foreign policy. Public diplomacy is considered important at the Embassy of Japan in Washington, DC. The embassy is the center of the JET (Japan Exchange and Teaching) Program in the United States, with two resident JET coordinators. Ambassador Kato Ryozo and other key members of the embassy support the embassy's efforts in conducting various cultural, educational, and academic programs as well as exchanges to enhance Japan's images in the United States.

Academic Freedom: A Realistic Appraisal

Abstract: Problems concerning academic freedom exist almost everywhere—created by changing academic realities, political pressures, growing commercialization and marketization of higher education, or legal pressures. The purpose of this article is to argue that academic freedom needs to be carefully defined so that it can be defended in the global climate of complexity. A new, and probably more delimited, understanding of academic freedom is needed in the age of the Internet and the global knowledge economy.