Changing Higher Education

One wonders why they protest so much??

In Another ranking of higher education - with a radical twist, I reported that OECD was thinking of doing international comparisons of national outcome measures for higher education.  I suggested that this focus on outcomes rather than inputs might lead to an interesting and enlightening set of information. 

It is not surprising that the American Council on Education is working to derail this effort since that organization has been very active in efforts to stop outcomes testing in the US.  Once again, David Ward (Pres. of ACE) argues that there are too many variables - funding methods, mission, etc. Further, he raises the possibility that the national rankings will be used to rank individual institutions, and that funding agencies might misuse this data.   Clearly, ACE is simply continuing to trot out its usual “we are too complicated to be held accountable” arguments, in this case bolstered by a threat of yet another ranking system for institutions of higher education. 

It is not obvious that the OECD effort would produce data that could be used to create another ranking system, given the way that previous OECD data has been reported.  However, since there are a  number of such ranking systems already in existence that focus on input measures, the fact that Ward focuses his displeasure on this particular possibility would seem to indicate that he thinks rankings based on outputs are even more misleading than rankings based on inputs. I would have argued the opposite. 

There are some obvious weaknesses in the system that OECD has outlined.  However, I think American higher education would be greatly strengthened if its leaders stopped focusing on preventing accountability measures, and worked instead to make sure the right measures exist and are adopted. 

Update on KAUST

The King Abdulla University of Science and Technology (KAUST) is moving along on its development plans (see King Abdulla University of Science and Technology - a paradigm for the 21st century? June 5, 2007).  In January, KAUST got off to an excellent start with the appointment of Shih Choon Fong as its first President.  Dr Shih is currently the very highly regarded President of the National University of Singapore, and will assume the presidency of KAUST next December.

KAUST is not waiting for its president to arrive, however, before implementing its plans to build by creating partnerships with the leading educational institutions in the world.  Although some of the agreements took some time to actually finalize, previously announced partnerships and dates are:
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institutite (June 15, 2007)
Institute Francais de Petrole ( June 22, 2007)
National University of Singapore (June 27, 2007)
IIT Bombay (July 16, 2007)
American University in Cairo (September 5, 2007)
Technische Universitat Munchen (January 24, 2008).
Each of these agreements describes partnerships in specific areas of research and education, with financial arrangements that vary to meet the circumstances.

In the last two days, three very significant new partnership arrangement with American universities have been announced.  On March 4, agreements with the University of California at Berkeley (UCB) and Stanford University were announced, and on March 5, an agreement with the University of Texas at Austin was announced.  It is reported that Stanford and UCB will each receive almost $30M over 5 years as part of this partnership.  Of that, $10 will be for participating departments, $10M will be for joint research at the institutions involving new KAUST faculty, $5M will be for joint research at KAUST, and $3M-$4M will be for administrative costs.  Stanford and UCB will each have responsibilities in identifying and helping to recruit faculty for KAUST, and in hosting KAUST faculty until the KAUST campus opens.  The conditions at UT are more or less the same.

All in all, a very impressive list of partner institutions.  The quality and the international visibility of each of them helps to assure that KAUST will indeed begin to develop following international norms for access and freedom of inquiry.

British Universities in China: the Reality Beyond the Rhetoric

This is the title of a very interesting recent multi-authored discussion paper of Agora, a British think-tank for higher education. Although the paper is about British universities in China, most of what is said carries over directly to everyone’s globalization efforts worldwide. The director of Agora, Anna Fazackerley, provides a thought provoking introduction that provides an excellent context for the rest of the contributions. She points out the importance to institutions of thinking strategically about their globalization efforts, and having a clear understanding of what they hope to gain from them. She also emphasizes that the Chinese are in complete control of the process in their country, and that it is therefore critical to understand what China itself really wants when it allows foreign universities to enter. As part of the answer to this question, she suggests that "It is becoming apparent that one of the main uses of British universities to China will be their expertise in science and engineering".

The paper contains six contributions from individuals have considerable experience with higher education partnerships in China and throughout Asia.  Their comments are all well thought out, and quite thought provoking.  They point out the positives and negatives of working with China, and describe some of the sources of difficulties. The paper concludes with 3 case studies of different models of UK-China higher education partnerships. One of these is about the Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (Interesting activity at the for-profit/non-profit interface: Laureate, Jan. 14, 2008).  The other two are the University of Nottingham’s Ningbo campus,  and the joint degree program between Queen Mary College, University of London and Beijing University of Posts and Technology. 

All this makes for very interesting and valuable reading.

Secure Borders and Open Doors

There is an interesting new government report just out entitled Secure Borders and Open Doors .  The Advisory Committee that prepared the report was charged by the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to try to balance the competing demands of securing our borders against threats, and of maintaining the open doors to international visitors that have served us so well in the past. The co-chairs of the Advisory Committee are John S. Chen, Chairman, CEO , and President, Sybase Inc., and Dr. Jared L. Cohon, President, Carnegie Mellon University. 

The report notes that the number of international visitors has dropped off significantly since 9/11, and that our share of transnational students has dropped as well. They make a number of very good recommendations to try to remedy this situation.  In one instance, however, they go beyond  what might be construed as the limits of their charge to make the following excellent observation:

America is losing competitiveness for international
students for one primary reason, and it is not related
to how the Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA ) at State is
performing their operational responsibilities. Rather,
it is because our competitors have – and America
lacks – a proactive national strategy that enables us
to mobilize all the tools and assets at our disposal,
and that enables the federal bureaucracy to work
together in a coherent fashion, to attract international
students. Instead, the U.S. effort is characterized by
a bureaucracy that often works at cross purposes

I am not sure that I would be so confident that our loss of international students has nothing to do with the way we hand out visas, but the thrust of this observation is right on target.   I have commented earlier in these posts (see.e.g. Why has globalization had such a small effect on higher education-and when will that change?) that the US is essentially the only advanced country without an extensive strategy for attracting international students.  There is no doubt in my mind that this lack of national strategy is a significant contributor to our declining ability to attract international students.   I hope this  recommendation will stimulate some thought in the halls of power.  It must be noted, however, that earlier, similar recommendations have had no visible impact (see e.g.Are we losing the competition for international students?)

Interesting activity at the for-profit/non-profit interface: Laureate

In my most recent post, I looked at some interesting relationships between Kaplan and several traditional non-profit institutions of higher education.  In this post, I want to look at some of the relationships that Laureate is developing as it continues to evolve its globalization strategy.

Laureate Education, like Kaplan, has a branch accredited by the North Central Association - Walden University.  Walden (which incorporated the old National Technological University) is an exclusively on-line provider and so can be accessed around the world.  Walden is just one component of Laureate’s online stable which also includes Laureate online education, BV, OnlineLearning.net, and Canter.  However, the main thrust of Laureate’s strategy is bricks and mortar in the global arena.  It  has created its global network of institutions of higher education primarily by buying existing accredited private colleges and universities.  This network currently has nearly 250,000 students world-wide.  Laureate has begun to seek US accreditation for several of its offshore schools, and, for example, its Glion Institute of Higher Education and Les Roches Swiss Hotel Association of Hotel Management have both been accredited by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges.

Recently, Laureate has begun to expand into regions that either do not permit for-profit higher education, or that require local ownership.  This has led the company to create other types of arrangements than they have used in the past. One example is the November 2006 arrangement with Istanbul Bilgi University, a prominent non-profit Turkish university.  Turkey does not allow for-profit higher education, so a typical purchase agreement was not possible. In this case, Laureate, in partnership with parties in Turkey,  has provided 50% of the funding for a company that will provide technology, financial management, student and human resource services to Bilgi.  As part of this arrangement, Bilgi joins the Laureate University Network, which opens up opportunities for Bilgi students for study abroad and exchange programs at campuses of other members of the Network.  Additional goals of this partnership are reported to be expansion of Bilgi in Turkey, and creation of new campuses in other countries of the Middle East and Russia.  Thus, Laureate and Bilgi have found a cooperative arrangement that plays to the strengths or special advantages of each.  As a consequence, Laureate will gain a platform for entry into the Middle East, and  Bilgi will benefit from Laureate’s expertise in management and gain access to capital markets that will enable it to expand aggressively. One has to imagine that Laureate's experience in entering new markets will play a major role in Bilgi's expansion plans.  Could well be a win-win situation.

Interesting activity at the for-profit/non-profit interface: Kaplan

Conventional wisdom might suggest that for-profit and non-profit higher education institutions have nothing in common, and should stay clear of each other.  However,  there are some quite interesting areas where the two are beginning to work together, leveraging on each other’s strengths.  In fact, the arrangements look suspiciously like outsourcing of modules in the education chain.  Although there are many for-profits collaborating with the non-profits, I will focus on two of the largest for-profit higher education corporations, Kaplan and Laureate.   This post will look at Kaplan, and a subsequent post will consider a very different set of partnerships beginning to be developed by Laureate. 

For-profit Kaplan has its own North-Central-accredited undergraduate and graduate programs in both campus and online modes.  However, in addition, it runs numerous programs in partnership with traditional non-profit institutions of higher education.   One group of these programs is designed for international students whose preparation would not normally gain them admission into the partner institutions, or who feel that they need a transition period of cultural acclimation before entering the partner institutions.  Partnerships of this type are primarily with United Kingdom institutions: Nottingham Trent International College, Sheffield International College, Liverpool International College and Glasgow International College.  Each of these programs is housed on the campus of the partner institution. In each case, Kaplan provides international students with a one-year (two-year in some cases) course that focuses on building key academic skills and appropriate background work, as well as intensive English language instruction as needed.   Upon graduation from this partnership program, the student is guaranteed entry into the regular undergraduate or graduate programs of the partner institution.  For those going into regular undergraduate programs, entry is at either the first- or second-year level, depending on the specifics of the program.

Why has globalization had such a small effect on higher education - and when will that change?

I recently wrote an article that addressed these provocative questions. It has been accepted for publication in New Directions for Higher Education, to be published by Jossey- Bass. I will just cover some of the main points of the article in this post, and point interested readers to the preprint.

I argued the first premise of this question - that globalization has had a small effect on higher education - by using the taxonomy that Samuel Palmisano defined to classify the stages of industrial globalization (see Globalization and internationalization, June 7, 2006).   I argued that most of what occurs in higher education today fits Palmisano’s 19th century “internationalization” model of hub-and-spoke activities.  I then described the relatively few activities in higher education that fit the early 20th century “multinational” phase, and the even more uncommon higher education activities that have real parallels with “globalization” as the term is generally used in the business literature.  I argued that the “international” activities have little potential to cause major change in higher education, but that both the “multinational” and “globalization” stages have the potential to cause as radical change in higher education as they have in industry generally.   

More on globalization of higher education

There was a recent conference on “Realizing the Global University”, sponsored by a number of higher education organizations including the Worldwide University Network, the Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, and the International Association of Universities.  The conference was preceded by a Critical Perspectives Workshop.  David Pilsbury, the CEO of the World University Network (WUN), described the context of these meetings in the following way:

Universities are universal and increasingly international, but they are not yet ‘global’. In a world that is globalising rapidly, in which the central role of universities in the knowledge economy and in civil society is articulated more strongly and more widely than ever, we do not have a clear sense of what it takes or what it means to be a global university. ‘Global’ is among the most overused and least understood words, but at an instinctive level we know that globalisation is a powerful force that is going to impact massively on the evolution of institutions that have been around in a form that is recognisable today since at least the ninth century. Since universities embody so much of what is important to us as individuals and societies, culturally and economically, the outcome of globalisation for universities is crucial.

Copies of papers presented at the Workshop can be found here, and copies of a few of the papers from the conference can be found here.  The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education has a series of excellent position papers on the themes of this conference.  For those of you whose institutions belong to the Observatory, those papers can be found here.

Readers of this blog will know that I share Pilsbury's viewpoint regarding the lack of "globalization" in higher education. The issue of what globalization will mean for higher education is one that I struggle with constantly in this blog.   These papers bring a lot of interesting insights to the table.

I generally don’t regret having missed yet another conference, but this one looks like it was quite worthwhile. 

Another Global Ranking of Higher Education - with a radical twist

A recent article in the Economist informed me that the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is planning a new global comparison of universities.   Readers of this blog know my suspicions of national rankings in higher education (see, e.g.Better Rankings-but do we need them? Oct.11, 2006)), and my concerns regarding international rankings are even higher.  A recent post on Beerkins’ Blog has an excellent discussion of the problems with both national and international rankings. However, the OECD comparison will look at the issue from an entirely radical perspective - learning outcomes for the different national systems of higher education!

The Spellings Commission report has engendered considerable discussion in the US regarding the desirability of looking at learning outcomes, and/or whether any useful measures of learning outcomes can be developed considering the multiple goals of higher education (see also Spellings and transparency, Oct. 3, 2006).  While we in US higher education debate this issue at great length, generally making every argument that will forestall it happening, it looks like the OECD is going to move ahead to come up with some global scorecards on effectiveness of national approaches to higher education!

The breakdown of the price-productivity-cost model of private research universities

I have learned a lot recently  participating in a project on Global Higher Education led by Paul Jansen and Debby Bielak of McKinsey &Co.  The project is sponsored by the Forum for the Future of Higher Education. Paul and Debby have collected a group of university CFO’s, a college president, and an old provost (me) together to apply a McKinsey sector-wide analysis to higher education. It is fascinating to see what such an analysis tells us about our world.

The team recently made a presentation entitled Higher Education Trends and Risks: Implications for Leading Institutions and Sector Performance  at the annual Aspen Symposium of the Forum.  My assignment was to talk about trends and risks for private research universities - in 15 minutes.  I approached this impossible task by first apologizing to the audience for the egregious simplifications that I would have to make in order to describe the situation in 15 minutes, and then introduced my simple one-parameter model to describe the problems facing the research university.  Since this model met with some approval at the Symposium, I thought it might be worth repeating here.

I began by describing what I called our Mission Box. Excellence - as defined by us in a very self-referential way - has become the visible driver of our mission.  Our mission, in a very general way, focuses on traditional undergraduate education, graduate and professional education, and research.  Focusing on excellence means that if it is worth doing (i.e. one of our mission foci), it is worth doing better.  Doing it better costs more money, so at some point the customer can’t, or won’t pay for it, so we lose money.  As a consequence, over time, losing money has become our very visible surrogate for excellence (my one parameter model). (Clayton Christensen, who also spoke at the symposium, has pointed out the often catastrophic outcomes of making your product better than the customer wants or needs. See also Disruptive Technologies:when great universities fail? March 3, 2006)