Changing Higher Education

Will Europe be a winner or loser in the knowledge economy?

Jean Pisano-Ferry has a very interesting piece in the Financial Times entitled Europe’s Eroding Wealth of Knowledge (also can be found on MSNBC). In it, he looks at some of the assumptions behind the 2000 Lisbon summit goal of making the European Union a knowledge based economy.  One of the prime underlying assumptions is that the EU has a relatively highly skilled work force, and that this provides a competitive advantage in a knowledge-based world.  He shows, however, that the average adult in the EU is “significantly less educated than adults in other industrialized countries”. In terms of number of adults who have experienced some tertiary education, the US is in the lead with 25% of the global total, the Bric countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China)  follow with 20%, while the EU can claim less than 15%. This poor showing of the EU can be attributed to historic reasons, and the flow of EU students into tertiary education now has increased greatly. However, growth in tertiary education in many other parts of the world has grown even more rapidly.  For example, the Bric countries now have one-third of the world’s students in higher education, while the EU has 16% (and the US has only 15%!).

Report from the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education

The third draft of the report from the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education is out now, and news reports indicate that it is acceptable to most members of the Commission.  Thus it is probably pretty close to the final report, and as such interesting to look at in some detail. 

One of the more confusing aspects of the report is that it is really about just one part of higher education - undergraduate studies.  There is nothing wrong with that focus, but it should have been made clear in the report.  In addition, by leaving out graduate and professional training, and research, many of the discussions about cost containment miss the boat.  More on that below.

At the outset let me say that I think the report hits most of the proper points about the current situation in higher education, and makes a number of suggestions that are in the right directions.  One (especially a professor) can always argue about emphasis and detail, which is mostly what I shall do.

An underlying discomfort I have with the report is that it is only minimally focused on global changes and competition.  There are numerous comparisons of how we compare today with other countries, but no analysis of where the competition is moving tomorrow.  Similarly, there is no mention of the movement up the educational ladder of the offshoring of jobs (see Offshoring moves up the education ladder, March 7, 2006 ), and what that might mean for our educational system.   The report is also focused on domestic students (understandably), and gives rather short shrift to the importance international students play in higher education and our economy generally.  Other countries have recognized importance of international students to their global prestige and general welfare, and have created national strategies to attract the best and brightest (e.g Australia and Great Britain).  No such overall strategy is called for here, although the relatively few recommendations made by the committee in this area have great merit.

Modularity in university higher education: Education

(Continuing the discussion begun in Modularity in university higher education, June 16, 2006)

Education, as a module or modules, is a lot more complicated than research.  Choosing the appropriate definition for a module is not a sure thing since globalization may cause us to rethink our organization of education, and therefore of the appropriate definition of modules.

One example of the way in which educational modules are being redefined by the forces of globalization is given by the Bologna Process.  The Bologna Process describes a truly immense and courageous educational reform movement encompassing most of Europe.   In the past, most European countries had a first higher education degree that took of the order of six years to obtain, and was at a level roughly equal to that of an American Master’s degree. That, therefore, probably would have been a reasonable module for European education.  However, characteristics of these degrees varied significantly from country to country, thereby making student movement between countries difficult, and the long time to degree kept students out of the workplace for a long period.  Lack of uniformity in degree definitions, and the long time to degree significantly decreased the desirability of these programs to non-European students.  Increasing global competition made those undesirable consequences.  In order to get around these difficulties, the Bologna Process set out to have in place by 2010 a European Higher Education Area.  Within this area, the old six year programs will be divided into a 3-4 year Bachelor’s program, and a 1-2 year Master’s program, thus moving into closer alignment with the typical Anglo-American approach.  The resulting bachelors will in many cases be less “professional”and broader and more general than was the original longer degree, with professionalization coming through the Master’s.  The stated goals of this process are twofold: 1) to create an intellectual community that will help to define the identity of the new Europe; and 2) to attract the best students from around the world to the new European education.  Thus, at least in this instance, forces of  globalization have pushed one important region into a set of educational modules similar to those that would be most reasonable to define for the United States, but it need not always be this way.