Changing Higher Education

More on International Students in the US

The ACE has just issued an excellent,  hard-hitting brief entitled Students on the Move: the Future of International Students in the United States . The conclusion of the brief says it all:

"The United States continues to receive the largest number of international students. However, recent trends indicate that this position is significantly challenged and may not be sustainable if current trends continue. Although potential demand is high, a redistribution of international students among host countries is underway. This change may be due to perceptions that the United States is unwelcoming, vigorous competition from other countries, and successful national strategies from competitor countries to recruit international students. As the student marketplace becomes increasingly globalized and competition intensifies, it may be difficult for some institutions to begin recruiting international students, if they have not done so already, and for others to substantially increase their numbers,particularly if there is no coordinated support at the national or regional level.

U.S. well-being is increasingly dependent on innovation and competitiveness in the global knowledgebased economy. International students and scholars have historically provided a source of new talent for innovation in the United States. Although the demand for education abroad is increasing, so is the global competition for the “best and brightest.” Declines in the number of international students, especially in the science and engineering fields so critical for innovation, will affect the ability of higher education, business, and government to engage in research and development. Additionally, international students represent an important means for strengthening U.S. cultural diplomacy around the world."

Better rankings - but do we need them?

Kevin Carey, author of the very nice Washington Monthly article Is our students learning?  that I discussed in Educational value added, Sept.1, 2006, has sent me a copy of his new report College Rankings Reformed: The Case for a New Order in Higher Education.  This report nicely fleshes out a number of arguments made in his shorter article, and adds some new recommendations on how to improve rankings.

Carey understandably focuses his discussion on the US News and World Report (USNWR) rankings of colleges.  He argues that one can catagorize what is actually being measured by the various components of these rankings.  When he does this categorization, he find that the USNWR rankings are based 25% on fame, 30% on institutional wealth, 40% on exclusivity, and only 5% on quality! That, indeed, does not seem to be the best way to measure the effectiveness of the colleges or the quality of their programs.

Spellings and transparency

Now that the Spellings Report is out, and the Secretary has announced a plan of action, the pundits and bloggers have made their opinions known (see, e.g. Lombardi’s column in Inside Higher Education and the subsequent comments, or Seery’s column in the Huffington Post and subsequent comments). The comments generally range from slightly neutral to quite negative. They run from discussions regarding the difficulty of measuring the important outputs of higher education, to claims that this report is simply part of a larger Bushian conspiracy against progressive thought.  Along the way are numerous statements that only academics have a right to judge the academy, and that government should stay out of it.

My take is a bit different from those of many commentators, as readers of this blog will recognize.  I believe that the concerns raised by the Report regarding the future global dominance of American higher education are very real, and supported by considerable data (see e.g.Measuring Up 2006:The national report card on higher education , or Education at a Glance 2006).   I believe that comments by various faculty (see blogs mentioned above) that learning in college is the responsibility of the student, not the faculty, are simply wrong, and that there is real joint responsibility for good outcomes. In general, we in the academy have not kept up our end of that joint responsibility because we have ignored research that shows how we could change our teaching to improve learning outcomes significantly. As a result, many of our students are not learning what they need for success in a knowledge economy. (see previous related posts How people learn May 1, 2006, A D- in science education April 14, 2006, How are we doing teaching cognitive skills? July 4, 2006)

Bangalore decides to opt out of the global economy!

According to an article in the  Oct. 2, 2006  Los Angeles Times, the state government of Karnataka, home of Bangalore, has decided that schools will have to cease offering courses in English immediately , and switch to Kannada, a local language.  The government seems to have decided to reject the (presumable unneeded/unwanted) economic growth that Bangalore has seen as a consequence of its rapid English-speaking-enhanced entrance into the global marketplace.  This far-sighted move reminds me of rather similar votes on creationism and intelligent design that occur in this country.  It is good to be reminded that worldwide, politicians are ready to sacrifice the well-being of the whole to pander to the prejudices of the part.