Changing Higher Education

The US is once again attracting large numbers of international students!! Right?

The Institute of International Education (IIE) recently released  its annual Open Doors report on the number of international students in the US.  The press release for the report is headlined

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS ON U.S. CAMPUSES AT ALL-TIME HIGH

Total foreign student numbers up 7%; New enrollments up 10%

That sound like good news! We are finally coming back from the post 9/11 drop off in international students. US higher education has once again regained its allure!

Or has it?

Included in these numbers are a couple of interesting categories.   The first is enrollment in  “non-degree programs”, primarily intensive English.  The second is “Optional Practical Training” (OPT). This enables undergraduate and graduate students with an F-1 student visa to work for periods up to one year in temporary employment directly related to their major fields of study.  The one-year period has recently been extended for students in the STEM areas, and provisions have been loosened for cases in which an employer has requested a H-1B visa for the student. 

When we look at the numbers, we find that the total number of international undergraduates is up this year by a relatively modest 4.6%, the total number of international graduates, by similarly modest 4.8%.  The real growth is in the non-degree students, 20.1%, and OPT, a whopping 36.3%.  We should, of course, be delighted for a variety of reasons to see these latter two categories grow.  However, they do not relate to the comparative attractiveness of our core higher education offerings.  And growth in OPT, because the rules are rapidly changing, is difficult to evaluate. 

Similarly, if we look at the vaunted new enrollment growth  (where OPT is not considered) number of 10%, we find a similar breakdown.  That is,  UG first year international undergrads are up 7.0%, grads, 7.9%, and non-degree students, 27.7%.

However, the real question is, “how are we doing compared to everyone else?”  I don’t find any up-to-date global data to compare to the US IIE results for 2008.  The most recent OECD report, Education at a Glance 2008, contains data on transnational education only up through 2006.  That report shows that for the period 2000-2006, the number of students enrolled in higher education outside of their country of origin grew on the average at 7.5% per year (Table C3.6).  During that period, the US share of all transnational students fell from 25.1% to 20% (Table C3.7). 

The  foreign student numbers reported in Open Doors that should be compared to the OECD data (UG, G, and non-degree) show a growth of only 4.8%. However, if growth in transnational students has continued at the 7.5% rate, then the IIE numbers would suggest that our share of the transnational market has continued to decline. 

So the good news would seem to be that we are getting more international students than we did a few years ago - and the bad news would seem to be that the increases are probably not keeping up with global growth in transnational students.

An Asian "Bologna Process" moves forward

The ten  countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have begun to discuss  the creation of an Bologna -type process in their region.   The Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) organized a meeting in Thailand in early November, 2008, to begin to consider the challenges and opportunities that could be provided by a harmonization of higher education in Southeast Asia. 

Prof. Dr. Supachai Yavaprabhas, the Director of SEAMEO RIHED, the organization’s Center for Higher Education and Development, had spoken earlier at a UNESCO regional conference about harmonization in the ASEAN region.  In his speech, he outlined the history of higher education cooperation in the region, and described some of the aspirations behind this cooperation.  They are quite parallel to those that can be found in the  Bologna accords: to promote higher education quality, and to build ASEAN identity through free movement of scholars around the region.  In 2007, the leadership of the region agreed that the focus should be on five areas:

a) ASEAN Quality Framework and Curriculum Development;
b) Student Mobility;
c) Leadership;
d) E-learning and Mobile learning; and
e) ASEAN Research Clusters

Dr Yavaprabhas also discussed the very uneven levels of quality assurance mechanisms currently in place in the various ASEAN nations.

The November meeting was based on preliminary reports on prospects for harmonization prepared by representatives from Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. The meeting itself has been described in the Australian and University World News.

Clearly, creating the desired “higher education common space” in the ASEAN region will be very difficult.  The countries vary considerably in the level and organization of their systems of higher education, and most are developing nations with relatively limited resources.  Nevertheless, the potential payoff could be enormous, and would greatly increase the ability of the region to compete effectively in the knowledge-based world of globalization . 

ASEAN has set 2015 as the target year for the creation of this higher education common space.  Just as Bologna has found that its original targets were too optimistic, ASEAN will certainly find that this target cannot be realistically attained.  However, there will be major benefits to the region from every successful step taken along the path to a functioning regional higher education common space.

More on the “tipping point” for globalization of US higher education

The ongoing and very widespread economic problems are having a major impact on higher education, as I noted in a previous post.  Two recent articles in the New York Times provide some interesting examples of the problems.  The first, Tough Times Strain Colleges Rich and Poor, outlines some of the steps being taken to meet plummeting revenues.  They include, of course, deferring construction, hiring freezes, lay-offs, and cutting back on need-blind admissions goals. Students, feeling the economic pressures from all sides, are looking more favorably at  lower-cost public higher education, but there they are finding that states are cutting back on funding due to the hard times. Several states, including California, are considering, or planning to limit freshmen enrollments because of these cuts. 

The second, Beyond the Ivied Halls, Endowments Suffer, describes difficulties several universities are having with “alternative investments” in their endowments, including real estate partnerships, venture capital, and hedge funds.   Such investments have grown in popularity over the past years because of their potential huge gains, and university endowment managers have plunged into these alternative markets in a major way:

Endowments with more than $1 billion in assets reported 35 percent of their holdings in these types of investments on average last year.

Unfortunately, such investments are typically not very liquid, and often require periodic additional investment.  In these times, liquidity can be a problem, and additional investments become difficult if not impossible.  As a consequence, several major universities (including Harvard) are trying to sell some of their alternative investments, and having to accept greatly discounted offers in the process.  Does this sound familiar in other contexts?

All in all, this is developing into a very serious problem for higher education that is unlikely to be solved in a satisfactory and appropriate way by simply cutting costs.  Nor does it seem likely that a “government bailout” of higher education will occur.  More serious thought about the future of American higher education is called for, including, as I have previously discussed (here, and here), changes in mission and organization.