brave new world for pdf. - eua.beeua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/brave-new-world.1069322743534.pdf ·...

Madeleine Green, American Council on Education

Peter Eckel, American Council on Education

Andris Barblan, European University Association

American Council on EducationCenter for Institutional and International InitiativesEuropean University Association EUA

A Transatlantic View

TheBrave New

Worldof Higher

Education:

(and Smaller)

The Changing Enterpr ise FIRST IN A SERIES

Copyright © 2002

American Council on EducationOne Dupont Circle NWWashington, DC 20036

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Additional copies of this publication are available by sending a check or money order for $15 per copy, plus $6.95 shipping and handling (for orders of more than one copy, call the number below), to the following address:

ACE Fulfillment ServiceDepartment 191Washington, DC 20055-0191Phone: (301) 632-6757Fax: (301) 843-0159

When ordering, please specify Item #309460.A free electronic version of this report is available through www.acenet.edu/bookstore.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments 1

Foreword: Shared Realities 3

An Unholy Trinity? Three Forces for Change 7

Technology 7

Globalization 10

Competition 12

New Responses 17

Partnerships and Alliances 17

Internationalization Efforts 21

Policy Frameworks 24

Conclusion: The Challenge to Academic Values 27

Endnote: Higher Education and the GATS Negotiations 29

Notes 31

Transatlantic Dialogue Participants 32

A m e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o n 1

Acknowledgments

his essay emerged from the rich conversation of the Transatlantic Dialogueheld in July 2001 at the Université Laval in Quebec, Canada. The authorsare indebted to the participants whose intellectual energy and willingness to

explore complex issues in an international context made this essay possible. We alsoacknowledge the contributions to this paper by Herb O’Heron and Karen McBride of theAssociation of Universities and Colleges of Canada, who provided much useful informa-tion and insights from the Canadian perspective. Michael Baer and Jacqueline King of theAmerican Council on Education contributed helpful reviews. Finally, we thank FrançoisTavenas, Rector, Université Laval, and Nicole Nadeau, François Rheault, and JoséeSauvageau, also of the Université Laval, for their superb hospitality.

This paper is the first in a series associated with a new ACE initiative, the ChangingEnterprise Project, that seeks to chart and understand the new directions colleges anduniversities are pursuing to respond to increased competition and changing fiscal realities. The project and this occasional paper series are supported by contributionsfrom Accenture, The Goldman Sachs Foundation, and Peterson’s, a Thomson LearningCompany.

T


Foreword: Shared Realities

arket forces, globalization,internationalization, com-petition, new providers,cost efficiency—these

descriptors of the brave new world of highereducation appear consistently in any discus-sion of its future. Even when used in thesame national context, such terms describedifferent phenomena and elicit differentinterpretations; cross-cultural conversa-tions are even more difficult. A sharedunderstanding of the forces that are reshaping higher education within andamong nations provides an essential founda-tion for the development of sound policyand effective institutional strategies to adaptto these new realities. Such challenges werethe focus of the seventh TransatlanticDialogue, cosponsored by the AmericanCouncil on Education (ACE), the Asso-ciation of Universities and Colleges ofCanada (AUCC), and the EuropeanUniversity Association (EUA) and hosted bythe Université Laval in Quebec.

The purpose of this meeting was toexplore the forces shaping change in highereducation in the United States, Canada, andEurope; analyze how institutions and policymakers are responding; and assess the costsand benefits of these responses. This conver-sation of some 30 presidents, vice chancel-lors, and rectors (see page 32) assumed thevolatility of the current environment and theneed for continuous change. But just howmuch change is necessary and desirable, andwhat kind of change should occur, were opento question. The Transatlantic Dialogueexplored strategies that institutions use to be

more responsive and relevant, and reflectedon the conflicts these strategies can presentwith respect to historic institutional valuesand mission. Participants examined the promise and the peril of establishing allianceswith partners outside the academy, such asbusinesses or for-profit educational institu-tions, and the complexities of internationalcollaborations that go beyond traditional student and faculty mobility. The new envi-ronment and the many strategic choices facing institutional leaders on both sides ofthe Atlantic provided the framework for arich conversation.

The issues that participants discusseddramatically differed from the ones consid-ered at the first Transatlantic Dialogue in1989 in Hartford, Connecticut. At that time,the World Wide Web was virtually unknownto administrators, and e-mail use was in itsinfancy. The sharp differences amongnational contexts across the Atlantic andwithin Europe provided few common basesfor discussion. The geopolitical situation was entirely different from the one thatwould exist half a decade later. The BerlinWall was still intact; the Eastern Bloc coun-tries were still part of the Soviet system. TheNorth American Free Trade Agreement was in its early stages, as was the EuropeanUnion (EU), which was viewed as a zone ofeconomic growth set up against Commun-ism. In higher education, North Americaninstitutions were entrepreneurial and customer-oriented, doing business in a prag-matic world of public relations and moneymanagement that was alien to their Europeancounterparts. In continental Europe, the

M

4 A T R A N S A T L A N T I C V I E W

ministries very much controlled universities’destinies, and the rigidities of centuries-oldtraditions of teaching and learning were dif-ficult to loosen. In the United Kingdom, thepolytechnics were not considered universi-ties, and the national assessment exerciseshad not yet taken place. The concept of the“European dimension” of higher educationwas just emerging. The appointed NorthAmerican presidents saw themselves asleaders, the elected European rectors as firstamong equals. In brief, a little more than adecade ago, the Atlantic Ocean representeda formidable distance between Europeanand North American higher education,between the old world and the new.

By 2001, and the seventh TransatlanticDialogue, the picture looked quite different.Technology was a given, and competition—long established in Canada and the UnitedStates—was gaining ground in much ofEurope. Europe had undergone vast political changes, and the move to harmo-nize the varying forms of national highereducation in the EU by making them moretransparent and compatible was intensifyingunder the auspices of the Bologna Declara-tion.1 By 2001, there was no doubt that higher education was indeed a global enter-prise, and although significant differencesstill exist among nations and continents, the fundamental challenges—especiallythose created by the new environment oftechnology, globalization, and competition—

are very much the same. The vision of thefuture seen by those U.S., Canadian, andEuropean leaders at the 2001 Quebec semi-nar was more similar than dissimilar—a sur-prise to most, if not all, of the participants.

In order to secure a snapshot of the varying views, the seminar cosponsors askedeach participant to vote on a series of state-ments about the future of higher educationfrom his or her perspective. The participantsindicated the extent to which they agreed ordisagreed with each statement regarding theactual future they foresaw (versus the idealfuture they desired) in their own country.They also noted the extent to which theyagreed or disagreed with each assertion.

The high level of consistency among allparticipants came as a surprise. Of theapproximately 20 assertions shown on thenext page, the Americans and the Europeansdisagreed on only four; and the Americansand Canadians differed on only one. TheCanadians and the Europeans agreed on allthe assertions. Further, even when disagree-ment occurred, it was mild. Indeed, theAmerican, Canadian, and European leadershad remarkably similar views of what layahead for higher education.


How do American, Canadian, and European higher education leaders see the future?

In an informal opinion poll, the participants indicated their agreement or disagreement with the following assertions about the future.

The U.S., Canadian, and European presidents and rectors largely agreed on the following points:

• Society will place far greater emphasis on higher education’s role in workforce preparation than in promoting social development and cultural identity.

• Borderless education will not undermine higher education’s capacity to contribute to social developmentand cultural identity.

• Policy makers will not abandon the concept of higher education as a social investment (public good) infavor of higher education as a personal investment only (private good).

• Partnerships with businesses and other noneducational organizations will not increasingly threaten academic integrity.

• Governments will increasingly require outcome-oriented quality assessments as accountability measures.

• Technology will play a major role in expanding access to higher education around the world because traditional modes of instruction cannot fill the need.

• Competition and the power of the market will not allow “brand-name” institutions to dominate the higher education scene.

• National governments will not lose their influence on higher education and markets, and supranationalbodies will not usurp their role.

• The amount of instruction conducted in English around the world will increase.

• The current patterns of governance and decision making in higher education represent tremendous obstacles to institutions’ ability to change.

• Interinstitutional collaboration will increase significantly, allowing institutions to expand their curricularofferings.

The Europeans and the Americans disagreed on the following points:

• The Europeans were more likely than the Americans to believe that distance learning will not increaseaccess, but rather will enable institutions to reach new markets of affluent students. (The Canadians werein between the Americans and the Europeans on this assertion.)

• The Americans were more likely than the Europeans to perceive that the inability of traditional higher education to adapt quickly enough to meet the needs of the knowledge economy will result in the growthof new providers. (The Canadians leaned more toward agreeing with the Americans on this issue.)

• The Europeans agreed more than the Americans with the idea that higher education must move from traditional content/curriculum-based teaching to competency-based teaching and learning. (The Canadians voted closer to the Americans than to the Europeans.)

• The Europeans were more likely than the Americans to see government policy as a significant force forchange. (The Canadians were in the middle of the two views.)

The Canadians and the Americans differed only on the following point:

• The Americans were more likely than the Canadians to see the lack of executive power as an increasingly significant obstacle to change. (The Europeans were in the middle of these two views.)


uring the last decade, tech-nology, globalization, andcompetition have caused theground to shift under higher

education worldwide, defying national borders and calling into question honoredtraditions, sacred myths, and previouslyunquestioned assumptions. These forces onboth continents are systematically—and quietly—reshaping higher education. Theyinteract with each other, so that technologyintensifies competition as well as enablesglobalization; similarly, globalization fosterscompetition. It is impossible to consider oneof the three without introducing the others.Leaders are navigating uncharted waters,and the course of higher education’s journeyis unclear. Will change just happen, steeredperiodically by reactive government policiesand institutional strategies, or will highereducation leaders and policy makers lookahead and be more intentional about creating the kind of higher education systemtheir societies really need? What challengesdo these changes pose to higher education’score activities and values? What exactly arethese fundamental values of higher educa-tion that we must reaffirm or reinterpret inlight of new realities? What are the chal-lenges to institutional management andleadership created by the new environment?

As we examine each of these forces in turn—technology, globalization, and com-petition—and explore some ways in whichthey interact, we can see that each affectsNorth America and Europe differently, butall raise uncomfortable questions that tradi-

An Unholy Trinity? Three Forces for Change

tional higher education must address tothrive in this brave new world. Higher education leaders and observers differ inpredicting the intensity of the impact thesethree forces will have. As the votes showed,such differences of opinion do not neces-sarily correlate with nationality or institu-tional affiliation. A few, such as manage-ment expert Peter Drucker, predict theeventual demise of campus-based instruc-tion as we know it. Many others foresee ascenario in which online instruction supple-ments, rather then replaces, traditionalface-to-face teaching, and new providersattract new populations of students, leavingtraditional institutions to continue servingas centers of full-time undergraduate educa-tion and research. But, as the TransatlanticDialogue illustrated, none of the partici-pants on either side of the Atlantic predictedbusiness as usual for higher education.

TechnologyTechnology may be the single greatest forcefor change in higher education. To date,technology has made its most dramaticimpact by enabling the development of dis-tributed learning, that is, learning that “canoccur either on or off campus, providingstudents with greater flexibility and elimi-nating time as a barrier to learning.”2

Distributed learning includes distancelearning, which focuses on students whomay be separated in time and space fromtheir peers and instructor.

DWill change just happen,

steered periodically by

reactive government

policies and institutional

strategies, or will higher

education leaders and

policy makers look ahead

and be more intentional

about creating the kind of

higher education system

their societies really

need?

8 A T R A N S A T L A N T I C V I E W

Online courses are a major form of dis-tributed learning; more than 2,000 U.S.institutions offer them.3 In Canada, a surveyof adult education and training (whichincludes but surpasses higher education)indicated that about 500,000 students (froma population of more than 6 million) weredoing part of their coursework through vari-ous distance learning mechanisms.4 Onlineenrollment at places such as the Universityof Maryland University College and ThePennsylvania State University’s WorldCampus grew in two years by 1,000 percentand 200 percent, respectively.5 Althoughmany students who are enrolled in onlinecourses also are taking campus-based courses,others—largely working adult students—would not be enrolled without such flexibledistributed learning opportunities. Distrib-uted learning permits students to study attheir own pace and to choose when andwhere they learn, and eases the juggling ofjobs and families with their education. Olderand part-time students make up an impor-tant group of postsecondary enrollments onboth sides of the Atlantic. Some 40 percentof all undergraduates in the United States(by headcount) are over age 25; 31 percentof Canadian undergraduate students are overage 24. A relatively new emphasis on lifelonglearning in Europe is attracting new olderand part-time students into higher educationand diversifying the student population.

In addition to providing new forms ofinstruction, technology has a powerfuleffect on how institutions function in themarketplace. No longer will a rival institu-tion be located primarily in neighboringtowns or even within the nation. Technologyis enabling many students in the UnitedStates and Canada to combine their campus-based learning with online courses. Thisincreased choice has dramatic implicationsfor institutions as they compete for studentsand resources. Students can choose amonginstitutions around the world.

Consider the following scenario: AtUniversity X, it is well-known that the mathdepartment’s offerings are uninspired andgenerally poorly taught. Online instructionoffered by other institutions opens a worldof new possibilities to students attendingthat university. The ability to take coursesonline enables students to bypass theirhome institution’s limited math offeringsand fulfill requirements or take electivesfrom the online courses offered by otherinstitutions from around the world. As aresult, enrollments plummet in UniversityX’s math department, and the departmentrisks withering unless it can revitalize itsofferings and improve quality to recapturestudents and their tuition fees. If this sce-nario becomes a normal occurrence, it willserve as a powerful lever for change. Theabundant choices available to studentsthrough technology will pose formidablecompetitive challenges for institutionswhose students will no longer be a captiveaudience for their programs. The emergingcredit system in Europe may make this sce-nario as common in Europe as it is in theUnited States and Canada, where collegecredits have been the coin of the realm fordecades.

Another important effect of technology is the reshaping of teaching and pedagogy.Although the art of enhancing teachingthrough technology is still emerging andevolving, many professors in Europe andNorth America are adopting it readily, posting course syllabi and texts on the weband using technology to transform large lecture courses, thus fostering active andgroup learning both in and out of the class-room. In some cases, the shift is only fromstatic overheads to intricate computer-drivenprojections, from telephone or office hoursto access via e-mail, or from photocopiedcourse packets to web materials. However,technology is increasingly a transformational


tool, profoundly changing the teacher’s rolefrom straightforward lecturer to designer ofan active, integrated learning experience.

As a powerful engine of change, tech-nology raises new questions about the role ofteaching. Distance learning puts into sharprelief the different roles of the faculty mem-ber as disciplinary scholar and content specialist, and as course designer and peda-gogical specialist. In institutions such as theOpen University and the University ofPhoenix, specialists fill these roles, replacingthe single professor who, in the time-honoredtradition, has learned technology and peda-gogy on the job. As distributed learningexpands, we can expect to see a greater dis-tinction between the two roles, as well asincreased professionalization of coursedesign. A further distinction looms betweencourse designer and teacher, with the “master professors” creating the course andthe instructors teaching it from predesignedmaterials. That model has already taken holdin for-profit academic instruction.

Technology is also driving organizationalchange. It has spurred the development ofnew organizational structures and partner-ships, and it requires unprecedented deci-sions concerning strategy and resource allocation. How much should an institutioninvest in technology? How should it pay forthis ongoing investment? Should it getinvolved in the business of distributed learning? For what reasons? How should itgovern and administer these new opera-tions? In North America and Europe, thecommon solution involves enhancing con-tinuing education divisions or establishingnew offices to coordinate and manage dis-tributed education programs. Because manyof these technology-enhanced programsinvolve curricular decisions and the strategic deployment of academic resources, traditional academic governance responsi-

bilities may no longer be clear. What roleshould faculty and faculty committees playin launching and developing distributededucation programs? If decision making onsuch matters skirts normal faculty chan-nels, faculty discontent will likely result. As institutions develop separate units fordistance learning, they will encounterresulting costs and benefits. If the distancelearning arm will be largely separate, itmust develop its own quality assurancemeasures. It also risks draining resourcesfrom the sponsoring campus unless the life-long education units become fully separateentities as well (which is the usual case inEurope)—in which case, lifelong learningrisks remaining on the institution’s periphery instead of shaping change at thecore of the institution. On the positive side,greater separation provides increased flexibility and agility. As the seminar partic-ipants underscored, traditional governanceoften works against making decisions fastenough to capitalize on new opportunitiesand avoid threats.

Whatever the organizational arrange-ment, a host of questions is bound to arise.How does a distributed learning coursefigure into a traditional professional work-load? How should teaching staff be evalu-ated or compensated? How should creditsearned through lifelong learning coursescompare with those obtained in traditionalcourses—especially if they are to accumu-late as recommended in Europe by theBologna Declaration? What technology-based activities count as scholarship orservice? Other key management issuesraised by technology focus on the intellec-tual property of web-based course materials and software programs.

Many believe that higher educationworldwide is in the midst of the early stagesof a revolution created by technology.Whether it increases access for underserved

Technology is also driving

organizational change.

It has spurred the

development of new

organizational structures

and partnerships, and it

requires unprecedented

decisions concerning

strategy and resource

allocation.

students, promotes lifelong learning, orimproves teaching and learning, tech-nology’s effects are already profound inEurope and North America. However, thesebenefits and opportunities carry with thema series of difficult, challenging questions: • How do the new types of students and the

emerging technology-enhanced pedago-gies challenge long-held assumptionsabout how students learn best, the rolesof academic staff as instructors andexperts, the types of knowledge differentstudents both need and seek, and thesocial and vocational relevance of theirlearning? How do they reinforce theseacademic assumptions?

• How does higher education defend time-honored teaching practices that rely onlectures and passive learning when moredynamic forms of pedagogy that use tech-nology are readily available?

• If online learning is “depersonalized” orinadequate to teaching critical thinkingskills, as some charge, can higher educa-tion sufficiently demonstrate that thecurrent practice is more personal andmore effective at developing those skillsin students?

• What are the issues regarding compensa-tion, faculty time and workload, andintellectual property in a technology-richenvironment?

• Why are institutions investing in tech-nology? What problems do they solve andwhat opportunities do they tap? Who aretheir target audiences? What processesdid they use to create and launch thesetechnology investments? How will theyfund such investments? What are theirreal costs and benefits?

GlobalizationGlobalization is a tricky term, with many dif-ferent meanings and increasingly negativeconnotations. For some, globalization is afairly neutral description of an unstoppablereality; its definition points to the flow ofideas, capital, people, and goods around theworld in the context of the diminishing rele-vance of national borders. For others, itimplies the hegemony of the capitalist system, the domination of rich nations and corporations over poor, and the loss ofnational identity and culture.

Applied to higher education, globaliza-tion connotes similar possibilities and elicitscomparable fears. Some institutions haveestablished programs in other countries;others are heavily recruiting students awayfrom their home countries. Some fear thatU.S., U.K., and Australian exports of dis-tance learning will undermine their nationalhigher education systems, leading to the“McDonaldization” of higher education.Many see the dominance of the English lan-guage as a threat to national cultures andlanguages. Seminar participants agreed thatthe amount of instruction delivered inEnglish would increase around the world. To the Americans’ surprise, the Europeanparticipants did not view the increasingprevalence of English as a particular threatto national cultures and languages, runningcounter to popular commentary. Indeed,some participants saw real benefits. Forexample, English enables “small-language”countries, such as the Netherlands andNorway, to be active international players.Many continental European universitiesalready offer academic programs in Englishand rely heavily on English books and mate-rials. Ironically, the growth of English maybe most dangerous to American students,who may see the dominance of their languageas a disincentive to develop foreign languagecompetency, thus reinforcing their chronicmonolingualism and narrow world views.

1 0 A T R A N S A T L A N T I C V I E W

A m e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o n 1 1

Perhaps the most important effect ofglobalization is the intensifying competitionacross national boundaries. With this globalcompetition comes the potential danger of ahighly stratified market dominated by the“brand-name” institutions that prosper asthey increase their reach worldwide, whileother higher education institutions, unableto compete globally, are relegated to limitedlocal markets. The newly announced jointglobal executive management programsbetween Harvard and Stanford Universities,or the alliance between France’s EuropeanInstitute for Business Administration(INSEAD) and the University ofPennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business,begin with the advantage of prestige andname recognition. However, the presidentsand rectors at the meeting doubted that“brand-name” institutions would eclipseother institutions in the global marketplace.They did not believe that only a few big,aggressive players would dominate world-wide higher education; instead, they feltthat institutions served local societal needsin ways that “brand-name” institutionsfrom abroad could not. The growth of theUniversity of Phoenix supports the assertionthat less prestigious institutions can thrivein the marketplace. Founded in 1976, theUniversity of Phoenix is the largest privateinstitution in the United States; as of 2000,the university operated 55 campuses and 98learning centers in the United States andCanada, and enrolled approximately 84,000students.6 The University of Phoenix hasexperienced remarkable growth in enroll-ments and has enjoyed tremendous visibilityaround the world, creating its own brandimage.

Similar to the United States and Canada,Europe is both an exporter and importer ofhigher education—it is technologicallysophisticated and has a large potential market of students, both traditional andadult. The European Association of

Distance Teaching Universities alreadyincludes 18 members from 14 countries, collectively providing distance educationprograms to more than 900,000 students.Europe also is an important destination forU.S. educational exports, both of traditionalhigher education (such as the Harvard-Stanford executive management programs)and the new for-profit higher educationinstitutions and companies (such as theUniversity of Phoenix, Sylvan LearningSystems, and DeVry Institutes). There is nodoubt that the Anglo-Saxon countries, espe-cially the United States, are the most aggres-sive exporters of higher education. As theDutch scholar Marijk van de Wende pointsout, for the moment, the Anglo-Saxon coun-tries have a competitive advantage:

In general, a major threat is posed by theAnglo-Saxon countries and by theirstrong position in the international higher education market. With Englishas the lingua franca, their flexible degreestructures, more student-centeredapproaches, strong traditions in distancelearning, off-shore delivery strategies(especially the U.K. and Australia), their(differential) fee systems, which provideincentives to institutions to actively market themselves, also overseas, andgovernments that actively support inter-national marketing strategies, they havean undeniable foothold in the interna-tional market.7

Another aspect of globalization thataffects Europe, Canada, and the UnitedStates is the imperative for institutions tointernationalize—that is, to integrate aninternational or global dimension into theiroutlook and operations. Some view interna-tionalization as a response to globalization.Considering the diminishing importance ofborders and the increased flow of people,

With this global competition

comes the potential danger

of a highly stratified market

dominated by the

“brand-name” institutions

that prosper as they

increase their reach

worldwide, while other

higher education institutions,

unable to compete globally,

are relegated to limited local

markets.


the public good and are not simply providing students with employment credentials?

• What kinds of national policies will pro-mote wider access to education throughdistance learning and other transnationaleducation?

• What kinds of curricular changes canensure that all higher education gradu-ates are globally competent?

• What national policies can support insti-tutions’ efforts to internationalize theireducation?

CompetitionHigher education institutions no longerconcern themselves only with the market-place of ideas, but also with the economicmarketplace as they compete for students,staff, resources, and reputation. Studentdemand drives competition on both sides ofthe Atlantic, as students seek more flexibleprograms, better teaching, and more user-friendly institutions, and as institutions seekto recruit the most academically talentedstudents. In the United States, and to someextent in Canada, the student as consumeris a well-established, if disconcerting, con-cept. This mentality is reinforced by the fact that students in the United States andCanada must pay for higher education,while it continues to be free at most conti-nental European universities. Whiledemand has exploded in Canada (Ontariosaw a 17 percent rise in applicants for2002–03), students—particularly the highachievers—still have choices, thus exertingpressure on institutions to respond to theirinterests and desires. As students bear agreater share of attendance costs and arewilling to vote with their feet, they will likely demand more from their institutionsand show less tolerance for ineffective pedagogies and general inattention to theiracademic needs. Tradition, and even the

ideas, and goods around the world, studentsmust acquire the knowledge and developthe skills that will enable them to live andwork in this new environment. Internation-alization poses a major challenge to highereducation systems on both sides of theAtlantic, but Europe has clearly made a sig-nificantly greater commitment to meetingit than Canada or the United States. (Amore detailed discussion of this issueappears later in this essay.)

Because globalization is a rather recentphenomenon, we are just now seeing thequestions it presents for higher educationleaders. The rapid advance of globalizationand the relative lack of data on its effectsmake it difficult to predict how it willreshape the course of higher educationworldwide. Some of the more salient questions are: • In what ways does the globalization of

higher education challenge national andcultural identity? How might it reinforcethem?

• How can nations take advantage of glob-alization to improve the education theydeliver?

• How should governments respond toincreasing attempts by foreign universi-ties and corporations to deliver educa-tion locally? Will opposing borderlessand transnational education protectnational systems? Can policies encour-age healthy competition with foreignproviders while protecting public univer-sities? What forms of quality assurancecan institutions use to protect students?

• To what extent can colleges and universi-ties demonstrate that they actually fulfilltheir claims that they prepare studentsfor citizenship and provide disinterestedscholarship, and that their benefitsaccrue to the larger society? Can institu-tions back up their claims that they,unlike the new providers, exist to serve


prestige associated with research and scholarship, may mean less to studentswhose priority is an affordable, relevant,and convenient education, and whoseoptions have grown tremendously.

In contrast, the domination of publiclysupported institutions throughout Europeand of centralized policies governing theenrollment patterns of students in someEuropean countries has historically keptinterinstitutional competition for studentsto a minimum. This is changing, however, as European policy makers pursue optionsthat encourage competition. Underlying the Bologna Declaration is the objective of making European higher education morecompetitive and attractive in the world mar-ketplace by enhancing the comparability ofhigher education structures and degreeswithin Europe. As European countriesmove to a comparable three-year firstdegree, students will enjoy greater flexibility and more choices, both withinand outside their home countries. The“three-plus-two” model (three years for thefirst degree and two for the master’s degree,replacing the five-year program leadingdirectly to the rough equivalent of a U.S.master’s degree) may help broaden theEuropean market for students worldwide.Countries such as Italy, the Netherlands,Norway, and Germany are changing theirdegree structures to bachelor’s/master’ssystems, thus enhancing flexibility and providing more opportunities for lifelong learning. Some European countries alreadyare seeing a “trade imbalance,” as morenative students leave to take degrees inother European countries while fewer foreign students enter the country to study.

Competition in Europe leaves its markbeyond restructuring degrees. Some institu-tions are increasing the amount of instruc-tion conducted in English to compete forforeign students. A growing sector inEurope provides attractive alternatives to

On both sides of the

Atlantic, technology has

facilitated the introduction

of new players into tertiary

education from the

corporate sphere,

expanding the marketplace

of options for those

potential students seeking

advanced training and

education.

the traditional university for first-degreestudents who want a more applied approachto engineering and technology. This sectorincludes the Fachhochschulen in Germany,Hungary, Austria, and Switzerland; theHBO in the Netherlands; the AMK inFinland; the TEI in Greece; the Politecnichsin Portugal; and the Instituts Universitairesde Technologie in France. At the graduatelevel, new private law schools in Germany,for example, are attracting students from a traditionally publicly dominated higher education sector.

On both sides of the Atlantic, technologyhas facilitated the introduction of new play-ers into tertiary education from the corpo-rate sphere, expanding the marketplace ofoptions for those potential students seekingadvanced training and education. Enter-prises such as Microsoft and Novell repre-sent the important “parallel universe” tohigher education (a term coined by CliffordAdelman8), offering instruction and certifi-cates around the globe, both online and in person, and operating outside the traditional system of higher education cre-dentials and accreditation. He also notesthat approximately 1.6 million individualsworldwide earned about 2.4 million certifi-cates in information technology by early2000. For example, Cisco Systems offers itscertification training in 19 languages and onevery inhabited continent. Competition alsois increasing worldwide as “corporate universities”—the instructional arm of businesses offering courses to their ownemployees and marketing them to other corporations—now total approximately2,000 in the United States alone.9 In someinstances, corporate programs are directcompetitors, offering alternatives to stu-dents seeking to expand their skills andknowledge. Other times they supplementtraditional graduate (or even first) degreesand certifications offered by colleges anduniversities. Nevertheless, the existence of


Funding is a third area of competitioncommon to the United States, Canada, andEurope—created by perpetual funding con-straints, rising costs, and unpredictable gov-ernment support. Institutions compete withone another and with other claimants on thepublic treasury. Increasingly, governmentson both sides of the Atlantic are shifting theburden of financing from the state to theinstitution, and then on to the student. A now infamous quip by an American uni-versity president described his institution’sshrinking reliance on public funding: Atfirst, his university was a “state institution,”which then became a “state-supported,”then “state-assisted” institution. A shorttime later, it was simply “state-located.”Now, he describes it as “state-annoyed,” toconvey public officials’ demand for account-ability yet their unwillingness to provide sufficient funding.10 Institutional leadersare increasingly preoccupied with findingnew funding sources, whether throughoperating businesses, developing alliances,selling services, or pursuing donors. Eachstrategy has its own competitive environ-ment, whether the challenge is competingfor corporate and foundation funds, seekingnew markets of students, or attracting business partners.

Yet another arena of competition is the drive for prestige and the benefits ofadditional resources and students that awell-established reputation brings. Prestigeand quality are frequently conflated so thatquality is defined not as “fitness for pur-pose” or fulfilling an institution’s missionwith distinction, but rather as acquiringmore resources (particularly through lucra-tive research grants and contracts), luringstar faculty members, and attracting thebest and the brightest students. Althoughhigher education and the larger society purportedly value multiple models of excel-lence, the classical or research university

corporate universities and for-profit institu-tions, and the attractiveness of foreign universities, signal an end to the monopolyof state-supported, nonprofit colleges anduniversities as providers of both instructionand credentials.

As competition for students increases, sodoes the competition for those who willteach them. The aging of the professoriate,compounded by continued expansion ofpostsecondary education, is creating anemerging—if uneven—demand for scholarsworldwide. In Canada, one-third of facultymembers are age 55 or older, and one-halfare between 40 and 54; a crisis looms. TheUnited States has a similar proportion offaculty older than age 55 (31 percent), butonly 27 percent are between 40 and 54. TheAcademic Senate of the 10 University ofCalifornia campuses predicts that the uni-versity will have to hire more tenure-trackfaculty in the next 12 years than it currentlyemploys on its campuses. In the UnitedStates, many institutions are filling theirfaculty ranks by hiring a large cadre of part-time and adjunct instructors.

Europe also faces a shortage in academicstaff, with differences existing among coun-tries. In some countries, the challenge is notsimply one of population projections, par-ticularly in Eastern Europe, where manyscholars have left the country or abandonedthe academy for more lucrative jobs. AllEuropean countries, Eastern and Western,face growing needs for staff renewal as baby-boom–generation academics approachretirement. The search for “new blood”increases competition for professors withineach country’s borders and beyond. Thus,authorities will need to rethink nationalcivil service policies about who can teach in public universities and under what conditions.


remains the gold standard.“Mission creep”is rife in Europe and North America, withinstitutions wanting to focus more onresearch and offer more advanced degrees.While policy makers stress institutional differentiation as the road to efficiency andeffectiveness, many institutions strive toemulate the classical university. U.S. col-leges and universities in particular competefor the most academically gifted students,often deeply discounting tuition to recruitthem. Selectivity in admissions and climb-ing entrance test scores become indicatorsof excellence and points of institutionalpride for many.

Competition for students, staff,resources, and prestige requires institutionsto be more aggressive and competitive, creating a managerial and entrepreneurialculture that frequently clashes with themore traditional and collegial academic culture. The pressures of competition havespurred new structures, offerings, and priorities. Fund raising is gaining ground in Europe, and nearly all institutions are creating new sources of revenue throughexpanded academic offerings. New execu-tive management programs are now commonplace on both sides of the Atlantic.Continuing professional development ineducation, technology- and media-relatedfields, and health care managementabound. These offerings are financiallyself-sufficient at a minimum, and oftengenerate a surplus. Many institutions havedeveloped certificate programs to providecontinuing education without the con-straints associated with the developmentand oversight of degree programs. Othersare creating business incubator projects,engaging in land development, and enhancing their ability to produce andlicense technological breakthroughs.However, many of the market-driven

responses meet only short-term needs. Asone participant noted, “The market is blindand focused on the short term. [By respond-ing to market pressures,] no one is attend-ing to the long term.”

In brief, globalization has introducedcompetition from new corporate providersand once seemingly distant institutions.Competition underscores the question ofhow institutions can broadly serve theirmany stakeholders while staying sufficientlyfocused so that they do not dissipate theirenergy and resources. The new global com-petition has turned up the heat, forcing tra-ditional institutions to confront difficultquestions squarely:

• At what point do activities associatedwith revenue generation create too greata distraction from the “core business” ofthe institution?

• What compromises are institutions making as they compete for students?

• What are the costs of the drive for prestige?

• What are the costs and benefits of com-petition among institutions for state andprivate funding? Are there ways thatinstitutions can collaborate to minimizethe “winners and losers” mentality?

• What academic values do entrepre-neurial ventures place at risk?

• What is faculty’s appropriate role incharting the course of the entrepre-neurial institution?

Competition for students,

staff, resources, and

prestige requires

institutions to be more

aggressive and

competitive, creating a

managerial and

entrepreneurial culture

that frequently clashes

with the more traditional

and collegial academic

culture.


he work ahead for higher educa-tion is difficult and uncharted,as institutions worldwide try avariety of solutions to thrive

in this brave new world. Three types ofresponses emerge as particularly importantin crafting an institutional strategy: newpartnerships and alliances, international-ization efforts, and policy frameworks thatfacilitate change. While these are not theonly important responses, they deserveattention and analysis because they are contemporary responses pertinent to thechanging environment.

Partnerships and AlliancesThis environment of increased demands,heightened competition, and complex chal-lenges makes it extremely difficult for anyinstitution to have sufficient human orfinancial resources or the know-how to “go it alone.” Universities worldwide areforming more partnerships—whether withother institutions in the same country, withinstitutions in other countries, or withother kinds of organizations—to enhancetheir capacity in a variety of areas. Somealliances of diverse partners are reasonablystraightforward; however, others arefraught with difficulties and complicationsas each partner brings its own values, goals,and timetables to the alliance. Althoughalliances can generate a tremendous benefitfor all partners, they often come at a price.The loss of independence in developing aresearch agenda and the chilling effect ofcorporate interests on academic freedom

New Responses

remain oft-cited examples in the researcharena. The new environment of collabora-tion that facilitates research and teachingraises difficult issues, and institutionalplayers are inventing the rules along theway.

Research Partnerships. Collaboration thatenhances an institution’s research capacity,particularly with corporate partners, is awell-established feature of the NorthAmerican higher education landscape.Such collaboration is growing rapidly inEurope, where it is strongly encouraged bythe EU Research Framework Program,which now has opened to several countriesoutside the Union. This 17 billion Eurofund supports research and developmentin industry, often conducted in partner-ship with higher education. In university-corporate research partnerships, the corporation’s role ranges from the morepassive funder to the highly active partnerin technology development and transfer;the list of such partnerships in the UnitedStates is long and varied. Other researchpartnerships that exist among universitiesdraw upon the resources, expertise, andstrengths that each partner brings.National and international research part-nerships among universities have helpedthem respond to downturns in nationalfunding for basic research to offset the escalating costs of cutting-edge scientificinquiry. At the international level, forexample, several institutions worldwidehave formed a new alliance to facilitate

TUniversities worldwide

are forming more

partnerships—whether

with other institutions in

the same country, with

institutions in other

countries, or with other

kinds of organizations—

to enhance their capacity

in a variety of areas.


high-tech startups in partner universities:École des Mines d’Alès, CambridgeUniversity, Hautes Etudes Commerciales(HEC) business school in Paris, PolytechnicUniversity of Catalonia in Barcelona, Écoledes Hautes Études Commerciales inMontréal, and Al Akhawayn University inMorocco.11 These partnerships clearlyenhance the research capacity of universi-ties by providing financial resources, accessto highly specialized equipment, and, fre-quently, expertise.

Such partnerships come with costs anddangers that institutions must weigh care-fully. Partnerships with corporations canraise difficult questions about academicvalues and institutional priorities. Onesuch question is who determines theresearch agenda and where (and when)findings will be reported. If the corporationis the sole or primary supporter, does thatentitle it to establish the research agenda orsuppress findings? When the University ofCalifornia, Berkeley’s College of NaturalResources signed a $25 million (USD)agreement with Novartis, a Swiss pharma-

ceutical company, to fund basic research in the Department of Plant and MicrobialBiology, an uproar among academicsensued.12 That funding makes up one-thirdof the department’s research budget; whenNovartis was granted first rights to nego-tiate licenses on one-third of the depart-ment’s discoveries, it gained two of fiveseats on the department’s research commit-tee, which determines how the money isspent. In a similar arrangement, the BeesonGregory Bank in the United Kingdom will pay for one-third of a new chemistry building ($28 million [USD]) at OxfordUniversity in return for half of the univer-sity’s share of profits from any of its spinoffcompanies during the next 15 years.13

However, the pursuit of resources is notthe sole driver of partnerships among uni-versities and corporations. For universities,these alliances can identify importantresearch problems and provide expandedopportunities and support for academicstaff and students, particularly internshipsand work experience. Additionally, they canhelp get new ideas to market and expeditethe impact of new discoveries, add visibilityto university research, develop corporateadvocates, contribute to regional economicdevelopment through spinoff companies,and attract other companies to the region.Corporate support may bring fewer bureau-cratic requirements than government funding for grant or contract administra-tion and reporting. The benefits are recip-rocal; corporate partners benefit by gainingaccess to new ideas and cutting-edgeresearch, and they have the added advan-tage of identifying potential employeesamong student interns and workers and ofproviding professional development oppor-tunities for their staff.14

The North Carolina Biotechnology Center

The North Carolina Biotechnology Center was created to host a consortium ofhigher education institutions and businesses in North Carolina working together to strengthen research efforts in the biosciences and related fields. The Center’smission is to develop an intellectual infrastructure through academic and indus-trial partnerships in genomics, proteomics, and bioinformatics that will contributeto the economic development of North Carolina and enhance teaching andresearch at partner universities. Members of the consortium include 34 pharma-ceutical, computing, agricultural and forestry, and manufacturing companies; 13universities and community/technical colleges; and 18 foundations and nonprofitorganizations. Its funding comes from state appropriations; federal sponsors, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation(NSF), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA); federal designation as a “Center of Excellence”; andindustry and foundation sources. Still in the early stages of development, theCenter provides a structure to facilitate collaboration, maximizing the various partners’ contributions and talents.


Partnerships among universities andcorporations raise important, fundamentalquestions:

• To what extent do such alliances drivethe university’s research agenda?

• Who owns what research? What are the ground rules for publishing thisresearch? (Will the corporation sub-scribe to academic practices of imme-diate publication and dissemination?)

• How do such activities relate to the “corebusiness” of teaching and learning?How will students, both undergraduateand graduate, benefit?

Instructional Alliances. A more recent devel-opment in partnerships centers on thedelivery of instruction. These new alliancesallow partners to offer programs or special-ties that they cannot offer alone. Untilrecently, most instructional alliances con-sisted of either consortia among local universities or partnerships between uni-versities and local corporations. Consortiaalliances typically allow students access tocourses not available at their own institu-tion. Examples from the United Statesinclude less commonly taught languages,or technology-intensive courses related toallied health care or subfields of engi-neering. Traditional university-corporateinstructional partnerships provide onsitetraining and education of corporateemployees by a local college or university.Some institutions have begun to developdegree or certificate programs tailored toemployer requests.

Technology, competition, and globaliza-tion also are generating new instructionalalliances. For example, alliances are emerging between traditional universitiesand for-profit corporations that packageand deliver instructional information. Such partnerships develop courses andprograms to serve a range of clients, some-times including individual students seeking

continuing education. For example, UNext,an American firm, is partnering withCarnegie Mellon University, the LondonSchool of Economics and Political Science,and the University of Chicago, among others, to develop and deliver nondegreecourses to corporate customers such asGeneral Motors, AOL Time Warner, andBarclay’s Capital. Other new instructionalpartnerships are appearing among tradi-tional institutions in different nations. Forexample, 11 higher education institutionsin Denmark and Sweden have jointly devel-oped Øresund University, a coordinatinginstitution that creates a cross-border learning region from both countries—countries that were recently connected byan extensive tunnel and bridge project.15

This new institution is designed to createjoint programs, share classes and libraries,and foster new relationships with the private sector. A smaller scale example with no geographical basis is the two-year master’s degree in leadership that Princeton and Oxford Universities are jointly creating and offering.

The Global University Alliance (GUA)

This partnership of Athabasca University (Canada), The Auckland University ofTechnology, The George Washington University, the International Business School(Hogeschool Brabant) in the Netherlands, the Royal Melbourne Institute ofTechnology, the University of Derby (U.K.), University of Glamorgan (Wales),University of South Australia, and the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee (U.S.) is a for-profit subsidiary of the member institutions. It taps the online courses and programs offered by each partner that focus on applied knowledge, allowingmember universities to extend their programs to more students in a wider range of countries. The alliance allows partners to collaborate in course development and share software and hardware development costs.

Students must apply for admission to one of GUA’s partner institutions. GUAdegrees and awards, co-branded with partner universities, are equivalent to on-campus ones. The level of available study ranges from general nonaward andcertificate to the doctorate. The programs include environmental studies, health and health sciences, nursing, psychology, and tourism, sport, and leisure. For further information, visit http://www.gua.com.

These instructional partnerships pro-vide benefits similar to those of researchalliances. Through these ventures, institu-tions seek to gain new expertise, enhanceinstructional capacities, provide facultywith new experiences, and extend institu-tional market reach. Some of these partner-ships, particularly corporate-universityalliances, provide educational institutionsaccess to necessary startup funding. At thesame time, the partners face the sameissues that emerge in research partnerships.Questions surface regarding the programdirection, each partner’s relative contribu-tions and returns on investment, qualitycontrol, decision-making structures, andhow individual institutions will be associated(or not associated) with alliance activities.

Particular challenges surface over aca-demic governance. Because these new pro-grams and delivery systems extend beyonda single institution, individual academicgoverning bodies’ expectations and tradi-tions can be called into question. Thealliance might make decisions that tradi-tionally fell under the domain of campusacademics. Decisions that remain withinthe traditional governance structure mayneed to be addressed by faculty governancebodies across multiple institutions, each ofwhich has its own traditions, standards, andexpectations for academic decision making.

The long-range prospects of these newteaching and learning ventures and part-nerships are not yet clear. The alliances frequently fluctuate; members join andwithdraw; the ground rules are recrafted asnew partnerships unfold. For example, thestructure and focus of the highly visibleUniversitas 21 (http://www.universitas.edu.au/) are uncertain; the University ofToronto withdrew in April 2001 and theUniversity of Michigan has declined to par-ticipate in the new online project, althoughnew universities continue to join.

These partnerships have raised the following salient questions related toinstruction:

• Strategy: Does it make sense for a college or university to venture into thefor-profit world with its teaching activi-ties? What are the goals? How will theinstitution define and measure success?What are the financial risks? What arethe potential gains, financial and other-wise?

• Intellectual property: Who owns a coursedeveloped by a faculty member? Whatare the terms of employment for facultywho teach electronic courses? Who ownsthe courseware created by faculty inde-pendent of their institutional commit-ments? What conflict-of-interest issuesmust be addressed? What revenue-sharing arrangements should the insti-tution and the faculty member make forincome generated by the internal andexternal use of course materials?

• Management and governance: To whatextent can existing decision-makingstructures cope with the new environ-ment? What are the costs and benefits ofbypassing them with alternative struc-tures? What new skills and knowledge docampus leaders require to set strategy incompetitive markets, manage collabora-tions, and negotiate between academicand corporate cultures?

• Public policy: To what extent are existingquality assurance structures and methodsadequate to assess the instruction thatthese new organizations offer? If profit is the major motive, what are the publicpolicy issues regarding student accessand aid, revenue generation, and useof facilities?



• Social costs and benefits: To what extentdoes participation in these activities dis-tract faculty from their responsibilitiesto their students, research, and service?What value conflicts arise between theentrepreneurial initiatives and the insti-tution’s core business?

• Group responsibility: Who is responsiblein cases of legal claims from students,teachers, or external stakeholders—thepartnership or network, or the individ-ual institution? In other words, is thepartnership or network a simple confed-eration, a group of interests, or a newentity?

Internationalization Efforts In a rapidly changing and shrinking worldin which political boundaries, marketeconomies, and communication modes areshifting at an unprecedented pace, collegesand universities are reexamining theknowledge and skills that are required oftoday’s and tomorrow’s graduates. One ofthe most pressing and daunting challengesis to respond to the demands of an increas-ingly global society with an appropriatecurriculum and educational experience.Clearly, higher education plays a key role inpreparing students for the global workforceas well as addressing the broader issues ofpeace, health, economic development, andthe environment. Internationalizing teach-ing and learning to match today’s globalrealities requires most institutions toundergo some dramatic, fundamentalchanges.

Institutions on both sides of the Atlanticare mobilizing to meet the challenge ofinternationalization, albeit with varyingdegrees of intensity and success. Highereducation systems in the United States andCanada are elevating the internationaliza-tion of learning as an institutional priority.Data gathered in 1993 and 1999 Canadiansurveys showed significant progress during

a decade: new organizational structures,new partnerships for student exchange andresearch collaboration, and increasedefforts to recruit international students toCanadian campuses. Eighty-four percent ofCanadian institutions reported in 1999 that internationalization was part of theiruniversity-wide strategy.16 The surveys alsoshowed that the academic rationales forinternationalization were paramount, witha high level of consensus among surveyrespondents that the key goal of interna-tionalization was “to prepare graduateswho are internationally knowledgeable andinterculturally competent.” The academicrationale outweighed income generation and political motivation in both surveys,although the recent study revealed growingconcern about balancing academic and eco-nomic motivations.

In the United States, the events ofSeptember 11 seem to be increasing theintensity and urgency of the international-ization discussion. Survey data from ACEreveal that about 44 percent of four-yearinstitutions include international educa-tion in their mission statement (comparedwith 66 percent of Canadian institutions)and 38 percent include internationaliza-tion among their top five strategic priori-ties. Many institutions are seriously working to provide a more global perspec-tive in the curriculum and are promotingforeign language study as well as study andinternships abroad. For examples of goodpractice in eight exemplary U.S. institu-tions, see the description of ACE’sPromising Practices project at http://www.acenet.edu/international.

Clearly, U.S. and Canadian colleges anduniversities face formidable challenges to internationalization posed by their size,academic traditions, and the relativeabsence of government support. The aca-demic reward system in both countries for

In a rapidly changing and

shrinking world in which

political boundaries,

market economies, and

communication modes are

shifting at an unprece-

dented pace, colleges

and universities are

reexamining the knowl-

edge and skills that are

required of today’s and

tomorrow’s graduates.


the most part does not recognize interna-tional or intercultural expertise in perform-ance reviews, or promotion and tenuredecisions. Mastery of a second language isnearly nonexistent in the United States(except for heritage speakers) and in someparts of Canada, particularly outside ofQuebec. Fewer than 3 percent of U.S. under-graduates study abroad,17 while the UnitedStates received some 547,000 studentsfrom other countries in 2000. Similarly,only a small fraction of Canadian studentsstudy abroad—5,058 in 1997–98, or 0.9 per-cent of full-time students.18 In both Canadaand the United States, the absence of finan-cial support for study abroad is a significantbarrier. Foregone income is a major issuefor the many U.S. and Canadian studentswho work while they attend school.

The U.S. model of study abroad presentsanother set of challenges for international-ization. Three-quarters of U.S. studentswho study abroad are doing so in English-speaking countries. Furthermore, U.S. pro-grams tend to reside at institutions in othercountries, rather than be conducted as aca-demic partnerships. Many U.S. studentswho study abroad sit in classrooms withtheir fellow Americans and are taught byU.S. professors or by local professors undercontract. Rarely does an American studentenroll at a foreign university in the sameway that foreign students enroll at U.S.institutions.

In Europe, the proximity of neighboringcountries and the economic imperatives ofa mobile and multilingual workforce havefueled institutional initiatives to interna-tionalize. Internationalization is squarelyon the table, supported by policy frame-works such as the Bologna Declaration andthe influence and resources of the EU.These measures provide institutions withstrong incentives to recognize courseworkand degrees across institutional boundariesand to develop joint degrees and coordinated

curriculum planning. Europe’s ministers ofeducation are committed to enhancing themobility and exchange of students, academ-ics, and graduates, and to increasing theinternational attractiveness of their highereducation systems.

The ERASMUS Program for studentmobility, launched in 1987, now includesmost European countries, both within andoutside of the EU. This program encour-ages universities to structure their courseofferings for foreign students so that theirstay abroad becomes an integral part oftheir “home” studies—the structure of theprogram treats Europe as if it were already a country of its own. More than 1 millionstudents have participated in a programthat now involves more than 2,000 institu-tions in some 30 countries. The ERASMUSProgram has driven greater comparabilityand compatibility of academic programsacross national borders through joint cur-riculum design, backed by staff exchange.In the longer term, this effort should lead to common degrees.

The Bologna Declaration also encour-ages vertical mobility—the transfer fromundergraduate to graduate studies in other universities and countries. While themobility programs have achieved consider-able success, the 90 percent of studentswho do not participate in internationalexchanges lack the opportunity to gaininternational perspectives from experience.The Bologna Declaration aims to moveeven further than the mobility programssuch as ERASMUS and SOCRATES bydeveloping shared tools of cooperation (suchas a common credit system), compatiblequality assessment procedures, and a com-mon European core for specific academicprograms. The mutual recognition of suchsteps should demonstrate universities’ com-mitment to the European Higher EducationArea, a borderless European higher educa-tion space where, by 2010, faculty, staff,


and students will move freely among coun-tries. Thus, political stimuli, added to eco-nomic and cultural incentives, are the newmotors of internationalization in Europe.

From an institutional point of view,internationalization evokes the followingseries of questions:• Strategy: Is internationalization a core

institutional interest or a marginaleffort? Are the departments or theschools (the faculties) the prime moversin international relations, or is the university—as an institution—the maininstigator of a common internationaliza-tion strategy?

• Pedagogy: If internationalization is acore interest, how does it influence thenormal curricular content and pedagogy(for example, by using foreign staff, for-eign textbooks and facilities, study abroad,instruction in foreign languages, and joint teaching with other universities)?

• Management and governance: What isthe communication strategy within theinstitution (or the network of institu-tions) to motivate the majority of faculty,administrators, and students (under-graduate and graduate) to invest ininternational activities as part of theircore activities? What changes are neededin human and financial resource alloca-tion, as well as in reward policies, tosolidify participation in and commit-ment to international activities as a keyelement of institutional excellence andstudent learning outcomes?

• Public policy: How might international-ization—as a consequence of or a preludeto globalization—be influenced by theWorld Trade Organization negotiationson trade in services (see endnote)? Whatare the obstacles to the free trade ofknowledge and to student and facultymobility? Can higher education institu-tions be real partners with governmentsin regulating the international knowl-edge market?

The Université Laval’s Internationalization Strategy

A central element of internationalization efforts underway at the Université Laval(Quebec, Canada) is an initiative to dramatically increase the number of its stu-dents studying abroad. During most of the 1990s, the Université Laval sent barely 200 students abroad per year, out of 30,000. A task force determined that cost, lack of available information, lack of institutional support, and theinability to speak a second language were students’ main obstacles to greaterinternational mobility. Laval adopted the strategy of integrating study abroad into all programs the university offered, making it an institutional priority and a well-integrated feature of all courses of study. Such integration involves a guaranteed equivalence of credits before departure, mention on the diploma,assurance that study abroad does not extend time to degree, recognition of student results upon return, and mandatory language preparation and predeparture training. The university’s goal is to have 20 percent of all graduates participate in study abroad by 2005.

Laval works with partner universities to develop agreements on course-by-course equivalencies to facilitate exchange. There are now 160 partner universities, 40 of which are Anglophone institutions and 25 of which areSpanish-speaking institutions. The emphasis is on integrating languages and cultures from around the world into the curriculum, as well as on accomplishing coursework in another country that counts toward the degree. This bottom-upstrategy relies on professors and departments to seek partners and negotiateagreements within their disciplines, while the administration encourages andfacilitates this.

The university launched the effort with a $1.5 million (CDN) foundation grantand a $10 million fund-raising campaign in 2000. Each student going abroadreceives a subsidy—$1,500 per session at the undergraduate level, $2,000 at the graduate level, and $2,500 at the postgraduate level. Students also can receive additional funding for long-distance travel and foreign language training.The university created an international office in 1998 to support all administra-tive work associated with internationalization, thus relieving the professors ofthese tasks.


process has initiated explicit conversationsabout higher education and employability,raising the profile of the issue to new levelsand asking new questions about the socialrelevance of degrees and the responsive-ness of higher education. The Declarationalso has led to the examination of nationalpolicies and to modifications of existingdegree structures, as well as the initiationof new degrees. For example, in Switzer-land, universities traditionally awarded asingle degree after four to five years ofstudy. Some universities have started totranslate their traditional degrees into master’s degrees, and some of theFachhochschulen are translating theirdiplomas into bachelor’s degrees. TheBologna process also has focused atten-tion on the use of credits and on quality assurance.

Many rectors at the TransatlanticDialogue noted the Bologna Declaration’simportance as an external lever for change,however, one that was consistent withlatent institutional needs. Many rectorsbelieved that because the ideas originatedoutside the institutions, they were not sub-ject to the same academic scrutiny andinstitutional politics that characterizeinternally driven change initiatives. TheDeclaration provided a common vision forchange and suggested a clear set of goalsand principles, leaving little ambiguityabout why European universities shouldchange or what direction those changesshould take. The leadership challenge,then, is to translate the European agendainto a meaningful local one.

Policy FrameworksThe third response, one that separatesEurope from Canada and the United States,is a policy framework that promotes changeand guides action. The Bologna Declarationoutlined an action program to create a“coherent European higher educationspace” by 2010 to foster employability andmobility in Europe and to increase the com-petitiveness and attractiveness of Europeanhigher education. This policy frameworkcalls for reforming national university systems and making significant changes within individual institutions. The changesoutlined in the Declaration include thewidespread adoption of a binary, or two-tiered, curriculum of undergraduate andgraduate education and the implementa-tion of a comparable credit system. TheDeclaration aims to organize and coordi-nate European higher education whilerespecting national differences and priori-ties; it has already caused a higher level ofcoordination within nations and acrossnational boundaries.19 The BolognaDeclaration is instigating the process ofidentifying convergence across the diverselandscape of European higher educationand forging commonalities.

The “Bologna process”—as this effort tocreate a European space for higher educa-tion is called—has emerged in all of the signatory countries as well as in othernonsignatory countries that joined theprocess later, such as Croatia, Cyprus, and Turkey. The process has resulted innumerous conferences and workshops todiscuss the proposed changes withinnations, transnationally and at individualinstitutions. For example, many Europeancountries and individual institutions haveorganized a “Bologna Day” to discuss theDeclaration and its implications for institu-tions and national higher education sys-tems. In some countries, the Bologna


Although the Bologna process and theDeclaration itself are important drivers inEuropean higher education, they are part of a larger European ethos regarding thedevelopment of a united continent. Onerector noted, “The situation was ripe, thenleaders pushed.” The European rectorstended to view national and European policy as a significant lever for positivechange, in contrast to their Canadian andU.S. counterparts. In fact, when asked atthe beginning of the meeting to identifyforces for change, the European rectorsnamed government policy as the secondmost powerful force for change, with finan-cial pressure as the most important. No U.S.or Canadian institution president thoughtthat government pressure would serve as asignificant force for change. Instead, theyidentified financial and consumer pressureas most important.

Indeed, American and Canadian aca-demic leaders tended to view policy as anintrusion into institutional autonomy and an impediment to positive institutionalchange. The explanation for the differencebetween the North Americans and theEuropeans is not entirely clear. One factormay be the predominant role of the statesand provinces in the United States andCanada, and the historic mistrust of cen-tralized national policy. National or supra-national postsecondary policy frameworksdo not exist in either country, and state andprovincial policies are highly variable.

Americans and Canadians see change aslargely an institutional matter, with mixedresults. Institutional individualism feedscompetition. States and provinces differgreatly in their level of institutional controland their constriction of institutionalautonomy. In some cases, programs prolif-erate, creating choice for students andredundancy within a state or region (Doesthe United States really need another exec-utive MBA program? Should the statesdecide, or should the market?). Institutionsoften are free to set their direction asopportunities arise, focusing on short-termadvantages suggested by the market. Policymakers tend to focus intensely on the shortterm, and especially on workforce needs,leaving institutions on their own to tend tolong-term issues and the larger social purposes of higher education.


lobalization, competition, andresource restrictions have inten-sified the turbulence and diffi-culty of the brave new world of

higher education. These forces have reducedthe time horizon of most higher learninginstitutions to act. In a fast-changing world,the temptation is to meet immediate challenges—whether in the form of newclientele, new intellectual concerns, ornew revenues—rather than to forecast andaddress long-term changes that require well-defined goals. Shortsightedness presentsserious dangers. The long-term and holisticview, and an understanding of the some-times obscure cross-fertilization processes in science, technology, and social development,may be displaced by quick reactions to obvi-ous demands—the tree of immediacy hidingin the forest of duration.

If time has shrunk, so has space; virtualand instant communication have recast andconfused the individual reality of peopleinside and outside the academy. Can univer-sities make sense of it all—their raison d’être,after all—or will they be tossed around by thetide of immediacy, like most other groups insociety? If they are simply surfing the pres-ent, they indeed risk losing their ability totake the long-term view as both critic of society and as partner in its development andimprovement. Can institutions balance thepressing issues of the day with the longer

Conclusion:The Challenge toAcademic Values

view of their contributions to society and thepublic good? Will they find satisfactoryanswers to fundamental and vexing ques-tions, such as:

• What are higher education’s funda-mental values and how can they be reinterpreted in the current changingtides?

• How can higher education do a betterjob of articulating its service to societyand its role beyond career preparationand the transfer of knowledge fromteacher to student?

• How can higher education assess,demonstrate, and improve its results forincreasingly skeptical and demandingpolicy makers, citizens, and students?

• How can institutions find an equilibriumbetween autonomy and responsiveness,and between themselves and the state asa partner, consumer, and regulator?

• How can institutions become suffi-ciently agile to adapt to the rapidlychanging environment without losingtheir intellectual souls?

G


In Quebec, the participants concurredthat partnerships and alliances, educationalcooperation, and internationalization arevehicles for riding the turbulence of thetimes. Inaction is not an option. Higher edu-cation leaders, who struggle daily to keepthe ship afloat, face the central challenge of realizing higher education’s potential—serving as a key instrument for political,social, and economic change. Building commitment to a long-term perspective is aprerequisite for the continued health andvibrancy of higher education in the UnitedStates, Canada, and Europe, and this com-mitment underscores the importance of continued communication among highereducation leaders.


ross-border higher education is nothing new, but both its pace and its scope haveaccelerated considerably in the past decade, raising the stakes. The mobility ofstudents and faculty, offshore campuses, and distance learning have globalizedhigher education to an unprecedented level. The sailing is not always smooth.

Some nations restrict the educational programs that can be provided by foreign institutionsor organizations; the recognition of credit and credentials from other countries has alwaysbeen a difficult matter. And now, these issues have become part of the discussions of worldtrade.

In December 2000, the United States presented its first proposal concerning the inclusion of higher education in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) nego-tiations, held under the auspices of the World Trade Organization. GATS is a multilateral,legally enforceable agreement covering international trade in services. Educational services,including higher education, are one of the 12 broad sectors currently being negotiated underGATS. In addition to the United States, three countries—Australia, New Zealand, andJapan—have presented proposals on higher education. In the GATS process, the WTO member nations make “commitments” to negotiate on a particular area.

These negotiations are in process, and the outcomes and consequences for colleges anduniversities around the world are as yet unclear. The American Council on Education, theAssociation of Colleges and Universities of Canada, the Council for Higher EducationAccreditation (U.S.), and the European University Association have expressed their concernsabout these negotiations in a joint declaration and in communications with their respectivegovernments. The declaration appears on the EUA web site at http://www.unige.ch/eua/(click on “Activities,” then on “GATS”). The associations expressed concerns over severalissues, including what they saw as unclear distinctions between public and private highereducation and how each is covered by GATS; institutional autonomy concerning academicmatters; state and provincial authority over fiscal policy; and independent accreditation andquality assurance processes around the world. Because the negotiations are far from com-plete, it is important for higher education leaders to work with their governments to followthe negotiations as they proceed and shape their course constructively.

Endnote: Higher Educationand the GATS Negotiations

C


For additional information on the GATS negotiations, consult:• http://www.obhe.ac.uk/products/reports/pdf/March2002.pdf. This report was commis-

sioned by The Observatory, a U.K.-based group focusing on borderless education. AuthorJane Knight explores the implications of GATS for university managers, administrators,and academics, with a particular focus on the Commonwealth countries.

• http://www.acenet.edu/washington/letters/2002/02february/papovich.gats.cfm andhttp://www.acenet.edu/washington/letters/2002/06june/papovich.gats.cfm. TheseFebruary and June 2002 letters to Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Joseph Papovich outline key principles important to U.S. higher education. Additional information will beavailable on the ACE web site as the negotiations proceed (www.acenet.edu).

• http://www.aucc.ca/en/international/bulletins/gatspaper.pdf. This paper provides anoverview of GATS, including its structure, processes, obligations, and implications forCanadian higher education. It was prepared by the Association of Universities and Collegesof Canada.

• http://www.wto.org. This site is the homepage of the WTO. It includes the negotiatingproposals from Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. Click on “SectoralProposals,” at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/s_propnewnegs_e.htm#top,then select the search button under “Education Services.”


Notes1

The Bologna Declaration of 1999, signed by 29 ministers of education of European nations, encour-ages reforms in European higher education that will result in greater comparability and compatibilityof national systems and promote mobility of students and staff.2

Oblinger, D., Barone, C., and Hawkins, B. (2001). Distributed Education and Its Challenges: AnOverview. Washington DC: American Council on Education, 1 (available in PDF form atwww.acenet.edu/bookstore).3

Newman, F., and Couturier, L. (2001). The New Competitive Arena: Market Forces Invade theAcademy (working paper). The Futures Project: Policy for Higher Education in a Changing World.Providence, RI: Brown University. http://www.futuresproject.org/publications/new_competitive_arena.pdf. 4

Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation from the Adult Education and Training Survey, 1998.http://www.statcan.ca/start.html.5PricewaterhouseCoopers and the University of North Carolina, as cited in Oblinger, Barone, and

Hawkins (2001). Oblinger, D.G., Barone, C.A., and Hawkins, B.L. (2001). Distributed Education:Challenges, Choices, and a New Environment. Washington DC: American Council on Education.6

Kriger, T.J. (2001). A Virtual Revolution: Trends in the Expansion of Distance Education.Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.7

Van de Wende, M. (2001). “Internationalisation Policies: About New Trends and ContrastingParadigms.” Higher Education Policy 14, 249–59.8

Adelman, C. (2000). A Parallel Postsecondary Universe: The Certification System in InformationTechnology. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department ofEducation. 9

Meister, J.C. (February 9, 2001). “The Brave New World of Corporate Education.” The Chronicle ofHigher Education, B10.10

Duderstadt, J.J. (2000). A University for the 21st Century. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.11

Essick, K. (May 25, 2001). “Universities Join Forces to Spur Entrepreneurs.” The Industry Standardonline. http://www.thestandard.com.12

Press, E. and Washburn, J. (March 2000). “The Kept University.” Atlantic Monthly 285(3), 40.13

Birchard, K. (December 15, 2000). “U. of Oxford Sells a Share in Its Future.” The Chronicle ofHigher Education, A60.14

Business–Higher Education Forum (2001). Working Together, Creating Knowledge: The University-Industry Research Collaboration Initiative. Washington DC: American Council on Education (avail-able in PDF form at www.acenet.edu/bookstore).15

Woodward, C. (March 16, 2001). “Bridging the Gap: Danish and Swedish Universities Join Forces toCreate an Integrated Learning Region.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, A45.16

Knight, J. (2000). Progress and Promise: The AUCC Report on Internationalization at CanadianUniversities. Ottawa: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, 3.17

Hayward, F. (2001). Internationalization of U.S. Higher Education: A Preliminary Status Report.Washington, DC: American Council on Education (available in PDF form at www.acenet.edu/bookstore).18

Knight, J. (2000). Progress and Promise: The AUCC Report on Internationalization at CanadianUniversities. Ottawa: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.19

Haug, G., and Tauch, C. (April 2001). Trends in Learning Structures in Higher Education (II):Follow-up Report Prepared for the Salamanca and Prague Conferences of March/May 2001. Finland:National Board of Education.


CANADAFrançois Tavenas, Rector

Université Laval

Robert J. Giroux, President and CEOAssociation of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC)

Dominique Abrioux, PresidentAthabasca University

Thomas Traves, President and Vice ChancellorDalhousie University

Martha Piper, President and Vice ChancellorThe University of British Columbia

Jacquelyn Scott, President and Vice ChancellorUniversity College of Cape Breton

UNITED STATESStanley O. Ikenberry, President

American Council on Education

Francis L. Lawrence, PresidentRutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Molly Corbett Broad, PresidentThe University of North Carolina

Michael F. Adams, PresidentThe University of Georgia

Robert Glidden, PresidentOhio University

Frank Newman, Visiting Professor andDirector, Futures ProjectBrown University

Augustine P. Gallego, Chancellor and Chief Executive OfficerSan Diego Community College District

Madeleine F. Green, Vice PresidentAmerican Council on Education

Transatlantic DialogueParticipantsUniversité LavalQuebec, CanadaJuly 2001

Peter Eckel, Associate Director forInstitutional InitiativesAmerican Council on Education

EUROPELucy Smith, former Rector

University of OsloInstitutt for Privatrett

Kenneth Edwards, former PresidentCRE: The Association of European Universities

Wilfried Hartmann, Prof. Dr. and Vice PresidentUniversitat Hamburg

Jacques Diezi, Professeur et Vice RecteurUniversité de Lausanne

Rainer Künzel, Prof. Dr. and PresidentUniversity of Osnabrück

Andris Barblan, Secretary GeneralEuropean University Association (EUA)

Rinaldo Bertolino, Professor and RectorUniversità degli Studi di Torino

Eric Froment, PrésidentEUAProfesseurUniversité Lumière Lyon 2

Luciano Modica, RectorUniversità degli Studi di PisaPresidentItalian Rectors’ Conference

Paolo Blasi, Professor and Former Rector Università degli Studi di Firenze

Emanuela Stefani, Executive Director Italian Rectors’ Conference

Gilbert Puech, Professeur et Président Université Lumière Lyon 2

Pierre de Maret, Professeur et Recteur Université Libre de Bruxelles

Jiri Zlatuska, Professor and RectorMasaryk University

brave new world for pdf. - eua.beeua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/brave-new-world.1069322743534.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of brave new world for pdf. - eua.beeua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/brave-new-world.1069322743534.pdf ·...