Moving the Blog. Change bookmarks and feeds!

What better moment than at 07:07 PM of the day 07-07-07 to change things... And here is the result.

I have changed my blog software from Blogger to Wordpress. Just makes things easier and more flexible. I have also taken the opportunity to make some cosmetic changes and to adopt a 'new' name.

The change in software also leads to a change in a few URLs.:

• The URLs http://blog.beerkens.info or http://www.beerkens.info/blog should still work. Only if you have bookmarked this site with a .htm or .html extension you will have to change your bookmarks.

• The URLs [http://blog.beerkens.info/index.html] and [http://www.beerkens.info/blog/index.html] will no longer work but [http://blog.beerkens.info/index.php] and [http://www.beerkens.info/blog/index.php] will!

• If you have subscribed to the site, you will have to resubscribe through this feed: feed://http//blog.beerkens.info/index.php/feed/atom/ or feed://http//blog.beerkens.info/index.php/feed/rss/

All archives have been moved to the new site and software. The old archives (with a .html extension) will be available for a while but will be removed eventually.

Enjoy!

UNSW Asia: the conjuncture of events

Fred Hilmer, Vice-Chancellor of the University of New South Wales, looks back on the UNSW Asia debacle. One of the question that I asked in my post immediately after UNSW's announcement was about the real reason for UNSW's sudden departure. Much news has been reported since, but none of the explanations can fully explain it. Hilmer points to the low enrollment numbers as the reason and the fact that the Singapore Economic Development Board wasn't willing to accept their rescue plan.

Today it was also reported that high fees led to the fall of the Singapore Campus. This has been said by many others but it can't be a sufficient reason. Other senior academics at UNSW Asia blamed a lack of marketing for its demise. Sure, this might be part of the explanation as well. Simon Marginson of the University of Melbourne University explained that the business plan was plain bad and based on too rosy a set of enrollment projections.

I think we have to conclude that there is not one single reason for UNSW's pull-out. It is more a concurrence of circumstances that led to a major fiasco. But why hasn't this been foreseen by a big professional organisation like UNSW? Hilmer basically inherited the whole situation and the only thing he could be blamed for is for opening the campus at all at the start of this year. The establishment of the UNSW Asia campus of course goes further back in time. At least until 2003.

It is interesting to see that the whole development of the UNSW Asia idea has coincided with a period of rather instable governance. For a period of ten years the university was under the energetic leadership of John Niland. Niland has a good relation with Singapore and extensive knowledge about the region. He is currently Member of the Board of Trustees of the Singapore Management University. However, keeping in mind that UNSW was only approached by EDB in 2003 to consider setting up a campus in Singapore, it is unlikely that Niland was involved as a VC.

This means that the whole process, from EDB invitation to the closure in May 2007, took place in no more than 4 years. In these 4 years however, the UNSW has had 3 Vice-Chancellors! The first contacts with EDB have been with Rory Hume, now Provost at the University of California. Hume became VC in 2002 and resigned in 2004, because of the way he handled a case of academic misconduct in the university. Hume's successor was Mark Wainwright who held the VC Office from July 2004 until his retirement in June 2006. This must have been the period where the main negotiations with the EDB have taken place and where the plans for the campus were formed. It was under Wainwright that UNSW Asia was officially launched, that Greg Whittred was appointed president of UNSW Asia and two deputy presidents were announced.

So in 2006 Fred Hilmer left his position as CEO of John Fairfax Holdings and became VC of UNSW. When he came into office, UNSW Asia basically was a 'fait accompli'. Hilmer has never been a true believer in the Singapore venture, but he did not really have the option to pull out since all agreements were made and everyone was set to go. The Singaporean Straight Times (26 May, 2007) reported that 'the death knell for the Singapore campus was sounded the very week that Prof Hilmer took over on June 19, 2006'. He pulled out eventually because financial risks would steeply rise with the construction of a city campus in 2008.

A leading actor in the whole saga - and the one that actually signed the MOU with the EDB in April 2004 - is Former Deputy VC for International & Development, John Ingleson. He held this position since 2001 and was also CEO of the international education, training and consultancy arm of UNSW, New South Global. While he was an outspoken advocate of UNSW Asia - and of global academe in general - he seems to be the most silent factor in its aftermath.

Ingleson left UNSW after vice-chancellor Fred Hilmer restructured the university's top level a year ago. He is now Deputy VC I & D at the University of Western Sydney and also member of the Board of Directors of IDP (a company offering student recruiting and testing services and is part-owned by the Australian universities). The same company also undertook a program-level marketing research for UNSW Asia and was the exclusive recruiter of international students for UNSW Asia.

My two cents? A bad business plan, pursued by an over-enthusiastic DVC who overestimated economic opportunities and underestimated risks in the global higher education market. While there were plenty of reasons to slow down the development of UNSW Asia and the individuals pushing it, this never happened because clear and stable leadership at the very top was lacking at that time. By the time Hilmer inherited the situation, it was a done deal. He tried to make a deal with the Singaporeans but they didn't bite. Option 1: run the risk of even higher costs because of the construction of a campus; Option 2: get out, now costs are still bearable. May 23...Press conference...option 2...closed.

'competitive' salaries in academia

In both the Netherlands and Australia the salaries of the top university leaders lead to controversy. The Australian reports that all but one of the leaders of Australia’s Group of 8 Universities earn more than 600,000 Australian Dollars (378,000 Euros). Top earner was John Hay of the University of Queensland with 655,000 Euros. But the Australian found even higher figures for La Trobe University where someone (probably the former VC) received over 930,000 Euros!

In the Netherlands, the salaries and bonuses in the public sector are a hot issue as well. Many claim that the Prime Minister’s salary should be the norm for others in the public sector. In the Netherlands that is a mere 171,000 Euros (John Howard’s salary was recently increased to 208,000 Euros). But most university leaders in the Netherlands make significantly more than that.

The new Dutch Minister for Education this week showed his discontent about the managerialism in education and the accompanying rise in salaries. He observes that most of them enjoyed enormous salary increases when they came into their current positions. And I am sure he is right about that (although that is not the case for all of them). One of the most visible cases has been the one in my own Alma Mater. Their top level managers were given a 31% salary increase, which sparked a reaction of the Minister claiming that this was ‘unbelievable’. This increase brought the salary of the Chairman of the Executive Board (more or less the CEO of the University) to 171,000 Euros. In comparison, the lowest earning VC in Australia, David Battersby of the University of Balarat (poor guy), earned over 200,000 Euros!

So how do the Dutch university CEOs compare with the Australian Vice-Chancellors? Basically, compared to Australia, the Dutch salaries are still very modest. Here is the list of the top 6 for both countries:

Netherlands (Source: Intermediair (pdf); in Euros)
1. Aalt Dijkhuizen	University of Wageningen	307,520
2. Sijbolt Noorda	University of Amsterdam	284,400
3. Rene Smit	Vrije Universiteit	245,900
4. Hands van Luijk	Delft Univ. of Technology	240,000
5. Yvonne van Rooy	University of Utrecht	233,000
6. Jos Elbers	Hogeschool Inholland	228,928
Australia (Source: The Australian; converted to Euros)
1. John Hay	University of Queensland	655,000
2. Gavin Brown	University of Sydney	454,000
3. Fred Hilmer	University of NSW	378,000 (+95,000)
4. Steven Schwartz	Macquarie University	378,000 (+63,000)
5. John Rickard	Central Queensland Univ.	425,000 - 434,500
6. Glyn Davis	Melbourne University	384,000

Don’t get me wrong! This is no justification for the Dutch salary hikes. More like a condemnation of the Australian salaries. The argument is usually that salaries have to be competitive. This argument is put forward just a bit more often when people talk about managers than when they talk about academics and professors. Australian professorial salaries average A$120,000 (75,600 Euros). I am not sure how much it is in the Netherlands but I think it will be slightly higher, or at least similar. Let’s just say that the huge gap between managerial and academic salaries in Australia better not be taken as an example for the Netherlands.

Meanwhile in Malaysia...

Meanwhile in Malaysia, 'soft authoritarianism' seems to get tougher. Elections are coming up and since the Malaysian people are not yet ready for open dialogue, voices have to be silenced. So what do you do? First you silence the blogs that cause 'disharmony'. That should be enough since - as Marina Mahathir (yes, the outspoken daughter of...) shows - the government has nothing to fear from the regular Malaysian media.

But it was not enough. This news by rising politician Tony Pua should really worry Malaysians. Apparently, instructions were given by some government commission to the various TV stations in Malaysia to ban all footage of opposition leaders. Although this was denied by some TV stations, Malaysiakini published the proof, black on white.

Now...who isn't ready for an open dialogue?

Higher Education Funding in Indonesia

The Jakarta Post reported that the Indonesian Director General for Higher Education, Satryo Soemantri Brodjonegoro would increase the subsidies for universities. The government would disburse a Rp 13.5 trillion (US$1.5 billion) fund next year to subsidize costs at state-run and private universities. Good news for Indonesian higher education? Of course, every extra dollar or rupiah is welcome. But...

He admitted that the increase would not cover education costs for university students. "The amount is too small to meet the demands of poor families who want to have access to higher education," he said. In recent years the government has decreased its subsidies for state-run universities and encouraged them to find their own funding sources. As a result, some state-run universities began offering courses for exorbitant fees.

Starting from 2000, Indonesia’s leading four institutions have – in financial terms – basically been privatised. Institut Teknologi Bandung, Institut Pertanian Bogor, Universitas Indonesia and Universitas Gadjah Mada received the so-called BHMN status (Badan Hukum Milik Negara or ‘state owned legal entities’). The other public universities in Indonesia are meant to follow this path in the future. Universitas Sumatera Utara (USU) received the status in 2003, followed by the Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) in early 2004. BHMN meant greater autonomy and autonomy was necessary because the universities, under the Suharto regime, suffered from a serious lack of academic freedom. But autonomy did not just mean academic autonomy, it also meant financial autonomy. And this basically translated into budget cuts. These cuts were so severe that some of the universities now only receive about a quarter of their financial means from the government, where it used to be nearly 100%!

The chronic underfunding of Indonesian education was acknowledged by the Megawati regime. At that time the pledge to allocate 20% of the government budget on education was even incorporated in the constitution. But what is going on in reality? As we see below, Indonesia’s spending on education as % of GDP has slowly decreased in the early years of this century. While in 2003, Indonesia spent only 0.9% of its GDP on education, Malaysia spent nearly 8 %!

For all graphs: Red = Indonesia; Blue = Malaysia

So is the 20% objective unreasonable? For sure, the 20% objective is far from achieved in Indonesia. Malaysia however spent even more than 20%, while Indonesia did not even reach 10% (no data for 2000 & 2003). However, there has been some improvement after 2002. For 2006, the expenditure on education is 11.8 % of the budget. Some improvement, but still far from the promised 20%.

For higher education, the situation becomes even more sever if you see that Indonesia spends relatively less of its education money on higher education, compared again with Malaysia. For Malaysia, between 30 and 35% of its education budget went to higher education between 2000 and 2003. For Indonesia that is less than 25%.

What is also interesting to see in this respect is where the money is spent. Below you can see that the majority of Indonesian spending is current expenditure. For Indonesia that is over 80%, of which nearly 100% goes to salaries. For Malaysia current expenditure is around 50% and much less of this goes to salaries. Capital expenditure for Indonesia thus is very low, pointing to a serious underinvestment in Indonesia’s universities.

What has been the result of all this? Basically two things. For Indonesia it has led to rigorous inequality for higher education. In the past decades the government has done a good job in eliminating inequality in elementary education. But if we look at data from Triaswati and Roeslan (2003), presented by Nizam in a recent UNESCO report on Higher Education in Southeast Asia (PDF; 4.6 MB), we can see that inequality increases with the level of education. While 30.9% of the richest quintile receives higher education, of the poorest quintile, only 3.3% is that lucky.

The second result is that the autonomous BHMN universities are becoming ever more entrepreneurial. This in itself is not a problem and it is seen in nearly all countries. The Indonesian BHMN universities have undergone such a drastic change in just a few years but have coped with it relatively well. But they are seriously underfunded, especially if we consider that the demand upon them has grown. Increasingly they are expected to deliver high quality research and, much more than their Malaysian counterparts, rely heavily on the market and the private sector to acquire research funding. Somewhere along the line you will have to ask whether the political domination has been replaced by the domination of the market.

In this light the increase of subsidies can be seen as too little too late. Maybe it is never too late to invest in education, but an increase from 12.9 trillion to 13.5 trillion Rupiahs is definitely too little!

(data for the first four graphs are from the UNESCO education database)

Excellence for Productivity 2

Two days ago I had a post on the Dutch report Excellence for Productivity of the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis. A good study that deserved some more attention. I wrote a Dutch article on the outcomes of the report for ScienceGuide:

Adriaan Hofman van de RuG presenteerde recent nog een pleidooi voor meer evidence based discussies in het onderwijs. In dit licht, moet het onderzoek 'Excellence and Productivity' verwelkomd worden door belanghebbenden en belangstellenden in het Nederlandse onderwijs. Terwijl vaak maar aangenomen wordt dat excellentie bijdraagt aan economische groei en dat in Nederland het 'niet-boven-het-maaiveld' syndroom de ontwikkeling van talent in de weg staat, is het goed dat deze assumpties kritisch onder de loep worden genomen door het CPB. Kort samengevat laat het onderzoek zien dat ‘top skills’ belangrijk zijn voor productiviteit en dat Nederland gemiddeld gezien zeer goed scoort op skills maar dat het toplaagje het relatief slecht doet. Met andere woorden: we hebben relatief slimme domme leerlingen en relatief domme slimme leerlingen. Daarover later meer; eerst even de media aandacht.

Ten eerste werd mij al snel duidelijk dat ook ‘evidence’ niet altijd tot de juiste discussies leidt. In de media leek het of het hoger onderwijs hier ter discussie stond. Een paar voorbeelden. De Volkskrant: "niet het vmbo is het probleem van het Nederlandse onderwijs, maar de universiteiten en hogescholen"; Nederlands Dagblad: "op de universiteiten in Nederland is middelmatigheid troef"; en dan Elsevier: " als het hoger onderwijs geen ruimte schept voor toptalent, dan wordt Nederland een tweederangs natie". Nou nou...

Wat is echter het geval? Een deel van het rapport kijkt naar het slimme toplaagje van Nederland door te kijken naar PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), naar TIMSS (Third International Mathematics and Science Study) en naar de IALS (International Adult Literacy Survey). In de samenvatting wordt met name verwezen naar de PISA resultaten van 2003. Nu wordt de IALS test afgenomen onder 14-65 jarigen maar de PISA en de TIMSS tests onder respectievelijk 15 en 13 jarigen. Het CPB is hier duidelijk over, maar verschillende media lijken het ontbreken van een brilljant toplaagje onder de 15 jarigen volledig in de schoenen te willen schuiven van het hoger onderwijs. Voordat deze 15 jarige ook maar één stap heeft gezet in een universiteit of hogeschool.

Een tweede methodologisch puntje is dat men enigzins voorzichtig moet zijn met ‘evidence’. Het onderzoek over de relatie tussen de ‘top skills’ en hun economische bijdrage zit nog vol met onzekerheden, mede omdat deze skills moeilijk te meten zijn, maar zeker ook omdat een groot aantal factoren deze relatie kan beinvloeden. Het CPB is daar wederom duidelijk in, zie met name de voorzichtigheid waarmee uitspraken worden gedaan over deze relatie in hoofdstuk twee van het rapport.

Maar dan de betekenis van de uitomsten. Uiteraard vragen de resultaten van het rapport allereerst om veranderingen in het lager en middelbaar onderwijs. Wat deze veranderingen ook mogen zijn, het feit dat Nederland gemiddeld aan de top staat (en niet middelmatig is!) moet beschouwd worden als een groot goed. Zolang het Nederlandse toplaagje nog niet de mogelijkheid krijgt om te excelleren in deze fase, ligt er des te meer druk op het hoger onderwijs om dit talent alsnog naar boven te halen. Niet zozeer – of in elk geval niet alléén – omdat dit misschien kan bijdragen aan de economische groei van Nederland, maar omdat elke leerling of student het recht heeft op onderwijs dat het hem of haar mogelijk maakt zich maximaal te ontplooien. In hoeverre gebeurt dit? En hoe kan dat verbeterd worden?

De gemengde resultaten van de selectie aan de poort laten zien dat een laagje elitair onderwijs niet van de ene op de andere dag kan worden gecreëerd. Overigens ben ik niet direct een voorstander van selectie aan de Bachelor-poort, mede vanwege de problematiek rondom selectiecriteria. En er wordt immers al geselecteerd door het Nederlandse middelbaar onderwijs. Maar er bestaan in het Nederlandse HO wel degelijk initiatieven om talent beter te benutten. Er wordt al rijk geëxperimenteerd met zogenaamde Honours trajecten, en tevens zijn er enkele ‘elite’ colleges (UCU, Roosevelt) redelijk succesvol gebleken en zijn er gelijksoortige initiatieven op komst. Ondanks (de mythe van) het gelijkheidsdenken, wordt het langzaam maar zeker meer geoorloofd – en gewaardeerd – om je hoofd boven het maaiveld uit te steken. Dit mag je best even de tijd geven. Ik verwacht met name dat de Honours trajecten hier een waardevol instrument kunnen zijn. Zij die iets extra willen doen, moeten de mogelijkheid krijgen en gestimuleerd worden, maar moeten daar dan later ook voor beloond worden. En laat de verschillende universiteiten maar experimenteren met verschillende Honours modellen.

Het instellen van de BaMa structuur is natuurlijk wel de gelegenheid om selectie in te voeren voor het Masters traject. Maar ook hier zal dat niet direct leiden tot Hermans’ Topmasters. Gezien het diepgewortelde gelijkheidsdenken – wat het Nederlandse HO ver heeft gebracht – zal het een tijd duren voordat top-Masters boven het maaiveld uitkomen. Het label ‘top’ creëer je niet, maar dat moet je verdienen! Wat hierbij vaak vergeten wordt is dat er ook een motivatie moet zijn om zich voor zo’n top-Master in te schrijven (en er extra voor te betalen). Leveren ze echt top kwaliteit? Heb je meer kansen op de arbeidsmarkt? Zullen bedrijven en overheidsorganisaties een hoger startsalaris betalen? Of heeft de arbeidsmarkt eigenlijk geen idee over de diversiteit in Masters? Toenemende ranking van programmas en instellingen en het toenemende belang van (internationale) accreditatie zal dit process van differentiatie waarschijnlijk versnellen, met name in de meer professionele Masters. Maar waar het op neer komt is dat talent niet alleen ontwikkeld moet worden, maar ook erkend en gewaardeerd; door bedrijven en overheidsorganisaties, maar ook door universiteiten als toekomstige werkegevers!

Tenslotte betekent dit alles natuurlijk ook dat docenten meer oog moeten hebben voor de mogelijkheden van hun studenten, ook hun ‘slimme’ studenten. Er dient meer waarde te worden gehecht aan het onderwijs zelf en aan de onderwijsaspecten in de training van docenten (ofwel in het promotietraject). Daarnaast moet men natuurlijk vooral denken aan het vermijden van grote collegezalen en teveel administratieve lasten voor docenten. Een recent voorstel van Plasterk zou hier een belangrijke bijdrage aan kunnen leveren, nl. de Akademie-assistent. Behalve voor onderzoek zouden deze ook ingezet kunnen worden voor het onderwijs, min of meer volgens het Amerikaanse ‘teaching-assistent’ model.

Middelmatigheid is dus niet troef in het Nederlandse HO! Het CPB rapport biedt voldoende ‘evidence’ om lopende initiatieven verder te ontwikkelen en creatief na te denken over additionele maatregelen. Universiteiten en hogescholen lijken tot nu toe best in staat om dit zelf te doen. Maar laten we daarbij vooral niet vergeten dat – ondanks al het doemdenken – het Nederlandse (hoger) onderwijs gemiddeld gezien op een zeer hoog niveau staat.

Smart dumb people and dumb smart people

The Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB) published an interesting study yesterday. The report - Excellence for Productivity? - investigates the position of the Netherlands vis-a-vis other OECD countries in terms of their skill distribution.

The findings in short:

• The Dutch perform very well on average
• The 'not so bright' Dutch students are smart compared to their 'not so bright' counterparts in other countries.
• The smartest students in the Netherlands (the top (99th) percentile) are less brilliant than their brilliant counterparts in other OECD countries.

The findings mainly refer to pre-tertiary education. According to the CPB, the findings indicate that there is scope for improvement of skills at the right-hand side (the 'smart side') of the distribution. Therefore, policies that raise the Dutch performance at high- and top skill levels may improve Dutch productivity.

The (problematic?) balance between egalitarianism and excellence has been an issue in Dutch politics for the past years. And history shows that shifting the balance is easier planned than done, also in higher education. Measures like the selective admission of students or differentiation in student fees have not (yet) had the desired effects. However, various initiatives are being experimented with such as honours programmes and 'elite' colleges. Elitism isn't really a Dutch thing, I guess... Or is it?

Indonesia Too Democratic?

Can a country be too democratic? Vice President of Indonesia, Jusuf Kalla, thinks it can be. The Jakarta Post reports on his visit to China, and it seems like Kalla is quite impressed by what is going on in China. If only Indonesia was a bit less democratic they would be able to make the same progress as China is making.

"China's strength is that it can plan and implement. Our system, which is too democratic with too much individual freedom that often disregards the rights of others, has made it difficult for us to build infrastructure"

"As long as individual right is above public responsibility, we will not progress... That's the only problem we have now."

A strong government role can help economic development, as is shown by Indonesia's neighbors Singapore and Malaysia. But going the same way as China is simply not an option for Indonesia anymore, after almost 10 years of democracy. And despite all the troubles in its short history of democracy, the country is showing progress. Progress not just in terms of economic development but also in terms of intellectual and artistic freedom. Sure...Indonesians might hit the streets a few times too many, but I guess that's a healthy sign, even though it might not always correspond with the governments plans.

An interesting example is the TV show Newsdotcom, better known as 'Republik Mimpi' or the Republic of Dreams (below is an item on the show by Australian current affairs programme Dateline). It is a show with a healthy dose of political satire, including impersonations of former presidents Gus Dur and Megawatti, the current president Yudhoyono and even Jusuf Kalla. This definitely wasn't imaginable in the Soeharto Era and probably would lead to quite some government opposition in other countries in Southeast Asia. Even though Information and Communication Minister Sofyan Djalil planned to file a legal complaint against the producer, the show has been allowed to continue.



Maybe a small sign of hope amidst the many troubling things happening in Indonesia. Nevertheless, I think it is an important one. And in the long run, such minor steps and a little bit 'too much democracy and individual freedom' can give Indonesia some major advantages compared to (semi-)authoritarian countries.

Group of 8: Seizing the Opportunities

The Group of 8, the group of Australia's leading universities (or self proclaimed Ivy League) has today shared its vision on the future of Australian higher education, or better, what needs to be done to keep it dynamic and competitive. According to the Go8, the current system was designed for a past era and does no longer provide the right framework for universities to perform in a global knowledge economy (something that National University of Singapore president Shih Choon Fong seems to agree with).

The current Australian higher education and research system is under-resourced and over-regulated (hear hear!). But it is also under-planned and insufficiently diversified for the needs of contemporary Australia. The Go8 provides eight proposals that should increase the flexibility that the universities need to remain competitive and that will serve the Australian community:

An Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC)
The establishment of an Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC), responsible for planning, resource allocation and regulation in respect of post-school education throughout Australia.

Student-driven higher education
Student access to undergraduate and graduate courses should be aided via a universal entitlement to an income-contingent loan and, for meritorious and needy students, via national tuition scholarships.

Mission-based block funding of universities
A new funding line, University-Community Partnerships, as a mechanism to correct for market failure in the event that student choice leaves neglected or dissipated some fields of knowledge that have national or regional importance. The ATEC should have the capacity to provide a number of places for designated ‘public interest’ courses for which the Government pays a community service obligation retainer.

National investment in university research
If Australia’s best universities are not going forward then Australia will be going backwards against international competitors. Therefore they suggest:
(i) National competitive peer-reviewed grants for research: by 2012 the amount of annual funding should be double its present value;
(ii) Adequate investment in research infrastructure: a rise in the Research Infrastructure Block Grants (RIBG);
(iii) National research hub & spokes arrangements; for this, a program is needed to provide Australian academics with access to research universities combined with support for the host universities;
(iv) International engagement of Australian university research: Australian researchers must be able to participate in international research platforms and networks.

Performance-based block funding for research
A new, tightly targeted research funding program would allocate block funds to universities, with funding agreements subject to rigorous seven year cyclical evaluations.

Research quality evaluation
A validated metrics-based approach to the assessment of research quality and its broader societal benefits should be adopted.

A dual system of assistance for research students
A gradual expansion of research training places which should be funded with the goal of raising the total number of domestic research degree students from some 22,000 to around 30,000 over five years.

Managing the transitions
During the transition period each university should retain its research funding at close to present levels through performance-based block grants.

I guess, with all the requests for extra funding, it is written in anticipation of an election win for Labor later this year. On the other hand, it pretty much continues the new public managment and accountability agenda of the last decades. I'll have a closer look soon and address some of the proposals at a later stage. For now, here is the full report: 'seizing the opportunities' (pdf).

America and the Bologna Process

The European process of harmonisation of degree structures is also causing discussions on the other side of the Atlantic. The participating countries have implemented (or are implementing) a three tier degree structure (Bachelor, Master, PhD). In most countries, the undergraduate phase will take three years. In my opinion, one reason for this rather short duration, is the fact that many countries - like the Netherlands - saw their previous 4 year degrees (doctorandus, licentiaat, magister and what have you) as equivalent to a Master's degree. And because governments did not want Bologna to lead to extra funding, they needed to stuff the Bachelor and Master into 4 years.

But what if you plan to do a Master's degree in the US, after your European three-year bachelor? According to Daniel Denecke of the US Council of Graduate Studies, resistance to recognizing three-year degrees at American graduate schools is rampant, although there were some trends toward acceptance of the new European model:

29 percent said they did not accept three-year undergraduate year degrees in 2005; that number dropped to 18 percent in 2006. In 2005, 9 percent said they’d offer provisional acceptance to applicants with three-year degrees, a number that fell to 4 percent in 2006. The percentage of universities that indicated they’d evaluate the degree for its equivalence rose from 40 to 49 percent in the year, while the percentage of institutions that consider a student’s competency on an individual basis increased from 22 to 29 percent.

"What we’re seeing is a trend line toward greater acceptance of three-year degrees and greater nuance as to how universities are able to establish the suitability of that student to succeed in a university."

But, as Inside HigherEd reports, in Europe academics are also debating the preparatory value of the three-year degree in itself. David Crosier, program director for the European University Association:

"Although things are changing quickly, there’s still a sense among many, that everyone in a university who gets a bachelor’s should go on and get a master’s as well. This is maybe a problematic issue, given that the master’s was developed to be a specific cycle with its own goals, and that those goals should be built around the labor market so that people will have sufficient skills to move out of higher education if they want to"

It touches a few fundamental issues. First of all, is three years of higher education enough to enter the labor market? Like Crosier said and other surveys have shown, both employers and students in Europe still see the four (3+1) year master's degree as the standard. This actually reduces the Bologna reform to some extra flexibility in the last year. On the other hand, such changes need time...

The other question it brings forward: is a three year European Bachelor's degree equivalent to a four year US Bachelor's degree? European programmes are usually specialised from the beginning, while the US degrees provide more general education. In a comment on an earlier Inside HigherEd article on this issue, someone (from the US) claims:

"Our college students in their freshman year typically not only have to focus on the general education they didn’t receive in high school, but on the basic language and study skills they never received at all."

That's probably overstated, but it is true that US students receive more general education in their university studies. Whether this is necessary to 'catch up' or whether this means that US students will have a broader body of knowledge, I don't know. Most probably it depends very much on the college that they attend (and the high school they attended before that). At the same time, it is an illusion to think that with the harmonisation of degrees, the degrees in all European countries and all European universities will be of the same standard.

Malaysia as an Education Hub

The UNSW debacle in Singapore and the exit of Johns Hopkins last year, have dealt a serious blow to the Global Schoolhouse strategy of the Singapore government. Singapore’s neighbor Malaysia announced a similar strategy last year. With this strategy, Malaysia becomes one of the most interesting examples of the way that higher education is globalizing nowadays. A major exporter as well as importer of higher education, with foreign universities within its borders and Malay universities establishing branches outside Malaysia.

First of all, Malaysia has long been sending many of their students and university staff abroad, especially for postgraduate studies, because their own system could not absorb the increase of students in the last decades. In addition, the racial quota for public universities to enroll Malay forced a lot of students from Chinese and Indian backgrounds to pursue their higher education abroad. The last decade has seen a sharp rise in private universities and colleges that have been able to absorb many of these students and the Malay that were not accepted in the public sector. Despite this, the flow of Malaysian students abroad – especially to the English speaking countries – has remained substantial (see table).

Malaysian students abroad 1999-2004

In addition to sending students abroad to pursue their education, the Malaysian government has also admitted higher education institutions into Malaysia in order to meet the increasing demand of higher education in the country. The establishment of such branch campuses has to fulfill a wide range of legal requirement (on ownership issues, but also on the content of education), but this has not kept universities from establishing these branches. The best known examples are Monash University, Curtin and Swinburne from Australia and Nottingham University from the UK. Although these partnerships were usually based on so-called sandwich programmes (where part was done in the home country of the university), they now also offer full degrees in Malaysia.

But in recent years, both the flows of students as well as the flows of institutions are no longer one way but now go both ways. Although public universities in Malaysia do not undertake activities abroad – and probably they are not allowed to – the private ones seem to become more and more active. You can now actually obtain a Malaysian degree in London, offered by the Lim Kok Wing University, well known in Malaysia for its IT and Design programmes. And this university is not just a little office somewhere in London but is established in a beautiful old English building. But Lim Kok Wing did not stop in London. It’s also the first Asian university to establish a branch campus in Africa, in Botswana to be precise. Recently, other education institutions are following and are also expanding abroad.

And now the Malaysian government wants to make Malaysia a true education hub for the region, more or less like its southern neighbor. The Ministry of Higher Education has set a target of 100,000 students for 2010. Growth will probably mainly be sought in the region and in the Middle East. Together with Singapore, Malaysia probably offers the best quality higher education in Southeast Asia, although Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia are catching up. Due to language (and cultural/religious) issues, Malaysia is popular for Indonesian students, especially for those that cannot get into the local public universities in Indonesia and cannot afford the top private ones or higher education abroad. For Chinese students Malaysia might be popular because of the widespread Chinese influences in Malay society, more apparent though in the private institutions than in the public ones. More recently, especially after 9-11, Malaysia has also become a popular destination for Middle Eastern students. Yesterday, the Star reported on an agreement between Higher Education Minister Datuk Mustapa Mohamed and his Saudi counterpart Dr Khaled Mohamed Al-Anqari on sending the Saudi students to Malaysian universities(*). In addition to the Middle East, students coming from Africa (especially Libya, Sudan and Kenya) are also on the rise (see table; click to enlarge).

Foreign Students in Malaysia 1999-2003

To reach the goal of 100,000 international students, the government will need to double the intake of foreign students. There are obviously pros and cons to a strategy like this. For many, a first reaction would be to ask why a government wants to increase the number of international students if it barely has the capacity to meet the demand of its own people? On the other hand, it can generate extra financial resources (if the fees for foreign students are profitable) by which the education of the Malaysian population can be supported. Obviously creating more multicultural campus will also have more intangible positive effects. And the quality of education can increase if these foreign students will be of such quality that they will positively influence the academic atmosphere and quality in the universities. And of course there are the economic effects through spending and consumption from the students and through the new jobs that are created for such an expanding higher education sector.

So...should the Singapore case make the Malaysian government nervous? Maybe not yet, but they better keep an eye on the developments in their neighboring city state. Malaysia’s plans are not as ambitious as Singapore’s ‘grand’ strategies and they are less dependent on foreign providers than is the case in Singapore. But I hope they will not become obsessed with the projected number of 100,000, and instead just focus on the overall quality of their higher education. Then the foreign students will follow automatically...

_________________________________________________________
(*) A small footnote...not directly related but important enough to mention.

Saudi government officials have been traveling the world for the past months in order to find ‘a conducive environment’ for their students to study. Especially because it was getting harder for them to get visas in the UK and the US. I remember that one of their officials visited Australian campuses as well, in order to ‘ínspect’ the universities here. I have not heard anything about this issue since...maybe the Australian culture was not considered very conducive by these government leaders, that always know best what is good for ‘their’ citizens...

But even Malaysia was not perfect. Saudi female students had specific requirements: “They have to travel with their chaperone who are either their male family members or husbands, so visas can be a problem. Another issue is dressing – some female students want to keep their faces covered.” The Minister said he would look into these issues... Covering the faces is not allowed in Malaysian public universities. And I think universities shouldn’t change their values just to benefit more from the international higher education market. Believe me, I work in Australia, so I should know!

Questions on the UNSW ASIA debacle

After three months in operation, the Singapore adventure of the University of New South Wales has come to an end. Another 22 million Singapore dollars down the drain. The decision to establish a branch campus in Singapore was taken in 2005 and already led to some commotion at that time (see this post). In 2005, UNSW from Australia and the University of Warwick from the UK were the only two foreign universities granted special status by the Singaporean Government (through its Economic Development Board, EDB) to set up a fully fledged independent teaching and research institution offering undergraduate degrees (the UNSW ASIA website has been taken down but click here for some info from the old website and here for some facts).

At that time, the senate of Warwick declined the offer of the Singapore government. The official reason for the Warwick senate to vote against the venture was the big financial risk. An additional reason however was the concern about the lack of academic freedom. UNSW had a different opinion, after all there was "no such thing as absolute freedom of speech in any country".

UNSW opened the doors of its Asia Campus at the beginning of the 2007 academic year, planning to reach a population of up to 15,000 students on the long term. But the campus will be closed down after only one semester:

Before making this decision, the University has explored an extensive range of options. However the enrollment numbers for 2007 did not meet our expectations, and this has caused us to revise our projections. The decision to close down is a difficult one but it is the prudent course of action to take.

UNSW Vice Chancellor, Professor Fred Hilmer inherited the situation when he became VC in 2006. In a press conference in the Straits Times video news he explains the UNSW decision to pull out (see the whole video here):

The economics of the campus, without significant support made it impossible to continue. While we had support for the initial concept from the EDB, as the enrollment played out and as the concept had to be changed, the risk of the venture increased.

The Economic Development Board stated that it regrets the decision of UNSW. Mr Ko Kheng Hwa, Managing Director, EDB said:

We regret that UNSW has decided to close the Singapore campus. EDB has been fully committed and has worked closely with UNSW from day one towards the establishment of its Singapore campus. EDB will push ahead with our efforts to realise Singapore’s Global Schoolhouse vision. We are fully committed to developing Singapore into a premier education hub comprising a rich diversity of high quality education institutions and programmes from all over the world.

UNSW Asia had only 140 students enrolled in its first semester, 100 of them being Singapore residents. The University had a target of 300 students for the first year. This all leaves me with two big questions:

1. What is the real reason? If the target was 300 and the enrollment was 140, would you stop an operation - that has been planned for two years and in which 17.5 million Australian dollars is invested - just after a few months? Of course not! This is just too abrupt. After investing this amount, you would at least try for a few years. Somehow I have the idea that there is more going on, but I can't figure out what it is.

2. Public universities and their private ventures. I am sure that UNSW and UNSW Asia keep separate books. But somehow UNSW, an Australian public university, will be affected by the costs of the Singaporese adventure. This discussion has come up in relation to the South African branch campus of Monash university as well. It clearly shows the risk of letting public organizations operate privately overseas. Of course, UNSW will argue that their Australian activities will not suffer from the UNSW Asia debacle. But the money has to come from somewhere. The costs are even likely to rise because UNSW has been so decent to offer their UNSW Asia students a place at UNSW in Sydney and will make scholarships available.

Two pressing questions. Whether we will ever know the answer to the first one? I don't know. But I hope the second one will be discussed because it addresses a fundamental issue.

UPDATE: look at this recent post for some explanations

Bologna in London

The Fifth Ministerial Conference on the Bologna Process - a bi-annual event where the progress of the Bologna Process is monitored and new actions are decided upon - took place in London last week. This basically means a bombardment of papers, reports and speeches about what's been going on and what needs to be done, coming from everyone that is somehow related to higher education. All this has culminated in the London Communique (pdf).

I haven't had the time to go through all the documents yet, but the Communique does'nt seem to hold many surprises (which is not surprising of course for an inter-governmental document set up by over 40 countries). I did however read about an interesting option by Franck Vandenbroucke (in Dutch), Flemish minister of education and host for the Sixth Conference in 2009. He argues that the difference between the late and early adopters of the Bologna principles is too wide and that it is better for the early staters to explore the next frontiers for European cooperation, instead of waiting for the rest to catch up.

Euractiv has an article about the different perspectives on the outcome of the 5th Ministerial Conference. Here's my interpretation:

The European Union:

We want universities to be liberated from the shackles of state domination (you'll be better of with us)!

European Students:

It's all about us so you better take us seriously! Or else...

European Universities:

If you give us more freedom and more money we will give you whatever you want (and pay for)

European Business:

Actually, we have no clue what we want so we'll just repeat that we want your graduates to be interdisciplinary, process oriented and adaptable problem solvers that can work in teams. You figure it out...

The Brits:

We should all adopt similar standards... preferably the British ones

The Next (World) Bank President

While Wolfowitz has barely resigned as president of the World Bank, the Financial Times is already speculating about his successor. A quick look at the possible nominations makes clear that World Bank is first and foremost a Bank.

The first name the FT mentions is Robert M. Kimmitt, the US deputy Treasury secretary. Kimmitts bio reveals that his experience in the developing world is limited to his military service in Vietnam in 1970-1971. He served in the 173rd Airborne Brigade, earning three Bronze Star Medals, the Purple Heart, the Air Medal, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. More recently, he has served as the US Ambassador to Germany in the early 1990s, the country where he also attended high school in the 1960s.

Other possible candidates mentioned by the FT are (1) Paul Volcker, former US Federal Reserve Chairman; (2) Robert Zoellick, former US Deputy Secretary of State and current Vice President International for Goldman Sachs and involved in the neocon Project for the New American Century and (3) Hank Paulson, current US Secretary of the Treasury, former CEO of Goldman Sachs and a 2004 Bush Pioneer.

We'll probably hear more about this before Wolfowitz steps down on June 30th... And then they can finally get back to work.

The HEEF: Economist's interpretation

The Economist has an article on the Australian budget which was presented a few days ago. In my previous post I highlighted one item in that budget: the Higher Education Endowment Fund. In this fund, the government will deposit 5 billion Australian dollars, securing future funding of around 300 million a year (and more if the fund will grow in the future). The board of the fund will select 'strategic investment proposals which provide quality infrastructure and support Australian Government policy with respect to diversity, specialisation and responsiveness to labour market needs'.

I though it was quite an innovative approach to government funding of higher education but this is all what the Economist makes of it:

"the budget offered A$5 billion for new research centres in Australia's public universities"

Seems to me that there is quite a difference between the establishment of a fund (of which only the revenues can be spent) and 'offering 5 billion dollars' and a difference between research centres and investments which provide 'quality infrastructure and support Australian Government policy'.