Recalibrating value for money for international students

source: University World News (Rahul Choudaha)

“Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future,” said Nobel laureate Niels Bohr. So, I am looking back at my predictions from 2011 about ‘the future of international student mobility’ with scepticism.

I highlighted that “…the influence of unpredictable events like 9/11 and the recession on student mobility is far-reaching and global. In addition, government policies related to visa requirements, specifically those concerning financial requirements and post-education work opportunities, will have a big influence on student mobility.”

While many were surprised (pleasantly or unpleasantly) by the outcomes of the Brexit referendum and the American presidential elections, it is safe to predict that recruiting international students is going to become hypercompetitive. Hans de Wit noted, “although the main push and pull factors have not changed, global contexts have and will continue to do so, resulting in growing global competition for international students”.

Intensifying global competition

Looking at international student mobility through the Three Waves framework, we notice that some of the unpredictable events have a larger impact on student mobility patterns and choices and have implications for institutional strategies and national policies.

The First Wave was characterised by the terrorist attack of 9/11 that resulted in stricter visa barriers for international students in the United States. Many competing destinations including the United Kingdom and Australia expanded enrolment at the expense of the US. This wave also saw the launch of regional hubs, such as Dubai Knowledge Village, and policy initiatives related to international branch campuses in Malaysia.

The global financial crisis triggered the Second Wave and resulted in severe budget cuts for the higher education sector around the world. In search of additional sources of revenue, many institutions in the US started focusing on growing international enrolment. Countries like Denmark and Sweden started charging tuition fees for students outside the European Economic Area. This wave also saw a significant growth in English-taught programmes in Europe and Asia.

The Third Wave is shaped by the uncertainties triggered by the new political order, with anti-immigrant rhetoric and restrictive work policies for international students, which are intensifying global competition. Given that one in three globally mobile international students is enrolled in the US or the UK, changes in the number of students choosing these destinations have a cascading effect in other parts of the world.

For example, countries like Germany, Australia and Canada are also gaining from the redirection of some of the mobility from the US and the UK. However, the key test of institutional strategy and stability will be the ability to maintain international enrolment when the next unpredictable event comes into play in the Fourth Wave.

In sum, institutions are more reliant on international student enrolment at a time when competition to attract them is increasing. As a result, higher education institutions must consider the changes in the external environment and recalibrate their value proposition for students in order to promote sustainable enrolment growth.

Demonstrating value for money

How do we define value for money? The relatively simple and universal definition of “value for money” according to the Oxford English Dictionary is “reasonableness of cost of something in view of its perceived quality”.

However, “value for money” is a contested and complicated concept in the context of higher education as the perspectives of various stakeholders – students, faculty, administrators and policy-makers – differ substantially. Yet, it is now embedded in the UK’s Higher Education and Research Act.

If defining the value for money of higher education is difficult, then demonstrating value for money is an even bigger challenge. Paul Layzell, principal of Royal Holloway, University of London, wrote in a Universities UK blog that the higher education sector needs “…new approaches that are more readily accessible to students and politicians alike, helping us to explain the decisions that underpin value of higher education”.

Students are becoming aware of the changing policy environment of higher tuition fees and lower government funding. According to research commissioned by the newly established Office for Students, UK students were less likely to consider their investment as good value for money (49%), compared to 61% of students from other European Union countries and 66% of those from non-EU countries.

On the upside the research shows that perceived quality in the context of tuition costs is still higher for international students as compared to domestic students. However, on the downside, a third of international students do not see the value for money of their course and may be likely to recommend alternative destinations to future students.

Universities must not only define their value for money but also map it to the best-fit segment of international students.

Engaging diverse student segments

International student decisions to study abroad are influenced by several variables at the individual, institutional and country level. However, international students can be placed on a spectrum of varying abilities and expectations, with ‘Bargain-hunters’ on one end and ‘Experience-seekers’ on the other end.

Bargain-hunters are driven by how to minimise costs (tuition and living expenses) and maximise financial returns in terms of work opportunities during and after the programme. They are less constrained by a city’s location as long as it offers lower costs or higher prospects of work. This segment is highly sensitive to changes in tuition fees and immigration policies. Bargain-hunters are the segment of students who are highly affected by the unfavourable immigration policies of the Third Wave.

Experience-seekers are motivated by the lived experiences and social recognition that comes with studying abroad. As a result, location and safety matter to them. They are less sensitive to cost and immigration policies as compared to Bargain-hunters. Many Experience-seekers intend to go back to their home country and do not necessarily want to work in the destination country.

To enrol international students sustainably, institutions must recalibrate the value for money of their offering and map it to their best-fit segment.

Consider the example of Eastern Michigan University, which recently announced a change in tuition policy, meaning they will charge international undergraduate students the same tuition fees as domestic students – a reduction of 60% compared to last year. This ‘recalibration’ will differentiate the university among its segment of Bargain-hunter students.

While not all international students can be defined in this framework, it does provide a way to conceptualise the diversity of the international student body and how institutional strategies must adapt to them to offer maximum value for money.

Global competition for international students is becoming intense. Yet, innovation and adoption of institutional strategies that align with student segments and deliver on the promise of value for money will become the key differentiators of institutional success.

Dr Rahul Choudaha is executive vice president of global engagement and research at Studyportals. Choudaha publishes, presents and advises on data-informed internationalisation strategies in the context of shifting student mobility trends and evolving transnational education models. He blogs and tweets as DrEducation.

Universities demand hike in EU research funding

source: University World News (Brendan O'Malley)

In the wake of the European Commission’s release of its outline for the Ninth Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, Horizon Europe, 14 European associations of universities released a joint statement on Friday calling upon the European Union institutions to double the budget for Horizon Europe, improve its content and reconsider the budget distribution over the different pillars of the programme.

The statement calls on the European Parliament and European Council to support Horizon Europe but make the following changes:


  • Increase the total budget to €160 billion (US$186 billion).
  • Review the budget allocation.
  • Put the realisation of the European Research Area at the centre of Horizon Europe.
  • Foresee better linkages between research, innovation and education.
  • Include a human and societal reflection, as well as options for fundamental research, in all clusters and missions.

The statement says, for universities, creating the best Horizon Europe possible is paramount as the programme is a key enabler in achieving European ambitions and strengthening values. “By reinforcing research and innovation, Horizon Europe will impact the daily life of European citizens, European society as a whole and the European economy.”

Professor Kurt Deketelaere, secretary general of the League of European Research Universities, which initiated the joint statement, said: “If it had not been for the budget distribution proposal, our overall evaluation of Horizon Europe would have been even more positive! The budget proposal is decent, but must be increased, the programme proposal is decent, but must be improved.

“However, the underfunding of pillar one [Open Science] and the overfunding of pillar three [Open Innovation] have been a damper on our initial joy over the programme. So this will have to be remedied.”

Lesley Wilson, secretary general of the European University Association, said: “Our most important recommendation is to increase Horizon Europe’s total budget. To meet the EU’s ambitious goals for the programme, universities are calling for funding to be doubled to €160 billion.”

The statement says a bigger total budget would help address universities’ concerns about how the budget is allocated.

“Funding must be distributed with a focus on those programmes that have a proven track record in: generating EU added value; contributing to the European research and innovation landscape; and reinforcing European human capital,” the statement says.

“This is exactly what the Marie Sklodowska Curie Actions and the European Research Council in particular have delivered. For that reason, and to multiply the effects of their achievements, they deserve a more substantial budget increase.”

Uneven funding for challenges

The 14 associations say while the overall budget for pillar two [Global Challenges and Industrial Competitiveness] has increased substantially, the distribution of budgets is not equitably divided among the envisaged five thematic clusters within that pillar, which focus on Health; Inclusive and Secure Society; Digital and Industry; Climate, Energy and Mobility; and Food and Natural Resources.

“We welcome the five-cluster approach, but a more balanced budget distribution must capture the fact that they all are the most pressing challenges our societies are facing.”

They note positively the budget increase for “sharing excellence” as an important element in building the European Research Area.

But they also say that sufficient investment and supportive frameworks at the national level are also needed to close the research and innovation divide across and within member states.

The European University Association, in its detailed response to the Horizon Europe proposal, says this includes lowering risks to participation, enhanced consistency in the interpretation of rules, and broader acceptance of the accounting practices of beneficiaries. It adds that the possibility for member states to finance the Seal of Excellence via European Structural and Investment Funds will also contribute to this objective.

Universities’ central role

The 14 associations, in their statement, say universities have a clear and central role to play in addressing today’s global challenges and in helping to stimulate industrial competitiveness. “No other type of organisation can address such issues in a holistic way, while also considering the societal dimension. Universities should therefore play a central role in developing and managing missions,” they say.

The statement also says that universities have a leading role in stimulating the transfer of research results to society and the market, mainly through highly educated human capital.

“Therefore, the role of universities in the European Innovation Council must be amplified and recognised. Linkages between research, innovation and education in Horizon Europe must be improved and spread more broadly over the entire programme.”

Finally, they call for “stronger human and societal approaches across the whole programme”, especially in some pillar two clusters.

“Industry’s short-term interest should not prevail over society’s long-term benefits from Horizon Europe,” the statement says. “Even when the focus is on technology and close-to-market activities, reflections on how it affects our societies must be included.

“At the same time, addressing today’s global challenges and generating breakthrough innovations need fresh insights based on new research, not only projects that further develop already-known approaches. Close-to-market activities should be complemented explicitly with fundamental research.”

The associations say they look forward to continuing their work with the European Commission, the European Parliament and Council of the European Union to support a timely approval of Horizon Europe and to actively engage in the co-creation process in order to make the programme a success.

The 14 associations that signed the statement are:


  • AURORA, a European network of universities
  • CESAER, A European network of science and technology universities
  • CLUSTER, the Consortium Linking Universities of Science and Technology for Education and Research
  • The Coïmbra Group
  • EARMA, the European Association of Research Managers and Administrators
  • EASSH, the European Alliance for Social Sciences and Humanities
  • ECIU, the European Consortium of Innovative Universities
  • EUA, the European University Association
  • The Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities
  • IDEA League, a European network of science and technology universities
  • LERU, the League of European Research Universities
  • SEFI, the European Society for Engineering Education
  • UNICA, the Network of Universities from the Capitals of Europe
  • YERUN, Young European Research Universities.


source: The Conversation (Jason Lane, Associate Professor of Education 
Policy & Co-Director of the Cross-Border Education Research Team, 
University at Albany, State University of New York)

The Conversation’s international teams are collaborating on a series of articles about the Globalisation of Higher Education, examining how universities are changing in an increasingly globalised world. This is the third article in the series. Read more here.

Students have come back to college. But not all to the United States.

The idea that a student would study in another country is not a new concept. The media frequently reports on the number of international students studying in the United States. And that is exactly how we tend to think about it – students from other countries coming to the United States.

Yet, a growing number of US students are now looking overseas for their college degree. Germany alone, with its essentially free higher education system, is drawing a fair number of prospective US college students. Some 4,660 US students were enrolled in German universities last year – a number that has increased by 20% in three years.

While the number of US students attending college in Germany remains very small relative to the some 21 million individuals pursuing a post-secondary education, it represents two important shifts in the international student market: a rapidly increasing global market for international students and a growing number of US students looking to earn degrees overseas.

As a researcher of international education, a key concern for me is understanding the ways in which the changing global economy is reshaping educational opportunities and potentially how the US dominance in the international education market is being threatened.

US students studying abroad

There is no central source that tracks the total number of US students enrolled in foreign institutions.

There is also no international repository of enrollment trends worldwide. In the US, the federal governmenttracks enrollments in domestic higher education institutions. In addition, the Institute of International Education (IIE)’s annual Open Doors report gathers data about American students at US colleges studying abroad for academic credit.

In fact, there were about 290,000 students studying abroad for academic credit, but not a full degree, in the 2012 academic year, more than double the number who studied abroad 15 years earlier. However, these numbers do not include students pursuing a full degree from an overseas institution, as they are not tracked by the US government.

But based on national data sets, IIE’s Project Atlas has put together a patchwork picture about students pursuing college degrees elsewhere.

According to a Project Atlas report (the most recent aggregated data on this issue), there were more than 43,000 US students enrolled in degree programs in foreign countries in 2010 (this is in addition to the number of students studying abroad not for a degree). However, it should be noted that Project Atlas, has data only from the IIE’s 13 partnering nations. So these data may actually undercount the number of students enrolled in such programs.

Even so, based on these data, we can confidently say that the United Kingdom was the leading destination for US students. Most US students (72%) in this data set head to anglophone countries. Master’s degree programs are the most popular option (followed by undergraduate programs and then doctoral).

Recent reports, such as those about Germany, suggest that the number of students pursuing a degree outside of their home country, including students moving outside of the US, is growing rapidly. But, in order to gather information about US citizens who pursue degrees elsewhere, that information must be gathered from those nations.

Growing competition for international students

The fact is that today, there is a large market for students in higher education.

In 2000, according to UNESCO’s Education at a Glance, there were only 2.1 million students studying abroad in both short-term and full-degree programs. Today, there are roughly 4.5 million.

And, the competition for those students has become quite fierce. Today, countries like China, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, Taiwan, Thailand, Argentina, Brazil and Chile, who once primarily sent students abroad, have enacted policies and strategies to actively recruit international students.

In fact, according to our research, places like Singapore, Malaysia and United Arab Emirates want to become regional educational hubs – serving students from their neighboring countries.

With this increase, the market for international students has also become quite volatile in the last decade. Many of the earlier entrants to this market are losing share.

For instance, even though the total number of international students studying in the US continues to grow, the US market share has dropped from 23% in 2000 to 16% in 2012. Countries such as Germany, France, South Africa and Belgium have also lost about 5% market share collectively, with Germany and France having the largest remaining share of the group at about 6% each.

At the same time, places like China, Canada, the United Kingdom, Russia, Korea and New Zealand each picked up larger proportion of the market, with the United Kingdom and Russia both gaining two points of the market and the others a little less. In fact, at 13% of the market share and growing, the United Kingdom may be on track to overtake the US’ market lead.

Opening up borders

In such a market, some countries are taking advantage of their language of instruction which can offer a competitive advantage, while others are offering low-cost or even free tuition.

So, nations whose language of instruction is widely spoken elsewhere, such as English, French and Spanish, are becoming leading receivers of international students.

Some countries, such as Austria, France, Germany and Norway, are providing de facto free education for all students, including those from foreign countries.

This low cost of education can help countries attract students already looking to go abroad as well as elicit attention from students looking for alternatives to the high costs of higher education in their own countries.

Countries are getting much savvier about their efforts to recruit foreign students – adopting more student-friendly immigration policies, offering financial incentives and even setting national strategic recruitment goals.

The German government, for instance, has a goal of attracting 350,000 international students by 2020. To do so, Germany is actively recruiting students and lowering barriers to entry.

Today, an increasing number of degree programs offered in Germany are in English and searchable through a national database. They have even amended their laws to make it easier for international students to workwhile going to school. The German academic exchange service, DAAD, also provides scholarships to offset the cost of other academic and living expense.

Competing for brain power

Attracting international students, then, is not just about bringing in tuition dollars. Countries offering free or reduced tuition are often seeking to rebuild national workforce as their domestic population ages and younger talent pools shrink.

So, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden are now developing study-to-work pathways and “train and retain policies” to encourage international students to transition into the workplace.

Some of these efforts are paying off. Students are not only choosing to study abroad; many are also staying abroad after they graduate.

For example, a survey of more than 11,000 international students in Germany found that three in 10 plan to stay in Germany permanently after their studies and four in 10 plan to stay for at least 10 years.

A globally competitive market

The increasing number of students pursuing their college years in a foreign country is symptomatic of two important trends.

First, it reflects a rapidly changing world economy, where it is not only the workforce opportunities that are global, but also the educational experiences that prepare students for those opportunities.

As a result, more and more students from both developed and developing countries are looking beyond their national borders for their collegiate experience.

Second, as economies become more knowledge-based, the competition for brains is heating up.

The US has long dominated this market. But as more nations have seen international students as part of their strategic interests, the US market has begun to shrink significantly.

Without a similar strategic national interest, will the US’ dominance fall all together?

EC proposes budget increases for research and Erasmus+

source: (Brendan O’Malley)

The European Commission (EC) has called for a 30% increase in the European Union’s research budget and a doubling of the budget for Erasmus+ in its proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework for 2021-27, which it presented to the European Parliament on 2 May.

If agreed by the European Parliament and the European Council, this would bring spending on research up from €70 billion (US$84 billion) in Horizon 2020 to €100 billion (US$84 billion) in Horizon Europe – as the next Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (FP9), the successor to Horizon 2020, will be called.

Members of the European Parliament were quick to praise the European Commission for earmarking a drastic increase in funds towards programmes that have been championed by the parliament, including Erasmus+, which will receive €30 billion (US$36 billion) over the seven-year funding period – compared with €15 billion in 2014-20.

By contrast, funding for agriculture and cohesion have been slashed.

The European University Association (EUA) representing more than 800 higher education institutions, welcomed the EC’s willingness to “step up investment” in research and education despite a challenging political and economic context.

But the EUA said it considered the doubling of the Erasmus+ budget “an absolute precondition to work towards the achievement of the EU’s new goals in the field, which require more European mobility and collaboration”.

Along with security and defence, education and research are one of the few areas to avoid cuts and see a proposed increase in spending in the EC’s proposal.

Thomas Estermann, director for governance, funding and public policy development for EUA, said the proposal was “a step in the right direction”. He told University World News: “Many areas have had to face cuts, but this sends the right message that education and research are areas that provide a high return on investment.”

However, he also said it was “not enough to meet all the ambitions that most likely will be put forward in the proposed Horizon Europe programme”.

The League of European Research Universities (LERU) also welcomed the proposal as an “important step in the right direction”, but said it was “not as ambitious as what was needed”. It had made a joint statement with 12 other European university associations on 21 March saying that “a doubling of the budget for research and innovation [R&I] is an absolute necessity if the EU wants to emerge as a leader in the global R&I competition”.

It is actually very difficult to evaluate the significance of the figures proposed because it is not possible to know yet what the United Kingdom will be contributing to the budget post Brexit. In theory Brexit will create a €12 billion hole in the EU’s overall finances, but the UK has indicated it would like to buy back into some parts of the EU programme – if the EU will allow it.

“The proposal obviously can’t take into account the UK as a contributor to the budget but we very much hope there will be an agreement via which the UK can participate in the research funding programme and Erasmus+,” Estermann said.

According to the EUA, the €100 billion – and possibly more if the UK will be associated to the programme and contribute to its funding – could enable a start to be made on addressing the efficiency issue that plagued Horizon 2020 and its record-low success rates.

“However, the increase is not ambitious enough to meet the combined objectives of an improved average success rate, enhanced funding for innovation and resourcing large-scale ‘missions’, among others. Indeed, this would require a full-scale doubling of the budget allocated to Horizon 2020,” the EUA said in a statement.

Biggest increase ever

LERU said the proposed research budget is about €35 billion more than Horizon 2020 when you take into account the UK contribution.

“This represents the biggest [percentage] increase ever for the FP [Framework Programme]. Especially in light of Brexit and its budgetary consequences, as well as the EU’s new priorities, the proposed increased investment in research, innovation and education by the commission is acceptable.”

LERU, which favours an association of the United Kingdom to FP9 post Brexit, said if the UK, Switzerland, Norway and Israel associate to FP9, it would effectively increase the budget to €120 billion, the amount LERU called for last year.

The Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities welcomed the EC’s proposal as “an ambitious basis for further negotiations” but has called for the budget for Horizon Europe to be increased to €160 billion.

A study commissioned by LERU has shown that investing in universities pays off with very high returns: in 2016 LERU universities generated almost €5 of gross value added (GVA) for every €1 of income received. It was also estimated that the wider research universities sector generated €400 billion in GVA and supported 5.1 million jobs in Europe in 2016.

“With its excellent cross-border research, innovation and education, Europe has unique assets to find answers to develop the society of tomorrow, with smart and clean buildings and vehicles, with a circular economy, equipped to tackle diseases and security threats, making our society not only more competitive and sustainable, but also more resilient and inclusive. Europe’s universities educate and treasure some of the finest brains in the world and have invaluable societal impact,” LERU said.

Kurt Deketelaere, secretary-general of LERU, strongly called on the European Parliament and the member states to agree on a further increase of the budget.

Members of the European Parliament, who are expected to vote on the proposal at the end of May, responded positively to it, welcoming the new priorities, including the emphasis on research.

The role of universities in an era of authoritarianism

Source: (by Michael Ignatieff)

Globalisation of higher education is an extraordinary social achievement and has turned universities into the most diverse, multicultural and plural of all global communities. However, it has involved a certain kind of pact with authoritarian governments.

For example, the international Schwarzman Scholars in China operate in a curious bubble in which they have free internet access but the Chinese students in the same classes do not have equal internet access.

The Central European University or CEU is another example. Founded in 1991 by a bunch of Eastern European academics in Budapest and Prague, the idea was to implant world-class social science and humanities teaching in university systems that had only known communist ideology, to spread the virtues of Western academic freedom to the whole of the post-communist world and to play a crucial role during the transition process from communism to liberal democracy.

It was not about propaganda; it was about open minds, open thinking, free minds, free institutions and free politics. And from 1991 until around 2010 that mission seemed to be working. There were some unexpected results, including a brain drain when Eastern European countries were admitted to the European Union. That brain drain may be triggering some resentment about the impact of university education on Eastern Europe.

Counter elites

What we did not see coming at CEU is that we trained the liberal democratic transition elite, but we trained the elites that lost. In Hungary the post-1989 liberal democratic elite were pulverised in the elections. We are now facing all the consequences of having trained the elite that lost.

If we look at the authoritarian turn in higher education – in Russia, China, Turkey, Hungary – you begin to see a new pattern that we need to understand.

In Russia, the European University at St Petersburg, set up again to train the liberal elite, is now in a death spiral because of the pressure coming from St Petersburg’s counter elites. They don’t actually close the university down. They just chip away relentlessly at their capacity to operate at all.

So that’s Russia, here’s the paradox in Russia where we appear to be reverting to a pattern which was discernible in Andrei Sakharov’s time, in Soviet time – where there is a certain amount of academic freedom and openness in the international scientific community for the natural sciences but total control of the social sciences and humanities.

Then there is globalisation in China: the degree of ideological regimentation towards the social sciences and humanities in China is a sign of what President Xi Jinping has in mind for the entire society. It seems to me that they have concluded that they cannot afford institutions teaching social sciences and humanities freely in China because it is essentially a regime threat.

The liberal transition story we believed was that we would move from liberalisation of the market to inevitable liberalisation of thought to inevitable liberalisation of politics, with universities as a kind of battering ram in the charge towards liberal democracy.

Xi Jinping’s decision to become emperor for life is a clear signal right down the chain that academic life in China will be very heavily policed. The place where the Chinese community will have open access will be in the natural science domains crucial to economic growth and innovation and they will seek to keep control, with a limited opening in STEM – science, technology, engineering and mathematics – subjects.

Meanwhile in Turkey anybody who can get out of Turkish social science and humanities is doing so. Whole faculties are being dismissed. Some of my students from Harvard are being arrested as Gulenists and put on trial.

This is one of the biggest academic freedom scandals in the West. And it seems to me it is being sustained by something else that we need to face clearly, which is that Europe is not engaging with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan over the issue of academic freedom because Erdogan controls the taps of migration flows into Europe.

It is an absolutely diabolic bargain in which the freedom of Turkish institutions is being traded against migration controls. It is one of the basic institutional political reasons why European leaders, European voices that can speak out, are notably silent about the restriction of academic freedom in Turkey.

If you look at the Turkish story, the Chinese story, the Russian story and the Hungarian story, I think what you see is a very clear emerging picture that single party regimes are everywhere privileging control over academic quality and openness to international academic life because they see academic freedom as a regime threat. If they have to choose between having good universities, or universities they can control, then they choose universities they can control every time.

Fighting back

A year ago without any consultation or warning the CEU was told that we had to have a campus in America and a new bilateral agreement with the Hungarian government.

Suddenly we weren’t allowed to have a dual legal American identity, which meant we couldn’t issue American accredited degrees in Hungary because local Hungarian universities were jealous of the fact that we could award United States masters and PhDs. They saw it as our competitive advantage and the national bourgeoisie supported by the state wanted to ‘level the playing field’.

One of the institutional dispositions of universities is to be very quiet, thoughtful, avoid conflict, avoid standing up. We learnt that sometimes you have to fight. So we rallied our network. We had huge networks of alumni and friends at every university in Europe. One student put a Facebook call-out on a Friday afternoon and we had 75,000 people on the streets of Budapest chanting “free universities in a free country”.

So what is the message of that? That universities should not underestimate their public support; that they should not underestimate the power of their networks; that we sometimes have to fight a political battle.

The consequence was that the government then agreed very reluctantly to go into negotiations with the state of New York where we were accredited and at the end of last summer we got a deal which allowed us to stay in Budapest.

In return we would establish educational activities in the United States. It made sense to compromise so we compromised. For nine months we have been sitting waiting for the government of Hungary to sign this agreement. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has just won a huge majority in the recent elections. He now holds all the cards and the future is unclear.

Academic freedom matters

Until we got into this jam, I never really thought that hard about academic freedom. It seemed to be one of those little perks that middle-class educated people get to have.

We need to be very clear about how we are seen and we need to turn the language of academic freedom as our privilege into academic freedom as a right that protects us all if we are going to defend universities in the 21st century.

We are not just fighting for a corporate privilege for ourselves; we are defending a counter majoritarian institution whose function is to serve and protect and defend the whole society’s capacity to know anything at all. That’s why academic freedom matters. If we defend it as a corporate privilege, we are done for. And that’s a central message that I have learned.

The second message is that we need to understand the crucial way in which academic freedom is one element of a counter majoritarian fabric that is integral for the health of a democratic society.

As a university president, if you ask yourself what do I need institutionally to make sure that academic freedom in my institution is secure, you will come up with the rule of law and constitutional review, independent accreditation bodies, self-governing professional associations, scientific bodies that are able to do any kind of peer review, a formal right of consultation about impending legislation, parliamentary review of higher education legislation, a free press, university autonomy and, above all, you need to be part of an international structure of independent scientific peer review.

Another point which is relevant to globalisation of higher education: visa regimes are now the chief choke point in every Western democratic country restricting the capacity of universities to freely choose who they want to admit to their programmes.

One further point: these authoritarian regimes are increasingly creating national universities to teach public administration to control their future bureaucracy. This is another challenge to academic freedom. Why does this strategy have any support? What I’ve learnt is that it has support from local universities who resent international competition.

All of these regimes are trying to create what used to be called a national bourgeoisie, attendant on subsidies, state support, state contracts, state education. So these are regimes that use education to create a national bourgeoisie which will in turn support them to the degree that they depend on elections at all. And this electoral base supports this kind of regime because it supports migration control.

They do not want a multicultural, pluralist future. So control of universities is part of an attempt to re-engineer these societies and to defend them as mono-ethnic societies controlled by their own state-supported national bourgeoisie.

What are universities for?

So where do we go from here?

I see academic freedom as a core European value and it is a core European value because universities need to think of themselves as counter majoritarian institutions, as integral to the survival of free societies as a free press, an independent judiciary, peer review and parliamentary review of legislation.

We are part of an intricate structure of counter majoritarian freedom. And our political challenge is to tell people that their freedom as a people absolutely depends on having institutions that say you may be wrong. It’s the toughest sell of all.

Just as a free press keeps the channels of information open and courts make sure that legislation is consistent with constitutional and rights safeguards, universities winnow the hard facts of knowledge from the chaff of opinion, rumour, fantasy, paranoia, tweets, blogs and the whole deluge of false information which makes it almost impossible for societies to deliberate freely on a basis that we actually know to be true.

Universities have to train students that knowledge is extremely hard, that it’s a discipline you have to follow and once you’ve got it you have access to the most important thing a democratic system needs, which is the capacity to find out what is true.

That’s our job. But it is an unpopular job and it’s a job that people may not want to hear. But it is our job and we have to defend it with courage and without any embarrassment. This is the moment when we really, really have to believe in what we do.

Michael Ignatieff is president and rector of the Central European University, Hungary. This is an edited version of his Burton R Clark Lecture, “Academic Freedom and the Future of Europe”, delivered at last week’s Centre for Global Higher Education annual conference on the subject of the new geopolitics of higher education. The Centre for Global Higher Education is based at the UCL Institute of Education, United Kingdom.

The Higher Education Technology Paradox

Source:  (by Hank Lucas)

The academic rewards system will continue to stymie technology adoption unless higher ed administrators promote organizational change.

The number one paradox in higher education is that technology is both transforming and disrupting universities around the world. Institutions that adapt to the technology and become content producers will survive and flourish; those confined to being content consumers will struggle to stay in business.

Many colleges and universities are in financial difficulty today: According to an article in The New York Times, Moody’s Investors Service estimates that the number of four-year nonprofit colleges going out of business could triple (from five to 15 per year) over the next few years, and the merger rate will more than double from two or three today. The inability to keep up with technology-enhanced teaching and learning will only exacerbate the problems of financially challenged colleges.

What kind of technology has such great potential for positive and negative outcomes?

Flipped classes have students studying (asynchronous) course materials on their own time usually by accessing content posted to a learning management system on the Internet. Physical class time is spent working on problems, team projects, discussion issues and similar activities. Blended classes are like flipped classes, but typically the time in a physical class meeting is reduced to compensate for the time students spend studying asynchronous materials. Online classes eliminate physical class sessions. There are two types of online classes: those that have no synchronous interaction among faculty and students and those that use videoconferencing software to hold a real-time, synchronous class. Online programs with synchronous classes are the most expensive and labor-intensive to offer, but provide the best online experience. MOOCs are massive open online classes that students can take for free, or pay for in order to earn a certificate or specialization. These classes are available on three major platforms, Coursera, edX and Udacity; anyone with an Internet connection can access asynchronous materials, bulletin boards and instructor videos that constitute the course. Some universities (Georgia Tech, U. of Illinois, Arizona State) are building for-credit classes and degree programs around MOOCs, which is a huge threat to traditional universities and degree programs.

What does it take for a university to develop the kind of materials described above? Obviously, it requires money, but more than money it needs a motivated and committed faculty. The reward system in most institutions and the inherent conservatism of faculty members create a huge barrier to adopting new technologies for education. (Many faculty members are in denial that the technology can improve student learning and that it will be widely implemented.)

How does the reward system impact technology adoption?

Assistant professors at research universities are rewarded for publishing scholarly articles and books, which they must do to be granted tenure. They cannot risk the time needed to master the new technologies. Tenured faculty can largely do what they want, and by the time they have received tenure have fallen into a rhythm of research and teaching; once tenured they are expected to undertake more service to the institution. Where does the time come from to adopt a new approach to the classroom? Non-tenure track instructors are employed because they are good, or at least adequate, teachers. Adopting new technology in the classroom is risky and could result in lower student evaluations, which in turn could affect their employment status.

It is true that not all students are ready for technology in learning. An undergraduate in the Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland complained after a flipped statistics class that he was paying all of this tuition to teach himself. What a great outcome! In less than three years when he graduates there will be no one to teach him, so learning how to learn was a tremendous byproduct of the class. As technology-enabled classes become the norm in K–12 schools and at universities, these students will adapt — and they will probably adapt faster than the faculty.

Deans and other administrators are going to have to motivate the faculty and modify rewards in order to move their institutions ahead. They have to lead the charge in collaboration with faculty who are positive and enthusiastic about new ways of teaching and learning. Yes, there are some faculty who want to change, and they come from all of the groups above. Maybe some are risk takers, others like technology, and possibly all of them see the advantages of technology in the classroom. The technology can help change teaching and learning from a largely passive exercise to an active one in which students are heavily engaged and involved in their learning.

Administrators, then, will have to become the prime movers for adopting this new round of educational technology. They have to encourage adoption and organizational change in as many ways as possible: appointing associate deans for classroom innovation, investments in technology and instructional designers, and by rewarding those who step forward to participate. The administration has to bring faculty, staff and students together to transform higher education with technology.

Hank Lucas is the author of Technology and the Disruption of Higher Education: Saving the American University.

Higher Education Needs a Re-think to Train Tomorrow’s Workforce

Source article and video:  

The ways in which the nature of work is changing beyond our control necessitate a more flexible education system, with “students” no longer being defined just as 18-to-22-year-olds on college campuses. In this era of Netflix subscriptions and Blue Apron dinner deliveries, it’s high time we embrace an education system that’s flexible, accessible and affordable, whether it’s by streaming classes onto our laptops at home or by hitting the pavement to get to class.

Today, students go off to college at age 18, spend four to six years there, graduate and go to work, often tens of thousands of dollars in debt. And if they dare to go another route, by postponing or breaking up their years of attendance, they’re often considered unsuccessful dropouts. There has to be a better way. Higher education is ripe for transformation — one in which technology will allow online education to become as relevant and compelling a choice as on-campus education, leading us to blended learning where online and in-person education coexist. The key to this future vision? Massive open online courses (MOOCs).

MOOCs are not a new concept; they have been around for nearly six years. But the potential of MOOCs to educate large numbers of people in a scalable way at very low marginal cost is still incredibly important, relevant and meaningful, and just beginning to be appreciated. The next phase of MOOCs, and the innovation that we’re really excited about right now, is courses and programs that offer pathways to credit at a college or university by blending the best of online and in-person programs.

To offer credit-grade MOOCs, online learning providers must have a platform with high academic integrity — one that maintains high standards and facilitates rigorous assessments. This could include integrating virtual proctoring, hand grading and peer grading, as well as innovative, rich assessments that go well beyond multiple choice. New partnerships between universities and online platforms must also be developed to support such innovative models.

One fine example of a credit-grade MOOC program offered on a credit-grade platform is MITx’s Supply Chain Management MicroMasters program, which was the pilot program for the MicroMasters initiative offered on edX. From this group of MicroMasters learners, who completed their credentials in June 2017, MIT has admitted 40 students into the traditional on-campus program. These MicroMasters students will be able to complete the on-campus master’s program in half the time and at half the cost.

This is such an exciting initiative. Programs like this are breaking down the traditional barriers of higher education — getting away from the “one size fits all” view. As more colleges and universities begin to accept MOOCs for credit, online learning options will create modularity and offer students more options.

There are three ways in which these new, innovative approaches can come to life by blending the best of in-person and digital delivery:


Fully online, stacked-credential master’s programs are a big innovation in online learning. The groundbreaking Georgia Tech Online Master of Science in Analytics, in partnership with edX, enables learners to earn a graduate degree for less than $10,000. Accepted students complete a MicroMasters credential, which is about 30 percent of the degree. While some will be able to enter the workforce with that credential, others of these graduates will then funnel into the full master’s program, where they will complete additional courses online to graduate from that program. This unbundling of the full master’s degree into a MicroMasters component allows more learners more options and access to education and, in turn, successful careers.


MIT recently conducted an experiment where it offered a fully online version of its popular on-campus Circuits and Electronics course to on-campus students for credit in an attempt to help students facing scheduling issues. The results? Students not only performed well but also reported feeling less stress and having more flexibility. Many other universities have begun toying with this online-while-on-campus delivery, which will inevitably pave the way for more schools to look at how this type of coursework can benefit both students and faculty.


Online credentials with a pathway to campus credit is another blend that is not only impacting the delivery of education, but also admissions, as it supports an inverted entry process. The Global Freshman Academy and the MicroMasters program, both available on edX, are examples of this blend. It lets universities include in their evaluation of degree applicants a student’s performance in an online credential program, which signals an applicant’s commitment to learning and demonstrates an applicant’s ability to tackle rigorous content and succeed in an on-campus program. Students also benefit from an inverted admissions process because they are able to try and complete coursework in a field at low cost before committing significant time and money toward applying for and enrolling in a degree program.

These approaches to delivering high-quality education are just a few examples of how education is being transformed. Much more potential from MOOCs remains to be unlocked, and I look forward to seeing and working to share this evolution.

(Anant Agarwal is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the CEO of edX, the online learning destination founded by Harvard and MIT.)


Higher education funding divide grows across Europe

Source: University World News

Since the 2008 financial crisis, the divide between higher education systems that increase public funding and those that reduce investment is getting wider in Europe, according to a new report.

The findings of the Public Funding Observatory Report 2017, published by the European University Association or EUA, also show that while 2012 was the year of “deepest crisis” for universities in Europe with the largest number of systems cutting funding, any recovery that can now be detected is slow and fragile.

In addition, the cuts make it harder for universities to compete for European Union funds, the report concluded.

Only 14 systems had higher funding in 2016 than in 2008 and eight of those have a faster growth in student populations compared to the increase in funding. Nineteen systems still had lower levels of direct public funding than at the time of the financial crisis.

During a webinar discussing the findings, Thomas Estermann, EUA’s director for governance, funding and public policy development, said on Wednesday: “We still have 19 systems with lower funding in 2016 than in 2008, and that shows this is a very challenging situation and it takes a very long time to catch up.

“We really would like to make a drastic call for change and encourage national funders to step up investment, really invest, but also invest at the European level, particularly in the period where we discuss the next level of European framework funding.

“Otherwise we will not have a higher education and research area that is competitive at an international level.”

In a separate statement, Estermann said the report shows a handful of countries have made increases that match student numbers and growth in gross domestic product or GDP, while others “need to up their investments to close the gap”.

The impact of cuts on activity areas varies across countries and can affect teaching, research, infrastructure or staff, the report says.

Short-term trends

The analysis of short-term trends reveals four categories of developments:

  • Systems with higher fluctuations in funding patterns,
  • Systems with positive signs of reinvestment after stagnation or decline,
  • Consistently investing systems, and
  • Systems that have continued cutting public funding to universities.

(…continue at )


Higher Education is Getting Digital

Source: WISE

There has been “digital” in higher education for a very long time. From the earliest computers to the beginnings of the internet, higher education has always found ways to use technology to capitalize on the power, scale, and efficiency of digital.

When I was an undergraduate student at university, email was an emerging digital technology. It was an exciting time to be a student. Staff were able to scale their interactions with students and students were able to build digital connections with their campus communities. Email was an exciting technology that fundamentally changed how people communicated around the globe.
Fast forward to the present and we’re still talking about digital in higher education. Numerous technologies have given universities new ways to enhance teaching, learning, and the student experience.
Technologies like big data, OER, learning analytics, augmented/virtual reality, social media, machine learning, bots/messaging, next generation learning environments, blockchain and the cloud are all part of today’s higher education technology mix.
What are the emerging opportunities that run in parallel with all of these new technologies?
First and foremost is the ability for universities to scale the student experience to a larger, more distributed group of learners. Enhanced mobile connectivity and social media allow academics and administrators to connect with campus communities anytime anywhere in educationally relevant ways.
Additionally, as more and more learner data is collected, learner analytics can be used to create individualized pathways for student success. Knowing more about each individual student’s academic journey leads universities to create a more bespoke learner experience.
New technologies can also make a higher education credential more secure. For example, MIT’s new digital diploma uses blockchain technology to ensure the legitimacy of a degree. This brings new benefit to the institution, the student, and to any potential future employer.
With great power comes great responsibility. In our ever-connected world, the importance of data security is paramount. Universities are gathering vast amounts of data in order to make processes more efficient, scale online learning, and engage in hyper-focused recruitment. All of this data requires a lot of security and institutional commitment to data protection and utilization schemes.
The more digitally connected we become, the more vulnerable we are to manipulation. The recent use of social networks to influence political outcomes has taught us that social media are powerful tools for connectivity and learning. The university experience is no longer just about a brick-and-mortar-based learner journey. Learning how to critically navigate and analyze digital content and networks has become an absolute necessity.
Student Success
Everything that a university does with digital is eventually about student success. Any and all digital university processes will eventually benefit students. While some, like learning analytics, are more direct, there are many ways that universities can use digital to benefit students.
Benefitting All Learners
My favorite aspect of how higher education is getting digital is the fact that technology creates more overall access for learners. Online learning environments allow distributed learners the opportunity to access the best that higher education has to offer regardless of locale.
In addition, the accessibility of virtual learning environments, student information systems, library content repositories, and app-driven content is a game-changer for students with disabilities. Driven by universal design principles, universities are creating courses content that is readily accessible for all students.
Digital Capabilities
Our digital capabilities matter. Digital represents core aspects of institutional efficiency and access, enhanced critical thinking and career development. Higher education continues to get digital on a daily basis.

EU to prioritise deeper HE cooperation and mobility

Source:  University World News 

European leaders and the European Commission have backed proposals to step up higher education mobility and exchanges and create a network of European universities with integrated study programmes and curricula that enable students to study abroad.

The plans signal a new era in which education and culture will be put high on the European Union’s agenda after years of being a low priority, according to the European University Association.

European heads of state or government, meeting at an informal summit at Gothenburg in Sweden on 17 November, supported the measures to deepen higher education cooperation and agreed to:


  • Promote mutual recognition of upper secondary education diplomas and the development of new curricula allowing for exchanges across European high school systems.
  • Promote multilingualism by aiming at all students speaking at least two additional European languages.
  • Launch a reflection on the ‘Future of Learning’ to respond to future trends and the digital revolution, including artificial intelligence.
  • Promote the mobility and participation of students in cultural activities through a ‘European Student Card’.

They had met to discuss the social dimension of Europe, including education and culture and responses to the challenges of digitalisation, future skills demands and the rise of ‘fake’ news, xenophobia and extremism.

That the discussion of education and culture was the first debate under the European Leaders’ Agenda signalled that education and culture are being given a higher priority than in the past.

Following the meeting, European Council President Donald Tusk said they had constructive discussion about eight ideas, which “were suggested not by Brussels, not by the institutions, but by member states”.

“One example is to make the Erasmus programme more inclusive, so that an increasing number of Europeans benefit from getting to know each other’s cultures, while living and studying in another EU country.

“The second example is the European Student Card, which started out as a cooperation between France and Italy. It was later expanded to cover Germany and Ireland. Now the idea is to extend the geographical scope of this initiative and to offer cardholders access to cultural sites and activities across Europe.”

Tusk said that during the meeting “we established political support for these ideas” and “will make sure that this support is included in the conclusions of the European Council”. The financial aspect of the plans will have to be reflected in the next multi-annual budget discussion.

…Continue at University World News