The Dynamics of International Student Circulation in a Global Context 9789087902582, 9789087902599

Table of contents :
The Dynamics of International Student Circulation in a Global Context
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
Introduction and Acknowledgements
1. The Internationalization of Higher Education in a Global Context
2. Changing Dynamics in International Student Circulation: Meanings, Push and Pull Factors, Trends, and Data
3. International Student Circulation in Egypt
4. India in the Context of International Student Circulation: Status and Prospects
5. Indonesian Experiences in the Global Dynamics of International Students’ Circulation
6. South Africa and the Dynamics of International Student Circulation
7. International Student Circulation in the Context of the Bologna Process and the Lisbon Strategy
8. The Role of American Higher Education in International Student Circulation
9. The Dynamics of International Student Circulation in a Global Context: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
About the Authors
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON HIGHER EDUCATION

Citation preview

THE DYNAMICS OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON HIGHER EDUCATION Volume 11 Higher education worldwide is in a period of transition, affected by globalization, the advent of mass access, changing relationships between the university and the state, and the new technologies, among others. Global Perspectives on Higher Education provides cogent analysis and comparative perspectives on these and other central issues affecting postsecondary education worldwide.

Series Editor: Philip G. Altbach Center for International Higher Education, Boston College

Editorial Board: Manuel Gil Antón, Autonomous Metropolitan University of Mexico, Tlalpan, Mexico Molly Lee, UNESCO Bangkok, Thailand Damtew Teferra, Ford International Fellowship Program, New York, USA

This series is co-published with the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College.

The Dynamics of International Student Circulation in a Global Context Edited by Hans de Wit Windesheim Hoogeschool, The Netherlands Pawan Agarwal Minorities Development and Welfare Department, India Mohsen Elmahdy Said Ministry of Higher Education, Egypt Molatlhegi T. Sehoole University of Pretoria, South Africa and Muhammad Sirozi Graduate Studies Program of IAIN, Indonesia

SENSE PUBLISHERS ROTTERDAM / TAIPEI

A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN 978-90-8790-258-2 (paperback) ISBN 978-90-8790-259-9 (hardback)

Published by: Sense Publishers, P.O. Box 21858, 3001 AW Rotterdam, The Netherlands http://www.sensepublishers.com

Printed on acid-free paper

All rights reserved © 2008 Sense Publishers No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface

vii

Introduction and Acknowledgements Hans de Wit, Pawan Agarwal, Mohsen Said, Molathlhegi Sehoole and Muhammad Sirozi

ix

1. The Internationalization of Higher Education in a Global Context Hans de Wit

1

2. Changing Dynamics in International Student Circulation: Meanings, Push and Pull Factors, Trends, and Data Hans de Wit 3. International Student Circulation in Egypt Mohsen Elmadhy Said 4. India in the Context of International Student Circulation: Status and Prospects Pawan Agarwal 5. Indonesian Experiences in the Global Dynamics of International Students’ Circulation Muhammad Sirozi 6. South Africa and the Dynamics of International Student Circulation Molathlegi Sehoole

15

47

83

113

141

7. International Student Circulation in the Context of the Bologna Process and the Lisbon Strategy Hans de Wit

167

8. The Role of American Higher Education in International Student Circulation Hans de Wit and Laura E. Rumbley

199

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

9. The Dynamics of International Student Circulation in a Global Context: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations Pawan Agarwal, Mohsen Elmahdy Said, Molathlegi Sehoole, Muhammad Sirozi and Hans de Wit About the Authors

vi

233

263

PREFACE

This book, The dynamics of international student circulation in a global context, is of central importance in understanding the movement of students across borders in this era of the globalization of higher education. We are indebted to Hans de Wit, Pawan Agarwal, Mohsen Elmahdy Said, Molatlhegi Sehoole, and Muhammad Sirozi for their research. This is the first book that examines student flows from the perspective of some key sending countries. The emphasis here on south-south circulation is original and important. While the major direction of students is from south to north, there is a significant flow within the developing world. Countries like Egypt, South Africa, and India are noteworthy recipients of international students. The key concept here is circulation – the worldwide flows of students in many directions and for many reasons. We learn here about push and pull factors, the impact of religion on flows of students, about government policies relating to foreign study, the growing impact of the European Union’s internationalization initiatives, and other aspects of a highly complex reality. Importantly, we also learn that international study is not completely dominated by the major receiving countries and that this phenomenon is both complex and multidimensional. The collaborative project that served as the basis for this volume is an important outcome of the Fulbright New Century Scholars Program. In a joint effort to expand and build on the strengths of the traditional Fulbright Scholar Program, the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the U.S. Department of State and the Council of International Exchange of Scholars created the New Century Scholars Program. It holds at its core the tenet that has informed the Fulbright Program from its beginnings in 1946 – a deep belief in the importance of sharing knowledge from different cultural perspectives through academic exchange to build mutual understanding among nations and their citizens. As a new dimension of the Fulbright Program, New Century Scholars, established in 2000, seeks to move beyond bilateral exchange to multilateral engagement and multidisciplinary research collaboration in order to examine topics of global significance. The main idea behind New Century Scholars is that the major challenges facing humankind warrant global attention and can benefit from the ideas and experience of experts from many countries. To this end, New Century Scholars work in close cooperation to advance the state of human understanding on a chosen topic of global salience. In its first three years the program addressed three major topics: (a) the Challenges of Health in a Borderless World, (b) Ethnic and Sectarian

vii

PREFACE

Conflict within and across National Borders, and (c) the Global Empowerment of Women. In its fourth year, it turned its attention to global higher education. Reflecting the importance of higher education as a global issue, in the fall of 2005, 31 New Century Scholars gathered to address the topic “Higher Education in the 21st Century: Global Challenge and National Response.” Led by Philip G. Altbach as Distinguished Scholar Leader, they organized themselves into six working groups: (a) the Academic Profession in the Age of Globalization, (b) Access and Equity, (c) Higher Education and Social Cohesion, (d) the Private and Public Mix in the Development Process, (e) the Dynamics of Student Circulation, and (f) the Emerging Global Model for Research Universities. The decision to focus on higher education as a field of collaborative study was a natural choice for the New Century Scholars given the Fulbright Program’s longstanding role in sponsoring the movement of students and faculty among most of the world’s institutions of higher education. Under its auspices, the program has supported hundreds of thousands of exchanges and is considered the largest program of government-sponsored academic exchange throughout the world. Perceived and real strengths and weaknesses of institutions and systems of higher education around the world are a key element affecting academic mobility. Higher education is one of the “growth industries” of the 21st century. Trying to keep up with the need for its services across the world, in developed and developing countries alike, is an increasingly daunting challenge. In developing countries that have been successful in promoting basic literacy and greater access to K-16 levels of education, the demand for greater access to higher education is becoming overwhelming. This, in turn, not only prompts outward mobility when demand cannot be met but leads to a host of problems internally. Lack of adequate funding, significant overcrowding, low quality of academic programs, and poor working conditions for faculty and administrators all combine to challenge the ability of institutions to produce graduates who are well educated and who can contribute to national development. In many ways the topic of this volume reflects these issues in its focus on student circulation. Students, whether supported by government sponsored scholarships or through their families’ or their own resources, will constantly move in the direction of educational opportunies. What is not so clear is how the map of student circulation will be configured as more nations strive to build better higher education infrastructure and by doing so may not only be able to retain their own students who previously sought higher education elsewhere but also become regional centers for higher education opportunity. Ultimately, the dynamic growth of higher education worldwide will have a significant impact on student circulation in the coming years. This book encourages us to reexamine our traditional assumptions about where students will go for higher education as more nations vie to become magnets for the flow of students. Philip G. Altbach and Patti McGill Peterson

viii

HANS DE WIT, PAWAN AGARWAL, MOHSEN SAID, MOLATLHEGI SEHOOLE AND MUHAMMAD SIROZI

INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study about dynamics in international student circulation has been undertaken in the context of the 2005–2006 Fulbright New Century Scholars Program “Higher Education in the 21st Century.” It is the collective result of five scholars from different parts of the world who concentrated their joint efforts on making an analysis of current international student flows. This introduction will describe the objectives, methodology, and structure of our study. It will be followed by a conceptual chapter on the context of the internationalization of higher education, a chapter dealing with the dynamics of international student circulation, and four country reports from the South (Egypt, India, Indonesia, and South Africa) and two from the North (Europe and the United States). A comparative analysis of international student circulation and the international dimension of higher education, including recommendations, will conclude the study. The purpose of this study is to develop a better understanding of the dynamics of international student circulation and the internationalization of higher education in a global context, to assess its implication on higher education in different nations and regions, and to create a framework for action at the institutional, national, and international levels. To achieve this purpose, it is essential to address, discuss, and analyze the dynamics and patterns of international student circulation with particular reference to four countries (Egypt, India, Indonesia, and South Africa) which, as countries in the South, are perceived to be primarily on the sending side of student mobility, and two in the North (Europe and the United States), which are perceived to be primarily but not exclusively on the receiving side. (For the purposes of this examination, we treat Europe as a single entity, except where individual countries are noted.) We will perform detailed trend analyses of inward and outward student mobility based on primary and/or secondary data in the context of the counties under consideration. Analysis of new push and pull factors in global and specific national contexts; preliminary analysis of other trends such as the growth of transnational distance education programs representing new forms of delivery; the growth of foreign providers of higher education; trends in faculty mobility; and brain circulation are factors also addressed in this research. Thematic factors addressed in this research are the implications of students’ mobility on internationalization policies and practices at both national and institutional levels involving quality assurance, accreditation, academics, curriculum, and cultural aspects. Our study

ix

H. DE WIT ET AL.

focus is degree-seeking international students and their movement both into and out of target countries, a movement we refer to collectively by the term “international student circulation.” We probe the accuracy of existing assumptions about international student mobility, especially the views that it occurs primarily in South-North and North-North directions; that South-South flows are rather marginal; that the economic rationale for student mobility has become so dominant that virtually no other rationales are salient; and that the growing presence of national and international providers of higher education, as well as opportunities for distance education will reduce the need for international student mobility. On the basis of our studies, we question the accuracy of all of these assumptions. The rationale for the study is that student mobility has long been the most important factor in the process of higher education’s internationalization. At present, there is in the world an increasing unmet demand for higher education as a consequence of demographic trends, the need for new degree and diploma programs, and the need for lifelong learning. But one can observe also an increase in numbers and types of new providers: corporate universities, for-profit private institutions, media companies, and education brokers. Other developments are the emergence of new, innovative delivery methods: distance and e-learning, franchises, satellite campuses, twinning arrangements, and joint degree programs. These developments might impact the way inward and outward student mobility flows are changing and how the internationalization of higher education is evolving in relation to these changes. The objectives of the study are: • To provide an overview of trends and issues in international student circulation in four countries in the South (Egypt, India, Indonesia, and South Africa), and two in the North (Europe and the United States). • To analyze country the changes in international student circulation over the past 10 to 15 years and identify trends and issues. • To place these developments/trends and issues in the context of changes in higher education and its international dimension in each of the countries. • To conduct a comparative analysis among the six countries with respect to international student circulation according to trends and issues in the international dimension of higher education.

METHODOLOGY

The national studies, although having their own structure and focus related to the specific context in each country and region, follow a common outline as much as possible.

x

INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

National/Regional Studies Outline 1. Overview of national higher education system and trends We provide a short description of the higher education sector: level and type of institutions; key stakeholders; key data (number of institutions, number of students, number of faculty, funding); extent of public and private provision; and challenges and issues facing higher education in a global and regional context. We also include a short description of key economic and demographic indicators, relevant for the scope of the report. 2. National policies with respect to the internationalization of higher education We describe main policies, trends, and issues with respect to the international dimension of higher education in each country, including the implications of international and regional developments on national policies (e.g., GATS) and referring to institutional strategies for internationalization, including cases of both private and public higher education. We also deal with policies about student immigration and differential fees and admission procedures for international students compared to national students. 3. Overview of the extent of the foreign presence in higher education: providers and forms of delivery This overview briefly surveys the presence and trends in student numbers of foreign branch campuses, franchise operations, joint and double degree programs, and distance education. 4. Developments in international student circulation We explore general trends in different types of faculty and student mobility, other than international student mobility of degree-seeking students: study abroad for home degrees, study visits, foreign language training, faculty mobility, etc. We present data that provides the most specific possible picture, identifying trends, specific elements of student mobility, inward and outward circulation, and the number of students studying abroad broken down by level, discipline, and gender. 5. Challenges and critical issues of international student circulation We analyze the implications of the information in the previous four sections: changing rationales, brain drain/brain gain issues, the impacts of regional and international agreements, the influence of new providers and new forms of delivery, aid and trade concerns, cooperation and competition developments, new push and pull factors for student mobility, implications of quality assurance and accreditation, etc. Framework for Comparative Analysis For the purpose of this study, we designed a framework by which to understand the push and pull factors that may play a role in international student circulation by country/region and in comparative perspective. The push factors are here to xi

H. DE WIT ET AL.

be understood as those factors that stimulate students to study abroad for their degree (outward mobility). The pull factors attract students to come into a country to study for a degree (inward mobility). This framework is based on earlier studies on international student flows (see Chapter 2). This framework functions as a list of indicators to identify factors that push students to go (or not go) to study abroad for a degree, and what factors pull students to come (or not come) to study in a specific country. This approach is different from other studies that use push and pull factors together.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We hope that this study contributes to the better understanding of the current status of international student circulation – in particular, the specific position of developing countries in this area. We thank our fellow New Century Scholars of the 2005–2006 Fulbright New Century Scholars Program “Higher Education in the 21st Century”; the director of the Council for International Exchange of Scholars (CIES), Patti McGill Peterson, and her staff; and the chair of the 2005–2006 NSC program and Director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College, Professor Philip G. Altbach, and his staff, in particular Laura E. Rumbley, who is also a coauthor of a chapter in this book. We also would like to thank our hosts during our participation in the New Century Scholars program: International Office and Center for International Higher Education, Boston College (Hans de Wit); Emory University (Professor Jagdish N. Sheth), the India-China America Institute in Atlanta (Mark Hutcheson) and Harvard University (Professor Richard B. Freeman, Professor Elaine Bernard and Professor Jack Trumpbour of the Labor and Work life Program at the Harvard Law School) (Pawan Agarwal); Office of the Provost (Professor Ahmed Abdelal, provost; Dr. Patrick Plumkett, Executive director of International Initiatives; and Mariam Fassis, Staff Assistant) North Eastern University (Mohsen Said); and the Department of Education Policy Studies (Professor Fazal Rizvi and Dr. Kim Anderson), University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign (Molatlhegi Sehoole and Muhammad Sirozi).

xii

HANS DE WIT

1. THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT1

This introductory chapter deals with the meanings, rationales, and approaches to the international dimension of higher education. The purpose of this chapter is to develop a better understanding of the internationalization of higher education in a global context and to assess its implications for higher education in different nations and regions. The rationale for this study is that student mobility has long been the most important factor in the process of higher education’s internationalization. At present, there is in the world an increasing unmet demand for higher education as a consequence of demographic trends, the need for new degree and diploma programs, and the need for lifelong learning. But one can observe also an increase in numbers and types of new providers: corporate universities, for-profit private institutions, media companies, and education brokers; and the emergence of innovative delivery methods: distance and e-learning, franchises, satellite campuses, twinning arrangements, and joint degree programs. These developments might impact how inward and outward student mobility flows are changing, and how the internationalization of higher education is evolving in relation to these changes. This chapter examines the changing context of the internationalization of higher education over the past 10 years as a basis for understanding the changing dynamics in international student circulation.

CHANGING DYNAMICS IN THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

The landscape of international higher education has been changing over the past 10 years (De Wit, 1995, 2002; Knight & De Wit, 1997, 1999). It appears relevant to look at the consequences of this changing landscape to understand the current status of the internationalization in higher education. An overview of recent research on the internationalization of higher education provides interesting views on their evolution. 1 I thank the other members of Research Group 5 of the New Century Scholarship Program, Fulbright, “Higher Education in the 21st Century”: Mohsen Said (Egypt, chair); Muhammad Sirozi (Indonesia); Pawan Agarwal (India); and Molatlhegi Sehoole (South Africa), as well as the Chair of the NCS program, Philip Altbach; Research Assistant Laura Rumbley (both at the Center for International Higher Education, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts) and Anthony Welch, University of Sydney, 2006 Visiting Scholar at Boston College.

H. de Wit et al. (eds.), The Dynamics of International Student Circulation in a Global Context, 1–14. © 2008. Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

H. DE WIT

The international dimension and the position of higher education in the global arena are more dominant in international, national, and institutional documents and mission statements than ever. The 2006 International Association of Universities (IAU) survey (Knight, 2006a, pp. 41–42) indicates that 73% of the participating higher education institutions give internationalization a high priority, 23% a medium priority, and only 2% a low priority.2 John Scott (2006) predicts in that respect that “rapid globalization and modern society point toward a future internationalization mission for the university as a service to the body of world-wide states” (p. 33). One wonders whether that will be a general trend in higher education or will apply only to a limited number of institutions. One can further question what type of internationalization will define the mission of these universities. But it is undeniable that internationalization has become a core element in higher education, at all levels.

MEANINGS

What do we mean by the internationalization of higher education? First, we must recognize that many different terms have always been used in connection with the internationalization of higher education (De Wit, 2002, pp. 109–116). In both the scholarly literature and in the practice of higher education’s internationalization, it is still quite common to use terms which address only a small part of internationalization and/or emphasize a specific rationale for internationalization. Many of the terms used are curriculum related: “international studies,” “global studies,” “multicultural education,” “intercultural education,” “peace education,” etc. Many others are mobility related: “study abroad,” “education abroad,” “academic mobility,” etc. Our study fits within the second group and, at the appropriate point, defines international student circulation in that context. Here, I focus on the broader term, “internationalization of higher education,” essential for the context of our study. Over the past 10 years, a whole new group of terms are emerging that were not actively present earlier in the debate about the internationalization of higher education. These terms are more closely related to the cross-border delivery of education and result from globalization’s impact on higher education. They include: “borderless education,” “education across borders,” “global education,” “offshore education,” and “international trade in educational services.” In 2002, I stated (De Wit, 2002) that “as the international dimension of higher education gains more attention and recognition, people tend to use it in the way that best suits their purpose” (p. 14). This tendency is even more pronounced in view of this further proliferation of activities and terms. The most commonly used definition of what we mean by internationalization at the institutional level is Jane Knight’s (1997): “a process of integrating an international and cultural dimension into the teaching, research, and service functions of the institution” (p. 8). This definition, although commonly accepted 2 The IAU study also shows a remarkable difference in this respect compared with National University Associations (49%) and national government bodies (46%) (Knight, 2006a).

2

THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT

as a useful working definition for internationalization at the institutional level, has come under question as a consequence of changes in international higher education over the last decade. An example is the criticism by Ninnes and Hellsten (2005, p. 3) that Knight’s 1997 definition did not incorporate such elements as the export of education. Another example is Ravindu Sidhu (2006), who critiques Knight’s definition: Its weaknesses lie in its inherent generality and ambiguity. It does not, for example, prelude a largely one-way transmission of knowledge from West-North to East-South. It is unclear what constitutes an international/intercultural dimension, which is as likely to include the trite and superficial as the profound and complex. (p. 3) Sidhu is correct about the definition’s generality and ambiguity; but any other definition – for instance, one that would prelude a largely one-way transmission or one which includes export of education – would be a subjective and rationalebased definition. As long as that limitation is made clear, such an approach would be appropriate but its conclusions would lack more general application than the specific issue it addresses. Unquestionably, the internationalization of higher education is changing. A historical survey of the 20th century up to the present reveals several stages of development in the internationalization of higher education institutions. The debate about globalization and internationalization and the recent, rapid evolution of cross-border activities in higher education have strengthened the tendency to explain and define the internationalization of higher education in connection to a specific rationale or purpose. In the past, “international education” was the most frequently used term, synonymous with “the internationalization of education”; but more recently, “globalization” has become more common as a term related to or even synonymous with “internationalization.” GLOBALIZATION AND INTERNATIONALIZATION

The globalization of our societies and economies has an impact on higher education and, as a result, on its international dimensions. Higher education is increasingly influenced by globalization but also is becoming a more vigorous actor in globalization. The internationalization of higher education is one of the ways a country or an institution responds to the impact of globalization, but also the internationalization of higher education is itself an agent of globalization. Higher education is not only passively responding to globalization but has become an active player in the global arena. One can summarize in three ways how globalization and higher education are linked to each other. First, there is an increasingly unmet demand for higher education in the world. On the one hand, we see countries that, because of demographics, have a greater demand for access to study than their own higher education institutions can absorb. In such situations, their students study abroad. Such demographic trends characterize the developing world, producing an enormous unmet demand. 3

H. DE WIT

In contrast, Europe, for instance, because of its aging population, has a shortage of students, especially in fields like the sciences, so there is a strong trend for Europe to absorb students developing countries who cannot be absorbed by institutions at home. Demographic trends are very important, and they are changing constantly around the world. Furthermore, as a consequence of the impact of globalization, a new demand for new degree and diploma programs is emerging. The demand is much higher now than 15 years earlier for interdisciplinary studies and IT-related programs, etc. Globalization implies that higher education has to respond to what is happening in society and industry. It does so by creating all kinds of new degree and diploma programs. Moreoever, there is an unmet demand for higher education because of strong pressures toward lifelong learning. It is no longer the case in this global economy that a student goes from high school to university, and then into the labor force, his or her education finished. On the contrary, there is a great need for continuing education, and universities must meet that demand coming from industry and society. Second, the number and types of new providers has grown. With the exception of countries like the United States where there has always been a combination of public universities and private universities (private meaning not for profit), public universities have dominated higher education. But an increasing number of private and for-profit universities are entering the higher education arena at the national level – notably in Asia and Latin America, but also increasingly also on an international scale. The third recent development is the emergence of all kinds of innovative delivery methods for higher education. The traditional model was that each country had a university subsidized by the government, which delivered traditional classes. Currently, however, e-learning is flourishing, universities are setting up franchise operations abroad, universities have satellite or branch campuses abroad, and they are involved in joint degree programs. One can see a whole new area, described by such terms as “transnational education” and “cross-border education.” Crossborder education began, primarily, with the movement of people; now programs and institutions are also crossing borders. Given these developments, the connection between higher education and trade policy has come to the forefront in the debate about internationalization and globalization in higher education. Trade in higher education is not completely new; but the identification of education as a service in the context of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) has become an expression of this development’s increased importance. As Jane Knight (2006c) notes: The introduction of GATS serves as a catalyst for the higher education sector to examine how trade rules may or may not influence higher education policy; and secondly, to determine whether the necessary national, regional and international

4

THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT

education frameworks are in place to deal with the implications of increased cross-border education, including commercial trade. (p. 57) Ulrich Teichler (2004), Knight (2005), Scott (2006), Altbach (2006a, 2006b) and others address the complex relationship between globalization and internationalization of higher education. Peter Scott (2006) observes that both internationalization and globalization are complex phenomena with many strands, and concludes that “the distinction between internationalization and globalization, although suggestive, cannot be regarded as categorical. They overlap, and are intertwined, in all kinds of ways” (p. 14). Altbach (2006b) defines globalization as “the broad economic, technological, and scientific trends that directly affect higher education and are largely inevitable in the contemporary world” and defines internationalization as “specific policies and programs undertaken by governments, academic systems and institutions, and even individual departments to support student or faculty exchanges, encourage collaborative research overseas, set up joint teaching programs in other countries or a myriad of initiatives” (p. 123). Elsewhere, Altbach and Knight (2007, pp. 290–291), addressing the changing landscape of internationalization of higher education, state: We define globalization as the economic , political, and societal forces pushing 21st century higher education toward greater international involvement. Global capital has, for the first time, heavily invested in knowledge industries worldwide, including higher education and advanced training. This investment reflects the emergence of the “knowledge society”, the rise of the service sector, and the dependence of many societies on knowledge products and highly educated personnel for economic growth. Ulrich Teichler (2004) states that “globalization initially seemed to be defined as the totality of substantial changes in the context and inner life of higher education, related to growing interrelationships between different parts of the world whereby national borders are blurred or even seem to vanish” (p. 23). But he also notes that, in recent years, “globalization” has replaced “internationalization” in the public debate on higher education, resulting at the same time in a shift of meaning: “The term tends to be used for any supra-regional phenomenon related to higher education . . . and/or anything on a global scale related to higher education characterized by market and competition,” while internationalization is “the totality of substantial changes in the context and inner life of higher education relative to an increasing frequency of border-crossing activities amidst a persistence of national systems, even though some sign of ‘denationalisation’ might be observed” (pp. 22–23). Teichler also sees a growing emphasis on marketization, competition, and management, a trend also stressed by others (Schapper & Mayson, 2005; Tuinamuana, 2005; Reinalda & Kulesza, 2005). Reinalda and Kulesza (2005) note: Since the end of the last century, a shift in higher education has taken place from the public to the private domain, parallel to an increase in international trade in education services . . . . These developments enhance the significance of the education market as an international institution, but also contribute to changing 5

H. DE WIT

the structure of that market. In doing so, an increase in worldwide competition is being revealed. (p. 99) Nimmes and Hellsten (2005) comment that the internationalization of higher education tends to have been over-identified in the past with positive opportunities: “Under internationalization, the world is our oyster, or perhaps, our garden, in which we sow the seeds from the fruits of our academic labors: powerful knowledges, proven (best) practices, and established systems of scholarship, administration and inquiry” (p. 1). They foresee “trouble” with “such unproblematized notions” and call for “review, renewal, and critical insight into current practices of internationalization” to provide “more critical readings and explorations of the process” (p. 4). All of these authors have a strong inclination to call for more attention to social cohesion and to the public role of higher education as an alternative force to the growing emphasis on competition, markets, and entrepreneurialism in higher education. Their concerns are expressed clearly by Naidoo and Jamieson (2005): “The forces unleashed on higher education in the present context have propelled universities to function less as institutions with social, cultural and indeed intellectual objectives and more as producers of commodities that can be sold in the international marketplace” (p. 39). The factor of power is this context is a concern of authors, particularly the dominance of the OECD countries (OECD, 2004) and of English as the global language in higher education (De Wit, 2005a). Marijk van der Wende (2001) also speaks of a change in paradigms from cooperation to competition. However, it would be too easy to assume that, over the past 10 years, everything has changed with respect to the internationalization of higher education, from a more cooperative model to a more competitive model. As Van der Wende (2001) herself writes: “Not surprisingly most continental European countries pursue a cooperative approach to internationalization, which in terms of international learning and experience is more compatible with the traditional value of academia” (p. 255). In a recent benchmarking exercise about the internationalization strategies of five European universities, I also encountered clear differentiations: Striking is the difference between the approaches to internationalization of three Northern European universities and two Southern European universities with respect to cooperation and competition. Where the two Southern European universities have a traditional cooperative approach, one Northern university has a strong competitive approach and the two Scandinavian universities are moving into the directions of such an approach, although all three mix it with cooperative activities, in particular in the framework of their involvement in the European programs. These approaches give a more balanced picture to the idea of shifting paradigms for internationalization from cooperative to competitive, as presented in current debate and study of the international dimension of higher education in Europe. (De Wit, 2005b, p. 2) Another example countering the perception that economic rationales exclusively dominate international education is the religious mission of several Catholic, 6

THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT

Evangelical, and more recently Islamic institutions of higher education to attract international students and/or to be involved in cross-border delivery. Religious rationales, not economic motivations, are driving these cases. In other words, although there is an increasing emphasis on economic rationales, it would be too simple to state that the changing landscape of internationalization is developing in similar ways everywhere in higher education around the world. There are different accents and approaches. Internationalization strategies are filtered and contextualized by the specific internal context of the university and their national embeddedness. (See Huisman & van der Wende, 2004, and Frolich & Veiga, 2005, for the European context.) Knight (2006b) acknowledges the need for the constant updating of the meaning of internationalization of higher education: It is interesting to see how the definition of the term has evolved over the last decade. In the late 1980s, internationalization was commonly defined at the institutional level and in terms of sets of activities . . . . By the mid-1990s, a process or organizational approach was introduced . . . . Van der Wende (1997, p. 18) correctly pointed out that an institutional based definition has limitations. (p. 213) Therefore, a new definition is proposed by Knight, which acknowledges both levels and the need to address the relationship and integrity between them: “the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education” (pp. 213–214). Knight (2006b) also states that basically two components are evolving in the internationalization of higher education. One is internationalization at home – activities that help students to develop international understanding and intercultural skills. This approach is primarily curriculum-oriented with the goal of preparing students to be active in a much more globalized world. The second movement is that of internationalization abroad, including all forms of education across borders, or the mobility of students and faculty, scholars, and programs. Internationalization abroad coincides with what she elsewhere (Knight, 2003; see also OECD, 2004) has described as three different forms of cross-border education: a person going abroad for educational purposes (mobility of individuals); an educational program going abroad (program mobility); or an institution or provider going or investing abroad for educational purposes (institutional mobility). As the overview of the debate about meanings of internationalization and the complex relationship between internationalization and globalization illustrates, Knight’s new working definition and the “at home/abroad” division will not end the discussion. The overview also makes clear that rationales for internationalization and meanings of internationalization are now even more mixed than before.

7

H. DE WIT RATIONALES FOR INTERNATIONALIZATION

In discussing internationalization, it is important to distinguish the question of why we are internationalizing higher education from what we mean by internationalization. Many documents, policy papers, and books refer to internationalization but do not define the motivation. In much literature, meanings and rationales are confused, such that a rationale for internationalization is often presented as its definition. I have identified four broad categories of rationales for internationalization: political, economic, social/cultural, and academic (De Wit, 2002, pp. 83–102). Political rationales include foreign policy, national security, technical assistance, peace and mutual understanding, and national and regional identity. These motivations have been very important, in particular after World War II and during the Cold War when they dominated the internationalization of higher education. After 9/11/2001 national security has regained importance, and a new rationale – immigration policies – has come to the forefront. Cultural and more specific religious identity issues also have experienced a recent resurgence. The second group, economic rationales, include growth and competitiveness, national educational demands, the labor market, and financial incentives. Their relation to education, given the present-day globalization of our economies, is obvious. The third group of rationales is social/cultural considerations. Cultural rationales seem primarily focused on the role that universities and their research and teaching can play in creating intercultural understanding and intercultural competence for students and faculty and their research. The social rationale has to do with the fact that the individual, the student, and the academic, by being in an international environment, becomes less provincial. As mentioned before, there is concern that the role of universities in fostering social and cultural cohesion is under pressure these days. The last group is the academic rationales: developing an international and intercultural dimension in research, teaching, and services; extending one’s academic horizon, building one’s institution, reputational profile, and status; and maintaining quality in the context of international academic standards. Among these, profile and status, as expressed in the growing importance of international rankings, have recently become more dominant. It is clear that there are different rationales for the internationalization of higher education. They are not mutually exclusive, may differ in importance by country and region, and can change in dominance over time. At present, the economic rationales are considered more salient than the other three; and as a result, such academic rationales as strategic alliances, status, and profile are also becoming more dominant. Jane Knight (2004) speaks of such emerging rationales at the national level as human resource development, strategic alliances, commercial trade, nation building, and social/cultural development. At the institutional level, she identifies international branding and profile, income generation, student and staff development, strategic alliances, and knowledge production (p. 23). According to her International Association of Universities survey of 2006 (Knight, 2006a), 8

THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT

rationales driving internationalization of higher education at the national level are perceived by higher education institutions as follows: competitiveness (28%), strategic alliances (20%), human resource capacity (15%), international cooperation (14%), cultural awareness (9%), education exports (7%), and regional priorities (7%) (p. 52), while the National University Associations see competitiveness as the more pressing rationale (44%) (p. 54). Some examples may illustrate this emergence of new rationales. The first is international ranking, closely linked to status and profile. Rui Yang (2005), in a study on the internationalization of Chinese higher education, notes that “for institutions, internationalization means the awareness and operation of interactions within and between cultures through their teaching, research and services functions.” At the same time, he admits: “In practice, however, individual institutions often care most about their research strength and international ranking” (p. 99). Research has always been an international driving force in higher education. International ranking has recently become an important factor in higher education, and research is still a key indicator in those rankings. The fact that the first international ranking, the Academic Ranking of World Universities by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, did not appear in the United States or Europe but in China is illustrative of the changing landscape, as is the reaction in Europe, the United States, and elsewhere to this ranking (UNESCO/CEPES, 2005; see also Altbach, 2006a). Marginson (2007) identifies a two-tier structure in this global market: “a super-league of global universities” and a much larger group of institutions of lesser status exporting higher education. The first group of universities does not expand to meet potential demand or establish franchises across the world in the manner of capitalist businesses. Maintenance of the value of positional goods depends on their continued scarcity. The super-league universities compete with each other for the best researchers and doctoral students as well as for national and global leadership. They gain prestige from their role as global demand magnets . . . and they benefit from the contributions of bright foreign graduate students to research and teaching. (p. 10) He describes the second tier as composed of three types of institutions: (a) the for-profit sector; (b) non-profit institutions who provide foreign education commercially to generate surplus revenues; and (c) those institutions and nations “where foreign education is subsidized by governments, foundations and/or universities and an expansionary capitalist dynamic is absent” (p. 12). The second example concerns immigration policies. Over time, different countries have had different policies with respect to academic immigration. The United States, for example, has long had a rather open-door policy but restricted it sharply after 9/11/2001. The implications for higher education were so substantial that the American government was forced to relax these restrictions somewhat. Other countries, like the United Kingdom and Australia, have in contrast expanded their academic immigration policies recently to stimulate the importing of students and faculty, even allowing them working permits during and the end of their studies. The Dutch government has moved from a restrictive policy that prevailed up to 9

H. DE WIT

the 1980s to an open-door policy in the 1990s and is now fostering an even more explicit “brain gain” policy, no longer opening the doors to large numbers of international students but focusing on a selective number of quality students and academics in a limited number of disciplines (science and engineering, in particular), who will be allowed to study and work. This policy is designed to compensate for the Netherlands’ aging labor force. At the same time, all those countries appear to struggle in striking a balance between general immigration rules and those for academic purposes. These examples underline an important aspect in analyzing internationalization rationales that has not been given much attention. Rationales can be negative at certain moments in time and in certain countries/regions, but positive at other times and in other places. For instance, competitiveness in higher education was anathema in continental Europe up to the 1990s but has now become a dominant rationale in institutional, national, and regional policies. As a consequence of high unmet demand, exporting higher education was not an issue in Chinese education until recently. As Welch (2004) notes, in addition to the large numbers of students studying abroad, China is now seeing a rapid expansion in the number of students coming to China from abroad (p. 20). Another aspect in analyzing rationales that should receive more attention is that of regionalism, including interregional cooperation and competition. The clearest examples are such European programs like ERASMUS/SOCRATES, ERASMUS MUNDUS, and the Bologna Process, but one can observe similar trends in the American region (North American Free Trade Agreement, Montevideo Group) and in Asia (University Mobility in Asia and the Pacific in the context of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation).

CHANGING APPROACHES

In the course of history, we can identify different institutional approaches to internationalization (De Wit, 2002, pp. 116–118): the activity approach, which describes internationalization in terms of categories or types of activity; the rationale approach, which defines internationalization in terms of its purposes or intended outcomes; the competency approach, which describes internationalization in terms of developing new skills, attitudes, and knowledge in students, faculty, and staff; and the process approach which frames internationalization as a process that integrates an international dimension or perspective into the major functions of the institution. The first three approaches – in particular the activity approach – are most common to internationalization. Given the growing importance of internationalization in higher education, we might assume that this approach would develop into a more process-oriented strategy to internationalization. This appeared true for the situation in Europe, where one could observe in the late 1990s a trend toward mainstreaming internationalization. Initiatives in the United States promoted the internationalization of the campus by organizations like the American Council on 10

THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT

Education and NAFSA. Also, competencies became more important factors in the discussion on internationalization, given the increased focus on the internationalization of the curriculum and teaching/learning process, i.e., the internationalization “at home” movement. As the analysis of literature and practice given above demonstrates, however, it appears that one can speak more of a trend toward rationale approaches, with economic and political rationales driving internationalization at the (inter)national and the institutional level. Altbach and Knight (2007) mention additional reasons for the current internationalization: profits (income generation), access provision and demand absorption (providing access to students in countries that at present lack the domestic capacity to meet the access demand), traditional internationalization (such as study-abroad experiences, internationalizing the curriculum, and sponsoring students from other countries to study on campus), European internationalization (academic exchange and cooperation first and, more recently, convergence- and competition-oriented processes), developing country internationalization (traditionally manifested in sending students abroad but now increasingly also exporting their education), and individual internationalization (basic decisions concerning destinations and fields of study made by students themselves). These points in themselves are correct observations but would be more accurately referred to as different internationalization approaches rather than different reasons for internationalization. What they make clear, though, is the point already mentioned: Rationales differ over time and by country/region, they are not mutually exclusive, and they lead to different approaches and policies. They also makes clear that changes are presently taking place at a rapid pace in different parts of the world and that rationales are becoming more and more interconnected. Although countries like the United Kingdom and Australia had shifted from aid (technical assistance) to trade (recruitment of international students) as driving rationales for their internationalization by the 1980s, 10 years ago the cooperative model dominated the debate on the meanings and rationales of higher education’s internationalization. At present, it seems that the competitive model has become more prevalent, even though, as already indicated, it certainly is not the case that all higher education has changed completely in that direction. The changing landscape of international higher education as a consequence of the globalization of our societies and economies is manifest in many ways: increasing competition for international students and academics, the growth of crossborder delivery of programs, the emergence of international for-profit providers in higher education, and the changing position of countries like India and China in the world economy and in the higher education arena. They are all realities, and their impact cannot be ignored. It is difficult to see, though, the impact of these changes, as we are still in a transition period. The rapid growth of cross-border programs and providers as described by Altbach and Knight (2006, forthcoming) seems undeniable: It is not known what proportion of the increased demand will result in student mobility, but it is clear that there will be significant growth in the movement 11

H. DE WIT

of programs and education providers across national borders. New types of providers, forms of delivery, and collaborative partnerships are being developed to take education programs to students in their home countries. The increasing number of activities they indicate is impressive, though they are very minor in comparison to the growth of national private provisions for higher education. Some countries restrict or even prohibit foreign providers of higher education; partly as a result of such policies, the numbers of students in foreignowned higher education institutions in countries such as South Africa and India appear stagnant or even diminishing. And recently, several Australian universities have been withdrawing “from offshore teaching operations for lack of profitability and fear of reputational damage” (Armitrage, 2007). Can we speak of rhetoric more than reality? Time will tell, but some caution seems to be required. More important than a debate about meanings of internationalization is, in my view, the study of rationales for internationalization. It is the change in rationales over time and by place that forms the basis for an analysis of the changing landscape in the international dimension of higher education around the world (De Wit, 2000). The strengthening of already-existing rationales and the appearance of new ones are important indicators of change. We have observed the increasing dominance of economic rationales, the growing importance of international rankings, and the changes in academic immigration policies, branding, and strategic alliances, among other development. At the same time, other rationales are assuming new salience, among them the religious mission of some Islamic universities. Further study by countries and regions is required to identify changing rationales for the internationalization. Teichler (2004) in a somewhat provocative and cynical way commented that the internationalization of higher education in Europe had been a key issue in the 1990s and, given that priorities seem to have terms of about 10 years, “our priority placed on this is likely to come to and end soon,” to be replaced by a new terminological fashion (p. 6). To a certain extent, that development has already occurred with terms like “globalization,” “cross-border education,” and “trade in education” becoming more prominent in the literature. Clear distinctions of meanings, rationales, and strategies will be necessary to avoid a fashionable – or merely faddish – approach to international dimensions of higher education. I have addressed this changing landscape as it provides the context for our understanding of changing dynamics in international student circulation, the main theme of our study and the topic of the next chapter.

REFERENCES Altbach, Philip G. (2006a). The dilemmas of ranking. International Higher Education, 42, 2. Altbach, Philip G. (2006b). Globalization and the university: Realities in an unequal world. In James J. F. Forest & Philip G. Altbach (Eds.), International Handbook of Higher Education (pp. 121–139). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Altbach, Philip G. & Knight, Jane. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4).

12

THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT Armitrage, Catherine. (2007). Costs, rivals force offshore reversal. In The Australian, www.theaustralian.news.com.au, June 27, 2007. De Wit, Hans (Ed.). (1995). Strategies for internationalization of higher education: A comparative study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States. Amsterdam: European association for International Education. De Wit, Hans. (2000). Changing rationales for the internationalization of higher education. In Internationalization of higher education: An institutional perspective (pp. 9–21). Bucharest: UNESCO/CEPES. De Wit, Hans. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe: A historical, comparative, and conceptual analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. De Wit, Hans. (2005a). English as the common language in higher education: Issues and challenges. In Mike Woolf (Ed.), I gotta use words when I talk to you: English and international education (pp. 3–14). Amsterdam: European Association for International Education. De Wit, Hans. (2005b). Report on internationalization (E21). Unpublished European Benchmarking Program on University Management 2005. Brussels, ESMU. Frolich, Nicoline & Veiga, Amelia. (2005). Competition, cooperation, consequences and choices in selected European countries. In Barbara Khem & Hans de Wit (Eds.), Internationalization in higher education: European responses to the global perspective (pp. 154–172). Amsterdam: European Association for International Education (EAIE) and the European Higher Education Society (EAIR). Huisman, Jeroen & van der Wende, Marjik (Eds.). (2004). On cooperation and competition. National and European policies for the internationalisation of higher education. ACA Papers on International Cooperation in Education. Bonn: Lemmens. Knight, Jane. (1997). Internationalization of higher education: A conceptual framework. In Jane Knight & Hans de Wit (Eds.), Internationalization of higher education in Asia Pacific countries. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education. Knight, Jane. (2003). GATS: Trade in higher education, perspectives 2003: Where are we? Observatory report. Retrieved in May 2003 from www.obhe.ac.uk/products. Knight, Jane. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31. Knight, Jane. (2005). Commercial cross-border education: Implications for financing higher education. In Higher Education in the World, 2006: The financing of universities (pp. 103–112). GUNI Series on the Social Commitment of Universities 1, Barcelona: GUNI. Knight, Jane. (2006a). Internationalization of Higher Education: New directions, new challenges. 2005 IAU Global Survey Report. Paris: International Association of Universities. Knight, Jane. (2006b). Internationalization: Concepts, complexities and challenges. In James J. F. Forest & Philip G. Altbach (Eds.), International Handbook of Higher Education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Knight, Jane. (2006c). Higher Education in the trade context of GATS. In Barbara Khem & Hans de Wit (Eds.), Internationalization in higher education: European responses to the global perspective. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education (EAIE) and the European Higher Education Society (EAIR). Knight, Jane, & de Wit, Hans (Eds.). (1997). Internationalization of higher education in Asia Pacific countries. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education. Knight, Jane, & de Wit, Hans (Eds.). (1999). Quality and internationalization in higher education. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Marginson, Simon. (2007). Global position and position-taking: The case of Australia. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(1). Naidoo, R. & Jamieson I. (2005). Knowledge in the marketplace: The global commodification of teaching and learning in higher education. In Peter Ninnes & Meeri Hellsten (Eds.), Internationalizing higher education: Critical explorations of pedagogy and policy (pp. 37–51). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, the University of Hong Kong/Amsterdam: Springer. Ninnes, Peter & Hellsten, Meeri. (2005). Introduction: Critical engagements with the internationalization of higher education. In Peter Ninnes & Meeri Hellsten (Eds.), Internationalizing higher education: Critical explorations of pedagogy and policy (pp. 1–8). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, the University of Hong Kong/Amsterdam: Springer.

13

H. DE WIT OECD. (2004). Internationalization and trade in higher education: Opportunities and challenges. Paris: OECD. Reinalda, B. & Kulesza, E. (2005). The Bologna Process: Harmonizing Europe’s higher education. Opladen, Germany: Barbara Budrich Publishers. Schapper, J. & Mayson, S. (2005). Managerialism, internationalization, taylorization and the deskilling of academic work: Evidence from an Australian university. In Peter Ninnes & Meeri Hellsten (Eds.), Internationalizing higher education: Critical explorations of pedagogy and policy (pp. 181–198). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, the University of Hong Kong/Amsterdam: Springer. Scott, John C. (2006). The mission of the university: Medieval to postmodern transformations. Journal of Higher Education, 77(1), 1–39. Scott, P. (2006). The global dimension: Internationalising higher education. In Barbara Khem & Hans de Wit (Eds.), Internationalisation in higher education: European responses to the global perspective. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education and the European Higher Education Society EAIR. Sidhu, Ravinder K. (2006). Universities and globalization: To market, to market. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Teichler, Ulrich. (2004). The changing debate on the internationalization of higher education. Higher Education, 48(1), 5–26. Tuinamuana, K. (2005). International policy convergence in higher education: An analysis from the periphery. In Peter Ninnes & Meeri Hellsten (Eds.), Internationalizing higher education: Critical explorations of pedagogy and policy (pp. 199–214). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, the University of Hong Kong/Amsterdam: Springer. UNESCO/CEPES. (2005). Ranking systems and methodologies in higher education. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 97–227. Van der Wende, Marjik. (2001). Internationalization policies: About new trends and contrasting paradigms. Higher Education Policy, 14(3), 249–259. Welch, A. (2004). Educational services in SE Asia. In D. Jarvis (Ed.), China ASEAN relations (pp. 1– 40). Tokyo: Ministry of Finance/RIAP, University of Sydney. Yang, R. (2005). Internationalizing Chinese higher education: A case study of a major comprehensive university. In Peter Ninnes & Meeri Hellsten (Eds.), Internationalizing higher education: Critical explorations of pedagogy and policy (pp. 97–118). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, the University of Hong Kong/Amsterdam: Springer.

14

HANS DE WIT

2. CHANGING DYNAMICS IN INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION: MEANINGS, PUSH AND PULL FACTORS, TRENDS, AND DATA1

In this study, commonly held assumptions with respect to student mobility will be questioned and put into perspective on the basis of the country studies following this chapter. These assumptions include: (a) that it is primarily South-North and North-North and that South-South flows are rather marginal; (b) that the economic rationale for student mobility has become so dominant that virtually no other rationales are salient; and (c) that the growing presence of national and international providers of higher education, as well as opportunities for distance education, will reduce the need for international student mobility. For a better understanding of the issue of international student circulation, this chapter gives an overview of the meaning of international student circulation, push and pull factors, trends, and data. TERMS AND DEFINITIONS OF STUDENT MOBILITY

The 1996 study, “Academic Mobility in a Changing World,” provided in general terms broad insight into trends in academic mobility in and between the different regions in the world. More detailed analysis, however, was hampered by what Ulrich Teichler (Blumenthal et al., 1996, 338) refers to as the “lack of comprehensive documentation” (p. 338). Ten years later much more research has been done on international education and student mobility. There are the annual Open Doors reports of the Institute of International Education (IIE) on student flows into the United States and study abroad by American students. Several European countries, notably the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, monitor student flows. In Australia, several reports by the government and by the higher education sector, for instance IDP-Education Australia, analyze trends of student inflow into Australian higher education. And at a more comparative level there is the Atlas project (Davis, 2003; see also http://www.atlas.iienetwork.org), in which several agencies work together to identify numbers and flows of international students. 1 I thank the other members of Research Group 5 of the New Century Scholarship Program, Fulbright, “Higher Education in the 21st Century”: Mohsen Said (Egypt, chair); Muhammad Sirozi (Indonesia); Pawan Agarwal (India); and Molatlhegi Sehoole (South Africa), as well as the chair of the NCS program Philip G. Altbach, Research Assistant Laura Rumbley (both at the Center for International Higher Education, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts), and Anthony Welch, University of Sydney, 2006 Visiting Scholar at Boston College.

H. de Wit et al. (eds.), The Dynamics of International Student Circulation in a Global Context, 15–45. © 2008. Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

H. DE WIT

Still, Ulrich Teichler’s 1996 observation is valid. In a recent study on European mobility, Maria Kelo, Ulrich Teichler, and Bernd Waechter (2006) state: A first glance at publications of national governments, specialized agencies, research institutes and international organizations, such as the OECD, UNESCO, or EU, conveys the impression that there is no shortage of data on international mobility. But this impression is misleading. The available “mobility statistics” do not, in most cases, report on mobility at all. Instead, they report on foreign students, using the foreign nationality of students as a measure of mobility . . . . The use of “nationality” data as a measure of true mobility would not be a major problem if every foreign student (or at least the overwhelming majority) had also been mobile prior to taking up studies in the “host” country. (pp. 3–4) But, they assert, this is not the case: “The non-existence of genuine mobility data in most countries has severe repercussions on the ability to measure progress in mobility.” As a result, the problem of missing mobility data does not stop at the national level, but finds its way into the international statistics produced by UNESCO, OECD, as well as more recently UNESCO OECD Eurostat (UOE). These organizations receive their data from national-level sources (national statistical offices and specialized agencies), whose limitations are therefore transported into international data publications. (p. 4) The OECD (2004) refers to the fact that “the current data on cross-border post-secondary education is uneven in its coverage of the full variety of different institutions and courses in post-secondary education” and presents a list of operational definitions of foreign students by OECD country, which in itself already illustrates the complexity of the issue (pp. 308–311). UNESCO (2006) notes that internationally mobile students can be defined by citizenship, permanent residence, and prior education, but also observes that “countries still differ in the criteria used to actually report data concerning mobile students” (p. 33) and that such data may not be entirely comparable. Whatever instruments for measuring are used, they are by no means perfect nor do their imperfections mean that student mobility data are not relevant. Despite these limitations, they provide relevant trends and issues that must be taken into account in analyzing international higher education. Definition issues of international student mobility are at the forefront of the debate about international student mobility. Richters and Teichler (2006) claim that the international debate is not very controversial as far as the meaning of “international student mobility” is concerned. They provide this definition: “An internationally mobile student is a student having crossed a national border in order to study or to undertake other study-related activities for at least a certain unit of a study program or a certain period of time in the country they have moved to” (p. 83). But they recognize some problems with that definition emerging from recent developments: 16

CHANGING DYNAMICS IN INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

1. Cross-border education, i.e., the mobility of study programs and institutions. They address that problem by setting a rule for data collection “according to which we consider a French student enrolled in a program of a US university delivered at a branch campus in France as a non-mobile student” (p. 83). 2. Mobility within countries, i.e., between fields of study or between institutions of higher education within one and the same country. “Though we often talk in an abbreviated way of ‘student mobility,’ we mean ‘international student mobility”’ (p. 84). 3. Internationally oriented study programs “at home,” e.g., “foreign language, philology, area studies, foreign-language-taught study programs, or, more generally ‘internationalization at home”’ (Richters & Teichler, 2006, p. 84). Although it is useful to distinguish “national student mobility” from “international student mobility,” this is not the most important problem with the definition issue. Neither is the reference to “internationalization at home.” And the solution for mobility in cross-border programs is too simple. It neglects the importance of this phenomenon in the context of international education and student mobility: the fact that students might shift from moving abroad to foreign institutions of higher education to moving at home to foreign institutions of higher education. The boundaries between national and international student mobility are becoming gray. Richters and Teichler (2006) state: In some analyses . . . the expression “student mobility” is used as an abbreviation for “international student mobility.” Recently, “cross-border mobility” or “transnational mobility” have been introduced, without adding substantially to the conventional “international student mobility.” Occasionally, one even finds the term “international student,” the wording of which does not indicate at all whether the students differ from the majority of students in terms of nationality and/or prior location of living, studying or working. (p. 84) The term “international student” might be the most useful in the present context of international higher education – not so much describing students’ movement across borders but the fact that the content, the mode of delivery, and the provider have become more and more international. These are the most salient features of current international higher education. If we identify different types of international students, it will be best to exclude two important groups who are relevant for international education but less so for analyzing international student mobility: 1. Students who study in an international classroom, i.e., with other foreign students and/or foreign faculty and who are taught an internationalized curriculum at their national university without moving at any time across borders. We exclude these students from the comparative data analysis, since it would be difficult to count them. On the other hand, one should not overlook them as an increasingly important group as a result of growth trends in the other categories and of the internationalization agenda. 17

H. DE WIT

2. Students who go abroad for short-term, study-related visits: group study tours, summer programs, intensive language courses, etc. Reliable data on this type of international student are difficult to get, although they represent a very high number of mobile students. The term “temporary mobility” might be used for this group. These two exclusions leave us with four other categories: 1. Students who go abroad for 3–12 months as part of their home study to earn credits for their home degree: exchange students, international internships, (inter)national scholarship program students (Fulbright, ERASMUS), etc. Although the term “temporary mobility” appears in the literature, “credit mobility” is more appropriate. “Temporary mobility” is better reserved for the short-term students abroad described above. As Richters and Teichler (2006) observe: “There are strong reasons to believe that more than half of credit mobility is not included in the official statistics on foreign or inwards mobile students in Europe” (p. 79). In the United States, they are included in the studyabroad mobility statistics. Elsewhere, most likely they are not, nor are they considered a substantial category as they are in Europe and the United States. 2. Students who go abroad for an undergraduate or graduate degree, pursuing the degree program completely or mostly at the foreign host institution, with private funding, with (inter)national scholarships, or with income from work during the study. These students are found in most of the (inter)national statistics. They are mostly referred to as diploma or degree mobility students. 3. Students who follow completely or mostly undergraduate or graduate degree programs in their own country which are delivered by foreign providers, virtually or otherwise. These students in most cases are excluded from the statistics. 4. Students who follow completely or mostly undergraduate or graduate degree programs on the basis of a joint or double degree between a foreign and national provider. They sometimes appear in the statistics under the labels “temporary,” sometimes “credit,” or sometimes “diploma mobility” students. Sometimes they do not show up in statistics at all. Statistics show primarily the category of students who go abroad for an undergraduate or graduate degree, pursuing the degree program completely or mostly at the foreign host institution. Only Australia provides regular data about the number of students in off-shore activities. In Australia, between 1996 and 2001, offshore enrollments increased from 24% to 37% of all international students enrolled in Australian institutions (Larsen et al., 2003). In the second semester of 2005, Australia had 188,268 on-shore international students and 42,516 transnational students involved in off-shore activities: 11,944 in distance and online programs and 54,460 at offshore campuses. They compose respectively 7% and 22% of the total number of international students in Australian higher education during that period (http://www.idp.com/research/fastfacts/article406.asp, May 30, 2006). In addition, 2% are on onshore exchange, 3% on onshore study-abroad, and 66% onshore, fulldegree students. According to Knight (2005), exporting countries New Zealand and 18

CHANGING DYNAMICS IN INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

the United Kingdom, and importing countries Hong Kong, Singapore, China, and Malaysia also provide some data but lack consistency in criteria and definition; hence, they are difficult to compare (p. 103). It is recommended that, in the future, other countries also provide these kinds of detailed statistical data. But even the statistics for full-degree mobility are not clear, as there are problems with issues such as nationality and residency: foreigners since birth, migrants, double nationalities, change of nationality, and move to or return to the country of study (Richters & Teichler, 2006, p. 84).2 Another factor that one can encounter in the debate about international student mobility is the distinction between “vertical” and “horizontal” mobility. Richters and Teichler (2006) define two forms: “Vertical mobility can be understood as a move from a country or institution of lower academic quality to a country or institution of higher education of superior quality,” while “horizontal mobility can be understood as a move between countries and institutions of similar academic quality” (p. 85). In general, vertical mobility is identified with South-North and diploma or degree mobility, and horizontal mobility with North-North and credit mobility. This distinction, however, is too simple and ignores in particular SouthSouth and North-North diploma and degree mobility. It is more relevant to include these aspects in a discussion about rationales for international student mobility, also referred to as the push and pull factors. In our study, as most studies do, at least implicitly, we concentrate on the category of students who go abroad for an undergraduate or graduate degree and who follow the degree program completely or mostly at the foreign host institution. However, our analysis takes into account the fact that an increasing number of these foreign host institutions are not delivering their programs, not only within their own borders, but also in the students’ home country.

THE CHANGING CONTEXT OF STUDENT MOBILITY

In 1985, Philip G. Altbach and Y. Lulat (1985, p. 50) assumed that the rapid increase in the number of international students would inevitably level off, also assuming that the United Kingdom’s decision to increase fees would have a negative impact. This decision was also made in Australia, a country that in the 1980 figures had not yet appeared among the top 20 host countries. However, over the last twenty years, neither the rate or growth nor the increase in fees has affected student numbers negatively. On the contrary. At the other extreme, a joint study by the British Council and IDP-Education Australia (Bohm et al., 2004) predicts that 5.8 million students will study abroad by 2020, up from the current 2 million. That assumption can also be questioned. For the moment, though, international student mobility is undeniably still growing, even though some decrease in the growth rate 2 Doctoral students compose a special category. In some cases, they are included in statistics on graduate diploma or degree mobility or on credit mobility; but in other cases, they are not. Their importance, though, is very high, and there is a need to track them more accurately than the present statistics allow. The UNESCO Institute of Statistics, in cooperation with OECD and Eurostat, is working on a “Careers of Doctorate Holders” tool kit for that purpose (UNESCO, 2006, p. 46).

19

H. DE WIT

has occurred in the United States since 9/11/2001 and also in Europe and Australia as a result of economic and immigration changes. Karine Tremblay (2006) notes: The last decade has witnessed a dramatic growth in student mobility throughout the world. In 2003, 2.12 million tertiary students were enrolled outside their country of origin . . . . This represented an 11.5% increase in total international student intakes reported to the OECD since the previous year. Over a five-year period, the number of international students enrolled in the sole OECD-countries rose from 1.33 to 1.98 million individuals since 1998, i.e., a nearly 50% increase which amounts to an 8.3% annual growth on average. (p. 28) UNESCO (2006) notes an increase between 1999 and 2004 of 41% – amounting to at least 2.5 million internationally mobile students around the world. It identifies three waves of growth: between 1975 and 1980, 30% growth; between 1989 and 1994, 34% growth; and between 1999 and 2004, 41% growth (p. 34). This chapter analyzes whether and which counteracting developments will impact these predictions and the present growth. A concern of our study is: What does that mean for international student circulation? An interesting case in that respect is China which, during 1978–2003, has become one of the main sending countries. According to Cheng Li (2005): Between 1978 and 2003, a total of 700,200 PRC citizens travelled abroad to study, with a large proportion going to the United States. During the same period, a large number of foreigners studied and taught in China. Between 1978 and 2002, China hosted approximately 350,000 foreign students . . . . More recently, China has witnessed a tidal wave of returnees to the country. By the end of 2003, approximately 172,800 Chinese students and scholars who studied abroad had returned to China. (p. 2) Kathryn Mohrman (2005) adds: “Sending more than a half-million students abroad . . . was a conscious policy to accelerate the process of modernization in China. . . . At the same time, the process of reform within Chinese universities has been strongly influenced by the exchanges as returning scholars have brought new concepts of research, curriculum, finance, and administration back to their home campus” (pp. 233–234). Altbach and Lulat wrote their overview and bibliography about international students in comparative perspective in 1985. They noted: International [foreign] students are a growth “industry” in higher education . . . . While the “sending” nations (home countries) are often ignored in discussions concerning international students, the issues are important in these nations as well . . . . Historical trends buttress the general concept that students migrate from the peripheries to the centers and that foreign study is very much part of an international knowledge system. (pp. 3–4) They identify eight different flow patterns of international students: Third World students to industrialized market-economy nations; Third World students to socialist nations; Third World students to other Third World nations; industrialized 20

CHANGING DYNAMICS IN INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

market-economy students to other industrialized market-economy nations; industrialized market-economy students to Third World nations; socialist nation students to other socialist nations; socialist nation students to industrialized market-economy nations; and industrialized market-economy students to socialist nations (p. 7). They also note that the magnitude and direction of the flows have been relatively stable over the years. The major flow has been from the Third World to the industrialized nations, followed by a large flow among the industrialized nations. The flow between socialist nations was, in 1985, still significant but has become very marginal after the end of the Cold War and can be seen as one of the most fundamental changes in international student flows in the past decades. They also observe that “there is a good deal of mobility from one Third World nation to another” but that “this is a phenomenon not widely researched” (p. 8). This observation still holds 20 years later and is one of the driving motivations behind this study. In the comprehensive study “Academic Mobility in a Changing World” (Blumenthal et al., 1996), published a decade after Altbach and Lulat’s study, a new attempt was made to analyze the developments in academic mobility. The assumption the study built on was: “In the twentieth century, mobility has been mostly generated by the desire of students and academic staff from poorer countries to learn, teach, and carry out research in richer countries, and to benefit from the higher quality of higher education systems which the latter have to offer” (p. 2). The explicit or latent objectives underlying academic mobility programs and actions are, according to Blumenthal et al., economic, political, socio-cultural, and academic-scientific-technological (p. 4). As for patterns of academic mobility, the study concluded that the “North-South flows remain dominant” because students from the South are in “search of skills” while “more senior scholars from the North” are attempting to aid in “the development assistance process.” They cite Goodwin’s (1996, p. 367) observation that patterns of mobility in the North “reflect desires both to facilitate experiential learning and to develop ‘continental consciousness’ in both Europe and North America.” As a result, “the actors taking part in academic mobility are proliferating in number and kind” (Blumenthal et al., 1996, p. 366). A report by the Council for Education in the Commonwealth and the Council for International Education (UKCOSA) (2000) notes that the character of international student mobility has been profoundly affected during 1980–2000 by four general major characteristics: 1. The tendency to treat education as a saleable commodity, with international student mobility being driven more and more by economic and market forces and increasingly regarded as an important aspect of trade policy. 2. Shifts in the economic and political fortunes of individual countries and particular geographical regions. 3. Changing priorities in education in developing countries and in international assistance to lower-income countries for educational development. 4. New patterns and models of learning across national frontiers. (p. 6) 21

H. DE WIT

Twenty years after Altbach and Lulat’s study, 10 years after the study on Academic Mobility, and five years after the UKCOSA study, this study analyzes whether the dominant patterns of the past are still dominant or what changes can be observed as a consequence of the further internationalization of higher education and the further globalization of our economies and societies. Recent studies by the OECD (Tremblay, 2006) and by UNESCO’s Institute for Statistics (2006) provide the data for such a comparative analysis. A relevant basis for such a study is also the Atlas of student mobility by Todd Davis (2003), a publication in the framework of the Atlas Project, coordinated by the Institute of International Education (IIE) in New York. Davis (2003) notes: While the numbers of international students are likely to grow, so will the complexity of their mobility patterns . . . . For example, mobility patterns now include significant intra-regional movement, as well as the more traditional pattern of movement from the developing world to Western Europe and the United States. (p. 4) He gives the example of intra-Asian mobility, which constitutes 18% of the internationally mobile students from Asia and 17% for Latin America. (It must be noted, however, that the Latin American numbers are rather small in comparison to those about Asian.) In the literature on higher education, one can find many references indicating that the international dimension has always existed. This is certainly true for student and staff mobility, which already existed during the Middle Ages in Europe, and even earlier in India and in the Arab world. In addition to European medieval universities, Altbach and Lulat (1985) also cite Egypt as an example, where the Islamic university Al-Azhar sees itself as an international institution serving Islamic civilization for centuries; traditional Hindu and Buddhist universities, such as the universities of Taxila and Nalanda (dating to 600 B.C.), were also international in scope, welcoming teachers and students from other countries (p. 3). During the 19th century when the United States was still building its academic system, they note, the flow of students was almost completely from America to Europe (p. 4). But it is only in the 20th century that most universities moved from an orientation of higher education as a nation-building institution to a much more internationally oriented approach, integrating an international dimension in the university’s teaching, research, and service functions. Over time, both the characteristics and the directions of student mobility have changed radically. What changes have taken place in the international dimension of higher education in different parts of the world, and how have those changes affected the way student mobility has evolved over the years?

PUSH AND PULL FACTORS

In their comparative study of foreign students, Altbach and Lulat (1985) give an overview of variables affecting the magnitude and direction of major flow patterns 22

CHANGING DYNAMICS IN INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

for international students. As “home country variables” they identify economic difficulties leading to reductions in state funding as well as available foreign exchange; economic booms leading to an expansion of demand for trained personnel and, hence, an increase in numbers of students going abroad; economic policy changes leading to emphases in areas with a dearth in requisite person power and training facilities which likewise necessitate that students go abroad; political changes leading to changes in foreign policy and, hence, change in flow direction; and educational changes such as the completion of appropriate training facilities, hence, leading to reductions in numbers of students abroad (p. 11). As “host country variables,” they identify economic difficulties leading to restrictions on international students through measures such as higher tuition fees; population changes leading to increases in available student places; changes in foreign policy leading to the completion of bilateral agreements; a reemphasis of political commitments leading to increases on the inflow of international students from a given politically volatile region; and education policy changes leading to an emphasis on international area and language studies and hence a greater commitment to study abroad programs (p. 11). They also provide an overview of push and pull factors for Third World students to study abroad. As push factors (key variables pertaining to a home country), they identify the availability of scholarships for study abroad; poor quality educational facilities; lack of research facilities; lack of appropriate educational facilities; failure to gain admission to local institutions; enhanced value of a foreign degree; discrimination against minorities; and a politically uncongenial situation (p. 13). As pull factors (key variables pertaining to a host country), they identify the availability of scholarships for international students; good quality education; the availability of advanced research facilities; the availability of appropriate educational facilities with likely offers of admission; the presence of relatives willing to provide financial assistance; a congenial political situation; a congenial socioeconomic and political environment in the target country; and opportunities for general international life experience. William Cummings (1993) in his study of global trends in overseas study distinguishes three types of national differences: 1. Early development: Countries with “a relatively modest higher education system and/or systems,” which “do not offer equal opportunities to the members of all of the indigenous groups.” 2. Late development: “Countries that have made greater strides in the expansion of indigenous education” but which “nevertheless look to overseas institutions for graduate-level programs appropriate for training their scholars and researchers.” 3. Developed: “Countries with longer histories of higher education” foster as desirable the situation that “many overseas students go abroad to gain an understanding of other societies” (p. 37). Cummings (1993) also provides an overview of factors influencing the flow of students to a host country. He defines the “sending level” to a given country by iden23

H. DE WIT

tifying both push and pull factors. As push factors, he lists basic human resource capacity, financial capacity, trade dependence, facilitating institutions, domestic opportunities for higher education, domestic scarcity of science and technology offerings, dependence on world economy, information scarcity, linguistic isolation, political uncertainty, and cultural disposition. He defines preference for a specific country (X) or pull factors as the level of assistance received from X, imports from X, exports to X, immigration to X, system compatibility, scale, and ability to pay. Together these factors define the sending level to X (p. 38). Cummings concludes that countries differ in their likelihood of sending students overseas (push factors) for 11 reasons: 1. The larger the numbers of young people with the basic qualifications for study at the tertiary level, the more young people from that nation will consider overseas study. 2. The extent to which the domestic system provides opportunities in areas such as sciences and technology may curtail the tendency to go overseas. 3. When education is conducted in the same languages as the leading receiver nations, it is more likely that they will send students than nations that use local languages. 4. Nations with higher standards of living will send relatively more students than poorer nations. 5. Regardless of a nation’s standard of living, the number of students going overseas is likely to increase in times of rapid economic growth and decrease in periods of recession. 6. Students in small countries, which have fewer domestic opportunities, are more likely to consider foreign study than students in large countries with wider options. 7. To the extent that a national economy is dependent on international transactions, the young people of that nation will see their careers linked with the actions of multinational corporations and foreign economic centers. 8. With the cumulative experience of a country sending students overseas, the practice becomes institutionalized. 9. In nations with enduring ethnic or racial tensions, there will be an especially strong tendency for minority students to seek study overseas. 10. Nations experiencing political uncertainty are also likely to send large numbers overseas. 11. The firmer the regional unity, the more likely it is that intra-regional flows will occur. For instance, in the early 1980s, Arab unity was firmer, and thus there was a greater flow among the Arab nations (pp. 40–41). As for the question of where students go for their overseas study (pull factors), Cummings concludes: 1. Although colonial ties have been and continue to be an influential factor, they apparently have become subordinated to other linkages. 2. Cold War-related associations have redirected national patterns of flow. 24

CHANGING DYNAMICS IN INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

3. The volume of economic exchange among nations also influences the direction of student flow. 4. To the extent that nationals from a particular country take up residence and citizenship in a host country, this is likely to enhance the flow of future students between the two countries. 5. Cultural linkages also facilitate the flow between national systems. 6. The absorptive capacity of host-country educational systems is also important. 7. The great diversity of institutions in the American system enables the accommodation of students with varying levels of preparation and motivation. 8. Financial considerations also play an important role in student choices (pp. 41– 42). Davis (2003) in his Atlas of student mobility points out that international student flows must be examined in relation to other factors such as home country investments in human capital, population growth, the level of technology capacity, the growth of civil liberty, and international connectedness. Indicators are the Human Development Index, civil liberties, freedom of the press, aircraft departures, foreign investment, the percentage of urbanization, life expectancy, phone lines per 1,000 people, population size, and numbers of students already abroad (p. 5). Altbach (2004) has identified his own list of push and pull factors. Among push factors are competitive entry requirements at home institutions; lack of “world class” institutions at home; lack of certain specializations; a limited number of master- and doctoral-level studies; and social and political forces, including discriminatory admissions policies and lack of academic freedom. As pull factors for the United States, he mentions the academic system’s reputation, the prestige of degrees granted, easier admission policies, the lure of life in the United States, and career and work prospects after study (p. 21). The OECD (2004) stresses the importance that students attach to their own cultural and economic rationales for going abroad and selecting a specific institution and program there, a decision which is a trade-off between the monetary and nonmonetary costs and benefits from studying abroad. This study mentions the following rationales: host-country and teaching language; cultural and geographic proximity; historical and economic ties; perceived quality of life in the host country; networks of present and former students in the host country; the accessibility and range of post-secondary studies in the country of origin; the reputation and perceived quality of the educational system and educational institutions in the host country in comparison to the country of origin; the cost of studying abroad; recognition of skills and qualifications at home and abroad; access to foreign student-facilities and social cover in the host country; host country policies on student immigration; and comparative opportunities in the labor markets of the host country and the country of origin (pp. 29–30). Based on a detailed review of existing market research, Anthony Bohm et al. (2004) identified a set of primary attractiveness factors that influence the choice of destination country. These factors include quality of education, employment prospects, affordability, personal security, lifestyle, and education accessibility. 25

H. DE WIT Table 1. Primary attractiveness factors. Parameter

US

UK

AUS

CAN

NZ

IND

SGP

MLY

Quality of education Employment prospects Affordability Personal security Lifestyle Education accessibility

10 10 2 3 8 10

9 8 3 8 5 7

3 3 7 9 9 3

9 9 4 9 9 10

3 2 8 10 5 1

3 1 10 6 3 2

5 10 8 10 10 8

3 5 9 8 7 6

Total

43

40

34

50

29

25

51

38

1 = low performance, 10 = high performance AUS = Australia, CAN = Canada, NZ = New Zealand, IND = India, SGP = Singapore, MLY = Malaysia Source: Adapted from Bohm et al. (2004)

These factors reflect students’ perceptions, not necessarily the reality. Based on these factors, a particular country’s attractiveness as a destination for international students can be assessed. I have done so in the following example for the five main English-speaking destination countries and also for three countries in Asia: India, Singapore, and Malaysia. Cubillo, Sanchez, and Cervino (2004) mention the following variables in students’ intentions of destination: academic prestige, social prestige, institutional prestige, ranking position, scientific rigor, job expectations, program accommodation, and appreciation of the foreign country/environment. They also studied the relation between country image, institutional image, and program evaluation and found a correlation among them. Karine Tremblay (2006) mentions the following factors as relevant to international student mobility: geographical distance, language, quality assurance and recognition of foreign qualifications, immigration, tuition fees and costs, and marketing policies. The studies of Altbach and Lulat (1985), Cummings (1993), Davis (2003), OECD (2004), Bohm et al. (2004), Cubillo, Sanchez, and Cervino (2004), Tremblay (2006), and Kelo, Teichler, and Waechter (2006) are important because they provide the foundations for a critical analysis of international student flow. For this reason, I have made ample reference to them. It is important to keep in mind, however, that these studies mainly analyze the flow between the main sending and main receiving countries and that they tend to focus on South-North and NorthNorth flows. But in the first three, reference is made to the South-South flow and to the need for more analyses of these flows.3 In this volume, we examine the push and pull factors or rationales for student mobility, and see which have become more dominant, which have disappeared, and which are new. We also look at possible South-South flows, as well as the 3 These studies were done in the 1980s and in the present decade with relatively few studies on international student flows in the 1990s, a period in which exchange and study abroad as part of home degrees were more the focus of attention.

26

CHANGING DYNAMICS IN INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

implications of the emergence of cross-border programs and increasing national provisions of higher education in some countries, as possible alternatives for international student flows. In this context, we prefer to speak of “international student circulation” rather than “international student mobility.” Taking into consideration the push and pull factors mentioned by Altbach and Lulat (1985), Cummings (1993), Davis (2003), OECD (2004), and Tremblay (2006) – and the considerable overlap among them – and the changing rationales for internationalization as presented above, we provide a framework of push and pull factors that determine international students’ circulation. For the purpose of this study, we designed the framework to illuminate the push and pull factors which play a role in international student circulation by country/region and in comparative perspective. The push factors are here to be understood as those stimulating students to study abroad for their degree (outward mobility). The pull factors attract students to study for a degree in the country under examination (inward mobility). This framework has been designed on the basis of earlier studies on international student flows, referred to above. This framework will function as a list of indicators to identify what factors push students to go (or not go) to study abroad for a degree, and what factors pull (or not pull) students to come to study in the specific country under study. The framework identifies educational, political/social/cultural, and economic factors, although they are not mutually exclusive to other categories. This is a different approach from other studies, in which the push and pull factors are used together to identify what pushes a student out and what pulls the student to a specific country. As this framework is rather extensive and large, for comparative analysis between the different countries and regions a more focused matrix is used, summarizing the main push and pull factors in four broad categories: mutual understanding (political, social, and cultural factors), revenue earning (economic factors), skill migration (economic factors), and capacity building (educational factors). TRENDS AND DATA

As the trend toward individual private funding of higher education grows the world over, increasing numbers of students will be internationally mobile; they will seek access to the most cost-effective, high-quality education wherever it might be delivered. With many advanced countries crafting their migration policies to attract skilled manpower irrespective of nationality, an increasing number of students are potential migrants. For these reasons, there is increased mobility of students across borders; however, the expansion and diversification of domestic higher education capacity, the provision of distance education and online learning opportunities, and the presence of foreign providers established in the students’ home countries might begin to work against students crossing borders for higher education. In short, a variety of factors are at play to determine the global pattern of international student circulation in future. Students going abroad for studies are the most visible form of international education. Student mobility has increased, keeping pace with the overall growth in 27

H. DE WIT Table 2. Push and pull factors for outward student mobility. Push Factors

Pull Factors

Educational Factors Availability of higher education Basic human resource capacity Ranking/status higher education Enhanced value of national versus foreign degree Selectiveness of domestic higher education Availability of distance education Increasing presence private providers Increasing presence foreign providers Experience with international mobility Strategic alliances with foreign partners

Educational Factors Higher education opportunities System compatibility Ranking/status higher education Enhanced value of national degree Diversity of the higher education system Absorptive capacity of higher education Active recruitment policy Cost of study Existing stock of national students Strategic alliances with home partners

Political/Social/Cultural Factors Linguistic isolation Cultural disposition Colonial ties Political instability Regional unity Information isolation Emigration policies Strategic alliances Academic freedom

Political/Social/Cultural Factors Language factor Cultural ties Colonial ties Lure of life Regional unity Stock of citizens of country of origin Immigration policies Strategic alliances with home country Academic freedom

Economic Factors Dependence on world economy Financial capacity Human development index factor Employment opportunities on return

Economic Factors Import/export levels Level of assistance Human resource development index Employment opportunities during study Employment opportunities after study Geographical distance

Geographical distance

Table 3. Main categories of push and pull factors for inward and outward mobility. Inward Mobility Mutual understanding Revenue earning Skill migration Capacity building Source: Based on OECD (2004, p. 232).

28

Outward Mobility

CHANGING DYNAMICS IN INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

expansion of higher education. Enrollment in higher education increased from 92 million in 1999 to 132 million in 2004, an increase of 40%; slightly surpassing it, student mobility has increased by 41% from 1.75 million to 2.5 million during the same period (UNESCO, 2006). Developed countries such as the United States and United Kingdom have a high inbound ratio and a very low outbound ratio, while less developed nations tend to have a high outbound ratio and low inbound ratio. However, some advanced nations like Germany, Japan, and Canada have both high outbound and high inbound ratios. Some developing countries like Malaysia and South Africa also increasingly fall into this category. Further, some countries are likely to have both low inbound and low outbound ratios. Such countries are not necessarily small. Even China and India fall in this category because of the huge population base and large higher education system. India has a low outbound mobility ratio (around 1%) and much lower inbound ratio (0.3%); both rates are below the global average of 1.5%. However, countries with a large population of young people tend to have the biggest share in the distribution of mobile students by country of origin. In addition to the more traditional pattern of movement of students from the developing world to Western Europe and the United States, mobility patterns now include significant intra-regional movements. A large number of students move from one European country to another. Intra-Asian mobility is increasing. Despite this, OECD countries receive nearly 2 million international students (almost 85%) with Europe getting a million students (nearly 60%). Compared to Europe, North America hosts fewer students in absolute numbers, yet draws them from all over the world with Asian students constituting two-thirds. In contrast, Europe has a larger intra-European mobility (Vincent-Lancrin, 2006). English is the main language of study. Therefore, it is not surprising that the demand for places in the five major English-speaking destination countries (MEDSCs) – namely the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand – constitutes almost 50% of the overall demand at present. This demand is expected to increase from about 1 million places in 2003 to about 2.6 million places in 2020. Asia is predicted to dominate demand for the MESDCs, representing 1.8 million places or 76% of the global demand for the five major English-speaking destination countries by 2020. There are significant flows to non-English-speaking countries as well; for example, Indian students go to Russia, West Africans to France. Traditional destination countries also face competition from countries like Singapore and Malaysia. Both countries are making organized efforts to attract foreign universities with good international reputations which will then attract international students. The University of Nottingham campus in Malaysia (and a recent expansion into China) is a good example of an approach that has the potential to be beneficial to both Malaysia and the United Kingdom. Other institutions from outside the United Kingdom are developing similar initiatives that will present an additional layer of competition. Similarly, India is increasing its capacity to attract international students both in India and globally, including in Malaysia. For example, the National Institute 29

H. DE WIT Table 4. Forecasts of global demand for international higher education. Top Five Source Countries (’000) Countries China Korea India Japan Greece

2000

2005

2010

2020

2025

Growth

218,437 81,370 76,908 66,097 60,486

437,109 96,681 141,691 65,872 68,285

760,103 114,269 271,193 68,544 75,339

1,937,129 155,737 502,237 71,974 84,608

2,973,287 172,671 629,080 73,665 89,903

11% 3.1% 8.8% 0.4% 1.6%

Source: Bohm et al. (2004)

of Information Technology offers programs across Asia and Africa with links to America and Europe as well as online programs. Additionally, a private sector medical school associated with established Indian universities has been established in Malaysia. Singapore is building its capacity to attract international students with a target of up to 150,000 being suggested. A number of concessions are being offered to prestigious foreign institutions to establish operations in Singapore. A prime example of the second category is the presence of EduFrance, which currently advertises some 150 programs in French institutions of higher education delivered in English. NUFFIC’s website details more than 850 international courses delivered in English by higher education institutions in the Netherlands. Similar developments are occurring in Sweden and Germany. According to Bohm (2003), as more and more developing countries become wealthier and increase in population, the number of students who may go abroad to study may double before 2015 and double again by 2025, reaching a figure of around 8 million. In 2004, Bohm and his colleagues updated this forecast, taking into consideration the predicted values of demographic, economic, and education variables, as well as historical international education mobility data. They forecast that the total global demand for international student places would increase from about 2.1 million in 2003 to 3.3 million in 2010 and approximately 5.8 million in 2020 (see Table 4.) This figure implies a compound annual growth rate of 6.2%. Asia will continue to be the leading source region, accounting for around 40% of the global total demand in 2010, according to this study. Factors that might affect this prediction include the increased capacity to absorb demand for higher education in these countries themselves and the increased cross-border delivery of programs and institutions; however, international student circulation will continue to play its dominant role.

DATA LIMITATIONS

In all, there is increased and more complex mobility of students across national borders. However, given the absence of credible baseline data, it is not possible to see world higher education space holistically. The Atlas of student mobility, published by the Institute for International Education (Davis, 2003), has been an attempt to 30

CHANGING DYNAMICS IN INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

create a shared image of international mobility. Although it is a laudable effort, this compilation, like many other studies on this topic, suffers from several lacunae, the most important being the absence of trustworthy and consistent national-level data sources on mobility and the even more important lack of a common understanding of various terms used in the context of international student mobility. Various international and national agencies collect data on international students. UNESCO compiles information worldwide on the presence of foreign students in those countries which provide corresponding data.4 The OECD views the international mobility of students as representing a potential flow of qualified workers. According to its study (OECD, 2004), foreign students become a part of the domestic labor force, either during or after completing their studies. The Academic Co-operation Association (ACA) – a membership organization in Europe – has started collecting data on student mobility. EURODATA depicts the main trends in international student mobility into and out of 32 European countries. EURODATA and UNESCO databases contain information based on mobility rather than nationality. In India, for example, data on international students are collected by the Association of Indian Universities (AIU) through its annual surveys. In addition, the Information and Statistics Bureau of the University Grants Commission (UGC) also collects such data. Both surveys collect data from universities. Although some universities collect and compile information on international students for their affiliated colleges, many do not. As a result both AIU and UGC datasets are incomplete. In addition, both suffer from poor response rates. There is also an absence of commonly understood definitions of “international student” and “international study” in different contexts. Statistics for international students are not only notoriously difficult to collect but can also be confusingly presented. In order to show trends, data are needed on the flow of new students each year. Some countries prefer to give the figure for the total stock of overseas students at a given time. Because countries do not collect data uniformly or centrally, tracking student numbers requires relying either on data from institutions or from visa applications. Both sources can be problematic. An unknown percentage of successful student visa applicants do not register for full-time study. In the above context, there is a need to improve the quality and timeliness of the data. To facilitate a global analysis of student flows, countries would need to think collectively about how student mobility data are collected and presented. This would require a collaborative approach, because such data would need to reflect common classifications and definitions. An exercise toward building a global consensus on definitions of terms such as “international student” and “international study in different contexts” has been initiated by the Institute for International Education (IIE) for organizing the collective enterprise of data collection and dissemination. Such an approach is vital for the development of a global understanding of international student mobility. 4 In 2002–2003, only 73 out of 194 countries provided information.

31

H. DE WIT STATISTICAL TRENDS

Although it is clear that there are some fundamental concerns about the reliability of data on international student flows, it still is possible to use the existing data to analyze trends and issues. In this section I present an overview and analysis of the 20 countries supplying the largest number of international students in 1965–2005 based on data available from the UNESCO Statistical Yearbooks and an interpretation of the changes that have occurred over that period. I next provide an overview and analysis of the 10 leading host countries for international students during the same period, as well as the specific role of Southern universities in international student circulation. In conclusion, I examine emerging trends in the inbound and outbound mobility of developing countries. Outbound Mobility Trends An analysis of data on outbound degree-seeking mobility for 1965–2005 shows that, in each decade, discernible changes have taken place. The numbers for 1965– 1975 (Table 5) indicate an increase in overall numbers from 290,615 in 1963 to 593,320 in 1973. They also show an increase in numbers from developing countries: particularly Iran, Hong Kong, China, Nigeria, Malaysia, Cyprus, and Morocco. Asia during that period grew from 42.3% to 44.8% and Africa from 12.2% to 15.3% of the total student flows. Europe and North America together decreased from 37.2% to 35% (Cummings, 1993, p. 32). In the next 10 years, 1975–1985, total student flows increased further in developing countries, with China taking an increasingly dominant position. In that period, Asia increased its percentage to 48.5% and Africa to 18.7%. Together with South America, which, unlike the other two regions, showed a gradual decline over 1965–1985 from 7.3 to 4.0%, the developing countries sent 71.2% of the total number of international students abroad, compared to 27.9% for Europe (including the USSR) and North America together (Cummings, 1993, p. 32). In the period 1985–1995 (Tables 5 and 6), the trend of the previous 10 years follows the same path. In 1995, Eastern Asia sent 23% and estern Europea 20%; the Arab states 12% and Central and Eastern Europe 10%. Sub-Saharan Africa accounted for 7%. Six percent each came from southern Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, developed Asia, and Oceania. North America accounted for 4%. According to Chitoran (1998), in the 1980s and 1990s “the percentage gap between the total number of students and those pursuing studies abroad is particularly shifting in the case of developing countries” as a consequence of the lack of capacity in the home countries, but also because of “the increasingly commercial attitude by certain receiving countries,” such as drops in Third World scholarships and the introduction of and increase in fees. He concludes that “student mobility is becoming more North-North and less South-North. In other words, while the benefits of study abroad are increasingly recognized, because of the costs involved, it is increasingly becoming a privilege for those who can afford it.” In the period 1995–2005 (Table 6), the general trend of the previous 10 years continues. The largest group of international students comes in 2005 from East 32

CHANGING DYNAMICS IN INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION Table 5. The 20 countries supplying the largest number of international students, 1965–1985. 1965

1975

1985

Country

Numbers Country∗

Numbers Country

Numbers

1. Jordan 2. USA 3. Taiwan 4. Canada 5. India 6. Iran 7. Germany 8. Greece 9. France 10. Syria 11. Peru 12. Malaysia 13. UK 14. South Korea 15. Hong Kong 16. Italy 17. Iraq 18. Thailand 19. Japan 20. Nigeria

17,235 16,248 16,061 11,353 11,192 10,498 9,970 8,933 7,908 7,837 7,830 7,595 7,279 7,014 5,814 5,619 4,241 4,130 4,085 4,059

33,021 29,414 23,363 21,059 17,201 16,866 16,348 16,162 14,805 12,664 12,171 11,601 11,251 10,759 10,725 10,506 9,541 9,344 9,052 9,010

42,481 41,043 40,493 34,086 33,094 24,285 23,657 22,468 22,424 19,707 19,673 17,935 17,824 16,693 16,254 16,168 15,335 14,661 14,513 13,861

1. Iran (6) 2. USA (2) 3. Greece (8) 4. Hong Kong (15) 5. China 6. U.K (13) 7. Nigeria (20) 8. Malaysia (12) 9. India (5) 10. Canada (4) 11. South Vietnam 12. Jordan (1) 13. Italy (16) 14. Germany (7) 15. Cyprus 16. Japan (19) 17. Turkey 18. Morocco 19. Thailand (18) 20. France

1. China (0/5) 2. Iran (6/1) 3. Malaysia (12/8) 4. Greece (8/3) 5. Morocco (0/18) 6. Jordan (1/12) 7. Hong Kong (15/4) 8. South Korea (0/0) 9. Germany (7/14) 10. USA (2/2) 11. Nigeria (20/7) 12. Italy (16/13) 13. India (5/9) 14. Syria (0/0) 15. Canada (4/10) 16. Turkey (0/17) 17. Japan (19/0) 18. Lebanon (0/0) 19. UK (13/6) 20. Algeria (0/0)

∗ The numbers after each country indicate its position in the preceding years.

Source: Based on Cummings (1993, p. 34)

Asia and the Pacific (701,000, 29% of the total, an increase over 5 years of 5%), followed by Western Europe (407,000, 17%, a decrease of 5%) and Central and Eastern Europe (298.000, 12%, an increase of 2%). China (14%) sends the largest number of students, followed by India, South Korea, Japan, and Germany. If we compare the four decades, the most striking trend is the increase in numbers, from approximately 250,000 in 1965 to 2.5 million in 2005. UNESCO (2006) observed a first wave in 1975-1985 during which a 30% increase occurred from 800,000 to 1 million; a second wave between 1989 and 1994 with an increase of 34%; and a third wave between 1999 and 2004 with an increase of 41% (p. 34). These upward waves coincide with an increase in general enrollment in tertiary education. For instance, the increase of 41% in mobility over 1999-2005 is only marginally larger than the increase of 40% in total enrollment in that period. Also noteworthy is the nearly complete absence of Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America in the top 20 sending countries over the whole 1965–2005 period. In the case of Sub-Saharan Africa, this absence does not reflect the important role that outbound mobility plays. According to UNESCO (2006), tertiary students from Sub-Saharan Africa are the most mobile in the world, with one out of every 16 students (5.6%) studying abroad, followed by Central Asia (3.9%), and the Arab states (2.9%). At the other end of the scale, only one out of every 250 North 33

H. DE WIT Table 6. The 20 countries supplying the largest number of international students, 1995–2005. 1995

2005

Country

Numbers

Country

Numbers

1. China (0/5/1) 2. South Korea (0/0/18) 3. Japan (19/0/17) 4. Germany (7/14/9) 5. Greece (8/3/4) 6. Malaysia (12/8/3) 7. India (5/9/13) 8. Turkey (0/17/16) 9. Italy (16/13/12) 10. Hong Kong (15/4/7) 11. Morocco (0/18/5) 12. France (9/20/0) 13. Canada (4/10/15) 14. USA (2/2/10) 15. Iran (6/1/2) 16. UK (13/6/19) 17. Indonesia (0/0/0) 18. Algeria (0/0/20) 19. Ukraine (0/0/0) 20. Spain (0/0/0)

115,871 69,736 62,324 45,432 43,941 41,159 39,626 37,629 36,515 35,141 34,908 32,411 28.280 27,749 26,786 24,034 22,235 22,104 20,930 20,865

1. China (0/5/1/1) 2. India (5/9/13/7) 3. South Korea (0/0/18/3) 4. Japan (19/0/17/4) 5. Germany (7/14/9/4) 6. France (9/20/0/12) 7. Turkey (0/17/16/8) 8. Morocco (0/18/5/11) 9. Greece (8/3/4/5) 10. USA (2/2/10/10) 11. Malaysia (12/8/3/6) 12. Canada (4/10/15/13) 13. Italy (16/13/12/9) 14. Russia (0/0/0/0) 15. Hong Kong (15/4/7/10) 16. Indonesia (0/0/0/17) 17. Poland (0/0/0/0) 18. Kazakhstan (0/0/0/0) 19. Spain (0/0/0/20) 20. Ukraine (0/0/0/19)

343,126 123,559 95,885 60,424 56,410 53,350 52,048 51,503 49,631 41,181 40,884 38,847 38,544 34,473 34,199 31,687 28,786 27,356 25,691 25,188

Sources: Based on UNESCO (1996, 2006)

American students (0.4%) studies overseas, making this group the least mobile, followed by students from Latin America and the Caribbean (1.0%), and South and West Asia (1.3%). This is also remarkable, as only eight countries have stayed in the top 20 countries over the past 40 years: four from Europe (Germany, France, Italy, and Greece), three from Asia (India, Malaysia, and Hong Kong), and the two largest sending countries from North America (Canada and the United States). In reality, the outbound ratio, i.e. the percentage of students going overseas in relation to the total enrollment in a country, in this respect says more about the importance of mobility in each country’s higher education statistics. An analysis of the outbound mobility ratio of countries sending more than 10,000 students abroad, reveals that among the top 20 are nine European countries (four from Central and Eastern Europe plus Cyprus), two from Central Asia, two from East Asia, one from the Arab states, and five from Africa (Senegal, Cameroon, Kenya, Morocco, and Tunisia) (based on UNESCO, 2006, Table 10). Inbound Mobility Trends Table 7 shows the receiving side of international student circulation. The top countries are the developed countries with the United States as an increasingly dominant 34

CHANGING DYNAMICS IN INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION Table 7. The 10 countries receiving the largest numbers of overseas students in 1968, 1980, and 1985.

Country

1968 Number

%

Country

1980 Number

%

USA France Germany Lebanon Canada UK USSR Egypt Argentina Italy

121,362 36,500 26,783 18,811 17,414 16,154 16,100 14,008 7,103 7,103

28.3 8.5 6.2 4.4 4.1 3.8 3.8 3.3 1.7 1.7

USA France USSR Germany UK Lebanon Canada Italy Egypt Romania

311,882 110,763 62,942 61,841 56,003 31,018 28,443 27,784 21,751 15,888

33.8 12.0 6.8 6.7 6.1 3.4 3.1 3.0 2.4 1.8

Country USA France Germany UK Italy Canada Lebanon Belgium Saudi Arabia Australia

1985 Number

%

349,620 126,762 79,354 48,686 28,068 27,210 25,515 20,095 17,970 16,075

37.2 13.5 8.5 5.2 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.1 1.9 1.7

Source: Cummings (1993, p. 35)

leader, attracting 37.2%. In that period, the United Kingdom shows a decrease in both share and absolute numbers as a first reaction to the introduction of differential fees for overseas students in 1979. Australia, which also moved to differential fees in the same period, entered the top 10 only in 1985 with 16,075 international students and a market share of 1.7%. The presence of developing countries is limited to the Arab states and primarily reflects regional mobility among the Arab countries. This regionalization of overseas students is, according to Cummings (1993), a general trend. For example, the number of overseas students from Europe studying in another European country increased from 65% in 1965 to 76% in 1985 (p. 35). Table 8 confirms the trend of South-North and North-North mobility. The Arab countries in that period lost their strong intra-regional mobility. The top 10 are dominated by Northern countries, with the Russian Federation taking over the role of the former USSR. Table 9 confirms the ongoing dominance of the developed countries in hosting international students in 1990 and 1995, with South Africa (2%) being the exception. Malaysia (1%) also became a more important player. However, such conclusions must be evaluated considering the fact that data for certain countries which are increasingly bigger players are not included, particularly China. In 2004, China claimed to have 110,884 international students and is rapidly increasing its share, drawing them primarily from other Asian countries (2004 figures were already an increase of 42% over 2003) and Singapore, which claimed 50,000 international students in 2003, also primarily from other Asian countries (Australian Government, 2005). China and Singapore would have been ranked 7 and 9 respectively if their statistics had been included, and the influence of the developing countries would have been much more conspicuous. The same consideration is also relevant in the case of Egypt, that, according to available national data, received 35,000 international students in 2005, mainly from Islamic and neighboring countries. It is thus rapidly approaching countries in the top 10. (See also Chapter 3 by Mohsen Elmahdy Said.) 35

H. DE WIT Table 8. The 10 countries receiving the largest numbers of overseas students in 1990 and 1995. 1990 Number

Country

1. USA 2. France 3. Germany 4. UK 5. Former USSR 6. Canada 7. Belgium 8. Australia 9. Japan 10. Switzerland

407,529 136,015 105,269 70,717 66,806 35,187 33,335 28,993 23,816 22,621

% 34% 11% 9% 6% 5.5% 3% 3% 2.5% 2% 2%

1995 Number

Country 1. USA 2. France 3. Germany 4. UK 5. Russia 6. Japan 7. Australia 8. Canada 9. Belgium 10. Switzerland

%

453,787 170,574∗ 146,126∗ 128,550∗ 73,172∗∗ 50,801∗ 42,415∗ 35,451∗ 35,236∗ 25,307∗

30% 11% 10% 9% 5% 3.5% 3% 2.5% 2.5% 1.5%

∗ 1993 numbers ∗∗ 1994 numbers

Source: 1990 figures: Altbach (1998, p. 164; UNESCO, 1997) Table 9. The 10 countries receiving the largest numbers of overseas students in 1999/2000 and 2004.

Country

1999/2000 Number

1. USA∗∗ 2. UK 3. Germany 4. France 5. Australia 6. Russia** 7. Japan 8. Spain 9. Canada 10. Belgium

485,500 222,936 187,033 137,085 117,485 66,500 59,691 40,689 40,033 38,799

% 27.7% 12.8% 10.7% 7.8% 6.7% 3.8% 3.4% 2.3% 2.3% 2.2%

Country USA UK Germany France Australia Japan Russia South Africa Italy Canada

2004∗ Number

%

572,509 300,056 260,314 237,587 166,954 117,903 75,786 49,979 40,641 40,033

23.3% 12.2% 10.6% 9.7% 6.8% 4.8% 3.1% 2.0% 1.7% 1.7%

∗ If China had been included, it would have been in seventh place with 4.5%,

just behind Japan; and Singapore would have been ninth with 2%, just behind Russia and equal to South Africa. ∗∗ For the United States and Russia, data are an average between the data for 1998/1999 and 2000/2001. Source: 1999/2000: UNESCO (2002, 2004, 2006, p. 47)5

According to UNESCO (2006, 47), over the past 10 years the United States has seen a drop in share from 28% to 23%, while the Russian Federation has declined 5 The UNESCO study (2006, p. 47, figure 19) mentions Belgium (1.5%) as the 10th country of destination instead of Canada, which is not mentioned among the top 15 countries. However, table 9 (p. 131), mentions Canada with 40,033 international students, therefore motivating our decision to include Canada as the 10th country in this Table 7.

36

CHANGING DYNAMICS IN INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

from 4.5% to 3%. Countries increasing their share between 1994 and 1999 are Australia and the United Kingdom. Between 1999 and 2004, France, Japan, South Africa, and Malaysia also increased their shares (p. 47). As Karine Tremblay (2006) observes, the EU countries together take nearly half of the international students and are therefore the biggest recipient (p. 31). But some 45% of their approximately 1 million internationally mobile students are, according to Kelo, Teichler, and Waechter (2000), intraregional (p. 7), thus making Europe’s position far less dominant – more or less equal to the United States – than might be apparent at first glance.6

THE POSITION OF THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Like China, Singapore, South Africa, Egypt, and Malaysia, other developing countries, particularly in Asia and the Arab world, absorb an increasing number of international students. These students come predominantly from their own region, but still in relatively small numbers. South Africa is the clearest example: at least 36,203 international students out of the total 49,979 in South Africa come from Sub-Saharan African countries. (The other 13,776 are unspecified.) Still, South Africa is not the main recipient of students from Sub-Saharan Africa. It receives 21% while Western Europe receives (51%) and North America (20%). India, with 7,738 international students, is also still a small player. Most of its international students come from South and West Asia (2,188) or East Asia and the Pacific (1,595), but a large proportion (1,673) also come from Sub-Saharan Africa, to be explained by the Indian diaspora to that region. In the case of Egypt, most students come from surrounding African countries and the Middle East, but many students also come from Islamic countries in Asia and from the Islamic diaspora in the rest of the world. If we look at Cummings’s (1993) distinction between early development, late development, and developed countries, we can see a general flow from early to late development and developed countries, a flow from late development countries to developed countries and a flow from developed countries to developed countries (p. 37). If we compare the situation in 1985 with the present, however, we see a shift among the developing countries. In 1985, the Arab states were the most dominant among the developing countries in receiving international students. Lebanon and Saudi Arabia were among the top 10, with Syria and Egypt in the top 20. Brazil, India, and the Philippines also had large numbers (Cummings, 1993, p. 34). In contradiction to Cummings’s prediction, however, the numbers in the Arab countries have decreased, as they have in Brazil and the Philippines, but have more or less stabilized in India, a country that is now promoting itself as a quality destination for quality international students from Asia and Africa. 6 Kelo, Teichler, and Waechter (2000) have a total of 46%, based on 32 countries: the 25 EU countries plus Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey; I therefore used the figure of approximately 45%.

37

H. DE WIT

Some countries like Malaysia, Singapore, and China, as indicated above, already have large numbers and are targeting increased numbers of international students. The Malaysian government announced a plan to attract 100,000 foreign students by 2010 (at present Indonesia hosts 40,884), primarily from neighboring Southeast Asian nations, China, and West Asia (People’s Daily Online, March 6, 2006). Singapore has created an initiative called “Global Schoolhouse” to increase its potential as a host for international students (Australian Government, 2005). And although the position of the Arab countries has declined, several are taking initiatives to promote themselves as destinations: Dubai and Qatar in particular, along with Jordan which plans to increase its numbers from the current 20,000 to 50,000 by 2020. This trend becomes clearer by looking at the top 20 hosting developing countries and top 20 receiving developing countries. For the sending countries, I looked both at the main countries of destination and at their position on the Human Development Index (HDI). For the receiving countries, I looked at the countries of origin for incoming students, distinguishing between their own region and North America plus Western Europe, and also their position on the Human Development Index (see Table 10). Table 10 provides interesting information. Each region has countries that play a strong role as hosts for international students from neighboring countries. Only India among the top 20 countries has an additional role as a recipient from another region, catering to the Indian diaspora. Egypt caters to the Islamic world, although primarily in the Arab and North African region. In short, Cummings’s (1993) observation holds even truer than ever. There is a growing trend toward the regionalization of overseas study, not only North-North but also South-South (p. 35). In the regions as a whole, the only exceptions are South and West Asia (less than 2% of the students are intraregional) and the Arab states, Latin America, and the Caribbean (all less than 17%) (UNESCO, 2006, p. 38). Table 10 also reconfirms the very limited North-South flow of students. As far as the Human Development Index (HDI) is concerned, the HDI for all developing countries in 2003 was 0.694 and for the least developed countries 0.518. Only four out the 20 receiving countries have a lower HDI than the average HDI for all developing countries: South Africa, Egypt, India, and Morocco. These four countries receive a substantial part of their international students from Sub-Saharan Africa where many countries have HDIs that place them among the least developed countries in the world. None of the top 20 receiving countries has an HDI in the range of the least developed countries. The three Latin American countries and Singapore have the highest HDIs, receiving primarily students from neighboring countries with a lower HDI. Table 11 shows a different pattern for outward flows of international students compared to Table 10 on inward flows. The table makes clear that different pull factors are in play: colonial history, language, distance, etc. Regional factors play some role in the case of Hong Kong, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Singapore, Pakistan, Colombia, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria; but only in the case of Uzbekistan can one speak of a very strong regional factor. The main flow is South-North, followed at 38

CHANGING DYNAMICS IN INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION Table 10. Top 20 receiving developing countries: absolute numbers, numbers from their own region and from the combined regions of North America and Western Europe, and position on the Human Development Index. Country

Numbers

Own Region

1. China 2. Singapore 3. South Africa 4. Egypt 4. Malaysia 5. Kyrgyzstan 6. Jordan 7. Macao 8. Lebanon 9. Cuba 10. Saudi Arabia 11. Kazakhstan 12. India 13. Morocco 14. Chile 15. Philippines 16. Algeria 17. Fiji 18. Thailand 19. Armenia 20. Argentina

110,884a 50,000b 49,979 35,000c 27,731 16,249 15,816 14,627d 13,930 13,705 12,199 8,690 7,738 6,393 5,211 4,744 4,677 4,211 4,092 3,346 3,261

? ? 36,203 18,482 16,249 13,350 14,568 ? 11,277 6,049 3,888e 2,188f 1,357g 2,983 2,925 ? ? 1,756 1,014 2,682

North America + Western Europe ? ? ? 227 – 1,325 41 ? 66 372 14 435 18 1,954 899 ? ? 263 49 ?

Human Development Index∗ 85. 0.755 25. 0.907 120. 0.658 119. 0.659 61. 0.796 109. 0.702 90. 0.753 ? 81. 0.759 52. 0.817 77. 0.772 80. 0.761 127. 0.602 124. 0.631 37. 0.854 84. 0.758 103. 0.722 92. 0.752 73. 0.778 83. 0.759 34. 0.863

a This figure does not come from UNESCO but from the Australian Government (2005). b Same as a, an estimate for 2003. c National data presented in this chapter. d These data probably are also included under China. e A second large sender is Central and Eastern Europe (2,806). f A second large sender is Sub-Saharan Africa (1,673) and a third large sender is East Asia

(1,595). g A larger sender than the Arab states is Sub-Saharan Africa (2,834). ∗ The first number gives the position of the country, and the second number is the Human Devel-

opment Index. Source: Based on UNESCO (2006), UNDP (2006), and Australian Government (2005).

far distance by the regional factor. Only in one case, Nigeria, is another southern destination mentioned – Saudi Arabia, most likely due to religious factors. As far as the HDI is concerned, six countries are below the average for all developing countries, one is exactly equal to the average, and three have HDIs even lower than the average for the least developed countries. Hong Kong and Singapore have a comparatively high HDI, followed by Mexico and Brazil. These data confirm that outward mobility is less related to the stage of development than inward mobility. Comparing Tables 9 and 10 shows that nine out of the 20 countries are in the top 20 of both receiving and sending developing countries and that three of these nine 39

H. DE WIT Table 11. Top 20 sending developing countries, absolute numbers, five main countries of destination, and position on the Human Development Index. Country

Numbers

Five Top Destinations

Human Development Index (HDI)∗

1. China 2. India 3. Morocco 4. Malaysia 5. Hong Kong 6. Indonesia 7. Kazakhstan 8. Algeria 9. Thailand 10. Mexico 11. Singapore 12. Brazil 13. Pakistan 14. Iran 15. Uzbekistan

343,126 123,559 51,503 40,884 34,199 31,687 27,356 24,356 23,727 21,661 20,725 19,619 18,639 17,254 17,163

85. 0.755 127. 0.602 124. 0.631 61. 0.796 22. 0.916 110. 0.697 80. 0.761 103. 0.722 73. 0.778 53. 0.814 25. 0.907 63. 0.792 135. 0.527 99. 0.736 111. 0.694

16. Zimbabwe 17. Colombia 18. Vietnam 19. Nigeria 20. Cameroon

16,669 16,090 15,817 15,138 15,129

USA, Japan, UK, Australia, Germany USA, Australia, UK, Germany, N.Z. France, Germany, Belgium, USA, Netherlands Australia, UK, USA, Japan, New Zealand Australia, UK, USA, Canada, Macao Australia, USA, Malaysia, Germany, Japan Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Germany, Turkey, USA France, UK, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium USA, Australia, UK, Japan, Germany USA, UK, France, Germany, Spain Australia, USA, UK, Malaysia, Canada USA, Germany, Portugal, France, UK USA, UK, Germany, Australia, Malaysia Germany, USA, France, UK, Italy Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Germany South Africa, UK, USA, Australia, Namibia USA, France, Venezuela, Germany, Spain USA, France, Australia, Germany, Japan USA, UK, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Belgium Germany, France, USA, Italy, Belgium

145. 0.505 69. 0.785 108. 0.704 158. 0.453 148. 0.497

∗ The first number gives the position of the country, and the second its HDI.

Sources: Based on UNESCO (2006) and UNDP (2006).

are among the top 10 of receiving countries (and are even among the top five sending countries) and that all nine are among the top 11 sending countries. This trend confirms the pattern of international student circulation: Countries that send large numbers of students abroad increasingly also become recipients of international students.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

So far we have looked at countries of origin and of destination of internationally mobile students according to absolute numbers and share in the total. Table 12 summarizes the flow of international students by region. The data confirm the trends as described above: North-South and North-North mobility are still dominant, but North-North mobility in the case of Europe has a strong intra-regional character, and South-South mobility, while increasing, also has primarily an intra-regional character.

40

177,372 23,277 5,434 757 5,468 145 140,747 1,489 55

2,455,250 61,983 168,015 33,958 379,919 36,536

1,704,735 10,303 59,801

Arab States

224,232 128 50

298,093 716 62,394 7,051 3,443 79

Central and Eastern Europe

Source: Based on UNESCO Statistical Yearbook (2006, p. 131)

World Arab States Central and Eastern Europe Central Asia East Asia + Pacific Latin America + Caribbean North America + Western Europe South and West Asia Sub-Saharan Africa

Total

13,336 198 –

72,570 256 35,090 22,089 1,561 40

Central Asia

413,476 1,687 99

700,999 1,685 1,993 1,095 280,372 592

East Asia + Pacific

117,652 30 7

145,693 129 337 3 3,410 24,071

Latin America + Caribbean

441,968 467 54

486,601 1,737 14,283 86 24,030 3,976

North America + Western Europe

151,660 3,255 16

194,231 1,475 2,533 2,769 32,459 64

South and West Asia

135,901 1,794 40,946

193,871 4,689 1,158 3 7,575 1,805

SubSaharan Africa

Table 12. Internationally mobile students in tertiary education by host region of origin in 2004, regional averages.

65,763 1,255 18,574

185,874 28,019 44,793 105 21,601 5,764

Unspecified

CHANGING DYNAMICS IN INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

41

H. DE WIT

However, examining international mobility from the perspective of total tertiary enrollment presents a different picture. The number of outgoing students as a percentage of total enrollment gives the following picture: Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest outbound mobility ratio (5.9%), almost three times greater than the global average, followed by Central Asia (3.9%) and the Arab states (2.9%). North America (0.4%), Latin America and the Caribbean (1.0%) and South and West Asia (1.3%) have the lowest outbound ratio. Eight countries have more students studying abroad than at home, while 15 countries have more than 33% of their students studying abroad, nearly all of them in Sub-Saharan Africa (UNESCO, 2006, p. 37).7 As far as inward mobility is concerned, the picture is as follows: in Macao (China), Cyprus, and Qatar, international students account for more than 20% of the total studentbody. Among the major host countries, Switzerland (18%), Australia (17%), Austria (14%), New Zealand (13%), and the United Kingdom (13%) also have high inbound mobility ratios, while the United States and Canada (3%), Japan, and the Russian Federation (below 2%) have very low rates. Some less-developed countries like Bahrain, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Mali, Namibia, South Africa, and Toga have rates of more than 7% (UNESCO, 2006, p. 48). The UNESCO data for 2006 also provide an indication of the net flow of inbound-outbound mobile students. Table 13, in combination with data on inbound and outbound mobility, provides further input on the analysis of international student circulation. With the exception of Japan on the positive net flow side and Malaysia on the negative flow side (both countries have approximately equivalent rates of outbound and inbound mobility, resulting from active inbound mobility efforts over the last decade), the flows are in line with their position as receiving or sending countries. On the receiving side, however, there is a clearer distinction for countries like Australia, New Zealand, the United States, the United Kingdom, Cuba, South Africa, Macao, and Lebanon. In these countries the number of inbound students is extremely dominant while the number of outbound students is negligible. Western Europe and, to a lesser extent, Central and Eastern Europe provide a more balanced picture, apparently due to increasing efforts in these countries to attract international students. The net mobility rate is defined by UNESCO (2006) as “the number of mobile students studying in a country minus its number of students abroad as a percentage of the total tertiary enrollment in the country” (p. 36). Here the data indicate that only countries like Macao, Switzerland, Australia, and New Zealand on the one side, and Morocco and Hong Kong on the other side, need be somewhat concerned. In general, the very small countries have a substantial negative net mobility rate. Substantial positive net mobility rates are not really an issue. 7 Regional mobility continues to plays a strong role. It explains, for instance, that Western Europe (2.8%, of which 77% stay in their region) has a higher outbound ratio than North America, where less mobility between Canada and the United States (40%) occurs. There is also more outbound mobility from Europe to the United States than the other way around. 8 It is important to note that for China no data are available on inbound student mobility. Although there are signs of increasing inbound mobility to China, China would still most likely take the number 1 position with a negative net flow.

42

CHANGING DYNAMICS IN INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION Table 13. Top 20 countries of positive and negative net flow of mobile students.8

Country

Positive Flow Numbers

1. USA 2. UK 3. Germany 4. France 5. Australia 6. Switzerland 7. Japan 8. South Africa 9. Russia 10. New Zealand 11. Austria 12. Sweden 13. Belgium 14. Macao, China 15. Kyrgyzstan 16. Cuba 17. Denmark 18. Netherlands 19. Lebanon 20. Hungary

531,328 276,514 203,904 184,237 160,520 54,501 46,606 44,360 41,313 19,846 19,422 19,077 15,473 13,777 13,177 12,574 11,802 9,091 8,874 4,476

Net Flow % 3.1 12.3 ... 8.5 16.0 29.3 1.2 6.2 0.5 10.2 8.5 4.6 4.0 55.5 6.4 5.3 5.8 1.7 1.7 1.1

Country

Negative Flow Numbers

1. India 2. South Korea 3. Morocco 4. Turkey 5. Greece 6. Indonesia 7. Hong Kong 8. Poland 9. Mexico 10. Algeria 11. Thailand 12. Kazakhstan 13. Brazil 14. Pakistan 15. Bulgaria 16. Iran 17. Vietnam 18. Malaysia 19. Slovakia 20. Bangladesh

–115,821 –88,042 –45,110 –39,319 –37,175 –31,110 –30,929 –21,178 –19,769 –19,679 –19,635 –18,666 –18,359 –18,250 –16,594 –15,463 –14,769 –13,153 –12,930 –12,771

Net Flow % –1.0 –2.4 –13.1 –2.0 –6.6 –0.9 –19.9 –1.1 –0.9 –2.7 –0.9 –2.8 –0.5 –3.5 –7.2 –0.8 –1.7 –2.1 –8.2 –1.5

Source: Based on UNESCO (2006, pp. 133–136)

As for the level and type of tertiary education, Tremblay (2006) concludes that, with the exception of New Zealand and South Korea, a very large majority of international students coming to OECD countries study at tertiary type A and advanced research programs (p. 37). No information could be found on the level of SouthSouth flows, but presumably those levels are primarily undergraduate education. As far as field of study is concerned, education, the sciences, and engineering appear more attractive than other disciplines in OECD countries but not in such a way that one can speak of a clear pattern.

SUMMARY OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION DATA

In summary, if we look over the whole period of 1965–2005, what is most striking are the numbers. First, India alone sent more students abroad in 2005 than the total number of internationally mobile students in 1950 (107,500), and the 10 countries with the largest number of students abroad in 2005 equals the number of all international students of 1985 (939,000). Second, the numbers of students from developing countries increased, with most of them coming from China, India, and South Korea. The developed countries have stabilized their numbers and show 43

H. DE WIT

a reduction in percentages, while other developing countries have increased, but more variably and not with the big numbers logged by China, India, and South Korea. The top receiving countries remain largely the same; only Australia has been able to come close to the top four – the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France. If we look at the percentage of foreign students as a part of total enrollment and exclude students that move within Europe (46% of its mobility), Australia has a far higher number of international students (17.7% of the total Australian studentbody) than the United States (4.6%) and Europe (3.2%) (Kelo, Teichler, & Waechter, 2006, p. 53). The Arab states, which had a high position as receiving countries in the 1960s and 1970s, experienced a reduction after that and became more active in sending than receiving students. Only very recently have states such as Jordan, Dubai, and Qatar launched initiatives to become regional higher education hubs, but the effect of their investments remains to be seen. The efforts of other countries such as China, Japan, Malaysia, and Singapore to increase their number of incoming students are already paying off, as is the new role that South Africa plays as a receiving country for Sub-Saharan Africa. Chitoran (1998) expressed apprehension of a trend toward further North-North circulation of international students, but this pattern has not occurred. While NorthNorth circulation is stabilizing, South-North flows are still on the rise; and a second flow of South-South circulation is taking place. In most cases, the receiving countries are late development (Cummings, 1993) while the sending countries are early development. A regionalization of South-South circulation is also taking place. For instance, Malaysia is drawing students from Southeast and West Asia, as well as from China and Singapore, while South Africa serves the same role for Sub-Saharan Africa.

REFERENCES Altbach, Philip G. (2004). Higher education crosses borders. In Change, pp. 19–24. Altbach, P. & Lulat, Y. (1985). Research on foreign student and international study: An overview and bibliography. New York: Praeger. Australian Government. (2005). Competitors analysis: Australia’s competitors in international education. Canberra: Australia Department of Education, Science and Training. Blumenthal, P., Goodwin, Crauford D., Smith, A., & Teichler, Ulrich. (1996). Academic mobility in a changing world. Higher Education Policy Series, No. 29. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Bohm, Anthony (2003). Growth in demand for international education by students worldwide. IDP-Education Australia, Report. Retrieved in June 2006 from http://.idp.com/marketingandreaserch/publications. Bohm, Antony, et al. (2004). Vision 2020: Forecasting international student mobility. A Joint Study by the British Council and IDP-Education Australia. London: British Council. Chitoran, Dumitru. (1998). International cooperation in higher education: Trends, issues, challenges, and new avenues. World Conference on Higher Education: Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century – Vision and Action, October 5–9. Working Document. Paris, UNESCO. Cubillo, J. M., Sanchez, J., & Cervino, J. M. (2004). Modelling international students’ intention of destination. Paper presented at ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Marketing Education, December 5–7. Frenatle, Western Australia.

44

CHANGING DYNAMICS IN INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION Cummings, William. (1993). Global trends in overseas study. In Crauford D. Goodwin (Ed.), International investment in human capital: Overseas education for development. New York: Institute of International Education. Davis, Todd M. (2003). Atlas of student mobility. New York: Institute of International Education. Goodwin, Crauford D. (1996). Academic mobility in a changing world: Concluding reflections on the issues at stakes. In P. Blumenthal, Crauford Goodwin, A. Smith, & Ulrich Teichler (Eds.), Academic mobility in a changing world (pp. 359–368). Higher Education Policy Series, No. 29. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Kelo, Maria, Teichler, Ulrich, & Waechter, Bernd (Eds). (2006). EURODATA: Student mobility in European higher education. Academic Cooperation Association (ACA). Bonn: Lemmens Verlag. Knight, Jane. (2005). Commercial cross-border education: Implications for financing higher education. In Juaquim Tres & Francisco Lopez-Segrera (Eds.), Higher education in the world, 2006: The financing of universities (pp. 103–112). GUNI Series on the Social Commitment of Universities, No. 1, Barcelona: GUNI. Larsen, Kurt & Vincent-Lancrin, Stephan. (2003). The learning business: Can trade in international education work? OECD Observer. Paris: OECD. Li, Cheng. (2005). Bridging minds across the Pacific: US-China educational exchanges, 1978–2003. Oxford, UK: Lexington Books. Mohrman, Kathryn. (2005). Sino-America educational exchanges at the drive to create world class universities. In Cheng Li (Ed.), Bridging minds across the Pacific: US-China educational exchanges, 1978–2003. Oxford, UK: Lexington Books. OECD. (2004). Internationalization and trade in higher education: Opportunities and challenges. Paris: OECD. People’s Daily Online. (2006). Malaysia targets 100,000 foreign students by 2010. People’s Daily Online, March 6. Retrieved in June 2006 from http://english.people.com.cn. Richters, E. & Teichler, Ulrich. (2006). Student mobility data: Current methodological issues and future prospects. In Maria Kelo, Ulrich Teichler, & Bernd Waechter (Eds.), EURODATA: Student mobility in European higher education (pp. 78–95). Academic Cooperation Association Report. Bonn: Lemmens Verlag. Teichler, Ulrich. (1996). Research on academic mobility and international cooperation in higher education: An agenda for the future (pp. 338–358). Higher Education Policy Series, No. 29. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Tremblay, Karine. (2006). International student mobility in non-EU OECD countries. In Barbara Khem & Hans de Wit (Eds.), Internationalization in higher education: European responses to the global perspective (pp. 26–53). Amsterdam: European Association for International Education (EAIE) and the European Higher Education Society (EAIR). UKCOSA. (2000). Student mobility on the map: Tertiary education interchange in the Commonwealth on the threshold of the 21st century. London: UKCOSA. UNDP. (2006). Human development index 2003. Retrieved in June 2006 from http://.hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/indicators. UNESCO. (1996). Statistical yearbook. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO. (1997). Statistical yearbook. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO. (2002). Statistical yearbook. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO. (2004). Statistical yearbook. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO. (2006). Global education digest 2006: Comparing education statistics around the world. Paris: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.

45

MOHSEN ELMAHDY SAID

3. INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION IN EGYPT

HIGHER EDUCATION IN EGYPT

In an earlier work, I presented a comprehensive review (Said, 2003) about higher education in Egypt, including a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis that indicated the points of strengths and weaknesses that led to the development of a new three-phase strategic reform plan for 2002–2017 coinciding with the government’s three five-year plans. The framework for the strategic reform plan addressed all the diverse areas of reform, pinpointing the opportunities for reform and the threats envisioned. This chapter gives an overview of the national higher education system, updating the statistical data, trends, issues, and status of the reform activities over the past five years. For the sake of clarity and completeness, I also include information on the historical background and an updated description of the Egyptian higher education system. Describing the higher education sector in Egypt includes, among other things, the level and type of institutions, key stakeholders, the number of institutions, faculty, and students, and funding. I also comment on public and private provisions and challenges and issues facing Egyptian higher education in a global, regional, and local context. The numerous sources of information used in this study include, but are not limited to, those published by the Ministry of Education (MOE) (2003, 2006), Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) (2004, 2006), Ministry of Trade and Industry (2006), Library of Alexandria (2004, 2005, 2006), Said (2003, 2005a, 2005b) Said et al. (2005, 2006), and UNDP (2005). One of the inspiring sources of information used as a guide in this work is the book by De Wit et al., Higher education in Latin America: The international dimension (Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the World Bank). A similar approach to the one used for Latin America is also followed for the Egyptian context. Historical Background The higher education system in Egypt is considered one of the oldest systems in the world, originating with Al-Azhar mosque, an Islamic establishment for well over one thousand years (975 A.D.), dedicated primarily to teaching Islamic religious topics and studying the holy Quran. Modern Egyptian education is dated from the time of Mohamed Ali Pasha (1798 A.D.) when he established many schools for engineering, medicine, law, etc. At that time, distinguished graduates went to Western Europe, especially to France, to pursue higher education, and returned to significantly advance the education system in Egypt. H. de Wit et al. (eds.), The Dynamics of International Student Circulation in a Global Context, 47–82. © 2008. Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

M.E. SAID

In 1908, the first national university was established in Egypt. In 1925, it merged into a public university. In 1940 it was named Fouad El-Awal after the king of Egypt at the time. In 1953 after the revolution, it became Cairo University. The number of public universities has increased ever since. Modern education in Egypt was legalized in 1923 when the first constitution made four years of elementary education compulsory for all Egyptian children, followed by four years of preparatory education and four years of secondary education. In 1952, the revolutionary government took a further major step. The constitutionally mandated development of a unified six-year elementary education compulsory for all Egyptian children followed by three years of preparatory and three years of secondary education was one of the main educational objectives. In 1971, the Egyptian constitution was twice amended to stipulate, “The state guarantees equal opportunities for all citizens,” and “All citizens are equal before the law, regardless of their responsibilities, duties, sex, origin, religion, or belief.” A constitutional framework was set up for the entire education system, including the following principles in the form of legal articles: education is a fundamental right; the state is responsible for providing education for all and supervises education to ensure equity; education in public institutions (state-run institutions) is free at all levels; and literacy is a national responsibility. In addition, both primary and elementary education were made compulsory, according to a 1981 law, thus providing nine years of compulsory education. In 1988, the government decided to reduce compulsory education to eight years, changing the terminal year from grade six to grade five. In 1999, this decision was reversed, returning to the original system of nine years – six years at the primary level and three years at the preparatory level. Although the change was intended to reduce the cost of compulsory education due to the system’s inability to maintain the level of investment needed, the consequences on the education system as a whole were quite harmful. The number of secondary school students doubled in the year that grade six eliminated; and the overcrowding of students who entered the university three years later caused many problems. Overcrowding continued for many years, and the current education system is still suffering from the consequences of this action. Failing students, together with the ever larger number of newly admitted students annual, maintained the large number of students in successive years. The strategic political decision made by the Egyptian government to admit all students graduating from secondary education into tertiary education imposes further burdens on the higher education system, in essence doubling the number of students admitted. Obviously, the infrastructure in government educational institutions was not prepared to accommodate this sudden increase in the number of students admitted. Inadequate expansion, poor and limited facilities, and severe overcrowding overloaded the system, and led to a deterioration in the average quality of the graduate. It is worth mentioning, however, that “above average” students who graduate from the system perform well according to international standards. The large number of students accepted and admitted yearly to top-ranking universities in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere supports this argument. More 48

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION IN EGYPT

than one thousand postgraduate students are supported annually by the Missions Department. This department under the Ministry of Higher Education is responsible for administering the Egyptian system of scholarships missions comprising five main types: external, internal, joint supervision, scientific, and study leave. The external missions are divided into three types: scientific missions that aim to obtain Ph.D. degrees from abroad in a maximum of four years, scientific practical missions to obtain Ph.D. degrees from abroad and which include practical training (mainly for science specializations such as engineering, agriculture, medicine, etc.), and practical missions that aim to gain experience in specific fields such as clinical medicine. Academics obtaining their Ph.D. degree from Egypt spend one year in the mission, extendable for another year, provided the scholar is under 40 years in age. Approximately one-third of the students enter general secondary schools, the traditional route to universities, while two-thirds are channeled into technical secondary education. Less than 20% are employed when they leave. The low employment rate for graduates demands that the relevance of technical education as presently structured be reconsidered, including the possibility for merging the “two tracks” into an effective unified education system with internal options for matching student abilities with learning opportunities. Reform plans currently implemented strive for a balance between the numbers of students admitted to general secondary education with those admitted to technical secondary education. This secondary education reform measure causes further overcrowding and adds further burden on the higher education system as a whole. Egypt’s Economic Status The most recent population statistics, officially published in 2005, rank Egypt 17th among the 239 countries listed with an estimated 77.5 million inhabitants. This figure constitutes about 1.2% of the total number of the globe’s inhabitants, estimated to be nearly 6.5 billion. With an average annual increase in population exceeding 2%, the increase in number of students in the 18-23 cohort eligible for admittance into higher education presents a further burden for consideration in Egypt’s reform plans (UNDP, 2005). Since the 1990s, the Egyptian economy witnessed wide-ranging reforms directing it toward a more competitive market-based system. In 1991 came a turning point in Egypt’s economic history with the initiation of an economic reform and structural adjustment program. Real GDP growth has been accelerating steadily, from 1.0% in 1991 to an estimated 6.0% in 1999. It maintained steady increase of 5–6% until 2006. Exchange rates for the Egyptian pound remained nearly constant for those 10 years, reflecting economic stability. During the last quarter of 2000 and the beginning of 2001, the Egyptian pound was devalued suddenly by nearly 20% relative to the US dollar. This devaluation continued until 2003 when the Egyptian pound was floated after having been pegged to the US$ for almost a decade. The outcome of this floatation was the devaluation of the Egyptian pound against the US$ from 3.396 L.E. in 1999, with oscillations in the exchange rate exceeding 7 49

M.E. SAID

L.E. until it stabilized in 2005 at an average exchange rate of 5.75 L.E. per US$. This instability causes difficulties in funding higher education as discussed below.

OVERALL EDUCATION STRUCTURE

Figure 1 displays Egypt’s current overall education structure, classified by age and level. Entries to and exits from the different levels of education into the labor market and society are highlighted. Students coming out of pre-school education (nurseries and kindergartens) are all streamed into the six years of primary education. Students are then streamed either into the regular three years of college preparatory or into vocational preparatory, which also lasts for three years. These nine years complete basic compulsory education. The output from the three years of vocational preparatory may exit directly to the labor market or may continue for three years of vocational technical secondary education before exiting to the labor market and society. Provision is made in the system to enable outstanding students to join the non-university stream of higher education. Output from the three years of regular preparatory may be channeled into four different streams of secondary education for three years: (a) general, industrial (three- and five-year programs), (b) agricultural and commercial, or (c) vocational technical secondary. Graduates of the five-year programs have better chances of getting into the university and also receive better offers and opportunities from the labor market than graduates from three-year programs. Entrance to the secondary education streams is based on grades achieved in the preparatory phase. Output from the four streams of secondary education, however, have the options shown in Figure 1. Graduates from general secondary are streamed directly into four-, five- and six-year programs of university education, whereas graduates from the other three streams (industrial, agricultural, and commercial) are all channeled into nonuniversity education where options are available to be enrolled in two-, four-, or five-year programs offered in middle and higher technical institutes. Graduates from general secondary education can join the non-university stream of middle and higher technical institutes when their grades do not meet the standard set for enrollment in university education. Chances for industrial, agricultural, and commercial secondary school graduates to enter the university system also exist, provided they achieve the requirements set for admission. In 2005, nearly 15.5 million students were enrolled in about 38,000 preuniversity schools (the number has doubled over the past 22 years) offering more than 837 thousand classes with a total budget of over 17 million L.E., allowing an average expenditure per student of 1,100 L.E. During the same academic year 2005, the population in Egyptian higher education ages 18–23 was nearly 9.5 million students compared to 6.9 million in 1999. The total enrollment of undergraduate and postgraduate students in public and private universities, including higher education institutions, and part-time students, exceeded 2.2 million students in 2005 compared to 1.53 million in 1999. The percentage enrollment ratio of students 50

Figure 1. Overall education structure in Egypt by level and age.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION IN EGYPT

51

M.E. SAID

to total population was about 30.5% in 2005 compared to 22% in 1999, which is comparable to enrollment rates in OECD countries. The government is working aggressively toward achieving its plans for an enrollment rate of around 35% during the first decade in the 21st century. Recent government forecasts predict a 50% enrollment rate by 2020. University Enrollment The current system of higher education in 2005 comprises 15 public universities (12 in 2000), nine for-profit private universities (four in 2000), and one non-profit, the American University in Cairo. Four other for-profit universities are applying for licensing. One national not-for-profit university began offering postgraduate studies in academic year 2006–2007. Regulatory measures and criteria have been established by the MOHE to license private universities to offer higher education services, after introducing many additional changes to the originally developed measures. The 12 public universities, congested with large numbers of students, have eight branches that are being prepared as part of the government reform plans to be independent universities. Cairo University is the largest with more than 240 thousand students and three branches, two of which were declared independent universities in academic year 2005–2006. That same year, another regional university with nearly 200,000 students had one of its branches declared an independent university as well. In February 2006, the Supreme Council of Universities declared two additional branches as separate universities effective in academic year 2006– 2007, one in Upper Egypt and the other in the delta area. Thus, the total number of public universities is currently 17. The university in Upper Egypt has 1,326 faculty members and their assistants, 2,504 administrative staff, and 28,000 students in nine specializations. The university in the delta includes 729 faculty members and their assistants and 27,000 students in nine specializations. The target size set for public universities is 30,000–40,000 students. Accordingly, the rest of the branches are currently being prepared to qualify for becoming independent universities by academic year 2007–2008, thus fulfilling the government plan. Part of the government plan is to establish at least one university in each of the 26 governorates to serve students eligible for enrollment. This measure partly fulfills the demand for university education in this cohort of young adults and resolves many of the problems caused by the migration of students from one governorate to another to enroll in higher education institutions lacking in their area. Table 1 displays the numbers of undergraduates, postgraduates, staff and their assistants, and the budgets of Egyptian public universities during 1990–1991 through 2005–2006. It therefore shows developments in the numbers of undergraduates admitted to and graduated from the system over the past 16 years, including the different levels of postgraduate studies (Diploma, M.A., M.Sc., and Ph.D.). The percentage of the annual budget increase for 1991–1992 (35.2%) was the highest granted during the last 15 years. The lowest annual increase – 1.8% in 1999–2000 – was followed by 6.7% the following year and by more than 12% the next three 52

Source: Supreme Council of Universities, August 2006

Table 1. Number of undergraduates, postgraduates, faculty members and assistants, annual budgets and percentage annual increase for public universities during the 15-year period 1990/1991–2005/2006.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION IN EGYPT

53

M.E. SAID

consecutive years, followed thereafter by a steady average annual increase of about 8%. The percentage increase in the budget allocated for academic year 2006-2007 is expected to be doubled, thus constituting 8,000 million L.E. Interestingly, the total annual budget in 1999–2000 was 4,059 million L.E., equivalent to about 1.2 billion US$ at an exchange rate of 3.4 L.E. per US$ at that time. The total annual budget after seven years in 2005–2006 was 6,829 million L.E., equivalent to 1.1 billion US$ at the current exchange of 5.75 L.E. per US$. Although the total annual budget in Egyptian pounds has increased by nearly 70% over the past seven years, the equivalent budget in US$ has decreased by nearly 8.3% over the same period, because of the devaluation of the Egyptian pound versus the United States dollar. This deficit imposes further constraints and constitutes a further financial burden on the Egyptian higher education system, despite the regular average percentage of annual increase in the local budget as indicated in Table 1. The 17 public universities accommodate 123,463 students (nearly 9%) in their dormitories. About 61% (75,392) are women students. The government subsidizes these accommodations so heavily that students pay less than 10% of their actual housing cost, a heavy financial burden on university budgets. Priority for dormitories is given to women; other selection criteria are grades, social status, and the geographic location of their homes.

Non-University Education Higher education institutions offering parallel programs to those offered at university undergraduate and graduate levels complement the Egyptian university education and fall under the direct supervision and administration of the Ministry of Higher Education. Two-, four- and five-year programs are offered to students seeking diploma, middle, or bachelor degrees. Master’s and Ph.D. degrees are also offered to graduates from higher education institutions. Statistics for academic year 2005–2006 reveal that the 46 public middle technical institutes (MTIs) are clustered in eight technological academies. They serve 146,409 students compared to 35,850 students enrolled in the 11 private MTIs in Egypt. Ninety-one private higher education institutions are also functioning, serving 313,632 students and employing 3,954 faculty and assistant staff. There were five public institutions in academic year 2004–2005 with 16,170 students. The following academic year, one became an institute with only 500 students. The remaining four became part of the university branches that had been newly established as independent universities. Other forms of higher education institutes supervised by the Ministry of Higher Education include institutes providing training for nearly 200,000 students in public social services, commerce, the arts, and hospitality. A Labor University provides technical and vocational education to 52,917 students. In 1969, the Ministry of Culture established several higher education institutes specializing in Arabic music, ballet, theatrics, cinema, popular arts (folklore), and artistic criticism. 54

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION IN EGYPT

These non-university units absorb nearly 40% of the Egyptian students in higher education who do not achieve scores high enough to admit them to universities.

PRIVATE EDUCATION

Cairo University, established in 1908, was the first private, not-for-profit university. It became a public university after the 1952 revolution (Said, 2003). The American University was founded in Cairo in 1919 by a special agreement between the Egyptian and American governments to become the second not-for-profit university. No other private university followed until 1992 when the government realized its inability to supply sufficient higher education. In that year, legislation allowed the establishment of private universities, provided they meet certain criteria. The government was very skeptical about the feasibility of adding a private education component and had witnessed undesirable developments in Jordan, which had a model of private higher education privatization, similar to the one in some Asian countries. The government therefore moved cautiously to avoid similar problems. In 1996, Egypt’s president issued four decrees establishing four Egyptian private universities that would begin operating in academic year 1996–1997. The ministerial cabinet then decided to evaluate the establishment and performance of these four pilot universities before authorizing others. In the academic year 2002–2003, the Ministry of Higher Education granted two licenses – one for the French University and the other for the German University. The investment is completely Egyptian; however, the names reflect in-kind support from the respective countries to these universities. Both teach in English. This trend of naming universities after countries continued. In 2005, the Ministry of Higher Education licensed Egyptian investors to establish the British University, offering academic programs in partnership with a British universities. Also in 2005, the Modern University was established by the same investors who own Modern Academy, a higher education institute offering programs in partnerships with universities in the United Kingdom and other countries. In 2006, a Canadian University was established along the same lines. The academic year 2006–2007 witnessed the founding of four private universities, geographically distributed: Future (in a new city near Cairo), Sinai (in Sinai), Faros (in Alexandria), and Nile University (graduate studies in Cairo). Other investors have applied for licenses and are awaiting approval. All the above-mentioned, privately owned, for-profit universities are seeking partnerships with other universities mainly from the United States, Canada, and Europe, through any of the following methods: bilateral agreements, dual degree programs, semester/year abroad programs, credit transfers, twinning arrangements, and faculty exchange, as well as other forms of cross-boarder delivery/collaboration. They are also recruiting foreign students from Arab and other countries, following the model of the American University in Cairo (AUC). The main concern facing for-profit, private universities is fulfilling Ministry of Higher Education requirements to complete their staffing of faculty and academic 55

M.E. SAID

assistants in a timely manner. These for-profits recruit heavily from public universities, mostly seeking part-time faculty and limiting the number of full-timers for economic reasons. In turn, the ministry strenuously resists these hiring practices and requires the boards of trustees of these for-profit universities to conform to the ministry’s criteria before offering their academic programs. The American University in Cairo Founded in 1919, the American University in Cairo (AUC) was the first nonEgyptian university – hence, its first foreign provider. Established under a special protocol agreement between the Egyptian and the American governments, AUC became the second, not-for-profit university after Cairo University. The university is accredited by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education in the United States and is incorporated in the state of Delaware, which licenses it to grant degrees. Its founder and first president, Dr. Charles A. Watson, grew up in Assiut in Upper Egypt. He wanted to create an English language university based on high standards of conduct and scholarship that would foster intellectual growth, discipline, and good character in future leaders of Egypt and the region. He also believed that such a university would greatly increase America’s understanding of the Middle East. The university has long been considered one of the best sources of international education in Egypt. The quality and reputation of its graduates help in attracting foreign students from different countries, especially in the Middle East. AUC has three schools of undergraduate and graduate study: humanities and social sciences; business, economics, and communications; and sciences and engineering. In fall 2007, the university renamed its Center for Adult and Continuing Education as the School for Continuing Education. AUC is governed by a diversified board of trustees whose prime concern is to raise funds. Faculty members come from Egypt, the United States, and 19 other countries. The studentbody consists of 5,601 undergraduate and graduate students. In academic year 2006–2007, 18.1% were international students. AUC recruits international students to maintain its tradition of creating a bridge of cultural understanding and is the leader among Egyptian higher education institutions in attracting international students (inward mobility). Foreign Providers At present the global scene shows an increasing unmet demand for higher education as a consequence of demographic trends, the need for new degree and diploma programs, and the need for lifelong learning. But one can observe also an increase in numbers and types of new providers: corporate universities, for-profit private institutions, media companies, and education brokers; and the emergence of innovative delivery methods: distance and e-learning, franchises, satellite campuses, twinning arrangements, and joint degree programs. Apart from the American Uni56

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION IN EGYPT

versity model, which by some people (not the government) is classified as a foreign provider, Egypt has no foreign providers. However, the new government directives authorizing the expansion of all forms of private higher education have opened the door for such providers to start offering their programs in Egypt, provided they meet the criteria established by the Ministry of Higher Education. It is expected that, within the coming few years, Egypt will witness a major increase in foreign providers of higher education services that will take many forms.

AN OVERVIEW OF INTERNATIONALIZATION POLICIES

Egypt has no explicit guidelines for an internationalization policy that will set standards and authorize efforts on the international agenda. However, the current government, through its Minister of Higher Education, is giving the utmost attention to developing an explicit policy, in collaboration with other concerned ministries. The goal of this policy is to put Egypt at the forefront in attracting international students, particularly those from Arab and African regions and from Islamic countries around the world. Part of the government plan is to encourage the diversification of funding sources through policy recommendations that encourage Egypt’s higher education institutions to recruit and accept students from other countries. To this end, the Supreme Council of Universities has endorsed what is called for-fees parallel education that public universities will offer alongside its regular programs. A much better teaching environment is planned so that this type of education will attract more students outside free public education, as well as students from the region and from Islamic countries around the globe. Another policy adopted by the ministry is to continue expanding private higher education, focusing its efforts on establishing not-for-profit national universities, as well as distance education as alternatives to provide more access to Egyptian higher education. This “parallel education” proposal has engendered an ongoing controversy, with critics accusing the ministry of trying to find a “back door” to avoid the constitutional requirement to provide free, public higher education. However, Egypt’s president has explicitly declared in his speech to the nation that the government’s political agenda of providing free education to all Egyptians has not changed nor is there any intention of changing the constitution, despite numerous requests from the president to the Shoura Council and People’s Assembly to consider constitutional amendments. Independent efforts to improve opportunities for international student circulation, however, have been ongoing by both public and private higher education universities and institutions. Twinning arrangements, partnerships, dual degree programs, student exchanges, and year-abroad programs are among these efforts. Private universities are competing strongly to conclude bilateral agreements in the forms mentioned above to enhance their chances of attracting local and international students. The strategic plan currently being developed by the Ministry of 57

M.E. SAID

Higher Education for the coming 15 years targets international students to reach about 150,000 enrolled annually by 2022. Realizing this ambitious target will require aggressive and flexible policies.

GATS and Its Implications for Egypt The government of Egypt was among the first countries that signed the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) agreement and spelled out its commitments in all service sectors that became effective by 1995. However, Egypt’s submission of commitments to liberalize its financial services (mainly insurance, banking, and market securities) in December 1997 has been quite controversial, due to the significance of this sector and its extensive effect on the whole economy. In the industrial sector, Egypt received a grace period of 10 years from the date of signing for enforcing the agreement. In 2003, the agreement became effective and the government began to reduce the custom duties on cars and other industrial and commercial products according to plans corresponding to the GATS agreement. In addition, the liberation of the Egyptian pound exchange rate in the international market occurred in 2004. Compliance with provisions in the Agriculture sector, however, took much longer, not beginning until 2006. As for the higher education sector, considered as one of the services under the GATS agreement, Egypt’s government has not yet taken any noticeable action toward establishing a national strategy to comply with the agreement, which is due to become effective by 2010. The Ministry of Higher Education took the initiative of forming a national committee to explore the diverse issues related to the GATS agreement and to incorporate solutions into the ministry’s strategic reform master plan for the coming 15 years. There are, however, many initiatives already implemented that implicitly support or prepare for compliance with the GATS agreement. Projects have been initiated to examine the Bologna Process’s feasibility for Egypt. Joint projects have been implemented under the TEMPUS III Structural and Complementary Measures (SCM) program to collaborate with counterpart higher education institutions in establishing joint degree programs, twinning arrangements, and similar collaborative/support and/or exchange programs. The People’s Assembly passed an intellectual property rights law which became effective in 2002. The Supreme Council of Universities (SCU) has approved the initiation of academic programs offered by public universities for fees, a first step to diversify sources of funding. In addition, other forms of delivery instruction being offered and/or considered by Egyptian public and private universities, individually or collectively with local, regional, or international higher education institutions, are all steps toward implementing the GATS agreement. Recognition of degrees offered by the newly established private universities based on the corresponding foreign degrees of the counterpart universities (Canadian, British, German, and French) further supports the GATS mandate. Ongoing discussions among the European Commission member states and the Mediterranean countries under the EuroMed program, including Egypt, are exploring the possibilities of establishing 58

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION IN EGYPT

a free trade area. All of these initiatives and activities are among the efforts to prepare for the 2010 deadline of implementing the GATS agreement.

STUDENT CIRCULATION IN EGYPTIAN HIGHER EDUCATION

A recent study carried out by the Egyptian Deputy Minister of Labor and Immigration El Masry El Yom (2006, January 11) that Egypt stands foremost among all Arab countries in losing competent scientists, and that over half the Arab academicians (52.3%) migrating to Arab universities are Egyptian by nationality. About 824,000 competent Egyptian scientists and intellectuals currently live abroad, mainly in the United States, Canada, Australia, and EU countries. An estimated 2,500 expatriate Egyptians are in medical, engineering, humanities, and social sciences fields, 322 in medical fields and 810 in the engineering sector. The study concluded that poor work conditions and the low standard of living are among the main reasons that Egyptian academics leave the country. The percentages of Egyptian academics who are teaching in Arab universities outside Egypt are 62.1% in Saudi Arabia, 73.7% in the United Arabic Emirate, 66.6% in Algeria, 75.8% in Qatar, 78.6% in Morocco, and 5% in Oman, Sudan, and Lebanon. The numbers of Egyptian academics who have emigrated to the west are 318,000 to the United States, 110,000 to Canada, 70,000 to Australia, 60,000 to Italy and Greece each, 40,000 to the Netherlands, 36,000 to France, 14,000 to Switzerland, and 12,000 to Spain. In this chapter, I focus on both incoming and outgoing student circulation, including statistical data on the number of students classified by level, discipline, and gender. I also point out trends in student circulation over the past 50 years. The Missions Department at the Ministry of Higher Education and Al-Azhar, Egypt’s Islamic University, are the main sources for information on international circulation. In addition, Emam (2000, 2004) presented in his M.A. thesis and Ph.D. dissertation a comprehensive compilation of historical and statistical data about the missions system in Egypt. In addition to his two publications, I use those of Melika (2003), Khairy (2005), Selim (1996, 2005), and Salama (2005), along with other sources of relevant information. Admission of Foreign Students (“Wafedeen”) The General Department of Admission and Scholarships of Foreign Students (or “Wafedeen,” a term used for incoming students), nominates foreign students for admission to Egyptian public universities and institutes affiliated with the Ministry of Higher Education, as well as to the higher and intermediate private institutes supervised by the Ministry of Higher Education. In addition, it also makes nominations to the technical health institutes affiliated with the Ministry of Health, academy of arts institutes affiliated with the Ministry of Culture, the Sadat Academy of Administrative Sciences, and the Mubarak Labor University. Candidates for admission must obtain the Egyptian general certificate of secondary education or its equivalent, attain the minimum grades needed for admission 59

M.E. SAID

to the required faculty, and achieve the requisite grades for the qualifying subjects as well. The Wafedeen (incoming students) are each given each student an envelope containing the necessary application forms and required documentation. Applicants present their equivalent of the secondary education certificate, certified by the Egyptian embassy in their country of origin or that country’s embassy in Cairo. Wafedeen students who have earned the Egyptian certificate for secondary education must present the original certificate, birth certificate, sponsor’s statement, and other required forms. Some faculties require Wafedeen students to pass an admissions test before acceptance. Among these faculties are fine arts (the two branches, architecture and art), art education, physical education, musical education, applied art, and the art branches of specialized education faculties, the technological higher institutes, institutes of the academy of art, and Sadat Academy. The General Department of Admission and Scholarships of Foreign Students has established elaborate mechanisms to appraise equivalency certificates from Arab and other foreign countries. Degrees of Islamic Education, Qur’an interpretation (“tafseer”), physical education, and military education, are accepted as equivalents. Secondary certificates from schools in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Morocco, and Algeria, in addition to the system of credit-hour courses and private schools in Arab countries, all have specific requirements about the qualifying subjects and optional subjects required for their secondary certificate to be considered equivalent to the Egyptian one. The International General Certificate for Secondary Education (IGCSE) and the General Certificate for Secondary Education (GCSE), the American high school diploma, the German secondary certificate, the French baccalaureate, the Soviet secondary certificate, and the International Baccalaureate must all meet specific requirements to be considered equivalent to the Egyptian Secondary Certificate. Some additional conditions also exist for admission to some faculties. For example, applicants to faculties of law should have studied French during his or her secondary education. If the student did not, he or she will still qualify for admission on condition of passing an examination in the French language at the secondary certificate level before being awarded his or her license degree and on condition of achieving the required grades in their university work. At the beginning of 2000, the Supreme Council of Universities exempted foreign students who hold an equivalent secondary education certificate from the requirement of passing a foreign language, which is compulsory for the Egyptian general certificate. However, if the language is included in the curriculum of the faculty or the department of the student’s choice, he or she must take a complementary examination in this subject before being awarded his or her graduation certificate. Foreign students who are admitted to universities holding equivalent secondary education certificates in the Arabic language, religious education, and national education are exempted from passing the complementary language exam. However,

60

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION IN EGYPT

if their first language is not Arabic and if they did not study Arabic during their secondary education, they must take the exam. Foreign students admitted to Egyptian universities must meet the same conditions, rules, and qualifying subjects as Egyptian students. If the foreign student did not take one of the qualifying subjects during his or her secondary education, he or she must apply to another faculty that does not require that particular subject. The definition of “Wafedeen” currently needs to be revised so that it reflects a new law granting Egyptian nationality to students with Egyptian mothers and non-Egyptian fathers. Before this law was passed, such individuals were classified as foreign students. All Egyptian higher education institutions, both public and private, and some specialized institutes (e.g., the Academy of Arts Institute) that recruit students from the Arab-speaking region try to attract Wafedeen students. Universities and higher education institutions are currently competing to create programs that allow interuniversity exchanges for one year or one semester to attract foreign students who will study in Egypt for shorter periods as nondegree-seeking students. In addition, there is a growing trend, particularly among private higher education institutions (and, more slowly, among public institutions), to create special units and programs such as Arabic language, archeology, and Arabic music for non-degree-seeking students from all over the world. Several of them maintain comprehensive websites to provide all of the necessary information on these programs, admission policies, and online registration to attract foreign students and facilitate their registration. In 2007, the National Quality Assurance and Accreditation Agency (NQAAA) will be established and the creation and maintenance of such websites for all Egyptian higher education institutions will be mandatory.

THE MISSIONS SYSTEM IN EGYPT

The Egyptian missions system of scholarships adopted by the Missions Sector at the Ministry of Higher Education consists of five main types: external, internal, joint supervision, scientific, and study leave. The external missions granted to individual scholars are divided into three types: (a) scientific missions that aim to obtain Ph.D. degrees from abroad in a maximum of four years; (b) scientific practical missions to obtain the Ph.D. degree from abroad and to receive practical training, primarily for such scientific specializations as engineering, agriculture, and medicine; and (c) practical missions whose purpose is to gain experience in specific fields such as clinical medicine. Academics obtaining their Ph.D. degree from an Egyptian university spend one year in the mission, extendable for another year, provided the scholar is under age 40. Internal missions are offered to master’s degree holders who wish to obtain a Ph.D. degree. Registered candidates spend one or two years abroad in the counterpart hosting institution, attending courses, collecting materials, and pursuing practical work in preparation for fulfilling all degree requirements. The degree is awarded by the Egyptian higher education institution. 61

M.E. SAID

In 1982, a joint supervision system was set up by which universities and research centers assist academics to travel abroad and to become affiliated with counterpart institutions in collecting material relevant to their Ph.D. dissertation, which is registered in Egyptian institutions. The candidate is jointly supervised by two professors, one at his or her Egyptian university and the other a professor in his or her counterpart host institution. In theoretical fields of specialization, the candidate collects scientific material needed for the research in publications not available in Egypt. The actual research is completed abroad, totally or in part, taking advantage of new scientific and technological developments found in the counterpart universities and research centers. Such missions under this joint supervision system last for one year. Study leave missions are directly supervised by the Missions Sector at the Ministry of Higher Education and are either self-financed by the candidate or by scholarships granted to candidates on a personal basis, either through the hosting institution abroad or through scholarships offered to his or her home institution granted to individual scholars. Scientific missions have the goal of conducting postdoctoral research. Candidates are chosen from newly appointed and/or promoted faculty members, including lecturers, associate professors, and professors. Each mission lasts for six months and can be split between two faculty members so that both can conduct research in developed countries in relevant fields of specialization. A special scholarships program was initiated in 1980 under the supervision of the Missions Sector at the Ministry of Higher Education under the name “The Peace Scholarships Project.” The program is funded by USAID to support potential candidates to conduct studies, obtain academic degrees, or receive specialized training in the United States. The project became effective on May 15, 1980, by an agreement between the Egyptian government and USAID, was administered by AMIDEAST (American-Middle East Educational and Training Services), and was one of the outcomes of the 1979 peace treaty signed between Egypt and Israel. Academic faculty members as well as public and private employees are eligible to apply. Between September 1980 and August 1988 AMIDEAST conducted 110 such program awards (for conducting studies, for obtaining academic degrees or for receiving specialized training), followed by 125 program awards conducted under the supervision of the Egyptian Cultural Office in Washington, D.C. The project ended in 1995. Peace scholarships were awarded to 1,220 applicants, 30 of whom (2.5%) refused to return to Egypt from the United States. An evaluation of this program’s effectiveness revealed many deficiencies. Numerous nominations, most of them academic staff and women, were cancelled after they had been accepted at US universities for various reasons, either because examinations or teaching schedules interfered with the candidate’s ability to attend or because they had obtained scholarships to institutions elsewhere. The outcome was a waste of time, effort, and money spent on administrative and logistical issues, not to mention the embarrassment with the US universities. Another well-established scholarship program in Egypt since 1949 is conducted by the Binational Fulbright Commission, the oldest and largest Fulbright program 62

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION IN EGYPT Table 2. Number of Egyptian students in the United States of America under the International Educational Exchange Program, the Binational Fulbright Commission in Egypt for academic years 1998–1999 through 2004–2005. Level of Study

1998/99

1999/2000

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

Undergraduate Graduate Other Total

606 1,100 129 1,834

631 1,204 129 1,964

676 1,439 140 2,255

765 1,501 144 2,410

605 1,453 97 2,155

490 1,242 90 1,822

411 1,077 86 1,574

Source: Institute of International Education (2005)

in Arab-speaking nations. The program was established worldwide in 1946, and the first participants traveled to their posts in 1948. Nearly 5,000 scholars have been American Fulbrighters in Egypt or Egyptian Fulbrighters in the United States out of a global total of nearly 250,000. With a mandate to cultivate mutual understanding by nourishing mutual educational exchange, the Fulbright International Educational Exchange program accommodates large numbers of students, as displayed in Table 2. The Missions Plan In 1972, the Ministry of Higher Education established a five-year plan for qualifying/training academic assistants appointed in public universities. The total number of mission scholarships allocated to Egyptian public universities was 2,580 distributed equally among them (215 mission scholarships per university); only 63.5% were executed. Equal distribution did not help accomplish the planned program. From 1982 to 2002, 6,875 scholars have been sent on missions under four fiveyear plans: (a) 3,025 scholars on external missions, (b) 1,500 on internal missions, (c) 1,500 on scientific missions, and (d) 850 on joint supervision. The third five-year plan (1992–1997) saw an increase in the number of external mission scholarships due to several factors, the most important of which was the emergence of scientific specializations that called for creating new faculty cadres in Egyptian universities and scientific bodies. This need prompted the Supreme Committee for Missions to focus more intensively on external missions and to reserve at least 50% of its future planned missions to new and rare specializations. The 1992–1997 plan comprised 4,750 mission scholarships of different types. During the second year of the third five-year plan, overseas training for teachers was introduced; 350 teachers were sent on missions in 1993–1994 and 641 in 1994–1995. It was the first time that the Ministry of Education had sent teachers abroad for training on modern methods of pedagogy, including the use of advanced technology as a teaching aid in classrooms. Each mission lasted four months. The Ministry of Education considered such overseas missions a useful strategy in its teachers’ professional development, offering them the opportunity for continuous pedagogic development and improvement in countries more developed in the field of education. 63

M.E. SAID

During the third and fourth five-year plans (1992–2002), 10,084 teachers were sent on overseas missions to the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Ireland to study eight main subjects/majors: science (3,505), mathematics (2,413), English (2,520), French (667), kindergarten (195), special needs education (80), subject supervision (632), and school management (72). It is worth mentioning in this context that overseas training for teachers revives a pre-1950 arrangement by which the Egyptian government sponsored summer training for teachers of foreign-languages in the United Kingdom and France. In 2004, the total number of scholars sent on all types of missions was 2,784 to 47 countries in Europe, the Americas, Asia, and Australia. The number of scholars sent to 21 European countries was 1,364 distributed as follows: Germany (450), the United Kingdom (345), France (176), Austria (55), Russia (54), the Netherlands (32), Sweden (18), Italy (52), Belgium (15), Poland (23), Spain (48), Switzerland (23), Greece (22), Czech (14), Hungary (10), Denmark (8), Finland (7), Norway (5), Slovakia (4), Bulgaria (2), and Ukraine (1). These teachers studying in Europe constituted 49.0% of the total, with the top countries for study abroad being Germany, the United Kingdom, and France. Teachers sent to the United States (886) represented 31.8% of the total. Canada was fourth in number (232), 8.3%. Thus, Egyptian teachers who were sent on these missions to North America numbered 1,119, or 40.1% of the total. (One teacher went to Mexico.) The number of Egyptian teachers sent by this program to Asia were (282) representing 10.1% of the total and distributed among 10 Asian countries as follows: Japan (221), Kazakhstan (22), China (10), India (9), Turkey (7), Korea (6), Malaysia (4), Indonesia (2), Iran (1), and Pakistan (1). Japan hosted most (78.5%) of Egyptian teachers studying in Asia. The eighteen Egyptian teachers sent to Australia constituted 0.7% of the total number. One scholar went to Brazil. Table 3 shows the geographical distribution of scholars abroad on February 29, 2004, on all kinds of missions and to all countries. A strong correlation exists between the country of destination and its political relationships with Egypt. In 1907 during the British occupation of Egypt, British authorities tried to offer more mission scholarships to overtake the missions that were mostly directed to France as a more desirable alternative because of the Egyptian patriotic movement in its struggle against the British occupation. However, as a result of the tripartite attack against Egypt in 1956 in which both France and Britain took part, Egyptian missions turned to other European countries and United States. During the revolutionary regime of President Gamal Abdel Nasser, many missions went to the USSR and other eastern bloc countries because of the strong political relationship. After the September 11, 2001, attack, missions to the United States were considerably reduced. The total number of missions classified according to the hosting countries (36) and type of mission appears in Table 3. External missions are at the forefront with 1,157 scholars (41.5% of the total). Foreign-financed missions come second, totaling 751 (26.9%), followed by personal scholarships (326 or 11.7%), international scholarships (214, or 7.7%), joint supervision missions (110, 4.0%), scientific missions (81, or 3.0%), internal missions (54, or 2.0%), CIDA-financed missions (14, 64

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION IN EGYPT

Joint Supervision

Internal Mission

International Scholarship

CIDA

DAD

Bilateral Agreement

Outside Program

Personal Scholarship

External Finance

USA Germany UK France Japan Canada Austria Russia Netherlands Sweden Italy Belgium Australia Poland Spain Switzerland Norway Denmark Greece Finland Malaysia Korea Brazil Czech Kazakhstan Slovak Indonesia China Turkey Hungary Mexico Bulgaria Pakistan India Iran Ukraine Total

Scientific Mission

Country

External Mission

Table 3. Number of scholars sent on missions abroad during 2004.

Total

288 273 211 116 112 45 27 22 15 12 7 6 6 5 4 3 3 1 1 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 1157

190 11 21 7 7 1 1 – 2 – 4 – 1 1 – 1 – – – – – 1 – 3 – – – – 1 – – – – – – – 81

43 36 13 9 5 1 1 – – – 1 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 1 – – – – – – – – 110

15 17 6 4 6 1 2 – – 1 – – 2 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 54

– 25 – 2 19 – 10 24 1 – 18 1 – 16 26 – – 6 8 – – 1 – 7 11 4 – 7 6 10 1 1 1 9 – – 214

– – – – – 14 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 14

– 13 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 13

4 1 – – 2 1 – – – – 2 – – – – – – – 2 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 12

4 16 3 1 7 – – – 3 1 3 – – 1 1 – – 1 3 – 1 – – 4 – – 2 – – – – – – – 1 – 52

97 19 40 9 52 32 4 – 4 4 11 7 9 – 17 6 – – 6 3 1 1 1 – – – – 2 – – – – – – – 1 326

416 39 51 28 10 137 10 ? 7 – 6 1 – – – 13 2 – 2 4 2 3 – – 11 – – – – – – 1 – – – – 751

886 450 345 176 220 232 55 54 32 18 52 15 18 23 48 23 5 8 22 7 4 6 1 14 22 4 2 10 7 10 1 2 1 9 1 1 2784

65

M.E. SAID Table 4. Number of missions in 2002–2003 distributed according to the 2002–2007 missions plan. Missioning Body

Universities (for each one) National Research Center Faculties and Institutes of Higher Ministry of Education National Planning Institute Research Bodies under Ministry of Scientific Research Academy of Arts Nuclear Energy Agency National Center for Examination and Educational Evaluation Pharmacological Censorship Agricultural Research Center Social and Criminal Research Center Total

External Missions

Joint Supervision Missions

Internal Missions

Scientific Missions

Total

20 20

15 5

15 5

5 5

55 35

4 1

– 5

– 5

– 2

4 13

20 2 2

8 5 –

7 5 –

10 3 2

45 15 4

– 2 1 1 73

1 1 2 1 43

– 1 1 – 39

1 1 1 – 30

2 5 5 2 185

Source: Central Directorate for Missioning and Cultural Affairs (2005)

or 0.5%), DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service)-financed missions (13, or 0.5%) and bilateral agreements missions (12, or 0.4%). The number of scholars sent on mission to universities in 45 foreign countries during 1985–1995 was 3,858, including 1,563 on joint supervision missions. The distribution of students according to geographical areas and majors revealed that Europe hosts most (63.4%) of the total number of scholars in 25 countries, followed by the United States and Canada combined (28.8%), then Asia (7.1%), the Arab countries (1.0%), Australia (0.5%), Africa (0.1%), and finally South America (0.1%). As for the distribution of scholars according to their majors, the basic sciences come first (23.0%), followed by medicine and pharmacological sciences (21.0%), engineering (18.0%), agriculture and veterinary medicine (11.0%), commerce and law (9.0%), and arts and other studies (7.0%).

THE 2002–2007 FIVE-YEAR PLAN FOR MISSIONS

According to the fifth five-year plan for missions, the total for the Ministry of Higher Education, universities, research centers, faculties, and institutes is 746 missions, 185 of which were allocated in 2002–2003 (see Table 4).

66

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION IN EGYPT INWARD STUDENT MOBILITY

Inward student mobility in Egypt takes place through several forms and mechanisms. Scholarships offered to foreign students by the Ministry of Higher Education and their admittance to higher education institutions to study in diverse specializations is one mechanism. Scholarships offered to foreign students through Al-Azhar, our Islamic establishment, and their admittance to pursue Islamic studies and other specializations, is second. Still others are student exchange and year abroad programs, twinning arrangements, joint and double degrees, collaborative research, cross-border delivery of academic programs, partnerships, franchises, offshore satellite campuses, open universities, and such international development programs as Euro-Med Tempus III. A brief account on each form follows. 1. Scholarships by the Ministry of Higher Education. The Ministry of Higher Education offers a number of scholarships to African states annually (see Table 5). Between 1998–1999 and 2005–2006, the MOHE has offered 2,409 scholarships to 36 African states in increasing numbers, beginning with 204 scholarships in 1998–1999 and reaching 468 during 2005–2006. Eritrea constantly receives the highest number of annual scholarships totaling 703 (29.2%) over this period, followed by Chad (211, or 8.8%), Uganda, Comoros Islands, Guinea Conakry, Mali, and Mauritius. Each has received between 115 and 151 scholarships (4.8-6.2%). These scholarships are part of bilateral agreements between Egypt and these African states, offered to train the recipients in specializations that meet the needs of the recipient countries. 2. Scholarships at Al-Azhar Al-Sharif. Al-Azhar Al-Sharif is the oldest university and the oldest Islamic establishment in the world, founded in 975 A.D. Because of this status, men and women from Islamic countries all over the world come to study at Al-Azhar at all educational levels: elementary, preparatory, secondary, and higher education. In 1961, Al-Azhar University began offering specializations in fields other than Islamic studies: medicine, humanities and social sciences, commerce, and pharmacy. Muslim Foreign Missions City, established at the same time as Al-Azhar University in 1961 in two locations, one for men and the other for women, accommodates more than 6,000 students from Islamic countries; 2,000 of them are women. According to 2003–2004 statistics published by the General Administration of Foreign Students (GAFS) at the Islamic Research Academy (IRA) of Al-Azhar AlSharif, 6,623 pre-university institutes are distributed all over Egypt, comprised of 64,621 classrooms and serving around 1.5 million students. Students enrolled at Al-Azhar University number 32,3000 students, with 13,538 faculty members and their assistants, and a total budget of 509,565,000 L.E. The number of Wafedeen students enrolled at Al-Azhar Al-Sharif in academic year 2005–2006 is 33,509, reflecting the inward mobility of students from six regions: Arab nations (19 countries), Africa (41 countries), Asia (21 countries), Europe (32 countries), eastern Europe (16 countries), and the United States and Australia (16 countries) (see Table 6). The largest number of students come from Asia (46.1%), followed by Africa (21.7%), the Arab nations 67

M.E. SAID

68

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

Ethiopia Uganda Eritrea Gabon Senegal Cameron Congo Brazzaville Congo Zaire Congo Kinshasa-Zaire Niger Benin Burkina Faso Chad Tanzania Togo Gambia Comoros Islands South Africa Rwanda Zambia Cote d’Ivoire Swaziland Sierra Leone Afar Students Ghana Guinea Bissau Guinea Conakry Kenya Liberia Malawi Mali Madagascar Mauritius Mozambique Namibia Nigeria Total

1999/2000

Nationality

1998/99

Table 5. Scholarships offered by Ministry of Higher Education to 36 African states during 1998–1999 through 2005–2006.

7 18 34 – – 3 2 3 2 6 1 3 12 12 3 – 10 2 9 6 – – 3 – 3 1 17 3 7 3 17 – 10 1 1 5 204

6 15 46 – – 3 4 3 2 6 1 3 15 10 3 – 8 2 9 6 – 1 3 – 3 1 19 3 7 2 17 – 15 7 1 5 226

5 15 38 – – 3 4 3 2 6 1 3 15 10 3 – 18 2 9 6 – 1 3 – 3 1 19 3 7 2 17 – 15 7 1 5 227

5 15 50 – – 3 6 3 2 6 1 3 20 10 3 – 12 2 9 6 – 1 3 – 3 1 19 3 7 2 17 – 15 7 1 7 242

5 15 76 1 1 3 6 3 2 6 1 3 31 1010 3 1 20 2 9 6 1 1 3 – 3 1 19 5 7 2 17 12 15 7 – 7 304

5 17 77 1 1 3 6 3 – 6 1 3 35 10 3 1 24 2 9 6 – 1 3 10 3 1 9 5 7 2 17 12 15 7 1 7 323

6 17 151 1 4 5 6 3 – 6 1 4 45 10 3 1 31 2 9 6 – 1 3 5 3 1 19 5 7 2 17 12 15 7 – 7 415

5 17 231 1 3 3 6 3 – 6 1 3 38 82 3 1 17 2 11 6 – 1 3 5 3 2 20 5 7 2 17 7 15 7 – 7 468

Total 44 129 703 4 9 26 40 24 10 48 8 25 211 24 4 140 16 74 48 1 7 24 20 24 9 151 32 56 17 136 43 115 50 5 50 2,409

M: Male, F: Female Source: General Administration of Foreign Students (GAFS) (2006)

Table 6. The total number of Wafedeen students enrolled at Al-Azhar Al-Sharif in the academic year 2005–2006.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION IN EGYPT

69

M.E. SAID

(19.0%), eastern Europe (8.1%), Europe (3.7%), and the United States and Australia (0.6%). Of the 20,912 (62.4%) Wafedeen students enrolled at Al-Azhar University, 4,264 (20.4%) are newly enrolled, and 4,289 (20.5%) are women. Of the remaining 12,597 Wafedeen students (37.6%), 1,760 (14.0%) are newly enrolled, 2,384 (18.9%) are enrolled in special studies, and the remaining 8,453 (67.1%) are enrolled in elementary, primary, and secondary institutes. Elementary institutes enroll 1,356 students, nearly 50% of them girls; 3,639 are in primary institutes (18.6% of them girls), and 3,468 in secondary institutes (14.0% of them young women). The total number of male graduate students during a period of 25 years (academic year 1980-1981 to academic year 2004-2005) reached 17,165 students from 111 countries; women graduate students numbered 5,049 from 59 countries. The top 10 countries for male students are Malaysia, 4,839 (28.2%); Indonesia, 1,930 (11.2%); Syria and Turkey 1,277 each (7.4%); Sudan, 1,268 (7.4%); Thailand, 1,242 (7.3%); Palestine, 775 (4.5%); Senegal, 548 (3.2%); Nigeria, 490 (2.9%); Mali, 189 (1.1%); and 3,330 (19.4%) from the remaining 101 countries. The top 10 countries supplying women graduate students are Malaysia 3,036 (60.1%); Syria, 446 (8.8%); Indonesia, 412 (8.2%); Sudan, 250 (4.9%); Thailand, 206 (4.1%); Brunei, 195 (3.9%); Palestine, 168 (3.3%); Singapore, 78 (1.6%); Philippines, 47 (0.9%); Saudi Arabia, 29 (0.6%); and 183 (3.6%) from the remaining 49 countries. The total number of scholarships offered by Al-Azhar Al-Sharif to recipients in 49 African states during the decade 1995–1996 to 2004–2005 was awarded to 13,288 students (see Table 7). With the exception of academic year 1998-1999, in which the number of scholarships was drastically cut to 292 due to major budget deficits, the number of scholarships varied between 896 scholarships in 2000–2001 to 1,897 in academic year 2004–2005. The top 10 grant recipient countries are Nigeria and Senegal, each receiving 1,093 scholarships, followed by Somalia, 985; Cameroon, 859; Niger, 770; Comoros Islands, 741; Guinea Conakry, 677; Burkina Faso, 440; Chad, 434; and Uganda, 424. Interestingly, during the academic years 1998–1999 and 2000–2001 when the total number of scholarships was lowest, Nigeria, Senegal, and Somalia received no scholarships to give more opportunity to the other countries. (Four of the top 10 countries received limited grants during this period.) The number of scholarships offered by Al-Azhar Al-Sharif over the past decade to foreign students is, on average, four times the number of scholarships offered to them by the Ministry of Higher Education. The study programs offered to male students enrolled at Al-Azhar University during the academic year 2005–2006 include 10 specializations in addition to Islamic studies: Arabic language, commerce, education, languages and translation, science, engineering, medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, and agriculture. Al-Azhar University offers Islamic and Arabic studies at all its branches, located in seven governorates across the country; however, the majority of students enrolled in these specialties cluster in Cairo at the main campus of Al-Azhar University. Al-Azhar University also offers Islamic and Arabic studies at all its branches for women

70

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION IN EGYPT

students located in eight governorates in addition to seven academic specialties: medicine, engineering, pharmacy, science, dentistry, commerce, and humanities. The majority of both men and women foreign students enroll in Islamic studies, with Indonesia having the highest enrollment rate among men (2,799, or 25.6%) and Malaysia the highest among women (1,933, or 52.7%). For men foreign students’ enrollment, the country having the second highest enrollment rate is Malaysia (2, 512 or 23.0%), followed by Thailand (889, or 8.1%), Syria (692, or 6.3%), Nigeria (350 or 3.2%), Comoros Islands (325 or 3.0%), Turkey (254 or 2.3%), Palestine (187, or 1.7%), Bangladesh (128 or 1.2%), and Niger (122, or 1.2%). For women foreign students, the country having the second highest enrollment rate in Islamic studies is Indonesia (475, or 12.9%), followed by Thailand (258, or 7.0%), Palestine (162, or 4.4%), Syria (150, or 4.1%), Singapore (133, or 3.6%), Brunei (63, or 1.7%), Maldives (38, or 1.0%), Comoros Islands (37, or 1.0%), Philippines (35, or 1.0%), and Turkey (29, or 0.8%). The total number of foreign male students enrolled in the other 10 specializations consists of 1,031 (9.4%); a very small number of women (78, or 2.1%) are enrolled in the other seven specializations mentioned earlier. A debate on the role of Al-Azhar Al-Sharif is currently ongoing, not only in Egypt but also regionally among Arab countries. The administration of the Library of Alexandria (Bibliotheca Alexandrina) initiated a dialogue among Arab countries and organized an annual regional forum, The Arab Reform Forum, first held in March 2004. The library invited NGOs from Arab states concerned with common reform issues to participate, and this forum issued the Alexandria Declaration. This declaration recommended socio-economic and political reforms of concern to the governments of all Arab nations. Among the subjects of concern in this and subsequent forums were education, health, transparency, unemployment, accreditation, and the role of Al-Azhar Al-Sharif as the primary Islamic university. Many voices call on Al-Azhar Al-Sharif to focus solely on teaching Islamic subjects, to develop a preaching process that will improve Islam’s image, and to disregard other technical specializations by allowing them to merge with the regular higher education programs offered under the umbrella of the Ministry of Higher Education. Islamic leaders are still resisting these ideas; however, the dialogue continues, particularly after the September 11 tragedy which put more pressure on Islamic countries and Al-Azhar Al-Sharif. PUSH AND PULL FACTORS FOR STUDENT CIRCULATION IN EGYPT

Several push and pull factors influence international student circulation in Egypt, both positively or negatively. They fall into three main categories: (a) educational, (b) political, social, and cultural, and (c) economic. Table 8 depicts the status of each push/pull factor, its significance on a five-point scale varying from very positive to very negative and the direction in which each is progressing (increasing, decreasing, or unchanged). Here are a brief description and rationale for each of the push/pull factors applicable to the Egyptian context identified in this chapter. 71

M.E. SAID

72

4 28 79 24 1 5 – – – – – 98 20 – – 130 1 – 44 76 29 – 47 12 39 – – 31 13 4 15 17 1 24 – 55 – 14 – – – 10 2 49 5 1 17 1 – 896

2004/05

2000/01

7 21 31 27 – 2 1 – 147 7 52 50 5 – – 66 2 – 26 22 17 30 32 5 13 86 – 39 15 15 11 9 – 31 – 27 2 45 57 27 45 10 9 18 1 1 4 1 139 1234

2003/04

1999/ 2000

7 16 9 – – 2 – – – – – 56 4 – – – 2 – – 22 – – 28 4 12 – – – 7 – 9 10 – – – 29 – 36 – – – – 5 20 1 – 13 – – 292

2002/03

1998/99

40 40 34 6 6 9 10 15 29 25 – 45 – 2 – 3 3 3 – – 1 2 5 – 35 164 174 – – – 25 45 65 25 35 88 8 18 6 – – – 7 5 4 25 38 59 3 3 4 2 – – 28 – 25 23 23 35 13 – 9 136 136 – 88 – 38 5 5 4 24 55 11 129 41 57 5 3 – 15 15 – 24 14 9 36 36 23 3 10 13 23 15 18 – – 2 66 23 29 – – – – 41 37 14 – 1 95 17 36 168 76 66 25 – – 19 37 43 85 149 95 36 – 15 65 74 23 10 20 10 8 – – 5 3 17 1 – 2 128 113 123 1608 1355 1347

2001/02

1997/98

Ethiopia Central Africa Uganda Eritrea Aloes Gabon Algeria Cape Verde Senegal Sudan Somalia Cameroon Congo Congo Brazzaville Morocco Niger Angola Botswana Benin Burkina Faso Burundi Chad Tanzania Togo Gambia Comoros Islands South Africa Djibouti Rwanda Zaire Zambia Zimbabwe Sao Tome Sierra Leon Gambia Ghana Equatorial Guinea Guinea Bissau Guinea Conakry Cote d’Ivoire Kenya Liberia Malawi Madagascar Mauritania Murices Mozambique Namibia Nigeria Total

1996/97

Nationality

1995/96

Table 7. Scholarships offered by Al-Azhar to 49 African states during the decades 1995–1996 through 2004–2005.

5 18 18 30 25 27 88 77 – 44 22 – 1 – – 2 – 6 – – – – – – 162 142 143 4 – – 150 210 202 111 197 – 18 – 12 – 13 – – 7 7 155 141 156 2 – – – – – 59 30 – 80 75 – 39 21 – 29 32 35 67 40 – 10 14 14 – 33 – 93 128 92 – – – 41 20 – 17 17 – 4 6 – 19 6 14 – 10 11 1 – – 34 15 – – – 36 56 32 – – – – 17 9 – 84 75 81 43 55 66 39 40 39 – 15 – 4 5 4 66 35 42 7 7 5 – 1 1 23 10 12 1 – – 119 141 142 1804 1784 1089

17 26 86 24 – – – – 126 – 236 199 13 – 8 770 – – 38 84 19 36 44 15 31 117 – 28 4 6 6 11 – 18 – 49 – 5 70 61 42 1 4 28 4 – 11 2 188 1879

Total 190 194 424 211 4 26 2 7 1093 11 985 859 14 13 38 17 2 250 440 147 434 384 88 218 743 8 189 120 130 106 124 4 240 36 326 17 274 677 277 304 365 84 420 70 12 115 8 1093 13288

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION IN EGYPT Table 8. Push/pull factors for international student circulation in the Egyptian context. A. Educational Factors Push factors (Ps)

Type Trend Pull factors (Pl)

Unmet demand for higher education Basic human resource capacity Ranking/status higher education Enhanced value of a foreign degree Selectiveness of domestic higher education Availability of distance education Increasing presence private providers Increasing presence of foreign providers Experience with international mobility Strategic alliances with foreign partners

– – – ++ ++ – – – ++ +

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑

Higher education opportunities System compatibility Ranking/status higher education Enhanced value of national degree Diversity of the H.E. system Absorptive capacity of H.E. Active recruitment policy Cost of study (low-cost) Existing stock of national students Strategic alliances with home partners

Type Trend + + ∼ ∼ + – – + – +

↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ – ↑ ↑ ↑

B. Political/Social/Cultural Factors Push factors (Ps)

Type Trend Pull factors (Pl)

Linguistic affinity Cultural and religious affinity Colonial ties Regional unity Information isolation Emigration policies Strategic alliances Political instability Academic freedom

/ / – – + + + + –

∼ ∼ ∼ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓

Language factor Cultural ties Colonial ties Regional unity Stock of citizens of country of origin Immigration policies Strategic alliances with home country Lure of life Academic freedom

Type Trend ++ + – + + – + + +

↑ ↑ ∼ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

C. Economic Factors Push factors (Ps) Dependence on world economy Financial capacity Human Development Index factor Employment opportunities during study Employment opportunities on return Geographical distance

Type Trend Pull factors (Pl) + + + – ++ ∼

↑ ↑ ↑ ∼ ↑ ↑

Import/export levels Level of assistance Human Development Index factor Employment opportunities during study Employment opportunities after study Geographical distance

Type Trend + – + – – ++

↑ ↑ ↑ ∼ ↑ ↑

Keys: ++ = very significant/very positive + = significant/positive / = neutral – = insignificant/very negative ↑ = increasing ∼ = unchanging ↓ = decreasing

Push Factors Overcrowding in the Egyptian higher education system reflects the heavy unmet demand for higher education. The Egyptian government has frequently declared its inability to support the Egyptian higher education system without active support from the private sector and the business community. Despite their negative effect as a push factor, the government’s current efforts to diversify higher education, to 73

M.E. SAID

introduce new modes of delivery, to improve the quality of education, and to expand private sector involvement have reduced the trend toward outward mobility. Basic human resource capacity is one of the main points of strength in the Egyptian higher education system. It has an insignificant “push” effect. Current government plans to expand the missions program by sending scholars abroad to earn their doctoral degrees and become faculty members enhance the human resource capacity, also reducing this trend as a push factor. In the recent international ranking of higher education institutions worldwide, no Egyptian university or institution appears among the first 500. This absence raised concerns, prompting many questions and doubts about the quality of Egypt’s higher education system. The government, conscious of this national concern, is revisiting its strategic reform plan to make provision for improving higher education’s overall quality and efficiency, particularly giving more emphasis to research and publication in internationally reputable journals, since such publications are the primary criterion for the ranking. Although the ranking has minimal significance as a push factor, current government efforts will likely diminish its effects even further. In the past, the Egyptian higher education community has always valued degrees from abroad, boasting about such degrees and, in elite communities, considering such a degree to be the pathway to a more prestigious marriage. However, with the new reform initiatives and developmental environment in Egypt, this trend is decreasing and is liable to continue decreasing. Another decreasing trend is the selectiveness of domestic higher education where the sole criteria for university admission selection are the students’ scores in the general secondary school examination and the limited enrollment capacities of universities/institutions. The diversity of offerings enabled through the increasing diversity and choices of public, private, and foreign higher education, including distance education, will make educational opportunities much more widely available. Strategic alliances with foreign partners have always been a positive means of encouraging outward student mobility. The new reform environment and government plans to encourage foreign alliances to support its missions program will further enhance this trend. Linguistic, cultural, and religious affinities are all factors that marginally influence students’ outward mobility and will likely remain unchanged. However, students when selecting the host country, if they have a choice, focus primarily on the field of desired study/specialization and are more attracted linguistically to English-speaking countries. Culture and religion, depending on the context, have less relevance. Colonial ties have not been applicable in Egypt for more than 50 years. Regional unity has an insignificant effect on student outward mobility although it is a possible influence on inward mobility. The government plans to improve relations with Arab and African countries in the region will undoubtedly lead to increasing mobility, both inward and outward. Students from the Arab and Gulf regions are attracted to study in Egypt because language does not constitute a barrier. In addition, the quality assurance and accreditation procedures newly established in Egypt and the expansion of private education seem likely positive influences on increased inward mobility and, though less significantly, outward mobility. 74

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION IN EGYPT

Being isolated from important information sources in specialized fields has historically had a significant impact on student outward mobility. Particularly before the advent of the Internet when students’ sources of information were limited, such restrictions were one of the government’s main reasons for sending students on missions to collect scientific material and other information. This trend is likely to decrease as barriers to such information are reduced. Lenient immigration policies allowed Egyptians to retain their Egyptian nationality even as they became citizens of the country of immigration. This policy, together with political instability after Egypt’s 1952 revolution and wars with Israel, increased outward student mobility. This trend is declining because of improved political stability, the relatively strong economy, and general reform initiatives. In contrast, academic freedom since the revolution has reduced outbound circulation. Beginning immediately after the revolution in 1952, the government imposed restrictions on students going abroad on government-funded study missions. These restrictions imposed on scholarly students going on mission, and on faculty members, reside in the mandatory requirement to issue the yellow certificate (a permission to travel issued by the institution) to control their outward mobility. This yellow certificate cancelled was no longer required at the beginning of the new century, leading to more freedom and anticipated improvement in outward mobility. For over 40 years after the revolution, male students traveling abroad to pursue higher degrees were allowed to postpone their military service of 15 months, if enrolled in the army as a soldier, or for 30 months if enrolled as an officer, depending on the army’s annually declared needs. Since the revolution , such military service has continued to be compulsory, and post-graduates who have appointments as instructors in higher education institutions are required to finish their military service before traveling. Economic factors such as dependence on the world economy, Egypt’s status on the Human Development Index, and individual financial capacity positively affect the trend of outward mobility. Although changes in the world economy affect the overall cost of study abroad (usually increasing it), the government, given the limited financial resources allocated for missioning scholars, can accommodate only a small number of applicants. However, this limit does not affect the upward trend anticipated under planned government educational reforms that include the funds earmarked for missioning. However, the number of scholars applying to travel abroad for higher degree studies has declined recently. The 2006 mission budget allowed for more than a thousand students to be funded for the academic year 2006–2007; however, so few students applied that the Mission Department accepted all applicants and made some concessions in the requirements normally demanded. For example, the department sponsored special language classes to help the candidates attain the scores needed for admission in the host countries. Employment opportunities during study or after return significantly impact outward and inward flows. During study abroad, those on student visas are not usually not allowed to work, although some students arrange informal employment to supplement the relatively limited scholarship funds. However, the marketability of a higher degree awarded from a university abroad significantly improves students’ 75

M.E. SAID

job opportunities, particularly in the Arab region. Thus, future employability is an important push factor, which will likely increase for some time due to limitations imposed on the Egyptian labor market by socio-economic and political factors. Egypt’s geographically centered location only marginally influences outward student mobility and must be considered a neutral factor, particularly for missions to Europe. The Egyptian government’s relaxed policy (called an “open door” policy) encourages students from more affluent families to seek their own study opportunities abroad. It is important to stress that these factors may have increasing, decreasing, neutral, unchanging, or insignificant effects depending on the factor’s context with respect to the country (see Table 8). Pull Factors Inbound student mobility faces many problems that require changes in policy to resolve. Among these problems are difficulties that prospective students confront in obtaining entry visas, especially for students whose home countries have political conflicts and unstable relationships with Egypt. In addition, those students are also confronted with rigid immigration policies, political and social instability, increased costs of living despite the Egyptian pound’s devaluation versus foreign currencies, and apparent discrimination between Egyptian and foreign students in tuition fees and other social benefits. However, most of the educational, political, social, cultural, and economic pull factors listed in Table 8 are significant and positive in the Egyptian context, primarily due to past and recent reform measures adopted by the government. Higher education opportunities are more numerous and more diversified, focusing on quality of provision and higher absorption capacity. The National Quality Assurance and Accreditation Agency (due to be established by presidential decree before the end of 2006) obligates higher education institutions to improve their offerings to meet internationally recognized standards and good practices. This agency’s effective and regular review of the Egyptian education system leads to its improved compatibility with internationally recognized systems and to increasing mutual recognition of degrees and programs. The ranking/status of higher education institutions and the enhanced value of national degrees remained unchanged. However, with quality assurance and accreditation mechanisms actively in operation, improvements in this “pull” trend are likely to occur. The relatively modest cost of study in Egypt is one of the pull factors attracting students from Arab, African, and Islamic countries, who come primarily for religious studies. Students from other countries are attracted by the availability of cultural studies. Strategic alliances with home-country partnering institutions open the door for student exchange programs and likely will be an increasingly strong pull factor. Active recruitment policies and the existing population of Egyptian students are likely, however, to remain negative pull factors for some time because of Egypt’s overcrowded system and the absence of a recruitment policy to attract foreign students. However, this trend may become more positive 76

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION IN EGYPT

given the initiatives to encourage private education, expand distance education facilities, diversify program offerings, and establish a recruitment policy within the GATS framework. Political, social, and cultural pull factors listed in Table 8 all have significant, positive effects and are trending upward. Language is very significant in attracting students from Arab countries. Regional ties are a further pull factor. The lure of life in Egypt has always attracted students from Arab-speaking and Islamic countries, while additional attractions are its cultural wealth, vibrant social life, and relatively low cost of living. Strict immigration policies and restrictions on travel caused by an emphasis on national security have had a negative effect on travel, but this trend is likely to change in view of the current government’s ongoing efforts to review existing policies and adapt them, where necessary, to accommodate international agreements and commitments. Strategic alliances with higher educational institutions in foreign countries have been positive factors in attracting inward mobility; the current open-door policy can only increase this trend. Most of the economic factors listed in Table 8 are increasingly positive pull factors, except for job opportunities during and after study. The Egyptian labor market is congested with unemployed workers, leaving little room for newly graduated students. However, when current restrictions are lifted to allow compliance with the GATS agreement, effective in 2010, more opportunities will be available for graduates. The level of assistance offered to inbound and outbound students is improving as indicated by a reduced number of complaints received by the Missions Department (2006). Egypt’s geographical location has always been a very significant, positive pull factor and will remain so. In summary, the overall picture of push/pull factors in Egypt shows significant improvement in the trend toward attracting more students inward as well as improving the overall student circulation, due to ongoing government reforms.

CHALLENGES FACING MISSIONS

As a follow-up to the discussion of push/pull factors, the particular challenges in implementing the missioning policy seem most important. Probably the most serious deficiency is the comparatively few scholars accepted by foreign universities to pursue their advanced degrees or training. The situation seems to be caused because of differences between Egypt’s educational system from those in foreign countries, the limited funds available for missioning, and the relatively weak scientific competencies of applicants. Foreign universities require that applicants achieve the relatively high score of 550 on the TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language). Less than 50% of the candidates fulfill the required score from the first time they sit for the exam, and the rest achieve the score after sitting one extra time or more. In an effort to deal with limited funding for the missioning program, in the 1990s the Ministry of Education imposed the requirement that applicants must 77

M.E. SAID

obtain their Ph.D. in four years instead of the previous five. Candidates accepted for missioning must sign an agreement that they will bear all expenses associated with obtaining the degree if it takes longer than four years. Many scholars complained that this time restriction is unreasonable, so the Missions Department formed a committee to consider the cases that need extensions after consulting with both the foreign supervising professor and the Egyptian cultural office in the host country responsible for supervising Egyptian scholars. Based on these investigations, the committee recommends to the missions department whether to grant extensions. By policy, the scholar’s spouse and children are funded to accompany the scholar for only three years, another factor that negatively affects the scholar’s mood and, consequently, progress toward degree. Some of the scholars accepted for study abroad have inadequacies in their academic, scientific, and linguistic proficiencies. In some few cases of low performance, the Missions Department has been forced to terminate their missions, thus wasting both time and money. Another problem is that some foreign universities do not recognize many degrees granted by Egyptian universities. Scientific missions of three to six months duration are designed mainly to train faculty/staff on learning the protocols of conducting research used by the host foreign university or research center. The Missions Department’s main complaint is that numerous candidates have not taken these assignments seriously, resulting in huge expenditures that do not result in the expected outcome to generate expertise.The Missions Executive Committee decided, as a corrective, to have scientific missions coincide with the academic year (from September to June) and not with the months of summer vacation. Candidates reacted fiercely, with so many complaints that the executive committee cancelled the decision, reverting to the summer schedule. Although the Missions Executive Committee sporadically exempted members of scientific missions from attaining the required score in language tests before acceptance, some foreign universities require achieving the specified level of proficiency before acceptance, thereby eliminating some funded candidates. Other complaints have been that the scholars abroad are inadequately prepared to deal with the culture, society, traditions, and laws of their countries of destination. In addition to problems of psychological adjustment, some of them also have unwittingly violated local laws. Joint supervision missions sometimes fail to achieve the expected benefit because Egyptian scholars, who are responsible for selecting their foreign supervisor, often do not choose an appropriately qualified supervisor. Furthermore, a considerable number of scholars funded for missions abroad choose to remain in the host country after obtaining their degree, especially in countries like Germany, the United States, and Canada. This “brain drain” negatively affects missions operations and, in turn, national development plans. From the government’s perspective, the funding for their mission has been wasted, and it is difficult to recoup these funds from expatriates.

78

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION IN EGYPT

Due to these numerous difficulties, not all scholarships allocated to and offered by the Egyptian government are fully utilized. Between 1988 to 1991, the government funded 2,861 scholarships, but allocated only 1,730, thus wasting 1,132 (39.6%). The Egyptian government periodically holds a national conference to discuss problems and needs of scholars abroad, to establish and strengthen connections with them, and to intensify their sense of belonging to Egypt. In addition to missions-related issues, other agenda items are Egypt’s overall reform plans, the internal political situation, government directives, national actions to resolve deficiencies, foreign policy, economic reform plans, and cultural and social development. In such conferences, the missions program receives attention on primarily three issues: (a) policies governing scientific research and graduate studies abroad, (b) mission scholars’ relationships with their home university, and (c) mission scholars’ relationships with their host universities. With regard to scientific research and postgraduate studies, missions scholars need to be already fluent in the foreign language of the host country, to have at least minimal computer skills, to be conversant with the creative thinking and research methodology in their chosen specializations, and to be skilled in diverse means of information acquisition, processing, and analysis. As for scholars’ relationship to their home universities during the mission, they must be prepared in their areas of specialization, acquainted with the host country’s society and educational system, and able to adjust quickly to new environment. They also need to be aware of Egyptian history, culture, society, economy, and politics to represent Egypt well abroad. Such awareness courses are part of the capacity-building program offered to scholars before they travel on their missions, and delivered at the Institute for Leaders Development established for that purpose. Scholars are encouraged to focus their research on what are commonly called “futuristic sciences,” the most important of which are biotechnology, genetic engineering, micro-electronics, informatics, laser, photochemistry, regenerative and ecological engineering, natural resources, and water use. Egypt is giving priority to create new cadres of faculty members and to qualify them to teach such new sciences, with priority given to applied specializations. Policy Recommendations Following are some policy recommendations resulting from the deficiencies identified during the course of implementing the missions sector’s consecutive five-year plans: 1. Mission candidates must meet the language proficiency requirements of the host country. Given the four-year limitation on degree-seeking missions, the candidate cannot spend a year acquiring proficiency. 2. Egyptian embassies and cultural bureaus in host countries should provide the Missions Department with necessary information about the host country and institution to orient the mission member before traveling. Such information should be particularly complete in identifying laws and customs of the host 79

M.E. SAID

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11. 12.

80

country so that the mission recipients can avoid difficulties during their stay abroad. To ensure a serious commitment from scholars sent on a scientific mission, the Mission Department should require detailed reports submitted at regular intervals on their scientific and research activities during the mission. Moreover, scientific missions should not be scheduled during the summers when most universities are not fully functioning and full faculties are not usually present. The number of scholars sent on joint supervision missions should be increased with the provision that those preparing Ph.D. dissertations should have the right to travel abroad for a maximum of one year to collect the needed material. In cases where a foreign supervisor is necessary, the relevant committee of the Supreme Council of Universities must approve or endorse such a supervisor. Consideration of the geographical distribution of scholars sent on mission is highly recommended. The current concentration in European countries, the United States, and Canada limits the sources of knowledge. Expansion to other countries is recommended, especially to Asian countries that have achieved marked scientific and technological development recently and to developed countries in Latin America. To ensure diversity in knowledge sources and technology, each university should maintain records of their scholars on mission, or of those pursuing their higher studies under the supervision of the Missions Department at the Ministry of Higher Education, numbers, and majors of those obtaining their Ph.D.s abroad. To achieve the utmost benefit from the foreign scholarships that Egypt receives under bilateral and cultural agreements, redirecting surplus scholarships to the government or business sector is highly recommended, considering the key role they play in micro-development. It is strongly recommended that necessary guarantees for the return of mission members after accomplishing the mission objective of the mission are in place and are enforced. Personal interviews and tests of candidates, as stipulated by Missions Act no. 112 (1995), must be put into effect to evaluate their qualifications and eligibility for the mission. The publication of a “Missions Members’ Guide” is recommended, to be made available to scholars abroad at the Egyptian cultural centers and bureaus. This publication’s purpose will be to establish attachments between mission members, other Egyptians abroad under the supervision of the Missions Department to their homeland. Criteria should be established for distribution of missions based on equity, merit, and competency, rather than distributing them evenly among universities. At an annual meeting organized and sponsored by the Missions Department at the Ministry of Higher Education, returning scholars should evaluate their missions, discuss points of strength and weakness, and propose recommendations for planning future missions.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION IN EGYPT

13. Immigration and visa-granting policies need to be reviewed by the Egyptian authorities concerned to facilitate and simplify the process. Although major facilitations have already eased the process of obtaining visitors’ visas, study visas still need attention. It is understood that national security and sovereignty issues may impose special restrictions for countries having political conflicts and non-stable relationships with Egypt. However, economic, political, and social stability improves the likelihood of better student inward mobility, which is the prime goal of the current Egyptian governments. Establishing regulatory measures based on equal opportunities and non-discriminatory measures between Egyptian and foreign students is mandatory to encourage inward student mobility, an action recognized globally as impacting positively on the socio-economic progress of the recipient country.

REFERENCES Central Directorate for Missioning and Cultural Affairs (2005). Ministry of Higher Education, Egypt. De Wit, Hans, Jaramillo, Isabel Cristina, Gacel-Avila, Jocelyne, & Knight, Jane (Eds.). (2005). Higher education in Latin America: The international dimension. Washington, DC: World Bank (IBRD). Deputy Minister of Labor and Irrigation Announces. (2006). El Masry El Yom, January 11. Emam, Baghdadi. (2000). Evaluation of the joint supervision missions system in Egypt. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Pedagogical Studies and Research Center, Cairo University [in Arabic]. Emam, Baghdadi. (2004). Planning for scientific missions in Egypt: A historical-analytical study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Pedagogical Studies and Research Center, Cairo University [in Arabic]. General Administration of Foreign Students (GAFS). (2006). Statistical data handbook. Cairo: Islamic Research Academy, Al-Azhar Al-Sharif University. Institute of International Education. (2005). Open doors: Report on international educational exchange. Institute of International Education, from http://opendoors.iienetwork.org. Khairy, Ahmed B. (2005). Cross-borders and international cooperation developments in Egypt. IAU International Conference on Sharing Quality Higher Education across Borders: The Role of Associations and Institutions, Alexandria, Egypt, November 14–16. Library of Alexandria. (2004, 2005, 2006). The Arab Reform forum. An Annual Regional Conference among NGOs in the Arab World held every March. http://www.bibalex.org/arf/ar/index.html. Melika, Naguib. (2003). Obstacles facing the Egyptian missions abroad system and suggestions to reform the missions and supervision system at the MOHE [Ministry of Higher Education] Leadership Development Center for Public Sector. Ministry of Trade and Industry. (2006). Egypt and the world: Key industrial and trade indicators. Report supported by USAID under contract no. PCE-I-00-98-00016-00 Task Order 827. USAID Office, Cairo, Egypt. Missions Department (2006). Information Center. MOE, Ministry of Education. (2003). Mubarak and education: Higher education in information community. Cairo: Ministry of Education Press. MOE Information Unit. (2006). Retrieved from MOE Website http://www.moe.org.eg/. MOHE, Ministry of Higher Education. The quality assurance and accreditation handbook for higher education in Egypt. Higher Education Enhancement Project (HEEP). Cairo, Egypt. Retrieved from http://www.heep.edu.eg. MOHE Information Unit. (2006). Retrieved in March 2006 from MOHE Website http://www.egymhe.gov.eg/. Said, Mohsen Elmahdy. (2003). Higher education in Egypt. In Damtew Teferra & Philip G. Altbach (Eds.), Handbook for higher education in African countries (pp. 285–300). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

81

M.E. SAID Said, Mohsen Elmahdy, et al. (2005a). Private education in Egypt. Policy paper prepared in Arabic by the Education Committee of the National Democratic Party (NDP), presented at the NDP National Conference. Available in Arabic and English on the NDP website, http://www.ndp.org.eg. Said, Mohsen Elmahdy. (2005b). The Egyptian model for quality assurance and accreditation in education. In Adnan El Amine (Ed.), Quality assurance in Arab universities. Beirut, Lebanon: Lebanese Association for Educational Sciences (LAES) [in Arabic]. Said, Mohsen Elmahdy, et al. (2005). TQM and accreditation systems. Policy paper prepared in Arabic by the Education Committee of the National Democratic Party (NDP), presented at the NDP National Conference. Available in Arabic and English on the NDP website, http://www.ndp.org.eg. Said, Mohsen Elmahdy, et al. (2006). Quality assurance and accreditation: The Egyptian experience in higher education. In Roushdy Ahmed Toiemah (Ed.), Total quality in education (pp. 23–32 and 257–291). Amman, Jordan: Al Masira Publishing House [in Arabic]. Salama, Amr Ezzat. (2005). Cross-border higher education. IAU International Conference on Sharing Quality Higher Education across Borders: The Role of Associations and Institutions, Alexandria, Egypt, November 14–16. SCU. Supreme Council of Universities. (2006). Information Department. Selim, Ragaa Ibrahim, et al. (1996). Scientific exchange between Egyptian and foreign universities in 10 years (1985–1995). MOHE Technological Development and Decision Support Center [in Arabic]. Selim, Ragaa Ibrahim. (2005). Policy of external missions: An assessment study. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Conference of Policy Researches on Higher Education in Egypt, Policy Researches and Studies Center. MOHE Information Center. UNDP. (2005). Egypt human development report, Choosing our future: Towards a new social contract. Cairo: UNDP and Institute of National Planning, Egypt and Project Document EGY/01/06.

82

PAWAN AGARWAL

4. INDIA IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION: STATUS AND PROSPECTS

India has one of the fastest growing economies in the world and is well on its way to becoming the third largest economy (on the basis of purchase point parity) in another five years. It will be the most populous nation by 2045. With India’s large and growing middle class able to finance its own education, host countries vie with each other to attract Indian students in larger numbers. An important country of origin of globally mobile students, India also hosts international students from many countries in Asia and Africa. Some foreign institutions offer their programs in India, and a few Indian higher education institutions have started operations abroad. Overall, India is an important country in the context of higher education’s internationalization of higher education and a key player in international student circulation. This chapter examines international student circulation and developments related to it in India. I first discuss Indian higher education in the context of internationalization, then review India’s policies towards internationalizing higher education. An overview of the extent of foreign providers maps concerns arising from this development and tracks the evolving policy related to it. I then describe the developments in cross-border student mobility, outlining the trends and composition of such flows. Next follow a few issues critical to Indian education and the push and pull factors relevant to student circulation. Finally, I summarize the key findings from the previous sections and discuss the dilemma that India faces in international student circulation. OVERVIEW OF INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION’S KEY CHARACTERISTICS

The system of higher education in India is large and complex (Agarwal, 2006a). By enrollment, it is the third largest system of higher education in the world, after China and the United States. Higher education institutions in India are either universities (or university-level institutions) or colleges. Universities award their own degrees, while colleges conduct their teaching and learning activities under the academic supervision of the university which they are affiliated and also award its degrees. The concept of a university with affiliated colleges is unique to South Asia. With few exceptions, the colleges provide undergraduate education while universities focus on research and graduate education. There are nearly 18,000 higher education institutions in India – the greatest number of institutions in the world. The system is almost four times that of either H. de Wit et al. (eds.), The Dynamics of International Student Circulation in a Global Context, 83–112. © 2008. Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

P. AGARWAL

the United States or Europe and more than seven times that of China. However, the average size is small. Many of these institutions are struggling, understaffed, and ill-equipped; two-thirds do not satisfy the minimum norms of the University Grants Commission (UGC) – the apex body for regulating higher education in India. Out of 18,000 institutions, 348 are universities and the rest are colleges. Colleges enroll 90% of the nation’s undergraduates and 66% who are graduate students. The current gross enrollment ratio (GER) in higher education is around 11%. Though low in absolute terms, this rate fits well with the occupational structure of the Indian economy, since the gross enrollment ratio is as much as twice the percentage of skilled workforce. The country has an enrollment of 10.41 million students and an outturn of 2.65 million graduates each year. The total stock of graduates in India is around 51.4 million. The distribution of capacity across subject areas and at different levels is uneven. Eighty-nine percent of the enrolled students in both colleges and universities are undergraduates with only 9.4% in graduate programs. Enrollment in doctoral programs is less than 1%. Eighty percent of the enrollment is in affiliated colleges. Of the total enrollment, 45% of the students are in arts, 20.4% are in science, and 18% are in commerce. The remaining 17% are in professional programs. The large enrollments in liberal arts and the humanities often lack an occupational focus; thus, there is a mismatch between degreed recipients and the economy’s skill requirements. Higher education in the country is the joint responsibility of both the federal (or central) and the provincial (or state) governments. (India has 27 states and 7 union territories.) State governments bear the bulk of the responsibility for nearly 170 universities (including 100 “deemed-to-be” universities, almost half of which receive no federal funding) and 80 colleges. The federal government has the responsibility for coordination and determining standards, which is discharged through the University Grants Commission (UGC) and 13 professional councils for various fields of study. Some provinces have state councils for higher education and councils in different professional areas. Most of the funding for higher education comes from the state governments. They also have the main say in all administrative and operational matters, while the affiliated universities are responsible for academic matters. The system of recognition and approval is either through the legislative mandates or inherent in the powers and functions of the affiliating university, the UGC, or the relevant professional councils. However, in an effort to improve quality, a system of accreditation was initiated in the mid-1990s. Three agencies evaluate the quality of institutions and/or programs through an external peer review process: (a) the National Assessment and Accreditation Council set up by the UGC in 1994 undertakes institutional accreditation; (b) the National Board of Accreditation established by the All-India Council of Technical Education in 1994 accredits programs in engineering and professional areas; and (c) the Accreditation Board established by the India Council of Agriculture Research in 1996 accredits agricultural institutions. Like elsewhere in the world, accreditation is voluntary. However, unlike the United States, no consequential benefits come from accreditation. With 84

INDIA IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

Figure 1. The growth of higher education institutions and enrollment in India.

few or no incentives for institutions to achieve accreditation, its overall coverage and impact on enhancing quality is limited. The coverage is particularly poor in the case of private unaided institutions.

The Growth Dimension Higher education has seen impressive growth since independence in 1947. Overall, the number of universities has increased from 25 to 348, the number of colleges has increased from 700 to 17,625 and the enrollment has increased from a tiny base of 0.1 million to 10.41 million. Though enrollment in higher education has been expanding since independence, its pace has accelerated over the past two decades. Several factors are responsible, including a rising demand for higher education resulting from the population increase, improvements in school education, higher aspirations among the people, and the changing structure of the Indian economy that requires new and varied kind of skills. Figure 1 displays the trends in the growth of institutions and enrollments in India’s higher education. The expansion of higher education in India over the past two decades has been largely driven by private initiatives. Responding to the rising demand for vocationally oriented education, private players entered the higher education sector in the 1980s. Financially, these institutions depend on tuition fees; they are more expensive than the government institutions and are referred to as the private unaided institutions. Currently 43% of institutions, comprising nearly 30% of enrollment, are in this category. Furthermore, an increasing number of public institutions have started offering self-financing programs. In professional streams, nearly 80% of all institutions and enrollments are in the private sector. In short, Indian higher education is riding a wave of privatization. From the periphery, private higher education is moving center stage. 85

P. AGARWAL

Given the large market share of private provision, private spending on higher education is estimated at 50% of the total expenditure on higher education. Earlier this expenditure was predominantly from government sources, but public expenditure on higher education has remained at less than half a percent of the GDP for over the past two decades. This constitutes around 12% of the total public expenditure on education at all levels. The federal government’s role in funding higher education in India is limited. Of total government support for higher education, only about one-fourth comes from the federal government and three-fourths from state governments. Public funding for higher education in India is not only small, but its spread is uneven. Nearly one-third of the institutions do not get any government funds. Of the remainder, about half get federal funding. A small number of central institutions that enroll less than 2% of the students get 85% of central funds; the amount of central funding received by the rest is pitiable. The bulk of the higher education system depends on state governments for funding. With many of them facing financial crises, public funding for higher education is grossly inadequate. To overcome the limitations of public funding, most institutions with some exceptions have raised their tuition fees in recent years. (These exceptions are mainly federally funded universities and colleges and institutions in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh provinces.) A majority of new universities and colleges in India are financially independent of the government. The overall trend is toward a larger share of funding from non-government sources a trend which makes higher education increasingly expensive, putting it beyond the reach of the poor. With rising tuition fees, ensuring equitable access for students from poor families is now a major challenge. Students from poor households are further disadvantaged since they are not academically prepared to pass highly competitive entrance examinations that are biased toward urban elite and rich students who have access to private tuitions and coaching. As a result, while the relatively well-off students have access to the highly subsidized and better regarded public institutions, the poor are left to private providers. To ensure that higher education is affordable, the government regulates the fees in the private institutions. However due to loopholes in fee regulations and its poor compliance, the private providers usually find ways to charge exorbitant fees without repercussions. Although the country has consistently supported access over quality, schemes for providing financial aid to poor students are grossly inadequate. Though higher education in India has expanded steadily over the years and now has a large base, it has relatively few quality institutions. The standards are extremely heterogeneous with a tiny number of high-quality institutions at the top, a small number of institutions of reasonable quality in the middle, and a large base of substandard and non-viable institutions. Weak regulatory mechanisms, inconsequential accreditation systems, and financial constraints are the main bottlenecks. Addressing these issues requires strategic interventions at many levels. However, public policy is driven in different directions by key players, with the result that a well-thought-out strategy is not yet in sight. In these circumstances, higher ed86

INDIA IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

ucation in India continues to grow in a chaotic and unplanned manner. While its expansion addresses concerns of capacity and relevance in some way, it has presented new challenges relating to quality, equity, and exploitation. These developments have implications for international student circulation. Many of the new private institutions offer excellent infrastructure and facilities that are alluring to students with the capacity to pay. As a result, an average foreign university is likely to face stiff competition in recruiting Indian students. At the same time, the capacity of quality higher education institutions is limited; bright students find it easier to get a place in a well-reputed institution abroad. Furthermore, overall standards of graduate education and research, particularly in science and engineering are poor, further encouraging serious graduate students to go abroad. A related development is that Indian students have also changed considerably. Though a large number of Indian students still dream of education abroad, they are discerning, critically evaluating offers and options. A foreign degree is no longer considered irresistible in the Indian middle class. If an equally good academic option is available in India, students take it. As a comparatively new trend, students quite commonly take breaks from their education to enter the job market. Thus, developments in higher education in India and in Indian society have both negative and positive implications, resulting in interesting dynamics for students’ cross-border mobility. INDIA’S POLICIES RELATING TO INTERNATIONALIZATION

While the ancient Indian universities like Nalanda (ca. first to fourth century A.D.) hosted students and scholars from such foreign countries as Nepal, Tibet, China, and Korea, modern universities in India have concentrated on meeting the growing domestic demand for higher education. Indian higher education has been conventionally inward looking. During the post-independence period, attracting foreign students was considered important in public diplomacy. The Indian Council for Cultural Relations, an autonomous organization set up in 1950, facilitated exchanges by scholars and academicians. During 2005, this council offered more than 700 scholarships under various schemes to foreign students. Many Indian universities realize that the exchange of students and academics enriches the teaching-learning process and enhances the relevance and quality of research in higher education. They enter into a variety of arrangements with universities abroad for faculty/student exchanges. To reinforce this trend, the government has also entered into several bilateral exchange programs in higher education with other countries, coordinated by the University Grants Commission. The 2004–2005 academic year saw as many as 44 exchange programs, though not all actually had exchanges, with the result that only 26 foreign scholars visited India and 42 Indian scholars went abroad. UGC also ran a program to appoint teachers in Indian universities to teach foreign languages – 22 in 2004–2005. Two scholars were awarded French Gov87

P. AGARWAL

ernment Scholarships during 2004–2005 to conduct research in French language, literature, culture, and civilization. Seven Indian scholars visited France under the Social Scientists Exchange Program during 2004-2005, and five French scholars visited India. Thirty-seven Indian scholars visited the United Kingdom in 2004, funded by Commonwealth Academic Staff Fellowship Awards. It is evident that the scale and scope of such exchanges has been rather limited. The Changing Policy Environment A few universities such as the Delhi University and Bangalore University have a long tradition of recruiting foreign students to provide a multicultural and multiethnic ambience on their campuses. The presence of international students in the studentbody was considered essential to ensure the holistic education that provided multiple perspectives to students. Still, it was only recently that policy documents made specific references to higher education’s internationalization. The concept is missing from both the Education Commission Report (1966) and the National Policy on Education (1986). For the first time the UGC’s 10th five-year plan (2000) pronounced a specific policy: “In the context of [the] globalization of higher education, it is necessary to evolve a policy to promote the free flow of students from other nations to India as well as allow Indian students to get educated in other countries.” This policy reflects the country’s explicit desire to attract a larger number of foreign students. It is commonly held that such students would bring valuable revenues and greater competitiveness to the Indian higher education system. Since 2000, the government has taken several steps to promote Indian higher education abroad, particularly focusing on attracting a larger number of foreign students. A committee was appointed to formulate a strategy to promote Indian higher education abroad. The UGC took up a nationally coordinated initiative – the Promotion of Indian Higher Education Abroad. Educational Consultants (India) Limited, a public-sector undertaking of the government, was authorized as a single window agency to recruit international students for some of India’s most prestigious engineering institutions with an arrangement called the Direct Admission of Students from Abroad. The government has allowed all higher education institutions to allow international students to the extent of 15% over and above their normal instake. The government has liberalized the granting of student visas, making the procedure simple and student-friendly. Indian embassies have been authorized to grant student visas for up to five years without a prior reference to the government. It has also waived the former requirement of a “no objection certificate” from the Ministry of Human Resource Development1 for admission to diploma, degree, and graduate programs in engineering and technology, architecture and town planning, pharmacy, applied arts, master’s of business administration, master’s of computer applications, and hotel management and catering technology, among others. 1 However, “no objections certificates” are still required from the Ministry of Health for admission to a medical or paramedical course.

88

INDIA IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

Also in 2000, after a gap of nearly 16 years, the government ratified the convention on recognizing studies, diplomas, and degrees in higher education in Asia and the Pacific that had been adopted at the International Conference of the States of the Asia and Pacific Region held December 16, 1983. This convention had the goal of promoting academic and professional mobility. The Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs introduced scholarships (100 higher education slots) for diaspora children to study in India beginning in 2006–2007. This program is aimed at enhancing India’s engagement with its diaspora in developing countries. The government also withdrew the requirement to seek prior government approval to enter academic partnerships with institutions abroad in 2004 on the grounds that such a requirement interfered in the working of institutions of higher learning. India’s universities are now at liberty to enter into memoranda of understanding with counterparts abroad. There are however, specific guidelines for inviting foreign scholars, for conducting international workshops and conferences, and for engaging in research projects and bilateral programs. These initiatives have helped arrest the declining trend in the number of foreign students coming to study in India. It has sent a clear message to higher education institutions about the desirability of recruiting international students. However, a well-thought-out strategy and an effective action plan are still required before India can become an important host country. There are still many gray areas in policy and gaps in its implementation. India has yet to position its higher education as a distinct brand. There is also a need for a credible source of information for the prospective international students. Information dissemination and promotion efforts need to be strengthened. Teaching methods have to be modernized. New technologies should be deployed to make contact teaching more effective. Academic programs have to be restructured to make them globally compatible. India certainly has the potential to emerge as an important host country. It is favorably located in Asia, a continent that contributes more than 50% of the globe’s mobile students. Its huge system of higher education offers a wide choice of locations and climates. It uses English as the medium for instruction, an added advantage. Tuition fees are a fraction of the alternatives, and living costs are very low. In short, the policy environment toward the internationalization of higher education in India is now favorable; and there are huge opportunities waiting. Yet an effective action plan and implementation are required to seize that opportunity.

FOREIGN PROVIDERS: ISSUES AND CONCERNS

Sensing a huge unmet demand for higher education evident from a large number of Indian students going abroad for studies, many foreign institutions began operations in India over the past decade. Usually these are small, partnered with domestic providers, and peripheral to domestic provision. These institutions meet niche demands created by the growing global mobility of graduates and the importance of 89

P. AGARWAL

a foreign degree for people aspiring to global careers. Many aspirants earn foreign degrees in India because the cost is lower than the same degree earned elsewhere. In most cases, domestic institutions link with foreign universities to circumvent India’s burdensome regulatory system since, at present, foreign providers are outside the jurisdiction of India’s regulatory system. In 2005, I guided a study for the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry on student perceptions (FICCI, 2006). The findings indicated that the practical, market-oriented nature of programs, flexible curricula and examinations, attractive evaluation systems, and good job prospects constitute the main factors that have led to the growing enrollments in foreign-degree programs. There has been no comprehensive survey of foreign providers of higher education in India, but two recent studies give a general sense of the extent of foreign providers in India. The first is a study by the National Institute of Education Planning and Administration (NIEPA) in 2005. The NIEPA study identified 131 foreign education providers enrolling several thousand students but did not find any offshore campus of a foreign university and only two franchise operations by foreign providers. The remainder were programmatic collaborations or twinning arrangements, in which part of the course work is done in the home country and part abroad. Sixty-six partnerships were with US universities and 59 with UK universities. Business management and hotel management constituted approximately 80% of these programs. The NIEPA study further found that, out of these 131 institutions, 107 were providing professional programs, 19 technical programs, and only 5 general education programs. Among the professional programs, hotel management and business administration programs were most popular. Maharashtra has the largest number of programs in hotel management, while Delhi has the largest number of programs in business management (Bhushan, 2005). A further analysis of 50 of these partnerships shows that the largest number of programs (around 30), were offered under twinning arrangements. Thus, foreign institutions are increasingly using this strategy to attract international students to their own countries. For the students, twinning arrangements offer a relatively cheap option, since part of the program is completed in India. The next most popular form is programmatic collaborations (18), consisting of joint-degree programs. Indian partners design the programs with input from foreign institutions and get the brand name of a foreign university. For the second study, between July and December 2000, Powar and Bhalla (2001) scanned advertisements that appeared in 14 national newspapers and identified 144 foreign providers in India. However, only 27 were actually offering programs in India, predominantly in management and engineering. The other institutions were marketing their home institutions to recruit Indian students. The largest numbers of advertisers were from the United Kingdom (37%) followed by Australia (28%), the United States (17%), Canada (5%), and others (13%: New Zealand, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Hong Kong, Ireland, Mauritius, Nepal, Romania, Russia, and Switzerland). Rather alarmingly, 46 of these foreign providers (including those recruiting Indian students for their home campuses) were not recognized or accred90

INDIA IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

ited in their own countries, and 23 of the 26 Indian partners were not affiliated with any Indian university. This finding indicates that they had entered the academic field primarily for commercial purposes. Recently, I (Agarwal, 2006b) collected data from the British Council at New Delhi on UK-based universities offering programs in India, either alone or in partnership with an Indian institution. Twelve are offering or are in the process of offering joint programs with Indian partner institutions, two at the undergraduate level and the remainder as graduate programs. While many of the programs are in the hospitality sector, some are in business administration, computing, nursing, and fashion design. Collectively, these programs enroll about 5,000 students. Overall, the information on the size and scope of foreign presence in India is sketchy and, given the absence of registration requirements, is likely to continue showing many discrepancies and information gaps. For example, the Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee compiled information for its 38 member-institutions on their transnational activities and found that Australian institutions were offering 41 programs in India in May 2003 (Garrett & Verbik, 2004), even though the NIEPA (2005) study suggested that the number was much lower. Notwithstanding these discrepancies, there is clearly a small but growing number of foreign institutions operating in India. Currently an estimated 15,000 students are enrolled in 150-odd programs offered by foreign providers, either alone or in partnership with Indian institutions. These figures are not significant given India’s overall higher education enrollment of around 10.5 million. Still, the impact of foreign institutions on issues relating to maintaining academic standards and curbing exploitation in higher education cannot be ignored. All of these programs are offered by second- or third-tier institutions for a profit motive. A recent survey has found that 46 of these 144 providers were not accredited and recognized in their own countries. Several foreign providers, such as Sylvan Learning Systems, Carnegie Mellon University (Pittsburg), and the Illinois Institute of Technology (Chicago) that entered India over the last few years, terminated their operations for non-viability. Foreign education providers are usually interested in selling their courseware, some of which is copyrighted. Even big and reputable providers seldom make a major investment in a foreign country. In light of this experience, noted educationist M. Anandakrishnan (2006) calls hopes for foreign direct investment in higher education in India “a misleading mirage that disregards reality.” Interestingly, many Indian institutions have set up operations abroad. These operations cater to the local students in the host country and also serve students from India. These institutions are mostly in Singapore, Dubai, and Malaysia, countries that aspire to become regional education hubs and which admit large numbers of students from India. Many people view these initiatives as a way of bypassing burdensome higher education regulations in India and relate them to the domestic policy environment for private higher education in the country. The issues of quality assurance and recognizing qualifications offered by Indian institutions abroad have not surfaced so far. But as their numbers increase, they will become critical.

91

P. AGARWAL

Concerns and Policy At present, foreign institutions can enter the country through what is called “the automatic route” under rules framed by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board, thus allowing them to operate outside India’s domestic regulatory framework for higher education. From time to time, concerns have been raised that they are fly-bynight operations engaging in dubious practices. The High Court at Madras in Writ Petition No. 11416 (1997) to these operations for violations of the country’s constitutional and statutory provisions. The foreign providers argued that that they are merely preparing students for the university’s external examinations and that they were not granting degrees. The central government admitted that ambiguity existed in the legal arrangements on the issue and informed the court that a regulatory framework for their operation is under consideration. Now, after 10 years, the government has sponsored “The Foreign Educational Institutions (Regulation of Entry and Operation, Maintenance of Quality and Prevention of Commercialization) Bill.” Its key features are (a) foreign universities must guarantee that no distinction will be made between degrees granted through their on-campus programs and international programs; (b) foreign universities will preferably operate in collaboration with reputed Indian universities; (c) the UGC is empowered to regulate the fees of foreign universities and have powers of sanctions and remedial action to effectively monitor their operations in India. While these three provisions have been under discussion since 1997, a few new features have been added. Foreign providers must follow a system of quota-based reservation in admissions; the government will regulate their fees; they must maintain a corpus of 10 million rupees; and they must not be objected to from the embassy or high commission of their home country. The draft bill has been referred to a group of ministers for review before being introduced in Parliament. It is left to the creativity of this group to craft a suitable regulatory system for the operation of foreign institutions in the country. Differences of opinion exist on these issues among academics, educational experts, and political parties. Despite the fairly strict regulatory regime envisaged in the draft, some political parties claim that the entry of foreign providers will injure India’s cultural sensitivities and educational ethos, while others believe that the entry of foreign providers will enhance national capacity and provide more options to Indian students. They also claim that prestigious overseas institutions are waiting for regulations to change before they invest in India. In a recent study, I conclude that both the potential gains from liberalization and many apprehensions about it are overstated (Agarwal, 2006b). The country requires a proper and predictable regulatory regime for the operation of foreign institutions in India. An effective check on fly-by-night operations and measures to safeguard cultural sensitivities and protect educational ethos is required. At the same time, regulatory arrangements must facilitate the entry of quality foreign institutions. A proper balance must be found for the extent of government control on operations of foreign education providers.

92

INDIA IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

The proposed regulations, if implemented effectively, would deter substandard providers from operating in India and remove uncertainty relating to their operations. One cannot, however, be certain whether such regulations would encourage reputable foreign universities to set up their operations in India.2 Top-tier institutions such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University, Stanford, Yale, and Princeton seem interested only in collaborating in research and development, faculty exchange, in conducting summer schools, and so on. They usually prefer to enroll foreign students on their own campuses but not offer degree programs abroad. Such institutions may require encouragement to set up their campuses in India and have the process facilitated. Since this is unlikely to happen, the extent of presence of foreign providers in India will probably remain small and at the margins of its large system of higher education. This status would not have any significant impact on international student circulation.

THE CROSS-BORDER MOBILITY OF STUDENTS

In the Indian context, the cross-border movement of students has a long history. Ancient Indian universities were known to welcome both students and scholars from abroad. During the medieval period, European universities served as centers of discourse for traveling students and scholars. In the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries, most European countries hosted students from their colonies. In recent years, economic considerations have become the weightiest impetus for academic mobility (Powar, 2003). Within the constraints of reliable data on student mobility in a global context, this section analyzes both inward and outward student mobility where India is concerned. Outward Mobility India is primarily known as a source country for globally mobile students. Indian students are the second largest pool of international students after China – more than 5% of the total. In the mid-1990s, the primary destination for Indians seeking foreign degrees was the United States, with the United Kingdom as the secondary destination. Now countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Ireland are wooing Indian students, joined, in just the last few years, by Britain again. Although the major destination countries for Indian students continue to be English-speaking, even non-English-speaking countries sponsor selected programs in English to attract international students. Examples are top hotel management schools in Switzerland; leading business management institutes in France, the Netherlands, and Japan; and medical institutes in China, Russia, Eastern Europe, and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Even countries like Malaysia, Sweden, Cyprus, and South Africa are now actively wooing Indian students (see Figure 2). 2 Georgia Tech (USA) has been scouting for locations in Singapore, China, and India at which to set up a full-fledged campus; but its location team, on a recent visit to India, was discouraged by the lukewarm and vague response.

93

P. AGARWAL

Figure 2. Number of Indian students in host countries, 2004–2005. Source: The author’s compilation from country-level data. Table 1. Trends in outward mobility from India. Country United States Australia United Kingdom Singapore Germany Canada New Zealand Malaysia France Other countries Total

1999–2000 39,084 4,578 3,829 800 1,282 867 201 91 185 2,500 53,417

2000–01

2001–02

2002–03

2004–05

47,411 6,195 4,649 1,100 1,412 1,200 355 714 239 3,200 66,475

66,836 9,539 6,817 1,500 2,196 1,800 952 497 309 4,000 94,446

74,603 11,707 11,707 2,200 3,429 2,200 1,800 1,000 625 5,000 116,564

80,446 26,548 20,000 4,000 4,500 3,000 3,000 1,500 1,200 6,000 150,194

Source: OECD-UNESCO Institute of Statistics and EUROSTAT Database. The 2004– 2005 data are from other sources and my estimates.

The last five years have seen a rapid growth in the outward mobility of students from India (see Table 1). While the number of students going to the United States and the United Kingdom has flattened, the number of those going to Australia continues to rise, though rather slowly, and even non-English-speaking countries are competing for Indian students. Countries like the United States, Germany, and more recently Britain concentrate on attracting high-quality graduate and research students, but most other countries focus on undergraduate students or target students looking for management programs. A growing number of Indian students are partly or wholly financing their own higher education abroad. 94

INDIA IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

Many countries are now organizing annual education fairs at different locations in India to woo students aspiring to study abroad. More than 80 universities from the United Kingdom participated in the 2006 education fair. More than 100 recognized institutions from 25 European Union countries took part in another education fair in November 2006 at New Delhi. France has declared that India was among its top 12 priority countries for education and cultural cooperation. Germany and France offer courses entirely in English or with linguistic adaptation targeted at Indian students. Some foreign universities have set up liaison offices in India. A few countries work though education agents to recruit students. In short, universities are currently engaging in organized activities to recruit international students.

ANALYSIS BY COUNTRY

Indian students form a large part of the overall pool of international students in the United States. For the fifth consecutive year in 2005–2006, the United States was the target destination for the greatest number of Indian students, and India also sent the most students to the United States of any country. In the academic year 2004–2005, 80,466 students (14.2% of all international students) from India were studying in the United States. Though the number declined marginally during 2005-2006, it is still greater by 14% than the 2001–2002 level of 66,836. Despite this slow-down, India continues to maintain its lead position mainly because the number of students from China has fallen steeply. A majority of Indian students in the United States are studying at the graduate level. In 2004–2005, 72.1% were graduate students, while only 20.4% were undergraduates; the remaining 7.5% were taking other programs. The major subjects for these Indian students are information technology, public health, health administration, and engineering. In addition, 7,755 Indian faculty and researchers other than students, even those pursuing Ph.D. programs (14% more than the previous year) were pursuing research in 350 of the largest doctoral degree-granting institutions in the United States (Open Doors, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006). In 2004–2005, 20,000 Indians were students in the United Kingdom, an increase of nearly 14% over the previous year. Although substantially less than the number of students from China, India (among the non-EU countries) sends the second highest number of students to the United Kingdom. The colonial links and a large Indian diaspora (more than a million Indians) help the United Kingdom attract a large number of Indian students. Faced with financial constraints, UK universities now recruit full-fee-paying international students. The most popular subjects for study are, in rough order: management and business studies, engineering (led by electronic and electrical engineering), information technology, multi-media studies, law, medicine, and science (led by the biosciences). Australia started recruiting Indian students in the early 1990s. Since then, Indian students’ interest in Australia as a destination increased rapidly from fewer than

95

P. AGARWAL

1,000 students in 1990 to around 10,500 in 2000 and 26,548 in 2005.3 Before 2002, the majority of Indian students went to Australia for vocational education and training programs. Now there is a large demand from Indian students for graduate studies in Australia. Top subjects of choice for study are information technology, information systems, business management, accounting, commerce, and engineering. Australia has recruited Indian students through education agents who have established the voluntary, self-regulating Association of Australian Education Representatives in India. It has a code of ethical practice that includes a schedule of maximum fees that can be charged to students. Other popular English-speaking destinations for Indian students are Canada, New Zealand, and Ireland. Canada attracts Indian students for undergraduate studies. The number of student visas for Canada increased by 70% from 1,226 in 2001 to 2,092 in 2002. New Zealand has also emerged rapidly as a popular destination for Indian students over the past few years. Currently about 3,000 Indians study in New Zealand compared to 300 students four years ago. Ireland also attracts graduate students from India. The primary non-English-speaking destinations for Indian students are Germany, France, and now China. Germany has been successful in increasing its number of Indian graduate students from 1,282 in 1999–2000 to 3,429 in 2002– 2003 and to about 4,500 in 2007. The number of Indians studying in Germany remains relatively low, since Germany is looking for only the very best research students and is wrongly perceived as not providing study options in English. France started attracting Indian students in 1998 by publicizing its Englishlanguage courses. The number of student visas to France increased from 450 in 2001 to more than 600 in 2002 and about 1,000 currently. Nearly 800 Indian students are pursuing higher education in China, mainly in medicine. Chinese authorities have actively pursued the recognition of qualifications from Chinese institutions in India. Education delegations come annually from China to recruit Indian students. Russia, countries of Eastern Europe, and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) are other non-English-speaking countries that are attracting Indian students in specific areas of study. Inward Mobility Apart from being an important country of origin of international students, India also hosts students from about 125 countries. The sending countries consist of (a) developed countries that are technologically advanced, economically strong, and well equippted with good facilities for higher education and training (e.g., the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, countries of the European Union, and Japan); and (b) less-developed and developing countries with limited facilities for higher education (see Table 2). 3 The 2005 figure was in a personal communication from the Australian High Commission at New Delhi.

96

INDIA IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION Table 2. Regional distribution of international students in India, 2003–2004. Region South and Central Asia North Africa and Middle East Sub-Saharan Africa Southeast Asia North America East Asia European Union (EU) Oceania Europa (Other than EU) Central America and Caribbean Latin America and Caribbean Miscellaneous Country-wise break up N.A Total

Number of Students

Percent (%)

3,812 2,702 1,942 1,609 521 269 151 58 53 16 13 625 492

31.1 22.0 15.8 13.1 4.2 2.3 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 5.2 4.0

12,263

100.0

Source: Combined dataset from the University Grants Commission and Association of Indian Universities

An estimated 12,263 international students were studying in higher education institution in India in 2003–2004.4 Accommodating the gaps in the estimate and given an annual estimated growth of around 8% annually, this number stands at 17,500 in 2005–2006. More than 90% of these students come from developing countries in Asia (two-thirds) and Africa (one-fourth), with the remaining 8% from other countries. In terms of regional distribution, south and Central Asia lead, with more than 30%. Around 20% are from North Africa and the Middle East. There are fewer students from Latin America and the Caribbean. As evident from Figure 3, Nepal sends the highest numbers of students for higher education to India. Other countries that send a significant number of students to Indian universities are Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Kenya. The remaining seven countries are Sri Lanka, Iran, Mauritius, Ethiopia, the United States, and Oman that collectively contribute about 55% of all international students in India. Almost half of the international students come from low-income countries and one fourth from upper-middle-income countries. The percentage of students coming from high-income countries was insignificant. More than three-fourths of all the international students were enrolled in general programs in arts, sciences, and commerce. Figure 4 shows that the greatest number of students (28.5%) were in the arts faculty, followed by the sciences (25.8%). While about 72.53% students were in undergraduate programs, 17.8% stu4 I derived these estimates by combining data for 82 universities collected by the Association of Indian Universities (AIU) for 2003–2004 with projected data from 83 other universities collected by the UGC (2005) for 2001–2002. Out of 308 universities that existed in 2003–2004, 109 universities reported no international students, and 34 universities did not respond.

97

P. AGARWAL

Figure 3. Top 10 countries of origin of international students in India, 2003–2004. Source: My estimates, based on data from the Association of Indian Universities (AIU) and the University Grants Commission.

Figure 4. International students in India by faculty, 2003–2004. Source: My estimates based on data from the Association of Indian Universities and the University Grants Commission.

dents were enrolled in graduate programs. Twenty-eight percent of all international students were women. The number of students from advanced countries is small. They come mainly for short-term study-abroad programs. Such programs are aimed at providing students with cross-cultural experience that will help them to compete in the global economy. Many advanced nations have instituted policies to encourage their students to study abroad. Study-abroad programs are particularly popular in the United States. In 2003–2004, 191,321 US students studied abroad, an increase of 9.6% from the previous year (Open Doors, 2005). A large number (64% in 2003–2004) of US students go to Western Europe and Australia, although there is now a growing interest in non-traditional destinations in Asia and Africa. India is becoming a popular destination due to its newfound position in the global knowledge economy. The number of American students coming to India has increased sharply from 703 98

INDIA IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

in 2002–2003 to 1,767 in 2004–2005. Although this increase is significant, yet compared to the potential, the number is still too small – only about a quarter of the number of US students that go to China (Open Doors, 2005, 2006). Analysis by Institution Over 60% of all international students are enrolled in just 10 out of 274 universities that reported enrolling international students. Similarly, in the United States, 54% of all international students are enrolled in just 146 out of 2,042 institutions that reported international student enrollment. These 10 institutions are a mix of both public and private institutions. In 2003–2004, the largest number attended the Manipal Academy of Higher Education (2,031), followed by Bangalore University (1778), then the University of Pune (1,416) followed by the University of Delhi (1,077). International students prefer to join educational institutions located in large cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, and Pune. They join colleges located in smaller towns only for professional programs. As expected, the international student population in India is not evenly distributed over the country or in the various disciplines. Students prefer India’s western (especially Maharashtra) and southern regions, which have a more congenial social and cultural environment. While the Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Bharati Vidyapeeth, and Symbiosis at Pune are deemed to be private universities that are actively recruiting international students, publicly funded universities and colleges have generally adopted the more conservative approach of cooperating in research and academic development. Notable exceptions are the University of Pune, Bangalore University, and the University of Delhi. These universities have a long tradition of attracting international students to their main campuses and to many of the prestigious colleges affiliated with them. In general, privately funded universities – particularly those “deemed-to-be” universities – have a more enterprising approach. Many private institutions are internationalizing their operations, presumably for financial gain, by aggressively recruiting international students (mostly students of Indian origin) and also by entering into twinning arrangements. In the future, inward mobility is expected to be largely driven by private institutions in India. Trends over Time While the overall status of international students in India has been analyzed on the basis of the combined dataset for 2003–2004, data for the last 15 years is available only from the Association of Indian Universities. Therefore, I have performed time series analyses using the AIU dataset. The findings show that, between 1988–1989 and 2003–2004, the number of international students coming to India steadily increased during the first half of the 1990s, peaking at more than 13,000 students in 1993–1994. Thereafter, it declined steadily with a pronounced drop in 1996– 1997. By 2000, the number had halved. This trend was probably because many developed countries – especially the United Kingdom and Australia – were aggres99

P. AGARWAL

sively recruiting international students, India was inactive. However, the number of international students in India increased during 2001–2002 in response to a more positive approach, suggesting a reversal of the trend. The regional pattern of inward student mobility to India (see Table 3) shows that, over the last 15 years, the inward mobility of students from South Asia remained almost the same while the number of students from Afghanistan increased. With the restoration of normalcy, this trend is bound to increase further. Central Asian countries like Uzbekistan started sending students to India in the late 1990s. The number of students coming from North Africa and the Middle East for studies has significantly declined over the last 15 years. Countries from this region like Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Somalia used to send a significant number of students to India. There has been a sharp decline in the number of students from Jordon and Sudan, though the numbers of students from Oman, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen – countries with large Indian diasporas – have shown a minor increase. There has also been a sharp fall in the number of students coming to India for studies from Sub-Saharan regions. The sharpest decline has been in the number of students coming from Kenya. There is a decline in the number of students from all countries except Mauritius (again with sizeable Indian diaspora). The number of students coming from Southeast Asia has marginally increased. While there has been a drop in students coming from Indonesia, those from Vietnam have increased. The number of students from Malaysia has remained approximately the same. They largely come to Manipal Academy for higher education under a twinning arrangement. A smaller number of students come from East Asia, Europe, and North America with a still smaller number from Latin America, Caribbean, and the Oceania. In sum, after a decline in inward mobility the number of international students coming to India is gradually increasing; however, there is a change in the nature of this flow. The numbers of students from the countries in the Middle East, East Asia, and countries with a large Indian diaspora are increasing. Private rather than wellreputed public institutions host more international students. With a large unmet domestic demand, the country faces the dilemma of whether it is actually desirable to aggressively recruit international students. Income from inward mobility is estimated at nearly US$70 million each year, less than half of 1% of India’s total annual expenditure on higher education. Though adopting the right approach, the number can easily go from fewer than 20,000 at present to around 35,000 according to forecasts for 2010 (see Table 4). This forecast, based on an optimistic scenario, takes into consideration a country’s actual and potential outbound mobility; and the numbers could rise substantially if the country creates an environment for setting up high-quality private institutions with both domestic and foreign investment. However, any country’s priority would continue to focus on the unmet domestic demand for quality higher education. India must see promoting Indian higher education abroad as a strategy to improve the quality of its own system, creating a multi-cultural ambience on Indian campuses that promotes diversity and international goodwill. By attracting bright 100

INDIA IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION Table 3. Trends in inward student mobility to India. By region/country for 1988–1989 to 2003–2004 (↑ increase; ↓ decrease; ∼ little variation). Country South Asia and Central Asia Afghanistan Bangladesh Bhutan Nepal Sri Lanka North Africa & Middle East Bahrain Egypt Iran Jordan Kuwait Oman Saudi Arabia Sudan United Arab Emirates Yemen Sub-Saharan Africa Ethiopia Kenya Nigeria Eritrea Mauritius South Africa Tanzania Uganda Somalia Southeast Asia Indonesia Malaysia Thailand Vietnam East Asia China Japan North Korea North America Europe Latin America & Caribbean Oceania Miscellaneous Total

1988–89

1993–94

1998–99

2003–04

Trend

1,855 153 252 92 912 430 4,014 115 37 553 1,247 120 1 15 1,692 26 100 4,068 455 2,332 339 0 224 114 62 31 429 1,195 106 824 187 42 47 8 19 11 157 212 35 46 215

2,329 111 736 123 909 420 3,047 134 36 338 860 28 9 38 1,294 39 184 5,827 685 4,268 84 0 296 86 82 98 132 1,693 64 1,421 152 27 114 14 34 34 247 148 12 36 254

1,604 59 461 115 574 368 739 34 5 108 80 16 74 5 245 26 100 1,847 403 639 19 7 398 16 38 196 32 468 106 37 197 88 153 28 38 44 117 104 7 32 238

1,585 25 320 174 690 355 1,771 160 3 472 51 85 183 108 188 233 222 1,650 351 454 17 49 370 25 56 53 54 1,386 54 806 244 202 218 31 45 84 453 121 27 42 544

∼ ↓ ∼ ↑ ↓ ∼ ↓↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓↓ ↑ ↑ ↓↓ ↓ ↓↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ∼ ∼ ↓ ∼ ↓ ∼ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ∼ ∼ ∼ ↓

11,844

13,707

5,323

7,830

↓

Source: Association of Indian Universities (AIU)

101

P. AGARWAL Table 4. Forecast for inward mobility of students to India by 2010. OMR – Outbound Mobility Ratio; GOER – Gross Outbound Enrollment Ratio. Country

OutOMR GOER Top Five Destination Countries bound % % Students

To India Forecast Range over in 2010 15 Years

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

South Asia & Central Asia Bangladesh 13,156 1.5

0.1

252–320

1500

Bhutan

620

...

...

92–174

300

Nepal

7,658

5.2

0.3

912-690

2000

Sri Lanka

9,203

...

0.5

USA (3,198), Australia (2,950), UK (1,721), Cyprus (1,633), Japan (958) India (227), Australia (118), Malaysia (105), USA (63), Thailand (28) USA (4,384), India (801), Australia (616), UK (394), Japan (343) UK (2,267), Australia (2,117), USA (1,964), Japan (615), India (391)

430–355

2000

–

2500

Other countries in the Region Subtotal

8300

North Africa and Middle East Iran 17,254 0.9 0.2 Jordan

6,942

3.7

1.3

Oman

4,283

12.7

1.6

Sudan

2,886

1.4

0.1

UAE

4,384

6.4

1.4

Yemen

6,446

3.4

0.3

Germany (5,323), USA (2,321), France (1,441), UK (1,436), Italy (694) USA (1,853), UK (1,151), Germany (996), Saudi Arabia (438), Moldova (280) UK (1,495), Jordan (913), USA (445), Malaysia (401), Australia (398) Germany (542), UK (354), Malaysia (323), USA (279), Saudi Arabia (245) UK (1,633), USA (1,248), Australia (859), Ireland (113), India (68) SaudiArabia (2,797), Jordan (1,390), Malaysia (480), UK (464), USA (284)

Other countries in the region

108–472

1500

1247–51

500

1–183

1000

1692–188

500

26–233

500

100–222

500

–

2500

Subtotal

7000

Sub Saharan Africa Ethiopia 3,332

1.9

...

Kenya

14,123

13.0

0.4

Mauritius

7,224

40.6

7.0

Uganda

2,454

2.8

0.1

Tanzania

3,907

9.1

0.1

Other countries in the region

USA (1,060), Germany (566), UK (263), India (225), Norway (163) USA (7,381), UK (3,083), Australia (1,115), India (521), Canada (341) France (1,893), South Africa (1,732), UK (1,646), Australia (860), India (366) UK (885), USA (696), Germany (121), India (93), Tanzania (82) USA (1,471), UK (1,053), South Africa (283), Australia (119), Germany (115)

455–351

1000

2332–454

1500

224–370

1000

196–53

500

62–56

500

–

Subtotal

3500 8000

East Asia Malaysia

40,884

6.5

1.9

Vietnam

15,817

1.9

0.2

Other countries in the region

Australia (16,094), UK (11,806), USA (6,483), 1421–806 Japan (1,841), New Zealand (831) USA (3,165), France (2,950), Australia (2,619), 42–202 Germany (2,006), Japan (1,340) –

2000 2500 3500

Subtotal Other countries in other regions

8000 5000

Grand Total

36300

Source: For Columns 1 to 5 Global Education Digest 2006, UNESCO; For Column 6 AIU (India) and Column 7, estimates by author

102

INDIA IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

students for graduate study and research, India will be able to fuel innovation and enterprise in the higher education system as experienced by several advanced countries, particularly the United States.

STUDENT CIRCULATION: CRITICAL ISSUES

Many issues are critical to understanding the dynamics of international student circulation. The status and prospects of students’ cross-border circulation in the Indian context is linked to several issues. Of particular significance are those related to skill migration (brain drain), trade liberalization and investment, and cross-border quality assurance and the mutual recognition of degrees. Further, student mobility responds to a variety of push and pull factors. Skill Migration and Brain Drain Growing evidence suggests a close relationship between students’ and researchers’ mobility and skill migration. Students from developing countries study in advanced countries partly for reasons related to migration. According to the National Science Foundation in the United States, since the mid-1990s, about 6,500–7,000 foreign students earning US science or engineering doctorates plan to stay in the United States after graduation. By 2000, more than half of those holding US doctorates in engineering and more than 45% of doctorates in the physical sciences, computer sciences, and life sciences were foreign born. Some 25% of H1B-visa holders had previously been enrolled in the US universities (Cervantes & Guellec, 2002). A number of countries now use the “academic gate” approach to lure talent. The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Australia, New Zealand, and an increasing number of advanced countries now attract international students, train them in the local higher educational institutions, and enable them to find employment in the host country through adjustments in student visa and employment regulations. Advanced nations make use of their reputation as centers for higher education and research to attract highly meritorious students from around the world. Increasingly, other countries such as Singapore are aiming to become global educational hubs to tap the pool of self-selected students for future employment. The migration of skills is driving the cross-border movement of students, and a global labor market is emerging for skilled people. These developments offer an opportunity for India. Bhagwati (2004) points out, that for a country like India with a large population and a huge capacity to generate skilled professionals both at home and abroad, the out-migration of professionals is an opportunity and not a threat. Richard Freeman (2005) observes that a country like India with its large population and sizeable pool of scientists and engineers could threaten the North’s monopoly in high-tech sectors by producing innovative products and services. He refers to this possibility for countries like India as human resource “leapfrogging.” According to trends in international migration, those migrating from India to North America and Europe are mostly high-skilled workers. The number of im103

P. AGARWAL

migrants from India declined in the late 1990s but began to rise again in 2000 and 2001. This recent increase is due, to some extent, to the US’s increase in its annual intake from India. From 42,046 in 2000, this number grew to 70,290 in 2001, according to figures from the US Immigration and Naturalization Service. Of the 201,079 people who entered the United States in 2001–2002 on H1B visas, 90,668 came from India. A vast majority of them (77,355) were in computer-related activities (OECD, 2005). High-paying information-technology enterprises have sprung up in large numbers in India, apparently reducing the pull of developed countries. Those seeking to settle abroad permanently are much fewer than those undertaking temporary migration. According to research findings of the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC, 2002), the “brain drain” from India to Silicon Valley has been transformed into a more complex, two-way process of “brain circulation” that links Silicon Valley to information technology hubs at Bangaluru, Hyderabad, or Kolkata. According to this study, a majority of Indian immigrants in Silicon Valley seriously planned to start businesses in India in the future. The findings further suggested that foreign investment, at least in the high-technology sector, is strongly motivated by the availability of skilled labor. Signs of reverse brain drain are also visible. Foreigners or foreign citizens of Indian origin are coming in large numbers to India for short-term, work. Indian Americans settled abroad for years are returning permanently to India because many Indian companies provide the same work environment and opportunities for growth as any US firm. Such returnees include fresh graduates as well as high-level Ph.D.s (NAASCOM, 2005). These developments have redefined the concept of brain drain, now a more complex mixture of brain gain, brain circulation, and reverse brain drain. The notion of losing talent to other countries had more meaning when nations were seen as geographical bounded entities; but in a borderless world, people and ideas are not trapped by geography. A country’s well-being can be considered its talent pool spread globally, thus contributing to the country’s interests abroad and to its home economy through the infusion of funds and cutting-edge ideas. Even citizens who study abroad come back if there are opportunities. Those who stay abroad could also contribute to their home country’s welfare. Considering these factors, it is now possible that, for countries like India, students’ outward mobility may, in fact, be beneficial. It is therefore not surprising that the public policy focus in India has shifted from preventing brain drain to managing migration better by promoting the integration of the migrants in host societies. Well-managed migration can contribute to increased employment and rapid global economic growth. Migrant workers could become the nucleus of a worldwide network that can be harnessed for the home country’s development. Such networks might enable knowledge-transfer and promote new businesses in the home country. These ideas were expressed by P. Chidambaram (2005), India’s Finance Minister, at the G-20 meeting of finance ministers at Beijing in October 2005.

104

INDIA IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION TRADE LIBERALIZATION AND INVESTMENT

Many people view higher education as a big business opportunity. Estimated at US$2 trillion in 1999, it is second only to health care. They see big trade potential and huge investment opportunities in this sector. Future projections in enrollment suggest that such opportunities may actually be available. While the student enrollment will expand only modestly in advanced (OECD) countries – from 46 million at present to 51 million in 2025 – in non-OECD countries, enrollments will rise from 69 million to 255 million. A significant portion of this demand will presumably be met through cross-border provision, mainly through an increased mobility of students across borders. The OECD (2004) estimated cross-border trade in higher education at more than US$30 billion per annum in the year 2000. The United States is the biggest exporter of educational services followed by the United Kingdom, Australia, Italy, and Canada. Given this significant export interest, developed countries have been pursuing the liberalization of trade in higher education services within the framework of the General Agreement on trade in Services (GATS). Education service is one of the 12 sectors covered by the GATS and is disaggregated into five subsectors: primary, secondary, higher, adult, and other. Since most of the cross-border activity takes place in higher education, it has been identified for liberalization to promote further trade. Like other services, trade in higher education services could occur in any of the four modes: (a) program mobility, (b) student mobility, (c) institution mobility, and (d) academic mobility. Cross-border activities in higher education in these four modes have been taking place for a very long time; however, it is only recently that terms of commercial trade have been applied to it. A close scrutiny of trade volumes in financial terms shows that these numbers largely reflect income from student mobility. Therefore, most countries are aggressively pursuing policies to recruit fee-paying students. Student mobility is mainly driven by individual students making their own decisions about where to study and what to study and even paying for it. Most of the international students, particularly from India are self-funded. In general, academic mobility is politically more sensitive and commercially less significant. Most countries maintain restrictions on a horizontal basis (e.g., immigration rules that apply to all sectors of services). Mobility of academic people is largely demand driven, given the distinctiveness of their skills. Program mobility, mainly e-leaning, is technologically driven, and measures taken through government authority have limited impact. As a result, negotiations under GATS are of little significance overall except in case of institution mobility. Though government policy has limited impact on student, program, or academic mobility, it becomes important when foreign providers wish to establish a physical presence. In such cases, as discussed above, the issues and concerns are many and complex. It is not possible to look at it purely as a trade and investment opportunity. In the Indian context, foreign providers currently have an insignificant presence; under the evolving policy framework, that situation would continue. Their impact on student flows would also be minimal (Agarwal, 2006b). 105

P. AGARWAL

Still, there is a widespread public debate in India about its negotiating position on higher education under GATS. While most people from the academic community and the government ministry concerned prefer a conservative approach, India’s Ministry of Commerce would like India to be proactive in opening its higher education sector for foreign investment, presumably to enhance domestic capacity and to spur regulatory reforms in the domestic sector. At this writing, a group of ministers have crafted a bill that takes care of several areas of apprehension about the entry and regulation of foreign providers. In May 2007, several parties opposed the bill’s introduction in the Parliament.The future holds interesting developments in this sector, but until the bill is passed (if it is) uncertainty about foreign operations in India will continue. Quality Assurance and Mutual Recognition The issue relating to quality is central the higher education systems worldwide. The growing movement of students and qualified people across borders requires that quality assurance systems in various countries be compatible with each other. Academic and professional qualifications should be portable across national boundaries, but recognition systems are often complex and have many loopholes even within a country. Unscrupulous providers exploit these loopholes. The unplanned and chaotic growth of higher education in India over the past two decades has complicated this situation even further, while growing cross-border activities are now adding further complexities. A focus on quality assurance and the mutual recognition of qualifications is necessary to seize opportunities in the growing professional services trade. Growth in professional services trade would not only generate wealth for the country but also create high wage employment. India with its huge pool of qualified workers has a clear advantage. The export of professional services takes place essentially through the movement of professionals or the movement of jobs. Both for the movement of skilled workers and skilled work across borders, the credibility of the workforce’s credentials is important. Hence, both the academic and professional qualification standards should be benchmarked to global standards. There are many initiatives, both at national and international levels, to improve quality assurance systems and put in place mechanisms for the mutual recognition of qualifications across national borders. In December 2005, UNESCO and OECD jointly issued nonbinding guidelines on “Quality Provision in Cross-Border Higher Education.” The main goal of this initiative is to protect students against misleading information and low-quality provision; to make qualifications readable, transparent, and stronger in their international validity and portability; to increase the transparency and coherence of recognition procedures; and to intensify international cooperation among national quality and accreditation agencies. For global recognition of its educational quality and credentials, India needs to work toward the establishment and eventual adoption of common international standards such as the UNESCO-OECD guidelines for the recognition of academic and professional qualifications. While making domestic regulations investment106

INDIA IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

friendly and forward-looking, India needs to plug loopholes in the existing system to restore the credibility of an academic qualification from India.

PUSH AND PULL FACTORS IN STUDENT CIRCULATION

Asymmetry in the growth of higher education across countries results in differences in the opportunities available. Student flows across borders respond to these differences. The factors responsible for the flows can usually be grouped into three categories: (a) demand-pull factors that attract students to a particular country facilitating inward mobility, (b) supply-push factors that stimulate students to go abroad for study causing outward mobility, and (c) the network factors that link them. The pull and push factors usually vary with country. The three factors would not have equal weight in any individual or family situation. Further, the importance of each factor changes with time. In view of these wide variations across countries, individuals, and time period, studies based on push-pull factors are usually context specific. The demand-pull and supply-push factors are strongest at the start of a migration flow, but network factors become more important as the migration stream matures. The United States, because of its variety, greater flexibility, and better career prospects, is the favorite country of destination for Indian students. A study of push and pull factors in 2002 (Khandavilli, 2003) for Indian students in the United States showed that, in general, the pull factors (favored by 80% respondents) had more influence than push or neutral factors. The study identified limited access to prestigious institutions in India as an important push factor. Such studies are, however, rare. A wide range of educational, political, social, cultural, and economic factors operating as both push and pull factors appear in Table 5, categorized as positive, negative, or neutral. They are either increasing or decreasing in significance; they may also be nonsignificant in a given country’s context. Push Factors The first push factor is India’s large and growing unmet demand for higher education. This unmet demand creates conditions that encourage students to leave. The number of quality institutions is small and such institutions are highly selective, pushing even meritorious students to study abroad. A second push factor is the many examples of Indians with foreign qualifications who are doing well professionally, creating role models for prospective students. Hence, positive past experience with outward mobility has increased the number of students who wish to go abroad, although the lure of a foreign degree is diminishing somewhat. Third, high human resource capacity and the Indian institutions that have entered strategic alliances with foreign providers through twinning arrangements have increased student flows. The expansion of the private sector, the presence of foreign providers, and the availability of distance education opportunities negatively impact outward mobility. 107

P. AGARWAL Table 5. Push/pull factors in international students’ circulation in the Indian context. More significant (++); less significant (+); Neutral (/); less significant (–); More significant (– –); Increasing ↑; Decreasing ↓. A. Educational Factors Push Factors (Ps)

Type Trend Pull Factors (Pl)

1. Unmet Demand for Higher Education 2. Basic Human Resource Capacity 3. Ranking/Status Higher Education 4. Enhanced Value of a Foreign Degree 5. Selectiveness of Domestic Higher Education 6. Availability of Distance Education 7. Increasing Presence of Private Providers 8. Increasing Presence of Foreign Providers 9. Experience with International Mobility 10. Strategic Alliances with Foreign Partners

++ + – + ++ – –– – ++ +

↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑

Higher Education Opportunities System Compatibility Ranking/Status Higher Education Enhanced Value of National Degree Diversity of the H.E. System Absorptive capacity of H.E. Active Recruitment Policy Cost of Study (Low-cost) Existing Stock of National Students Strategic Alliances with Home Partners

Type Trend + + + + + + + + + +

↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

B. Political/Social/Cultural Factors Push Factors (Ps) 1. Linguistic Affinity 2. Cultural and Religious Affinity 3. Political Instability 4. Regional Unity 5. Information Isolation 6. Emigration Policies 7. Strategic Alliances

Type Trend Pull Factors (Pl) + + + + / / +

∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ↑

Language Factor Cultural Ties Colonial Ties Regional Unity Stock of Citizens of Country of Origin Immigration Policies Strategic Alliances with Home Country

Type Trend + + + + + – +

∼ ∼ ∼ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑

C. Economic Factors Push Factors (Ps) 1. Dependence on World Economy 2. Financial Capacity 3. Human Development Index Factor 4. Geographical Distance 5. Employment Opportunities on Return

Type Trend Pull Factors (Pl) + ++ + – +

↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

Import/Export levels Level of Assistance Human Development Index Factor Employment Opportunities during Study Employment Opportunities after Study

Type Trend + + + + +

↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑

But unlike the situation in China, these factors have not yet significantly impacted outward flows. Deteriorating standards of domestic provision, declining relative rankings, and the comparatively low status of much domestic higher education are pushing students to leave. Linguistic, cultural, and historical links are important factors for students selecting a country in which to study. These factors push and pull depending on the context and are not likely to change over time. A large share of student mobility occurs within a region; therefore, regional unity is an important push (and also pull) factor. Political instability drives students away and is a strong push factor. Information isolation and emigration policies could be strong negative factors, but these are insignificant in the Indian context. Strategic alliances for socio-political reasons and cultural exchange programs are potentially important and, in India 108

INDIA IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

at present, are increasing in significance at both at the national and institutional levels. Increasing students’ financial capacity to pay is a strong push factor. India has a large and growing middle class with high aspirations. This is a positive push factor that has a major effect on outward mobility. The Human Development Index and employment opportunities on return are also positive push factors, but the first is improving while the second is declining. However, employment opportunities seem to have become a less significant factor. The geographical distance to be traveled is a negative push factor; however, due to improved means of transport and communication, this factor is becoming less important. Finally, due to increasing trade, investment, and mobility of people across nations, there is growing interdependence of nations. Therefore, dependence on the world economy is both a push and a pull factor, increasingly important in driving student mobility. Pull Factors Pull factors include increasing higher education opportunities, system compatibility, the ranking and status of higher education, the enhanced value of a national degree, increasing diversity, the growing absorptive capacity of the higher education system, active recruiting, the low cost of study, the existence of a large stock of national students, and strategic educational alliances. These pull factors are all positive, promoting inward mobility in the Indian context. Various socio-cultural and political factors, such as language, cultural and colonial ties, and regional unity are positive pull factors not likely to change over time. The stock of students from potential sending countries is small except in the case of neighboring countries like Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. India’s immigration policies are restrictive and not likely to facilitate inflowing international students, although recent efforts have smoothed the past for incoming students. Strategic alliances with Indian institutions could play an important role in inward mobility. Finally, India’s economic growth, particularly from its external sector with high levels of imports and exports, may become an important pull factor for students from advanced countries; however, such students seem primarily interested only in short-study programs. The government does not provide any significant financial assistance for students from abroad. Improvement in the Human Development Index is also not likely to impact student flows. In view of India’s tight labor market, employment opportunities both during study and after graduation are too few to be a strong pull factor, although such opportunities are now increasing. In all, despite many positive pull factors, almost no negative pull factors, and general improvement, there seems little hope that India will attract very large number of globally mobile students in the near future. India’s pull factors are all weak, while its competitors have strong pulls.

109

P. AGARWAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A review of the pattern the international student circulation in the Indian context reveals a large asymmetry. While the country contributes the second largest number of students to the growing pool of mobile students in the world, sending the largest number of its students to the United States, it hosts only a small number of international students. The ratio is around eight to one. In absolute terms, flows are large; but in terms of overall enrollment in higher education, they are insignificant. Outbound mobility ratio is low at around 1%, and inbound mobility at 0.3% is still much lower. Both are less than the global average of 1.5%. In 2004–2005, the outward flow of Indian students has been estimated at more than 150,000 students, a steady increase over the recent past. There is, however, a shift in Indian students’ choice of destination countries. Although the United States continues to attract the largest number of Indian students, the number going to Australia and the United Kingdom has shown a significant growth in the recent past. Other advanced countries, including non-English-speaking countries, now attract a significant number of Indian students. Even Asian countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, and United Arab Emirates (Dubai) are emerging as popular destination countries for Indian students, painting a picture of growing diversity. With a large and growing middle class that is able to finance its own education, India attracts numerous host countries who vie with each other to attract international students in larger numbers. India’s growing unmet demand for quality education and its citizens’ increasing ability to pay will continue to keep India an important sending country, although the number of students wishing to study abroad may diminish with the expansion of higher education, particularly with an increase in private providers offering a diversity of programs to students able to pay. The number of high-quality higher education institutions in India is small, and entry is extremely difficult. Reservation quotas in quality higher education institutions would make entry to most quality institutions even more competitive, pushing more and more Indians to study abroad. The lure of careers in advanced nations creates further incentives for students to go abroad. Thus, given this dynamic situation, it is difficult to predict the future of outward mobility from India. From an analysis of supply and demand, India has a large gap in its ability to provide higher education for all who want it. Many foreign providers view this situation as an opportunity. Some have even started their operations in the country over the past decade, in partnership with domestic providers. At present, their numbers and their enrollments are small. They are outside the jurisdiction of the national regulatory system, although a regulatory framework for them is under consideration. However, these new regulations are unlikely to result in any significant growth of foreign education provision in India. Foreign providers in India are likely to remain small and at the margins of the huge system of domestic higher education. This situation would also not make any significant difference to the outward mobility of Indian students.

110

INDIA IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

Traditionally, India has attracted international students from Asia and Africa, largely with the objective of enhancing mutual understanding with countries in these regions. But India has has inward-looking policies in higher education for decades with the result that the number of students coming from neighboring countries has stagnated and the number of students from Sub-Saharan Africa has declined significantly. Since 2000, however, the government and its agencies have undertaken a number of initiatives to promote its higher education abroad. Many private institutions are leading out in attracting students from abroad. As a result, the declining trend in inward mobility has been arrested, and a modest increase in numbers has occurred. An increasing number of students is coming from East Asia and the Middle East. India has the potential of attracting a larger number of students from the neighboring countries and from countries with large Indian diasporas. India has the advantage of low living costs. Recent success in information technology has helped in creating a quality brand image for its higher education. Like Singapore, Malaysia, Dubai, and now even China, India aspires to be a global hub for quality higher education. Given these advantages and its favorable location in Asia, India has the potential to become such a hub. However, with the growing competition, India will have to make more aggressive and better organized efforts to promote and market Indian education abroad. Many inherent policy contradictions need to be resolved. Still, by adopting the right strategies, the number of international students can rise significantly from its current status of fewer than 20,000. Many Indian institutions are also establishing their presence abroad, particularly in locales with large Indian diasporas. One initiative is to bypass India’s perceived burdensome regulatory regime, thus attracting students both from the diaspora and the domestic pool. This development is likely to impact inward as well as outward mobility. The country faces many dilemmas regarding student flows. Outward mobility is usually perceived as negative because of financial loss and brain drain. A closer look, however, suggests that the outward mobility of Indian students may, in fact, be beneficial. Similarly, though inward mobility is considered desirable, the huge, unmet domestic demand for higher education means that it is neither practical nor desirable for India to pursue a highly aggressive strategy to recruit international students. To summarize then, India is an important country in the highly dynamic and rapidly expanding international education market. In the context of a globally interconnected world, it is characterized by asymmetry in flows and many dilemmas. India must define its national policy objectives clearly to benefit from increased international student circulation and growing internationalization. Given its potential, India can play an even more important role if it adopts the right approach.

111

P. AGARWAL REFERENCES Agarwal, Pawan. (2006a). Higher education in India: The need for a change. ICRIER Working Paper, No. 180. Retrieved on June 15, 2007, from www.icrier.org/publication/working_papers_180.html. Agarwal, Pawan (2006b), Higher education services and trade liberalization. In Rupa Chanda (Ed.), Trade in services and India: Prospects and strategies (pp. 299–358). New Delhi: Wiley. Bhagwati, Jagdish. (2004). In defense of globalization. New Delhi: Oxford. Bhushan, Sudhanshu. (2005). Foreign universities in India: Market-driven new directions. International Higher Education, 41, 4–5. Cervantes, M. & Guellec, D. (2002). International mobility of highly skilled workers: From statistical analysis to policy formulation. In International mobility of the highly skilled (pp. 71–98). Paris: OECD. Chidambaram, P. (2005). Quoted in Streamlined immigration policies: Chidambaram tells G-20 meet.” The Hindu, Sect. International: India & World, October 17, p. 1. Education Commission Report. (1966). Retrieved on June 15, 2007, from http://education.nic.in/ cd50years/g/T/T/0t0t0401.htm. Freeman, Richard B. (2005). Does globalization of the scientific/engineering workforce threaten US economic leadership? NBER Working Paper, No. 11457. Retrieved on June 14, 2007, from http://www.nber.org/papers/w11457. Garrett, Richard & Verbik, Line. (2004). Transnational higher education: Major markets and emerging trends. In Mapping borderless higher education: Policy, markets and competition. Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. Retrieved on January 15, 2007, from www.obhe.ac.uk/products/reports/pdf/November2003.pdf/. Khandavilli, Vijaya. (2003). Dreams on distant shores. International Educator, 12(2), 34–39. Ministry of Commerce (n.d.) GATS: An opportunity for India. Consultation paper. Retrieved on January 15, 2007, from http://commerce.nic.in/wto_sub/services/Consultation_ paper_on_Education_GATS.pdf. NASSCOM. National Association of Software and Services Company. (2005). The IT industry in India: Strategic review 2005. New Delhi: Author. National Policy on Education (1986). Retrieved on January 15, 2007, from http://www.ugc.ac.in/policy/npe86.html. OECD. Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. (2005). Trends in international migration. Paris: Author. Open Doors. (2003). International students: Leading countries of origin. Retrieved on January 15, 2007, from http://opendoors.iienetwork.org. Open Doors. (2004). International students: Leading countries of origin. Retrieved on January 15, 2007, from http://opendoors.iienetwork.org. Open Doors. (2005). International students: Leading countries of origin. Retrieved on January 15, 2007, from http://opendoors.iienetwork.org. Open Doors. (2006). International students: Leading countries of origin. Retrieved on January 15, 2007, from http://opendoors.iienetwork.org. Powar, K. B. (2003), Transnational education. In K. B. Powar & K. L. Johar (Eds.), Internationalization of higher education: Focus on India. New Delhi: Amity University Press. Powar, K. B. & Bhalla, Veena. (2001). International providers of higher education in India. International Higher Education, 23, 11–13. PPIC, Public Policy Institute of California. (2002). Silicon Valley immigrants forging local and transnational networks. Public Policy Institute of California, No 58. Retrieved on January 15, 2007, from http://www.bayareacouncil.org/atf/cf/%7B2F567EB5-67C0-4CDA-9DD3EC4A129D3322%7D/Fall2002.pdf. UGC, University Grants Commission. (2000). UGC’s vision and strategy for the 10th plan. Retrieved on January 15, 2007, www.ugc.ac.in/financialsupport/tenthplan.html. UGC, University Grants Commission. (2005). Foreign students in India: Statistics for the year 2001/02. New Delhi: Author. UNESCO. (2006). Global education digest 2006: Comparing education statistics across the world. Paris: UNESCO Institute of Statistics. UNESCO & OECD. (2005). Quality provision in cross-border higher education. Retrieved on January 15, 2007, from http://www.oecd.org/edu/internationalization/guidelines.

112

MUHAMMAD SIROZI

5. INDONESIAN EXPERIENCES IN THE GLOBAL DYNAMICS OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS’ CIRCULATION

Globalization has intersected with higher education systems in many countries in the world. It has changed the way higher education authorities see themselves and develop their programs. It has raised public expectations about higher education and put more pressure on higher education institutions to play a larger role in the development of human resource capacity. Globalization has transformed the discursive terrain within which higher education authorities develop and enact higher education policies. That terrain is increasingly informed by a range of demands for higher academic standards and ideas for internationalization. The ideas push authorities to reconsider their priorities, review their plans, shift their paradigms, and change the designs of their policies and programs as well as the fundamental condition of higher education system. In particular, globalization has intensified the circulation of people at national and international levels. At national levels, globalization has been a major driver of the increased circulation of people from regional and rural areas to metropolitan centers where they find better opportunities for education and greater possibilities of employment. At the international level, globalization has been a major driver of increased circulation of people from one country to another and from one region of the world to another for economic or educational purposes. With the availability of support from transportation, communication, and information technologies, the international circulation of people in academic work has never been greater. Academicians, especially professors, researchers, and students, are circulating at high speed from one campus to another, from one country to another, from one conference to another, and from one center to another, for a wide variety of academic related purposes. They provide cultural and academic bases for the internationalization of higher education system. In the global context, this circulation of international students not only brings international dimensions to higher education systems, but also creates new challenges and opportunities for all elements of university life in all countries in the world, including Indonesia. The Indonesian higher education system has been implicated in the processes of contemporary globalization and internationalization. The system has intersected with contemporary challenges and opportunities. Globalization and internationalization have changed the ways higher education authorities in the country see themselves, develop their programs, and shape the patterns of higher education H. de Wit et al. (eds.), The Dynamics of International Student Circulation in a Global Context, 113–140. © 2008. Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

M. SIROZI

development. The globalization process pushes the creation of new structures, academic standards, intellectual expectation, and policies within the framework of higher education development. Globalization and internationalization have also caused fundamental changes and affected practices in the Indonesian higher education system. Higher education authorities in the country are making their best efforts to align their agendas or priorities to what they perceive as the imperatives of globalization and internationalization. Their efforts have been made possible by political, economic, and educational reforms and are strengthened by the advancement of information and communication technology, the competitiveness of national and international labor mobility, the dynamics of economic liberalization, the rise of quality awareness, and enthusiasm for privatization. Under these circumstances, higher education authorities in Indonesia have developed some policies to allow internationalization at institutional and national levels. They have pushed their agendas toward international linkages, partnerships, projects, academic programs, researches, academic mobility for students, and teaching staffs, the delivery of education to other countries, and the inclusion of an international and intercultural dimension into the curriculum and teaching learning process. Such agendas make internationalization increasingly complex and important in the dynamics of developing the Indonesian higher education system. They strengthen relationships among the higher education system, global academic requirements, and Indonesia’s imperatives. In particular, the agendas open and broaden access for the circulation of international students. This chapter discusses the dynamics of international students’ circulation in Indonesia in light of the development, implementation, and implications of internationalization policies. It explores internationalization policies developed by higher education authorities in Indonesia and analyzes the implications of those policies on the inflow and outflow trends of international students. The discussion is based on statistical data provided by Open Policy document, the Institute of International Education, Directorate General of Higher Education (DGHE) (Direktorat Pendidikan Tinggi [Dikti]) in Jakarta, the Institute of International Education (IIE), and other relevant sources. Data on outflow are mainly the number of overseas graduates who have reported their graduation to the Directorate General of Higher Education and legalized their certificates. The data do not, therefore, include prospective and ongoing students or graduates who have not reported their graduation. This discussion of the outflow and inflow trends of international students focuses on the students’ choices of destinations and study programs, the push factors that encourage them to study overseas, and the pull factors that discourage them. My goal is to provide a better understanding of Indonesian standing and experiences in internationalization and the dynamics of international students’ circulation. Such an understanding will contribute to the development of a better understanding of internationalization policies and international students’ circulation in global context. “A comparative perspective,” said Philip Altbach and Patti Peterson (1999), “can seldom provide us with detailed prescriptions for action, but it permits us to expand our horizons . . . . In higher education, where we are so 114

INDONESIAN EXPERIENCES

often bound by the constraints of national thinking,” they continue, “a comparative perspective is especially valuable because academic institutions worldwide stem from common traditions, and the issues facing higher education around the world have many common characteristics” (p. 1). Indonesia illustrates the position and role occupied by developing countries in the dynamics of internationalization policies and international students’ circulation. Since Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country in the world, this chapter also provides an understanding of such countries’ positions and roles in the contemporary dynamics of international students’ circulation and international higher education systems. Such comparative understandings are urgently needed to contribute to the creation of a framework for more helpful, flexible, and sustainable policies and actions regarding the internationalization of higher education at institutional, national, and international levels. Moreover, such an understanding is expected to inspire the development of more acceptable, accountable, and reliable global perspectives and policies with respect to the global challenges and opportunities of international higher education system. This report is organized into three main parts. I first outline and discuss internationalization policies developed by higher education authorities in Indonesia. Second, I discuss the dynamics of international students’ circulation, and finally summarize and draw some conclusions.

INTERNATIONALIZATION POLICIES

Globalization has pushed higher education authorities in Indonesia to develop some internationalization policies. Authorities have seen internationalization (or adopting international standards and quality in all aspects of higher education institutions) as an urgent and significant step in responding to global challenges and opportunities with the DGHE as the most important player. Regulatory, political, and paradigmatic changes as well as emerging global challenges and opportunities have inspired DGHE authorities to formulate policies that are expected to pave the way for the internationalization of Indonesia’s higher education system. These policies mark new patterns and trends in the historical stages of higher education’s development and articulate Indonesia’s role and standing in the development of international higher education systems. DGHE authorities have produced nine internationalization policies affecting (a) the conditions and procedure for incoming foreign students, (b) international cooperation, (c) the presence of foreign institutions, (d) types, forms, and levels of international cooperation, (e) scholarship, (f) language of instruction, (g) visas for foreign students, (h) rationales and rules for international students, and (i) curriculum. I discuss the background, content, objectives, and implication of each policy area. 115

M. SIROZI THE CONDITIONS AND PROCEDURE FOR INCOMING FOREIGN STUDENTS

Higher education authority in Indonesia continues to ease conditions and procedures for foreign students who want to study in the country. Current conditions and procedures began on September 7, 1998, when the previous Minister of Education and Culture, Juwono Sudarsono,1 released a ministerial decision outlining them. The decision states five conditions for foreign students studying in Indonesia: 1. They must meet academic requirements for admission to higher education institutions. 2. They must be accepted as a student by an Indonesian higher education institution. 3. They must have the financial resources to support themselves during their study period. 4. They must provide a certificate of their physical and mental health from a medical doctor. 5. They must obey the laws and regulations governing Indonesian higher education (Kepmendikbud, 1998a). After fulfilling these conditions, prospective foreign students can follow then travel to Indonesia where they need to arrange for a “special stay” permit. To renew their visas, they must have letters of recommendation from the president or head of higher education institutions where they study (Kepmendikbud, 1998a). International Cooperation Higher education authorities in Indonesia view international cooperation and exchange programs as integral parts of internationalization. They believe that such programs can benefit the future development of higher education in the country. Jalal and Musthafa (2001) comment: “Few universities in the world, including those in Indonesia, can afford to ignore the educational, social, and cultural benefits from international university cooperation and exchange” (p. 214). Such a belief is also articulated by Government Regulation (Peraturan Pemerintah [PP]) number 57, 1998, Article 122: “Globalization increases cooperation among nations and triggers changes in the policies of [the] Indonesian government, including policies on education.” This regulation adds: “The government is challenged to improve the quality of human resources for the needs of national development and to face competition among nations in free market era” (PP, 1998a). This same article stresses that all higher education institutions in Indonesia may make policy changes and develop new regulations to allow cooperation with their international counterparts. Despite the commercial aspects of globalization, Jalal and Musthafa (2001) believe that international cooperation will enable higher education institutions to strengthen their knowledge capacity and broaden various aspects of their roles: “Although world-leading universities also aim at becoming a powerful knowledge 1 Now serving as Minister of Defense by the appointment of President Susilo Bambang Yudoyono.

116

INDONESIAN EXPERIENCES

industry, it should be restated that the underpinning idea of [the] internationalization of universities is to develop a shared understanding of cultures, politics, and markets” (p. 214). These scholars believe that international collaborations can become effective mechanisms for developing quality standards, increasing pressure on higher education authorities to set quality standards in education, and strengthening motives for local higher education institutions to boost their academic standing to enter the global market. The Presence of Foreign Institutions One of the most significant changes regarding Indonesian higher education policies is permission for foreign institutions to participate in higher education programs in the country. The presence of foreign higher education institutions was prohibited under Article 120 of Government Regulation (PP) No. 30, 1990. Eight years later, PP 57, 1998, revised the 1990 regulation, allowing foreign institutions or investors to enter Indonesia’s higher education sector. The general explanation of the 1998 regulation reads: Like other levels of education programs, higher education programs really need funding, particularly for improving their quality. Therefore, higher education institutions need to be given the opportunity and need to have the capacity to develop their financial resources by various forms of investment. The aim is for higher education institutions to have sufficient financial resources for developing their programs (PP Nomor 57, 1998). As this statement explains, the main motive for a more flexible policy regarding the presence of foreign institutions is economic. Despite being officially welcome, foreign institutions or investors must meet four requirements in Indonesia, spelled out in Article 65 of the 1998 regulation: 1. They must be accredited by their home accreditation board and evaluated by Department of Education and Culture in Jakarta. 2. They must fulfill all conditions required by higher education regulations in Indonesia. Article 17 of the 1998 regulation stresses that all foreign institutions can cooperate with Indonesian higher education institutions that have the same programs. 3. Foreign providers must enter into joint cooperation agreements with local institutions, employ local staffs, and obey existing regulations regarding curriculum, evaluations, and levels of education. However, there is some allowance for foreign institutions to follow their home country’s regulations. Article 64 of the 1998 regulation states: “A unit of education that is run by representatives of [a] foreign country in the United Republic of Indonesia, for foreign students, can follow regulations applied in its country of origin with permission from the government of Republic of Indonesia” (Dikti, 2003a, p. 41). 4. Foreign institutions that are properly accredited and admitted to Indonesia are allowed to cooperate with Indonesian institutions if they obey other related 117

M. SIROZI

laws, including those relating to immigration, tax, foreign investment, and labor. Types, Forms, and Levels of International Cooperation According to Jane Knight (2004, p. 14), internationalization allows various aspects of research and scholarly collaboration, including area and theme centers, joint research projects, international conferences and seminars, published articles and papers, international research agreements, and research exchange programs. In the Indonesian context, Jalal and Musthafa (2001, p. 265) identify some possible collaboration schemes, including joint-degree programs, credit-earning activities, exchanges of students and teachers, and research. They emphasize that research collaborations are important academic ventures with the strong potential for long-term impact on both the Indonesian and the foreign institution (p. 265). To provide technical guidelines for international cooperation among higher education institutions, on September 7, 1998, Juwono Sudarsono, Minister of Education and Culture, released Ministerial Decision number 223/U/1998: “Cooperation among Higher Education Institutions under [the] Department of Education and Culture.” Article 1 describes four types of cooperation possible to higher education institutions in Indonesia: cooperation with other higher education institutions in the country; cooperation with other institutions in the country; cooperation with foreign higher education institutions; and cooperation with other foreign institutions (Kepmendikbud, 1998b). This comprehensive list suggests that higher education institutions in Indonesia can develop cooperation with all relevant institutions at national and international levels. The programs that can be developed under institutional cooperation are also diverse. The Ministerial Decision states that cooperation between Indonesian higher education institutions and their counterparts include higher education management, education programs, research programs, and social service programs (Kepmendikbud, 1998b). Within these four areas, Article 4 of the Decision continues, cooperation can take 10 possible forms: management contract, twinning programs, research, social services, exchanges of teaching staffs or students for academic activities, sharing resources for academic activities, credit transfer, joint publication, co-hosting scientific events and other relevant forms of necessary cooperation (Kepmendikbud, 1998b). Some forms of cooperative programs are not explicitly listed, including foreign language study, internationalized curricula, areas or thematic studies, work/study abroad, international students, the teaching/learning process, joint/double degree programs, cross-cultural training, faculty/staff mobility programs, and visiting lecturers and scholars. However, the 10th item is sufficiently general to allow these forms of program cooperation to be adopted where and when possible. Article 5 of the 1998 Ministerial Decision stresses: “Cooperation among higher education can be made at the institutional level only with full responsibility of the Director, Chair, or Rector in charge” (Kepmendikbud, 1998b). In the case of national cooperation, the managers/leaders need to report their cooperation programs 118

INDONESIAN EXPERIENCES

to the Minister of Education (Kepmendikbud, 1998b, Article 6). In the case of international cooperation, managers/leaders of Indonesian higher education institutions need approval from the Minister of Education or other ministers in charge. Every higher education institution wishing to develop a cooperative program with other institutions will need to submit a written proposal to the Director General of Higher Education (DGHE), which will evaluate the proposal and approve it if it does not oppose national interests and existing regulations, violate policies on national development and security, benefits society, has similar and accredited programs for foreign higher education institutions;2 and is among prioritized programs, such as technology, economy, and management (Kepmendikbud, 1998b, Article 7). Academic activities taking national and international forms of cooperation must follow all regulations applied to higher education institutions in Indonesia. The regulations specify minimal requirements for teaching staffs and facilities, mandate that the program must be academic (i.e., undergraduate, master’s, doctorate, and professional – including training, diploma, and specialist), set the credit load required for each degree level, specify that the national curriculum must be used as a guideline, and require that titles and certificates are relevant to Indonesia’s higher education system (Kepmendikbud, 1998b, Article 8). International cooperation can be developed in the form of management contracts with existing higher education institutions in Indonesia or by establishing a new higher education institution that shares with its Indonesian counterparts through such private organizations as a foundation, social group, and/or endowment (Kepmendikbud, 1998b, Article 9). Such institutions must fulfill all conditions required by Indonesia’s higher education law (Kepmendikbud, 1998b, Article 9). Graduates of higher education institutions operating such cooperative arrangements are entitled to get a certificate from both the Indonesian and the foreign institution. Therefore, special arrangements for credit transfer and mutual credit recognition must be made by both sides (Kepmendikbud, 1998b, Articles 9–10). Another form of international cooperation is twinning programs. Article 11 of the 1998 Ministerial Decision (Kepmendikbud, 1998b) sets forth policies for twinning programs. First, “foreign institutions involved in twinning program with Indonesian institutions are required to provide educational assistance, so that the graduates are qualified for both Indonesian and foreign institutions.” Second, in Indonesian higher education, undergraduates must complete a minimum of 150 credits in eight semesters, while graduate students must complete a minimum of 35 credits in four semesters. To obtain certification (recognition) from Indonesian 2 On April 16, 2003, the Director General of Higher Education issued a warning to Indonesians not to participate in illegal degree programs introduced under international names, including: Harvard International University, World Association of Universities and Colleges, American World University, Northern California Global University, Edtracon International Institute, Institute of Business & Management “Global,” American Management University, American Global University, American International Institute of Management and Technology, Jakarta Institute of Management Studies, Distance Learning Institute, AIMS School of Business Law, Washington International University, American Institute of Management Studies, International Distance Learning Program, San Pedro College of Business Administration, Kennedy Western University, University of Berkeley, Berkeley International University, American Genesco University, Chicago International University, and the others (Dikti, 2003a).

119

M. SIROZI

institutions of higher education, foreign students must complete 30% of the minimum credits. Third, students of twinning programs gain titles from both Indonesian and foreign institutions. Research proposals on cooperative projects between Indonesian and foreign institutions must be approved by all relevant departments and the objectives of the research must be relevant to existing regulations (Kepmendikbud, 1998b, Article 12). In summary, Indonesia anticipates and welcomes international academic cooperation, but such arrangements are highly selective and must meet strict standards. Despite creating some difficulties, however, these policies do not arrest cooperative developments between Indonesian higher education institutions and their foreign counterparts. Such agreements are increasing at institutional and national levels, especially among top universities, such as Universitas Gadjahmada in Yogyakarta, Universitas Indonesia in Jakarta, the Institut Teknologi Bandung in Bandung, and the Institut Pertanian Bogor in Bogor. These universities are among 17 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) University Network representing 10 countries, the Asia University Federation, the Association of the Southeast Asia Institutions of Higher Learning, the Association of Universities of Asia and Pacific, the International Association of Universities, and University Mobility in Asia and the Pacific. They have been able to develop international cooperative agreements with their counterparts in Asia, Europe, and the United States. Among ASEAN countries, Malaysia seems to be the most popular partner for Indonesian higher education institutions. For example, 18 Indonesian higher education institutions3 have cooperative agreements with Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (www.ukm.my). Scholarships Unlike its neighbors, Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam, where talented students are sent to study overseas financed by the national budget, Indonesia has been able to provide only very limited scholarships for studying overseas. Scholarship provisions are mostly dependent on foreign providers, such as AusAid, the British Council, Japan International Community Assistance (JICA), the Fulbright Commission, the Ford Foundation, Asia Foundation, Toyota Foundation, and the World Bank. The largest scholarship provider for Indonesian students overseas in 1998– 1999 was Australia, followed by Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Austria, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada (Dikti, 2006a, p. 2). The scholarships available from year to year are not based on needs assessment, but on scholarship 3 These institutions include Universitas Padjadjaran Bandung, Universitas Udayana Bali, Universitas Riau, Universitas Bengkulu, Universitas Jabal Ghafur, Fakultas Hukum Universitas Sumatera Utara, Universitas Negeri Padang, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Universitas Syah Kuala Banda Aceh, Universitas Islam Indonesia, Universitas Pembangunan Nasional “Veteran” Yogyakarta, Universitas Nasional Indonesia, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Universitas Budi Luhur, Universitas Diponegoro, Universitas Indonesia, Direktorat General Pelayanan Medik Departemen Kesehatan Republik Indonesia, Institut Agama Islam Negeri Imam Bonjol Padang, and Universitas Negeri Jakarta (www.ukm.my).

120

INDONESIAN EXPERIENCES

policies made by scholarship providers on the basis of their social, political, and diplomatic interests. The availability of scholarships in Indonesia is also closely related to the dynamics of the country’s politics and economy. In the 1980s when Indonesia enjoyed economic growth, the government was able to develop some scholarship programs for sending the country’s talented youths to study overseas. These programs were developed under joint cooperation with foreign governments and mainly managed by the Center for the Study and Application of Technology (Badan Pengkajian dan Penerapan Teknologi). The first, the Overseas Fellowship Program, was funded by a soft loan from World Bank from 1985 to 1992. It sent 1,500 talented high school graduates to 14 countries to do undergraduate and graduate studies in science and technology departments (Ikawati, 2006, p. 37). Three years later, the second scholarship program, Science and Technology Manpower Development Program, was funded by a loan from the Japanese government. Between 1988 and 1995, it funded 400 students in studying abroad (Ikawati, 2006, p. 37). In 1990, the third scholarship program, Science and Technology for Industrial Development, was introduced in cooperation with the World Bank and the Japanese government. It financed the study abroad of 2,445 students, with the particular aim of developing science and technology policies to support industrial development, strengthen infrastructure for science and technology, and develop human resources for science and technology. A three-stage program, it ended in 2003 (Ikawati, 2006, p. 37). The 1998 economic crisis caused financial difficulties from 10–15% of university students in Indonesia (Dikti, 2006a, p. 1) and inspired the creation of a new scholarship policy for domestic and international students in undergraduate and graduate programs. For domestic students, the Directorate General of Higher Education (DGHE) provides five different categories of financial aid, including scholarships for academic achievement, working scholarships, student credit, society-based scholarships, and scholarships for graduate studies. DGHE also provides US$20,000–25,000 per recipient annually for teaching staffs at public and private universities who study overseas to cover their living costs and tuition fees. In academic year 1998–1999, these scholarships were awarded to 670 teachers who studied in more than 20 different countries. According to a DGHE announcement (Dikti, 2006a), the funding for these scholarships did not come from the national budget but from respective host countries in the form of international loans and foreign aid. In 2004, the scholarship program administered by the Center for the Study and Application of Technology was terminated after 21 years of operation along with other scholarship programs due to a budget crisis and decreasing aid from foreign governments.

LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION

The language of instruction is an important and sensitive issue in the contemporary development of internationalization policies in Indonesia involving, as it does, national identity, culture, pride, and interests. On May 2, 1998, President Soeharto 121

M. SIROZI

signed Government Regulation (PP) Number 57-1998, revising PP Number 301990. Article 7(1) of the 1998 regulation establishes Bahasa Indonesia, the national language, as “the language of instruction,” although the same article allows local and foreign languages for certain aspects of knowledge, training, and/or skills. A more recent regulation, Act Number 20-2003, which deals with the national education system, allows three languages for the medium of instruction: Bahasa Indonesia, a local language, and foreign languages. Article 33 of the 2003 act stresses, however, that “Bahasa Indonesia as the language of the nation shall be the medium of instruction in national education.” In the early stages of education, however, a foreign language as a medium of instruction is acceptable, especially for delivering particular knowledge and/or competencies. The same Article says: “A foreign language can be used as a medium of instruction [at elementary and secondary schools] to support the competency of the learners.” For higher education, foreign languages such as English are allowed as the language of instruction for up to 50% of all study loads. The use of English in excess of 50% requires written permission from the Minister of Education (Kepmendikbud, 1998b, Article 13). Higher education programs that use a foreign language must employ Bahasa Indonesia for at least four credit hours (Kepmendikbud, 1998b, Article 14). (In Indonesian higher education, one 50-minute session per week equals one credit). Therefore, despite strong emphasis on using the national language as the language of instruction, foreign languages may also be employed in higher education. This emphasis on using Bahasa Indonesia as the language of instruction in higher education is a good way to maintain the importance of the national language in academic activities, but it creates difficulties for internationalization. Indonesian students who want to study overseas, especially in English-speaking countries such as Australia, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom (and other countries in which English is used as the language of instruction) must work very hard to fulfill language requirements in the forms of TOEFL (test of English as a Foreign Language) or IELT (International English Language Test) scores. Even some ASEAN countries use English as the language of instruction, creating difficulties for Indonesian students. In Brunei Darussalam, for example, Indonesian Ambassador Yusbar Djamil admits that the lack of English proficiency has been a major constraint on Indonesian students who study at Universiti Brunei Darussalam where the language of instruction is English (“Belajar Geoscience,” 2004). Indonesian students in Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and the Philippines face similar challenges. Lack of English proficiency among Indonesian academics has also been a major constraint as Indonesian higher education institutions have worked to develop international academic cooperation. And above all, the limited use of English as the language of instruction at Indonesian universities has created a parallel constraint on international students coming into Indonesia to pursue academic programs. The Indonesian government needs to develop better policies for foreign language programs to enable more Indonesian students to study overseas, while Indonesian universities need to develop special language policies to enable foreign students to join their programs. Institut Pertanian Bogor, for example, requires 122

INDONESIAN EXPERIENCES

foreign students to study Bahasa Indonesian for four semesters before they can commence their courses (“Belajar Geoscience,” 2004). There is nothing wrong with such a policy; but clearly, the limited use of English and lack of English proficiency reduce the opportunity and capacity for Indonesian academics to develop and implement internationalization policies at the global level. As a consequence, Indonesia plays a limited role in the development of an international higher education system and in the dynamics of international students’ circulation. Visas for Foreign Students As part of its commitment to internationalization and its efforts to attract international students, the Indonesian government revised its visa policy in 1998. According to the official announcement (No. 3765/D/T/1998) foreign students wishing to study in Indonesia can do so by following a six-step program: 1. Get a letter of acceptance from an Indonesian higher education institution. 2. Take the letter of acceptance to the nearest Indonesian embassy or consulate and obtain a “social-cultural visiting visa.” 3. Enter Indonesia with the letter of acceptance and the visa and begin the academic program. 4. During the course of study, obtain the required letters of recommendation and send them to the International Cooperation Bureau of the Directorate General of Higher Education in Jakarta. 5. After four months, convert the visa from a “short visit” to a “limited stay” visa. 6. Obtain the “limited stay” visa at the nearest immigration office to the city where they plan to study. Usually it is not necessary to have letters of agreement from the regional office of justice or Directorate General of Immigration (Dikti, 1998). As these six steps spell out, foreign students need two different types of visa: a short-visit “social cultural” visa and a “limited stay” one. The Directorate General of Higher Education (Dikti, 1998) confirms that this visa procedure is made “very simple” to allow foreign students to enter the country, start their study in a timely fashion, and arrange their limited-stay visa easily. No student visa is available for international students.4 Unlike the student visa, limited-stay visas require regular renewal, a fact that is sometimes easy for international students in Indonesia to forget. Rationales and Rules for Foreign Students In 2001, three years after the visa announcement, DGHE Director Satriyo Soemantri Brodjonegoro sent a letter to all university rectors establishing “rules and 4 Although eliminating the student visa as a national requirement simplifies the procedure for the student, some Indonesian universities require a student visa as a necessary condition. See, for example, the registration form for international students applying to the Agriculture Institute in Bogor, http://www.ipb.ac.id/ipb-bhmn/registrasi/mhsasing.php.

123

M. SIROZI

guidelines” in anticipation of “the growing number of foreign students in Indonesia” (Dikti, 2001). The first part of the letter establishes five policy points or rationales regarding foreign students in Indonesia: 1. Public higher education has the mission of providing broader access to higher education for Indonesian citizens. 2. Public higher education institutions are subsidized by the government; these development funds come from the citizens in the form of taxes. 3. Foreign students at public higher education institutions must not reduce access for Indonesian citizens to higher education, nor should foreign students benefit from government subsidies. 4. To safeguard the reputation of Indonesian public higher education institutions, they must not accept foreign students who are not qualified in their own countries. 5. The presence of foreign students on the campuses of public higher education institutions must be carefully and proportionally managed to avoid exclusion, friction, and conflict (Dikti, 2001). Clearly, the government’s policy gives first priority to domestic students in higher education access. Foreign students must be selected and their presence managed to avoid problems on Indonesian campuses. Because these policies are limited to public higher education institutions, private institutions have more autonomy in manage international students on their campuses. Since Indonesia has more private than public higher education institutions, international students have considerable access to education in Indonesia.5 Satriyo’s letter also announces some regulations for foreign students in Indonesia: 1. Foreign student enrollment at public higher education institutions cannot exceed 10%. 2. Foreign students are not eligible for special treatment and or dispensations. They must fulfill the same academic criteria as domestic students. 3. Tuition fees for foreign students must be calculated to cover all of their own costs, an estimated 10–15 million Rupiah per academic year. 4. Public institutions must consider items 4 and 5 of the rationales in accepting foreign students (Dikti, 2001). Thus, the presence of international students in public Indonesian institutions is limited by a quota, arranged with certain academic requirements, and completely self-funded. In brief, international students in Indonesia are facing issues of priority, proportion, quality, fees, and culture. These policies to not reflect hostility toward foreign students. On the contrary, they are warmly welcome and greatly anticipated students; however, their presence is limited by the need to provide higher education access for national students. 5 The gap is very large between public and private higher education institutions in Indonesia. Only 76 out of 1,635 institutions are public; the rest (1,558) are private. Almost three times as many students attend private institutions than public ones (Dikti, 2005, pp. 7, 170).

124

INDONESIAN EXPERIENCES CURRICULUM

Curriculum is a central issue in the contemporary development of national education and internationalization policies in Indonesia. Education authorities see curriculum as an important factor that must be made relevant to and integrated with the principles of national education system and national interests. Article 36 of Act Number 20-2003 states: “Curriculum development is based on national education standards for the pursuit of national education goals” and continues: “The curriculum at all educational levels and types of education is developed according to the principles of diversification, adjusted to the units of education, locale, and learners’ potential.” It specifies basic principles that must be represented in the curriculum: (a) the enhancement of faith and piety, (b) noble character, (c) learners’ potential, intellect, and interests, (d) the diversity of the region’s potential and environment, (e) the demands of regional and national development, (f) labor market requirements, (g) development in science, technology, and arts; (h) religion, (i) the dynamic of global development, and national unity and the nation’s values. These principles show that curricula at all levels of Indonesian education are closely focused on religious, personal, social, regional, national, and international values and interests. However, the government develops curriculum policies for elementary and secondary education, but higher education institutions are autonomous and develop their own curricula, taking national standards into consideration for each study program. Rizvi et al. (2005) have observed that, in the Asia-Pacific region, “there has been more rhetoric about the need to rethink issues of curriculum in light of changes represented by globalization than actual changes in practice” (p. 37). This observation is relevant to higher education curriculum in Indonesia. Despite considerable awareness of global challenges and opportunities in educational sectors, curriculum design and contents remain remarkably unaltered. Initiatives in adapting higher education curricula to the needs of students in contemporary world have been quite limited. The most important of these has been teaching information communication technology (ICT), computer technology, and foreign languages (especially English, Arabic, Japanese, and French) as compulsory or optional subjects. With regard to information communication technology, the World Bank Data Group (1995, 2001) observed that Indonesia used only 2.1% of its GDP on ICT in 1995; by 2001, this figure was only 2.2%. These initiatives are not well financed and facilitated. According to the same source, there were only 22,100 computers in Indonesian education and, in 2001, 58,500. In 2002, the figure stood at 58,593. With regard to teaching foreign languages, Indonesia’s Department of Education has introduced diversification instead of intensification policies. In other words, instead of introducing new strategies for teaching major international languages, such as English and Arabic, the department introduces new languages. For example, the Minister of Education, Bambang Sudibyo, has developed cooperative arrangements with the Chinese government to teach Mandarin. On August 28, 2006, Yi Hongyao, Chinese Ambassador in Jakarta introduced 40 native speakers 125

M. SIROZI

of Mandarin who will teach the language in Indonesian schools and universities. In the near future, said Sudibyo, 100 teachers of Mandarin from Indonesia will be sent to China to improve their language skills (Sumatra Ekspress, 2006b, p. 1). As part of its oversight of elementary and secondary education, the government has identified 12 compulsory subjects: civic education, language, mathematics, sciences, social sciences, art and culture, physical education and sports, vocational skills, religious education, and local content (Act Number 20-2003, Article 37). Higher education curriculum has only three compulsory subjects: religious education, civic education, and language. Therefore, only religious, civic, and language education are compulsory for all levels of education. Article 12(1) of Act Number 20-2003 states that students at all levels of education are entitled to “religious education suitable to their own religions” which are “taught by teachers of the same religions.” In other words, students of all different religious groups must be provided with relevant religious subjects and teachers. With only three compulsory subjects, every higher education institution in Indonesia has more autonomy to design and develop its curriculum. In this regard, the success and failure of internationalization in Indonesian higher education is very much determined by the managers of curriculum development at higher education institutions, not by higher education authorities in Jakarta. It is the managers who can adapt their curricula to international and global values, needs, interests, and demands. The provision about compulsory religious education is not applicable to foreign students. Article 65(2) of Act Number 20-2003, states that “foreign educational institutions at elementary and secondary levels are required to provide religious and civic education for students [who are] Indonesian citizens.” Since universities have the freedom to develop their own curricula, providing religious education for international students can vary between institutions. Some universities require international students to take religious subjects, while others do not. At the Agriculture Institute in Bogor, for example, religious education is compulsory for international students along with Bahasa Indonesia, English (for non-English speakers), introduction to agriculture, sports, and art. The Dynamics of International Students’ Circulation This discussion of international students’ circulation focuses on outflow and inflow trends with reference to the students’ main destinations, their countries of origin, their choices of institutions, and their preferences in study programs. Outflow Trends Indonesian students choose countries on all continents for their study abroad. Table 1 shows the top 15 destinations of Indonesian students all around the world, with the most popular destination being the United States. In academic years 2002-2003 to 2003–2004, Indonesia was the tenth biggest sender of international students, contributing 1.6% of total international students in the United States (Chin, 2004, p. 8). Since 2002, however, the number of Indonesian students in the United States 126

INDONESIAN EXPERIENCES Table 1. Top 15 destinations for Indonesian students in the world. Number

Countries of Destination

Number of Graduates by May 2006

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15

United States of America Australia United Kingdom Germany Netherlands France Malaysia Canada India New Zealand Egypt Singapore Austria Pakistan China

9,671 6,686 3,048 2,244 1,890 1,747 1,110 906 802 410 116 114 113 93 61

Source: Dikti (2006b)

has decreased. In academic year 2002–2003, their total number was 10,432; in 2003–2004, the number decreased 14.9% to 8,880 students. (See discussion below.) In 2002–2003 and 2003–2004, the top five senders of international students from Southeast Asia to the United States were, in this order, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines (Chin, 2004, p. 27). More than 70% of Indonesian students in the United States are undergraduates (6,249); 24.7% are graduate students. The rest (5.0%) do other programs, such as short courses in languages and other nondegree programs (Chin, 2004, p. 31). In 2003–2004, Indonesia was not among the top 20 senders of international undergraduates in the United States, being outnumbered by other developing countries (Chin, 2004, p. 41). Indonesia’s total contribution to master’s degree candidates in the United States was only 1.9% of the total, a much smaller percentage than the percentage of master’s students from other developing countries with smaller populations, such as Mexico (2.4%), Taiwan (6.0%), and Kenya (2.4%) (Chin, 2004, p. 41). Table 2 shows that the most popular university of destination for Indonesian students in the United States is the University of Wisconsin-Madison. None of the top five universities of destination for Indonesian students in the United States are among the top 10 universities in the world.6 The implication is that most Indonesian students in the United States are not studying at the best US institutions. 6 These top 10 universities worldwide are Harvard University (US), Stanford University (US), Cambridge University (UK) University of California in Berkeley (US), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US), California Institute of Technology (US), Princeton University (US), Oxford University (UK), Columbia University (US), and the University of Chicago (US) (“Brains Business,” 2005, p. 4).

127

M. SIROZI Table 2. Top five universities of destination for Indonesian students in United States of America. Number

Universities

Number of Graduates by May 2006

01 02 03 04 05

University of Wisconsin-Madison University of Southern California Sam Houston State University University of Kentucky University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign

326 255 246 221 213

Source: Dikti (2006b)

Most of them are private students. Some are scholarship holders. One of the most prestigious scholarship providers for studying in the United States is the Fulbright Commission, which provides scholarship for 130 countries, including Indonesia. Every year, more than a thousand Indonesian students apply for this scholarship. Only 200 of them are called for interviews; between 80 and 100 interviewees are awarded these scholarships. About 25 are for graduate programs and the rest are for other programs, such as research, language training, visiting scholars, and visiting specialists (Gontor, Agustus 2006, p. 56). The American embassy in Jakarta continues to increase the number of scholarships available to Indonesian students. In November 2006, it announced the new Community College Summit Initiative Program (Article Alert, October 10, 2006, p. 4). The second most popular destination for Indonesian students after the United States is Australia. In 2002–2003, Indonesian students represented 7% of total international students in the country. This representation placed Indonesia fourth in the top 10 countries of origin for international students in Australia, following China (19%), Hong Kong (8%), and the Republic of Korea (7%) (IIE, 2005, p. 1). The most preferred university for Indonesian students in Australia is the University of New South Wales. The third country of destination for Indonesian students is New Zealand, with the University of Auckland as the preferred institutional choice. In 2001 international student enrollments, Indonesia was the sixth largest sending country for international students in New Zealand – 4% of its total (IIE, 2005, pp. 8–9). In 2002–2003, Indonesian students represented less than 2% of the total international students in Canada (IIE, 2005, p. 14), with McGill University as the most popular choice. In Europe, the most popular destination for Indonesian students is the United Kingdom, followed by Germany, Netherlands, France, Italy, and Austria. In the United Kingdom, the University of London is the most popular institutional choice for Indonesian students, followed by the University of Birmingham and the University of Leeds. However, data for international student enrollment in 2001 do not place Indonesia among the top 10 senders of international students in the United Kingdom (Dikti, 2006b). In Germany, the most popular institution for Indonesian 128

INDONESIAN EXPERIENCES

students is George August Universität zu Göttingen. In 2002–2003 international student enrollment, Indonesia was not among the top 10 senders for international students in Germany (IIE, 2005, p. 16). In the Netherlands, Delft is the most popular destination for Indonesian students. Indonesia was the ninth largest sender of international students in 2000, representing 3.0% of the Netherlands’ total (IIE, 2005, p. 9). In France, the most popular destination for Indonesian students is École Nationale des Travaux Public de l’État. In Italy, the most popular destination for Indonesian students is Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana. Indonesia was not among the top 10 sending countries of international students in Italy in 2001, providing less than 2% of the total (IIE, 2005, p. 11). In Austria, most Indonesian students go to University Wien. In Southeast Asia, the most popular destination with Indonesia students is the Philippines with the most popular institution being the University of the Philippines at Los Banos. Other regional destinations are, in this order, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, and Brunei Darussalam (Dikti, 2006a). In Malaysia, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia is the most popular choice for Indonesian students, followed by University Sains Malaysia, University Putra Malaysia, International Islamic University Malaysia, and Universiti Malaya (Dikti, 2006a). In Thailand, the most popular destination for Indonesian students is the Asian Institute of Technology, followed by Mahidol University, Kasetsart University, Prince of Songkha University, and Chulalongkorn University. Data released by the Institute of International Education for 2003 does not place Indonesia among the top 10 senders for international students in Thailand. In Singapore, the most popular choice of university for Indonesian students is the National University of Singapore, followed by Nanyang Technological University, Ngee Ann Polytechnic, Southeast Asia Union College, and Trinity College. In Brunei, only Sultan Saiful Rijal Technical College and University Brunei Drussalam are destinations for Indonesian students. Most of them, especially those at the University Brunei Darussalam, study geoscience (Dikti, 2006b). In South Asia, the most popular destinations for Indonesian students are India and Pakistan. In India, the favorite institution is the University of Roorke, followed by Anna University, the Indian Institute of Technology, Aligarh Muslim University, and the University of Bombay. In 2003, Indonesia was not among the top 10 senders of international students in India (IIE, 2005, p. 12). In Pakistan, the most popular destination for Indonesian students is the International Islamic University Islamabad, followed by Punjab University, Quad-I-Azam University, the University of Peshawar, and the University of Karachi. The most popular destination for Indonesian students in East Asia is Japan, followed by Taiwan, China, South Korea, and Hong Kong. According to Jakarta’s Japan embassy, there are 1,488 Indonesian students in Japan, 900 of them graduate students (Gontor, September 2006, p. 56). Most of them receive scholarships from the government of Japan and multinational companies in Japan. One of the most important scholarship providers for studying in Japan is Monbukagakusho (Gontor, September 2006, p. 56). In 2001, Indonesia was the fourth-ranked sender 129

M. SIROZI

of international students to Japan (IIE, 2005, p. 10). The most favorite destination for Indonesian students in Japan is Kyoto University, followed by Hiroshima University, the University of Tokyo, Kyushu University, and Nagoya University. There are no data on Indonesian students’ favorite destination in Taiwan. In China, the University of Peking is the most popular university, followed by Beijing Language and Culture University, Peking Institute, Peking Medical Institute, Hua Qiao University, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and Tsing Hua University. In 2003, Indonesia was fifth-ranked in sending international students to China – 3.3% of the total (IIE, 2005, p. 15). In Korea, Indonesian students represent less than 1% of the total international students, and Indonesia is not among the top 10 senders of international students to Korea (IIE, 2005, p. 10). Among Muslim countries, the most popular destination for Indonesian students is Malaysia, followed by Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Brunei Darussalam. In Malaysia, the most popular destination for Indonesian students is Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. In Egypt, the most popular destination for Indonesian students is Al-Azhar University. In Pakistan, it is the International Islamic University Islam Abad (Dikti, 2006b). Although providing religious study programs, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia in Malaysia is better known for its nonreligious programs. In both Egypt and Pakistan, however, most Indonesian students seem to do religious studies. Although providing nonreligious programs, Al-Azhar University is well known in Indonesia and Malaysia as a center of excellence for such religious studies as syariah (Islamic law), aqidah (Islamic theology), tafsir (Qur’anic interpretation), ulumul qur’an (Qur’anic knowledge), and ulumul hadiths (knowledge of the Prophet’s tradition). Like Al-Azhar University, the International Islamic University Islamabad is best known in Indonesia as a center for Islamic studies. The number of Indonesian students in Muslim countries is far below their number in non-Muslim countries, suggesting that higher education cooperation between Indonesia and other Muslim countries has not been well developed. This also suggests that the higher education systems in Muslim countries have not been well developed and have therefore failed to attract international students, even from other Muslim countries. To play a significant role in the dynamics of international higher education, education authorities in Muslim countries need to discuss issues related to the outflow and inflow of international students.

Inflow Trends Asiaweek (quoted in Heyneman, 2006) notes that no Indonesian university appears on among the 10 world-class multi-disciplinary universities in Asia. The top 10 are: Kyoto University, Tohoku University (Japan), the University of Hong Kong, Seoul National University, the National University of Singapore, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, the Australian National University, the University of Melbourne, and the University of New South Wales. 130

INDONESIAN EXPERIENCES

Asiaweek (quoted in Heyneman, 2006) also notes that no Indonesian universities are among the best five regional institutes of science and technology: the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Pohang University of Science and Technology (South Korea), the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, and the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras. However, four Indonesian universities are among the best 79 universities in Asia: Gadjahmada University (ranked 67), the University of Indonesia (70), Diponegoro University (77), and Airlangga University (79) (Hayneman, 2006). In 2006, three departments at Gadjahmada University were ranked among the world’s best 100, according to the Times Higher Education Supplement (2006, October 26): the Department of Social Science (47), the Department of Cultural and Humanity Studies (70), and the Department of Biomedical Science. These rankings by Asiaweek and Times Higher Education Supplement indicate that international achievement and standards of quality in Indonesian higher education are considerably below some of their Asian counterparts, making it difficult to attract international students. There are no comprehensive data available on international students studying for degrees in Indonesia, and even data from other countries on students studying abroad is limited. For example, Indonesia does not seem to be a favorite destination for US students studying in Southeast Asia. In 2001–2002, only 52 American students were studying in Indonesia. In the following year, 2002–2003, the number dropped 50% to 26. Neighboring countries like Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand outdraw Indonesia in attracting American students (Vhin, 2004, p. 59). However, students from Southeast Asia find Indonesia a popular destination, especially for medicine and literature. Data are available for the whole picture of Southeast Asian students, but some universities have reported partial data. Firdaus Ali from Universitas Padjajaran (UNPAD) in Bandung explains that medical faculties at Indonesian universities, including Universitas Indonesia, Universitas Gajahmada, Universitas Airlangga, and UNPAD are among the best in Asia and attract students from Malaysia. He notes that, in 2005, 40 students from Malaysia were studying in UNPAD’s Medical Faculty (Gema Mahasiswa, 2005). Similar numbers of students from Malaysia are also studying in the Medical Faculty at Sriwijaya University in Palembang, South Sumatra. This university has developed cooperative programs with some higher education institutions in Malaysia in medical, technological, and economic studies. Zarkasi Anwar, dean of the Medical Faculty at Sriwijaya University, comments that only one student from Malaysia was studying in his faculty in 2001 but the number had increased to 28 in 2006 (Sumatera Ekspress, 2006b). No data are available on how international students decide where to study in Southeast Asia. I suggest that among the main considerations are academic standards, academic partnerships, the use of English, expected ease of socialcultural adjustment, and security. To attract international students, Indonesia needs to increase its competitiveness in these areas.

131

M. SIROZI THE PUSH FACTORS

Based on the discussion on internationalization policies and the dynamics of international students’ circulation (above), this chapter considers four main factors that push Indonesian students to study overseas: awareness of quality, regional opportunities, Indonesia’s growing middle class, and cultural-religious changes. Awareness of Quality Quality has been a major concern in the contemporary development of Indonesian education at all levels, including higher education. After more than 50 years of massification, higher education authorities have started to promote the concept of quality assurance in their agendas. There seems to be a strong commitment among Indonesian leaders to improve the quality of the country’s education system in general and that of the higher education system in particular. This commitment has been stated in all main documents for higher education development since the early 1980s: 1975 Basic Policy, 1978 Strategic Plan, Insight 2010, and Insight 2018. On May 2, 2005, Vice President Yusuf Kala, representing President Susilo Bambang Yudoyono, declared 2005 as the year of quality improvement for national education. Having more overseas graduates on the teaching staffs of public and private universities is believed to be one of the best ways to speed up the quality assurance process. Many national and international initiatives have been undertaken to develop more scholarship projects, enabling higher education institutions to send their teaching staffs to obtain master’s degrees and doctorates overseas. The projects are developed under the National Planning Board and by loan agreement with such international institutions as the World Bank and Asian Development Bank and with international scholarship providers such as AusAid, the British Council, and the Fulbright Commission. The Indonesian government has asked these scholarship providers to prioritize scholarships for teaching staffs to study overseas. Highquality teaching staffs are expected to develop high-quality teaching and learning which, in turn, are believed to be the only means to produce better quality graduates. Awareness of quality awareness in the discourse of higher education development emphasizes the importance to Indonesian students of gaining certificates from high-quality universities. Although many places are available at home institutions, none are ranked among world-class institutions. For students with such an awareness and with an interest in cutting-edge subjects or programs, studying overseas is certainly the best choice. Regional Opportunities The speed with which higher education systems have developed in neighboring countries like Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines, and Brunei Darussalam has startled Indonesian higher education authorities. Until the late 1980s, for example, Malaysia imported teachers and lecturers from Indonesia; but today, Malaysia has become a favorite destination for Indonesian students, 132

INDONESIAN EXPERIENCES

both undergraduates and graduates. Malaysia symbolizes educational success for many Indonesians. At University Kebangsaan Malaysia, for example, 272 undergraduate students and 236 graduate students were registered in 2005–2006 (http://www.ukm.my). Every year, many educational groups from Indonesia visit Malaysia to study its education programs. The speed of higher education development in Southeast Asia has provided more study-abroad opportunities for many Indonesian students. Tuition fees and living costs are more affordable in the region than in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia; and more Indonesian families can afford to send their children to study overseas. Thus, these comparative advantages and regional opportunities push an increasing number of Indonesian students to study overseas. Indonesia’s Growing Middle Class Before the economic crisis of 1998, Indonesia was among the “Asian Miracles,” along with Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand. These countries were able to make marked economic achievements and improve the quality of public services in various sectors including education. Indonesia cut absolute poverty by about two-thirds, decreased its population growth rates, dramatically improved health and education, and nearly quadrupled per capita income. The number of middleclass families in the country rapidly increased to 10% (20,000,000) of the total population (200,000,000). This economic prosperity was directly proportional to participation rates in education. Between 1995 and 2005, the percentage of participation in Indonesian higher education increased from 10% to 15%. In 2020, the percentage is projected to be 25% (Dikti, 2005, chap. 2, p. 11). Education also expanded markedly. However, the quality of public services, including education, suddenly decreased during the economic crisis of 1998. Indonesia’s currency, the Rupiah, lost 72% of its value against the US$. Between 6 and 12 million people in the country lost their jobs, raising unemployment to 15-20%. Inflation surged from 6.6% in 1997 to 20.0% in 1998; real wages fell a calamitous 44%; the incidence of poverty rose from 11% to 18%; and educational participation significantly depressed with 3 million children dropping out of school and the school enrollment ratio declining from 78% to 54% (Purwadi, 2001, p. 62). Despite the economic crisis, however, the number of middle-class families remains unchanged. These families continue to dominate the Indonesian economy and have high expectations for their children’s education with sufficient financial capacity to achieve those expectations. Unlike government officials and the teaching staffs of public and private universities, who mainly rely on scholarships, middle-class children can rely on their parents’ financial support. Predictably, middle-class students are the majority of Indonesian students overseas. Cultural-Religious Changes Indonesia is a multicultural country with 500 ethnic groups and 600 dialects or language spoken on the 6,000 inhabited islands that make up its archipelago. It is the 133

M. SIROZI

most populous Muslim country in the world; more than 90% of its total population of 200 million are Muslims (Purwadi & Muljoatmodjo, 2000). The remaining 10% are Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, and Hindus. This country has long experience with Islamization, colonization, nationalization, secularization, and modernization. The experience has made social and religious life in Indonesia more open and moderate. These experiences have significantly reduced cultural and religious barriers to education. Indonesian Muslims encounter no cultural and religious difficulties in continuing their study in many countries in the world, including Western countries. As a result, more Muslim youths are studying overseas. Until the late 1970s, most Muslim students from Madrasah, Pesantrens, Institut Agama Islam Negeri (State Institute of Islamic Studies) run by the Ministry of Religious Affairs went to the Middle East for overseas studies. In the mid-1980s, previous Ministers of Religious Affairs, such as Mukti Ali and Munawir Syadzali, began to introduce modernization into the Islamic higher education system and initiated scholarships for the teaching staffs of Islamic higher education institutions to study in Western countries, such as the United States, Canada, England, the Netherlands, and Australia. In Canada, most Indonesian students who do Islamic studies are funded under the Indonesia-Canada Islamic Higher Education Project, a scholarship program sponsored by Canada-International Development Agencies (CIDA) that was developed as a cooperative project in the 1990s between CIDA and the Ministry of Religious Affairs (MORA). Its main objective is to provide scholarships so that young lecturers from IAIN (Institute Agama Islam Negeri) or the State Institutes of Islamic Studies operated by MORA can take advanced degrees in Islamic studies at McGill University. So far, the program has produced more than 100 master’s degrees and doctorates (Jabali & Jamhari, 2002, p. vii). A similar program started in 1988 when the Minister of Religious Affairs, Munawir Sjadzali, initiated Indonesian-Netherlands Cooperation in Islamic Studies (INIS). It sponsors young IAIN lecturers to do graduate Islamic studies in the Netherlands with European approaches and methodology. Wim Stokhof (2006) notes that this project has produced 20 doctorates, 70 master’s degrees, 40 short-course certificates, more than 50 books, and 40 issues of a bulletin (pp. 62–63). Since then, an increasing number of Muslim students from Islamic higher education institutions have studied overseas. The objective of such projects is to enrich academic experiences and increase academic credentials among scholars of religious studies, so that they can work cooperatively with their counterparts in other disciplines. Today, many members of teaching staffs under MORA are studying non-religious disciplines, such as sociology, anthropology, political science, and economics, in overseas institutions.

134

INDONESIAN EXPERIENCES THE PULL FACTORS

Three main factors tend to discourage Indonesian students from overseas study: (a) the September 11, 2001, tragedy, (b) continuing economic crises, (c) political or diplomatic changes, and (d) a growing number of private providers in-country. The September 11, 2001, Tragedy The bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001, created tensions and suspicions in the relationships between the Muslim world and the West, particularly in the United States and United Kingdom. US President George W. Bush and his allies have reacted aggressively, developing policies considered to be part of efforts to make the country safer and more secure from terrorist attacks. These policies are preemptive actions, investigations, detentions, and deportations of terrorist suspects, and the adoption of strict immigration policies, including visa restrictions and strong border control. Since many of the terrorist suspects are Muslims and are from Muslim countries, they seem to be the main targets of such policies. Philip G. Altbach (2004) describes the impact of the September 11 tragedy on students from abroad, particularly from Islamic nations: Coming to study in the United States has become an obstacle course, and prospective students abroad are increasingly leery of stringent, changing, arbitrary, and sometimes inconsistent government regulations regarding visas, reporting to government agencies, and the like. Students from developing countries, especially those from the Islamic world, report being treated with disrespect by US officials in their countries. American university administrators responsible for international students also report that a significant number of students are denied visas or are delayed sufficiently long that they are unable to study in the US (p. 5). Since Indonesia is the world’s largest Muslim country, these new policies are strictly implemented for Indonesians. Indonesian students, especially Muslims, have been discouraged by media coverage of hostile attitude of some in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, difficulties in obtaining visas, and the terrorist image of Muslims conveyed by Western media. The number of Indonesian students in the United States dropped 10% after the bombing, 25% for Saudi Arabia and Kuwait students, and 16% for students from the United Arab Emirates (Altbach, 2004, p. 2). Economic Crises Unlike other Asian countries, Indonesia is still struggling to recover from the 1998 economic crisis. Businesses remain unstable, the currency rate is still low and fluctuating, jobs are significantly reduced, and prices are very high. This situation, especially the low currency rate, makes tuition fees and living costs in Western countries increasingly expensive for Indonesian students. Before the crisis, the currency exchange rate was about Rp 3000 per one US$. After 1998, the rate soared to Rp 9000–10,000 per one US$. As a result, some students decided to pursue programs in countries with lower tuition fees and living costs 135

M. SIROZI

than the United States and United Kingdom, notably Australia and Southeast Asian countries. Others decided to cancel or delay their overseas studies, and still others decided to remain in-country. Political or Diplomatic Changes The dynamics of political or diplomatic relationships between the government of Indonesia and the governments of countries of destination can affect the flow of Indonesian students to those countries. The better the diplomatic relationships, the more scholarships will be provided, and vice versa. For students who mainly rely on scholarships, less cordial diplomatic relationships could mean reduced chances of study overseas. Even for students with private financing, diplomatic tensions could mean increased security and cultural concerns. Due to political and diplomatic changes, for example, the number of scholarships offered by the John Howard government in Australia to Indonesian students dropped significantly from the number of scholarships provided by the previous government of Paul Keating. A similar example is Iranian students in the United States. During the Shah’s government, Iran was one of the top senders of international students in the United States. But after he was removed from power, “virtually no students have come from there” (Altbach, 2004, p. 2). The Growing Number of Private Providers One of the most significant developments of the higher education system in Indonesia is a rapid increase in the number of private providers. This trend seems to continue, despite the economic crisis. An increasing number of private higher education institutions is available in many big cities, broadening higher education access for Indonesians. From 1995 to 2005, the number of students at private universities increased from 1.37 million to 3 million. In 2020, the number is projected to be 4.64 million (Dikti, 2005, chapter 2, p. 11). During the last five years, private providers are not only local institutions, but also international ones, especially from Australia. Many top universities in Australia, such as Monash University, the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, the University of New South Wales, Latrobe University, and Deakin University have developed partnership programs with Indonesian institutions and established branch campuses in Jakarta, Bandung, Surabaya, and Medan. Although much more expensive than state universities and local private providers, these international branch campuses are very attractive to Indonesian students from middle- and upperclass families because they combine quality education with domestic expenditures. This development has unquestionably reduced the number of Indonesian students studying overseas.

136

INDONESIAN EXPERIENCES CONCLUDING REMARKS

This chapter has discussed policies affecting higher education’s internationalization in Indonesia and the dynamics of students’ circulation, with particular attention to the factors that affect the dynamics. Higher education authorities in Indonesia have pursued major higher education reforms. These policies have been developed under national pressures for improvements in quality and the alignment of higher education system with national interests. At the same time, the policies have also been developed under international pressures for the liberalization and deregulation of higher education and global trends toward the commodification, privatization, and commercialization of education. Globalization and internationalization have been seen as a source of both opportunities and threats to national higher education values and interests. On the one hand, globalization and internationalization have been considered as urgently necessary, with internationalization as the only way to align Indonesia’s higher education system to global quality standards and requirements. On the other hand, globalization and internationalization have also been seen as threatening the characteristics of Indonesia’s higher education system and conflicting with domestic needs for more accessible and affordable higher education programs. Due to this perception of threats and opportunities, policies related to the internationalization of higher education in Indonesia tend to be overlapping and conflicting. They have attempted to encourage international collaboration and exchanges and to show enthusiasm for aligning higher education reform to the requirements of globalization and internationalization. But simultaneously, the policies reinforce a sense of national identity and emphasize national values, preferences, and interests. Thus, they show both a high level of enthusiasm for internationalization and ideological/cultural resistance toward it. In short, the policies reveal that higher education authorities in Indonesia perceive the policies as preserving national identity against the backdrop of globalization and as ensuring that internationalization will not lead to westernization or contradict the country’s cultural, economic, and ideological interests. The policies also show that the purpose of higher education and the modes of its governance are converging around the underlying notions of global academic standards and requirements without abandoning principles of national ideology and interests. The pattern of students circulation, despite incomplete data, shows a huge gap between the outflow and inflow of international students in Indonesia. The country is predominantly on the sending side and plays a very limited role in the dynamics of international students’ circulation in a global context. Certainly, such a gap is culturally, economically, politically, and academically unhelpful for the future development of Indonesia’s higher education system and human resource capacity. Among factors that encourage the outflow of international students from Indonesia (push factors) are awareness of quality, regional opportunities, the growing middle class, and cultural-religious changes. Among factors that discourage the inflow of international students in Indonesia (pull factors) are the September 11, 2001,

137

M. SIROZI

tragedy, the ongoing economic crisis, political and diplomatic changes, and the growing number of private providers. More active and aggressive internationalization policies are needed at institutional and national levels to reduce the outflow-inflow gap. Higher education authorities in Indonesia need to strengthen their commitment to push more Indonesian students to study overseas and to pull more foreign students to study in the country. Among the main push factors that need to be strengthened are providing scholarships; teaching foreign languages, especially English; establishing reliable and consistent visa arrangements; improving security; and standardizing academic quality, standards, culture, and procedures where international requirements are concerned. Among these factors, foreign language proficiency, especially English, is particularly important. English has been both channeling and barring international students’ circulation in Indonesia. English programs in all higher education institutions need to be expanded and intensified. At the same time, higher education authorities in developed countries that are predominantly on the receiving side of international students need to provide sincere assistance to developing countries like Indonesia in improving the quality of their higher education systems. Such assistance needs to be adjusted and adapted to national values and needs, so that the system can develop with its own potentials, contexts, and characteristics. In this regard, international partnerships with Indonesia need to be sensitive to its social, political, and economic problems. For example, raising tuition fees for students from Indonesia in the middle the country’s economic crisis is certainly not helpful in the future development of international higher education. A struggling country like Indonesia needs both intellectual and financial help from its rich counterparts. It is true that internationalization in Indonesia needs to strengthen the link and relevance of the country’s higher education standards to global requirements and converge the modes of higher education governance with global interconnectivity and interdependence. But the linkage and relevance should not change the fundamental conditions of the higher education system or weaken the link between the system and the imperatives of community in the country. Global challenges require need-based educational policies and programs that are relevant to the extensive multiculturalism of countries or nations. Such policies and programs will help international students expose themselves to the global world and reflect their national needs and problems in more democratic and contextual ways. With such experiences, the students can play important roles in developing better mutual understanding and partnership in a dynamic, complex, and diverse world. In this regard, internationalization will be able to integrate international and intercultural values with the purposes and functions of a country’s national higher education system. That is to say, rigidity and self-serving policies and programs are not going to promote an international higher education system. A combination of enthusiasm, sensitivity, sincerity, and flexibility among higher education authorities in both developed and developing counties will ensure that real internationalization occurs. Such an approach will create a balance of roles as well as mutual advantages among partnering countries in the dynamics of interna138

INDONESIAN EXPERIENCES

tional students’ circulation. This combination will allow the development of more helpful, flexible, and sustainable policies and actions at institutional, national, and international levels. It will reduce social barriers, such as financial, family, and class constraints; eliminate linguistic limitations; and broaden access to international studies. Allan Goodman (1999) foresees that “more persons will attend colleges and universities in the next century than in all human history. Most of the capacity to accommodate this demand is yet to be built” (p. v). Indeed, such a combination will allow the distribution and empowerment of capacity to accommodate continuous demand for higher education in many countries in the world. In this way, the outflow and inflow of international students will grow proportionally, both from poor developing countries (the South) to rich developed countries (the North) and from North to South. REFERENCES Altbach, Philip G. (2004). Higher education cross borders. Change, 2, 1–12. Altbach, Philip G. & Peterson, Patti McGill. (1999). Higher education in the 21st century: Global challenges and national response. Institute of International Education Research Report, No. 29. Annapolis Junction, MD: IIE Books. Article Alert. (2006). Article Alert, October 10. Jakarta: US Embassy Information Resource Center. Belajar Geoscience di Universiti Brunei. (2004). Republika, October 8. Retrieved on August 20, 2006, from http://www.republika.co.id/suplemen/cetak. Chin, Hey-Kyung Koh (Ed.). (2004). Open Doors report on international educational exchange. New York: Institute of International Education. Dikti. (1998). Pengumuman Dirjen Dikti tentang prosedur pengurusan Visa bagi mahasiswa asing yang akan belajar di Indonesia dan pengurusan Visa (Announcement of Directorate General of Higher Education Regarding Procedure for Visa Application for Foreign Students Who Will Study in Indonesia). Retrieved on February 20, 2006, from www.depdiknas.go.id. Dikti. (2001). Surat Dirjen Dikti tentang Ketentuan Mengenai Penerimaan Mahasiswa Asing di PTN (Director General of Higher Education, Letter Regarding Requirements for Foreign Students at Public Higher Education Institutions). Retrieved on February 20, 2006, from www.depdiknas.go.id. Dikti. (2005). Kerangka Pengembangan Pendidikan Tinggi Jangka Panjang (KPPTJP) 1996–2005. Retrieved on February 20, 2006, from http://www.dikti.depdiknas.go.id/kpptjp. Dikti. (2006a). Surat Dirjen Dikti tentang Beasiswa di Perguruan Tinggi. Retrieved on February 20, 2006, www.depdiknas.go.id. Dikti. (2006b). Rekapitulasi Ijazah Lulusan Luar Negeri (Recapitulation of the Certificates of Overseas Graduates). Retrieved on February 20, 2006, from http://demo.kafesms.com/diploma-recap-list.php. The Economist. (2005). The brains business: A survey of higher education. The Economist, September 10, pp. 2–22. Gema Mahasiswa. (2005). Transcription of interview. Gema Mahasiswa, August. Retrieved on July 15, 2006, from http://www.freelists.org/archives/ppi/08-2005/msg00476.html. Gontor (2006a). Beasiswa Fulbright. Gontor, August. Jakarta: PT. Gontor Media Jaya, pp. 56–57. Gontor (2006b). Beasiswa Monbukagakusho. Gontor, September. Jakarta: PT. Gontor Media Jaya, pp. 56–57. Goodman, Allan. (1999). Preface. In Philip G. Altbach & Patti McGill Peterson (Eds.), Higher education in the 21st century: Global challenges and national response (pp. v–vii). Institute of International Education Report, No. 29. Annapolis Junction, MD: IIE Books. Heyneman, Stephen P. (2006). Global Issues in Higher Education. (Electronic journal). Retrieved on November 3, 2006, from http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/0206/ijge/heyneman.htm. IIE. Institute of International Education. (2005). Atlas of student mobility. Retrieved on August 19, 2006, from http://www.atlas.iienetwork.org/?p=48027. Ikawati, Yuni. (2006). Beasiswa dan Kebutuhan Regenerasi, Liputan Khusus Pendidikan dalam Negeri, dalam Kompas [newspaper], May 3, p. 37.

139

M. SIROZI Jabali, Fuad & Jamhari. (2002). IAIN & Modernisasi Islam di Indonesia. Jakarta: Logos. Jalal, Fasli & Musthafa, Bachrudin. (2001). Education reform in the context of regional autonomy: The case of Indonesia. Jakarta: Ministry of National Education and National Development Planning Agency for the Republic of Indonesia and the World Bank. Kepmendikbud. (1998a). Keputusan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia nomor 224/U/1998 tentang Perubahan Keputusan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Nomor 0183/U/1992 tentang Syarat dan Prosedur bagi Warga Negara Asing untuk menjadi Mahasiswa pada Perguruan Tinggi di Indonesia (Minister of Education, Decision Regarding Conditions and Procedures for Foreigners to Be Students at Higher Education Institutions in Indonesia). Kepmendikbud. (1998b). Keputusan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia nomor 223/U/1998 tentang Kerjasama antar Perguruan Tinggi Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan (Minister of Education, Decision Regarding Cooperationg among Higher Education Institutions). Knight, Jane. (2004). Internationalization remodelled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31. PP. Peraturan Pemerintah. (1998b). Republik Indonesia nomor 57 tahun 1998 tentang Perubahan atas Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 30 Tahun 1990 tentang Pendidikan Tinggi (Government Regulation No. 57/1998 Regarding Higher Education). Purwadi, A. (2001). Impact of the economic crisis on higher education in Indonesia. In Impact of the economic crisis on higher education in East Asia (pp. 67–75). Paris: IIEP/UNESCO. Purwadi, A. & Muljoatmodjo, S. (2000). Education in Indonesia: Coping with challenges in the third millennium. Journal of Southeast Asian Education, 1(1), 79–102. Rizvi, Fazal, et al. (2005). Globalization and recent shifts in educational policy in the Asia-Pacific: An overview of some critical issues. Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO’s Asia-Pacific Regional Office for Education. Stokhof, Wim. (2006, July 15). Beberapa Catatan tentang Kerja sama Indonesia-Belanda dalam Ilmuilmu Sosial dan Humaniora. Pidato penganugerahan Doctor Honoris Causa dalam bidang humaniora disampaikan di hadapan Sidang Senat Terbuka Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, Sabtu. Sumatera Ekspress. (2006a). Bahasa Mandarin Diprioritaskan (Mandarin language is being prioritized). Sumatera Ekspress. Pendidikan, August 29, pp. 1, 4. Sumatera Ekspress (2006b). Mahasiswa Malaysia Minati FK Unsri (Malaysian students are attracted to the medical faculty of Sriwijaya University). Sumatera Ekspress, November 2. Pendidikan, p. 22. World Bank Data Group (1995, 2001). Database searchable by country. Available on http://www.worldbank.org/data/countrydata/countrydata.html.

140

MOLATLHEGI SEHOOLE

6. SOUTH AFRICA AND THE DYNAMICS OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

South Africa lies at the southernmost tip of the African continent. The 2001 census shows that South African then had about 44.8 million people; 35 million classified themselves as African, 4.2 million as White, 1.1 million as Asian or Indian, and 3.9 million as Coloured (http://www.statssa.gov.za/census2001/digiAtlas/index.html). After many years of isolation from the international community as result of a boycott against the apartheid system, South Africa was readmitted to the global community of nations following apartheid’s formal end in 1990. South Africa’s transition to democracy took place at a time of global realignment following the end of the Cold War alongside the rise of neo-liberal ideology based on the ascendancy of the market and the rolling back of the state. According to Adelzader and Padayachee (1994), the ruling African National Congress (ANC) held dialogues with a variety of other interest groups and constituencies, including western governments, the international financial institutions, and local conglomerate capital. Through these conversations, a message was passed to the ANC regarding the need to understand that the world had become globalized and that policy options unacceptable to the international capital markets and its key players could no longer be countenanced (Adelzader and Padayachee, 1994). Alongside the political and economic reforms that took place in the 1990s was the reform of the education sector in general and higher education in particular. South Africa had one of the most fragmented and inequitable systems of higher education in the world. Since 1990, with the release of Nelson Mandela from prison, South Africa has become a preferred destination for international investors, academics, students, and agencies interested in doing business in South Africa. The aim of this chapter is analyze the internationalization of higher education in South Africa with respect to international student circulation. The rationale for this focus is that student mobility has long been the most important dimension of the process of internationalization of higher education. As Hans de Wit points out (Chapter 1, this volume), at present there is in the world an increasingly unmet demand for higher education as a consequence of demographic trends, the need for the new degree and diploma programs, and the need for lifelong learning. These pressing needs foster the movement of students across the borders in search of learning opportunities. South Africa is becoming an important player in that international student circulation. I will therefore analyze the pull and push factors to explain this phenomenon as it applies to South Africa. H. de Wit et al. (eds.), The Dynamics of International Student Circulation in a Global Context, 141–165. © 2008. Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

M. SEHOOLE

A discussion of internationalization of higher education in South Africa should consider contextual factors that have historically shaped the higher educational landscape of South Africa. I base my analysis on the theoretical framework that, in order to understand a country’s education policy (including internationalization), there needs to be an understanding of that country’s political and economic policies and the country’s relationship with the wider world. I argue that the internationalization of higher education in South Africa has followed the patterns of the government’s political and economic policies during and after apartheid. It is in understanding the political and economic agendas and their relation to the external world that sense can be made of internationalization patterns in South Africa’s higher education. I will first discuss the definition of internationalization used in this chapter, followed by a description of higher education under apartheid, South Africa’s internationalization policy, student mobility, and the implications and challenges of internationalization policy.

WORKING DEFINITION OF “INTERNATIONALIZATION”

This section discusses the working definition of internationalization often cited in higher education circles and its relevance for the South African higher education context. It begins with the definition offered by Jane Knight (2003) and expands on it. Knight suggests that internationalization at the national, sectoral, and institutional levels is “the process of integrating an international, cultural, or global dimension into the purpose, function, or delivery of post secondary education” (p. 2). Of importance is the role of values and rationales in the discussion of internationalization. Rationales are the driving force pushing a country, sector, or institution to address and invest in internationalization. These rationales are reflected in the policies and programs that are developed and eventually implemented. Values, on the other hand, give shape and consistency to the vision, rationales, and expected outcomes that underpin the countries’ and institutions’ drive to internationalize. Traditionally, rationales for internationalization have been presented in four groups that reflect the fundamental drivers: social/cultural, political, academic, and economic (de Wit, 2002). While the above definition of the internationalization phenomenon is helpful in making sense of the present manifestation of this process, it is not sufficient to provide an understanding of the total picture of internationalization, especially in developing countries. An important element that needs to be factored into the discussion of international education in the developing world is the role of colonialism in the origins and expansion of international education. Modern (western) education in the developing world has its origins in colonialism. Education was used as part of the colonial conquest. Depending on the nature and policies of the colonial empire, education was used for assimilating the colonized into the dominant culture of the colonial empire or accommodating them in it. The inclusion of the colonial dimension in the definition of internationalization not only provides 142

SOUTH AFRICA AND THE DYNAMICS OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

a historical dimension for the unfolding of this phenomenon but also assists in showing that internationalization does not happen by accident, nor is it a recent phenomenon that either responds to or is part of the unfolding movement of globalization. Rather, it lies at the root of the nature and expansion of western education in the developing country context. This is the perspective I adopt in discussing the internationalization of higher education in South Africa.

OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM AND TRENDS

The origins of formal western in education South Africa can be traced to its occupation by the Dutch and the English in the middle 17th century and the early 18th century respectively. The education system and its policies followed those of the Netherlands or England, depending on who was in control of Cape Colony, South Africa. For example, the first school in South Africa was established in 1658. Based on the Dutch system, it was intended for the instruction of slaves who had been imported from West Africa and required them to learn the Dutch language and elements of the Christian religion. The school was subsequently opened to White children in 1663. According to Malherbe (1925), the education system at the Cape (South Africa) consisted of institutions transplanted directly from the Netherlands. Thus, as early as that period, education in South Africa was international in terms of curriculum content as well as student composition; but interestingly, indigenous people were not part of this international school. In 1795, the British occupied the Cape as a strategic base against the French, controlling the sea route to the East. After a brief reversion to the Dutch during the Napoleonic wars, it was taken and kept by Britain in the post-war settlement of territorial claims (South Africa Government, 2002–2003, p. 29). The exchange of regimes between the English and the Dutch in the control of South Africa left enduring marks of these empires in the socio-political, economic, and educational life of South Africa that continues through today. In 1910 the two settler communities in South Africa made a truce following a three-year war (1899–1910) to establish what came to be known as the Union of South Africa. To the dismay of indigenous people, the union excluded the local people and continued the disenfranchisement of indigenous South Africans. This development led to the formal establishment in 1912 of the African National Congress (ANC) to oppose the injustices of the union. (This is the present ruling party that won the historic, first all-race elections in 1994 under the leadership of Nelson Mandela.) In 1948 the National Party (representing mainly the interests of the Afrikaners of Dutch descent) won the all-White elections and extended the legalization of segregation by adopting a policy of apartheid. Protests against the apartheid system in the 1950s eventually led to the banning of all forms of organizations opposed to the system in the 1960s. A result was the formal launch of the armed struggle. The major liberation organizations – the ANC and the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) – were driven into exile and underground but continued to fight the system. Apartheid was formally terminated in 1990, and the ANC emerged victorious in 1994, after 143

M. SEHOOLE

72 years of fighting against the unjust segregationist system, in the first all-race democratic elections ever held in the history of South Africa. This election also ended White rule in South Africa, more than three hundred years after the Dutch settlers occupied the Cape Colony in 1652. This colonial history of South Africa shaped by the English and Dutch also finds expression in the origins and development of higher education in South Africa. The emergence of higher education in South Africa can be traced back to 1873 when the first South African university, known as the University of the Cape of Good Hope, was established (http://www.sauvca.org/highered/uni/). South African College was established in Cape Town in 1829 and Victoria College in Stellenbosch in 1865. Over the decades and century since then, higher education in South Africa evolved into a binary system made up of well-established university and technikon sectors. The technikons emerged from the advancement of technical education and institutions in South Africa, the origins of which can be traced back to the turn of the 20th century with the growth of the mining industry. Technikons were given the status of “degree- awarding” institutions in 1993. Thus, when the newly elected democratic government took office in 1994, it inherited a higher education system made up of 21 universities and 15 technikons. The system was, however, fragmented, uncoordinated, and inequitable. According to the Council on Higher Education report, the 36 institutions which formed this fragmented system were four English medium universities originally reserved for White students, six Afrikaans medium universities originally reserved for White students, seven technikons reserved for White students, six universities and technikons located in the “Bantustans” and self-governing territories and reserved for African students, two urban universities and technikons reserved for Coloured and Indian students; two urban universities reserved for black students, and two distance education providers (one university and one technikon). (CHE, 2004, p. 40) To deal with the fragmentations, inequalities, and divisions created by the apartheid system, the new government approved a policy of mergers of all public higher education institutions (HEIs). The new institutional landscape approved by the Minister of Education consisted of 22 public HEIs, down from 36: 11 universities, five “universities of technology” (formerly knows as technikons), and six “comprehensive institutions” (combining university-type and technikons-type programs, and also resulting from a merger of a technikon and a university). Two National Institutes of Higher Education were also approved (CHE, 2004). The mergers took place in two phases: the first effective January 2004 and the second effective January 2005.

THE STUDENT PROFILE

In the early 1960s, South Africa’s universities were catering to about 62,000 students, only 5,000 of whom were not White. Reflecting some progress in building nonracial higher education, today, the majority of students in the public sector’s 21 universities are Black – 309, 723 (67%), according to the enrollment figures 144

SOUTH AFRICA AND THE DYNAMICS OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION Table 1. Headcount enrollment by race: 1993. 1993

%

2002

%

African Coloured Indian White

191,000 28,000 30,000 223,000

40% 7% 5% 47%

404,000 39,000 49,000 182,000

60% 7% 5% 27%

Total

482,000

100%

510,000

100%

Source: Adapted from CHE (2004)

for 2002, and 149,723 (33%) White students. “Others” number 1,692 (0%) (CHE, 2004). In terms of enrollments according to race, Table 1 shows the following picture. • Forty-seven percent of students were White, 40% African, 7% Indian, and 6% Coloured; by 2002, 60% were African and 27% White, with the other two categories remaining the same. • Forty-three percent of students were female and 57% male. In 2002, women constituted a majority: 54% of the total enrollments (363,000). This development matches the international trend in which women’s participation in higher education has overtaken that of men (CHE, 2004, p. 62). • Total student enrollments increased from 677,188 in 2002 to 744,489 in 2004. Overall, participation rates in the public higher education system (i.e., total number of enrolled students divided by total population in the 20–24 age cohort as per international norm) remained unsatisfactory. In 1994, gross participation rates were approximately 17% – higher than those of many developing countries, but lower than those of fast-developing and developed countries. Participation rates were highly skewed by race: approximately 9% for Africans, 13% for Coloureds, 40% for Indians, and 70% for Whites (Cloete & Bunting, 2000). As Hall (2004) puts it, participation for White students was among the highest in the world, and White South Africans were the beneficiaries of a systematic affirmative action policy. Participation rates for Black students were among the lowest, and the official policy was that Black students should be prepared for low- or middle-level technical occupations. In this way, higher education served the goals of apartheid, which led to the international community’s academic boycott of the system during apartheid. Staff Table 2 shows that the overall size of the higher education workforce declined from 45,848 in 1995 to 43,291 in 2002. While women were extremely underrepresented in the academic category, their position did improve between 1995 and 2002 from 13% to 19%. During this period, their proportion as senior lecturers increased from 28% to 38%, as lecturers from 46% to 53%, and as junior lecturers from 53% to 55%. 145

M. SEHOOLE Table 2. Overall number of higher education staff, 1995, 1998, 2002. Institution

1995

1998

2002

Universities Technikons

36,847 9,001

34,780 10,478

32,061 11,230

Total

45,848

45,258

43,291

Source: Adapted from CHE (2004)

The Department of Education’s data for instruction/research staff employed by public higher education institutions in 2000 showed that 36,184 (94%) were South African or permanent residents. Less than 0.5% (164) were from the Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries (compared to 3.8% of the 2001 headcount of foreign students), while 2.2% (832) came from Europe (compared to their 0.5% share of 2001 student headcount) (CHE, 2004). Funding South African higher education is a mixed system of public and private higher education institutions (HEIs). No public funding is made available for private providers. These institutions rely on their own enterprise to remain financially afloat, although the regulatory framework requires them to give evidence of their financial health to government. The financing of higher education has three primary elements: (a) the funding of students through the National Financial Aid Scheme (NFAS); (b) public funding of higher education institutions; and (c) private income earned through student fees, investments, grants and donations, and various entrepreneurial activities. Public HEIs received a large proportion (50%) of their total income from the state in 2004 (CHE, 2004). With respect to recent government funding of higher education, the overall allocation to higher education has risen in nominal terms from R4,72 billion (US$600 million) in 1995–1996 to R8,926 billion (US$1.5 billion) in 2003–2004 and R11,8 billion (US$1.9 billion) in 2006–2007. The proportion allocated to higher education peaked in 1999–2000 at 3.05% of total government expenditures and declined to 2.72% in 2003–2004. The allocation to higher education as a proportion of the overall education budget has remained constant, rising to 12% between 1995 and 1998, rising to around 14% between 1999 and 2001, and then declining to around 13% from 2002. As a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), expenditure on higher education has declined since 1999–2000. Average corresponding percentages for 18 representative countries in the world, from all continents, are 3.3% (of state budget) 22.1% (of education budget), and 1.1% (of GDP), suggesting a relative underfunding of higher education in South Africa (CHE, 2004). The National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) benefits only South African students, although other forms of private financial assistance are available to international students. In 2005, the NSFAS budget amounted to more 146

SOUTH AFRICA AND THE DYNAMICS OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

than a billion rand (US$1.3 million) and benefitted more than 100,000 students in higher education.

NATIONAL POLICIES ON HIGHER EDUCATION’S INTERNATIONALIZATION

Following the end of apartheid, it became necessary to dismantle the architecture of its divided higher education system and to create a single, coordinated system of higher education. National education policy after 1994 identified democratization and globalization as twin challenges to be addressed by higher education. Among some of the policy tools developed to address these challenges were the White Paper 3 on Higher Education (DOE, 1997a), the National Plan for Higher Education (DOE, 2001), which reconceptualized the role of higher education in the local, regional, and national development of the country and the challenges of having to respond to the global context of higher education. The concept of globalization features prominently in the policy documents, but no explicit reference is made to the internationalization of higher education. Prior to 1990, international cooperation as an aspect of South African higher education was greatly restricted as a result of the country’s political, economic, and academic isolation, and the attendant marginalization of its higher education institutions. These restrictions manifested themselves in the relative lack of student and staff mobility and the lack of world-class centers for international education. In contrast, international higher education had become a feature of higher education systems in many other parts of the world following World War II (De Wit, 2002, p. 11). Hans De Wit describes the sudden rise in importance of Third World or developing countries as the main battlefield of international academic exchanges. Their role manifested itself through development cooperation and technical assistance projects. Academic staff were sent to these regions for teaching, training, and curriculum development; students and junior staff received grants for postgraduate training in donor countries; and equipment and books were sent to improve the infrastructure of universities in the developing world. North-South relations dominated internationalization strategies in higher education between 1950 and 1985 in Europe, the United States, Canada, and Australia. The relationship was one-way with multifaceted aspects (student flows from South to North, faculty and funds from North to South) and severe impacts, both negative (brain drain) and positive (better understanding and knowledge). This period saw a shift in the international dimension of higher education moving from the incidental and individual into organized activities, projects, and programs, based mainly on political rationales and driven more by national governments than by higher education itself (De Wit, 2002, p. 13). Mobility during Apartheid South Africans became part of the international education developments described above, especially with respect to the outward and inward mobility of students 147

M. SEHOOLE

and staff. Outward-bound mobility took two forms: first, there was support for students and staff by national and foreign agencies (government and nongovernment) who offered scholarships to students and staff to study abroad; second, there was a migration of students and staff who were fleeing from the brutalities of the apartheid system. A glossary of scholarships to fund study abroad in the 1970s shows that study and career opportunities were available in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Scotland, and the Netherlands (HSRC, 1974). Antiapartheid organizations also offered study opportunities for South Africans living in and outside of South Africa. As part of the rewriting of history, data gathering is required to establish the scale of these programs in terms of number of beneficiaries, the organizations/sponsors involved, and the countries the students went to. Another component of international education that is part of South African history and that also needs further exploration is related to the outflow of students, academics, and professionals who fled from the injustices and brutalities of apartheid. Some of them left to join the liberation movement in exile and, depending on their circumstances and the countries they went to or were posted at, were offered educational opportunities in those host countries. A number of scholarships were made available for South Africans living in exile to pursue their studies. Many of the politicians currently in the South African Parliament obtained their professional training in different parts of the world including the former Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and some African countries. The African National Congress established a school in Tanzania for the children of exiles living in that country. At the end of apartheid in 1990, an estimated 20,000 South African exiles who had been exposed to international education were expected to return home. There is a need to conduct a systematic survey to determine the number of skilled exiles who did so and to document their role and impact in the transition and shaping of a new South Africa. There still remains a growing South African diaspora that never returned home, and some left South Africa after 1994 because of concerns about the future or lack of opportunities in the post-apartheid context. They also need to be accounted for. At the moment, there is a drive to recruit some skilled labor force living abroad back to South Africa.

INWARD MOBILITY

There is a clearer picture of inward mobility than of outward mobility, which is a result of systematic data-capturing by the national Department of Education. The pattern of inbound mobility should be understood in the context of the dominant role South Africa is playing in the Southern African region, the African continent, and the global political economy. After 1994, South Africa reintegrated rapidly into the world community, was welcomed back as a member of the United Nations, the Organization of African Unity (now reconstituted as the African Union) (AU), the Commonwealth, and a host of other international organizations. South Africa further assumed a leading role in African renaissance and associated initiatives such as the African Union, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, the Southern 148

SOUTH AFRICA AND THE DYNAMICS OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

African Development Community (SADC), and the Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation (CHE, 2004, pp. 212–213). Even though integration of South Africa’s political, economic, and cultural aspects into the international/global community was a priority of the new government, there were no clear policies for higher education to this effect. Policy documents produced in the first five years of democracy never explicitly detailed any specific vision, or specific principles, goals, or strategies for the internationalization of higher education. However, given the rationales for and expressions of internationalization, the process is implicitly covered in the policy documents. It was the Council on Higher Education (CHE, 2000) Task Team on Shape and Size that in 2000 isolated the internationalization of higher education as a key feature facing the system: South Africa is not focusing sufficiently on promoting its higher education system internationally. There is immense potential to attract students from the Southern African Region, other parts of Africa and elsewhere without reducing efforts to expand access to South African students. (CHE, 2004, chap. 3) The CHE Task Team believed that an appropriate framework and infrastructure, drawing upon various relevant government departments, should be created specifically for the purpose of addressing the flow of students, which is a form of internationalization. Accordingly, the issue was taken up by the National Plan for Higher Education report (DOE, 2001) which set as one of its strategic objectives producing graduates with the skills and competencies to meet the human resources needs of the country. The plan noted that although several thousand SADC students were enrolled in South African higher education, some SADC countries were negotiating with private providers, both in South Africa and elsewhere, to increase access to higher education for their nationals. In 2002, the policy became effective of treating SADC students as South African students for subsidy purposes and advice was sought from the sectoral bodies on the appropriate fee levy, if any, for SADC students (DOE, 2001, sect. 2.5). These measures should be understood in the context of the SADC protocol on education and training in which South Africa is participating. Developed in 2007 and ratified in 2000, this protocol was signed by all 14 SADC members: Angola, Botswana, Democratic Republic of Congo, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. It provides a framework for regional cooperation in addressing regional needs. These include working toward the harmonization, equivalence, and eventual standardization of entrance requirements; devising mechanisms for credit transfer; encouraging the consistency of academic years to facilitate staff mobility; and promoting student and staff exchange programs (SADC, 1997). Furthermore, to support staff equity and transformed institutional cultures, HEIs were encouraged to actively recruit academics from the rest of Africa, as well as recruiting and retaining Black South Africans. It was believed that this measure would contribute to the broader development of intellectual and research networks across the continent, 149

M. SEHOOLE

thus benefitting the social and economic development of Africa as a whole (CHE, 2004, p. 214). A study conducted in 1999 (EPU, 1999) into international student and staff mobility in South Africa and academic linkages between local institutions and their counterparts in Africa, shows that, despite the spirit in the SADC protocol, it was of the opinion that “while policy is implicitly oriented towards playing a constructive role in Africa, practice mainly focuses on partnership with non-African countries” (p. 23). It expressed the view that this state of affairs was as much a matter of choice as of practical limitations. The neglect of regional and intellectual practice and academic traditions is in many ways an effect of the deliberate cultivation of ties with higher education institutions in Europe and the United States. The University of Pretoria, where I am a faculty member, had, as of June 2005, 72 institutional agreements, most have them with European institutions. The major regions with which agreements were signed were: Europe (26), Africa and SADC Region (18), the Americas (including the United States, Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean) (17), Scandinavia (5), and Asia and the Far East (6). Another study conducted at the University of the Witwatersrand shows that the majority of staff members collaborate with colleagues in Europe (52%) followed by South African universities (44%), North American universities (42%), and universities in SADC countries (29%) (Cross et al., 2004). This finding seems to be in line with general trends in which developing countries primarily look to the North for partnerships, jobs, and study opportunities. The patterns of international cooperation and collaboration reveal two general trends: (a) South Africa’s historical ties with countries of the North, mainly Europe and the United States; and (b) changes that have been taking place since 1994 with Africa as the focus of international trade. These schemes of cooperation also follow the patterns of trade relations South Africa has with the rest of the world. For example, Europe is the largest source of investment for South Africa and accounts for almost half of South Africa’s foreign trade. Seven of South Africa’s top 10 trading partners are European countries. The United Kingdom, with its historic link to South Africa, is South Africa’s third largest trading partner and the largest foreign investor in South Africa. The Netherlands has South Africa as its main trading partner in Africa (South Africa, Government, 2002-2003, pp. 158–159). Africa forms the focus of South Africa’s global economic strategy, within which the government pursues a strong developmental agenda. It is also an important market for South African exports, approximately 30% of which were destined for the continent in 1999. Both North and South America are among South Africa’s key trading partners (South Africa, Government, 2002–2003). Thus, despite a lack of formal policy on the internationalization of higher education, a relationship can be deduced between patterns of internationalization of higher education in terms of schemes of institutional cooperation and academic collaboration on the one hand, and the country’s trade and industrial policy and strategy on the other. This strategy is also evident in the patterns of inbound student mobility (discussed below).

150

SOUTH AFRICA AND THE DYNAMICS OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

Study Permits Despite the absence of clear internationalization of higher education, internationalization policies can be read from the Department of Home Affairs’s immigration policies. An analysis of these policies suggests strict regulations for obtaining study permits, as well as provisions for asylum seekers and refugees to pursue higher education in South Africa. In terms of these provisions, prospective students who are not South African citizens must apply for a study permit at a South African high commission, embassy, consulate, or trade mission in their country of origin or at the trade mission nearest to their home country. Some of the conditions that international students must meet include the following: (a) they must have repatriation guarantees from the South African embassy/high commission that issued the study permit (a repatriation guarantee is equivalent to a return air ticket); (b) if a research student spends one year in South Africa, he or she must have both a repatriation guarantee and a return ticket; (c) proof of sufficient funds to cover living expenses; and (d) a medical report (part of the application form). Refugees are foreign nationals who have refugee status accorded by the United Nations Commission for Human Rights (UNCHR) and have a South African identity book stamped “Refugee.” This status is valid for two years until permanent status is awarded. If it is not awarded, then the individual’s status reverts to “asylum seeker.” The Refugees Act (No. 130-1998, sect. 27) gives refugee students the right to study without a study permit. A person is classified as an asylum seeker in South Africa if he or she is in possession of a valid permit issued under the Immigration Act (No. 13-2002, sect. 13) by the Department of Home Affairs. Tuition fees for refugees and asylum seekers are similar to those of local South Africa students, and they pay local application fees. No medical aid cover is required, although they must pay the international registration fee. Diplomats have the same status as South African students. Spouses of diplomatic staff do not automatically qualify for exemptions from a study permit. Foreign Affairs will consider each application on its merits. (For immigration information and categories of status, consult http://web.wits.ac.za/Prospective/ International/ImmigrationInformation.htm.) Quality Assurance Other forms of internationalization at institutional and sectoral levels have focused on quality assurance in South Africa. Smout (2003) points out that South African universities have a long history of international linkages and activities that evolved out of ad hoc arrangements. When called on to demonstrate their claims to higher quality in their academic endeavors, HEIs usually point to the use of international practice or some other form of international acceptance, be it formally or informally constituted. Among markers of quality are acceptance of institutions’ graduates in top institutions around the world for higher degrees and employment or the numbers of staff who have gained degrees at institutions with international reputations. They further indicate that staff regularly publish their research in international 151

M. SEHOOLE

journals. International exchange arrangements for both staff and students provide further evidence of quality, as do collaborative research projects conducted with top foreign institutions. Some South African universities also seek international accreditation to demonstrate their international competitiveness and quality (Smout, 2003, pp. 37–48). Since 2000, three universities in South Africa (the University of South Africa, Northwest University, and Rhodes University) have undergone quality assurance reviews conducted by international agencies. National quality assurance is part of the move toward the internationalization of quality assurance in South Africa. This development finds expression through the work of the Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC), which was established in 2001 as a permanent body of the Council on Higher Education. The HEQC is a member of the International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education. The HEQC, in setting up its framework for institutional audits and program accreditation, has drawn widely on international experience and has employed international consultants; the resultant framework documents therefore mirror international best practices (Smout, 2003). Other Initiatives to Encourage International Collaboration Research has been a key area aimed at encouraging international collaboration and the exchange of ideas among South African researchers and their counterparts around the world. The key driver in this has been the National Research Foundation (NRF), which reports to the Department of Culture, Science, and Technology and distributes the department’s funding to higher education institutions on a competitive-bid basis. The NRF’s international science liaison facilitates cooperation among local and foreign researchers by administering grants and fellowships in the following categories: overseas conference attendance; research visits abroad; short courses abroad; foreign research fellowships, keynote speakers from abroad; and interaction with the rest of Africa (http://www.nrf.ac.za/services/isl). The NRF has also concluded a number of agreements with organizations abroad. It acts as a facilitator, enabling researchers to benefit from international exchange and collaboration. Most of these agreements and opportunities allow for cost sharing between the contracting parties, so more can be achieved with the limited funding available to the NRF for international exchange. Under these agreements South African researchers and scholars may request support from the NRF for: • Exchange of researchers to participate in joint research projects, usually for two to three months. • Ad hoc grants for short orientation visits to research institutions abroad. • Ad hoc grants for joint symposia; within each agreement, a list of priority topics has been defined. • Lectureship programs where eminent South African scientists are invited to undertake a lecturing tour in a collaborating country and vice versa. 152

SOUTH AFRICA AND THE DYNAMICS OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

Inter-Governmental Agreements The purpose of intergovernmental agreements is to foster closer links with the international science and technology community; maintain and strengthen South Africa’s science and technology research capacity; and promote science and technology in realizing South Africa’s national objectives. Bilateral agreements in the natural, social, and applied sciences as well as the humanities, engineering, and technology are intended to promote long-term cooperation to the mutual benefit of the scientific communities of both countries. The disciplines vary as agreed upon by the two contracting parties. Funding from the Department of Arts, Culture, Science, and Technology is available for collaboration as specified in official intergovernmental agreements between South Africa and other countries. Supported activities include the exchange of scientists for short periods, joint symposia and workshops, lectureship programs, and joint science and technology programs. All scientists and scholars who are permanent members of scientific and scholarly communities of the countries involved may apply. Applicants must have full-time employment status at a higher educational institution, museum, science council, or accredited research institution. Currently, South Africa has concluded science and technology agreements with China (general agreement); Egypt (general agreement); Flanders (natural and applied sciences and the humanities); France (natural and applied sciences, technology, and social and political sciences); Germany (basic sciences, new materials and manufacturing, information technology, environmental issues, and biotechnology); Hungary (engineering, natural and applied sciences, and technology); India (natural and applied sciences, humanities, and technology); Italy (general agreement); Namibia (general agreement); Norway (general agreement); Poland (general agreement); Russian Federation (particle physics, biotechnology, environmental sciences, geology, new materials, social sciences, and humanities); Sweden (general agreement); the United States (capacity building and science education, food and environmental security, and improved health care) and Zimbabwe (general agreement). (Information on these arrangements is available at http://www.nrf.ac.za/services/isl.) These initiatives and agreements, which provide South African researchers and scholars with opportunities to interact and collaborate with international scholars, are phenomenal given the fact that, just two decades ago, many of these countries were participating in a cultural and academic boycott against South Africa. They further highlight the programs that are in place and are aimed at furthering the cultural, political, and economic ties between South Africa and partner countries. Mobility of researchers and scholars among these countries serve as concrete and productive ways to develop mutually beneficial relationships. While this section focused mainly on national and sectoral levels of internationalization, the next level will focus more on sectoral and institutional levels.

153

M. SEHOOLE FOREIGN HIGHER EDUCATION PROVIDERS IN SOUTH AFRICA

As a result of the academic boycott imposed on South African higher education, there was little if any foreign provision of higher education during apartheid. After apartheid ended in 1990, South Africa became a destination of choice for many foreign providers. No doubt contributing to this development was the fact that South Africa’s transition to democracy took place in the context of rapid globalization characterized by the ascendancy of neo-liberal economic rationales which emphasized the market. The services and trade negotiations created much interest in looking for trade opportunities around the world. The “miracle” of transition to democracy in South Africa, and its “progressive” policies, including its constitution, which were seen as models for the world to follow, made South Africa the tonic of the decade. Many countries and providers wanted to be associated with or have a share/role in its unfolding democracy. However, some providers took advantage of the new space for operation and employed practices that benefitted only their own interests. As it will be shown, they faced the might of the law. The 1990s saw a proliferation of private higher education providers (both local and transnational) in South Africa. They became the focus of legislative and regulatory action, as manifested in the Higher Education Act (DOE, 1997b), the Department of Education’s registration requirements, and scrutiny by the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) and the Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC). Following the adoption of the Higher Education Act in (1997 that gave due recognition to the place and role of private higher education in South Africa, the system began to experience the mushrooming of private providers, both local and international. Before 1997, private higher education was seen by public higher education institutions and the Department of National Education as peripheral, unimportant, and of low quality (Mabizela, 2004). During this period, a commonly held view was that a burgeoning private sector would be needed to deal with demands for higher education that the public sector would not be able to satisfy. The experiences of other developing countries were often cited as an indication that, when the capacity of the public higher education sector is limited, the government should encourage the development of a new higher education sector funded by private capital (Singh & Naidoo, 2004). With the legal basis for the operation of private providers in place, the system experienced heightened private provision in a number of forms. Private South African companies launched new private HEIs, and overseas institutions also attempted to establish satellite operations in South Africa. Partnerships between South African companies and a small group of public universities and technikons seemed to dominate the form in which private providers operated. The number of private providers at the time was unknown. The government responded to these new developments by stating its intention to protect the public interest by ensuring the financial sustainability and quality of providers and by facilitating the coordinated development of the system in both private and public sectors. To this end, the Department of Education formulated 154

SOUTH AFRICA AND THE DYNAMICS OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

directives and regulations, including the registration of private institutions, including foreign/transnational providers, commencing in January 1999. The Department of Education (2003) stated that the purpose of registering private higher education institutions was to ensure that: • Private higher education institutions offer an acceptable quality of education. • Students receive higher education from institutions that have the resources, capacity, and/or expertise to deliver quality programs. • Students enrolled with private higher education institutions obtain qualifications that are aligned with the National Qualifications Framework (NQF). • The education system continues on a path of transformation in accordance with government policy and regulation (p. 4). Out of an estimated 323 institutions involved in some form of private higher education, about 145 had applied for accreditation by May 2001; 14 were transnational institutions (11 universities and four colleges) from the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, and the Netherlands, all of which applied for registration. In 2001, the DOE registered four foreign institutions: De Monfort University (UK), Business School of the Netherlands, and Bond and Monash Universities (Australia). In 2000, the enrollments at these four transnational institutions totaled 3,165, accounting for 0.5% of the total number of students enrolled at both private and public higher education and 10% of all private higher education students. For reasons that are not clear, headcount enrollments in transnational institutions declined in 2001 to 1,242 (Singh & Naidoo, 2004). The four transnational providers offered higher education mainly in the fields of commerce and management, particularly master of business administration (MBAs) programs. The reasons offered by students for choosing foreign institutions were that they were international institutions of a good quality and reputation and provided students with the possibility of international mobility upon completion of their qualifications. As far as international portability is concerned, Australia recognizes the MBAs offered by Australian institutions in South Africa. Students can transfer to the parent institution without losing credits or recognition and can enter doctoral programs in management after finishing the MBA. However, the United Kingdom does not “fully” recognize MBAs offered by UK institutions abroad. Employers have requested that such institutions specify on the certificate that the student graduated in a foreign country and not at the host institution in the United Kingdom. According to Singh and Naidoo (2004), prior to the establishment of the Department of Education’s private provider registration requirement, there was also an enormous growth in the franchising of qualifications by foreign providers to locally established private institutions. Most of the private providers started through franchise agreements with such foreign providers. Between 1996 and 1999, the Department of Education received several complaints about the quality of provision from students who were studying at institutions that had franchise arrangements with foreign providers. It became apparent that the franchiser institution often neglected oversight of quality arrangements at the local private franchise. Moreover, 155

M. SEHOOLE

national quality assurance agencies from the franchiser’s country of origin did not “quality assure” the franchiser’s ability to deliver high-quality education. Furthermore, many franchise arrangements were concluded with foreign institutions that were perceived in their home countries as being of poor quality (Singh & Naidoo, 2004, p. 22). As a result of these quality-related problems, the Department of Education outlawed franchising, forcing foreign providers to establish a physical presence as transnational private providers in South Africa and to take responsibility for the quality of programs they offered in this country. From 1996 to 1999, more than 50 foreign providers operated in South Africa through franchise and other partnership arrangements; by 2001, only four transnational providers were registered. The termination of the franchising arrangements between the foreign and local private providers gave the impetus for local private providers to establish institutions in their own right with due attention to the quality of their provision. The Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC) of the Council on Higher Education further developed a new regulatory and quality assurance framework. This framework covered both the public and private (local and transnational providers). This framework specifies that private and transnational providers: • Must operate as a trading company registered under the South African Companies Act. • Sign a declaration of nondiscrimination in relation to students and staff with a commitment to advance the agenda of redress and equity. • Be financially viable, with regular monitoring and reporting. • Meet all qualifications standards as assessed by South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) and register on the NQF. SAQA is responsible for evaluating and recognizing qualifications, while individual institutions have the right to recognize qualifications for entrance and further study purposes. • Have the quality of all institutions and programs assured by CHE/HEQC. • May not franchise programs. • Receive quality assurance clearance from their country of origin that are recognized by the parent institution and by the country’s quality assurance system. Students should be able to transfer from South Africa to the parent institution without losing credits. • Provide proof of the equivalence of qualifications, recognition, and accreditation in their home country when applying for registration (Singh & Naidoo, 2004, p. 20). The development of this regulatory framework is a milestone in the restructuring process of higher education in South Africa. What is important is the fact that all institutions (private and public) are subject to the same regulations. South Africa has been able to undertake this internal regulatory mechanism without any form of external pressure or restraint such as those flowing from being a signatory of the General Agreement on Trade in Services. With an already flooded private higher education environment, in line with the most-favored nation principle, South Africa 156

SOUTH AFRICA AND THE DYNAMICS OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

would have a mammoth task of meeting regulation from GATS signatories in the event of its accepting offers for education services. South Africa’s response to GATS is one of the critical factors in determining the pace and success of internationalization of its higher education. Even though South Africa is a GATS signatory, it has not committed to the education sector. South Africa has received requests for access to higher education services from five countries asking it to ensure that there are no limits on service providers from these countries wishing to operate within South African borders and that they be treated no less favorably than their South African counterparts. South Africa’s response thus far has been caution about submitting its higher education system to GATS. Its inclination is toward viewing education as a public good and recognizing that government should be at the center of provision. Given the challenges of restructuring its higher education system so recently, combined with the lessons drawn from some of the private providers (local and transnational) that offered programs of dubious quality, the government wants to be at the center of regulating all providers in the interest of the public. According to the CHE (2004) report, particular risks of committing the education sector to the GATS include: • Potentially undermining the government’s efforts to transform higher education and in particular to strengthen the public sector so that it can participate effectively in a globalization environment. • Undermining institutional cultures and academic values. • Erosion of the “public good” agenda for higher education, thus abandoning the age-old commitment that a university delivering education to a community must first and foremost address itself to the socio-economic needs of that community. • Ethical and legal problems arising from trade that is not yet “mature” and which may therefore display inadequate preparation, short-term gains, and under-investment on the part of transnational providers, particularly those not rooted in the national education system of other countries (MOE, 2003). All of these concerns are further underpinned by a concern on the part of government that GATS agreements with respect to higher education would entail an additional level of regulation, which would accordingly imply a loss of sovereignty and steerability of the national sector by the state and the HEIs themselves. Given that there is an existing regulatory framework governing foreign providers of higher education in South Africa, the Ministry of Education believes that the current focus should be on strengthening current activities designed to promote South Africa in the global environment (MOE, 2004). As one such initiative, in February 2004, the ministry issued as a discussion document a draft code of conduct for crossborder/transnational delivery of higher education programs. It covers such aspects as branch campuses, distance learning programs, franchising, international, offshore and virtual providers, and twinned programs (MOE, 2004). The draft code advocates, among other things, that cross-border delivery of higher education be consistent with the mission of an institution and not a “short term adventure”; that 157

M. SEHOOLE

it be sensitive to national contexts; that there be full accountability for quality and standards of provision; that partnership arrangements and contracts safeguard academic quality and the interests of students; that curricula include content relevant to the needs of the studentbody, that award-granting institutions must have full control over assessment; and that sovereignty of national departments of education be respected (MOE, 2004). Despite some apprehensions in terms of subjecting education to GATS regulations, some believe that South Africa is losing out on an opportunity to take advantage of a liberalized higher education environment. Advocates argue that South Africa would gain from committing to GATS in higher education in the following ways: (a) It has a well-established higher education system that is globally competitive and capable of attracting good students; (b) Higher education is offered through the medium of English, which is attractive to those who want to acquire higher education in an English-speaking country, and (c) The price of getting quality education in South Africa is cheaper than that of countries of the North. If South Africa becomes signatory to GATS on education, it would not only surrender control of policy determination to the WTO, but it would also have to compete with foreign providers for the fast-growing SADC and broader continental higher education “market” within South Africa’s borders. Thus, by keeping the present arrangements, South Africa is not losing any opportunity worldwide; instead it is using its territorial advantage in the African continent and the Southern African region to access and to provide services to international students, both from the region and abroad, as it will be shown in the next section. INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION AFTER APARTHEID

The patterns of international trade relations discussed above, which are mirrored by the institutional linkages and schemes of collaborations of South African academics, are also reflected in the patterns of student circulation in higher education in the country. The Council on Higher Education (CHE, 2004) reports the state of international student mobility in South Africa. Drawing from a range of sources, including a study conducted in 1999, the report shows: • There has been a significant increase in the number of international students in South Africa since 1994 (a growth of about 25% between 1988 and 1996). • Most international students (55% in 1996) were registered with the largest distance-education provider in the country, the University of South Africa (UNISA), suggesting they might not live in South Africa. The second largest cluster was registered at historically advantaged (White) institutions (HAIs), especially in the Western Cape and Gauteng provinces, which are the two major urban provinces. There were very few international students at historically disadvantaged (Black) institutions (HDIs) – on average, fewer than 30 per institution. 158

SOUTH AFRICA AND THE DYNAMICS OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION Table 3. Number of international students by region, 2000 and 2004. Region SADC Rest of Africa Europe Asia North America South America Unknown

2000 Number

%

2004 Number

%

21,215 4,343 3,067 1,492 675 151 13,839

47.2 9.7 6.8 3.3 1.5

35,962 7,214 3,610 2,496 1,437 167 1,567

68.0 13.7 6.9 4.7 2.7

30.8

3.0

Total Source: Data provided to me by the Higher Education Management System (HEMIS) of Department of Education in 2006

• Overall international students comprise about 3% of students at universities and 2% at technikons. Most international students were registered for degree programs, with most students in master’s programs. • International students from the rest of the African continent comprised 70% of total of foreign students. Most students from SADC countries were registered for undergraduate courses, while most students from other African countries were registered for graduate degrees. • The number of international students from all sending countries increased throughout the 1990s and had risen sharply among students from Asia as a result of UNISA’s successful recruitment. A research project on internationalization at the University of the Witwatersrand also revealed recruitment initiatives of students in Asian countries in response to the need for acquiring proficiency in English in these countries (Cross et al., 2004). • Most international students were male, although the percentage of female international students at the graduate student level has recently increased. The data provided by the Higher Education Management System (HEMIS) illustrate developments in the last five years. A noticeable trend is that the increase in the numbers of foreign students (observed in the 1999 study) has continued and accelerated, rising from 14,124 in 1995 to 46,687 in 2002 and 52,579 in 2004. Of these 52,579 foreign students, 35,962 (68.4%) were from SADC countries, up from 21,215 (47.2%) in 2000. A total of 7,214 (13.7%) had come from the rest of the African continent, up from 4,242 (9.7) in 2000. SADC students were drawn to higher education in South Africa by proximity, cultural and linguistic links, and quality of educational resources. The increase in students from the SADC region and the African continent should be understood in the light of South Africa’s vision of the African recovery program. Africa forms the focus of South Africa’s global economic strategy, within which the government pursues a strong developmental agenda. It takes the position that South Africa’s own success is inextricably linked to the continent’s economic recovery. Through a combination of sectoral cooperation, policy coor159

M. SEHOOLE Table 4. Major sender countries in the SADC region.

Total SADC Zimbabwe Botswana Namibia

2000

%

2004

%

23,215 6,475 893 6,215

27.8 3.8 26.7

35,962 8,824 7,791 7,323

24.5 21.6 20.3

Source: Data provided to me by the HEMIS, Department of Education

dination, and trade integration, South Africa’s regional policy aims to achieve a dynamic regional economy capable of competing effectively in the global economy. For instance, South African works closely with its neighbors in engaging effectively with multilateral institutions and agreements, from the WTO to the African-Caribbean-Pacific (ACP) Declaration (South Africa, Government, 2000– 2001, p. 157). Part of its contribution to regional development is in the form of human resource development. The centerpiece of South Africa’s foreign economic policy is the SADC. Trade with these countries increased from R16 billion ($2.08 billion) to R22 billion ($2.87 billion) during 1998–2000. The higher number of students from the SADC region should also understood in the light of the subregional cooperation agreement known as the SADC protocol on education signed by 14 countries in the Southern African region which facilitates the recognition of the member states’ qualifications and the transfer of these qualifications (SADC, 1997). The dominance of the three countries in sending students to South Africa could be attributed to the following factors: 1. Geographical proximity. All of them share borders with South Africa on the north and western sides, 2. Zimbabwe’s political instability. The near-collapse of its education system accounts for the influx of Zimbabwean students to South Africa. 3. Lack of domestic capacity to meet educational accounts in Botswana and Namibia. Each country has only one university. Botswana has signed an agreement with South Africa to train its students, which are fully funded by the Botswana government. This accounts for a steep increase in the number of students from 2000 (893, or 3%) to 2004 (7,791 or 21.6%). The strength of Botswana currency in relation to South African currency makes it cheaper for Batswana students to study in South Africa. 4. Language also plays a role. Both Zimbabwe and Botswana have schools in which English is the language of instruction. Namibia as a former South African colony, instructs in both English and Afrikaans. Table 5 shows that most students are still enrolled in undergraduate programs as evidenced by the small percentages of enrollments in graduate studies. The significance of these data, however, lies in the fact that a good number of international 160

SOUTH AFRICA AND THE DYNAMICS OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION Table 5. Enrollment by qualification type. Region

2000 Total

Graduate Students

Ph.D.s

2004 Total

Graduate Students

Ph.D.s

SADC 23,215 4,567 (21.5%) 252 (1.2%) 52,579 6,938 (19%) 656 (1.8%) Rest of Africa 4,244 1,332 (30.7%) 267 (6.1%) 6,874 2,844 (39.4%) 683 (9.5%) Europe 3,036 968 (31.6%) 164 (5.6%) 3,442 1,258 (34.8%) 244 (6.8%) Asia 1,492 412 (27.6%) 90 (6%) 2,496 790 (31.7%) 166 (6.7%) North America 675 186 (27.6%) 38 (5.6%) 1,435 531 (37%) 222 (15.5%) Australia and Oceana 143 48 (33.6%) 14 (9.8%) 128 42 (32.8%) 16 (12.5%) Unknown 13,839 1,218 (8.8%) 262 (2%) 1,447 676 (43.1%) 136 (8.7%) Total

students from developed countries come to South Africa for graduate programs in general and for Ph.d.s in particular. South Africa also hosted 1,456 and 1,594 US study-abroad students in 2001–2002 and 2002–2003 respectively. The table shows that, except for SADC countries which have a drop in percentage of graduate students, all other regions had an increase in graduate-level enrollments between 2000 and 2004. This rise could be attributed to the quality of some programs offered in South African institutions as well as to the fees, which are low compared to the cost of a degree in their home countries. Fees for international students enrolling in a public South African institution are not centrally regulated. Each institution sets its own policies on foreign student fees. Fee structures for international students therefore vary considerably among institutions; some charge only an additional R300 (US$40) per year for non-SADC students, while others charge as much as US$6,050 (R46,309), payable in US$ only. For the most part, SADC students are subject to the same fee schedule as national students. UNISA and the University of the Witwatersrand are the only universities to charge SADC students a significant premium.

SOUTH AFRICAN STUDENTS ABROAD

There is no comprehensive information about South African students studying abroad. However, available data from the Council on Higher Education (CHE, 2004) report, though limited, show that South Africans abroad were mainly studying in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. In 2001–2002, 2,232 South Africans were enrolled at US universities and colleges, an increase of 60% over the preceding year (2,106 in 2000–2001). Of these, 61% were enrolled in undergraduate programs and 34% in graduate degree programs. In 2002, 668 students were enrolled at universities in the United Kingdom, according to students’ records kept by the British Higher Education Statistics Agency. In 2001–2002, 97 South African students were enrolled at German universities (including universities of applied sciences), seven of them in doctoral programs. 161

M. SEHOOLE Table 6. South African students traveling abroad to study, 2000–2003.

Total Traveling to Study Top Regional Destination No. to Top Regional Destination Top Country Destination No. to Top Country Destination

2003

2002

2001

2000

16,922 Europe 8,215 UK 4,958

13,074 Europe 6,531 UK 3,890

13,710 Europe 6,838 UK 4,041

12,052 Europe 5,738 UK 3,165

Source: Statistics South Africa (2003)

However, statistics of departures from South Africa’s three major international airports (Durban, Johannesburg, and Cape Town) indicate that far larger numbers than reported in the above figures indicated that their purpose was to study abroad. In 2000, about 12,052 identified study as their purpose; this figure increased dramatically in 2003 to 16,922 (Statistics, 2003). Their most popular destination was the United Kingdom. Some of the discrepancy may be explained if some were pursuing informal or short-term study options, not a higher degree. Despite the inconclusive nature of the available data, more students are coming into South Africa than are leaving it. Some explanations for the minimal outward mobility are the quality and credibility of the higher education system in South Africa, the poor quality of schooling formerly available for Black people, the culture of non-traveling prevalent under apartheid, the growing economy, and the prospects of finding a good job after graduation from some of the top South African universities.

CHALLENGES AND CRITICAL ISSUES OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

The chapter thus far has made a case for understanding the political and economic context and trade relations South Africa has with the wider world as part of making sense of the unfolding internationalization phenomenon. South Africa’s context is colonialism, apartheid, and post-apartheid. International education in South Africa has its roots in colonialism, of which the Dutch and the English were founders. Second, the patterns of higher education’s internationalization have followed economic and trade relations. That is, the more extensive trade and economic relations the country has with particular regions (Europe, Africa, and North America), the more schemes of international institutional agreements and academic collaborations have been found. The patterns of institutional schemes of collaboration can also be related to the historical fact that 80% of academics in HEIs are White and have historical ties with European and North America countries and institutions. On the other hand, the pattern of international students seems to be dominated by SADC countries. Factors such as geographical proximity, the SADC protocol promoting collabora162

SOUTH AFRICA AND THE DYNAMICS OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

tion, language, colonial ties, study permits, and low fees are some of the pull factors to South Africa. The data also show an increase in the number of international students from all regions since 1995. The pattern of student enrollments by program qualification type shows an increase in the number of graduate students in general and doctoral studies in particular. This finding adds credibility to the quality of higher education in South Africa. South Africa is also becoming a dominant player in international student mobility with 7% of its 750,000 higher education students in 2004 drawn from the international student cohort. Because the majority of these international students are from the South, these numbers also suggest a reverse in student mobility from North-South to South-South. It is only in the decade of the 1990s that South Africa in general and higher education in particular became open to the rest of the world. As a result, attempts at internationalization are still in early developmental stages as the transformation and restructuring of the higher education system received higher priority. Despite these factors, there is also evidence of a number of activities in support of the internationalization of higher education at both national and institutional levels. Despite the absence of written policies, internationalization seems to be finding expression more as a practice than as text. There are still many factors that influence the movement of students in and out of South Africa. Among them are immigration laws and procedures for obtaining study permits, which a number of students with whom I have discussed the topic describe as stringent. Internationalization also takes place at national, sectoral, and institutional levels in a context which lacks a formal policy on internationalization. This is not to suggest that internationalization should necessarily be adopted as a formal policy. However, given the prominence assigned to policy in the restructuring process in education, it is not unexpected that internationalization could be subjected to formal policy. In fact, the regulations that have been promulgated concerning the activities of private providers (local and transnational) lend themselves to forms of internationalization policy. Student and staff mobility, and sharing knowledge and ideas related to internationalization, are promoted in South Africa by the International Education Association of South Africa (IEASA). In 2002, IEASA developed a strategy for promoting South African higher education, acknowledging that past isolation could be overturned by conscious new strategies to make South African higher education more visible in an international arena. This approach makes due recognition of major studies in Australia and the United Kingdom which forecast a tripled demand for international students in their respective countries over the next 20 years, meaning that international student mobility in the world would increase from 2 million currently to 7 million by 2025 (CHE, 2004, p. 220). Thus, there are substantial opportunities for attracting some of these students to South Africa. As matters currently stand, international student numbers in South Africa are expected to grow because of demand from the SADC countries and the additional pressure

163

M. SEHOOLE

for education and training from countries directly linked to initiatives by the New Partnership for Africa’s Development. On the other hand, South African students are also keen to study with international institutions as shown in the rationales they provided for their choice of transnational institutions operating in South Africa. They consistently cite the appeal of “international” institutions of a good quality and reputation and the possibility of international mobility upon completion of their qualifications. These could be reasons why South African students also pursue their studies abroad. Given the small numbers of South African students studying abroad and the few countries for which we have statistics, it has not been possible to generalize and provide trends of pull and push factors. The Council on Higher Education has made important observations concerning the challenges of internationalization of higher education in South Africa, which merit citing at length in concluding this chapter. While transformative changes in policy have been influenced by international trends, there is scant reference to internationalization in key higher education policy documents, meaning that the issue has not yet received optimal policy attention for the purposes of maximizing the benefits of collaboration in an international frame. If international education is to contribute to development, then it should ideally be considered as an integral part of higher education planning, implementation and evaluation, with an appropriate policy framework in place. Obvious partners in such policy development are other ministries, HEIs, and student and staff organizations. In addition, the global impact of trade liberalization needs to be carefully monitored lest South Africa and other developing nations be overwhelmed by foreign providers of education. A national policy for the internationalization of higher education would has to grapple with some specific issues. These include interministerial policy integration; immigration regulations that will make it easier for international students to study in South Africa; the challenges of ‘marketing’ South African higher education in a highly competitive global environment; a state policy on subsidizing international student fees; the role of the National Higher Education Information and Applications Service for international students; a framework for evaluating credentials to ensure the quality and consistency of these services across the system; and qualifications authority in internationalization activities. Policy development would also have to take account of complex issues having to do with “brain drain,” “brain gain,” and “brain circulation. South Africa is vulnerable to brain drain as well as skill-raiding by other countries across the spectrum of professions – and student mobility is one element in that dynamic.

REFERENCES CHE, Council on Higher Education. (2000). Toward a new higher education landscape: Meeting the equity, quality and social development imperatives of South Africa in the 21st century. Pretoria, South Africa: CHE. CHE, Council on Higher Education. (2004). South Africa higher education in the first decade of democracy. Pretoria, South Africa: CHE.

164

SOUTH AFRICA AND THE DYNAMICS OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION Cloete, N. & Bunting, I. (2000). Increased and broadened participation. In N. Cloete & I. Bunting (Eds.), Higher education transformation: Assessing performance in South Africa. Pretoria, South Africa: Center for Higher Education Transformation. Cross, M., Sehoole, M., Mhlanga, E., Byars-Ameguide, P., Inglis, J., & Koen, C. (2004). University experience in the 21st century: Perceptions of global and local exposure at the University of Witwatersrand. Survey study commissioned by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor External. Johannesburg: University of Witwatersrand. DOE, Department of Education. (1997a). Education white paper 3: A program for the transformation of higher education. Pretoria, South Africa: DOE. DOE, Department of Education. (1997b). Higher Education Act (Act No. 101-1997). Pretoria, South Africa: DOE. DOE, Department of Education. (2001). National plan for higher education. Pretoria, South Africa: DOE. DOE, Department of Education. (2003). Register of private providers. Pretoria, South Africa: DOE. De Wit, Hans. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe: A historical, comparative, and conceptual analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. EPU, Education Policy Unit. (1998). The relationship between higher education and business: A typology. Bellville, South Africa: Education Policy Unit, University of the Western Cape. Adelzader, A. & Padayachee V. (1994). The RDP and the white paper: Reconstruction of a development vision. Transformation, No. 25: Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa, pp. 1–18. Hall, M. (2004). Retrieved on May 15, 2006, http://www.bc.edu/bc.org/avp/soe/cihe/ohec/regions/ International_SouthAfrica.doc. HSRC, Human Sciences Research Council. (1974). Register of bursaries available for South Africans. Pretoria, South Africa: HSRC. Knight, Jane. (2003). Updated internationalization definition. International Higher Education, 33, 2–3. Mabizela, M. (2004). Recounting the state of private higher education in South Africa. Paper prepared for the Policy Forum on Private Higher Education, 2002–2003, Accra, Ghana. Malherbe, E. D. (1925). Education in South Africa. Cape Town, South Africa: Juta. MOE, Ministry of Education. (2003). Presentation by the Minister of Education, Professor Kader Asmal, to the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry: Implications of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) on higher education, March 2003. Cape Town, South Africa: Parliament. MOE, Ministery of Education. (2004). Draft code of conduct for cross border/transnational delivery of higher education programmes. Pretoria: Government Printers. SADC, Southern Africa Development Community. (1997). Protocol. Blantyre, Malawi, September 1997. Singh, M. & Naidoo, P. (2004). National regulation of transnational higher education: A South African case study. Pretoria, South Africa: Council on Higher Education. Smout, S. (2003). Internationalization and quality in South African universities. Pretoria, South Africa: South African University Vice-Chancellors Association (SAUVCA). South Africa, Government and Communication and Information System. (2000–2001). South Africa year book. Durban, South Africa: Universal Printers. South Africa, Government and Communication and Information System. (2002–2003). South Africa year book. Durban, South Africa: Universal Printers. Statistics South Africa (2003). Retrieved in September 2006 from http://www.statssa.gov.za.

165

HANS DE WIT

7. INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE BOLOGNA PROCESS AND THE LISBON STRATEGY

This chapter deals with one region, Europe.1 The chapter will follow the outline described in the introduction of this study; but given the nature of Europe as a region, the descriptions of the higher education system, the internationalization policies, and the foreign presence in higher education are regional descriptions, rather than national. The main focus is on the two reform processes taking place in European higher education: the Bologna Process and the Lisbon Strategy. These processes have implications for both the overall system and specifically for the internationalization of higher education in the region. On the issue of international student circulation in Europe, I provide a comparative and critical analysis by country and for the region as a whole. European higher education is facing many challenges and is undergoing fundamental reforms that go beyond national boundaries and even beyond the European Union (EU). To become a highly competitive knowledge economy and society, radical changes must occur in the coming decade in the quality, structure, funding,2 and competitiveness of European higher education. The Bologna Process and the Lisbon Strategy are the key drivers for this reform, and they include the main stakeholders: students, institutions, the private sector, national governments, and the European Union. The international mobility of students and scholars is an essential part of this process. In this chapter, I address the main characteristics of European higher education, its internationalization policies, the trade dimension of international higher education in Europe, and challenges and opportunities as presented by the Bologna Process, the Lisbon Strategy, and other key issues in European higher education. The chapter concludes with an overview and analysis of the international circulation of students in European higher education.

KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

In Europe as a whole, there are approximately 4,000 institutions of higher education, about 3,300 of which are in the European Union. In 2000 students numbered over 17 million (12.5 million in the EU), and staff numbered 1.5 million, including 1 This introduction is revised and extended from De Wit (2006b). 2 For a detailed overview of funding European higher education, see Sadlak and De Miguel (2005).

H. de Wit et al. (eds.), The Dynamics of International Student Circulation in a Global Context, 167–198. © 2008. Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

H. DE WIT Table 1. Gross enrollment rates (all students irrespective of age as a percentage of student-age population) in tertiary education. Year, Unit

EU 25

USA

Japan

All students as % of population in age group 20–24, Year 2003

57%

81%

50%

Source: DG EAC based on UNESCO data Table 2. Enrollment rates in higher education for adults. Year, Unit

EU 25

USA

Japan

% of population 30–39 in higher education, Year 2004

30–34: 4.1% 35–39: 4.9%

30–34: 7.0% 35–39: 1.8%

n.a.

Source: EUROSTAT (LFS)

435,000 researchers. The EU conducts 80% of all fundamental research in Europe, though hosting only 34% of all European researchers. In the 35–39 age group, approximately 20% of Europeans hold a higher education qualification, compared to 12.5% of those ages 55–69. Of the total population aged 25–64, 84% of those holding higher education qualifications are employed, 15 points above the average for persons of all education levels and 30 points above those who have completed only lower secondary education. In 2003, the rate of unemployment of those holding a tertiary education qualification for the age group 20–24 was 12.3%, compared to 1.6% for the United States and 8.5% for the agegroup 25–29, compared to 2.6% for the United States (Commission of the European Communities, 2006, p. 15). The participation rate in higher education in the European Union for the 25–64 age group was only 23.8% in 2000 compared to 37.3% in the United States (Cohen, 2005, p. 10). Tables 1 and 2 (Commission of the European Communities, 2006, pp. 12–13) make clear that the EU is lagging behind the United States. On average, the member states of the European Union spend 5% of their GDP on public expenditure for education, comparable to the United States. Public expenditures dropped in the past decade, private expenditure did not increase, and the European Union lags now far behind the United States in overall spending: 1.1% compared to 2.3%. As Table 3 shows, “This gap stems primarily from the low level of private funding of higher education in Europe. This stands at a meagre 0.2% of European GDP compared with 0.6% in Japan and 1.2% in the USA” (Commission of the European Communities, 2003, p. 12). On average, 80% of total expenditures for higher education in Europe comes from public sources. Table 3 provides a comparative overview of major European countries, the United States, Japan, and Australia. The percentage of funding for research and development as part of GDP was 1.92% in the EU in 2003, with an increase between 1996 and 1999 of 2.3%, compared to 2.59% in the United States with an increase over the same period 168

BOLOGNA PROCESS AND LISBON STRATEGY Table 3. Sources of funding for higher education as percentage of GDP. Country

Public Funding

Private Funding

Total 2000

% Private of Total 2000

USA UK Netherlands Germany France Finland Japan Australia

0.9 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 0.5 0.8

1.8 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.7

2.7 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.7 1.1 1.6

67% 30% 17% 10% 9% 0% 55% 44%

Source: Cohen (2005, p. 6)

of 6.6%; the increase for Japan was 3.15%. Only Finland funds R&D at a higher rate than the United States with 3.1% and an increase of 13.1% (Commission of the European Communities, 2006; Gines Mora, 2005). The number of Nobel Laureates is presently much lower in Europe than in the United States. For instance, in physics between 1969 and 1984, the figures were 12 versus 22 and in 1985–2004, 4 versus 32. The figures in economics in 1969–1984 were 9 versus 12, and in 1985–2004, 5 versus 28 (Gines Mora, 2005). Furthermore, higher education in Europe uses its funding inefficiently. In the European Union, an average of 40% of its students drop out. There is also a decided mismatch between the supply of qualifications and the demand for qualified people, a huge disparity in the duration of studies in the EU; a disparity in the status and conditions of recruitment and work for researchers; and lack of transparent systems for calculating the cost of research (Commission of the European Communities, 2003, pp. 14–15). The situation in the rest of Europe is even less promising, creating considerable challenges to Europe’s higher education sector. According to the European Commission (2006b): The performance of developed economies is closely related to their ability to create, disseminate, and apply knowledge. These three poles – education, research, innovation – are known as the “knowledge triangle.” Unfortunately, Europe has fallen behind in all three parts of the knowledge triangle, and needs to improve its performance in each of them. The European Commission identifies the following seven problems with Europe’s universities: 1. European higher education is frequently fragmented into national systems and subsystems lacking effective links and bridges. 2. National regulations are often over-detailed, reducing universities’ responsiveness to changing needs for learning and research emerging from markets and society. 169

H. DE WIT

3. Europe’s universities have a tendency toward uniformity within each system/subsystem. As a result, the average is good, but this procedure reduces access and has failed to enable sufficient world-class research. 4. Universities under-utilize the knowledge they produce because they lack sufficient communication with business. 5. Many universities are insufficiently prepared for the competition for students, researchers, and resources as globalization increases. 6. Funding for universities is far too low compared to major competitors, both in education and in research. The main cause is much smaller contributions from private sources. 7. Access rates to higher education, especially for adult learners, are lower in Europe than in many other leading world regions.

THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

This section on the internationalization of higher education in Europe takes a historical perspective and explains trends from the 1950s to the present, describes the important influence of the Bologna Process and Lisbon Strategy for future international mobility, provides data and trends in mobility for the present situation in Europe, and discusses some future issues and perspectives. The 1950s and 1960s: Laissez Faire To understand the present European situation, it is essential to place current developments in a historical perspective. Macro-historical changes affecting the international dimension of Europe’s higher education were: the emergence of nation-states in the 19th century and earlier; Europe’s historical role in the world, in particular its roles in colonization and decolonization; the impact of higher education in countries such as France, Germany, and the United Kingdom on higher education in the rest of the world; recent trends in European integration; the collapse of the former Soviet Union and associated East-West rapprochement; recessions and financial constraints; the “massification” of higher education; and the dissolution of some structures and blocs and the emergence of others. Confining discussion to the macro-level and the post second World War period, the 1950s and 1960s in Europe were not truly a period of internationalization, but it would be entirely wrong to believe that international student mobility was absent then. In general, 1950–1970 was, according to Britta Baron (1993, 50), characterized by a “foreign policy” among receiving countries of “benevolent laissez-faire,” meaning open doors to foreign students who, to a large extent, came from former and (then) still-existing French and British colonies. Some elements of these colonial relationships are still seen in the pattern of student flow to these countries, although (in the British case especially) the impact of more recent policies has largely transformed the picture. If we look at the situation in 1965, among the top 20 sending countries in outward mobility were (West) Germany (7), Greece (8), France (9), the United 170

BOLOGNA PROCESS AND LISBON STRATEGY

Kingdom (13), and Italy (16); their outwardly mobile students numbered 39,500. In inward mobility in 1998, France (2), Germany (3), the United Kingdom (6), and Italy (10) were among the top 10 of receiving countries, taking in 20.2% (87,500); even collectively, this figure was far less than that of the United States (28.3%) (Cummings, 1993). The open door, laissez-faire policy, and one-way dimension were the main characteristics of higher education’s internationalization at a global level and in Europe in particular. The universities themselves played a mainly passive role as receivers of foreign students. The effects on higher education cooperation within Europe were marginal. International activity was mainly oriented toward the cooperation of European higher education with the United States (outward mobility) and with the Third World (inward mobility). A European policy for internationalization did not exist, nor did such policies exist at the institutional level. At the national level, international cooperation and exchange were included in bilateral agreements between nations and in development cooperation programs, driven by political rationales. Institutions were passive partners in these programs.

The 1970s: The First Steps to Policies of Europeanization Brouwer (1996, p. 58) gives four reasons why the European Community (EC) was reluctant to give priority to actions in the field of education until 1972: (a) its emphasis on economic integration; (b) a legal dispute on the limitations of the EC for actions in education; (c) the political context that limited the role of the EC in areas that the member states saw as their own competency; and (d) the differences in national educational systems and the national orientation of these systems. In 1973, the creation of a Directorate for Education, Research, and Science (DG XII) under the responsibility of Ralf Dahrendorf, the first Commissioner for Science and Education, not only institutionalized education within the commission structure but also linked EU policies for education and research. With this development, the commission was able to move away from having to base its rationales for an education and research policy on noneducational (primarily economic) arguments and toward a proactive and integrated policy in these fields. In 1974, the ministers of education of the European Community adopted the principles for an Education Action Program that was launched in 1976.3 The action program included three measures for higher education: (a) joint study programs, (b) short study visits, and (c) an educational administrators program. Although important in itself, the impact of the action program was marginal. In that sense, 1972–1985 can be seen as a period of stagnation. The reasons for this stagnation, according to Brouwer, (1996, p. 121) were the financial crisis of 1971, the energy crisis of 1973 and the resulting global economic crisis of the 1970s that slowed economic and political integration and focused attention on national solutions. 3 See European Commission (2006) for an overview of 30 years of European cooperation in education.

171

H. DE WIT

The 1980s: The Great Leap Forward The 1980s produced four distinct changes in (a) the development of a research and development policy for the EC; (b) the open-door mobility of individual students; (c) student mobility as an integrated part of study; and (d) the widening of scope to other regions – to third countries in Western, Central, and Eastern Europe and to third countries outside Europe – including development cooperation. The Research and Technological Development Programs The internationalization of research is a phenomenon that is generally accepted. International joint ventures of research groups are not exceptional, and there is a long tradition of conferences, seminars, workshops, and congresses for the academic exchange of ideas and findings. In addition, the technological needs of modern society demand very expensive research projects that individual research groups, institutions of higher education, companies, or even national governments cannot finance alone. Therefore, a logical role exists for the European Commission in stimulating international cooperation in science and research among its members and also in stimulating activities in which European cooperation offers major advantages and generates the maximum of beneficial effects. Another rationale was the challenge posed by new technologies and related competition with the United States and Japan. An R&D stimulation policy was in existence for several years before the action to establish a general education policy in the EC. In the period between the 1960s and 1983, cooperation in this field was mainly intergovernmental. The EC’s role was still marginal and concentrated on coal, nuclear energy, and steel. In 1974 it expanded to other areas. Since 1984 most of the projects have taken place within “framework programs.” Europeanization, harmonization, and globalization are central elements in this policy. Individual Mobility With respect to the individual mobility of students, the European nations and universities began changing their benevolent laissez-faire policy to a more controlled reception and, in some cases, the active recruitment of fee-paying foreign students. At first, this situation applied nearly exclusively to the United Kingdom, notably the British decision in 1979 to introduce full-cost fees for foreign students. Higher education as an export commodity quickly became dominant in the United Kingdom, creating a conflict with the development of European mobility programs. Gribbon (1994, p. 24) describes the dilemma of British institutions in reconciling their interest in those programs focused on European partners and their interest in export, mainly outside Europe. For most people on the European continent, considering the education of foreign students as an export commodity was still anathema at that time. On the European continent, the reception of foreign students was and in most cases still is based more on foreign policy arguments than on considerations of export policy. At the end of the 20th century, the international movement of students as an export commodity 172

BOLOGNA PROCESS AND LISBON STRATEGY

had spread over the European continent and became a more important element of higher education policy than it had been in the past, both at the national and institutional level. Independently of the British decision to introduce full-cost fees for foreign students, during 1965–1985 the European countries increased their numbers and share drastically. In 1985, in outward mobility Greece (4), Germany (9), Italy (12), Turkey (16), and the United Kingdom (19) were among the top 20 sending countries with a total of 105,000 students, compared to 39,500 in 1965. The total number increased in 20 years by 200%. Greece and Turkey send nearly half of those 105,000 students abroad. In inward mobility, among the top 10 receiving countries were France (2), Germany (3), the United Kingdom (4), Italy (5), and Belgium (8), collectively receiving 303,200 students (32.3% of the total). Not only did the numbers increase by 200%, but also these five countries together have been able to come close to the United States, which received 350,000 students (37.2%) in 1985. The EC Mobility Programs In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the notion of “study abroad,” in the sense of sending students to foreign institutions of higher education as part of their home degree program, became an issue on the continent that overshadowed the developments in individual mobility of students. Since the 1980s, student mobility as a one-way, individual process stimulated by political and/or economic considerations has (with the exception of the United Kingdom) lost prominence as a policy issue. It has been marginalized by the greater attention given to student mobility in the framework of exchange programs, which have been among the top priorities in higher education policies of the 1980s and 1990s. Before this period, organized programs for the exchange of students and staff existed, but these programs were limited in both funding and scope, stimulating mainly unrelated exchanges at the graduate level. The 1976 “Joint Study Programs” of the EC aimed to promote joint programs of study and research between institutions in several member states. The focus of this experimental program was primarily to stimulate academic mobility within the EC. This scheme was replaced in 1987 by its successor, the “European Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students” (ERASMUS). The action program of 1976 was the basis for future activities in academic cooperation and exchange within the European Community. At that time, member states kept the role of the European Community in education limited to complementary measures, decided only with the authorization of the Council of Ministers. Education remained the exclusive task of the national governments although, from 1982 onward, social and economic factors gave the commission more room to extend its role in this area (Brouwer, 1996, pp. 202– 205). During this period, the approach became more pragmatic and less ambitious, with pluralism and complementarity becoming more dominant than harmonization and Europeanization. Since the implementation of the ERASMUS program in 1987, significant results have been achieved in cooperation and exchange in higher education in the Euro173

H. DE WIT

pean Union. Thanks to ERASMUS, in 1987–2003, more than 1 million students have been exchanged, and the program has been expanded to other European countries outside the EU Two rationales in particular underlay this mobility scheme, according to Papatsiba (2006, p. 99): • an economic and professional rationale of student mobility. It is seen as a means to promote the European labor market. It would predispose individuals to cross borders more easily during their professional lives, and • a civic rationale of student mobility in the light of creating European Citizens. Student mobility would forge European consciousness and would be a means to real international understanding. In the 1990s, the creative and informal period of educational policy of the European Community came to an end. The Maastricht Treaty, signed in 1992 and ratified on November 1, 1993, included education for the first time. This decision was, according to Brouwer (1996), influenced by the following factors: the existing practice of cooperation in education; a recognition of the importance of the contribution of education to the realization of the objectives of the treaty and related policies; the existing jurisprudence of the Court of Justice in Luxembourg since 1985 in the field of education; the need to expand the responsibilities of the community as a result of the decisions on European Monetary Union (EMU) and European Political Union (EPU); and changing opinions on the role of the European institutions and national governments among the member states (p. 229). The importance of strengthening the European dimension in education was placed high on the agenda. All together, the new measures redirected the scope of the debate step by step to harmonization, integration, and Europeanization, moving gradually away from the previous direction of pluralism and complementarity, but without explicitly stating that goal. THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE EC WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD

The role of the European Commission in higher education has not been limited to educational mobility and exchange within the European Union. It first impacted the opening-up of Central and Eastern Europe. The EC, through its PHARE (Poland and Hungary: Assistance for the Economy) program, opened the way in 1989 for several forms of cooperation, both in R&D and in education. Thanks to TEMPUS (Trans European Mobility Program for University Studies), other programs supported by national governments, and other international private and public organizations, a rapid improvement in the educational infrastructure and quality of education in Central and Eastern Europe has been achieved. Now most of these countries have become members of the EU or at least are accepted as participants in the EU programs. Also, all the countries, including Russia since 2003, have signed the Bologna Declaration and take part in its development process. But the cooperation programs of the EU go beyond Europe. The early fear on the part of some governments and academics outside Europe of the emergence of a “Fortress Europe” in international education has been proved unfounded by 174

BOLOGNA PROCESS AND LISBON STRATEGY

a booming number of exchange agreements and programs of cooperation linking institutions of higher education in Europe with counterpart institutions all over the world. This development is reflected in the creation of the new ERASMUS Mundus program, started in 2004 and intended to create high-level, joint-degree programs between EU institutions and those from elsewhere in the world.

THE PRESENT DECADE: THE BOLOGNA PROCESS AND THE LISBON STRATEGY

This overview of the Europeanization of higher education between the 1960s and the 1990s explains how these developments have culminated in the 1990s in a broad range of programs and activities to stimulate a European dimension in higher education. The main focus lay on the Europeanization of higher education with an emphasis on R&D, mobility of students and staff, curriculum development and network building. As David Coyne, Director for Education of the European Commission, stated in an interview in 2004 (EAIE Forum, 2004), the EU academic mobility programs, ERASMUS in particular, have “created an indispensable foundation for the European Higher Education Area” (p. 13). A study of eight mobility programs (Waechter & Wuttig, 2006), of which six are part of European Union schemes (SOCRATES/ERASMUS, Leonardo da Vinci,4 ALBAN, the EU-US Cooperation Program, and the Marie Curie Program), indicates that in 2002–2003 there were 141,229 students involved in these programs, approximately 10% compared to the total of 1.1 million foreign, degree-seeking students. Of these 141,229 students, 87% are ERASMUS students, indicating the importance of this program for short, organized, funded mobility as part of home degrees. The program has grown from 3,244 students in its first year (1987-1988) covering 12 countries, to 123,897 in 2002–2003, covering 31 countries. Spain received the most ERASMUS students in 2002–2003, followed by France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy, following an increasing trend over the past five years. This finding, as Waechter and Wuttig (2006) state, “stands in a marked contrast to the pattern of mobility outside of programs [diploma mobility], in which Spain does not figure as an important destination country at all” (p. 164) (see Table 5). The United Kingdom, which receives the most foreign, degree-seeking students, is only the third place as ERASMUS students’ country of destination, mainly due to limitations that UK institutions place on the number of ERASMUS students. As far as countries of origin are concerned, the United Kingdom stands in fifth place after France, Germany, Spain, and Italy. If we compare inbound and outbound mobility in ERASMUS, the United Kingdom and Ireland have the highest net import each with a ratio of 0.47, followed by Sweden (0.50), Denmark (0.64), and the Netherlands (0.67). The highest net exporters are Bulgaria, Romania, and Lithuania, all 12 new EU-member states being net exporters (Waechter & Wuttig, 2006, p. 165). 4 The other two are the Nordplus program of the Scandinavian countries and the Ceepus program among 10 countries in Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe.

175

H. DE WIT

The Bologna Process In the first decade of the 21st century, Europe is preparing for a big step forward in Europeanization that is manifested in the Bologna Declaration on the European Higher Education Area. The groundwork for what is already widely known in higher education as the “Bologna Declaration” was laid by the “Sorbonne Declaration,” signed on May 25, 1998, in Paris by the ministers of education of France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom on the anniversary of the founding of the University of Paris. The Sorbonne Declaration was a French initiative based on the Attali report, “Pour un ´ d’enseignement supérieur,” which compares the French system modèle EuropCen with other European systems of higher education as the basis for a reform of the French system. Of course, intensive debates followed. However, the Sorbonne Declaration was surprisingly well received, both in the political arena and in the higher education community of the four countries and in the rest of Europe. The positive reception of the Sorbonne Declaration set the stage for a broader initiative. At the invitation of the Italian minister of education, a meeting took place in Bologna, Italy. The debate was based on the Sorbonne Declaration and on a study prepared by the Association of European Universities (CRE) and the Confederation of European Union Rectors’ Conferences on “Trends in European Learning Structures” (Haug, Kirstein, & Knudsen, 1999). The study showed the extreme complexity and diversity of curricular and degree structures in European countries. While the Sorbonne Declaration spoke of “harmonization,” both the study and the resulting Bologna Declaration avoided this word, owing largely to the potential negative interpretations. Instead, the study speaks of “actions which may foster the desired convergence and transparency in qualification structures in Europe.” The Bologna Process, directed to the realization of a European Higher Education Area by 2010, implies a substantial reform of higher education beyond the borders of the 25 countries of the European Union. The Bologna Declaration was signed on June 19, 1999, in Bologna, Italy, by the ministers of education of 29 European countries, who based their declaration on the following understanding: A Europe of Knowledge is now widely recognized as an irreplaceable factor for social and human growth and as an indispensable component to consolidate and enrich the European citizenship, capable of giving its citizens the necessary competencies to face the challenges of the new millennium, together with an awareness of shared values and belonging to a common social and cultural space. (Bologna Declaration, June, 19, 1999) Since 1999, the number of signatory countries has increased to 45, including Russia (2003), Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine (2005). By 2010, every higher education institution in the signatory countries is supposed to be organized in conformity with the declaration, even though the declaration is voluntary and not binding for the countries and their institutions. According to the Bologna Declaration of 1999, the ministers aim to reach the following six objectives: 176

BOLOGNA PROCESS AND LISBON STRATEGY

1. Adoption of a system of easily understood and comparable degrees, including a diploma supplement, listing the courses and other assignments completed by the student. 2. Adoption of a system essentially based on two main cycles, undergraduate and graduate. 3. Establishing a system of credits such as the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) as a means of promoting student mobility. 4. Promoting mobility by overcoming obstacles to the effective exercise of free movement. 5. Promoting European cooperation in quality assurance. 6. Promoting the European dimension in higher education. The creation of a European space for higher education, the prime objective of the Bologna Declaration, should be completed in 2010. Every two years, the Bologna Process is monitored to assess its progress. A second meeting took place in 2001 in Prague, Czech Republic. Three new goals were then added: 1. Lifelong learning, as a means to help European citizens be more competitive by allowing them to learn new technologies. 2. The inclusion of higher education institutions and students, recognizing and further encouraging the active involvement of the higher education institutions and student organizations in the Bologna Process. 3. The promotion of the attractiveness of the European Higher Education Area. At the third meeting in Berlin in 2003, Germany, two new actions were added: 1. The European Higher Education Area and European Research Area are recognized as the two “pillars of the knowledge-based society.” This acknowledgement recognizes the close link between education and research and includes the doctoral level as the third cycle in the Bologna Process. 2. Midterm “stocktaking” of the process will be conducted through progress reports, with particular focus on quality assurance, the two-cycle system, and the recognition of degrees and periods of studies. The fourth meeting took place in 2005 in Bergen, Norway, and assessed the progress of the process at midterm. This evaluation concluded that the necessary legislative reforms were largely in place and that substantial progress had been made in the three priority areas: the degree system, quality assurance, and the recognition of degrees and periods of study. At the same time, the evaluation acknowledged the need for a greater sharing of expertise and further work on structural changes in curricula and innovative teaching and learning. The Lisbon Strategy and the European Research Area As mentioned before, the Bologna Declaration should be seen in connection to another ambitious process, agreed upon by the members of the European Council at its Lisbon meeting in March 2000. The purpose of this agreement was “to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable 177

H. DE WIT

of sustainable growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion” (World Economic Forum, 2004). The Lisbon Strategy, adopted for a 10-year period, intends to deal with the low productivity and stagnation of economic growth in the EU through the formulation of various policy initiatives to be taken by all EU member states. The strategy has eight dimensions: (a) creating an information society for all; (b) liberalization by completing the single market and developing a state aid and competition policy; (c) building network industries in telecommunications and transportation; (d) creating efficient and integrated financial services; (e) improving the enterprise environment and regulatory framework for business start-ups; (f) increasing social inclusion by returning people to the workforce by upgrading skills and modernizing social protection; (g) enhancing sustainable development; and (h) developing a European area for innovation, research, and development (World Economic Forum, 2004). As the last dimension shows, the Lisbon Strategy is, among other things, directed to the development of a European Research Area. “Research activities at [the] national and Union level must be better integrated and coordinated to make them as efficient and innovative as possible, and to ensure that Europe offers attractive prospects to its best brains” (European Council, 2000). In 2002, the European Council in Barcelona underscored the importance of education for the European Union. The link with the Bologna Process was established at the Berlin meeting in 2003, which confirmed the close link between education and research. In its report “The Role of the Universities in the Europe of Knowledge,” the commission defined five main challenges for higher education in the European Union: (a) increased demand for higher education, (b) the internationalization of teaching and research, (c) cooperation between universities and industries, (d) the proliferation of institutions where knowledge is produced, and (e) the reorganization of knowledge (Commission of the European Communities, 2003). The Lisbon Strategy of 2000 was ambitious and generic, more an overview of important issues to address than a concrete action agenda. Between April and November 2004, former Dutch Prime Minister Wim Kok headed up a review of the program and presented a report on the Lisbon Strategy that suggested how to give new impetus to the process. The commission used this report to focus primarily on the economic context. A renewed Lisbon Strategy was formulated, pointed toward growth and jobs in Europe and calling for more investment in knowledge and innovation (European Commission, 2005). The ambition was reduced to becoming a highly competitive knowledge-based economy by 2010. As a further elaboration on the education, research, and innovation agenda of the renewed Lisbon Strategy, the Commission for the EU member states (European Commission, 2006) formulated nine action points: • Break down the barriers around universities in Europe by achieving the core Bologna reforms by 2010 in all EU countries. • Create real autonomy and accountability for universities by drawing up a frameworks of rules and policy objectives for the higher education sector 178

BOLOGNA PROCESS AND LISBON STRATEGY

•

• •

• • •

•

as a whole. Such rules would cover, for example, issues such as performance assessment, cost transparency, recruitment procedures, staff promotion mechanisms, and tenure systems. Provide incentives for structured partnerships with the business community by supporting universities to develop incentive mechanisms to improve the use of knowledge and the wider sharing of research results, including intellectual property rights, patents and licensing, and the creation of innovative spin-offs. Provide the right skills and competencies for the workforce by valuing and rewarding diverse university profiles, including the establishment of differentiated regulatory and funding systems. Make funding work harder in education and research by closing the funding gap with the United States, through spending – on average – an additional 10,000 euro per higher education student per year, the bulk of these funds coming from nonpublic sources. Enhance interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity by making teaching and research reflect new developments in existing fields and emerging areas of inquiry. Activate knowledge through interaction with society by making society in general part of the process. Acknowledge and reward excellence at the highest level by reviewing their provisions at graduate levels (master and doctorate, including postdoctoral opportunities) and the disciplines concerned, in the light of their strategic objectives for higher education, research, and innovation in the national and European context. Make the European Higher Education Area and the European Research Area more visible and attractive in the world by marketing European universities abroad.

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

Together, the Bologna Process and the Lisbon Strategy are the foundation for a reform agenda that not only will lead to more transparency and the removal of obstacles for internal worker and student mobility but which will also make education and research more competitive in the context of the global knowledge economy. In doing so, it will increase the focus on inward mobility from outside Europe. The driving rationale behind the two reforms is the fact that Europe is lagging behind in research and development, innovation and change, in comparison with its global competitors, particularly the United States. The challenge for European higher education is to consolidate and enhance its quality and to increase excellence in the face of new regional and especially global challenges. This challenge is illustrated in the bottlenecks mentioned by the commission: uniformity leading to too few centers of world-class excellence, insularity, over-regulation, and underfunding. To battle these problems, the commission proposes to increase the attractiveness of European higher education – for instance, by some concentration 179

H. DE WIT

of funding present and potential centers and networks of excellence; strengthening system and institutional management; and encouraging higher and more efficient investment in higher education by governments, companies, and households (European Commission, 2005, pp. 3–8; see also Commission of the European Communities, 2006). Overcoming these bottlenecks must happen in the context of increasing global competition in higher education. In this competitive environment, quality will become more decisive than quantity; competition will require more cooperation, particularly in terms of strategic alliances; and competition will require new forms of cooperation, for instance, joint and double degrees. But will Europe succeed? The Economist is very critical about its chances: Universities are a mess across Europe. European countries spend only 1.1% of their GDP on higher education, compared with 2.7% in the United States. American universities have between two and five times as much to spend per student as European universities which translates in smaller classes, better professors, and higher-quality research. The European Commission estimates that 400,000 EU-born scientific researchers are now working in the United States. Most have no plans to return. Europe produces only a quarter of the American number of patents per million people. It needs to ask itself not whether it can overtake the United States as the world’s top knowledge economy by 2010, but how it can avoid being overtaken by China and other Asian tigers. (2005) In similar terms, Georg Winckler (2006), President of the European University Association (EUA) and Rector of the University of Vienna, responded in a Conference of the European Ministers of Education in Vienna, about setting the target of investing 2% of GDP in higher education by 2010: Despite strong econometric evidence supporting the relevance of modern growth theories, despite the many commitments of EU member states to the (renewed) Lisbon strategy, gross expenditure in R&D and in higher education has stagnated in nearly all of Europe. China, on the other hand, has fully adopted the Lisbon objectives. Although China has been experiencing high real annual growth rates of nearly 10% since the early 1990s, it has also managed to boost its R&D/GDP ratio from 0.7% in 1998 to more than 1.4% in 2004. With this R&D level of 1.4%, China already ranks in the upper half of the 25 EU member states . . . . Given Europe’s stagnation and the dynamics in East Asia, one can easily predict the day when East Asia – and not Europe – will possess “the world’s leading knowledge-based economy.” (Winckler, 2006) A different perspective is given by John A. Douglass, a senior research fellow at the Center for Studies in Higher Education at the University of California’s Berkeley campus. He is very critical about the lack of federal initiatives to keep American higher education competitive, in comparison to initiatives elsewhere, including the EU. “The contrast with the U.S. is stark,” he states. “[W]ith the exception of political battles in America over admissions to a few selective public universities, higher education is not a high profile national issue.” He adds: “While EU countries are 180

BOLOGNA PROCESS AND LISBON STRATEGY

engaged in national and international debates regarding the future of higher education, setting goals for expanding access, considering and implementing alternative funding schemes, and negotiating cooperative initiatives between nations, such as the Bologna Agreement, American higher education remains a second-tier political issue” (Capriccioso, 2006). The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, and maybe both the United States and Europe have to worry about the increasing competition from Asia. There is no lack of ideas, plans, and warning analyses about the state of European higher education and the need for action; but their implementation and realization require more than words. As Vassiliki Papatsiba (2006) states: “A brief review would suggest that while there does seem to be some convergence of education policy at the level of discourse, there appears to be much less convergence in practice” (p. 94). In that respect the “American Competitiveness Initiative” (Domestic Policy Council, 2006) announcement in February 2006 by the George W. Bush administration to invest $50 billion in the coming 10 years in research and another $86 billion in research and development tax incentives, and the 2007 budget decisions to implement the initiative, are more concrete actions to improve competitiveness than the European initiatives. The Bologna Declaration and Lisbon Strategy are seen by the European governments and by the higher education sector as the driving instruments to take up that challenge. The two processes not only look at the internal implications for higher education, but also refer explicitly to the need to increase the international competitiveness of European higher education and to make it more attractive to students from other continents. In that sense, the declaration follows the pattern visible everywhere, with competitiveness becoming a driving rationale for the internationalization of higher education. Marijk C. Van der Wende (2001, p. 249) described this as shift in paradigms from cooperation to competition. Creation of a European identity and the development of competitiveness with the rest of the world are the key catalysts for the political initiatives in education by the European Commission. However, in answering the question whether the Bologna process is an adequate European response to the wider challenges of globalization, Van Vught, van der Wende, and Westerheijden (2002) conclude: In terms of both practice and perceptions, internationalization is closer to the well-established tradition of international cooperation and mobility and to the core academic values of quality and excellence, whereas globalization refers more to competition, pushing the concept of higher education as a tradable commodity and challenging the concept of higher education as a public good. (p. 17) In that respect, it would be a simplification to see the Bologna Process as merely a response to globalization. Rather, it can be seen as a form of the internationalization and Europeanization of higher education at a new level, moving from the casuistic toward the systematic and ultimately from the disconnected and specific to the core – an integrated internationalization of higher education (Teichler, 1999, pp. 9–10). 181

H. DE WIT

Issues relevant to enhancing increased mobility within Europe and its attractiveness as a study destination for non-Europeans are the realization of the Bologna objectives and the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy. But there are other issues, not directly part of these two processes but implications of them, which become more relevant, in particular: • The development of a typology of higher education institutions in Europe. • The debate about tuition fees in Europe. • Higher education as a tradable service. A Typology for European Higher Education European higher education is very heterogeneous and minimally transparent. A recent report by a group of higher education scholars, most of them Dutch, states: A better understanding of the various types of higher education institutions, their mission and provisions will support the European aim of increasing student mobility, inter-institutional and university-industry cooperation, the recognition of degrees and hence the international competitiveness of European higher education. Consequently, the exploration and development of a typology of higher education institutions in Europe is directly linked to the aims of the Bologna process and the Lisbon strategy. (Van Vught et al., 2005, p. 5) The Carnegie Classifications in the US and the UK systems of higher education serve as a reference point. Such a European typology should reflect the diversity in European higher education but, at the same time, provide the transparency that is now lacking. The typology, according to the report, (a) should be inclusive for all European institutions providing higher education; (b) should be a tool enabling the development of institutional profiles; (c) should not be prescriptive, exclusive, or rigid; and (d) its ownership should rest primarily with the institutions. The next step in developing such a typology will be a pilot project. Tuition Fees The debate on tuition fees in Europe has become recently more open. With the exception of the United Kingdom, which introduced full-cost fees for foreign students in 1979, the situation with respect to tuition fees was rather stable on the continent. Seven EU countries do not charge fees at all for domestic and international students: the four Scandinavian countries, Germany, Greece, and Poland. Seven countries charge fees under 1,000 Euro per year, and two countries charge between 1,000 and 2,000 Euro per year. Only the United Kingdom charges full-cost fees for international students. Within the European Union, no discrimination is allowed between domestic and other EU students. In the United States, for comparative purposes, the average tuition fees are 3,000 Euro with differential fees for in-state and other students in the public system. Table 4 is based on information from Gines Mora (2005), OECD (2004), and Tallinn University of Technology (2006); they provide information for only some EU countries. The information is sometimes contradictory and not always reliable, also due to continuous changes in fees over recent 182

BOLOGNA PROCESS AND LISBON STRATEGY Table 4. Average student fees (Euro).∗ United States Denmark Sweden Norway Finland Greece Germany Hungary Poland Slovak Republic

3,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0∗∗ 0∗∗ 0

Portugal France Ireland Belgium Spain Austria Italy Netherlands UK

294 418 670 700 720 727 750 1,445 1,630

∗ It is important to keep in mind that within the EU no discrimination in fees is allowed between national and other EU-students. ∗∗ Hungary and Poland are examples of the complexity of information. Some institutions and/or activities charge tuition, others do not.

years. It should be read primarily as an indication of the way tuition is handled in Europe. The present situation is under debate, a discussion that is inspired by the Bologna Process and influenced by EU regulations, but which is mainly guided by national issues. Austria, Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark, the Slovak Republic, and Switzerland have recently followed the UK’s 1979 example by charging higher fees for non-EU students; Finland and Sweden are considering a similar policy. In Germany, some states have been successful in demanding the own right to set their own tuition fees for national students. In that respect, the landscape is rapidly changing as well. In the United Kingdom, after some intense debate, a government plan to allow variable and higher tuition fees was approved in 2004. Jan Sadlak and Jesus M. de Miguel (2005), in the European contribution to the 2005 World Report on Higher Education speak to this point: “Higher education as a ‘public good’ is still an important value in European higher education. At the same time there is a clear orientation toward a system based on charging tuition fees combined with a support system, inclusive of loans.” Robert Coelen (2006) concludes: Rank and tuition fee levels follow each other closely. Given the dynamism of the international education environment and the increased competition for international fee-paying as well as scholarship-seeking students, it will be in every university’s interest to get their positioning right to ensure they get the best students possible.” (p. 31) Higher Education as a Tradable Service As Machado dos Santos (2000; see also De Wit, 2002, p. 69) observed, as a consequence of the need for continuing and lifelong learning and related expansion of education markets, there is also a move to cross-border delivery of education 183

H. DE WIT

in Europe- -higher education activities in which the learners are located in a host country different from the one where the awarding institution is based – in particular in southern European countries such as Greece, Italy, and Spain, with the United Kingdom and the United States being the main exporters to these countries. According to Knight (2005, pp. 107–109), there are 41 companies on the stock market that operate different programs and institutions in higher education. Of these, 23 operate bricks and mortar institutions, 13 offer e-learning, and five IT training. Of these, only three have their home base in Europe: two in the United Kingdom and one in Ireland. Twenty-one are based in North America (one in Canada), Asia-Pacific (14, one in Australia) and one in South Africa. According to Van der Wende and Middlehurst (2004) “the overseas delivery of education via PIM (Program and Institutional Mobility) programs is a major and growing market for the United Kingdom” (p. 117) with an annual growth of 10%. Van der Wende and Middlehurst (2004) provide an overview of cross-border education in Europe, but a more concrete update of activities, in particular in Central and Eastern Europe, where the private provision of education is rapidly increasing, is still lacking.5

PRESENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EUROPEAN STUDENT CIRCULATION

European trends in international mobility have been influenced by global, national and regional perspectives. If we look at the situation with respect to student mobility in Europe in 2002–2003, we see that, in absolute numbers, Germany, the United Kingdom, and France – which together also have 53% of the total number of universities in Europe – are still the major destinations for international students in Europe. Together with Australia and the United States, they have a joint market share of 70% of all international students in OECD countries (OECD, 2005). The developments in OECD countries in the period 1980–1999 are shown in Figure 1. As it indicates, during that period the United Kingdom, Germany, and Austria increased their international students inflow more than the OECD average, although lagging behind countries like Australia and New Zealand. France showed a minor decrease. According to the same OECD study of 2005, however, over a five-year period the market share of the United Kingdom and the United States fell by 2.7% and 2.2% respectively, while the market share of Japan and France increased (UNESCO, 2006). The reason for this drop by the United Kingdom and the United States is growing competition. In Asia it comes from countries such as Singapore 5 In the cross-border delivery of programs and institutions in Europe, the role of higher education in the General Agreement of Trade and Services (GATS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is a factor although, under pressure from the higher education community, the European Union (EU) excludes public education from trade negotiations in the framework of GATS. But it will be interesting to see, if in the future, the so-called Bolkenstein Directive (March 5, 2004) on services in the internal market of the EU, which is part of the Lisbon agenda, will affect higher education. Given strong opposition against the directive, which played a role in the negative vote in the French referendum on the European Constitution, this is still unclear.

184

BOLOGNA PROCESS AND LISBON STRATEGY

Figure 1. Studying abroad. Increase of foreign tertiary students in OECD countries 1980–1999 (1990=100). Source: Larsen et al. (2003).

and China that have been and still are primarily sending countries; from new forms of delivery (distance education, branch campuses, and franchises, for instance); and from growing competitiveness in the European market. Japan, given its strong presence in Asia, and France, given its recruitment from French-speaking countries, have been less impacted by these developments. Table 5, with data from UNESCO, provides an overview of the presence of foreign students in Europe and their regions of origin in 2002–2003. On average, according to UNESCO (2005), 6% of the students in Europe are internationally mobile students, but half of them come from inside Europe, which means that 3% are non-Europeans, a similar figure for Canada and 1% less than for the United States. An exception is France, where only 28% of the students are European, and 51% of the students come from Africa. For France, but also for many other European countries, many “international” students are second- or even thirdgeneration immigrant students who have a foreign passport but who have received most of their education in the host country. This situation applies to students from former colonies and to the children of immigrant laborers of the 1960s and 1970s. According to UNESCO (2006), the number of outwardly mobile students from Western Europe has stagnated over the past five years, resulting in a drop in share of all internationally mobile students from 22% to 17%. In absolute numbers, Western Europe has the second largest group of mobile students abroad after East Asia and the Pacific (407,000 or 17% of the global total). On average, European countries see 2.8% of their students engaged in outbound mobility; but Andorra, Cyprus, and Luxembourg are far above that average with around 50% or above, followed by Iceland, Ireland, Greece, Malta, and Norway. Fifteen out of every thousand people 185

Albania Austria Belarus Belgium Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland

Countries

Outbound

Inbound

... 8,025 2,836 5,282 10,338 18,120 1,090 7,361 237,587 260,314 12,456 12,226 580

9,752 24,619 9,955 17,381 6,666 6,318 3,721 9,719 53,350 56,410 49,631 7,750 3,007

458 13,214 31,101 11,679 2,428 10,490 26,202 10,729

Net Flow Ratio2 (%)

Net Flow1

... ... –16,594 –7.2 –7,119 –5.8 –12,099 –66.2 3,672 1.3 11,802 5.8 –2,631 –4.1 –2,358 –0.8 184,237 8.5 203,904 ... –37,175 –6.6 4,476 1.1 –2,427 –18.2

–12,756 –29.3 19,422 8.5 –8,062 –1.6 15,473 4.0

Outbound Mobility Ratio3 (%) 5.0 2.5 1.3 1.7

Gross Outbound Enrolment Ratio4

... ... 4.4 10.7 8.2 3.2 95.1 30.4 2.3 0.9 3.1 2.1 5.8 3.8 3.3 2.9 2.5 1.4 1.2 ... 8.8 6.4 2.0 1.0 22.5 13.9

30.3 5.1 2.1 2.8

Top 1 Destination Germany 2,801 Germany 12,116 Germany 5,437 Greece 10,048 Germany 2,483 UK 1,662 Russia 1,217 Sweden 4,054 Belgium 12,458 UK 12,096 UK 22,826 Germany 3,097 Denmark 1,081

Italy 8,494 Germany 6,924 Russia 6,010 France 2,841 Croatia 2,273 USA 3,734 Italy 1,357 UK 4,208 USA 1,052 Sweden 995 Germany 728 UK 1,883 UK 11,295 USA 8,745 Germany 7,577 Austria 1,279 USA 488

USA 916 UK 1,308 Germany 1,737 UK 1,418

Top 2 Destination

186 Top 4 Destination

Austria 1,308 France 2,905 Austria 947 USA 1,562 France 662 Norway 868 Finland 528 Germany 1,056 USA 6,818 France 6,698 Italy 7,159 USA 997 Sweden 434

Turkey 608 France 495 USA 422 USA 823

Top 5 Destination

Denmark 432 USA 433 Austria 1,588 Turkey 948 USA 660 Slovenia 425 Hungary 297 Bulgaria 443 Austria 439 UK 359 USA 859 Germany 697 Sweden 242 USA 271 France 332 USA 619 Germany 6,678 Belgium 6,238∗ Switzerland 5,823 Austria 5,657 France 2,288 USA 2,126 France 536 UK 371 Norway 251 UK 317

Greece 725 Germany 625 Switzerland 550 USA 899 Poland 1,088 France 465 Netherlands 1,987 Germany 1,021

Top 3 Destination

Table 5. Student flows in tertiary education by hosting country in Europe, 2004.

H. DE WIT

Ireland Italy Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Malta Moldova Monaco Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russia San Marino Serbia and Montenegro Slovakia

Countries

Net Flow1

Outbound

Inbound

10,038 14,581

–9,207 –12,930 –4.4 –8.2 4.8 9.2

1.7 3.1

Net Flow Ratio2 (%)

831 1,651

Outbound Mobility Ratio3 (%)

17,570 –7,369 –4.1 9.7 5.4 38,544 2,097 0.1 1.9 1.2 3.1 2.2 3,730 –1,340 –1.1 ... ... ... ... ... 6,926 –6,237 –3.7 4.1 2.9 6,743 –6,091 –198 219.1 27.1 5,348 –5,235 –11.5 11.7 3.2 731 –322 –3.6 8.2 2.4 6.1 1.9 7,784 –5,282 –4.2 358 ... ... ... ... 11,440 9,091 1.7 2.2 1.3 14,732 –3,672 –1.7 6.9 5.6 1.5 0.9 28,786 –21,178 –1.1 2.8 1.6 11,231 4,270 1.1 20,680 –10,950 –1.7 3.2 1.2 34,473 41,313 0.5 0.4 0.3 ... 931 ... ... ...

Gross Outbound Enrolment Ratio4

10,201 40,641 2,390 ... 689 652 113 409 2,502 ... 20,531 11,060 7,608 15,483 9,730 75,786 ...

Top 1 Destination Germany 3,747 Czech R. 6,938

Hungary 1,194 Hungary 2,441

UK 14,713 USA 1,020 Austria 6,149 Germany 8,111 Russia 1,022 Germany 916 Switzerland 503 Austria 109 Germany 1,701 Russia 1,690 Germany 2,071 France 1,709 Bulgaria 2,690 Germany 819 Germany 50 UK 476 Romania 4,111 Russia 1,267 UK 31 France 295 Belgium 2,887 UK 2,473 UK 3,653 Australia 3,227 Germany 15,417 France 3,270 UK 2,649 France 2,701 Germany 4,220 France 4,474 Germany 11,462 USA 5,532 Italy 774 UK 118

Top 2 Destination

Table 5. (Continued)

Top 4 Destination

Top 3 Destination Austria 1,007 Germany 1,640

Italy 712 Austria 1,387

Germany 486 France 522 UK 5,215 France 4,686 Estonia 305 USA 424 Germany 19 UK 13 USA 691 Poland 628 Belgium 1,324 UK 833 USA 349 Turkey 278 Spain 44 Italy 39 France 463 Germany 597 Italy 9 USA 8 Germany 1,876 USA 1,505 Denmark 1,524 USA 1,471 Austria 1,172 USA 2,913 Germany 1,922 Spain 1,377 USA 3,320 Hungary 3,147 France 2,597 Kazakhstan 2,177 Germany 13 Belarus 10

Top 5 Destination France 489 USA 585

Australia 159 Holy See 4,103 UK 186 France 8 Latvia 507 Belgium 818∗ Albania 117 USA 30 Bulgaria 382 Switzerland 6 Sweden 630 Sweden 1,406 Italy 1,002 USA 880 Italy 1,225 UK 1,878 Greece 4

BOLOGNA PROCESS AND LISBON STRATEGY

187

Inbound

963 15,051 32,469 64,046 12,729 15,622 300,056 572,509

Outbound

2,524 25,691 13,392 9,545 52,048 25,188 23,542 41,181

Net Flow1

–1,561 –10,640 19,077 54,501 –39,319 –9,566 276,514 531,328

Net Flow Ratio2 (%) –1.5 –0.6 4.6 29.3 –2.0 –0.4 12.3 3.1

Outbound Mobility Ratio3 (%) 2.5 1.4 3.2 5.1 2.7 1.0 1.0 0.2

Gross Outbound Enrolment Ratio4 1.7 0.9 2.6 2.3 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.2 Germany 628 UK 6,105 UK 3,379 Germany 2,169 Germany 27,582 Germany 7,618 USA 8,439 UK 13,381

Top 4 Destination

Top 3 Destination

Austria 593 USA 209 Italy 326 UK 265 Germany 6,014 France 3,928 Belgium 1,042 USA 3,631 USA 3,116 Norway 1,107 Australia 1,049 Germany 839 USA 1,561 Italy 1,075 UK 1,467 France 1,463 USA 11,398 Austria 1,820 France 2,273 UK 1,960 Russia 6,841 Hungary 1,005 USA 2,004 Poland 1,809 France 2,611 Australia 1,652 Germany 2,154 Ireland 2,132 Canada 4,394 Australia 3,439 Germany 3,419 France 2,687

Top 5 Destination

Source: Elaborated from UNESCO (2006, table 10, pp. 232–235) ∗ It is assumed that the two references to Belgium refer to French-speaking and Flemish-speaking Belgium, in that order. 1Net Flow is the number of inbound students minus the number of outbound students. 2Net Flow Ratio or Net Mobility Rate represents the number of mobile students in a country minus the number of students abroad as a percentage of the total tertiary enrollment in a particular country. 3Outbound Mobility Ratio presents the number of mobile students traveling abroad from a particular country/region as a percentage of all tertiary students in that country/region. 4Gross Outbound Enrollment Ratio indicates the number of mobile students traveling abroad from a particular country/region as a percentage of the population of traditional tertiary education age.

Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey Ukraine UK USA

Countries

Top 1 Destination

188 Top 2 Destination

Table 5. (Continued)

H. DE WIT

BOLOGNA PROCESS AND LISBON STRATEGY

of tertiary age are currently studying abroad. Seventy-seven percent of Western European mobile students stay within their region of origin; 15% go to North America. The United Kingdom (100,000), Germany (52,000), the United States (51,000), and France (33,000) are the main destinations. Central and Eastern Europe follow Western Europe as the region with the third largest number of mobile students abroad: 300,000. Turkey (52,000) and the Russian Federation (34,000) in that region have the largest number of students abroad. Their outbound mobility ratio (1.6%), however, is much lower than for Western Europe (2.8%) and is below the world average. The highest ratios are found in Albania (30%), the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (12%) and Bulgaria (11%); the lowest is Russia: 0.4%. The vast majority of students from Central and Eastern Europe study in Western Europe, in particular Germany (100,000); 20% stay in the region; relatively few go to the United States. Table 5 provides further insight into these developments. It confirms that inward and outward mobility in Europe are very closely related, since the destinations are primarily neighboring countries in the region. The top five destinations nearly always includes the United States (except for seven mostly small countries: Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Moldova, San Marino, and Serbia and Montenegro); but only in the case of the United Kingdom is the United States the number one destination. Australia is mentioned four times among the top five destinations, in two cases by English-speaking countries (the United Kingdom and Ireland) and in the two other cases in Scandinavia, where Australia in recent years has become a country of destination, also thanks to its active marketing. The only other country of destination outside Europe mentioned once is Kazakhstan in the case of Russia. In other words, European student circulation is primarily regional and secondarily oriented toward English-speaking countries. This pattern is less true for the countries in Central and Eastern Europe where Germany is an important destination country, holding 12 top positions and four second positions as country of destination among the 20 countries in this region. Among the 24 Western European countries, Germany holds only four top positions (for Austria, Italy, Luxembourg, and Switzerland) and three second positions (for Greece, Malta, and Spain). In a study on student mobility in European higher education (Lanzendorf, 2006) outlines inbound and outbound student mobility across the EURODATA region (pp. 7–11). (That region consists of 32 countries, including the 25 EU nations, the four EFTA (European Free Trade Agreement) members – Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway – and thee other countries: Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey.)6 From this study, the following picture emerges for inbound mobility: • In 2002–2003 there were 1.1 million foreign students enrolled in higher education in the 32 countries, 6% of all tertiary students in this region. 6 This study is part of a broader study, “EURODATA: Student Mobility in European Higher Education” (Kelo, Teichler, & Waechter, 2006), the first comprehensive and critical analysis of student mobility in Europe.

189

H. DE WIT

• The highest proportion of foreign students as part of all tertiary students is found in two small countries: Liechtenstein (79%) and Cyprus (29%), followed by Switzerland (18%), Austria (14%), Belgium, and, with 11% each, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France. • Of these 1.1 million foreign students, approximately 54% are nationals from outside the EURODATA countries: 40% from Asia, 31% from Africa, 15% from the rest of Europe, 8% from Latin America, and 6% from North America. • Non-European nationalities have a large share of inbound students studying in Cyprus (83%, many of them from Bangladesh and China in short-study programs), Portugal (80%, in particular from Portuguese-speaking countries in Africa and Brazil), and France (mainly from Africa). • Chinese is the most frequent nationality (6%), followed by German, Greek, and French (all around 4%). • Among the EURODATA countries, German, Greek, and French with around 10% are the most frequent nationalities represented, followed by Italian (8%), Turkish (8%), Spanish (5%), and Polish (5%). • The largest communities of foreign students are Chinese students in the United Kingdom (over 30,000) and Turkish students in Germany (over 27,000), followed by Greek students in the United Kingdom (over 22,000) and Chinese students in Germany (over 20,000). • More than 60% of all foreign students in the 32 countries study in the United Kingdom, Germany, and France, with the United Kingdom having primarily students from other English-speaking countries (Ireland, the United States, and India), followed by Chinese, Greek, German, and French students. Germany has primarily Turkish and Chinese students, followed by students from eastern European countries (Poland, Russia, and Bulgaria). France has students primarily from Africa (Morocco, Algeria, Tunesia, Senegal, and Cameroon) and from China. • The Scandinavian countries, France, and Germany have a high diversity of different nationalities. The top 10 nationalities of foreign students made up less than 50% of all foreign students. Estonia, Latvia, Slovenia, Greece, and Bulgaria have a more homogeneous foreign studentbody, with only 10 countries accounting for more than 90% of the total foreign student population. • The programs most frequently pursued by foreign students are social sciences, business, and law. • Women students make up around 50% of all foreign students. This study gives the following picture for outbound mobility: • In 2002/2003, the number of students in the 32 EURODATA countries together studying abroad was almost 575,000 students, 3% of all tertiary students. • Of these, 82% studied in another EURODATA country, only 18% elsewhere, primarily in the United States (13% of all students studying abroad and 75% of all students studying outside the EURODATA region), followed by Australia (3% and 17%). 190

BOLOGNA PROCESS AND LISBON STRATEGY

• The United Kingdom and Germany together host 38% of all students studying abroad from the EURODATA region, followed by France (8%) and Spain (5%). Together these four countries receive more than 50% of the students studying abroad in the region. • Germans at 11% comprise the largest group of students studying abroad, followed by French, Greek, and Turkish students (approximately 8.5% each). • In Liechtenstein and Cyprus, students studying abroad outnumber those who attend home institutions. In Iceland, for every 10 home students, there are two students abroad. In Bulgaria, one student goes abroad for every 10 home students. • Language is an important factor in study abroad, for instance between Germany and Austria, France and Switzerland, and the Netherlands and Belgium. • Students from Central and Eastern Europe see Germany as a more important destination than the other two big recipients of foreign students: the United Kingdom and France. However, France has a strong relationship with Romania due to language and cultural factors. • In particular among the Nordic countries (Scandinavia), there is a relatively strong study-abroad relationship. This study (Lanzendorf, 2006) demonstrates the following inbound/outbound ratios: • The 32 EURODATA countries collectively host about twice as many foreign students than the number of their own students who study abroad; but for the majority of the countries the reverse is the case, particularly for Liechtenstein, Slovakia, Lithuania, Iceland, Greece, and Poland in particular. Only 13 countries are educating more foreign students than they have home students going abroad: Germany, Spain, France, the United Kingdom, Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Sweden. The United Kingdom hosts 10 foreign students for every student going abroad, followed by France, Switzerland, and Germany with approximately 10 foreign students coming in compared to three national students going abroad. • Germany and France are the only countries in the region that have both high numbers of foreign students and high numbers of students studying abroad. A study conducted by the Academic Cooperation Association (ACA) (2005) at the request of the European Commission on perceptions of European higher education in third countries shows, among other things, that the information about Europe and its higher education is limited primarily to the United Kingdom, Germany, and France. According to the study, students rank the United States first for issues such as innovation, competition, and dynamism and see Europe as a more traditional destination, notable for its universities, its cultural heritage, and its arts. In Russia and Latin America, Europe is better perceived than in Asia, where the United States and Australia are more favored. This study sees a need and a potential to promote European higher education as a distinct “brand” and to create 191

H. DE WIT

a perception of Europe as a whole. But it also calls for improvements to enhance the attractiveness of European higher education, naming such issues as selection, scholarships, access to alternative sources of funding, recruitment of quality teaching and research staff, the implementation of more flexible immigration and visa policies, and the development of more programs taught in English. As indicated in Chapter 1, the statistics on student mobility are not very reliable and are dependent on issues of definition. Richters and Teichler (2006) have addressed that issue in detail. Further refinement is needed in defining “international students” in Europe, combined with a clearer registration system of international students by nationality, degree/nondegree program, etc. Still, the data available from UNESCO, OECD, and EUROSTAT provide a basis for analyses of and trends in European student circulation. What are future trends and issues concerning mobility in Europe? First, the Lisbon Strategy has influenced a radical shift in recruiting international students from a quantitative to a more qualitative approach – the “brain gain” argument. It suggests employing a different approach to legal immigration given the shrinking labor force, namely, recruiting the best students and scholars and then retaining them to fill empty places in European research and industry. This search for the best students without border discrimination will be the most important factor in student mobility in Europe for the coming decade and one for which competition with the rest of the world will become very intense. It is connected to efforts to stop the brain drain of the best European students and scholars, particularly to the United States. This problem is a growing concern for realizing the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy. Second, it will not be surprising if several institutions of higher education in Europe decide not to invest in recruiting students from beyond the European Union. They might argue that there are still enough potential students to be recruited from countries that have just entered the EU (or will in the future), without the competitive disadvantage of higher tuition fees, high recruitment costs, or more obstacles to enter and adapt to the host country. Such a strategy would further intensify the trends of international student circulation within the European region that are already well developed, as the figures above indicate. Third, it is important to note that there is relatively little information about the levels and fields of study. The further evolution of the Bologna Process will provide more opportunities to collect information on student circulation by bachelor, master’s, and doctoral programs, and by fields of study. It would not be surprising if the growth levels for Europe, and in particular for the European Union, will be at the master’s and doctoral levels, and that competition for the best students will concentrate more on the natural sciences and engineering at these levels. Other countries, in particular English-speaking countries such as the United Kingdom, will also continue their quest for international students beyond Europe. Concerned with dropping numbers in 2005 caused by growing competition and increased student visa charges, Prime Minister Tony Blair announced plans in 2006 to attract a further 100,000 foreign students to the United Kingdom, in addition to the 300,000 currently attending UK schools (BBC, 2006a). Twenty-seven million 192

BOLOGNA PROCESS AND LISBON STRATEGY

pounds will be invested by the government, the British Council, the education sector, and the business community to reach this target. Overseas students contribute as much as 4 billion pounds to the university sector and 10 billion pounds to the national economy, so growth is needed to offset and go beyond the 2005 decline (BBC, 2006b). This is the second initiative of the Blair government in only a few years; but although the initiative is supported by the university community, some academics and students express concern about the increasing dependency of British higher education on overseas students’ fees in an ever-more competitive global environment. Finally, there will be a slow but gradual trend toward the cross-border delivery of programs by European institutions of higher education. Within Europe, this movement will be primarily from the West to the East and Southeast, and also beyond Europe. Internationalization abroad coincides with what Knight (2003; see also OECD, 2004) has described as the three different forms of cross-border education: a person going abroad for educational purposes (mobility of individuals); an educational program going abroad (program mobility); or an institution or provider going or investing abroad for educational purposes (institution mobility). The last two forms of cross-border education are becoming more important, in addition to and as an alternative to the mobility of students. Europe, with the exception of the United Kingdom is still lagging behind in this area; but particularly in eastern and southern Europe, there is an increasing presence of foreign providers, both from Western Europe and elsewhere. European universities are becoming more active in franchising and twinning programs in Asia, Latin America, and Africa.

PUSH AND PULL FACTORS IN INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

Providing an analysis of push and pull factors in international student circulation for Europe as a whole is difficult, given the great differences among countries. A distinction between EU-countries and non-EU countries only partially solves that problem. Within the EU, for instance, there are big differences between the three major countries – the United Kingdom, France, and Germany – and the other EU countries; there are also significant differences among EU countries between the North and the South. Calculations also require excluding the 46% mobility within the region. Using the 32 EURODATA countries as reference, Table 6 provides a general overview of push and pull factors. However, of those 32 countries, some are more outbound oriented and for that reason have higher push factors, others are more inbound oriented and have higher pull factors, and others are a mixture of the two and have high push and pull factors.

193

H. DE WIT Table 6. Push/pull factors for international student circulation in the European context. A. Educational Factors Push Factors (Ps)

Type Trend Pull Factors (Pl)

11. Unmet demand for higher education 12. Basic human resource capacity 13. Ranking/status higher education 14. Enhanced value of a foreign degree 15. Selectiveness of domestic higher education 16. Availability of distance education 17. Increasing presence private providers 18. Increasing presence of foreign providers 19. Experience with international mobility 20. Strategic alliances with foreign partners

– –– – – –– – –– –– + +

↓ ∼ ∼ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ∼ ↑ ↑

Higher education opportunities System compatibility Ranking/status higher education Enhanced value of national degree Diversity of the H.E. system Absorptive capacity of H.E. Active recruitment policy Cost of study (low-cost) Existing stock of national students Strategic alliances with home partners

Type Trend ++ + + ++ + ++ + ++ + +

↑ ↑ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ↑ ↓ ∼ ↑

B. Political/Social/Cultural Factors Push Factors (Ps) 8. Linguistic affinity 9. Cultural and religious affinity 10. Colonial ties 11. Regional unity 12. Information isolation 13. Emigration policies 14. Strategic alliances 15. Political instability 16. Academic freedom

Type Trend Pull Factors (Pl) + + + + –– –– + –– ++

∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ↑ ∼ ∼

Language factor Cultural ties Colonial ties Regional unity Stock of citizens of country of origin Immigration policies Strategic alliances with home country Lure of life Academic freedom

Type Trend ++ – ++ + + + + + ++

↑ ↑ ↓ ∼ ↑ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼

C. Economic Factors Push Factors (Ps) • Dependence on world economy • Financial capacity • Human Development Index factor • • Employment opportunities on return • Geographical distance

Type Trend Pull Factors (Pl) + + ––

↑ ∼ ∼

++ –

∼ ∼

Type Trend

Import/export levels ++ Level of assistance + Human Development Index factor ++ Employment opportunities during study – Employment opportunities after study – Geographical distance –

↑ ↑ ∼ ↑ ↑ ∼

Very significant/very positive (++); significant/positive (+); Neutral (/); minimally significant/negative (–); insignificant/very negative (– –); Increasing ↑; Unchanging ∼; Decreasing ↓

CONCLUDING REMARKS

European higher education is facing major challenges to improve its competitiveness in the global market. Over the past years, it has lagged behind the United States, Japan, and Australia; and it is facing new challenges from Asia, in particular China. To overcome its deficiencies and to improve its quality, several initiatives have been implemented over the past five years – in particular the Bologna Process and the Lisbon Strategy, with the aim of creating a European Higher Education area and a European Research Area, and to make Europe one of the leading – if not the leading – knowledge-based economy and society in the world. 194

BOLOGNA PROCESS AND LISBON STRATEGY

The Bologna Process is showing substantial progress toward reaching its objectives by 2010. The combined support and monitoring of the process by the different stakeholders (governments, universities and their associations, and students) create a positive environment for the necessary changes. In this respect, the Bologna Process also provides a new method of reform at the macro level, using cooperation instead of conflict as the basis for change. In the past, in major countries like France, Italy, Spain, and Germany, efforts to reform higher education by politicians have failed because they were not able to involve and commit the higher education community. The Lisbon Strategy in comparison seems, as Hubert Ertl (2006) puts it, “more rhetorical than real” (p. 22). Its high ambitions without a concrete action plan have already resulted in a modification in 2005, halfway through the process. Although not all negative, there are insufficient signs that substantial progress will be made over before 2010 in the research and innovation area. In other areas, such as tuition fees, the map is already rapidly changing. And as far as international student circulation is concerned, Europe in absolute numbers is playing an important role next to the United States, although close to 50% of the students are circulating within the region itself and, furthermore, are oriented to neighboring countries plus the three large recipients: the United Kingdom, Germany, and France. As we have seen, France also receives a large number of students from French-speaking countries in Africa, Germany from countries in Central and Eastern Europe, and the United Kingdom from the Commonwealth and other English-speaking countries. The actions resulting from the Bologna Process and the Lisbon Strategy are seen as decisive to keep Europe competitive in attracting the best international students and scholars from around the world. Notwithstanding the difficulties, Sadlak and De Miguel (2005) observe a positive change in the tone of the debate: Europe has reached a point of collective “mind set” – but it should not be understood as acceptance–that while higher education plays a decisive role in a knowledge-based economy and society, there is a gap between the need for further progress with regard to student enrolment and the availability of public funding . . . . In this situation it is encouraging that [the] ongoing debate moves from that of public versus private to the more realistic one of public-and-private. (p. 212) Undeniably, European higher education is changing and trying to become better prepared for the global competition. In summary, the overview of higher education, its international dimension and the specific aspect of international student circulation in Europe leads to the following main conclusions: 1. On higher education in Europe: • European higher education is facing increased competition from the United States and from Asia, both in R&D and in educational attractiveness. 195

H. DE WIT

• European higher education is moving from a regulated public system with great differences among nations, to a more deregulated, semi-private, more transparent system of higher education. 2. On the international dimension of higher education in Europe: • In response to these challenges, the Bologna Process and the Lisbon agenda are the main driving factors in the present internationalization agenda in Europe. • A move from aid and cooperation to more internal competition and external competitiveness characterizes current internationalization trends in Europe. 3. On international student circulation in Europe: • International student circulation in Europe is primarily intra-regional with the three main countries (the United Kingdom, France, and Germany) being the primary receivers and the other countries primarily the senders. • Asia and Africa are the other two regions sending large numbers of students to Europe. • The United States is the main target country for students from Europe studying outside the region. • There is a trend away from capacity building (via aid) and mutual understanding (via exchanges) to skill migration and revenue (mainly in the United Kingdom) as driving factors in inward mobility. • Outward mobility has been driven traditionally by mutual understanding, but increasingly there is a concern about skill migration – in particular to the United States – as a driving factor threatening European competitiveness.

Mutual understanding Revenue earning Skill migration Capacity building

Inward Mobility

Outward Mobility

X– X+ X+ X–

X X+

REFERENCES Academic Cooperation Association. (2005). Perceptions of European higher education in third countries. Retrieved on June 2006 from http://www.aca-secretariat.be/02projects/Perceptions.htm. BBC. (2006a). Overseas students plans unveiled. BBC News, April 18. Retrieved on February 2007 from news.bbc.co.uk. BBC. (2006b). Universities face foreign slump. BBC News, , February 11. Retrieved on February 2007 from news.bbc.co.uk. Baron, Britta. (1993). The politics of academic mobility in western Europe. Higher Education Policy, 6(3), 30–54. Bologna Declaration. (1999). Declaration on the European Higher Education Area, June 19. Bologna, Italy: Bologna University.

196

BOLOGNA PROCESS AND LISBON STRATEGY Brouwer, J. (1996). De Europese gemeenschap en onderwijs. Geschiedenis van de samenwerking en het communitaire beleid op onderwijsgebied (1951–1996). Baarn, NL: BKE-Baarn. Capriccioso, Rob. (2006). Yes, the sky is falling. Inside higher education. Retrieved on June 12, 2006, from http://www.insidehighered.com.news. Cohen, Elie. (2005). Funding strategies to increase/improve investment. Unpublished paper for the Conference “Enabling European Higher Education to Make Its Full Contribution to the Knowledge Economy and Society,” February 10. Brussels: European Commission. Commission of the European Communities. (2003). The role of the universities in the Europe of knowledge. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. 05.02.2003, COM (2003) 58 final. Commission of the European Communities. (2006). Delivering on the modernisation agenda of universities: Education, research, and innovation. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. 10.5.2006, COM (2006) 208 final. Coelen, Robert. (2006). Quality of higher education and fees: Initial examination of the link between tuition fees at universities and perceived quality. In Thijs van Vugt & Tim Rogers (Eds.), The impact of tuition fees on international student recruitment (pp. 25–32). EAIE Occasional Paper No. 19. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education. De Wit, Hans. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe: A historical, comparative, and conceptual analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. De Wit, Hans. (2006a). Challenges and opportunities for higher education in Europe: The Bologna Process and the Lisbon Strategy. New York: Columbia on Line. De Wit, Hans. (2006b). European integration in higher education: The Bologna Process toward a European higher education area. In James J. F. Forest & Philip G. Altbach (Eds.), International handbook of higher education (Vol. 2, pp. 461–482). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer. Domestic Policy Council. (2006). American competitiveness initiative. Washington: Office of Domestic Science and Technology Policy. Available online at http://www.ostp.gov. Douglass, John A. (2006). The waning of America’s higher education advantage: International competitors are no longer number two and have big plans in the global economy. In Rob Capriccioso, Yes, the sky is falling. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved June 12, 2006, from http://www.insidehighered.com.news. EAIE [European Association for International Education] Forum. (2004). Brian Frost Smith, in conversation with David Coin. EAIE Forum, 6(1), 12–13. Economist (2005). Head in the clouds: Europe hopes to become the world’s pre-eminent knowledgebased economy. Not likely. Economist, September 8. Ertl, Hubert. (2006, February). European Union policies in education and training: The Lisbon Agenda. Comparative Education, 42(1), 5–27. Special Issue 31: European Union Education and Training Policy. European Commission. (2005). Mobilizing the brainpower of Europe: Enabling universities to make their full contribution to the Lisbon Strategy. Brussels: European Commission. 20.4.2005, COM (2005) 152 final. European Commission. (2006a). Frequently asked questions: Why European Higher Education Systems must be modernized? Retrieved on May 10, 2006, from http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction. Reference: MEMO/06/190. European Commission. (2006b). 1976–2006: Thirty years of European cooperation in education. Brussels: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. European Council. (2000). Presidency conclusions: Lisbon European Council, March 23–24, 2000. Retrieved in June 2006 from http://europa.eu.int/comm/lisbon_strategy. Gines Mora, J. (2005). The impact of the funding gap on European higher education and means for closing it. Unpublished paper presented at the conference “Enabling European Higher Education to Make Its Full Contribution to the Knowledge Economy and Society,” February 10. Brussels: European Commission. Gribbon, A. (1994). Idealism or a marriage of convenience? An examination of internal relationships in international exchange programs. Higher Education Management, 6(1), 23–31. Haug, Guy, Kirstein, Jette & Knudsen, Inge. (1999). Trends in learning structures in Higher Education. Project Report prepared for the Bologna Conference on June 18–19, 1999, on behalf of the Confederation of European Union Rectors’ Conferences and CRE [Association of European Universities]. Copenhagen: Danish Rectors’ Conference Secretariat.

197

H. DE WIT Larsen, Kurt & Vincent-Lancrin, Stephan. (2003). The learning business: Can trade in international education work? OECD Observer, March. Paris: OECD. Kelo, Maria, Teichler, Ulrich, & Waechter, Bernd (Eds.). (2006). EURODATA: Student mobility in European higher education. Bonn: Lemmens Verlag for Academic Cooperation Association (ACA). Knight, Jane. (2003). GATS: Trade in higher education, perspectives 2003: Where are we? Observatory report. Retrieved in May 2003 from www.obhe.ac.uk/products. Knight, Jane. (2005). Commercial cross-border education: implications for financing higher education. In Higher education in the world 2006: The financing of universities. GUNI Series on the Social Commitment of Universities, No. 1, pp. 103–112. Barcelona: GUNI. Lanzendorf, Ute. (2006). Inward and outward mobile students. In Maria Kelo, Ulrich Teichler, & Bernd Waechter (Eds.), EURODATA: Student mobility in European higher education (pp. 54–78). Bonn: Lemmens Verlag for Academic Cooperation Association (ACA). Machado dos Santos, Sergio. (2002). Introduction: The theme of transnational education. Unpublished paper presented at the Conference of the Directors General for Higher Education and the Heads of the Rectors’ Conferences of the European Union. Aveiro, Portugal. Papatsiba, Vassiliki. (2006, February). Making higher education more European through student mobility? Revisiting EU initiatives in the context of the Bologna Process. Comparative Education, 42(1), 93–111. Special Issue 31: European Union Education and Training Policy. Richters, E. & Teichler, Ulrich. (2006). Student mobility data: Current methodological issues and future prospects. In Maria Kelo, Ulrich Teichler, & Bernd Waechter (Eds.), EURODATA: Student mobility in European higher education (pp. 78–95). Bonn: Lemmens Verlag for Academic Cooperation Association (ACA). Sadlak, Jan, & de Miguel, Jesus M. (2005). Europe. In Higher education in the world, 2006: The financing of universities (pp. 198–222). GUNI Series on the Social Commitment of Universities, No. 1. Barcelona: GUNI. Tallinn University of Technology/Tallinn International Relations Office. (2006). Tuition fees in Europe. Retrieved in June 2006 from http://www.iro.ttu.ee/est/stipendiumid/oppemaks.html. Teichler, Ulrich. (1999). Internationalization as a challenge of higher education in Europe. Tertiary Education and Management, 5(1), 5–23. UNESCO. (2005). Global education digest, 2005: Comparing education statistics around the world. Paris: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. UNESCO. (2006). Global education digest, 2006: Comparing education statistics around the world. Paris: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Van der Wende, Marijk C. (2001). Internationalization policies: About new trends and contrasting paradigms. Higher Education Policy, 14(3), 249–259. Van der Wende, Marijk C., & Middlehurst, Robin. (2004). Cross-border post-secondary education in Europe. In Internationalization and trade in higher education: Opportunities and challenges. Paris: OECD. Van Vught, Frans, van der Wende, Marijk, & Westerheijden, Don. (2002). Globalization and internationalization: Policy agendas compared. In Jürgen Enders & Oliver Fulton (Eds.), Higher education in a globalizing world: International trends and mutual observations. A festschrift in honor of Ulrich Teichler (pp. 103–120). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Van Vught, Frans, Bartelse, Jeroen, Bohmert, David, Burquel, Nadine, Divis, Jindra, Huisman, Jeroen, & van der Wende, Marijk. (2005). Institutional profiles: Towards a typology of higher education institutions in Europe. Enschede, NL: CHEPS. Waechter, Bernd, & Wuttig, Siegbert. (2006). Student mobility in European programs. In Maria Kelo, Ulrich Teichler & Bernd Waechter (Eds.), EURODATA: Student mobility in European higher education (pp. 162–181). Bonn: Lemmens Verlag for Academic Cooperation Association (ACA). Winckler, Georg. (2006). The contribution of universities to Europe’s competitiveness. Speech at Conference of the European Ministers of Education, Vienna, March 16–17. Unpublished. World Economic Forum. (2004). The Lisbon review, 2004: An assessment of policies and reforms in Europe. Geneva: World Economic Forum.

198

HANS DE WIT AND LAURA E. RUMBLEY

8. THE ROLE OF AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION IN INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

The United States is unquestionably the leading nation in international student circulation in terms of absolute numbers, in particular as a country of destination for students and scholars. This chapter provides an overview of American higher education and its international dimension with particular attention to the economic and trade aspects of that dimension. We analyze inbound and outbound mobility with particular emphasis on the substantial difference between inbound and outward mobility, and within that last category between study abroad as part of a US degree and mobility for a foreign degree. We also pay special attention to the role that the United States plays in cross-border delivery of programs and institutions. Challenges and opportunities for American higher education to maintain or even expand its dominant position in an increasingly competitive global higher education market will also be addressed. OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM AND TRENDS

By almost any measure – student population size, institutional variety and quantity, physical and financial resources, research productivity, etc. – the American higher education system is arguably one of the largest, most comprehensive, and most dynamic in the world. It is impossible to provide a complete picture of the vast and multifaceted panorama of higher education actors and activities in the United States. However, a series of relevant data points and a brief description of key issues and challenges provide a helpful overview of the contemporary postsecondary education context, as well as a meaningful foundation from which to explore the international dimension of American higher education. The most recent figures indicate that the United States is home to 4,216 institutions of higher learning and enrolls an estimated 17,272,044 students in its two- and four-year institutions, private and public colleges and universities, and for-profit and non-profit enterprises (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2006). Europe presents a similar profile today in terms of numbers of institutions and enrolled students. Currently, the majority of American students (some 75%) attend two- and four-year public institutions of higher education, although 60% of the nation’s postsecondary institutions are private. Most of the country’s postsecondary students (86%) are pursuing undergraduate study, enrollment at four-year institutions accounts for 62% of national totals, and just over 61% of all students are engaged in full-time study (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2006). H. de Wit et al. (eds.), The Dynamics of International Student Circulation in a Global Context, 199–231. © 2008. Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

H. DE WIT AND L.E. RUMBLEY

Meanwhile, as of 2003, some 1,175,000 academic staff are employed in American higher education. Just over half of these (54%) held full-time positions. Two-thirds of all faculty are employed in public higher education, and nearly 70% of American academics work at four-year institutions (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2005). Finally, in fiscal year 2000, current-fund expenditures for all nonprofit postsecondary institutions (public and private) in the country totaled almost $234 billion (Johnstone, 2005). While the scope of the higher education enterprise in the United States is impressive in absolute terms, it is also significant when considered from a comparative perspective. For example, most recent figures indicate that 38% of 18-to-24-yearolds in the United States are engaged in some form of higher education, while 46% of all similarly aged high-school graduates are actively involved in postsecondary study (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2005). The United States currently ranks seventh in the world in terms of higher education attainment among 25-to-34-yearolds (OECD, 2005). In 1998, total public and private spending on higher education equaled approximately 2.3% of the nation’s gross domestic product, “the highest of the major industrialized countries” (Johnstone, 2005, p. 373) at that time. Beyond sheer size, the United States is unique in other important ways as well. Although it is common to speak of an “American higher education system,” the US postsecondary landscape is not centrally organized or administered at the national level. Indeed, it is interesting to note that there is no “national” university in the United States, no ministry of higher education, and no national postsecondary education policy. Instead, the American “system” is more accurately understood as an amalgam of 50 unique state schemes, each with its own approach to the purpose, provision, and oversight of postsecondary education within its jurisdiction. Of course, this situation results in much variation across the national landscape. For example, important disparities exist among the states in terms of financing policies, state government structures, and how these affect the public oversight of higher education, and the overall performance of postsecondary systems (McGuinness, 2005). In spite of these differences, however, there are also important commonalities in higher education contexts across the states. Notable here is the fact that each of the states provides fundamental oversight and guidance for the higher education enterprise in their jurisdictions, and all “have established an entity (for example, state board of higher education, state board of regents, or higher education commission) explicitly charged with statewide policy for higher education” (McGuinness, 2005, p. 207). Moreover, though financing policies may be unique to each state, similar sets of stakeholders are relevant in most state settings. In the United States, money flows into higher education from four main sources. The federal government allocates monies, mostly on a restricted basis, in the form of research and other grants issued directly to institutions; it also gives student aid directly to students. State and local governments likewise make appropriations and give grants to universities. Meanwhile, the philanthropic community – through donors, foundations, and corporations – gives various types of gifts to higher education institutions; 200

THE ROLE OF AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION

and finally, students and their families feed resources into the system through the payment of tuition and fees. Underpinning all of these transactions is the economy at large, which provides resources to governmental entities through tax revenues and to individuals through income earnings (National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, 2002). Meanwhile, even in the absence of a national system of higher education, all of the states are still very much engaged with the federal government, which plays a variety of important roles in American higher education. Key activities of the US federal government include providing major funding for research in many fields (particularly in the sciences and other technical fields), administering significant student financing programs (Gladieux, King, & Corrigan, 2005), and reinforcing the voluntary accreditation activities that are designed to assure quality and accountability in the higher education sector (Brittingham, 2005). Though considered a highly mature and quite functional system of higher education, the American postsecondary landscape faces considerable challenges in the 21st century. Indeed, Zusman (2005) notes that current “changes both within and outside the academy are altering its character – its students, faculty, governance, curriculum, functions, and very place in society . . . transforming higher education to an extent not seen since the end of World War II” (p. 115). At the heart of Zusman’s analysis is the idea that the very “social contract” of American higher education stands at a crossroads. The central questions defining this moment have to do with the growing privatization of public colleges and universities; the perceived commercialization and politicization of the country’s research system; the changing demographics of America’s current and future postsecondary student population, which now incorporates many more ethnically, racially, socially, and economically diverse students; the unclear job market outlook for doctoral degree holders and what this means for the future planning and production of doctorate recipients; and the overarching issues of accountability, governance, and coordination – that is, “the relationship between higher education, the public, and government authorities” (Zusman, 2005, p. 142). These considerable challenges become even more complex as the country looks toward the near- and midterm future. Enrollment in American higher education is projected to continue growing and diversifying into the next decade (see Figure 1; Chronicle of Higher Education, 2004). Meanwhile, the states face significant funding limitations as they work to keep pace with the financial demands of such resource-hungry programs as Medicaid1 (Kane & Orszag, 2003), and the pressures inherent in complying with the nationally mandated No Child Left Behind2 initiatives at the elementary and secondary education levels (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2005). 1 Medicaid is a “program sponsored by the federal government and administered by states that is intended to provide health care and health-related services to low-income individuals” (Alzheimer’s Association, 2006). 2 The No Child Left Behind Act (2001) is the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1992, the main federal law affecting education at pre-tertiary levels (US Department of Education, n.d.-b).

201

H. DE WIT AND L.E. RUMBLEY

Figure 1. College enrollment trends.

And while these domestic considerations often take center stage in the minds of American college presidents and policymakers, the international dimension of the US higher education enterprise is also increasingly relevant. International student circulation – more specifically, high levels of foreign student enrollment in American colleges and universities and, to a lesser extent, US student sojourns abroad – is of central importance to the country’s ongoing effort to maintain global leadership in the field of higher education. Thus, international student circulation has significant ramifications for American competitiveness in terms of workforce preparedness, scientific research advancements, high-technology development, new knowledge creation (Altbach, 2004; NAFSA, 2006a, 2006b), and national security (NAFSA, 2003a, 2003b, 2006a, 2006b).

NATIONAL POLICIES ON THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION3

Given the profound decentralization of the higher education enterprise in the United States, it is difficult to speak in terms of “national policies” for internationalization. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that significant activities are occurring at both national and institutional levels indicating that the international dimension is very much on the radar of the American postsecondary education community 3 For a historical account of higher education’s internationalization in the United States, see de Wit (2002).

202

THE ROLE OF AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION

and that it is a subject of some importance to academic, administrative, and policy leaders across the country. Indeed, US government programming, the policy advocacy work of voluntary and professional associations, and the individual initiatives of colleges and universities to internationalize their campuses all add up to a meaningful – if not always coordinated – effort to advance international student circulation and infuse international perspectives into the American academy. Federal Initiatives At the federal government level, the Department of State provides much of the leadership in this arena through its Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA). ECA oversees a family of international education and exchange programs for US and foreign professionals, scholars, and graduate and undergraduate students. Examples of activities that bring non-US citizens to this country include the Junior Faculty Development Program, various Fulbright Programs, the Edmund S. Muskie Graduate Fellowship Program, and, for undergraduates, the Eurasian Undergraduate Exchange Program as well as the Study of the United States Institutes for Student Leaders (Department of State, n.d.-a). For Americans, key examples of the Department of State’s support for overseas academic engagement include the Fulbright Programs (US Department of State, n.d.-b) and the Benjamin Gilman Scholarship Program (US Department of State, n.d.-c), which provide funding assistance to low-income students wishing to study abroad. The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs also promotes the work of EducationUSA, an initiative that supports some 450 overseas advising centers. EducationUSA is guided by a mission to actively promote US higher education around the world by offering accurate, comprehensive, objective, and timely information about educational opportunities in the United States and guidance to qualified individuals on how best to access those opportunities. It also seeks to connect with the US higher education community, providing information on international education policy, global education systems, the importance of recruiting international students, how to cooperate with EducationUSA centers around the world, and how to maintain an international-student friendly campus and website (EducationUSA, n.d.). One of the most recent and compelling government-sponsored initiatives concerning the internationalization of American higher education can be found in the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program. Conceived by the late US Senator Paul Simon, the goals of the program were articulated in November 2005 by the Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program (2005), comprised of academics, policymakers, and politicians appointed by the US Congress and the President. The commission concluded that the national government and the higher education community must make efforts to facilitate the participation of 1 million American postsecondary students in study abroad activ203

H. DE WIT AND L.E. RUMBLEY

ities by academic year 2016–2017, with special emphasis on promoting academic sojourns in the developing world. According to the Lincoln Commission, this goal is both achievable and critically important for four key reasons: (a) for the United States to remain competitive in the global economic environment, (b) to maintain and enhance national security, (c) to improve American democratic leadership in the world, and, (d) to provide more students with the inherently valuable experience of studying abroad (Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program, 2005). The release of the Lincoln Commission report in November 2005 coincided with a US Senate Resolution designating 2006 the “Year of Study Abroad” (US Senate, 2005), notable if not for its substantive contributions to American study abroad objectives, then certainly for its symbolic importance. Meanwhile, the new National Security Language Initiative introduced by President Bush in early 2006 aims to coordinate the resources and efforts of the US Departments of State, Defense, and Education in an effort to achieve three broad goals: 1. to expand the number of Americans mastering critical needs languages (such as Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, and Persian), and generally fostering their study at much younger ages; 2. to increase the number of advanced-level speakers of critical needs foreign languages, with the hope of producing some 2,000 advanced speakers of Arabic, Chinese, Russian, Persian, Hindi, and Central Asian languages by 2009; and 3. to increase the number of foreign language teachers and the resources available to them (US Department of State, 2006). Competition and cooperation have been two important factors in the US government’s rationales for promoting international education activities. For example, the element of competition can be seen clearly in the evolution of a series of programs managed by the US Department of Education through Title VI of the Higher Education Act. Title VI programming and funding was originally linked to the National Defense Education Act, introduced in 1958 in the wake of the educational and foreign policy crises spawned by the Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite. Over the last half-century, Title VI funding has been repeatedly reauthorized to promote language, area, and international studies in the United States. It has also fostered opportunities for US students and scholars to engage in study and research activities abroad, specifically in subjects and regions of particular relevance to the national interest (de Wit, 2002; US Department of Education, n.d.-a). The element of cooperation is perhaps more evident in such areas as the transatlantic activities between the European Union (EU) and the United States. Originally launched in the early 1990s to counter concerns about a “Fortress Europe” developing in light of increased intra-EU educational cooperation and exchange (de Wit, 2002), EU-US collaboration is entering a new phase with the recently launched ATLANTIS (Actions for Transatlantic Links and Academic Networks for Training and Integrated Studies) initiative. It will promote “transatlantic degree consortia” projects, aimed at bringing together teams of at least one US and two EU institu204

THE ROLE OF AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION

tions for the purpose of giving students from both regions the opportunity to obtain joint or double degrees (European Commission, n.d.). The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is another example of an effort to develop a cooperative framework for international higher education engagement. Also launched in the early 1990s and aimed at connecting the United States, Canada, and Mexico in a cooperative effort to “develop a North American dimension in higher education” (de Wit, 2002, p. 32), among other objectives, the project has foundered in the intervening decade. Key difficulties include the significant political, economic, and social imbalances among the three partner nations, lack of buy-in by American academics, and inadequate public resources to achieve program goals (de Wit, 2002). These activities and initiatives of the Departments of State and Education, and the US Congress, provide tangible evidence of a measurable level of support by the federal government for the internationalization of American higher education. The January 2006 US University Presidents Summit on International Education, cohosted by the Secretaries of Education and State to “engage leaders of US higher education in a renewed partnership to strengthen international education and emphasize its importance to the national interest” (US Department of State, n.d.-d), is another timely example of the existence of some political will in this area. Advocacy Initiatives Despite the obvious interest of the federal government, it is interesting to note that an ongoing effort to promote the institution of a formal national policy for international education has been largely unsuccessful to date. It is perhaps telling – or uniquely American – that the drive to implement such a national policy has been spearheaded in large part not by governmental actors, but by voluntary associations and non- governmental professional membership organizations. Major players in this arena include the Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange and NAFSA: Association of International Educators. In one of the most recent iterations of its call to action in this area (NAFSA, 2006a), NAFSA and the Alliance together urged the US president to announce a vision and a funding scheme that would, among other things, activate a coordinated national effort to encourage the ongoing recruitment of large numbers of talented international students and scholars; promote the study of languages and regional and international studies; and incorporate study abroad activities into the mainstream American undergraduate experience (NAFSA, 2006a). The introduction of these tangible, coordinated steps is seen as vitally important in a context in which the United States is in direct competition with other developed countries to attract the world’s brightest foreign students and scholars, especially since many US international educators see the national leadership as “curiously disengaged” from this process, “content to compete with speeches, sound bites, and photo ops” (NAFSA, 2006b, p. 1). Issues of national security and American economic competitiveness in the global economy are cited as the principal rationales for the need for a coherent national policy for international education in the current context (NAFSA, 2006a). 205

H. DE WIT AND L.E. RUMBLEY NATIONAL SECURITY

National security considerations and the economics of internationalization have factored heavily into the broader discussions about international education in the United States in recent years. On the national security front, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have spurred wide-ranging discussions on the relative merits and challenges of hosting large numbers of foreign students and scholars at America’s universities. In 2003, NAFSA’s Strategic Task Force on International Student Access issued a special report in which former US Secretary of Defense William J. Perry noted that a “compelling case called for the importance of continued – indeed, enhanced – US openness to international students as integral to America’s security in today’s world” (NAFSA, 2003a, p. 2). This position was stymied to some degree, however, by the introduction of more rigorous student visa application and adjudication procedures that made the process of securing a US student visa significantly slower and more difficult in the period immediately following the introduction of the US Patriot Act. More importantly, the new political and regulatory framework introduced in the post-September 11 era has presented American higher education with a significant public relations problem around the world that has potentially long-term negative ramifications for the country’s ability to attract the world’s intellectual elite (and large numbers of international students and scholars of any type) to its postsecondary institutions. Indeed, although subsequent steps taken by the US government have greatly reduced student visa processing times and restored visa approval rates to preSeptember 11 levels in many countries, some argue that “student perceptions have not caught up with reality” (Koh Chin, 2006, p. 10). Visa difficulties and the introduction of SEVIS, an international student monitoring scheme, have given many would-be foreign students and academics a sense that they are not welcome in the United States (Bollag, 2004, 2006; Ladika, 2006). Meanwhile, countries like the United Kingdom and Australia have launched coordinated national efforts to woo international students to their colleges and universities with streamlined visa application processes, work permits, and post-degree career opportunities in their countries. Growing Competitiveness As competition with other countries for international students has become more pronounced in recent years, so, too, has the importance of the economic dimension of internationalization in the United States. In the current context, this discussion has three central components: (a) the impact made by international students on the US economy; (b) the importance of training internationally competent American workers in a globally interconnected economy; and (c) the debate about the liberalization of trade in higher education services through the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), a World Trade Organization (WTO) initiative. In a broad sense, the United States feels the pressure of initiatives undertaken by the European Union (such as the Bologna Process and the Lisbon Strategy) and by the rapid developments in research and development in the Asia-Pacific 206

THE ROLE OF AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION

region – in particular, China. The Bush administration’s “American Competitiveness Initiative” (Domestic Policy Council, 2006) of February 2006, which aims to invest $50 billion in research and another $86 billion in research and development tax incentives in the next 10 years, along with the fiscal year 2007 budget decisions to implement the initiative, are concrete actions designed to improve the competitiveness of American education. The question of whether or to what degree higher education should be considered an internationally tradable service has also been a topic of intense interest among key stakeholders in recent years. The US Trade Representative’s inclusion of higher education in the package of services to be considered under the GATS draws a deep line in the sand for American higher education and its international dimension (Bassett, 2005). The traditionally high levels of decentralization and institutional autonomy inherent in the US postsecondary system make any pretense of submitting it to the oversight of international law extremely controversial. At the same time, the increasingly privatized and internationally expansive nature of the US higher education sector is placing American postsecondary actors into more overtly commercial contexts (Bollag, 2006). Campus Initiatives These broader questions of national policy, economics, and security ultimately must manifest themselves on individual college campuses, where they play out in unique and specific ways across the broad spectrum of American higher education. The notion that “preparing American students to compete in the global economy has lately become part of the core mission of many American institutions” (Bollag, 2006, p. A44), is reflected in the ways that policymakers and educators appear to be thinking differently (and increasingly internationally) about the goals of America’s higher education institutions, as well as their curricula, program structures, and pedagogy. As these developments unfold, evidence suggests that there is great variety in terms of how US institutions of higher education engage the phenomenon of internationalization. In an American Council on Education (ACE) report on this very question, Siaya and Hayward (2003) reported mixed results in terms of the penetration and impact of American campus internationalization efforts. For example, the ACE data indicated that many campus stakeholders expressed support for their institutions’ internationalization efforts, and most faculty and students had some international travel experience and foreign language training. However, actual participation rates among faculty and students in campus activities with an international focus were less robust than the expressed levels of interest might predict; and institutional commitments to internationalization were not frequently evidenced by specific articulation of the international dimension in institutional mission statements or strategic plans. Siaya and Howard (2003) conclude that there has been some substantive progress to internationalize the American college campus over the last decade and a half but that most institutions must take additional steps to realize their full po207

H. DE WIT AND L.E. RUMBLEY

tential in this area. Such steps include doing a better job of identifying and using resources, moving beyond rhetoric to real action, and clarifying the commitment to an agenda for internationalization. The same analysis might be applied to the broader American higher education context vis à vis internationalization. Clearly, the phenomenon must be understood as a significant reality in the US postsecondary sector today, having grown measurably in importance in recent years. Evidence of this rising interest in the subject is clearly apparent in the recent output of reports on internationalization by the American Council on Education (Green, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2005d, 2005e; Olson, Green, & Hill, 2005). At the same time, the highly decentralized nature of the system and the lack of an overarching national vision present the American higher education enterprise with some substantial challenges in terms of shaping a coherent approach to its internationalization.

OVERVIEW OF THE EXTENT OF THE FOREIGN PRESENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROVIDERS AND FORMS OF DELIVERY4

Non-US providers have found the American higher education market difficult to penetrate. The failure of the British Open University is a well-known example (Arnone, 2002). Currently, there is only a limited foreign presence in American higher education in terms of the numbers of foreign universities establishing campuses and independent programs on US soil. Of course, it is unclear how many US-based students may be engaged in distance education study with foreign institutions, but no more than half a dozen non-US academic programs appear to have set up shop inside the United States over the last five years (Eaton, personal communication, 2006). Important exceptions to this rule include a small number of large and dynamic Mexican universities, such as the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico (UNAM), the Instituto Tecnólogico de Monterrey, and the Universidad Aut´cnoma de Guadalajara (UAG), which have expanded their programming and operations north of the Mexican border to serve primarily Hispanic populations in several major US cities (Altbach, personal communication, 2006; UAG, n.d.; UNAM, n.d.). Given the limited infiltration of foreign universities into the American academic market, therefore, a discussion of the “foreign presence in higher education” for the United States essentially entails exploring the ways in which the American academic enterprise extends its considerable reach overseas. Indeed, analysis by the US Department of Commerce indicates that US exports in higher education have grown steadily over the last decade (see Figure 2), and in 2004 exceeded $13.5 billion (Nephew et al., 2005; Strohmer, 2006). NAFSA (2005) observes that this contribution, mainly by foreign students and their families, to the American economy, makes international education a significant US service-sector export. This economic benefit is shared by schools, communities, states, and the US economy 4 For an overview of cross-border, post-secondary education in North America, including the United States, see Knight and Green (2004).

208

THE ROLE OF AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION

Figure 2. US exports in higher education. The US is the largest exporter of educational services. Source: BEA, US International Services, Cross-Border Trade 1986–2004.

as a whole. According to the Institute of International Education, more than 70 percent of undergraduate international students pay full tuition and receive no financial aid, thus allowing schools to offer more financial assistance to American students. In addition, US-educated students take home preferences for American products, and business students in particular take home an education in US business practices. (NAFSA, 2003a, p. 9) In addition to recruiting international students to study in the United States, the United States seems to be extending its overseas reach in three ways: (a) via distance education, (b) by establishing US university branch campuses, joint degree programs, or other substantive operations abroad, and (c) through the growing phenomenon of sending American accreditors abroad to assess the activities of non-US higher education activities in their home environments. The field of distance education has expanded quickly in recent years. In 2000– 2001, an estimated 55% of all two- and four-year higher education institutions in the United States offered college-level distance education courses for credit, with total enrollments of over 3 million (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). Advances in technology, along with increases in Internet access and usage, have created a great deal of enthusiasm around the world and expanded the potential for American universities to develop programs that attract not only domestic students, but international learners, as well (Carnevale, 2006). Traditional institutions of higher learning and newer, more entrepreneurial, for-profit education companies are all examining potential markets for international distance learning expansion. Providers have a variety of objectives in mind, ranging from circumventing logistical challenges that make it difficult for internationals to study on campus in the 209

H. DE WIT AND L.E. RUMBLEY

United States, to expanding enrollments, to generating higher financial profits. On the demand side, foreign students may be seeking access to American courses and credentials in less costly and more convenient ways than engaging in an extended period of study inside the United States (Carnevale, 2006). Given the fluid and “virtual” nature of this particular arena, it is difficult to assess exactly how many foreign students are enrolled in American distance education courses or programs. Still, some analysts express “high hopes for e-learning” – and American higher education provider success – in a global higher education market (Moe, 2002). A much more tangible dimension of American higher education activity abroad can be seen in the establishment of overseas branch campuses of US colleges and universities. Although exact figures are not available, the phenomenon seems to have picked up speed to a notable degree in the last decade, for reasons both academic and entrepreneurial (Bollag, 2006). Ranging from individual degree programs to wholesale satellite campuses offering a full menu of academic offerings, US expansion overseas offers some tangible benefits to schools and students, while also presenting unique challenges. Key advantages include the fact that this type of arrangement provides foreign students with access to highly valued US degrees without the cost or inconvenience (particularly in terms of unpleasant and/or unwieldy student visa processes) of displacing themselves to the United States. Meanwhile, overseas extension activities may allow the American colleges and universities involved to increase overall enrollment; maximize previously underused study-abroad facilities; create new, streamlined options for their own home campus students wishing to study outside the United States; provide faculty members with opportunities to internationalize their teaching and research; and expand institutional “brand-name recognition” abroad, with positive financial ramifications across the board (Bollag, 2006). There are also real challenges inherent in the process of expanding US higher education activities overseas. Some feel that the drive to stretch American institutions’ reach internationally implies an inherent “union of unequals” (Altbach, 2005a, p. 132), typically falling short of finding an appropriate balance between quality, financial viability, and relevance to host country concerns (Bollag, 2006). Mismatched visions of what the US university presence is meant to accomplish in a given overseas setting, as well as occasionally unfriendly or unclear regulatory environments abroad, can add a painful level of complexity to the experience for American institutions. Meanwhile, aggressive competition from other foreign providers, such as Australian and British universities, requires careful strategic decision making on the part of American universities in terms of where to locate themselves and what particular niches to fill in those markets (Bollag, 2006). As it stands now, “popular professional fields such as business administration” seem to be much preferred by American universities operating overseas (Altbach, 2005a, p. 133), while India and China, along with several small, affluent states in the Middle East, represent key geographic areas of great interest to many American universities looking to build a presence abroad (Bollag, 2006; Strohmer, 2006). In the for-profit sector, Knight (2005, pp. 107–109) notes that 21 out of 41 publicly traded companies active in education are from the United States. 210

THE ROLE OF AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION

American influence in the higher education systems of other countries also extends into the field of accreditation. In 2003, the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), found that 25 of approximately 80 American accrediting bodies had accredited 222 non-US programs or institutions outside the United States. Four of the six major regional accrediting bodies currently engage in overseas accrediting activities, along with a growing number of professional and specialized schools (Bollag, 2005). There are several reasons for this trend. Some foreign institutions claim that the endorsement of a US accreditor can enhance the reputation of an institution abroad, giving it a competitive edge in a tight higher education market. It can also provide a needed service in countries with underdeveloped or nonexistent accrediting agencies or mechanisms. In addition, the American accreditation process can serve as a welcome catalyst for valuable institutional improvements in foreign institutions, positive in their own right and also helpful in the process of attracting the interest of American institutions looking for overseas partners (Bollag, 2005). At the same time, US accreditation activities abroad are viewed with some skepticism. Brittingham (2003) argues that US accreditors would be wise to limit their overseas interventions to those cases involving “American-style” institutions – admittedly difficult at times to define – as well as to English-speaking institutional contexts, and to capacity-building exercises that involve sharing the US experience with colleagues abroad who are seeking to develop locally appropriate accreditation mechanisms. At the more extreme end, concerns of “academic neocolonialism” are raised in a context of “self-imposed external discipline unrelated to local conditions with potentially dangerous effects” (Altbach, 2003a, p. 7). To address these matters, in 2001 the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) adopted a set of principles for accreditors engaging in accreditation activities involving non-US operations outside the United States. Further cementing its interest in affairs beyond US borders, CHEA has also issued a position paper jointly with the American Council on Education (ACE), the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC), and the International Association of Universities (IAU) calling for governments and higher education stakeholders across the globe to “address the urgent need for national and international policy frameworks for sharing quality higher education across borders and affirm the value of higher education’s continued contribution to the public good” (IAU et al., 2005, p. 6). Finally, although this section has focused largely on the presence of American higher education in other national academic systems, there is one important way in which foreign influences are felt directly in the US academy – the presence of international faculty, scholars, and doctoral students. As of 2003, a scant 3.4% of the academic workforce at American universities and colleges consisted of nonresident aliens – a total of 21,200 individuals (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2006). However, a much larger number of international scholars (just under 97,000) were in the United States for sojourns of varying lengths in 2005–2006 (IIE, 2006b). Also in 2004, a whopping 29% of the 42,155 doctorate recipients from US universities for whom citizenship information is available (94% of the total) were nonresident aliens. Equally dramatic is the fact that “the growing numbers 211

H. DE WIT AND L.E. RUMBLEY

of doctorates awarded to foreign students on temporary visas has accounted for virtually all of the overall growth in the numbers of doctorate recipients since 1974” (Hoffer et al., 2005, p. 17). Much of the literature on the flow of international students and scholars indicates that the powerful academic and knowledge-generating “centers” around the world exert a one-way, dominating influence on the weaker “peripheries” (Altbach, 2003b). Under this framework, foreign faculty, scholars, and graduate students are incorporated into the American academic context and often serve to perpetuate its norms in their countries of origin. Given this tendency, it is unclear to what degree the presence of international academics exerts an influence on the American higher education as a whole or the individual institutions where they work and study. Certainly there is a great deal of buzz about American colleges and universities wishing to better maximize the value added from the presence of internationals on their campuses. However, there is some indication that higher education institutions in the United States continue to struggle to some degree with the “foreign presence” in their midst – as evidenced by the relatively small percentage of non-US faculty members at work in American institutions, and by such matters as the perennial furor generated by the perceived limitations of the English language skills of many foreign graduate teaching assistants in US college classrooms (Gravois, 2005).

DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

International student mobility has been an important element of American higher education since the 19th century. Philip G. Altbach (2005b) reminds us that the modern US research university owes its existence in large part to the experiences and subsequent leadership of a generation of talented American scholars who traveled overseas – principally to Germany – in the mid-1800s. These academics brought back with them the concept of doctorate-granting research institutions, which they adapted to the American context with unique teaching, service, and student development components. From this small but extremely influential beginning, international student circulation – encompassing both the receipt of foreign students and scholars into this country and the dispatch of American students and scholars to overseas destinations – has grown into a highly dynamic dimension of the higher education enterprise in the United States. Although both the inbound and outbound circulation of students and scholars are relevant in the American context, there is a significant imbalance in terms of these flows into and out of the country. The most recent currently available data indicate that 564,766 foreign students were enrolled at American colleges and universities during the 2005–2006 academic year. Meanwhile, in 2004–2005, 205,983 US students participated in some form of credit-bearing academic sojourn abroad as a part of their American degree programs (IIE, 2006b), while some 41,181 others sought actual degrees from overseas institutions (UNESCO, 2006). Although the rates of American student participation in study abroad are growing quickly (up nearly 34% since academic year 2000-2001), the fact that the United States receives 212

THE ROLE OF AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION

Figure 3. International students studying in the United States: the past 20 years. Source: Institute for International Education (2006a).

nearly 2.5 times the number of students it sends abroad is notable. The country has long been the world’s unrivaled receiver nation for international students, but recent developments are challenging the notion that the United States is the unquestioned destination of choice for the world’s mobile students. At the same time, new domestic and international contexts are sending American students abroad for academic purposes in increasing numbers. A brief analysis of key data points provides a helpful overview of the main trends currently characterizing the international flow of students and scholars in the American higher education context.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS IN THE UNITED STATES

After registering fairly robust increases for many of the previous 20 years, the rate of growth in numbers of international students enrolled at American colleges and universities slowed dramatically in 2002–2003 (to 0.6% from the previous year). Negative growth rates were then registered in 2003–2004 (–2.4%), 2004– 2005 (–1.3%), and 2005–2006 (–0.05%) (IIE, 2006b). Figure 3 provides a visual representation of this trend. The recent drops in international student enrollment numbers in the United States are attributed to a variety of factors. Modified student visa application processes following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks created significant administrative backlogs at some US consulates around the world, causing some students to miss opportunities to enter the United States to commence their studies 213

H. DE WIT AND L.E. RUMBLEY Table 1. International students in the United States by academic level for selected years. Level

1990–1991

1994–1995

2000–2001

2004–2005

Graduate Undergraduate Other

189,900 46.60% 182,130 44.69% 35,500 8.71%

221,500 48.94% 191,738 42.36% 39,396 8.70%

254,429 46.44% 238,497 43.53% 54,941 10.03%

239,212 42.34% 264,410 46.79% 61,417 10.87%

Total

407,530

452,634

547,867

565,039

Source: Open Doors (http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=70949)

or making them decide not to apply for student visas. Other students, citing perceptions of a hostile environment for foreigners, especially those from predominantly Muslim or Arab countries, apparently opted to remain at home or sought out alternative overseas programs in locations thought to be more friendly to internationals. Aggressive recruitment of foreign students by Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom is also thought to have drawn some students away from the American higher education market in recent years (IIE, 2005). However, the relative slowdown in declining numbers of internationals in 2004–2005 is attributed to recent improvements in the efficiency of student visa processing at American consulates abroad and enhanced international recruitment efforts on the part of American colleges and universities (IIE, 2005). The following discussion provides insight into various characteristics of the international student and scholar population in the United States, as it has evolved over the last 15 to 20 years. International Students by Level Both graduate and undergraduate student populations have been attracted to the United States during the last two decades (see Table 1). It is interesting to note that the number of undergraduate students has continued to rise since 1990–1991, while the graduate student population has declined in relative terms and, more recently (2004–2005), in absolute numbers as well. Fluctuations in international graduate student enrollment have been the subject of close scrutiny in recent years, as universities have endeavored to respond to the immediate concern of dropping numbers, while also seeking to understand in greater detail the subtleties of international graduate student enrollment trends and the broader global context in which their graduate programs compete. For example, the Council of Graduate Schools found in a recent survey of graduate admissions data (Brown, 2005) a 5% decline in overall applications from international graduate students from 2004 to 2005, although 3% more students were admitted in 2005. And while in 2004, “nearly every field and country experienced declines in the number of admits,” in 2005 “there is more admissions variety” in terms of positive and negative trends across countries of origin and fields of study (Brown, 2005, p. 3). These data may suggest that students in some countries now have more study options at home than were once available to them (for example, in China); that increasing graduate program offerings around the world (particularly in 214

THE ROLE OF AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION Table 2. International students in the United States: top sending countries by selected years. Rank

1990–1991

1994–1995

2000–2001

2004–2005

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

China 39,600 Japan 36,610 Taiwan 33,530 India 28,860 Korea 23,360 Canada 18,350 Malaysia 13,610 Hong Kong 12,630 Indonesia 9,520 Pakistan 7,730 UK 7,300 Thailand 7,090 Germany 7,000 Mexico 6,740 Iran 6,260 France 5,630 Singapore 4,500 Greece 4,360 Jordan 4,320 Spain 4,300 Philippines 4,270 Turkey 4,080 Brazil 3,900 Lebanon 3,900 Nigeria 3,710

Japan 45,531 China 39,613 Korea 36,231 Taiwan 32,702 India 31,743 Canada 23,005 Malaysia 14,015 Indonesia 12,820 Thailand 12,165 Hong Kong 12,018 Germany 9,017 Mexico 8,687 UK 7,799 Turkey 7,678 Pakistan 6,427 France 5,710 Brazil 5,497 Spain 4,809 Venezuela 4,456 Saudi Arabia 4,191 Singapore 4,098 Colombia 3,462 Greece 3,365 Philippines 3,127 Iran 2,628

China 59,939 India 54,664 Japan 46,497 Korea 45,685 Taiwan 28,566 Canada 25,279 Indonesia 11,625 Thailand 11,187 Turkey 10,983 Mexico 10,670 Germany 10,128 Brazil 8,846 UK 8,139 Malaysia 7,795 Hong Kong 7,627 France 7,273 Pakistan 6,948 Colombia 6,765 Saudi Arabia 5,273 Venezuela 5,217 Singapore 4,166 Spain 4,156 Nigeria 3,820 Philippines 3,139 Greece 2,768

India 80,466 China 62,523 Korea 53,358 Japan 42,215 Canada 28,140 Taiwan 25,914 Mexico 13,063 Turkey 12,474 Germany 8,640 Thailand 8,637 UK 8,236 Indonesia 7,760 Colombia 7,334 Brazil 7,244 Hong Kong 7,180 Kenya 6,728 France 6,555 Nigeria 6,335 Pakistan 6,296 Malaysia 6,142 Venezuela 5,279 Russia 5,073 Nepal 4,861 Jamaica 6,368 Singapore 3,769

Source: • 1990–1991 and 1994–1995 data: National Center for Education Statistics (2004). • 2000–2001 data: Institute for International Education (2001). • 2004–2005 data: Institute for International Education (2005).

English-speaking countries) are eating into the US share of internationally mobile graduate students; and that growing numbers of US program offerings overseas are resulting in fewer international students engaged in study on the home campus in the United States (Brown, 2005). Sending Countries In terms of the specific sources of students from abroad entering American higher education, Asia has remained the steady leader over the last 25 years. As displayed in Table 2, China, India, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan have consistently sent some of the largest contingents of students to the United States, followed to a lesser extent by Thailand and Indonesia (and, in the 1990s, Malaysia). Canada has been another consistent source of sizable numbers, with countries like Mexico and Turkey gaining ground in recent years. Among European countries, Germany and the United 215

H. DE WIT AND L.E. RUMBLEY Table 3. International scholars in the United States by top sending countries for selected years. Rank

2000–2001

2004–2005

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

China 14,772 Japan 5,905 Korea 5,830 India 5,456 Germany 5,221 Canada 3,735 UK 3,352 Russia 3,253 France 3,154 Italy 2,226 Spain 1,706 Brazil 1,315 Australia 1,212 Israel 1,205 Taiwan 1,196 Netherlands 1,037 Turkey 918 Mexico 898 Poland 862 Argentina 638 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

China 17,035 Korea 8,301 India 7,755 Japan 5,623 Germany 4,846 Canada 4,262 UK 3,185 France 3,078 Italy 2,565 Russia 2,420 Spain 2,043 Taiwan 1,543 Israel 1,500 Brazil 1,499 Turkey 1,427 Australia 1,183 Mexico 1,158 Netherlands 946 Poland 925 Argentina 825 Sweden 686 Romania 674 Switzerland 661 Thailand 619 Colombia 524

Source: • 2000–2001 data: Institute for International Education (2001). • 2004–2005 data: Institute for International Education (2005); Open Doors (2004–2005).

Kingdom have tended to send more students to the United States than any others, followed to a lesser extent by France, Spain, and Greece.

Foreign Scholars The Asian countries that send the largest numbers of students to the United States also tend to send the greatest number of scholars to American colleges and universities (see Table 3). China, India, Japan, and Korea have consistently been key sources of visiting scholars from abroad. Germany, Canada, and the United Kingdom are also fairly well represented in this category, and it is interesting to note that more European countries appear on this list, and at higher rankings, than on the international student table. 216

THE ROLE OF AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION

Figure 4. International scholars in the United States for 1995–2005. Source: Institute for International Education (2006).

In general, the growth in numbers of international scholars has tended to be positive and fairly steady over the last decade (apart from an unusual spike in the academic year 1997–1998), as reflected in Figure 4. Despite the upward trend, however, serious concerns have been raised in the post-September 11th context about the challenges faced by some foreign scholars in securing or retaining US visas for their scholarly sojourns. With many American academic institutions and civil rights advocacy groups on one side, and Department of Homeland security officials on the other, a strenuous legal and intellectual debate is underway regarding the First Amendment free speech rights of Americans to be exposed to potentially controversial ideas versus the nation’s right to “protect Americans, including from ideological extremists who promote ideas intended to harm the US” (Lampman, 2006, p. 14). Whether the perception of the United States as an unfriendly destination will have a negative effect over time on the actual numbers of foreign scholars entering the country remains to be seen. In the meantime, American colleges and universities attempting to woo the best and brightest minds to their campuses do seem to be facing some significant public relations difficulties, as word spreads among scholars abroad about the visa delay, denial, or revocation horror stories experienced by the likes of Swiss scholar Tariq Ramadan and others (Ladika, 2006; Lampman, 2006).

Fields of Study Among international students who come to study in the United States, the most popular fields of study are engineering and business and management, which in recent years have accounted for approximately 35% of all foreign student enrollments in this country (see Table 4). Foreign graduate students make up sizable percentages of overall enrollments in such fields as engineering and the sciences – in 2004, for 217

H. DE WIT AND L.E. RUMBLEY Table 4. International students in the United States by field of study for selected years. Rank

Field of Study

2000–2001

Field of Study

2004–2005

1. 2. 3.

Business & management Engineering Mathematics & computer sciences

106,043 83,186 67,825

100,079 92,952 59,700

4.

Other (liberal/general studies; communications & journalism; law; etc.) Social sciences Physical & life sciences Undeclared

Business & management Engineering Other (liberal/general studies; communications & journalism; law; etc.) Mathematics & computer sciences

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Fine & applied arts Intensive English language Health professions Humanities Education Agriculture Optional practical training (OPT)

57,235

42,367 38,396 35,779 34,220 23,011 22,430 16,123 14,053 7,200 N/A

Physical & life sciences Social sciences Optional practical training (OPT) Fine & applied arts Undeclared Health professions Intensive English language Humanities Education Agriculture

50,747

49,499 46,085 28,432 28,063 27,982 26,301 16,133 15,850 15,697 7,519

Source: • 2000–2001 data: Institute for International Education (2001). • 2004–2005 data: Institute for International Education (2005).

example, approximately half of all graduate students of engineering and some 41% of those in the physical sciences were internationals (McCormack, 2005). For their part, the largest numbers of international scholars have been overwhelmingly and consistently drawn to the United States to pursue activities in the health, life, biological, and physical sciences, as well as in engineering, as demonstrated by the data compiled in Table 5. Interestingly, data from the Computer Research Association in the United States indicate that Asia and Europe have begun to outpace the United States in the production of degree holders in science and engineering (Lampman, 2006), which raises important questions about the long-term attractiveness of this country for the large numbers of students and scholars in those fields.

218

Source: International Education (2005)

Health sciences Life & biological sciences Physical sciences Engineering Social sciences & history Agriculture Computer & information sciences Other Business & management Mathematics Foreign languages & literature Education Area & ethnic studies Psychology Law & legal studies Visual & performing arts Letters Public affairs Communications Philosophy & religion Architecture & environmental design Home economics Library sciences Marketing

Fields

1993–1994 27.4 13.1 14.7 11.6 4.6 3.7 2.3 2.2 3.2 2.9 2.2 1.5 1.7 0.9 1.2 1.6 1.5 0.7 0.6 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.1

1994–1995 28.6 14.1 12.8 11.9 4.0 3.4 2.3 3.1 2.8 2.5 2.3 1.8 1.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 0.6 0.6 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1

1995–1996 27.6 12.8 14.3 13.4 4.2 3.5 2.7 1.5 2.9 2.8 2.0 1.6 1.5 0.9 1.0 1.7 1.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1

1996–1997 27.1 15.4 13.8 11.8 4.6 4.1 2.2 1.6 2.6 2.8 2.3 1.4 1.6 0.8 1.0 1.5 1.8 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.1

1997–1998 26.9 14.4 14.5 11.7 4.6 4.0 2.9 2.2 2.5 2.9 1.9 1.4 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.1

1998–1999 26.2 15.4 15.0 12.6 4.3 3.4 2.5 1.5 2.3 2.8 2.3 1.4 1.8 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.1

1999–2000 23.8 16.8 14.8 11.9 3.9 3.6 2.9 3.3 2.4 2.6 2.8 1.4 1.8 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.1

2000–2001 26.9 14.7 14.7 12.6 3.6 3.9 2.7 2.8 2.5 2.5 1.9 1.5 1.8 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.3 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.1

2001–2002 27.4 14.6 14.0 11.4 4.5 3.4 3.3 2.4 3.1 2.6 2.0 1.5 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.4 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.1 25.0 17.5 14.3 11.8 4.1 3.9 3.2 1.9 2.9 2.7 2.5 1.6 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.1

2002–2003

2003–2004 20.8 23.2 13.2 10.7 3.3 3.1 3.7 2.2 3.8 2.4 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.2 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.1

Table 5. International scholars in the United States by fields of study and by percentage, 1993–1994 through 2004–2005. 2004–2005 21.9 21.5 13.2 11.6 4.0 3.7 3.1 2.7 2.7 2.4 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.1 1 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.1

THE ROLE OF AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION

219

H. DE WIT AND L.E. RUMBLEY Table 6. International students in the United States by gender for selected years.

Male Female

1990–1991

1994–1995

2000–2001

2004–2005

64.0% 36.0%

60.9% 39.1%

57.1% 42.9%

55.6% 44.4%

Source: Institute for International Education (2005) Table 7. International scholars in the United States by gender for selected years.

Male Female

1990–1991

1994–1995

2000–2001

2004–2005

N/A N/A

73.8% 26.2%

70.5% 29.5%

66.5% 33.5%

Source: Institute for International Education (2005)

Gender Finally, although gender gaps exist in both the international student and scholar populations, there is a definite trend toward increased representation of women in these groups (see Tables 6 and 7). As women enter higher education in greater numbers across the globe, more of them may eventually find their way into the US postsecondary system as future international students and/or scholars. This development may be especially true in light of the fact that the percentages of women in American higher education – across levels and many different academic fields – continue to expand, perhaps creating more welcoming environments for foreign women students, as well. Overall, it must be said that the international student presence in the United States presents a complex and fluid panorama of issues and trends. Although the American higher education system continues to attract more international students and scholars in absolute numbers than any other country in the world (UNESCO, 2006), it is clear that it can no longer count on a perennially expanding international student population, nor can it consider itself the unrivaled destination of choice for the world’s brightest internationally mobile students and academics. Rising tuition rates, public relations difficulties in the post-September 11th context, concerted recruitment of foreign students by other industrialized and English-speaking countries, and expanded educational opportunities at home in such emerging economies as China all present the United States with considerable challenges in terms of maintaining and expanding its ability to attract the largest share of the world’s internationally circulating students. On the plus side, the slowing decline in international student growth rates in 2004–2005, the extraordinary brand-name recognition of American higher education around the world, and the overall expansion of the international student circulation market – estimated to reach 8 million by 2025 (Böhm et al., n.d.) – 220

THE ROLE OF AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION

may paint a more optimistic picture for the long-term vitality of the international student circulation phenomenon in the United States.

AMERICAN STUDENTS SEEKING A DEGREE ABROAD

Most recent figures indicate that some 41,181 American students were studying abroad to obtain degrees from foreign institutions. The top destinations for this group were other English-speaking countries, specifically the United Kingdom (hosting 13,381 degree-seeking Americans), Canada (4,394), and Australia (3,439), followed by Germany (3,419) and France (2,687) (UNESCO, 2006, p. 137). In fact, direct enrollment by Americans in Canadian colleges has doubled in recent years and surged by 85% in the United Kingdom over the past 10 years (Wilcox, 2006). In comparison to the large number of international students seeking a degree in the United States (572,509 in 2004), the number of US students seeking a degree abroad is extremely low. For every 14 foreign students coming to the United States, there is only one outbound American, degree-seeking student. In 1965 this ratio was approximately 5 to 1, but from 1980 onwards it has been consistently above 10 to 1. The number of American students seeking a degree abroad has not increased drastically over time: 26,248 in 1965; 29,414 in 1975; 19,707 in 1985; and 27,749 in 1995, (Cummings, 1993; UNESCO, 1991, 1996, 1997). This is an increase of 15,000 per year over 40 years, and most of this growth has been within the last 10 years. Although very little research seems to have been done on these American overseas degree-seekers, anecdotal evidence and the increase in numbers during the past 10 years suggest that interest in obtaining a foreign credential ranges from the desire to avoid costly American university tuition bills to the hope that a degree from one of the “Scottish and Canadian Ivies” may help differentiate graduates from their peers when pursuing jobs or other activities following graduation (Wilcox, 2006). Another factor might be the presence of a growing immigrant community in the United States, whose children might choose to study in their countries of origin for reasons of language, culture, and/or costs. It is unclear to what degree this phenomenon may grow, although, given the increasing internationalization of higher education globally, it is not out of the question that more American students may find more permanent homes at universities overseas. Study-Abroad Programs The outbound movement of US students to overseas destinations as part of their home degree has experienced steady, dynamic growth over the last two decades. (see Figure 5). Most recently, in the 2004–2005 academic year, 205,983 American students studied outside the United States for some period of time, an increase of 7.7% from the previous year and building reasonably on the 9.6% increase seen in 2003–2004 (IIE, 2005, 2006a, 2006b). Students in the humanities, social sciences, and business and management dominate the rolls of US study-abroad programs. These majors have consistently 221

H. DE WIT AND L.E. RUMBLEY

Figure 5. US Students Studying Abroad, 1985–1986 through 2003–2004. Source: Institute for International Education (2006a).

accounted for roughly half of all study-abroad participants during the last decade. It is interesting to note that, during this same period, participation among students in the health sciences (while still low) doubled, growing from 1.7% in 1993-1994 to 3.4% in 2004–2005. More physical sciences students are also going abroad – over 7% in recent years, up from 5.3% in 1993–1994. Curiously, foreign language student participation rates have fallen over the last 10 years. In 1993-1994, these students accounted for 11.3% of all US student sojourners abroad; but in 2004–2005, their proportion fell to 7.5% (IIE, 2006b). American students abroad have, for the last decade, been and continue to be overwhelmingly Caucasian and female. Caucasians have made up more than 80% of all study-abroad participants since 1993–1994, and women consistently account for more than 60%. College juniors have made up the bulk of the US study abroad cohort each year since 1993–1994, typically accounting for 36 to 40% of overseas sojourners annually. College seniors and sophomores are the next most represented groups by academic level. In 2005–2006, these two groups accounted for 19.6% and 12.2% respectively of overall totals. The rates of senior participation have grown since 1993–1994 when they were just 15.6% of all study abroad students, but sophomore numbers have not changed significantly during this period. It is interesting to note that master’s level students have not substantially increased their rates of participation in study abroad over the last decade, continuing to hold steady at 4 to 5% during much of this period and actually falling to 3.4% in 2004–2005 (IIE, 2006b). The growing numbers of students bespeak a high level of interest in international experience among American college students and an understanding among US higher education stakeholders that global perspectives are critical to the academic enterprise today. And while the higher rates of participation in study abroad 222

THE ROLE OF AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION

activities are extremely encouraging to international educators in the United States, challenges in this area remain. For example, while the total number of study abroad participants is growing significantly each year, the percentage of all American higher education students engaging in overseas study is actually miniscule – 1.2% in 2004-2005. This is especially disappointing given that more than one quarter of all freshman (26.7%) starting their academic careers at American colleges and universities indicate that “chances are very good that they will” study abroad as a part of their undergraduate experience (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2006). The disconnect between this interest and actual participation rates is a topic that requires further attention from international education advocates in the United States. Possible factors include prohibitive costs, program inflexibility, lack of sufficient internationalization of the curriculum in general, and inadequate counseling about or support for study-abroad options (Bollag, 2004b). Other concerns include the fact that, while there is an increased tendency for American students to venture beyond the historically popular destinations of Western Europe, a significant proportion of US students abroad continues to cluster in a small number of European countries and other industrialized nations, as seen in Table 8. Interest in Africa has grown significantly over the last 10 years, although it still drew only 3% of study-abroad students in 2003–2004. Also notable is the fact that Middle Eastern destinations have fallen off significantly in the last decade, reaching a high of 3.3% in 1994-1995, but attracting only 0.5% of American students overseas in 2003–2004 (see Table 9). Meanwhile, throughout this period, Europe has been the destination of choice for more than 60% of Americans abroad. Getting American students and their sponsoring institutions to think more broadly about geographic diversity and raising levels of interest in both the developing world and non-European destinations is an important area for continued work by international program administrators and academic leaders in the United States. The Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Scholarship Program initiative has expressed a keen interest in getting US students to participate in overseas academic sojourns in developing countries, which may add positive reinforcement to the push for greater geographic diversity. In addition to questions of destination, trends in program duration are also relevant. Unlike their foreign counterparts who tend to come to the United States for several years to obtain degrees from their host institutions, American students have traditionally engaged in shorter periods of overseas study and as a component of the degree programs at their home institutions. Today, American students who choose to spend some time outside of the United States during their academic careers appear to be willing and/or able to do so only for increasingly short periods of time. In 1993–1994, 14.3% of study-abroad participants remained overseas for a full academic year; but in 2003–2004, just 6% did so. Over this same 10 years, interest in summer-only programs has also grown, from 30.9% of students to 37%, while programs of fewer than eight weeks duration have jumped significantly from 1.7% to 8.9% (IIE, 2005). While some argue that well-crafted short-term programs can offer important developmental and academic opportunities (Lewis & Niesenbaum, 2005), other educators and policymakers worry about a “vacation mentality” 223

224

UK 16,579 23.3% France 8,183 11.5% Spain 7,115 10.0% Italy 5,337 7.5% Mexico 4,625 6.5% Germany 3,487 4.9% Japan 1,992 2.8% Australia 1,992 2.8% Israel 1,850 2.6% Austria 1,779 2.5% Russia 1,352 1.9% Costa Rica 1,281 1.8% Ireland 1,138 1.6% Greece 854 1.2% Switzerland 783 1.1% China 783 1.1% Canada 640 0.9% Ecuador 569 0.8% Netherlands 569 Denmark 569 0.8%

71,154

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

Total∗ 84,403

UK 19,410 23.00% France 7,872 9.33% Spain 7,473 8.85% Italy 7,062 8.37% Mexico 4,715 5.59% Germany 3,504 4.15% Australia 3,346 3.96% Israel 2,621 3.11% Costa Rica 2,302 2.73% Japan 2,212 2.62% Austria 1,489 1.76% Russia 1,290 1.53% China 1,257 1.49% Ireland 1,191 1.41% Greece 935 1.11% Switzerland 858 1.02% Ecuador 837 0.99% Kenya 795 0.94% 0.8% Chile 755 0.89% Netherlands 711 0.84%

1994–1995

Sources: • 1991–1992 data: Institute for International • 1994–1995 data: Institute for International • 2000–2001 data: Institute for International • 2004–2005 data: Institute for International Education (1993). Education (1996). Education (2001). Education (2005).

∗ Includes all countries, not just the top 20 destination countries.

1991–1992

Rank

154,168

UK 30,289 19.65% Italy 16,127 10.46% Spain 16,016 10.39% France 11,905 7.72% Mexico 8,360 5.42% Australia 8,066 5.23% Germany 5,116 3.32% Ireland 3,973 2.58% Costa Rica 3,641 2.36% China 2,942 1.91% Japan 2,618 1.70% Austria 2,396 1.55% Greece 1,754 1.14% Netherlands 1,635 1.06% Czech Republic 1,273 0.83% Chile 1,233 0.80% South Africa 1,107 0.72% Ecuador 1,311 0.85% New Zealand 1,120 0.73% Cuba 905 0.59%

2000–2001

191,321

UK 32,237 16.87% Italy 21,922 11.47% Spain 20,080 10.51% France 13,718 7.18% Australia 11,418 5.97% Mexico 9,293 4.86% Germany 5,985 3.13% Ireland 5,198 2.72% China 4,737 2.48% Costa Rica 4,510 2.36% Japan 3,707 1.94% Austria 2,444 1.28% New Zealand 2,369 1.24% Cuba 2,148 1.12% Chile 2,135 1.12% Greece 2,099 1.10% Czech Republic 2,089 1.09% South Africa 2,009 1.05% Russia 1,797 0.94% Netherlands 1,686 0.88%

2003–2004

Table 8. American students engaged in study abroad by top destinations by country for selected years.

H. DE WIT AND L.E. RUMBLEY

THE ROLE OF AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION

1993–1994

1994–1995

1995–1996

1996–1997

1997–1998

1998–1999

1999–2000

2000–2001

2001–2002

2002–2003

2003–2004

Table 9. Host regions for American students on study abroad by percentage for selected years.

Africa 0.9 Asia 6.5 Europe 67.4 Latin America 13.4 Middle East 2.8 North America∗ 0.7 Oceania 3.4 Multiple regions 3.8

2.2 6.4 67.4 13.4 3.3 0.7 4.3 3.8

2.3 6.4 65.5 13.7 2.1 0.7 4.4 4.0

2.6 6.1 64.8 15.4 1.9 0.7 4.4 4.6

2.7 6.0 64.5 15.3 2.0 0.9 4.4 4.8

2.8 6.0 63.7 15.6 2.8 0.7 4.9 5.2

2.8 6.2 62.7 15.0 2.9 0.9 5.0 5.8

2.9 6.0 62.4 14.0 1.1 0.7 6.0 5.6

2.9 6.8 63.1 14.5 0.8 0.8 6.8 4.9

2.8 5.6 62.6 14.5 0.4 0.7 7.3 5.1

3.0 6.9 62.9 15.3 0.5 0.6 7.4 5.5

Host Region

∗ Includes Antarctica from 2002–2003 onward. Source: Institute for International Education (2005)

among many American students abroad and question the notion that very short programs can do much to effectively develop in students the particular skills and competencies unique to international education, such as language proficiency and cross-cultural sensitivity. Clearly, the growth in American study-abroad participation rates in recent years is remarkable, with 33.4% more students studying abroad in 2004–2005 than did so in 2000–2001. Still, the current numbers represent a tiny fraction of all higher education students in the United States. Drawing an even larger percentage of American postsecondary students into overseas academic engagement and expanding participation to traditionally underrepresented populations – ethnically, academically, and socio-economically – will be important areas for future development. As it stands, the phenomenon has significant momentum. It will be intriguing to see to what degree this momentum can be sustained and expanded – through national programming such as the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Program and more localized regional and campus initiatives – in the coming years. CRITICAL ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

The following key areas represent some of the most critical issues and challenges for the ongoing internationalization of American higher education: 1. Retaining leadership in attracting the world’s best international students and scholars. Although a recent European study (ACA, 2006) on perceptions of students found that Asian students, in particular, ranked the United States above Europe in most academic and labor-market related issues, and also found it easier to get scholarships there, they have concerns about costs, safety, and accessibility. Negative perceptions (such as the unfriendly environment for internationals in the United States) and realities (including the high cost of US university tuition for full fee-paying international students and competition from other emerging higher education markets) must be addressed. While retaining institutional individuality and 225

H. DE WIT AND L.E. RUMBLEY

respect for the decentralized nature of the American higher education enterprise, it will be important to find new ways to make the uniquely complex and decentralized US postsecondary landscape accessible and appealing to new generations of international students and academics. 2. Finding a right balance between cross-border movement of students and scholars and cross-border delivery of programs and institutions. It is important to look at the functions, quality, and impacts of these phenomena, given the growing tendency for American higher education to export its services abroad. For example, the recruitment of international students is connected to such critical issues as brain drain, while there are very clear profit-making dimensions to the cross-border delivery of programs and the establishment of US campuses abroad. Public and private not-for-profit institutions could play a more social and developmental role in these new areas. 3. Further enhancing study-abroad options for American students. Encouraging larger overall numbers and different kinds of American students to study abroad, especially in the developing world and in nontraditional destinations outside of Europe, is of critical importance to the internationalization of American higher education. The American study-abroad community also needs to develop greater understanding of the longer term impact of the proliferation of short-term, studyabroad programs to determine if this trend is producing meaningful outcomes for participants and institutions. 4. Putting to rest the debate on a national policy for international education. In the current context of an increasingly competitive global environment for higher education, a strong, unequivocal, coordinated national message from the federal government on international education seems both reasonable and desirable. Even in the face of a traditionally decentralized higher education system, the United States could benefit in substantive ways from developing an official framework of understanding about the direction the nation should take in this arena. 5. Maximizing the international dimension at the individual institutional level. Ultimately, most of the real impact of internationalization in American higher education is felt at the level of individual students, scholars, and institutions. The four broad issues noted above have direct and tangible outcomes on campuses across the country, and what happens at individual colleges and universities in turn can have a powerful effect on the national experience of internationalization. Institutions, therefore, as individual entities and in concert with one another through associations and consortia, have a critically important role to play when it comes to the internationalization of higher education in the United States. The challenges are clearly great, but the imperative to strengthen and expand the internationalization of American higher education has perhaps never been more present and more pressing. The country’s postsecondary system is currently engaged more actively with the international dimension than ever before but is under constant pressure to remain relevant and competitive to domestic stakeholders and international constituents alike.

226

THE ROLE OF AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION Table 10. Push/pull factors for international student circulation in the US context. Very significant/very positive (++); significant/positive (+); Neutral (/); minimally significant/negative (–); insignificant/very negative (– –); Increasing ↑; Unchanging ∼; Decreasing ↓ A. Educational Factors Push Factors (Ps)

Type Trend Pull Factors (Pl)

21. Unmet demand for higher education 22. Basic human resource capacity 23. Ranking/status higher education 24. Enhanced value of a foreign degree 25. Selectiveness of domestic higher education 26. Availability of distance education 27. Increasing presence private providers 28. Increasing presence of foreign providers 29. Experience with international mobility 30. Strategic alliances with foreign partners

–– –– –– – ++ – – –– + +

∼ ∼ ∼ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ∼ ↑ ↑

Higher education opportunities System compatibility Ranking/status higher education Enhanced value of national degree Diversity of the H.E. system Absorptive capacity of H.E. Active recruitment policy Cost of study (low-cost) Existing stock of national students Strategic alliances with home partners

Type Trend ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ – –– + +

↑ ↑ ↑ ∼ ∼ ∼ ↑ ∼ ∼ ↑

B. Political/Social/Cultural Factors Push Factors (Ps) 17. Linguistic affinity 18. Cultural and religious affinity 19. Colonial ties 20. Regional unity 21. Information isolation 22. Emigration policies 23. Strategic alliances 24. Political instability 25. Academic freedom

Push Factors (Ps) • Dependence on world economy • Financial capacity • Human Development Index factor • • Employment opportunities on return • Geographical distance

Type Trend Pull Factors (Pl) + +

∼ ∼

–– –– –– + –– ++

∼ ∼ ∼ ↑ ∼ ∼

Language factor Cultural ties Colonial ties Regional unity Stock of citizens of country of origin Immigration policies Strategic alliances with home country Lure of life Academic freedom

C. Economic Factors Type Trend Pull Factors (Pl) + + ––

↑ ∼ ∼

+ –

↑ ∼

Import/export levels Level of assistance Human Development Index factor Employment opportunities during study Employment opportunities after study Geographical distance

Type Trend ++ – –– –– + ++ + ++ ++

↑ ↑ ∼ ∼ ↑ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼

Type Trend ++ + + + ++ –

↑ ↑ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼

Push and Pull Factors for International Student Circulation in the United States In summary, the overview of higher education, its international dimension, and the specific aspect of international student circulation in the United States leads to the following main conclusions: First, the American higher education system is arguably one of the largest, most comprehensive, and most dynamic in the world. However, it is facing increased competition from other parts of the world, in particular Europe and Asia. Second, speaking to the issue of the international dimension of higher education in the United States, it is difficult to identify “national policies” for internationalization in this country. At the same time, significant activities at both national and 227

H. DE WIT AND L.E. RUMBLEY

institutional levels indicate that the international dimension is very much on the radar of the American postsecondary education community and is a subject of some importance to academic, administrative, and policy leaders across the country. Third, where international student circulation in the United States in concerned, both inbound and outbound forms are relevant in the American context. However, there is a significant imbalance in these two directions. Most recent data indicate that 564,766 foreign students were enrolled at American colleges and universities during the 2005–2006 academic year. Meanwhile, in 2005–2002, 205,983 US students participated in some form of credit-bearing academic sojourn abroad as a part of their American degree programs (IIE, 2006b), while some 41,181 others sought actual degrees from overseas institutions (UNESCO, 2006). Concern is rising about increasing competition for international students from Europe but increasingly also from national higher education systems and (inter)national private providers in developing countries, particularly in Asia. Still, degree-seeking American students abroad are few in number and likely to increase only marginally, prompting growing concern about increasing parochialism in American higher education, in particular among students, and resulting in initiatives to increase study-abroad opportunities for American students as part of their home degrees.

Mutual understanding Revenue earning Skill migration Capacity building

Inward Mobility

Outward Mobility

X– X+ X+ X–

X

REFERENCES ACA, Academic Cooperation Association. (2005). Perceptions of European higher education in third countries. Retrieved in June 2006 from http://www.aca-secretariat.be/02projects/Perceptions.htm. Altbach, Philip G. (2003a). American accreditation of foreign universities: Colonialism in action. International Higher Education, 32, 5–7. Altbach, Philip G. (2003b). Centers and peripheries in the academic profession: The special challenges of developing countries. In Philip G. Altbach (Ed.), The decline of the guru: The academic profession in developing and middle-income countries (pp. 1–22). New York: Palgrave. Altbach, Philip G. (2004). The “tipping point” in international education: How America is losing the race. International Higher Education, 35, 5–6. Altbach, Philip G. (2005a). Globalization and the university: Realities in an unequal world. In James J. F. Forest & Philip G. Altbach (Eds.), International handbook of higher education (Vol. 1, pp. 121–139). Dordrecht, NL: Springer. Altbach, Philip G. (2005b). Harsh realities: The professoriate faces a new century. In P. G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & Patricia J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century (2nd ed., pp. 287–314). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Alzheimer’s Association. (2006). Glossary. Retrieved June 5, 2006, from http://www.alz.org/Resources/ Glossary.asp. Arnone, M. (2002). United States Open U. to close after spending $20 million. Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(23), A44.

228

THE ROLE OF AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION Bassett, Roberta M. (2005). The WTO and the university: Globalization, GATS, and American higher education. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Boston College. Böhm, A., Davis, D., Meares, D., & Pearce, D. (2002). Global student mobility 2025: Forecasts of the global demand for international higher ecucation (Media briefing), September. Canberra: IDP Education Australia. Bollag, B. (2004a). Enrollment of foreign students drops in US. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(13), A1. Bollag, B. (2004b). Get out of the country, please. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(13), A42. Bollag, B. (2005). American accreditors go abroad. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(5), A36. Bollag, B. (2006). America’s hot new export: Higher education. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(24), A44. Brittingham, B. (2003). American accreditation of foreign universities: Proceed – with caution. International Higher Education, 33, 14–15. Brittingham, B. (2005). Accreditation and quality assurance in an international perspective. Paper presented at the Fulbright New Century Scholars Meeting, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, September 30. Brown, H. A. (2005). Findings from the 2005 CGS International Graduate Student Admissions Survey II: Final applications and admissions. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. Carnevale, D. (2006). Study ranks top foreign markets for distance learning. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(33), A44. Chronicle of Higher Education. (2004). Almanac Issue 2003–2004. Washington, DC: Author. Chronicle of Higher Education. (2005). Almanac Issue 2004–2005. Washington, DC: Author. Chronicle of Higher Education. (2006). Almanac Issue 2005–2006. Washington, DC: Author. Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program. (2005). Global competence and national needs: One million Americans studying abroad, November. Washington, DC: Author. Cummings, W. (1993). Global trends in overseas study. In Crauford D. Goodwin (Ed.), International investment in human capital: Overseas education for development (pp. 31–46). New York: Institute for International Education. de Wit, Hans. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe: A historical, comparative, and conceptual analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Domestic Policy Council. (2006). American competitiveness initiative. Washington, DC: Office of Domestic Science and Technology Policy. Available at http://www.ostp.gov. EducationUSA. (n.d.). About us. Retrieved May 27, 2005, from http://www.educationusa.state.gov/ about.htm. European Commission. (n.d.). The new EU-US cooperation program in higher education and vocational education and training (2006–2013). Retrieved June 13, 2006, from http://ec.europa.eu/education/ programs/eu-usa/index_en.html. Gladieux, L. E., King, J. E., & Corrigan, M. E. (2005). The federal government and higher education. In Philip G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & Patricia J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century (pp. 163–197). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Gravois, J. (2005). Teach impediment. When the student can’t understand the instructor, who is to blame? Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(31), A10. Green, M. (2005a). Internationalization in US higher education: The student perspective. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Green, M. (2005b). Measuring internationalization at community colleges. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Green, M. (2005c). Measuring internationalization at comprehensive universities. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Green, M. (2005d). Measuring internationalization at liberal arts colleges. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Green, M. (2005e). Measuring internationalization at research universities. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Hoffer, T. B., Welch, V., Jr., Williams, K., Hess, M., Webber, K., Lisek, B., et al. (2005). Doctorate recipients from United States universities: Summary report 2004. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center (NORC), University of Chicago.

229

H. DE WIT AND L.E. RUMBLEY IAU. International Association of Universities (IAU), Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC), American Council on Education (ACE), & Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). (2005, January). Sharing quality higher education across borders: A statement on behalf of higher education institutions worldwide. Retrieved June 9, 2006, from http://www.chea.org/international/index.asp#statement. IIE. Institute for International Education. (1993). Open Doors 1992–1993. New York: Institute for International Education. Institute for International Education. (1996). Open Doors 1995–1996. New York: Institute for International Education. Institute for International Education. (2001). Open Doors 2000–2001. New York: Institute for International Education. Institute for International Education. (2005). Open Doors 2004–2005. New York: Institute for International Education. Institute for International Education. (2006a). International student and scholar mobility: An overview. Washington, DC: Institute for International Education. Institute for International Education. (2006b). Open Doors 2005–2006. New York: Institute for International Education. Johnstone, D. Bruce. (2005). Financing higher education: Who should pay? In Philip G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & Patricia J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century (pp. 369–392). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Kane, T. J. & Orszag, P. R. (2003). Higher education spending: The role of Medicaid and the business cycle. Policy Brief No. 124, September. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Press. Knight, Jane. (2005). Commercial cross-border education: Implications for financing higher education. In Higher education in the World 2006: The financing of universities (pp. 103–112). GUNI Series on the Social Commitment of Universities 1. Barcelona: GUNI. Knight, Jane, & Green, M. (2004). Cross-border post-secondary education in North America. In OECD, Internationalization and trade in higher education. Opportunities and challenges (pp. 39–86). Paris: OECD. Koh Chin, H.-K. (2006). The new landscape of international student mobility. International Higher Education, 43, 9–11. Ladika, S. (2006). The brain race. HR Magazine, 51(4). Online edition published by Society for Human Resource Management, http://www.shrm.org/hrmagazine/06april. Lampman, J. (2006). Uncle Sam doesn’t want you. Christian Science Monitor, May 11, p. 14. Lewis, T. L. & Niesenbaum, R. A. (2005). The benefits of short-term study abroad. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(39), B20. McCormack, E. (2005). Total graduate enrollments rise; number of foreign students drops. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(12), 38. McGuinness, A. C., Jr. (2005). The states and higher education. In Philip G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & Patricia J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century (pp. 198–225). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Moe, M. T. (2002). Emerging trends in post secondary education: The view to 2012. Retrieved June 6, 2006, from http://www.usdla.org/html/aboutUs/researchInfo.htm. NAFSA: Association of International Educators. (2003a). In America’s interest: Welcoming international students. Report of the Strategic Task Force on International Student Access. Washington, DC: NAFSA. NAFSA: Association for International Educators. (2003b). Securing America’s future: Global education for a global age. Washington, DC: NAFSA. NAFSA: Association of International Educators. (2005). The economic benefits of international education to the United States for the 2004–2005 academic year: A statistical analysis. Washington, DC: NAFSA. NAFSA: Association of International Educators. (2006a). An international education policy for US leadership, competitiveness, and security. Washington, DC: NAFSA. NAFSA: Association of International Educators. (2006b). Restoring US competitiveness for international students and scholars. Washington, DC: NAFSA. National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. (2002). Finance: Diagram. Retrieved May 12, 2006, from http://www.higheredinfo.org/catcontent/cat8.php.

230

THE ROLE OF AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS). (n.d.). Diagram: Finance. Retrieved May 12, 2006, from http://www.higheredinfo.org/catcontent/cat8.php. National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). International comparisons of education. In Digest of education statistics (n.p.). Retrieved June 10, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/ programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_416.asp. Nephew, E., Koncz, J., Borga, M., & Mann, M. (2005). US International services: Cross-border trade in 2004 and sales through affiliates in 2003. US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Retrieved June 10, 2006, from www.bea.gov/bea/ARTICLES/2005/10October/1005_xborder.pdf. OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). Education at a glance 2005: OECD briefing note for United States. Retrieved June 13, 2006, from http://www.oecd.org/ dataoecd/41/13/3534120.pdf. Olson, C. L., Green, M., & Hill, B. A. (2005). Building a strategic framework for comprehensive internationalization. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Siaya, L. & Hayward, F. (2003). Mapping internationalization on US campuses. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Strohmer, S. (2006). US satellite campuses in the Middle East: Cross-cultural mediators or missionary outposts? Bridges, 9, n.p. UNESCO. (1991). Statistical yearbook. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO. (1996). Statistical yearbook. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO. (1997). Statistical yearbook. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO. (2006). Global education digest 2006. Paris: UNESCO. US Department of Education. (n.d.-a). International education programs service. The history of Title VI and Fulbright-Hays: An impressive international timeline. Retrieved June 5, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/iegps/history.html. US Department of Education. (n.d.-b). What is “No Child Left Behind”? Retrieved June 6, 2006, from http://answers.ed.gov/cgi-bin/education.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=4&p_created= 1095255813&p_sid=U8SmLm9i&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRz b3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MjEmcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXRzPTEsMCZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PTEuMT syLnUwJnBfcGFnZT0xJnBfc2VhcmNoX3RleHQ9bm8gY2hpbGQgbGVmdCBiZWhpbmQ*&p_li =&p_topview=1. US Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. (2006). National Security language initiative. Retrieved June 4, 2006, from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2006/58733.htm. US Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. (n.d.-a). ECA exchange programs to the United States (for non-US citizens). Retrieved May 27, 2006, from http://exchanges.state.gov/programs/to_the_us.htm. US Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. (n.d.-b). Fulbright Program. Retrieved May 27, 2006, from http://exchanges.state.gov/education/fulbright. US Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. (n.d.-c). Gilman Scholarship Program. Retrieved May 27, 2006, from http://exchanges.state.gov/education/ educationusa/abroadgilman.htm. US Department of State. (n.d.-d). US university presidents summit on international education. Retrieved June 11, 2006, from http://exchanges.state.gov/universitysummit. US Senate. (2005). Senate Resolution 308: Designating 2006 as the “Year of Study Abroad.” 109th Congress, 1st Session, November 10. Retrieved May 27, 2006, from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/query/C?c109./temp/∼c109JVpTjK. UAG. Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara. (n.d.). Facilities. Retrieved June 6, 2006, from http://www.uag.mx/catalogue/p20.htm. ´ UNAM. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de MCxico San Antonio. (n.d.). Retrieved June 6, 2006, from http://www.usa.unam.edu/engframe.htm. Wilcox, E. (2006). A new ivy league, far afield: More are heading abroad for college. Boston Globe, February 22, p. B1. Zusman, A. (2005). Issues facing higher education in the twenty-first century. In Philip G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & Patricia J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century (pp. 115–160). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

231

PAWAN AGARWAL, MOHSEN ELMAHDY SAID, MOLATLHEGI SEHOOLE, MUHAMMAD SIROZI, AND HANS DE WIT

9. THE DYNAMICS OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this study was to develop a better understanding of the dynamics of international student circulation in the process of higher education’s internationalization in global context, to assess its implications for higher education in different nations and regions, and to create a framework for action. The focus of the study is on degree-seeking international students. Given the fact that we have examined student flows both inward and outward, we have used the term “international student circulation.” Existing assumptions about student mobility are that it is primarily SouthNorth and North-North, and that South-South flows are rather marginal; that student mobility is dominated by economic rationales to the extent that virtually no other rationales exist; and that the growing presence of national and international providers of higher education, as well as opportunities for distance education will reduce the need for international student mobility. On the basis of this study, we questioned all three assumptions. The rationale for the study is that student mobility has long been the most important dimension in the process of higher education’s internationalization. At present, there is in the world an increasing unmet demand for higher education as a consequence of demographic trends, the need for new degree and diploma programs, and the need for lifelong learning. But one can also observe an increase in numbers and types of new providers: corporate universities, for-profit private institutions, media companies, and education brokers; and the emergence of new, innovative delivery methods: distance and e-learning, franchises, satellite campuses, twinning arrangements, and joint degree programs. These factors might impact the way inward and outward student mobility flows are changing and the way the internationalization of higher education is evolving in relation to these changes. Organizationally, the chapters focus on four countries in the South (Egypt, India, Indonesia, and South Africa) and two regions in the North (Europe and the United States). Because the four countries are in the South, they are commonly perceived to be primarily on the sending side of student mobility, while the two northern regions are perceived to be primarily (but not exclusively) on the receiving side. Another interesting aspect of this study is that it includes two of the three largest higher education systems in the world (the United States and India), one region that, under the impetus of the Bologna Process, is striving to move into the H. de Wit et al. (eds.), The Dynamics of International Student Circulation in a Global Context, 233–261. © 2008. Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

P. AGARWAL ET AL.

direction of a new, large higher education system (Europe), one system that has recently come out of international isolation (South Africa), and two of the most populous Muslim countries (Egypt and Indonesia).

CHANGING DYNAMICS IN HIGHER EDUCATION’S INTERNATIONALIZATION

The landscape of international higher education has been changing over the past 10 years (de Wit, 1995, 2002; and esp. de Wit, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c; Knight & De Wit, 1997, 1999). It appears relevant to look at the consequences of this changing landscape to understand the present status of internationalization in higher education. The international dimension and the position of higher education in the global arena are more dominant in international, national, and institutional documents and mission statements than ever. The 2006 International Association of Universities survey (Knight, 2006a, p. 42) indicates that 73% of higher education institutions (HEIs) give internationalization a high priority, 23% a medium priority, and only 2% a low priority. The internationalization of higher education is changing. During the 20th century and up to the present, one can see several stages of development in the internationalization of higher education institutions. The debate about globalization and internationalization and the recent, rapid evolution of cross-border activities in higher education has strengthened the tendency to explain and define the internationalization of higher education in connection to a specific rationale or purpose. Although the most frequently used past term was “international education,” more recently “globalization” has become the preferred term related to or even as a synonym of internationalization. The globalization of our societies and economies has an impact on higher education and, as a consequence, on its international dimension. The internationalization of higher education is one of the ways countries and institutions respond to the impact of globalization, but the internationalization of higher education is also an agent of globalization. Higher education is not only passively responding to globalization but is also an active player in the global arena. Globalization and higher education are linked to each other in three ways: 1. There is an increasingly unmet demand for higher education in the world. 2. The number and types of new providers are proliferating. With the exception of countries like the United States where there has always been a combination of public universities and private (not-for-profit) universities, public universities have been the dominant factor in most countries. But an increasing number of private and for-profit universities are entering the higher education arena at the national level (as, for instance, in Latin America), but increasingly on an international scale. 3. All kinds of innovative delivery methods of higher education are developing: elearning, franchise operations abroad, satellite or branch campuses abroad, and joint degree programs. New terms are also evolving with this new field as, for 234

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

example, transnational education and cross-border education. While the crossborder movement was primarily of people, now programs and institutions are also moving cross-border. The connection between higher education and trade policy has come to the forefront in the debate about internationalization and globalization in higher education. Trade in higher education is not completely new; but the identification of education as a service in the context of the General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) has become an expression of the increased importance of this development. As Jane Knight (2006b) notes: The introduction of GATS serves as a catalyst for the higher education sector to examine how trade rules may or may not influence higher education policy; and secondly, to determine whether the necessary national, regional and international education frameworks are in place to deal with the implications of increased cross-border education, including commercial trade. (p. 57) Philip Altbach (2006) defines globalization as “the broad economic, technological, and scientific trends that directly affect higher education and are largely inevitable in the contemporary world” (p. 123). In this context, internationalization “refers to specific policies and programs undertaken by governments, academic systems and institutions, and even individual departments to support student or faculty exchanges, encourage collaborative research overseas, set up joint teaching programs in other countries or a myriad of initiatives” (p. 123). Ulrich Teichler (2004, pp. 9–10) identifies five areas of policies and activities with respect to internationalization: (a) the knowledge dimension, particularly the border-crossing movement of knowledge; (b) the validation and recognition of teaching, learning, and research results; (c) issues of international homogeneity or the variety of structural elements of higher education; (d) the scope of actors’ policies (e.g., national versus international policies of higher education); and (e) higher education steering as a whole (e.g., the role of national governments, national or international professional associations, international organizations, etc., as well as the modes of steering). According to Teichler, there is a growing emphasis on marketization, competition, and management, aspects also stressed by others (Reinalda & Kulesza, 2005; Schapper & Mayson, 2005; Tuinamuana, 2005). All these authors have a strong inclination to call for more attention to social cohesion and to higher education’s public role in countering the growing emphasis on competition, markets, and entrepreneurialism in higher education. Van der Wende (2001) speaks of a change in paradigms from cooperation to competition. It would be too easy, though, to assume that, over the past 10 years everything has changed with respect to the internationalization of higher education, from a more cooperative model to a more competitive model. Evidence that not everything these days is dominated by economic rationales is the religious mission of several Catholic, Evangelical, and Islamic institutions of higher education to attract international students and/or to be involved in cross-border delivery. Religious, not economic, rationales are driving these cases. 235

P. AGARWAL ET AL.

In other words, although there is an increasing emphasis on economic rationales, it is too simple to state that the changing landscape of internationalization is developing in similar ways everywhere in higher education around the world. There are different accents and approaches. Internationalization strategies are filtered and contextualized by the specific internal context of the university and their national embeddedness. Knight (2006c, pp. 213–214) acknowledges the need for a constant updating of the meaning of higher education’s internationalization. Therefore, she proposes a definition that acknowledges the different levels in higher education and the need to address the relationship and integrity between them. Her definition of internationalization is: “the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions, or delivery of post-secondary education.” She identifies two evolving components in internationalization. The first is internationalization at home: activities that help students develop international understanding and intercultural skills and become prepared for action in a much more globalized world. The second is that of internationalization abroad, including all forms of education across borders: mobility of students and faculties, scholars, and programs. Internationalization abroad coincides with what she elsewhere has described as the three different forms of cross-border education: a person going abroad for educational purposes (mobility of individuals); an educational program going abroad (program mobility); or an institution or provider going or investing abroad for educational purposes (institution mobility) (Knight, 2003; OECD, 2004). As the overview of the debate about the meanings of internationalization and the complex relationship between internationalization and globalization illustrates, Knight’s working definition and division between “at home” and “abroad” will not end that debate. The overview also makes it clear that rationales for internationalization and meanings of internationalization are even more mixed than before. Literature on the topic (De Wit, 2002, pp. 83–102) identifies four broad categories of rationales for internationalization: political, economic, social/cultural, and academic. These rationales are not mutually exclusive, may differ in importance by country and region, and can change in dominance over time. At present, economic rationales are considered to be the most dominant, although academic rationales such as strategic alliances, status, and profile are also becoming more dominant. Knight (2004, p. 23) speaks of emerging rationales at the national level such as human resources development, strategic alliances, commercial trade, nation building, and social/cultural development. At the institutional level, she identifies international branding and profile, income generation, student and staff development, strategic alliances, and knowledge production. According to the 2006 International Association of Universities survey (Knight, 2006a, p. 52), higher education institutions perceive the rationales driving the internationalization of higher education at the national level to be competitiveness (28%), strategic alliances (20%), human resource capacity (15%), international cooperation (14%), cultural awareness (9%), education exports (7%) and regional priorities (7%). National university associ-

236

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ations see competitiveness as an even stronger rationale (44%) (Knight, 2006a, p. 54). Rationales can be negative at certain moments and in certain countries/regions but positive at other times and in other places. Until the 1990s, competitiveness in higher education was seen as anathema in continental Europe; but now it has become a dominant rationale in institutional, national, and regional policies. As a consequence of high unmet demands for higher education, exporting higher education was not an issue for China earlier but has become one more recently. In summary, one can observe new dynamics in the internationalization of higher education. By the end of the 1970s, countries like the United Kingdom and Australia had shifted from aid (technical assistance) to trade (recruitment of international students) as driving rationales for their internationalization; 10 years ago, the cooperative model dominated the debate on the meanings and rationales of the internationalization of higher education. At present the competitive model has become more salient, even though not all of higher education follows that trend. These changes in the landscape of international higher education resulting from the globalization of our societies and economies are manifest in many ways: increasing competition for international students and academics, the growth of cross-border delivery of programs, the emergence of international for-profit providers in higher education, and the changing position of countries like India and China in the world economy and in the higher education arena. The impact of these changes cannot be ignored, even though higher education is still in transition. The rapid growth of cross-border programs and providers is undeniable, and their increasing number of activities are impressive. Still, they are minor compared to the growth of national private providers of higher education. Some countries regulate the foreign provision of higher education in their countries; partly as a result, the numbers of students in foreign-owned higher education institutions in countries like South Africa and India seem stable or even diminishing. Is the issue one of rhetoric more than reality? Time will tell, but some caution seems to be required. Ulrich Teichler (2004), somewhat provocatively and cynically, wrote that the internationalization of higher education in Europe was a key issue in the 1990s; but given that priorities seem to last only a decade, “our priority placed on this is likely to come to an end soon,” to be replaced by a new terminology fad (p. 6). To a certain extent, this prediction has already been realized with terms like “globalization,” “cross-border education,” and “trade in education.” A clear distinction among meanings, rationales, and strategies will be necessary to avoid a faddish approach to the international dimension in higher education.

CHANGING DYNAMICS IN INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

The 1996 study, “Academic Mobility in a Changing World,” provided broad insights into trends in academic mobility in and between the different regions in the world (Blumenthal et al., 1996; see also De Wit, 2008b). As for other studies, a more detailed analysis was hampered by what Teichler (1996) refers to as the 237

P. AGARWAL ET AL.

“lack of comprehensive documentation” (p. 338). Now, a decade later, much more research has been done on international education and student mobility. There are the annual Open Doors reports prepared by the Institute for International Education (IIE) on student flows into the United States and study abroad by American students. Student flows are also monitored by several European countries, such as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. In Australia, several reports by the government and by the higher education sector, for instance, IDP-Education Australia (IDP) analyze trends in student inflow into Australian higher education. At a more comparative level is the Atlas project (Davis, 2003), in which several agencies collaborate in identifying the numbers and movements of international students. Another factor in the debate about international student mobility is the distinction between “vertical” and “horizontal” mobility. Richters and Teichler (1996) define these two forms: “Vertical mobility can be understood as a move from a country or institution of lower academic quality to a country or institution of higher education of superior quality,” while “horizontal mobility can be understood as a move between countries and institutions of similar academic quality” (p. 85). In general, vertical mobility is identified with South-North and diploma or degree mobility, and horizontal mobility with North-North and credit mobility. This toosimple distinction ignores South-South, North-South, and North-North diploma and degree mobility. It is more relevant to include these aspects in a discussion about rationales for international student mobility, also referred to as push and pull factors. In our study, as most studies do, at least implicitly, we concentrated on the category of students who go abroad for an undergraduate or graduate degree and who follow the degree program completely or mostly at the foreign host institution. In our analysis, we took into account that an increasing number of these foreign host institutions are not only delivering their programs abroad but also in the student’s home country. In 1985, Altbach and Lulat (1985, p. 50) assumed that the rapid increase in the number of international students would inevitably slow and, like other scholars, assumed that the U.K. decision to increase fees would have a negative impact. This decision was also made in Australia, a country that in the 1980 figures did not appear in the top 20 of host countries. However, these fee increases have not affected the student numbers negatively – on the contrary. A joint study by the British Council and IDP-Education Australia (Bohm et al., 2004) predicts that 5.8 million students will study abroad by 2020, up from the current 2 million. That assumption can also be questioned. For the moment, though, it is undeniable that international student mobility is still growing, even though some decrease in that growth occurred in the United States after September 11, 2001, and also in Europe and Australia as a result of economic and immigration changes. Karine Tremblay (2006) notes: The last decade has witnessed a dramatic growth in student mobility throughout the world. In 2003, 2.12 million tertiary students were enrolled outside their country of origin . . . . This represented an 11.5 percent increase in total international student intakes reported to the OECD since the previous year. Over a 238

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

five-year period, the number of international students enrolled in the sole OECDcountries rose from 1.33 to 1.98 million individuals since 1998, i.e., a nearly 50 percent increase which amounts to an 8.3 percent annual growth on average. (p. 28) UNESCO (2006, p. 34) notes an increase between 1999 and 2004 of 41% to at least 2.5 million internationally mobile students around the world. Three waves of growth are seen: 30% growth between 1975 and 1980; 34% growth between 1989 and 1994; and 41% growth between 1999 and 2004. Altbach and Lulat wrote their overview and bibliography about international students in comparative perspective in 1985. They noted that “international (foreign) students are a growth ‘industry’ in higher education” (pp. 3–4). They also observed that the magnitude and direction of the flows had been relatively stable over the years. The major flow had been from the Third World to the industrialized nations, followed by a big flow among the industrialized nations. The flow between socialist nations was, around that time, still significant; but after the end of the Cold War, it became very marginal and can be seen as one of the most fundamental changes in international student flows in the past decades. They also noted “a good deal of mobility from one Third World nation to another” but also that “this is a phenomenon not widely researched” (Altbach & Lulat, 1985, p. 8). This observation, still true 20 years later, is one of the driving motivations behind this study. In the comprehensive study “Academic Mobility in a Changing World” (Blumenthal et al.,1996), conducted in 1986 and published 10 years later, a new attempt was made to analyze developments in academic mobility. About patterns of academic mobility, the study concluded that the South-North flows remain dominant by the search of skills by students coming from the South, and attempts to assist the development assistance process by more senior scholars from the North. In the North, patterns of mobility reflect desires both to facilitate experiential learning and to develop “continental consciousness” in both Europe and North America. (Goodwin, 1996, p. 367) The CEC/UKCOSA report (2000) notes that international student mobility has been profoundly affected in the period 1980–2000 by four general major characteristics: 1. The tendency to treat education as a saleable commodity, with international student mobility being driven increasingly by economic and market forces and increasingly being regarded as an important aspect of trade policy. 2. Shifts in the economic and political fortunes of individual countries and particular geographical regions. 3. Changing priorities in education in developing countries and in international assistance to lower-income countries for educational development. 4. New patterns and models of learning across national frontiers (p. 6). Twenty years after the Altbach and Lulat study, 10 years after the study on academic mobility, and five years after the UKCOSA study, we have analyzed whether the dominant patterns of the past are still dominant or whether we can 239

P. AGARWAL ET AL.

observe changes as a consequence of the further internationalization of higher education over the past decade and as a consequence of the further globalization of our economies and societies. Recent studies by the OECD (Tremblay, 2006) and by UNESCO (2006) provide the data for such a comparative analysis. A relevant basis for such a study is also the Atlas of Student Mobility by Todd Davis (2003), a publication in the framework of the Atlas Project, coordinated by the Institute of International Education (IIE) in New York. Our study looked at the push and pull factors (rationales for student mobility) to see which had become more dominant, which had disappeared, and which were new. We also looked at possible South-South flows, the implications of the emergence of cross-border programs, and the increasing provision of higher education in some countries as possible alternatives to international student flows. This context was our reason for preferring to speak of international student circulation instead of international student mobility. We also provided a framework of push and pull factors that determine international students’ circulation. We considered the push and pull factors as mentioned in particular by Altbach and Lulat (1985), Cummings (1993), OECD (2004), Davis (2003), and Tremblay (2006), for they overlapped considerably. We also considered the changing rationales for internationalization (discussed above) and provided a framework of push and pull factors that determine international students’ circulation. We designed the framework for this study to shed maximum light on the push and pull factors which may play a role in international student circulation by country/region and in comparative perspective. The push factors we presented here are to be understood as those that stimulate students to study abroad for their degree (outward mobility). The pull factors are those factors that attract students to come to study for a degree in the particular country under study (inward mobility). This framework functions as a list of indicators to identify the factors that push/don’t push students to study abroad for a degree, and what factors pull/don’t pull students to come to study in a specific country. This is a different approach from other studies, in which the push and pull factors are used together to identify what pushes a student out and what pulls the student to a specific country. At the same time, we realize that the framework itself is too extended and complex to allow a comparative analysis of international student circulation. For this reason, we developed a simpler matrix summarizing the main push and pull factors in four broad categories: mutual understanding (political, social and cultural factors), revenue earning (economic factor), skill migration (economic factor), and capacity building (educational factors) (see Table 2).

DATA ON TRENDS IN INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION

For the whole 1965–2005 period, what is most striking are the numbers. India alone sent more students abroad in 2005 than the total number of internationally mobile students in 1950 (107,500), and the 10 countries with the largest number of students abroad in 2005 equals the number of all international students of 1985 (939,000). 240

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Table 1. Push and pull factors for outward student mobility. Push Factors

Pull Factors

Educational factors Availability of higher education Basic human resource capacity Ranking/status higher education Enhanced value of national versus foreign degree Selectiveness of domestic higher education Availability of distance education Increasing presence of private providers Increasing presence of foreign providers Experience with international mobility Strategic alliances with foreign partners Political/social/cultural factors Linguistic isolation Cultural disposition Colonial ties Political instability Regional unity Information isolation Emigration policies Strategic alliances Academic freedom Economic factors Dependence on world economy Financial capacity Human development index factor Employment opportunities on return

Educational factors Higher education opportunities System compatibility Ranking/status higher education Enhanced value of national degree Diversity of the HE system Absorptive capacity of HE Active recruitment policy Cost of study Existing stock of national students Strategic alliances with home partners Political/social/cultural factors Language factor Cultural ties Colonial ties Lure of life Regional unity Stock of citizens of country of origin Immigration policies Strategic alliances with home country Academic freedom Economic factors Import/export levels Level of assistance Human resource development index Employment opportunities during study Employment opportunities after study Geographical distance

Geographical distance

Table 2. Matrix of push/pull factors. Inward Mobility

Outward Mobility

Mutual understanding Revenue earning Skill migration Capacity building

241

P. AGARWAL ET AL.

Second, the number of students from developing countries increased, with the largest increases coming from China, India, and South Korea. The developed countries have stabilized their numbers and show a reduction in percentages, while the developing countries have increased their rates but in variations, not with the big numbers chalked up by China, India, and South Korea. The top receiving countries remain, to a large extent, the same: the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and France. Only Australia has come close to these top four. If we look at the percentage of foreign students as a part of total enrollment and do not include the students who move around within Europe (46% of its mobility), Australia has a far higher number of international students (17.7% of the total Australian student body) than the United States (4.6%) and Europe (3.2%) (Kelo, Teichler, & Waechter, 2006, p. 53). The Arab states, which had a high position as receiving countries in the 1960s and 1970s, sent fewer in the 1980s and became more active in sending students. Only very recently can one observe efforts by states such as Egypt, Jordan, Dubai, and Qatar to become – in the case of the first two countries – higher education hubs in the region, but the effect of their investments remain to be seen. The efforts of other countries like China, Japan, Malaysia, and Singapore to increase their numbers of incoming students, are already paying off, as is South Africa’s new role as a receiving country for Sub-Saharan Africa. The fear expressed by Chitoran (1998) of a trend toward further North-North circulation of international students has not occurred. North-North circulation has stabilized, while South-North flows are still on the rise and a second flow of South-South circulation is taking place. The receiving countries are those which Cummings (1993) describes as “late development” while the sending countries are “early development.” A regionalization of South-South circulation is also taking place. For instance, Malaysia is drawing students from Southeast Asia and West Asia, as well as from China and Singapore, while South Africa serves the same role for Sub-Saharan Africa. In Central Asia, countries like Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan can be mentioned in that respect as well.

INTERNATIONALIZATION AND INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION: THE SOUTHERN PERSPECTIVE

Internationalization and the Legacy of Colonialism An important factor to bear in mind in analyzing internationalization policies and student circulation of the four countries in this study (which represent the Southern perspective) is their common heritage of colonialism. Thus, a comparison of internationalization policies using these categories as a basis of analysis needs to acknowledge the unequal footing from which the two regions start. While Europe as a region and the United States are quite advanced, South Africa, India, Indonesia, and Egypt had to deal with the legacy of colonialism. This legacy influenced the size, pace, growth, and development of their educational systems and respective internationalization policies. 242

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

For example, Indonesia had to deal with the legacy of the Dutch and Japanese colonialism when it became independent. It had to start by reconstituting the system, building new universities, expanding the system, making higher education more relevant and responsive to the needs of Indonesia, and refocusing the orientation from Anglo-Saxon to Anglo-American. Part of this process included the use of Bahasa Indonesia as a medium of instruction to replace Dutch (Sirozi, 2008). The result was brain drain because many Dutch professors, who were at the core of the system, left Indonesia. The country had to develop its own human resources by sending young graduates to train overseas, then take positions in higher education institutions upon completing their degrees. South Africa, which gained its independence in the post-Cold War era (1994), faced different challenges. It inherited a good infrastructure and system of higher education which, even though it was well resourced, was highly unequal and inefficient. The inequalities in the system and participation rates were some of the most unequal in the world. Therefore, the immediate challenges were to redress these inequalities by increasing participation rates, redistributing funds to the previously disadvantaged institutions, and striving to make the system relevant and responsive to the challenges of the increasingly globalizing world. The restructuring of the system should be understood in the light of the post-apartheid government’s efforts to rid its education system of the apartheid past. South Africa did so by the creation of a single, coordinate system of higher education that purposefully dissolved the racialized inequalities among institutions (Jansen, 2002). There was also a need to incorporate the South African higher education system into the fast-changing, technology-driven, and information-based global economy. The effects of this colonial heritage are demonstrated in the sluggishness of the South African and Indonesian systems in adapting to the new environment. While Indonesia adopted radical reform measures that led to brain drain, South Africa adopted moderate reforms that led to the retention of “White brains.” The effects of these reform measures in Indonesia were a drop in the quality of higher education as a result of unplanned expansion and loss of qualified personnel, while South Africa was able to retain some positive elements of the apartheid higher education system. This achievement was demonstrated in its policy of restructuring through mergers, a process biased toward the preservation and retention of some of the strongest institutions in the country. Of the 22 institutions proclaimed through mergers in 2002, the five with the best academic reputations and best resources remained untouched by the merger. This meant that their faculty, resources, expertise, and program offerings remained intact or were even expanded. On the other hand, Europe as a region and the United States never had to deal with the developing countries’ challenges of underdevelopment and reconstruction. This advantage is evident in the quality of the higher education systems they have in place, the ability and capacity of their institutions to attract international students, the number of their institutions, and their comparatively high quality.

243

P. AGARWAL ET AL.

A Comparison of Internationalization Policies There is a growing element of internationalization in the higher education practices of many countries and regions, including the cases under discussion in this study. In describing this phenomenon in the context of the European Union (EU), Van Vught, van der Wende, and Westerheijden, (2002) argue: In terms of both practice and perceptions, internationalization is closer to the well-established tradition of international co-operation and mobility and to the core academic values of quality and excellence, whereas globalization refers more to competition, pushing the concept of higher education as a tradable commodity and challenging the concept of higher education as a public good. (p. 117) The case countries explored in this study show different approaches to internationalization. Europe and the United States have clear policies and strategies to promote internationalization, which are more outward looking and concerned with global competition, competitiveness, and dominance. In contrast, the case studies representing the Southern perspective in this study show that these countries do not have more advanced policies on internationalization. Where they exist (India, Egypt, and Indonesia), they are still embryonic, not yet at the level where they can make their respective countries globally competitive. South Africa has adopted no formal policies on internationalization, although practices within the system suggest the existence of informal internationalization policies. Some of the policy concerns that influence internationalization are driven by rationales that show a difference of concerns between developed and developing nations. For example, US concerns about national security have encouraged it to send more US students and scholars abroad and to recruit scholars and students into the US system. In contrast, Indonesia seems to have issues with the presence of international students because of national security concerns. As a result, Indonesian policies of internationalization seem to be pushing international students out of the system, rather than pulling them into it. This is especially the case with regard to its policies of delivering instruction in Bahasa Indonesia and of requiring mandatory instruction in religious and civic education. All of these measures are geared toward building and preserving national identity. The availability of resources in relation to scholarships for national and international students and scholars seem to be influencing the internationalization policies of these countries. Egypt has a comprehensive scholarship program to fund its nationals’ overseas study, but the other three countries (South Africa, Indonesia, and India) have only limited scholarships for nationals studying abroad and rely mainly on international donors for such funds. In the case of Indonesia, these scholarships are not funded from the national budget but from international loans and foreign aid. In the 1998–1999 academic year, the Directorate General for Higher Education (DGHE) provided scholarships for 670 teachers studying in more than 20 different countries (Sirozi, 2008). Very limited scholarships are available to bring international scholars into the systems of home countries. For example, in the 2004–2005 academic year, only 244

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

26 foreign scholars visited India, while 42 Indian scholars went abroad (Agarwal, 2008). The Indonesian government provides very limited scholarships from the national budget for studying overseas. Such scholarships are mostly dependent on foreign providers like AusAid, the British Council, the Fulbright Commission, the Ford Foundation, the Asia Foundation, and the Toyota Foundation. The largest scholarship provider for Indonesian students overseas in 1998–1999 was Australia, followed by Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Austria, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. The effect of depending on foreign sponsors for study abroad is that the scholarships available from year to year are not based on needs assessment but on scholarship policies made by the sponsors and based on their social, political, and diplomatic assessments and needs. Exchanges of students and scholars are viewed as important in enriching the teaching-learning process and enhancing the relevance and quality of research in higher education. These countries embrace exchanges as an aspect of their internationalization policy, coupled with the appointment of international scholars and researchers to teach in local institutions. In India the University Grants Commission (UGC) coordinates this activity. In 2004-2005, there were a total of 44 exchange programs, although not all had actual exchange activities (Agarwal, 2008). South Africa is a destination of choice for scholars and students from the African continent who wish to advance their studies and careers beyond their national borders. It thus hosts a number of international scholars and students from the African continent and abroad. South Africa’s Department of Education’s data for instruction/research staff employed by public higher education institutions in 2000 showed that 36,184 (94%) were South African or permanent residents, and 6% were international (Sehoole, 2008). The presence of these international scholars adds credibility to and confidence about the quality of education in the system. Research and development (R&D) are important aspects of building international competitiveness. Given the challenges of resources and the lagging educational systems of developing countries, innovative measures are used to develop R&D as an aspect of internationalization. Another aspect is the international collaboration of scholars through research and joint publications. For example, South Africa’s National Research Foundation facilitates cooperation between local and foreign researchers by administering grants and fellowships in the following categories: overseas conference attendance, research visits abroad, short courses abroad, foreign research fellowships, keynote speakers from abroad, and interaction with the rest of Africa (Sehoole, 2008). On the other hand, for research cooperation between Indonesian higher education institutions and their foreign counterparts to take place, research proposals must be approved by all relevant departments and the objectives of the research must be relevant to existing regulations. Therefore, although expected and welcome, international academic cooperation in Indonesia is highly selective and regulated. The issuing of study permits and visas is an important indicator of a country’s commitment to internationalization and to the exchange of ideas. The Indonesian student visa system is highly regulated, and international students in Indonesia face significant challenges. Local students receive priority; the enrollment of interna245

P. AGARWAL ET AL.

tional students is limited to 10% (compared to 15% in India); and international students must meet certain quality and fee conditions. At present, according to a letter signed by Indonesia’s Directorate General for Higher Education, no student visas are available for international students, who must rely on “limited-stay” visas. Unlike student visas that are acquired once, at the commencement of studies, limited-stay visas must be renewed annually. This policy seems to be driven by concerns about national security (Sirozi, 2008). In contrast, India has liberalized its process of acquiring student visas, making it simple and student friendly. South Africa has a set of conditions for non-South African students who could be asylum seekers, diplomats and their relatives, or ordinary students applying from their home countries. These conditions include applying for the study permit at the South Africa High Commission in their country of origin and obtaining repatriation guarantees from the South African commissions that issue the study permit. A repatriation guarantee is equivalent to a return air ticket and proof that the student has sufficient funds to cover living expenses. No student is allowed to enter the country without proof of a student visa. International students regard these conditions as “stringent” (Sehoole, 2008). Varied regulatory mechanisms assure the quality of foreign providers. These include the requirement that foreign providers show financial sustainability before being accredited in the host system (South Africa); quality assurance clearance from their country of origin and recognition of those qualifications by the parent institution and the country’s quality assurance system (South Africa and Indonesia); partnering with local institutions and employing local staff (Indonesia); the outlawing of franchising (South Africa); and the withdrawal of the requirement that universities receive prior permission to enter into academic partnerships with institutions abroad if such partnerships are, in fact, entered into (India). The pattern seems to suggest that, the more stringent the regulatory requirements, the better the academic quality; credible providers remain within the system. South Africa’s regulatory mechanisms uprooted bogus providers, leaving it with good providers. In contrast, lack of good regulatory mechanisms tend to erode the quality of the system (India).

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION IN THE SOUTH

The four southern countries included in this study (Egypt, India, Indonesia, and South Africa) are important players in international student circulation in the South. However, they play different roles in the patterns of student flows. Inward bound and outward bound flows are uneven across these countries. Data are also unevenly available, making comparisons among the four countries difficult. Despite the unevenness of data, these countries have their own distinctiveness in terms of the role they play in international student circulation. For example, over the past 10 years, India was the seventh and second largest supplier of international students: 39,626 in 1995 and 123,559 in 2005. During the same period, Indonesia was the 17th (22,235) and 16th (31,687) largest supplier of international students. 246

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In contrast, South Africa had a positive net flow (6.2%) of students. In 2004, it was the eighth largest recipient of international students. Egypt appeared among the top 10 countries receiving the largest number of international students in 1960s and the early 1980s but has faded since the mid-1980s. According to more recent national data, however, Egypt currently receives 35,000 international students annually, making it the fourth largest country for international students after China, Singapore, and South Africa. These countries exhibit features of international student circulation with both South-North and South-South mobility. With regard to South-North mobility, India dominates; a majority of its 123,000 students study in the North. For example, in 2003-2004, about 80,445, 20,000, and 15,000 Indian students were enrolled in degree programs in the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom respectively. The next three top destinations were also countries of the North: Germany, New Zealand, and Canada. In 2002, India surpassed China as the leading sender of foreign students to the United States. In academic year 2004–2005, there were 80,466 students (14.2% of all international students) from India studying in the United States. For the fourth year in a row, India remained the leading place of origin for students in the United States (Agarwal, 2008). The top five destinations of Indonesian students were countries of the North, thus underscoring the dominance of this trend among students from the South. Indonesia was the 10th largest sender of international students to the United States in 2002–2003 and 2003–2004. It was also the second largest sender of international students to the United States among its Southeast Asian neighbors (Sirozi, 2008). Despite a lack of comprehensive data on outbound students, South African students also preferred countries in the North as destinations, with the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Germany as dominant. According to Table 3, India and Indonesia send more students abroad than they receive, while Egypt and South Africa receive more students than they send. There are also variations among these countries in terms of the types of studies in which international students enroll. For example, most of the Indian students in the United States study at the graduate level. In 2005–2006, 72.1% were graduate students, while only 20.4% were undergraduates; the remaining 7.5% were in other programs (Agarwal, 2008). Conversely, about 70% of the 8,880 Indonesian students in the United States are enrolled in undergraduate studies while 24.7% are in graduate studies. The rest (5.0%) take, for instance, short courses in languages and other nondegree programs (Sirozi, 2008). Similarly the majority of South African students in the United States were enrolled in undergraduate programs. There is a growing South-South movement which indicates the emergence of regional hubs. South Africa is becoming one of the biggest receivers of international students. In 2004 it received about 52,579 international students of which 35,962 (68.4%) came from the Southern African region and 7,214 (13.7%) were from the rest of the African continent. In addition, about 2,496 students (4.7%) came from Asia. Thus, a total of 86.6% of international students in South Africa came from the South or from the developing world (Sehoole, 2008). The dominance of students from the Southern African region also highlights the role of regional factors in 247

P. AGARWAL ET AL. Table 3. Inbound and outbound students in the four countries.

India Indonesia South Africa Egypt

Inbound 2005

Outbound 2005

17,500 557 52,579∗ 35,918

150,559 35,456 12,000 10,000∗∗

∗ 2004 data, ∗∗ 2005 estimates

international student circulation. Regional factors are also at play in Southeast Asia where about 3,000 Indonesian students chose the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, and Brunei Darussalam as their top five destinations in the region. South-South mobility and evidence of the role of regional factors in international student circulation can also be found in India. During the 2003–2004 academic year, 12,263 international students studied in Indian universities and institutions. More than 90% of international students in India were from the developing countries in Asia (67%) and Africa (25%). Only 8% of students are from Europe, Australia, and the Americas. In terms of regional distribution, South and Central Asia lead, with more than 30% coming from this region. Around 20% of students are from North Africa and the Middle East. The majority of international students studying in Indian universities come from Nepal. Other countries with significant number of students in Indian universities are Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Kenya (Agarwal, 2008). In addition to the emergence of regional hubs in South-South mobility, religious factors are becoming increasingly important, not only in higher education student mobility but also in elementary and secondary education. For example, the Islamic university Al-Azhar Al-Sharif in Egypt enrolled about 33,509 students in academic year 2005–2006. Students were drawn from six world regions: Arab nations (19 countries), Africa (41 countries), Asia (21 countries), Europe (32 countries), eastern Europe (16 countries), and the United States and Australia (16 countries). The greatest number of students came from Asia (46.1%), followed by Africa (21.7%), the Arab nations (19.0%), Eastern Europe (8.1%), Europe (3.7%), and finally the United States and Australia (0.6%). Of the total 20,912 wafedeen (inbound) students, 62.4% in Egypt are enrolled at Al-Azhar University, 4,264 (20.4%) of them newly enrolled; 4,289 (20.5%) are women. The total number of university male graduate students during the 25 years between 1980-1981 and 2004-2005 was 17,165 students from 111 countries; 5,049 women students from 59 countries were enrolled at Al-Azhar University during the same period. The top 10 countries graduating male students are Malaysia, 4,839 (28.2%); Indonesia, 1,930 (11.2%); Syria and Turkey with 1,277 each (7.4%); Sudan, 1,268 (7.4%); Thailand, 1,242 (7.3%); Palestine, 775 (4.5%); Senegal, 548 (3.2%); Nigeria, 490 (2.9%); Mali, 189 (1.1%); and 3,330 (19.4%) from the remaining 101 countries. The top 10 countries graduating women students are Malaysia, 248

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3,036 (60.1%); Syria, 446 (8.8%); Indonesia, 412 (8.2%); Sudan, 250 (4.9%); Thailand, 206 (4.1%); Brunei, 195 (3.9%); Palestine, 168 (3.3%); Singapore, 78 (1.6%); the Philippines, 47 (0.9%); Saudi Arabia, 29 (0.6%); and 183 (3.6%) from the remaining 49 countries (Said, 2008). Religion seems to be a common denominator among these top sending countries. The North-South movement is also evident in these countries where, as pointed out earlier, in 2004 about 8% of the 12,000 students in India and 10% of the 52,579 students in South Africa came from countries of the North. Significantly, these were degree-seeking students, unlike the past pattern when North-South mobility consisted primarily of northern scholars offering technical assistance in the southern colonies. South Africa hosted 1,456 US study-abroad students in 2001–2002 and 1,594 in 2002–2003. One reason for such mobility lies in the diaspora, a factor that is particularly relevant for India. Another reason is that these countries provide an inexpensive alternative for a reasonably good quality education for families in the North who cannot afford the increasing costs of quality education in their own countries. Further research on the rationales for this North-South mobility is recommended.

INTERNATIONALIZATION AND INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION: THE NORTHERN PERSPECTIVE

International Student Circulation in the North Europe and the United States, together with other English-speaking countries like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, provide a different, Northern perspective on the internationalization of higher education and international student circulation (De Wit, 2008c; De Wit & Rumbley, 2008). The Higher Education Sector The United States is home to 4,236 institutions of higher learning. As of fall 2002, an estimated 16,611,711 students – more or less the same number of students and institutions as for Europe, were enrolled in some form of higher education in the United States (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2005). Currently, the majority of American students (77%) attend public institutions of higher education, although 60% of the nation’s postsecondary institutions are private. Most of the country’s postsecondary students (86%) are pursuing undergraduate studies; enrollment at four-year institutions accounts for 61% of national totals; and approximately 60% of all students are engaged in full-time study (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2005). As of 2003, some 1,175,000 academic staff members were employed in American higher education. Just over half (54%) held full-time positions. Twothirds of all faculty are employed in public higher education, and nearly 70% of American academics work at four-year institutions (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2005). Finally, in fiscal year 2000, current-fund expenditures for all nonprofit postsecondary institutions (public and private) in the country totaled almost $234 billion (Johnstone, 2005). 249

P. AGARWAL ET AL.

In comparison, Europe has approximately 4,000 institutions of higher education, of which about 3,300 are in the EU. The number of students topped 17 million (12.5 million in the EU) in 2000. Staff numbered 1.5 million, including 435,000 researchers. The European Union conducts 80% of all basic research in Europe, with just 34% of all European researchers. On average, member states of the European Union spend 5% of their GDP on public expenditure for education, a figure comparable to that of the United States. Public expenditures dropped in the past decade, private expenditure did not increase, and the European Union now lags far behind the United States in overall spending: 1.1% compared to 2.3%. “This gap stems primarily from the low level of private funding of higher education in Europe. This stands at a meager 0.2% of European GDP compared with 0.6% in Japan and 1.2% in the USA” (Commission, 2003, p. 12). On average, 80% of the total expenditure on higher education in Europe comes from public sources. For research and development, the percentage of funding as part of GDP was 1.92% in the European Union in 2003, with an increase between 1996 and 1999 of 2.3%, compared to 2.59% in the United States. Japan saw increases over the same period of 6.6% and 3.15%. Only Finland’s rate was higher than that of the United States with 3.1% and an increase of 13.1%. European higher education is facing many challenges and undergoing fundamental reforms that go beyond national boundaries and even the European Union. To become a highly competitive knowledge economy and society, radical changes must take place in the coming decade in the quality, structure, funding, and competitiveness of European higher education. The Bologna Process and the Lisbon Strategy are the key drivers for this reform, and they include the main stakeholders: students, institutions, the private sector, national governments, and the European Union. The international mobility of students and scholars is an essential part of this process. Though considered a highly mature and quite functional system of higher education, the American postsecondary landscape also faces considerable challenges in the 21st century. Indeed, Zusman (2005) notes that current “changes both within and outside the academy are altering its character – its students, faculty, governance, curriculum, functions, and very place in society . . . transforming higher education to an extent not seen since the end of World War II” (p. 115). At the heart of Zusman’s analysis is the idea that the “social contract” of American higher education stands at a crossroads. The central questions defining this moment have to do with the growing privatization of public colleges and universities; the perceived commercialization and politicization of the country’s research system; the changing demographics of America’s current and future postsecondary student population, incorporating many more ethnically, racially, socially, and economically diverse students; the unclear job market outlook for doctoral degree holders and what this means for the future planning and production of doctorate recipients; and the overarching issues of accountability, governance, and coordination – that is, “the relationship between higher education, the public, and government authorities” (Zusman, 2005, p. 142). 250

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

These significant challenges become even more complex as the country looks toward the near- and mid-term future. Enrollment in American higher education is projected to continue growing and diversifying. And while these domestic considerations often take center stage in the minds of American college presidents and policymakers, the international dimension of the US higher education enterprise is increasingly relevant. International student circulation – more specifically, high levels of foreign student enrollment in American colleges and universities and, to a lesser extent, US students sojourning abroad – is of central importance to the country’s ongoing effort to maintain global leadership in the field of higher education, with significant ramifications for American competitiveness in terms of workforce, scientific research advancements, high-technology development, new knowledge creation (Altbach, 2004; NAFSA, 2006b), and national security (NAFSA, 2003, 2006a). The Internationalization of US and European Higher Education Given the profound decentralization of the higher education enterprise in the United States, it is difficult to speak in terms of “national policies” for its internationalization. At the same time, significant activities are occurring at both national and institutional levels indicating that the international dimension is very much on the radar of the American postsecondary education community. Furthermore, it is a subject of some importance to academic, administrative, and policy leaders across the country. Indeed, US government programming, the policy advocacy work of voluntary and professional associations, and the individual initiatives of colleges and universities to internationalize their campuses all add up to a meaningful – if not always coordinated – effort to advance international student circulation and infuse international perspectives into the American academy. At the same time, it is interesting to note that an ongoing effort to promote the institution of a formal national policy for international education has been largely unsuccessful to date. It is perhaps telling – or uniquely American – that the drive to implement such a national policy has been spearheaded in large part, not by governmental actors but by voluntary associations and nongovernmental, professional membership organizations. In Europe, internationalization is presently driven primarily by the Bologna Process, directed to the realization of a European Higher Education Area by 2010. It implies a substantial reform of higher education beyond the borders of the 25 countries of the European Union. In the Bologna Declaration of 1999, the ministers identified the following objectives: • Adoption of a system of easy-to-understand and comparable degrees, including the adoption of a Diploma Supplement. • Adoption of a system essentially based on two main cycles, undergraduate and graduate. • Establishment of a system of credits – such as the European Credit Transfer System – as a means of promoting student mobility. 251

P. AGARWAL ET AL.

• Promotion of mobility by overcoming obstacles to the effective exercise of free movement. • Promotion of European cooperation in quality assurance. • Promotion of the European dimension in higher education. The Bologna Process should be seen in connection with the ambitious Lisbon Strategy that members of the European Council agreed in March 2000 to undertake “to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion” by 2010 (European Council, 2000). The Lisbon Strategy intends to deal with the low productivity and stagnation of economic growth in the European Union through the formulation of various policy initiatives to be taken by all EU member states. Together, the Bologna Process and the Lisbon Strategy are the foundation for a reform agenda that will not only lead to more transparency and the removal of obstacles for internal labor and student mobility, but which will also make education and research more competitive in the context of the global knowledge economy and, in doing so, increase the focus on inward mobility from outside Europe. The driving rationale behind the two reforms is the fact that Europe is lagging behind its world competitors, particularly the United States, in research, development, innovation, and change. Overcoming Europe’s bottlenecks has to happen under circumstances that will increase global competition in higher education. In this competitive environment, quality will become more decisive than quantity; competition will require more cooperation, particularly in terms of strategic alliances; and competition will require new forms of cooperation, for instance joint and double degrees. But will Europe succeed?

COMPETITIVENESS

Relevant issues to enhance the increased mobility within Europe and its attractiveness as a study destination for non-Europeans are the realization of the Bologna objectives and the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy. But other issues, not directly part of these two processes but implied by them, will become more relevant, in particular the development of a typology of higher education institutions in Europe; the debate about tuition fees in Europe; and the development of higher education as a tradable service. On all three issues, Europe is observing resistance to change but undeniably is changing. The United States feels the pressure of initiatives taken by the European Union (the Bologna Process and Lisbon Strategy) and by the rapid developments in research and development in the Asia-Pacific region, in particular China. The “American Competitiveness Initiative” of February 2006 by the George W. Bush administration committed to invest $50 billion in research and another $86 billion in research and development tax incentives over the next decade. Budget decisions in 2007 to implement the initiative are concrete actions to improve the competitiveness of American education. 252

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The American higher education market has proven tough for foreign providers to crack. The failure of the British Open University is a well-known example of how difficult it is for foreign academic enterprises to penetrate the higher education sector in the United States (Arnone, 2002). Currently, there is only a limited foreign presence in American higher education, as measured by the numbers of foreign universities establishing campuses and independent programs on US soil. Given this limited infiltration by foreign universities, a discussion of the “foreign presence in higher education” for the United States essentially entails exploring the ways in which the American academic enterprise extends its considerable reach overseas. Indeed, the US Department of Commerce indicates that US exports in higher education have grown steadily over the last decade, exceeding $13.5 billion in 2004 (Strohmer, 2006). International Student Circulation Although both inbound and outbound circulation of students and scholars is relevant in the American context, there is a significant imbalance in these flows. The most recent data indicate that 565,039 foreign students were enrolled at American colleges and universities during 2004–2005. In 2003–2004, 191,321 US students participated in some form of credit-bearing academic sojourn abroad as a part of their American degree programs (IIE, 2005), while some 41,181 others sought actual degrees from overseas institutions (UNESCO, 2006). Although the rates of American student participation in study abroad are growing quickly – up 20% since academic year 2000-2001 – the fact that the United States receives nearly 2.5 times the number of students it sends abroad is notable. The country has long been the world’s unrivaled receiver nation for international students, but recent developments are challenging the notion that the United States is the unquestioned destination of choice for the world’s mobile students. At the same time, new domestic and international developments are sending American students abroad for academic purposes in increasing numbers. In terms of the specific sources of students from abroad entering American higher education, Asia has remained the steady leader over the last 25 years. China, India, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan have consistently sent some of the largest contingents of students to the United States, followed to a lesser extent by Thailand and Indonesia (and Malaysia in the 1990s). Among European countries, Germany and the United Kingdom have tended to send more students to the United States than any others, followed to a lesser extent by France, Spain, and Greece. As cited above, 41,181 American students were engaged in degree-seeking programs abroad. Their top destinations were other English-speaking countries: the United Kingdom (13,381), Canada (4,394), and Australia (3,439), followed by Germany (3,419) and France (2,687) (UNESCO, 2006, p. 137). Direct enrollment by Americans in Canadian colleges has doubled in recent years and surged by 85% in the United Kingdom over the past 10 years (Wilcox, 2006). In comparison to the large number of international students seeking a degree in the United States (572,509 in 2004), the number of US students seeking a degree 253

P. AGARWAL ET AL.

abroad is extremely low. For every 14 foreign students coming to the United States, one degree-seeking American is outbound. In 1965, this ratio was approximately 5 to 1, but from 1980 on it has been consistently above 10 to 1. The number of American students seeking a degree abroad has not increased substantially over time. Although very little research seems to have been done on these American overseas degree-seekers, anecdotal evidence and the increase in numbers over the past 10 years suggest that the interest in obtaining a foreign credential ranges from the desire to avoid costly American university tuition bills to the hope that a degree from one of the “Scottish and Canadian Ivies” may help differentiate graduates from their peers when pursuing jobs or other activities following graduation (De Wit & Rumbley, 2008; Wilcox, 2006). Another factor might be the presence of a growing immigrant community in the United States, whose children might be motivated by language, culture, and/or costs to study in their countries of origin. It is unclear, though, to what degree this phenomenon may grow. However, given the increasing internationalization of higher education globally, it is not out of the question that more American students could find more permanent homes at universities overseas. One of the fastest-growing dimensions of the internationalization of American higher education is the outbound movement of US students to overseas destinations as part of their home degree in study-abroad programs. This sector has experienced steady, dynamic growth over the last two decades. Most recently, in the 2003– 2004 academic year, 191,321 American students studied outside the United States for some period of time, an increase of 9.6% from the previous year and building energetically on the 8.5% increase seen in 2002–2003 (Open Doors 2005 press release). The following key areas represent some of the most critical issues and challenges for the ongoing internationalization of American higher education: − Retaining leadership in attracting the world’s best international students and scholars. − Finding the right balance between the cross-border movement of students and scholars and the cross-border delivery of programs and institutions. − Further enhancement of study-abroad options for American students. − Putting to rest the debate about a national policy for international education. − Maximizing the international dimension at the level of the individual institution. The challenges are clearly great, but the imperative to strengthen and expand the internationalization of American higher education has perhaps never been more present and more pressing. The country’s postsecondary system is at present more actively engaged with the international dimension than before but is under constant pressure to remain relevant and competitive for domestic stakeholders and international constituents alike. In Europe, on average, according to UNESCO (2005), 6% of the students in Europe are internationally mobile students, but half of them come from inside 254

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Europe, which means that 3% are non-Europeans, a figure similar for Canada and 1% less than for the United States. An exception is France, where only 28% of the students are European, and 51% of the students come from Africa. For France, as for many other European countries, the context for this figure is that many international students are second- or even third-generation immigrant students who have a foreign passport but who have received most of their education in the host country. This arrangement applies to students from former colonies and to the children of immigrant laborers of the 1960s and 1970s. According to UNESCO (2006), in outward mobility the number of students from Western Europe has stagnated over the past five years, resulting in a drop in the share of all internationally mobile students from 22% to 17%. In absolute numbers, Western Europe has the second largest group of mobile students abroad after East Asia and the Pacific (407,000, 17% of the global total). On average, European countries see 2.8% of their students engaged in outbound mobility, while Andorra, Cyprus, and Luxembourg are far above that average with around or above 50%, followed by Iceland, Ireland, Greece, Malta, and Norway. Fifteen out of every thousand people of tertiary age are currently studying abroad; 77% of Western European mobile students stay in their region of origin; 15% go to North America. The United Kingdom (100,000), Germany (52,000), the United States (51,000), and France (33,000) are the main destinations. Central and Eastern Europe follow Western Europe with the third largest number of mobile students abroad: 300,000. Turkey (52,000) and the Russian Federation (34,000) have the largest number of students abroad in their region, although their outbound mobility ratio (1.6%) is much lower than that of Western Europe (2.8%) and is below the world average. The highest ratios are found in Albania (30%), the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia (12%), and Bulgaria (11%); the lowest is Russia (0.4%). The vast majority of students from Central and Eastern Europe study in Western Europe, in particular Germany (100,000); 20% stay in the region, and relatively few go to the United States. Inward and outward mobility rates in Europe are very closely related, since the destinations are primarily neighboring countries in the region. The United States is among the top five destinations except for seven mostly small countries: Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Moldova, San Marino, and Serbia and Montenegro. The United Kingdom is the number one destination. Australia is mentioned four times among the top five destinations, in two cases by Englishspeaking countries (the United Kingdom and Ireland) and in the two other cases in Scandinavia, where Australia in recent years has become a country of destination, thanks to its active marketing efforts. The only other country of destination outside Europe mentioned once is Kazakhstan in the case of Russia. In other words, European student circulation is primarily regional and is secondarily oriented toward English-speaking countries. This pattern is less true for the countries in Central and Eastern Europe, where Germany is an important destination country, holding 12 top positions and four second positions as the country of destination among 20 of the region’s countries. Germany is the first choice for students from Austria, Italy, Luxembourg, and 255

P. AGARWAL ET AL.

Switzerland, and second choice for students from Greece, Malta, and Spain among the 24 Western European countries. What are future trends and issues concerning mobility in Europe? First, under the influence of the Lisbon Strategy, a radical shift from a quantitative approach to a more qualitative one is occurring in recruiting international students – the “brain gain” argument. This approach implies a different approach to legal immigration in the face of a shrinking labor force – recruitment of the best students and scholars, not to train them and send them back to their homelands, but to prepare them to take the empty places in European research and industry. This search for the best students without border discrimination will be the most important factor in student mobility in Europe for the coming decade and one for which competition with the rest of the world will become the most intense. It is connected to efforts to stop the brain drain of the best European students and scholars, in particular to the United States, and is a growing concern in realizing the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy. Second, it will not be surprising if several institutions of higher education in Europe decide not to invest in recruiting students from beyond the European Union. They might argue that there is still enough potential in recruiting students from countries that have recently entered or will shortly enter the European Union. Furthermore, such students will not bring with them certain competitive disadvantages: higher tuition fees, high recruitment costs, and obstacles to entrance and successful adaptation. Such a development would further enhance the current trends of international student circulation in the European region. Third, there is relatively little information about the levels and fields of study. The further evolution of the Bologna Process will provide more opportunities to collect information on student circulation by bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral programs, and by fields of study. It would not be surprising if the growth levels for Europe and, in particular, for the European Union, will be at the master’s and doctoral levels, and that competition for the best students will concentrate more on the natural sciences and engineering at these levels. Other countries, in particular English-speaking countries such as the United Kingdom, will also continue their quest for international students beyond Europe. Concerned with dropping numbers in 2005 caused by growing competition and increased student visa charges, Prime Minister Tony Blair announced in 2006 plans to attract a further 100,000 foreign students to the United Kingdom, in addition to the 300,000 currently studying there (BBC, 2006a). Twenty-seven million pounds will be invested by the government, the British Council, the education sector, and the business community to reach this target. Overseas students contribute as much as 4 billion pounds to the university sector and 10 billion pounds to the national economy, so growth is needed to offset the 2005 decline (BBC, 2006b). This is the second initiative of the Blair government in recent years; but although the university community supports the initiative, academics and students express concern about the increasing dependency of British higher education on overseas students’ fees in an ever more competitive global environment. Finally, there will be a slow but gradual trend toward the cross-border delivery of programs by European institutions of higher education, within Europe primarily 256

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

from the West to the East and Southeast, and also beyond Europe. Internationalization abroad coincides with what Knight (2003; OECD, 2004) has described as the three different forms of cross-border education: a person going abroad for educational purposes (mobility of individuals); an educational program going abroad (program mobility); or an institution or provider going or investing abroad for educational purposes (institution mobility). And the last two forms of cross-border education are becoming more important, in addition to and as alternatives to the mobility of students. Europe, with the exception of the United Kingdom, still lags behind in this area; but particularly in Eastern and Southern Europe, there is an increasing presence of foreign providers, both from Western Europe and elsewhere. European universities are more actively franchising and twinning programs in Asia, Latin America, and Africa.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Most studies on international student flows focus on South-North and North-North flows, while little study has been done from a southern perspective and on SouthSouth student flows. This study provides important data on and analyses of the developments in the international dimension of higher education in countries of the South in comparison to the North, and the specific role of international student mobility. Such a study is already unique, providing new perspectives on international student circulation. Although South-North and North-North student flows are still dominant, one can observe an increase in South-South and North-South student mobility and the emergence of regional hubs by countries that remain senders of students to the North. The framework for this analysis consisted of push and pull factors. For instance, the religious factor is relevant in explaining changing patterns in student flows from Islamic countries. Partially related are global security concerns as demonstrated in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks in the United States. Such concerns have influenced the number of students coming from Asia and Muslim countries to the United States and strengthened the South-South mobility of students, as well as the flow of US students and scholars to Muslim countries. Based on the data available, the emergence of cross-border delivery of programs and institutions appears to have had a rather marginal impact on student flows. The study leads to the following recommendations for institutional, national, and international organizations involved in higher education around the world: 1. Definitions and data should become more compatible. UNESCO’s work on statistics should be supported by common definitions and criteria and more up-to-date input by the different countries. 2. Statistics at the national and international level should provide a clearer distinction between undergraduate and graduate levels (enumerating master’s and doctoral candidates separately) and other forms of student circulation, as is already the case with Open Doors of IIE. 257

P. AGARWAL ET AL.

3. UNESCO and OECD should follow the example of Australia in including specific data on international student flows in cross-border activities. 4. The adoption by nations and institutions of higher education of the guidelines for cross-border education as developed by UNESCO and OECD should be stimulated. 5. To foster international student circulation, governments should enhance conditions that will attract students including investment in the quality aspects of higher education, reasonable visa and study permit conditions, and strategic partnerships at the national and institutional levels 6. The emergence and role of regional hubs in student circulation in the South, the role of regional protocols and agreements, and possible impacts and future trends of these practices should be given more attention and further analysis. 7. The role and impact of religion and other cultural/social rationales on international student circulation require more attention. 8. The risks and opportunities of revenue generation in international student circulation for individuals, institutions, and nations require attention by policymakers at the (inter)national level. 9. The debate on skill migration and brain circulation related to student mobility remains relevant for further action and study and should include the design of instruments to explore mutual benefits and opportunities for the North and the South. 10. Where emphasis is still on South-North and North-North mobility and the underlying study is addressing South-South mobility, North-South mobility should be given more priority, including the identification of current push and pull factors for such mobility, the main challenges restraining such mobility, and the potential for its increase.

REFERENCES Agarwal, Pawan. (2008). India: A key player in international student circulation. In Hans de Wit, Pawal Agarwal, Mohsen Said, Molatlhegi Sehoole, & Muhammad Silozi (Eds.), The dynamics of international student circulation in a global context, this volume. Altbach, Philip G. (2006). Globalization and the university: Realities in an unequal world. In James J. F. Forest & Philip G. Altbach (Eds.), International handbook of higher education. Dordrecht, NL: Springer. Altbach, Philip G. & Lulat, Y. (1985). Research on foreign student and international study: An overview and bibliography. New York, Praeger Publishers. Arnone, M. (2002). United States Open U. to close after spending $20 million. Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(23), A44. BBC, British Broadcasting Corporation. (2006a). Program, , April 18. www.news.bbc.co.uk. BBC, British Broadcasting Corporation. (2006b). Program, , February 11. www.news.bbc.co.uk. Blumenthal, P., Goodwin, Crauford, Smith, A., & Teichler, Ulrich. (1996). Academic mobility in a changing world. Higher Education Policy Series, No. 29. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Bohm, Anthony, et al. (2004). Vision 2020: Forecasting international student mobility. A joint study by the British Council and IDP-Education Australia. London: British Council. CEC/UKCOSA. (2000). Student mobility on the map: Tertiary education interchange in the commonwealth on the threshold of the 21st century. London: UKCOSA.

258

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Chitoran, D. (1998). International cooperation in higher education: Trends, issues, challenges and new avenues. Working document presented at the World Conference on Higher Education, Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century, Vision and Action, October 5–9. Paris: UNESCO. Chronicle of Higher Education. (2005). Almanac issue, 2005–2006. Washington, DC: Chronicle of Higher Education. Commission of the European Communities. (2003). The role of the universities in the Europe of knowledge. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. Cummings, W. (1993). Global trends in overseas study. In C. D. Goodwin (Ed.), International investment in human capital: Overseas education for development. New York: Institute of International Education. Davis, Todd M. (2003). Atlas of student mobility. New York: Institute of International Education. See also www.atlas.iienetwork.org. De Wit, Hans (Ed.). (1995). Strategies for internationalization of higher education: A comparative study of Australia, Canada, Europe, and the United States. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education. De Wit, Hans. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe: A historical, comparative, and conceptual analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. De Wit, Hans. (2008a). Internationalization of higher education in a global context. In Hans de Wit, Pawal Agarwal, Mohsen Said, Molatlhegi Sehoole, & Muhammad Silozi (Eds.), The dynamics of international student circulation in a global context, this volume. De Wit, Hans. (2008b). Changing dynamics in international student circulation: Meanings, push and pull factors, trends and data. In Hans de Wit, Pawal Agarwal, Mohsen Said, Molatlhegi Sehoole, & Muhammad Silozi (Eds.), The dynamics of international student circulation in a global context, this volume. De Wit, Hans. (2008c). International student circulation in the context of the Bologna Process and the Lisbon Strategy. In Hans de Wit, Pawal Agarwal, Mohsen Said, Molatlhegi Sehoole, & Muhammad Silozi (Eds.), The dynamics of international student circulation in a global context, this volume. De Wit, Hans, & Rumbley, Laura E. (2008). The role of American higher education in international student circulation. In Hans de Wit, Pawal Agarwal, Mohsen Said, Molatlhegi Sehoole, & Muhammad Silozi (Eds.), The dynamics of international student circulation in a global context, this volume. Goodwin, Crauferd D. (1996). Academic mobility in a changing world: Concluding reflections on the issues at stakes. In P. Blumenthal, Crauford Goodwin, A. Smith, & Ulrich Teichler (Eds.), Academic mobility in a changing world (pp. 359–368). Higher Education Policy Series, No. 29. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. IIE, Institute for International Education. (2005). Open Doors, 2004–2005. New York: IIE. Jansen, J. D. (2002). Mergers in higher education: Lessons learned from transitional contexts. Pretoria, South Africa: UNISA Press. Johnstone, D. Bruce. (2005). Financing higher education: Who should pay? In Philip G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & Patricia J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century (pp. 369–392). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Kelo, Maria, Teichler, Ulrich, & Waechter, Bernd. (Eds.). (2006). EURODATA: Student mobility in European higher education. Academic Cooperation Association (ACA). Bonn, Germany: Lemmens Verlag. Knight, Jane. (2003). GATS: Trade in higher education. Perspectives 2003: Where are we? Observatory Report. Retrieved in June 2006 from http://www.obhe.ac.uk/products. Knight, Jane. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31. Knight, Jane. (2006a). Internationalization of higher education: New Directions, new challenges. 2005 IAU Global Survey Report. Paris: International Association of Universities. Knight, Jane. (2006b). Higher education in the trade context of GATS. In Barbara Khem & Hans de Wit (Eds.), Internationalization in higher education: European responses to the global perspective. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education and the European Higher Education Society/European Association for International Research (EAIR). Knight, Jane. (2006c). Internationalization: Concepts, complexities, and challenges. In Philip G. Altbach & James J. F. Forest (Eds.), International handbook of higher education. Dordrecht, NL: Springer. Knight, Jane & de Wit, Hans. (Eds.). (1997). Internationalization of higher education in Asia Pacific countries. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education.

259

P. AGARWAL ET AL. Knight, Jane, & de Wit, Hans. (Eds.). (1999). Quality and internationalization in higher education. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. NAFSA: Association of International Educators. (2003). Securing America’s future: Global education for a global age. Washington, DC: Author. NAFSA: Association of International Educators. (2006a). An international education policy for US leadership, competitiveness, and security. Washington, DC: NAFSA. NAFSA: Association of International Educators. (2006b). Restoring US competitiveness for international students and scholars. Washington, DC: NAFSA. OECD, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2004). Internationalization and trade in higher education: Opportunities and challenges. Paris: OECD. Open Doors. (2005). Press release. New York: Institute of International Education. Richters, E. & Teichler, Ulrich. (2006). Student mobility data: Current methodological issues and future prospects. In Maria Kelo, Ulrich Teichler, & Bernd Waechter (Eds.), EURODATA: Student mobility in European higher education (pp. 78–95). Academic Cooperation Association (ACA). Bonn, Germany: Lemmens Verlag. Reinalda, B. & Kulesza, E. (2005). The Bologna process: Harmonizing Europe’s higher education. Opladen, Germany: Barbara Budrich Publishers. Said, Mohsen. (2008). International student circulation in Egypt. In Hans de Wit, Pawal Agarwal, Mohsen Said, Molatlhegi Sehoole, & Muhammad Silozi (Eds.), The dynamics of international student circulation in a global context, this volume. Schapper, J. & Mayson, S. (2005). Managerialism, internationalization, taylorization and the deskilling of academic work: Evidence from an Australian university. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellsten (Eds.), Internationalizing higher education: Critical explorations of pedagogy and policy (pp. 181–198). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Center, University of Hong Kong/Springer. Sehoole, M. (2008). South Africa and the dynamics of international student circulation. In Hans de Wit, Pawal Agarwal, Mohsen Said, Molatlhegi Sehoole, & Muhammad Silozi (Eds.), The dynamics of international student circulation in a global context, this volume. Sirozi, M. (2008). Indonesian experience in the global dynamics of international students’ circulation. In Hans de Wit, Pawal Agarwal, Mohsen Said, Molatlhegi Sehoole, & Muhammad Silozi (Eds.), The dynamics of international student circulation in a global context, this volume. Strohmer, S. (2006). US satellite campuses in the Middle East: Cross-cultural mediators or missionary outposts? Bridges, 9, n.p. Teichler, Ulrich. (1996). Research on academic mobility and international cooperation in higher education: An agenda for the future. In P. Blumenthal, C. Goodwin, A. Smith, & Ulrich Teichler (Eds.), Academic mobility in a changing world (pp. 338–358). Higher Education Policy Series, No. 29. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Teichler, Ulrich. (2004). The changing debate on internationalization of higher education. Higher Education, 48(1), 5–26. Tremblay, Karine. (2006). International student mobility in non-EU OECD countries. In Barbara Khem & Hans de Wit (Eds.), Internationalization in higher education: European responses to the global perspective (pp. 26–53). Amsterdam: European Association for International Education and the European Higher Education Society and European Association for International Research (EAIR). Tuinamuana, K. (2005). International policy convergence in higher education: An analysis from the periphery. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellsten (Eds.), Internationalizing higher education: Critical explorations of pedagogy and policy (pp. 199–214). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong/Springer. UNESCO. (2005). Global education digest 2005: Comparing education statistics around the world. Paris: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. UNESCO. (2006). Global education digest 2006: Comparing education statistics around the world. Paris: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Van der Wende, Marjik. (2001). Internationalization policies: About new trends and contrasting paradigms. Higher Education Policy, 14(3), 249–259. Van Vught, F., van der Wende, Marjik, & Westerheijden, D. (2002). Globalization and internationalization: Policy agendas compared. In Jürgen Enders & Oliver Fulton (Eds.), Higher education in a globalizing world: International trends and mutual observations. A festschrift in honour of Ulrich Teichler (pp. 103–120). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwers Academic Publishers.

260

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Wilcox, E. (2006). A new ivy league, far afield: More are heading abroad for college. Boston Globe, February 22, p. B1. Zusman, A. (2005). Issues facing higher education in the twenty-first century. In Philip G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & Patricia J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century (pp. 115–160). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

261

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

PAWAN AGARWAL is a civil servant from the senior management cadre from India. Over the past 22 years, he has held several important and challenging assignments at various levels in the government in India. In recent years, he was Director in the Ministry of Human Resource Development in the Government of India, handling the higher education and later the technical education desks for five years. Before that, he was Financial Advisor and Coordinator of New Initiatives in the University Grants Commission (India) for two years. As a Fulbright New Century Scholar on higher education from India for the year 2005–2006, he was visiting scholar at the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi (India). He spent his Fulbright term in the United States at the Science and Engineering Workforce Program at Harvard University and at the India-China-America Institute at Emory University, Atlanta. During the year 2006, he did a comprehensive review of the Indian higher education system. It has been rated as one of the best recent single-country higher education reports, widely referred to in policymaking in India and by scholars abroad for studies on comparative higher education worldwide. It is forthcoming as a book. He presented a paper, “Higher education and labor markets in India” at the World Bank’s Regional Bank Conference on Development Economics 2007. His other areas of interest are higher education services and trade liberalization, and the privitization and internationalization of higher education with particular focus on regulation and quality-assurance related issues. H ANS DE W IT is, as of February 2007, the Dean of Windesheim Honours College of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam/Windesheim Hogeschool, Zwolle. Until September 1, 2007, he also served as Director of the Hague Forum for Judicial Expertise of the Hague Academic Coalition and Senior Policy Advisor of the T.M.C. Asser Institute of the Universiteit van Amsterdam. He is also president of the private consulting firm De Wit International Higher Education Consultancy. He has been Director of Education and Training of the T.M.C. Asser Institute for Private and Public International Law in the Hague, and the Director of the Office of Foreign Relations, Vice-President for International Affairs, and Senior Advisor International at the Universiteit van Amsterdam, the Netherlands, from 1986 to 2005. He is the editor of the Journal of Studies in International Education, published by the Association for Studies in International Education and, as of 2001, by Sage H. de Wit et al. (eds.), The Dynamics of International Student Circulation in a Global Context, 263–266. © 2008. Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Publishers. He was a New Century Scholar of the Fulbright Commission’s 2005– 2006 program “Higher Education in the 21st Century.” His latest books are Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe, A historical, comparative and conceptual analysis (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002) in the Greenwood Studies in Higher Education series; Higher education in Latin America: The international dimension, co-edited with Isabel Cristina Jaramillo, Jocelyne Gacel Avila, and Jane Knight (New York: Bank, 2005), and European responses to the global perspective, co-edited with Barbara Kehm (Amsterdam: EAIE/EAIR,2006). He has co-authored several other books and articles on international education and is actively involved in assessment and consultancy in international education for organizations like the European Commission, the European Universities Association (EUA), the World Bank, IMHE/OECD, ESMU, and the Salzburg Seminar. Hans de Wit is one of the founding members and a past president of the European Association for International Education (EAIE). Currently he is, among other positions, Member of the Board of Trustees of World Education Services (New York), Miembro del Consejo Asesor de la Agencia Nacional de Evaluación de la Calidad y Acreditación (ANECA) in Spain, and Miembro del Consejo Académico Honorario del Programa de Posgrados en Políticas y Administración de la Educación of the Universidad Nacional Tres de Febrero in Buenos Aires (Argentina). He has received several awards for his work in international education from organizations such as NAFSA, AIEA, and CIEE in the United States, and EAIE in Europe. On March 10, 2006, he received the Honorary Medal of the Universiteit van Amsterdam for his long-term outstanding services to the university. L AURA E. RUMBLEY recently completed her Ph.D. in higher education administration at Boston College (Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, USA), where her dissertation focused on internationalization in the universities of Spain. She is currently a research associate at the Boston College Center for International Higher Education (CIHE), and has co-authored several publications on international higher education issues. Laura is a graduate of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and holds a master’s degree in international education and training from the School for International Training in Brattleboro, Vermont (USA). She also completed a year of graduate study in European Union affairs at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid (Spain), where she was a Rotary Foundation Ambassadorial Scholar. Laura served as a Foreign Service Officer at the United States Embassy in San Salvador, El Salvador. She is a former Salzburg Seminar Fellow and currently serves as the Internship Manager for the Norwegian Entrepreneurship Program at Boston University’s School of Management. M OHSEN E LMAHDY S AID has been, since 1989, a Professor of Applied Mechanics at the Mechanical Design and Production Department, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University. Since 1991, he has served as the Executive Director and Chairman 264

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

of the Board of the Projects Management Unit at the Ministry of Higher Education. He earned his Ph.D. degree in Mechanical Engineering from the Imperial College of Science and Technology, London University in, 1976 and his B.Sc. Degree from Cairo University in 1969. For more than 15 years, Dr. Said has held a variety of key positions on the national, regional, and international levels, including Chairman of the National QAA Committee and Director of the QAAP project, member of the International Commission of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), member of the UNESCO Expert Group to develop the guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-Border Higher Education, and those for Quality Assurance, Accreditation, and Recognition of Qualifications, member of the one-year Fulbright New Century Scholars (NCS) Program (“Higher Education in the 21st Century: Global Challenge and National Response”). Before his current position, Dr. Said successfully implemented a number of national projects in the reform of higher education funded by the World Bank, the Arab Gulf Fund, and the Ford Foundation, as well as the Energy Conservation and Efficiency Project, a major national project funded by USAID. Dr. Said has served on the boards of many research centers and national committees, including as Co-Secretary to the National Committee responsible for developing Egypt’s Higher Education Reform Strategy in 2000, and as a member of: (a) the Board of Trustees and University Board, Misr International University (MIU) – one of the first four newly established private universities in Egypt; (b) the Supreme Council of Policies and the Specialized National Committees; and (c) the National Council for Women (NCW) chaired by Egypt’s First Lady. He is the founder and chairman of the Arab Society for Quality Assurance in Education (ASQAE). In addition, Dr. Said is a member of the Egyptian Paralympic Committee (EPC) and a member of the National Sports Fund (NSF). Among his numerous awards is the National Decoration “Medal of the Republic” for distinctive efforts made in the field of design and local manufacturing of investment equipment for the Egyptian sugar industry. As an Olympic handball player and later as director of the handball team, he was awarded the National Egyptian Sports Medal in 1979. M. T. (C HIKA ) S EHOOLE is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Pretoria, South Africa. He obtained his Ph.D. in higher education policy at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. He teaches education policy studies and comparative education and conducts research in the area of higher education policy, international higher education, and globalization. He has published numerous journal articles and book chapters on these topics. In 2003–2004 he won the Rockefeller-funded post-doctoral fellowship at the Centre for African Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. From participating in this fellowship, he produced his foundational work Democratizing higher education policy: Constraints of reform in post-apartheid South Africa (New York: Routledge, 2005).

265

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

In 2005–2006 he participated in the New Century Scholar program with his research focusing on International Student Circulation in relation to higher education in South Africa. During this program, he returned to the University of Illinois for 10 weeks to conduct comparative study for his research. During his visit, he conducted a number of seminars at UIUC as well as occasional lectures at four institutions in Pennsylvania and Atlanta. M UHAMMAD S IROZI is a Professor of Educational Studies and Director of the Graduate Program at the State Institute of Islamic Studies Raden Fatah in Palembang, Indonesia. Sirozi earned his master’s in 1992 from the Department of Social Anthropology, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. In 1998 he was awarded his Ph.D. from the Department of Educational Policy, Faculty of Education, Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. In the NCS 2005–2006 program. Sirozi’s individual research was on the internationalization of Islamic higher education in Southeast Asia and his group’s research project was “The Dynamics of Students’ Circulation in the Process of the Internationalization of Higher Education in a Global Context.”

266

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON HIGHER EDUCATION Volume 1 WOMEN’S UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES An International Handbook Francesca B. Purcell, Robin Matross Helms & Laura Rumbley (eds.) ISBN 978-90-77874-58-5 hardback ISBN 978-90-77874-02-8 paperback Volume 2 PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION A Global Revolution Philip G. Altbach and D. C. Levy (eds.) ISBN 978-90-77874-59-2 hardback ISBN 978-90-77874-08-0 paperback Volume 3 FINANCING HIGHER EDUCATION Cost-Sharing in International perspective D. Bruce Johnstone ISBN 978-90-8790-016-8 hardback ISBN 978-90-8790-015-1 paperback Volume 4 UNIVERSITY COLLABORATION FOR INNOVATION Lessons from the Cambridge-MIT Institute David Good, Suzanne Greenwald, Roy Cox, and Megan Goldman (eds.) ISBN 978-90-8790-040-3 hardback ISBN 978-90-8790-039-7 paperback Volume 5 HIGHER EDUCATION A Worldwide Inventory of Centers and Programs Philip G. Altbach, Leslie A. Bozeman, Natia Janashia, and Laura E. Rumbley ISBN 978-90-8790-052-6 hardback ISBN 978-90-8790-049-6 paperback Volume 6 FUTURE OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC RESEARCH UNIVERSITY R. L. Geiger, C. L. Colbeck, R. L. Williams, and C. K. Anderson (eds.) ISBN 978-90-8790-048-9 hardback ISBN 978-90-8790-047-2 paperback

Volume 7 TRADITION AND TRANSITION The International Imperative in Higher Education Philip G. Altbach ISBN 978-90-8790-054-4 hardback ISBN 978-90-8790-053-3 paperback Volume 8 THE PROFESSORIATE IN THE AGE OF GLOBALIZATION Nelly P. Stromquist ISBN 978-90-8790-084-7 hardback ISBN 978-90-8790-083-0 paperback Volume 9 HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEMS Conceptual Frameworks, Comparative Perspectives, Empirical Findings Ulrich Teichler ISBN 978-90-8790-138-7 hardback ISBN 978-90-8790-137-0 paperback Volume 10 HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE NEW CENTURY: GLOBAL CHALLENGES AND INNOVATIVE IDEAS Philip G. Altbach and Patti McGill Peterson (eds.) ISBN 978-90-8790-199-8 hardback ISBN 978-90-8790-198-1 paperback Volume 11 THE DYNAMICS OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CIRCULATION IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT Hans de Wit, Pawan Agarwal, Mohsen Elmahdy Said, Molatlhegi T. Sehoole, and Muhammad Sirozi (eds.) ISBN 978-90-8790-258-2 hardback ISBN 978-90-8790-259-9 paperback