575 publications from this institution
The 70th year of the IAU has been marked not only by the Covid-19 pandemic but by the geopolitical tension between the United States and China. After almost four decades of cooperation, which began in shared opposition to Soviet Russia and a shared interest in...
Early expectations after the emergence of the Internet in 1990 that globalization would weaken the role of nation states, leading to a cosmopolitan super-space, have been disappointed. Communicative globalization in higher education since the beginnings of the Internet in 1990 has been associated with extensive intersubjective networking and cooperation between institutions, the mobility of ideas and people, and the integration of science on a worldwide basis within a single system, but has not created a shared space based on respect for the other, cultural diversity and mutual learning. The chapter reviews three overlapping aspects of globalization in higher education: (1) neoliberal models of national regulation and international education, (2) Anglo-American linguistic and cultural hegemony in the organization of knowledge, and (3) global practices embodying White Supremacy. These suggest that the neo-imperial Anglo-American global project has been more successful in higher education than in most other social sectors but is now under challenge.
<i>The Dream Is Over</i> tells the extraordinary story of the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education in California, created by visionary University of California President Clark Kerr and his contemporaries. The Master Plan's equality of opportunity policy brought college within reach of millions of American families for the first time and fashioned the world's leading system of public research universities. The California idea became the leading model for higher education across the world and has had great influence in the rapid growth of universities in China and East Asia. Yet, remarkably, the political conditions supporting the California idea in California itself have evaporated. Universal access is faltering, public tuition is rising, the great research universities face new challenges, and educational participation in California, once the national leader, lags far behind. Can the social values embodied in Kerr's vision be renewed? "<i>The Dream Is Over</i> is an outstanding contribution to the literature on higher education. It should be read not only by a large American audience of scholars, teachers, students, and policy makers, but also by a wider international audience interested in higher education, its successes, its shortcomings, and the policies that have driven both." JUDITH C. BROWN, Dean of the College of Arts and Humanities, Minerva, and former Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost at Wesleyan "<i>The Dream is Over</i> is a tour de force by Simon Marginson, whose scholarship is essential for understanding the role of higher education in society today. Through an archeology of the "Californian idea," Marginson analyzes the intellectual and political work that established the Master Plan and the University of California as the city of intellect. He shows how the California model influenced the design of higher education around the world and identifies the forces that have brought it to the brink of ruin. Marginson convincingly argues that higher education in the United States now contributes to the reproduction of social inequality but also provides practical suggestions for how to re-charter the pact between higher education and society." DR. BRENDAN CANTWELL, Michigan State University and Coordinating Editor of <i>Higher Education</i> SIMON MARGINSON is Professor of International Higher Education at the Institute of Education, University College London, and Director of the ESRC/HEFCE Centre for Global Higher Education. He is also joint editor of the journal <i>Higher Education</i>.
The paper critically reviews the concept of 'global flows', beginning with the discussions of flows and networks in Appadurai (1996 Appadurai, A. 1996. Modernity at large: cultural dimensions of globalisation, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. [Google Scholar]), Castells (2000 Castells, M. 2000. The rise of the network society, Oxford: Blackwell. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) and Held et al. (1999 Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. and Perraton, J. 1999. Global transformations: politics, economics and culture, Stanford: Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar]). Emphasising the need to embed 'global flows' in agency and history, and to explore global connectedness in terms of situated cases, the paper develops an analytical framework for analysing global flows in higher education. It then applies that framework in an examination of global 'scapes', impacts, transformations, situatedness and relations of power in two national universities, research leaders in their nations but located in contrasting nations: Universitas Indnesia and the Australian National University.
No abstract is provided for this article.
‘Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. The existence of a free market does not of course eliminate the need for government. On the contrary, government is essential both as a forum for determining the ‘rules of the game’ and as an umpire to interpret and enforce the rules decided on. What the market does is reduce greatly the range of issues that must be decided through political means, and thereby to minimise the extent to which government need participate.’Milton Friedman, Capitalism and freedom, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1962, p. 15.
The first and most fundamental role of the university is and has always been that of teaching, for the various purposes of transmission of knowledge and values, person formation and occupational preparation and certification. At times the teaching mission has been...
No abstract is provided for this article.
The paper explores the dynamics of competition in higher education. National competition and global competition are distinct, but feed into each other. Hig
This research investigates the impact of international education on the mission and priorities, finances and financial systems, organizational cultures, facilities and services, academic organization and the character of education in Australian universities. The research team conducted interviews with senior executives, administrators and academic managers at three universities: Melbourne, Ballarat and South Australia. The main findings were (1) all three institutions were worried about their high and growing dependence on international student fees, (2) the question of whether a net surplus was generated (i.e. net of all the costs related to international students) was uncertain and not possible to answer conclusively, (3) in relation to international education revenues, spending priorities generally favoured buildings, facilities and services ahead of academic capacity building, and general staff numbers over teaching numbers. The most positive finding was the major increase in the quantity and quality of student services triggered by internationalisation. The most disappointing finding was that despite the great organizational importance given to international education and its impact on total growth, it had generated very little in the way of additional research capacity. The most favourable outcomes here were in the business faculties where a minor part of the revenues were used to attract more research-capable staff.
No abstract is provided for this article.
Reviewed by: Higher Education and the Market ed. by Roger Brown Simon Marginson Higher Education and the Market. Roger Brown (Ed.). 2011. New York: Routledge. 235 pp. Hardback ISBN: 978-0-415-99168-1 ($135.00). Paperback ISBN: 978-0-415-99169-8 ($44.95). In summer 2002, a posse of distinguished American social scientists gathered in Tampa, Florida, to discuss “the market” in higher education. The meeting, funded by the Ford Foundation and held at a five-and-a-half-star resort painted in pink that made it look like a pre-Pixar Disney idea of a medieval Austrian castle, was convened by Berkeley political scientist David Kirp. Kirp was preparing Shakespeare, Einstein, and the Bottom Line: The Marketing of Higher Education, an engaging book that was published by Harvard University Press the following year. It was an energetic discussion among people mostly convinced that the university market was one of the next big things in social research. Whether the focus would be on the market as a new business frontier or the market as a threat to the university we know and love was unclear. What was clear was that the scholars at Tampa were trying to feel their way into the issue, sussing out its nuances and traps. They were positioning themselves adroitly somewhere in the middle of the coming new conversation—hunting for a way to say, more cleverly than anyone else, exactly what everyone else was going to think. Unconscious of the irony (for most saw themselves as active critics of markets), these scholars imagined the discussion about the higher education market as itself another competitive market in which each scholar was pitching for market share and, above all, prestige. In other words, it was standard academic behavior, installed by the long career lesson in the way competition works in higher education and drummed in by the technologies of selection for academic positions, journals, and grants. The way to play the market is to imitate everyone else but do it better. It was a sign of how the market as a “social imaginary” (to borrow Charles Taylor’s term) is deeply entrenched in American higher education, among critical social scientists along with the rest. The idea of American higher education as a market is dominant despite the fact that the sector has little in common with a textbook economic market. For example, it includes extensive public research funding and elite institutions that maintain long-term market dominance and are forever protected from challenges from below, and many of its decision makers seem to be more motivated by factors like politics and cultural prestige than by supply and demand signals. When Kirp’s book was published, it was apparent that like most others he could see no alternative to the social imaginary of higher education as a market, despite his own belief that this had placed the life of the mind in jeopardy. The discussion is different in Europe, where the nation-state is an overt presence in higher education and the neo-liberal agenda is often contested. Roger Brown’s chapters in Higher Education and the Market are animated by the belief that market reform can be reformed, “rebalanced” to head off the pathologies of competition while utilizing its strengths. As the back of the book says: [End Page 297] Contributors propose how market forces, government intervention and academic self-regulation can be combined to harness the benefits of increased competition and efficiency without losing the public good. Wouldn’t that be grand—if we could have our public good cake and let the market eat it too? But rather than reading intellectual fashions, Brown is focused on policy. He writes from the UK higher education system in which, at the beginning of 2012, the cost of tuition tripled, public subsidies in the humanities and social sciences were stopped, and the state created two quasi-market competitions at the top and bottom of the higher education hierarchy: a competition for prestige and a competition for student numbers. His edited book sets out to reassert rational economics and social values inside mainstream government. The argument goes like this: The advocates of markets say competition provides incentives...
‘The desire of bettering our condition … comes with us from the womb, and never leaves us till we go into the grave.’Adam Smith, The wealth of nations, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1776/1979, p. 441.
No abstract is provided for this article.
No abstract is provided for this article.
No abstract is provided for this article.
