Research & Occasional Paper Series: CSHE.12.14 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY http://cshe.berkeley.edu/ CLARK KERR AND THE CALIFORNIAN MODEL OF HIGHER EDUCATION November 2014 Simon Marginson Institute of Education, University of London ABSTRACT Copyright 2014 Simon Marginson and CSHE, all rights reserved. Fifty years on, Clark Kerr’s multiversity and the Californian Master Plan for Higher Education stand as signal high points in the building of not just great public institutions but high participation modern human society. Key features of the Californian Model have become a universal template for research universities and system design. Seminal ideas and practices of higher education developed by Clark Kerr, Martin Trow, Burton Clark and others continue to colonize the thinking of policy makers, scientists, scholars, students and citizens, with profound effects not just in the United States but in every country. Yet the Californian Model of higher education - which long appeared everywhere else to be ahead of its time – was also specific to its own time and place. The conditions in which it was born, and which nurtured its flourishing, have changed. This is the first of three Clark Kerr Lectures on the Role of Higher Education in Society by Simon Marginson and organized and hosted by the Center for Studies in Higher Education with the generous support of the UC Office of the President and the Carnegie Corporation and delivered on September 30, 2014 at the David Brower Center, Berkeley. Previous Kerr Lecturers include Harold Shapiro, Charles Vest, Donald Kennedy, Hanna Holborn Gray, and Neil Smelser. Keywords: California Higher Education Model, Clark Kerr, Martin Trow, Bob Clark This lecture series is a settling challenge to those invited to participate. It invites us to consider our words with more than the usual care, to summon whatever it is, if anything, that might be distinctive in what we say, and to synthesize and conclude our thought about higher education, a large enterprise populated by intelligent people of almost every description. Yet I accepted without hesitation. I had always liked very much the Uses of the University and saw Clark Kerr as an admirable man. The modern system and institution builders, those who created higher education in the thirty years after World War 2, deserve all our respect. That generation includes my father, Raymond Marginson, the principal executive administrator at the University of Melbourne for more than two decades, still alive and active in university meetings at the age of almost 91. We work within the halls that were built by that generation, first in their minds and then in the world. Clark Kerr was the foremost of the builders. For better knowledge of Clark Kerr and his works, I thank the scholars I have read in recent months, especially John Douglass, Sheldon Rothblatt, and Kerr himself. I begin by discussing the man in terms of the work. First the 1960 Master Plan, the embodiment of what might be called the Californian Model of Higher Education. Second, the 1963 Godkin lectures. Then I move to two other scholars from the University of California, who like Kerr brought Californian thinking to the whole higher education world: Martin Trow and Burton Clark, or Bob Clark as his colleagues call him. I did not meet Kerr but met Trow and knew Clark. Each produced one work that is constantly read and cited. Then I will open the apparent paradox that lurks at the back of all three lectures. The Californian Model, or different versions and aspects of it, has swept across America and the world, becoming installed—at least in the idea—as the modern higher education system norm, in which access and excellence are both secured through diverse provision. The ‘excellence’ component—Kerr’s Multiversity, the large comprehensive science university—is closely imitated in many countries. Yet in California the Californian Model has faltered and the Multiversity is travelling less well. It now seems too difficult to provide access and excellence on a common public basis. The conditions and drivers that sustained the 1960s Model have changed. The Model has changed less. Perhaps that is part of the problem. I will close by pointing the way to Lecture 2.
No abstract is provided for this article.
A growing number of students cross national borders for their studies. An expanding global market in higher education has been created. Yet significant gaps exist in the governance of international students' rights. As well as being educational service beneficiaries, cross-border students are migrants, workers, consumers and human beings. A broader view of students, as individuals deserving of ‘social and economic security’, is superior to that which treats them as social protection subjects. Recognizing this multiple status, and utilizing in-depth data from 200 interviews with international students in Australia, the article finds that the existing social protection regime falls significantly short of recognizing students' rights. Problems are located in relation to language acquisition, social integration, finances, work and personal safety. The article argues that, as well as law and policy, a student security regime should incorporate better university practices and more integrated civil society networks and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and intergovernmental organization (IGO) coverage.
This chapter discusses three examples that are particularly relevant for reflecting on the future of globalisation in higher education. It first examines the future potential of the policy developments within Europe, after which it takes a critical look on global institutional rankings and cross-border faculty mobility worldwide.
"Global University Rankings: Some Potentials" published on 01 Jan 2009 by Brill.
‘Competition has got a bad name in education circles in recent years, but competition is itself a good thing. Moreover, competition is a fact of life. We live in a highly competitive environment, whether we like it or not. School education should help children to learn to cope with competition, it should teach them how to succeed, how to cope with occasional failure. It is futile and cowardly and ultimately self-defeating for schools to attempt to abolish competition … We all know that the Japanese school system is highly competitive and we all know that this can produce stresses for students. But our own system has become far too uncompetitive so that bright students are not challenged.’‘Our education: nothing short of disaster’, editorial in The Australian, 6 January 1988.
The paper reviews higher education and university-based research in the Asia-Pacific, focusing principally on the ”Confucian” systems of Japan, Korea, China, Hong Kong China, Taiwan and Singapore. These systems exhibit or have exhibited a special developmental dynamism-one still playing out in all systems except Japan-and created a distinctive model of higher education provision. The Confucian Model is rapidly pluralizing global power in higher education because in some respects it works more effectively than system designs in North America, the English-speaking world and Europe. The model rests on (1) a tendency to universal participation in tertiary education partly financed by high and growing levels of household funding of tuition, sustained by the private duty to invest in education in the context of social competition mediated by examinations; (2) accelerated public investment in research and ”world-class” universities, and (3) strong nation-state shaping of priorities and behaviours. The Model has downsides, e.g., in relation to social equity in participation, and the tendency to top-down governmental interference in university autonomy and academic creativity. But together with economic growth in the context of low tax regimes, the Confucian Model enables these systems to move forward-rapidly and simultaneously-in relation to each and all the goals of mass tertiary participation, university quality, and both the quantity and quality and science-based research in higher education.
The number of non-EU students entering UK higher education has fallen for the first time for many year, especially students from South Asia. The UK government is under pressure from the neo-nationalist UK independence Party to reduce all forms of migration and international education has been caught by this.
Globalization is the tendency towards convergence and integration on the world scale (Held, et al., 1999). All research universities are now immersed in processes of globalization. This is directly apparent in the power of the global research system in local affairs. The drive to publish in journals with international standing is now universal to the science disciplines in research universities. Another global system is apparent in the impact of university comparisons and rankings on the local and national status of universities. A comparative survey by Ellen Hazelkorn (2008) for the OECD showed that comparative rankings and research output metrics have been quickly adopted in the visions, performance measurement systems and policy goals of both national governments and institutions. Furthermore, they enter the funding decisions of corporations and donors, and affect student choices. Globalization is also apparent in the growing mobility of students and faculty (Enders and De Weert, 2009). In this regard, between 2000 and 2007 the number of cross-border students increased by 59%, an annual rate of 7%, reaching a total three million a year (OECD, 2009, p. 312). Doctoral student mobility and the short-term movement of faculty are also growing although the trend in long–term academic migration is less clear (Marginson, 2009). Policy borrowing and the partial convergence in policy frameworks and organizational templates, albeit with national and local rhythms and variations (King, 2009), are other forms of globalization in higher education.
Free Massive Open Online Courseware—MOOC—is less than a year old but it is already clear this will be the game changer in higher education worldwide. Right now, it is reverberating through the world's universities like a tectonic shock.
The internationalization of Vietnamese tertiary education has always been closely shaped by the historical, economic and political circumstances of the nation.
Regional tendencies in higher education are increasingly important, for example the common rise of North-East Asian universities in China, Hong Kong SAR, T
Since 1990, a large and dynamic global science system has evolved, based on grass roots collaboration, and resting on the resources, infrastructure and per
Since 1990, there has been a major growth in and diversification of science worldwide, and of cross-border collaboration between scientists. Many lower middle-income countries now have their own science systems and one quarter of all papers have international co-authors. Science combines the networked open global science system, characterized by bottom-up cooperation between researchers, with bordered national science systems which shape activity through the provision of resources and the regulation of scientific institutions. The global and national systems overlap but have differing dynamics. This chapter discusses the character of each kind of science system, noting that countries vary in the extent to which they expand national networks compared to their participation in global networks.
