Tony Blair Discusses Globalization & the Future of Higher Ed

Tony Blair may no longer be making news as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, but his life post-politics has continued all the same. Mr. Blair has been teaching at Yale University here in the United States and contemplating the relationship between globalization and higher education. On Sunday, BBC News covered an interview with Mr. Blair on that topic.

Columbia Global Centers promotes and supports the engagement of the university world-wide, so we were obviously excited to hear Mr. Blair optimistically speak about emerging trends in higher education. Throughout the interview, he makes it clear that globalization will impact universities and already has. He argues, “It is now up to institutions of higher education to engage directly on these issues - not only their students, but current world leaders in politics, finance, and international diplomacy, along with the general public.”

He sees a more open and equal future where university content is available online for free and universities of developing nations in South America, Asia, and Africa improve the quality of their education, gaining prestige and influence amongst Western academic peers.

The world he describes is different from the world today, but not hard to imagine. As countries rise in economic influence, it is only natural to expect a similar transition for their universities. Beyond that natural rise, prominent, established universities like Columbia can and do reach out, build long-term relationships, and generate a new international dialog. If Mr. Blair is correct (and it appears that he is), we can all look forward to an exciting and enriching future for Columbia University and higher education world-wide.

------

Topics discussed in the interview:

OpenYale- Yale University’s catalog of coursework and lectures offered free to the general public.

Technologico de Monterrey (Mexico) - Mr. Blair frequently referenced this university for its international engagement and its focus on increasing access to its courses online.

The Tony Blair Faith Foundation’s Faith and Globalization Initiative – The Foundation’s “international network of leading universities exploring the relationship between faith and globalization and highlighting the implications to the wider world.”

Review of “The Great Brain Race: How Global Universities are Reshaping the World” (Princeton University Press, 2010)

In The Great Brain Race, Ben Wildavsky, senior fellow at the Kauffman Foundation, guest scholar at the Brookings Institution, and former US News & World Report education editor, delivers a comprehensive overview of the globalization of academia.

Beginning with an introduction of the phenomenon and an outline of his basic project, Wildavsky dives into an examination of international student movement, the expansion of universities into a transnational context, and the development of competitive, world-class universities around the world. Key factors at work in this examination are the sheer number of students studying abroad, the dynamic globalization models of universities such as NYU and regions such as Qatar’s Education City, and the impressive rise of top-notch universities in non-traditional locales ranging from China, to India, South Korea, Singapore, and Saudi Arabia.

Wildavsky then turns to the global spread of university ranking systems, from the well-known US News & World Report, to up-and-comers like the Academic Ranking of World Universities, a research-focused publication by Shanghai Jiaotong University, and the arguably UK-centric Times Higher Education. Following the exploration of these metrics, he then assesses the rise of for-profit and online education facilities, which carry the benefits of providing readily accessible, career-oriented learning options, but suffer from questions regarding the quality of their educational services and their positive or negative impacts on the education systems around them.

While The Great Brain Race does an excellent job of examining the various angles at work in academic globalization, and while it provides many interesting facts regarding this ongoing movement, readers may find the book to be lacking as far as a core argument or motivational purpose. The introduction and final chapter of the book take a stab at establishing this sort of motivating theme, where Wildavsky discusses his worries about the obstacles facing academic globalization, and his support of its many benefits, which he stylizes as being part of a positive-sum “free trade in minds”. Despite this attempt, and in large part due to the dynamic nature and incredible breadth of his project, the book falls somewhat short of introducing a unique premise, and may instead be highlighted for its strengths as a broad-based survey and referential resource to better understand the globalization of the academic field.

Job Opening: Director for Europe (Loc: Paris)

Columbia University
Office of International Relations
Director

Reporting to the Office of Global Centers in New York, the Director is responsible for leading the Columbia Global Center for Europe, located in Paris.

Responsibilities: 

1. Establish a vibrant academic Center in Europe and link that Center's programs to Columbia University's network of global centers around the world. 
2. Strategically communicate to Columbia faculty and administrators the activities and services offered by the Center and effectively build teaching and research programs that advance the core mission of the University. 
3. Work closely with academic colleagues and institutions across Europe, and reach out to Europe's policy and business communities. 
4. Maintain and enforce the Center's identity standards including editorial and visual guidelines.
5. Work closely with the Vice President of Global Centers to set policies, assist with strategic planning.
6. Work closely with the Director of Administration in New York to ensure Center compliance with all the financial, legal, tax policies and rules. 
7. Work on fundraising in close collaboration with the Office of Alumni and Development. 
8. Manage the strategic direction of the Center's website. 
9. Is responsible for the financial management of the Center. 
10. Supervise administrative and program staff. 
11. Other duties and projects as assigned.  

Bachelor's degree required. Seven years' related experience required.  

Prior experience living and/or working in Europe. Fluency in English, and at least one other major European language. Five years experience at a senior level in academic administration, program development and financial management, preferably in Europe. Proven entrepreneurial talents and achievement in an institution-building setting. Superior interpersonal skills with proven ability to successfully interact and collaborate with varied constituencies in a professional manner. Excellent written and oral communication skills, demonstrating tact and diplomacy working with a wide variety of personalities. Must be a team player and innovative self-starter. Willing to accept multiple year commitment in Paris, France.  

For a full job announcement and to apply, please visit our web site: jobs.columbia.edu/applicants/Central?quickFind=117757

Columbia University is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer.

President Bollinger Discusses His New Book on a Free Press for a Shrinking World

Click on the link above to hear from President Bollinger on his ideas about global society, free press and the University's global agenda.

Does America have American-style education?

In these dreary economic times where unemployment and underemployment make daily headlines along with seemingly unsolvable quagmires in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, more and more literature is predicting the eventual and perhaps already apace economic and political descent of the American global juggernaut. The American dream that impelled countless immigrants to depart their homelands in the pursuit of a freer, richer, and more just lifestyle is becoming harder and more cumbersome to attain. Education, specifically higher education, is now widely acknowledged as a prerequisite to enter the gates of the middle class. American universities, despite billions in losses from the ongoing recession, remain extraordinarily prominent in international rankings and in the minds of students and parents from Cairo, Egypt to Canton, China.

An American-style education is a highly sought-after commodity – as demonstrated by the recent explosion of overseas campuses in the Middle East and Singapore that publicly tout their American-style curriculum, faculty, facilities, classroom environment, and modes of operation. However, scant discussion is paid toward exploring the exact and perhaps inexact definition of an American-style university.

In other words, what is an American-style university and why is it so popular around the world?
Modern scholars often describe an American-style education as liberal, pluralistic, conducive to differences of opinion, and student-centered – all of which allows pupils to develop not only complex critical thinking skills but a spirit of innovation, entrepreneurship, and bottomless confidence and aptitude in writing, reading, and speaking the language of instruction. An American-style education regularly operates in English but may be adopted in non-English speaking societies if administrators recognize the merits of implementation (Ghabra and Arnold, 2007).

The esteemed reputation of the American-style university cannot be disentangled from the international brand of universities such as Harvard, Princeton, and Yale – otherwise known as the “Big Three.” Consistently perching atop international university rankings, America’s elite institutions of higher education have produced several generations of world leaders in a multitude of professions. These rankings have a near-obsessive following in developing nations and contribute to the glamour and prestige of an American-style university. From Beijing to Beirut, American-style campuses are dotting the educational landscape and attempting to recreate culturally-differentiated conceptions of an American-style education.

If an American-style education may fluctuate according to cultural idiosyncrasies, perhaps the glorified notion of an American education is more idealistic than realistic. Take this country for example: American classrooms are far from universally student-centered and proficient in generating solid readers, writers, and speakers of English. Classrooms in many inner-city communities are less breeding grounds for tolerance than laboratories for discrimination, prejudice, and marginalization. With a newfound focus on standardization and quantitative measurements of student achievement, memorization and repetitive exercises take precedence over creative writing and exploratory brainstorming. Therefore, the essence of an American-style university is regrettably absent from many American classrooms and campuses today.

Historically, the oldest and most prestigious American universities served only the white, male, Protestant elite who came from families of dignity and notable lineage. Pluralistic was certainty not a word used to characterize universities in the 1800s or early 1900s. Moreover, students at Harvard, Princeton, and Yale in the 19th century and into the early years of the 20th century were far from academically ambitious and sufficiently challenged. Students at the time concentrated their energies not on hitting the books and libraries but on hitting the football field and maneuvering to enter the most coveted final clubs, eating clubs, and senior societies (Karabel, 2005). Since students spent minimal time studying and were preoccupied with extracurricular activities, the college experience at the most selective institutions remarkably contrasts with the rigorous, student-centered notion of an American education today.

Given the immense changes that have occurred within American higher education, no consistent conception of American-style education exists. From the two-year community college to the elite corridors of the Ivy League, American colleges and universities employ a multitude of teaching strategies and operate in such diverse environments that preclude simplistic generalizations. Indeed, the next time an American-style university opens around the world, one ought to question its methodological origins instead of blindly accepting claims of American-style authenticity, which frequently escapes easy description, even in America.

References:

1. Ghabra, Shafeeq., Arnold, Margreet (2007). Studying the American Way: An Assessment of American-Style Higher Education in Arab Countries. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Policy Focus #71.

2. Karabel, Jerome. (2005). The Chosen: the Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Chinese Higher Education

August 8th, 2008 at 8:08pm marked not only the start of the Beijing Olympics, it heralded a new era of prosperity, openness, and entrepreneurial drive that had begun in 1978 under Premier Deng’s open-door policies. Since the decision to welcome foreign investment and shift China’s economy from a centrally planned apparatus to a more market-oriented one, the international community has closely observed the seemingly limitless potential that the world’s most populous nation has to offer. Although the G-8, WTO, and other influential organizations often concentrate on China’s manufacturing prowess and sizable market for just about all types of products and services, the under-reported strength of Beijing’s now three-decade long economic surge is predicated on concerted government efforts to overhaul and invigorate the system of higher education that once, in centuries past, was the envy of the world.

From its Confucian-rooted curriculum to its current emphasis on decentralization and internationalization, Chinese higher education has undergone considerable changes. From 1978 to 1992, educational authorities enacted and encouraged policies that sent students, faculty, and visiting scholars to Western nations, in particular the United States, for advanced studies and in-depth research. Scholars and faculty members from predominately Western nations were also invited to teach and conduct research in China. The objective of this period was to absorb as much as possible from more advanced, industrialized nations in the fields of science, technology, information systems, management, engineering, and other more quantitative-based disciplines (Huang, 2003).

From 1993 to the present, the State Education Commission, now referred to as the Ministry of Education, began adopting policies to compel overseas Chinese students, scholars, and professionals to return to the mainland. Officials touted the need to nurture domestic businesses, industries, and talent to compete with the industrialized world (Huang, 2003). Efforts were also made to internationalize the curricula by forming partnerships with foreign institutions and by promoting China as an attractive destination for undergraduate and graduate education. The internationalization of higher education in China is an integral part of Beijing’s desire to elevate the world rankings and reputation of its universities.

In 1993, a central government initiative entitled Project 211 aimed to provide vigorous financial and political support to the nation’s top 100 higher education institutions. Once that list was conceived, those universities were expected to spearhead the nation and eventually the world in groundbreaking research and advancement in an assortment of disciplines (Agelasto and Adamson, 1998). Today, premier Chinese universities such as Tsinghua University and East China Normal University are actively engaged not only in strengthening their capacity for research and effective pedagogy as it relates to teaching and learning, but in establishing partnerships with American universities such as Columbia.

Columbia University shares a long and distinguished history with China. As the home of countless former and current Chinese scholars and educators, Columbia University, and in particular, the renowned philosopher and educator John Dewey, had and continues to have an impact on the development of contemporary Chinese society.

The recently signed Memorandum of Understanding between East China Normal University and Columbia University’s Teachers College in 2009 illustrates the sustainability of the Chinese-Columbia connection. For instance, this past summer, 30 aspiring middle and high school teachers from East China Normal University were sent to Teachers College to participate in the first annual “Taste of Teaching” program that provided students with an opportunity to broaden their knowledge of what it means to teach and learn from a comparative perspective. The program included school visits, faculty lectures, and cultural excursions that were designed to widen the educational lens of the next generation of Chinese educators.

The recent collaboration between Teachers College and East China Normal University coincides with China’s push to internationalize its universities in more ways than one. From the increasing adoption of English-based textbooks to the active recruitment of foreign faculty and students, elite Chinese universities, with the unyielding support of a nation that places immeasurable value on higher education, have begun the climb to, once again, position themselves among the very best of higher education providers.


References:


1. Huang, Futao (2003). Policy and Practice of the Internationalization of Higher Education in China. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(3), 225-240.

2. Agelasto, Michael., Adamson, Bob. (1998). Higher Education in Post-Mao China. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Models of Internationalization

Every day more and more colleges and universities talk about becoming “global” or “international”? But why is this taking place? And what does this really mean? The impact of globalization on higher education is often overlooked, but globalization pervades university development at both a programmatic and structural level. It affects not only how and what they teach, but their alumni bases, research capacities, and donor targets.

Universities began to explore ways of becoming more international in the 1990s. In response to substantial state and federal budget cuts, many institutions began to examine alternative revenue sources for meeting escalating operating costs and rising enrollments (Coleman, 2003).

On the heels of American business, a sector that had already established a regular international presence in manufacturing and worldwide sales, several colleges and universities embarked on the diversification and internationalization of their campuses through increased student/faculty exchanges, international student recruitment, institutional partnerships and collaborations, along with the creation of offshore degree-granting programs.

From the widespread expansion of study abroad destinations on contemporary American campuses to the aggressive recruitment of international faculty and students, American educational institutions appear to be intent on framing themselves as major players in the international game.

In addition to inviting and sending visiting delegations and scholars around the globe, universities are adjusting their missions and curricula to adapt to the changing educational landscape (Coleman, 2003).

Branch Campuses?

Although most of America’s 4,000-plus institutions of higher learning don’t have intentions of opening up campuses abroad, a number of American, British, Canadian, and Australian universities have eagerly embraced the branch campus model of expansion (Chronicle of Higher Education, 9/14/2009).

From Dubai to Singapore and from Qatar to Tokyo, American universities have, in the last few decades, been active in signing agreements with universities, corporations, and organizations committed to placing the stamp of American educational prestige on their soil.

Although the practice of scholars and students crossing borders to obtain higher levels of training and education is certainly not new, the influx of American branch campuses in the Middle East, Singapore, China, and Japan is unprecedented in the history of higher education.

There are currently 78 degree-granting branch campuses in various regions of the world–the majority in China and Qatar (Chronicle of Higher Education, 9/14/2009). Branch campuses are normally funded in part or in full by host governments or organizations trying to strengthen and supply the domestic higher education market with brand-name American institutions.

For instance, in Education City in Qatar, the government has agreed to completely underwrite the costs of construction, faculty salaries, and other operational expenses to lure the likes of Carnegie Mellon, Georgetown, and Cornell Medical School to establish degree programs in their country. In Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates, NYU’s recent declaration to establish a degree-granting campus in 2010 is an unequivocal indicator of the future direction of like-minded universities (Chronicle of Higher Education, 3/28/2008).

Columbia as well as a few other universities (Harvard and Chicago have similar programs) has pursued a different sort of model from the one discussed above. It created global “centers” instead of degree granting programs. The Centers still extend the Columbia brand, but instead serve as intellectual platforms to facilitate the advancement and integration of student, faculty, and alumni research, collaboration, innovation, and intercultural awareness.

Now this is a newer model that Columbia is pioneering – but it seems to be sufficiently managing reputational risk while simultaneously strengthening its brand abroad. By fall of next year, Columbia will have four locations: Beijing, Amman, Mumbai and Paris. The plan is for each of them to interconnect and create a global network. Will this project work? I guess the answer is: hopefully, but its strength will lie in its ability to recalibrate its expectations for itself and its interactions with the international community.

It is an interesting concept -- the idea that that a university can transplant itself and recreate itself thousands of miles from its home base. Is it like McDonalds, where franchises can just pop up all over the world, or is there something more complex about extending one’s intellectual and reputational resources? These are all things to think about as universities begin to define what it is they mean when they say they are “internationalized”. But whether erecting a branch campus in the Middle East or making study abroad a compulsory element of the undergraduate experience, the internationalization of higher education, in all its diverse forms, will continue to be a critical component of the mission statements of America’s higher education institutions.


References:

1. Coleman, David (2003). Quality Assurance in Transnational
Education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(4), 354-378.

2. Chronicle of Higher Education, 3/28/2008.

3. Chronicle of Higher Education, 9/14/2009.