We've been puzzled for decades by those who complain about the state of American education. Sure, you can point to students who underperform and yet are graduated. And that's only one theme of criticism. But we've always felt that it was unfair to be comparing the underperforming or average student of, say, 2010, with the average college student or high achieving student of, say, 1950. Instead, how do today's top students compare to those of yesteryear; and how many of today's students would never even have been able to matriculate in 1950?

Philip G. Atlbach writes (PDF), in the current issue of International Higher Education, about the inevitability of inequality that derives from increasing access. It's worth a read for perspective's sake:

The reality of postsecondary education, in an era of access combined with fiscal constraint and ever-increasing costs, is that inequality within higher education systems is here to stay. Most countries have or are creating differentiated systems of higher education that will include different kinds of institutions serving specific needs. This process is inevitable and largely positive. However, the research universities at the top of any system tend to serve an elite clientele and have high status, while institutions lower in the hierarchy cater to students who cannot compete for the limited seats at the top. Major and growing differences exist in funding, quality, and facilities within systems. Given financial and staffing constraints, institutional inequalities will continue. Students will come from more diverse backgrounds and in many ways will be more difficult to serve effectively.

All of these issues constitute a deep contradiction for 21st-century higher education. As access expands, inequalities within the higher education system also grow. Conditions of study for many students deteriorate. More of them fail to obtain degrees. The economic benefits assumed to accrue to persons with a postsecondary qualification probably decline for many. Access remains an important goal—and an inevitable goal—of higher education everywhere, but it creates many challenges.

We, as Americans, like to put decisions off as long as possible ... it's a strength ... it's a surprise to most experts that the desire to study in the US, for undergraduates, continues to grow worldwide ... relatively few American students study for a degree overseas.

Abroad, yes, but not for a degree. This is a very brief portion of an interview. Interesting but not deep.

This very interesting post at "BlogU" brings to light many of the issues and questions that we've been hearing about at SCUP events and via SCUP communications. It specifically looks at what some institutional associations are doing to collaborate in gaining and sharing expertise in internationalization. As might be expected, the author quotes SCUPer Ann Duin Hill as someone with much related expertise. Her comment to the author was about shared infrastructure development, something that is focused on during the latter half of the post:

[W]hy should universities establish their own IT systems in global higher education hubs when they could collaborate much more closely and reduce costs? Or why should universities from one country work on an individual basis to establish foreign presence via leased space in select city-regions when they could collaborate, via an associational or inter-associational relations, and build a purpose built structure?

After the following paragraph, the author raises a long list of questions to be answered: This list is probably worth accessing and keeping on hand or in your mind.

These associations, and their cousins in other countries and regions, have shown themselves to be adroit and supportive on an increasing number of levels despite constrained resources. This said, it seems to me that there is a growing disjuncture between well-intended associations of universities and the defacto (and often not expressed) needs of their membership bases, especially with respect to the deep internationalization agenda. Members are grappling (or not, which should be a concern!) with complex challenges and topics like: (See the article for the list of 12 itemized questions.)

He recognizes the good work of such groups as the APLU and CIC, but says that much more is needed:

Associations of universities are obvious candidates to build up the capacity of their members but they too are seeing enhanced obligations and mission creep as the denationalization process unfolds. Such associations are also grappling with fiscal constraints for they tend to reply upon membership fees as a main if not majority source of revenue. Thus there is an emerging disjuncture - universities have more on their plate, while associations have more on their plate, but the membership fee revenue foundation has intractable constraints and structural contradictions associated with it.

To access this full article, you may need a subscription or a day pass to The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Saudi Arabia intends to go from 860,000 college students right now, to 1,700,000 ... in four years! We forecast the need for some darned experienced planners, and a need for that planning to be done in an integrated way.

[It's] a gargantuan task. Creating better-skilled, employable Saudi university graduates, says Mr. Partrick, involves reforming the entire educational system, restructuring the country's labor market, and encouraging a "cultural shift in terms of attitudes toward work—what Saudis will do—and education—what it's appropriate to teach to Saudi children."

All that will have to take place at the same time that increasing numbers of young Saudis pursue higher education. "As we are expanding access," says Mr. Al-Ohali, "there is a lot of emphasis not to lose quality."

Perhaps because the Carnegie classifications created compatible categories of universities and colleges across the United States (and facilitated student transfers between institutions), American academics don't realize how programs and institutions are far from streamlined elsewhere, even within a single country. Americans sometimes make the parochial assumption that other people know the Carnegie system. They don't. I have seen European colleagues look blankly at American applicants' references to things like GPA and "graduate credits" ... .

The level of dependence on the state is another difference: In much of the world, universities are all public institutions. Students are accustomed to paying trivially low fees (even at elite institutions like the Sorbonne) and receiving a government stipend while they study. That helps explain the extended time to degree in some countries and the difference in student attitudes in Europe compared with the United States.

Depending on how large their stipends are, students attend the nearest university to their homes and commute, or they move out of their parents' houses into shared apartments and live on the student dole. But the idea that going to a university should cost a student (or a student's family) a significant amount of money faces entrenched resistance in Europe.

The BPP University College of Professional Studies, just created this week, is the first privately run university college in Britain in 30+ years and only the second in its history. A for-profit provider has been given the name and the institution. More.

So in steps the private sector, which can at least take those who can afford its significantly higher prices. BPP focuses on providing bankable qualifications such as law, accounting and business (the name refers to the initials of the three accountants who set it up). Students studying accounting at its business school in London, as well as those engaged in distance learning, reckon that its pricey courses are generally regarded by employers as being of higher quality than those in many public-sector universities.

BPP also competes in the lucrative market for postgraduate education. This is unregulated, so state-funded universities charge hefty fees for masters degrees and then use the money to help subsidise their loss-making undergraduate provision. BPP has no need for such cross-subsidies, so it can spend almost all of what postgraduate students pay on teaching them.

Stephen J. Troop and Nell Gross argue that Canadian higher education is both in a better space and structured more appropriately to thrive instead of just survive the current economic conditions.

Some inevitable belt-tightening aside, Canadian policy makers at the federal and provincial levels are working hard to spare colleges and universities, preserving as much money as possible for research and operating expenditures and keeping tuition costs affordable. The reason? They recognize that a strong higher education system is key to long-term economic competitiveness and a successful society. If the United States doesn’t act soon to shore up its higher education sector, its loss will quickly become Canada’s — and other countries’ — gain.

That American colleges and universities have been hit hard by the economic crisis is clear. Private institutions saw the value of their endowments plummet. Public colleges and universities have fared far worse. The State of California, struggling under a $20 billion budget deficit, cut higher education funding by 6.8 percent in 2009-10, furloughing faculty and staff in both the University of California and California State University systems, reducing the number of slots for entering students, and raising tuition dramatically. Budget shortfalls in New York, New Jersey, Arizona, Florida and elsewhere have likewise meant millions of dollars in campus cutbacks.

Federal stimulus money helped cushion these blows, and an expansion of the Pell Grant program, opposed by many Republicans, has provided some relief to students. But the stimulus money is nearly spent, and with the recovery stalled out, American higher education seems destined for more pain in the years to come.

"Based on what they say today, what will future leaders do differently from today's CEOs?"

That's the question to be answered by IBM's large Global Student Study. The full report can be downloaded from the link below. Reports on the study say that the most important difference is that college students foresee a future of dwindling resources with growing demands, and that they understand sustainability to be a global issue.

Only 29% of CEOs think that scarcity of resources will be affect businesses in the future, while 65% of students do. Students also expect far more influence in related areas from the development of emerging economies.

Sadly for senior managers, the student study reveals a big discrepancy between these future leaders' view of the world and that of present CEOs. Indeed, twice as many students as CEOs say that "globalization" and "environmental issues," as they converge, will have a significant impact on organizations of the future. In particular, those students who believe that economic power is shifting from developed to emerging economies are much more likely to expect a major impact of sustainability issues.

These future leaders view sustainability as a globally-interconnected phenomenon. For them, the rapid growth in emerging nations like India and China and continued high consumption in developed countries will soon deplete natural resources like water and energy, creating global resource scarcity. Interestingly, while 65% of students believe that scarcity of resources will significantly impact organizations in coming years, only 29% of current CEOs believe so. In North America, students are three times as likely as CEOs to believe this.

Click this title, Inheriting A Complex World: Future Leaders Envision Sharing the Planet, to visit the original resource.

Philip Altbach is noted in this Chronicle of Higher Education article for saying that Manipal's uniqueness is that its plans essentially make large-scale globalization of higher education into a different animal, broadening the current circumstances where the US and the UK rule basically everything. It is something new - an institution "born in a developing country and focusing on students in other developing nations."

Manipal studies potential markets carefully. Places with a large South Asian population get close consideration since families are likely to have heard of the university. The company also wants to enter markets with a growing, aspirational middle class. Mr. Sudarshan says he is focusing now on emerging markets in Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Africa.

Finally, Manipal's officials look for places where there is a demand for Manipal's core expertise: medicine and engineering.

"It is not risky for us; it is taking advantage of our capability," says Mr. Sudarshan of the company's expansionist strategy.

 Click on the title, A New Kind of Global University, to access the resource described above.