Covering all aspects of higher learning

Academic bigwigs exchange ideas in the hope of bringing reforms that will prepare the global education sector for the challenges ahead.
INTERNATIONALISATION: what does it actually imply for higher education institutions, and what does it mean to be a university in the 21st century?
This was a key point explored at the 5th Going Global conference held in Hong Kong between March 11 to 13 this year.
Organised by the British Council and themed “World Education: The new powerhouse”, the international education conference saw over 1,000 delegates from 68 countries.
For the first time, the conference was hosted outside the United Kingdom (UK); a move that seemed to reflect the nature of the event as well as the current global economy.
A toast to all: Conference delegates and guests mingling during the opening reception.
In contrast to budget cuts in the UK, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China chief executive Sir Donald Tsang Yam-Kuen announced that the government will continue making education its biggest spending priority.
“In April, Hong Kong will spend HK$54bil (RM20.9bil) on education - almost a quarter of the city’s total recurrent expenditure,” he said in his opening address.
With proposed education reforms such as moving from a three to four-year undergraduate degree, and 20 per cent of its students non-locals, Sir Donald explained that the higher education sector in Hong Kong was set for greaterer heights.
UK Minister of State for Universities and Science Rt Hon David Willetts spoke on the mobility of students.
“We are working very hard to encourage more flows abroad as well as of course the students coming to Britain,” he said.
Willets also assured that changes in fees for UK students and visa requirements for overseas students did not hamper his government’s commitment in “encouraging foreign students to come to study in our universities and colleges.”
Analysing global education
The conference also saw a preview into the British Council’s Education Market Intelligence (EMI) initiative, which aimed to offer universities and policy makers an unbiased and accurate view of the higher education landscape.
Among the areas covered by EMI research were student mobility, country profiles, and student insights on their decision-making process. According to British Council China’s education marketing director Jazreel Goh, full EMI reports would be publicly available in May.
“There are 80 institutions involved so far, and we are in the midst of branching out its (EMI’s) scope.
“Users will be able to download the reports on the information gathered via an online portal, which will also feature forums and feedback abilty,” said Goh.
One finding presented at the session was the “global gauge”, which measures how ready countries are in internationalising their higher education sectors.
Germany was rated the most prepared, followed by Australia, the UK, China, Malaysi and the United States (US).
Prosperous start: Sir Donald painting the eye of a “lion” to mark the official opening of the conference in Hong Kong. Looking on is British Council chief executive Martin Davidson (centre).
British Council Hong Kong’s Education Market Intelligence and Research manager Dr Janet Ilieva explained indicators used to measure country performance included openness, quality assurance and degree recognition, as well as access and equity.
“Each of these requires analysing on a variety of information.
“For instance, to measure openness, we looked at visa restrictions and liberty given to offshore campuses, while to measure access to education, outbound scholarships and brain drain issues were factored in,” she said
Dr Illieva conceded that a shortcoming of the gauge was it could not definitely ascertain the real-world effectiveness of country’s higher education framework.
“What government says and what it actually does are two different things,” she said.
“But the full scope of the project, which includes real student feedback, will be truly valuable in two to five years, because that’s how long it takes to really appreciate the macroeconomic effects of internationalisation in higher education.”
Building relationships
“Don’t marry the first girl you dance with ... you need to build trust before embarking on the adventure of joint-collaboration.”
This was Glasgow Metropolitan College, UK, assistant principal Sandra Gunn’s advice to higher education institutions seeking to forge ties with overseas partners.
Addressing participants of the session “Building international partnerships with real impact for industry – insights from the creative industries”, Gunn shared two international projects carried out by her college.
One of these involved a collboration with the South Indian Jewellery Federation in India.
“The federation is now looking at catering to a rising young domestic market as well as breaking beyond the Indian market – but their design teams are not yet prepared for this change,” explained Gunn.
The college intends to support this change by carrying out workshops for Indian jewellers on the design process.
“They (Indian jewellery workers) have strong craftsmanship skills, so that’s an area that will be of value to our students and staff.
“What we can share is our knowledge of working with new materials and coming up with modern designs, as well as marketing training for sales personnel,” said Gunn.
Offering a more personal insight was Prof Anna Fox, who is currently a professor of photography with the University for the Creative Arts, UK.
Detailing a postgraduate student exchange between the UK and India, Prof Fox emphasised the need to consider the finer details of facilitating cultural exchanges.
“I had to heavily edit the student blog on the project. My students were rightly honest about their experiences, but some posts were offensive if not viewed in the full context.
“Never assume the impact of culture shock on students going into a different environment,” she said.
The intricacies of international ties in higher education was also a topic of dicussion at the session on “What is the real impact of transnational education?”
LCCI International Qualifications Asia chief operating officer Mark Disney warned that while endeavours in transnational education can be rewarding, “if wrongly implemented, you can cause serious damage to your institution and waste resources in the process.”
Responding to comments on Malaysia’s aspirations to be a regional education hub, Higher Education Minstry deputy director-general (private higher education institutions) Prof Datin Dr Siti Hamisah Tapsir explained that the Malaysian experience in transnational education was almost “accidental”.
“It was a bottom-up experience, due to the demand of students and ingenuity of higher education providers,” she said.
Prof Siti Hamisah added that while Malaysia was actively wooing foreign universities to its shores, the government wanted to ensure that these universities were “serious about commitment.”
Delegates mesmerised by a traditional “mask changing” dance performance during the opening reception of the conference.
Ranking quality
“I’m a ranker and I’m proud of it,” declared Times Higher Education (THE), UK, deputy editor and THE World University Rankings editor Phil Baty.
“Rankings can be misleading and sometimes are not able to measure intangible things, but they can be a positive force, especially for those who need clearer information on the globalisation of higher education – governments, investors, parents and students.”
The panel of well-known university rankers and senior academics made “International world rankings – where do you stand” one of the liveliest sessions at the conference.
Quacquarelli Symonds (QS), UK, vice-president (strategic planning and marketing) John Molony stated while rankings may simplify information, students were now adept at utilising this data.
“It is not only about the quality of the production of rankings, but also about understanding the information and applying that wisely,” he said.
While Baty and Molony articulated passionate arguments for university rankings, it was unfortunate that they spent more time lauding the advantadges of their respective ranking systems and exchanging thinly-veiled attacks.
Dismissing the rankers’ presentations as “advertorials”, University College London, UK, president and provost Prof Malcolm Grant noted that academics should not “sleepwalk into a commercial version of our affairs” and be “seduced by the spotlight of international rankings”.
He also pointed out the inherent problems of rankings, such as applying weightings to intangible indicators and the limited significance of drawing meaning from numbers alone.
Universiti Sains Malaysia vice-chancellor Tan Sri Prof Dzulkifli Abdul Razak had a more conceptual reason for his disdain of rankings.
“Rankings ignore the complexity of the world and its concerns.
“They tend to have a narrowly defined idea of quality; when you say something is ‘world-class’, whose world are you referring to?”
“Also, universities tend to shift their priorities in direct opposition to reality — what if a university’s focus is on increasing access to education for female students instead of commercialising research?” he asked.
Mediating both sides of the debate was University of Hong Kong’s Academic Planning and Quality Assurance senior coordinator Dr Kevin Downing, who acknowledged the flaws of ranking data.
Dr Downing’s conclusion however, was pragmatic.
“It’s about helping students and families make informed choices ... World university rankings are just like fleas, vice-chancellors and in-laws; we don’t always like them, but we need them.”
The role of a university
Criticisms over assuming a standardised model for higher education institutions also arose in the session on “Asian insitutions at the global crossroads”.
While the forum promised to examine the notion of a world-class university in Asian and Western models, National University of Singapore vice-president (university and global relations) Prof Lily Wong dismissed the entire idea of “East vs West”.
“There is no such thing as ‘one’ Asia,” she said.
“While some Asian institutions may share characteristics such as having a one-chance national exam or promoting accelerated research, many others do not fall into neat categories.”
She also questioned what the “Western model” was: “Is it in reference to the education landscape of the United States or that of Europe or Australia?”
Addressing the role of English as the global lingua franca, Dr Christopher Brown, founding director of the International College at Zayed University, United Arab Emirates (UAE), proposed an increased recognition of other languages.
“There is a real concern in the UAE about the loss of Arabic languages, bur our priority is to empower students, and this means equipping them with English speaking skills.
“Perhaps the real way forward is to embrace true multilingualism the way countries such as Hong Kong and Singapore have done,” he said.
Meanwhile panelists at the forum on “Philanthropy in higher education” were more concerned with the practical issue of funding excellence at their institutions.
As the forum chair, University of Bristol, UK, vice-chancellor Prof Eric Thomas, explained, successful fundraising meant that students could benefit from an education that they could not otherwise afford.
“Among the merits of this (fundraising) is being able to put your own foot on the accelerator instead of being constrained by student numbers and government grants,” he said.
A hot topic that arose during the question -and-answer portion of the session dealt with the effectiveness of utilising an institution’s alumni network to garner funds.
University of Hong Kong vice-chancelloer Prof Lap-Chee Tsui pondered whether Asians were culturally ready to give back to their former universities, while revealing an interesting statistic - 52% of alumni donors to the University of Hong Kong were under the age of 30.