International Education Index comparative perspective from 21 countries. Janet Ilieva, PhD EDUCATION INTELLIGENCE

Transcription

1 International Education Index comparative perspective from 21 countries Janet Ilieva, PhD

2 Background Rapid growth in participation in tertiary education across the world, in the number of students pursuing higher education abroad and in the cross-border education activities Rapid changes in national policies with regard to higher education and countries legislative frameworks with regard to cross-border activities Growth in income, access to information technologies, more relaxed immigration regimes on the movement of people and services have allowed increased number of students and academics to benefit from increased mobility No framework to measure and compare international education activities across countries

3 The Bigger Picture Research carried out with the Economist Intelligence Unit International education was approached at three levels: national policies with regard to internationalisation of domestic higher education (HE) internationalisation of teaching and research at tertiary level, including institution to institution collaboration in all its forms internationalisation of student mobility at tertiary level inward and outward mobility This presentation will focus on the National Policies aspect of International Education.

4 Research Outline National Policies 1. Aim and scope of the research: to create an index that captures the readiness of education systems and the degree of international education activity and collaboration between different countries 2. Pilot index feasibility in 11 countries 3. Additional case studies were developed based on: selected Gulf states countries in SE Asia 4. Implications of the respective policies were also studied

5 International Education Index Pilot Sample 11 countries mix of leading importers and exporters of international higher education (IHE), different geographies and different level of economic development. Australia Japan Brazil China Germany India Malaysia Nigeria Russia UK USA

6 Additional Regions work in progress South East Asia Hong Kong Malaysia South Korea Indonesia Thailand Japan Singapore Vietnam Gulf states UAE Saudi Arabia Qatar Europe France Germany The Netherlands UK

7 Structure of the International Education Index Openness Strategy, Visa & migration, Environment for institutions Quality assurance and degree recognition Cross border quality assurance and accreditation, Recognition of overseas qualifications, Entry standards and quality of provision Access and Equity Promotion of outbound mobility, Promotion of inbound mobility, Sustainable development policies

8 Scoring System Each indicator has between 3 & 5 scoring criteria 33 criteria in form of objective questions 29 qualitative and 4 quantitative criteria From both an importer and exporter perspective Qualitative criteria Yes, No, Partly Quantitative criteria 6 scoring bands

9 The Scoring Technique No. Scoring Criteria Weight Overall national policy score Openness to cross-border education Strategy, Visa & migration, Environment for institutions Quality assurance and accreditation Cross border quality assurance and accreditation Recognition of overseas qualifications Entry standards and quality of provision Access and equity Promotion of outbound mobility, Promotion of inbound mobility, Sustainable development policies

10 1. Openness The openness to cross-border education describes country's commitment to promoting the internationalisation of its higher education system. It considers the ambitiousness of a country's internationalisation strategy; its visa and migration policies for students and scholars; and its environment for overseas and domestic institutions' cross-border operations. a) Ambitiousness of the Internationalisation strategy b) Visa and immigration policies c) Environment for institutions

11 Work in progress additional countries Openness Score/10 1 France 8.8 Openness (continued) Score/10 11 Japan UK Australia Netherland Germany Hong Kong Malaysia South Korea US Thailand China Singapore 5.7 =14 Indonesia 5.0 =14 Nigeria Vietnam UAE Russia India Brazil 3.2

12 Some observations European countries, alongside Australia, score the highest in this category, followed by countries in South-East Asia, where Hong Kong, closely followed by Malaysia, have the highest scores Institutions in Germany do not charge tuition fees (same in France) and can not set up entities overseas. Germany scores 10 out of 10 on almost all other indicators France has the best visa and migration policies Hong Kong and Malaysia score the highest in South East Asia in terms of regulatory environment for institutions; however academic tenures in Malaysia are confined to nationals only. The Gulf as a group have lowest scores (Qatar and Saudi Arabia) Saudi Arabia scores low in terms of Internationalisation Strategy and Visa policies, however it has relatively good environment for institutions Qatar scores high on regulatory environment for foreign institutions, however there is limited guidance/information, which is publicly accessible

13 Implications for inbound student mobility Positive relationship between openness policy score & inbound students Correlation coefficient = 0.57

14 Implications for international research collaborations Strong positive relationship between internationalisation strategy policy score and proportion of peer reviewed academic articles written with overseas co-authors Correlation coefficient = 0.74

15 2. Quality assurance and degree recognition Quality assurance and degree recognition considers the strength of national monitoring and enforcement of quality standards in cross-border provision; the robustness of mechanisms to recognise international degrees; and the policies in place to ensure entry and teaching standards are maintained in education provision at home and abroad. In summary, those are: Cross border quality assurance and accreditation Recognition of international qualifications Entry standards and quality of provision

16 Work in progress Quality Assurance and Accreditation Score/10 1 Australia Germany UK 8.3 =4 Hong Kong 7.2 =4 Netherland France China 5.6 =8 Indonesia 5.0 =8 Malaysia 5.0 =8 US 5.0 Quality Assurance and Accreditation Score/10 11 Russia South Korea 3.9 =13 Thailand 3.3 =13 UAE 3.3 =15 Nigeria 2.8 =15 Singapore 2.8 =17 India 2.2 =17 Japan Saudi Arab Brazil 1.1

17 Some observations Huge variations across countries (from 9.4 for Australia to 0 for Qatar) Australia and Germany come top in this category Australia is ahead of most countries mainly because of monitoring and regulation of foreign providers The above is more spread in SE Asia - Hong Kong, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand (also France and UAE) France and Hong Kong get top marks for cross-border quality assurance and accreditation Countries overall have better procedures for recognising foreign degrees (except Qatar and Vietnam) Hong Kong emerges as the country with best quality assurance and degree recognition policies in South East Asia and UAE is ahead of the other countries in the Gulf region Countries with more export-led activities place greater emphasis on quality of entry and teaching standards for foreign students

18 Implications for academic collaboration There is a strong positive relationship between quality assurance and recognition policy score and proportion of peer reviewed academic articles written with overseas co-authors Correlation coefficient = 0.67

19 3. Access and Equity Assesses the extent to which countries encourage student and academic mobility across borders while seeking to ensure access for all. It considers the support countries offer to outbound and inbound domestic students and scholars, and policies to encourage those from low-income background and countries to study and home and abroad. It also considers countries policies to limit "brain-drain. In summary: Promotion of outbound mobility Promotion of inbound mobility Sustainable development policies (policy with regard to avoidance of brain drain, wider participation agendas, capacity building abroad)

20 Work in progress Access and equity Score/10 1 Germany 8.1 Access and equity Score/10 11 Malaysia China 7.2 =3 Netherland 6.6 =3 South Korea 6.6 =5 Australia 6.2 =5 Brazil France Indonesia Thailand Japan 5.3 =12 Russia 5.0 =12 Vietnam US India UK Nigeria Hong Kong Qatar Singapore 2.8

21 Some observations Germany maintains the lead in this category. Emerging markets place great emphasis on increasing access to domestic students and more sensitive to addressing brain drain issues Several export countries doing little to promote outbound mobility (Australia, UK and US) Only Australia, India, Malaysia and Nigeria have policy to prevent displacement of local students Thailand has the highest % of state funded international students (40%), followed by Brazil (22.3%) and Saudi Arabia (15.3%) Saudi Arabia has one of the most generous scholarship programmes for home students to study abroad (81.6%), followed by Thailand (60%) and Germany (59%)

22 The Global Picture Work in Progress OVERALL Rank Score/10 1 Germany Australia Netherland UK France China Hong Kong 6.3 =8 Malaysia 6.0 =8 South Korea US 5.7 OVERALL Rank Score/10 11 Indonesia Thailand Japan Russia Nigeria Singapore 3.7 =17 Brazil 3.5 =17 India 3.5 =17 Vietnam UAE 3.2

23 Main Findings 1. Overall European countries, alongside Australia, score with most open higher education policies (partly explained with the European Higher Education Area) 2. Australia gets the highest score on quality assurance and degree recognition 3. Hong Kong, China, Malaysia and Thailand rank very in this section 4. Germany and France have most fair access and equity scores 5. France and UK rank highest for their internationalisation strategy and environment for institutions (domestic and foreign) 6. Emerging markets overall score high on fair access and sustainable development policies 7. One of the major weaknesses in the Gulf region is lack of information publicly accessible. Most data for this research was sourced through primary research. 8. Overall countries lack policies encouraging academic/researcher mobility

24 Find out more at: For further information on Report dedicated on South East Asia will be available in August 2011

25 Taking the Hurdle: Why Germany fared Well in This Exercise and Where We Need to Do Better Ulrich Grothus Deputy Secretary-General

26 DAAD: The Largest Academic Exchange Organization Worldwide A self-governing association of universities Funded mainly by the German government and the EU 106,000 individuals benefitted from DAAD support in international students and scholars Germans (in DAAD programs) Germans (in EU programs) Internationalization agency for German HEI HE Marketing Consortium GATE-Germany 2

27 A 42% Budget Increase in Five Years ,0 373,1 347, , , ,3 189,5 202,4 215,9 218,8 238,7 256,2 251,2 237,5 247,8 263,

28 Why? A strong tradition of international education and study abroad since the postwar era Internationalization as a motor and benchmark of domestic quality 2000: UMTS Investing Into the Future 2010: Bologna macht mobil (Mobilizing for/through Bologna) 4

29 Benchmark I: Openness Germany scores 5th: behind France, UK, Australia, Netherlands Universities in most German states don t charge tuition: Is that an indicator of closedness? German universities can and do set up entities overseas: but student numbers so far are much smaller than for UK or Australian universities: ~ 20,000. 5

30 German TNE Projects 6

31 The German Approach in TNE Small or no tuition at home: comparative cost for students Reputation highest in S & E: comparative cost for providers a collaborative approach joint ventures with foreign governments in Singapore, Jordan, Vietnam, Turkey German University in Cairo: private and sustainable (8,000 students) ~ 30 smaller projects, most of them financially viable few branch campuses / no franchising 7

32 Internationalization Strategies DAAD Action Programs (since 1996) Internationalization Strategy of the Federal Government (2007) Institutional strategies: Internationalization Audit run by Rectors Conference 8

33 Benchmark II: Quality Assurance and Recognition Germany scores 2nd (behind Australia) High quality reflected in close research cooperation Much progress in credit for study abroad and academic credentials Room for improvement: Recognition of professional qualifications: too little, too slow bill to speed up procedure now before Parliament Admission focuses to much on educational systems rather than individual attainment 9

34 Benchmark III: Access and Equity Germany ranks 1st. Balanced inbound and outbound mobility Strong supports system for international students and for mobile domestic students 10

35 International Students in Major Host Countries Source: OECD United States United Kingdom Australia Germany France 11

36 Total Study Abroad (% of Graduating Cohort / 3+ Years Degrees) Germans Americans Canadians Sources: Sozialerhebungen des Deutschen Studentenwerks, IIE Open Doors and DOE Statistics 12

37 Participation Rates in Study Abroad ( 1 quarter) Germans Americans

38 Access and Equity (continued) A dismal domestic record in access of first generation students to higher education But: a generous and portable student aid system Students with affluent backgrounds moderately over-represented in (multiple) study abroad Low tuition and good opportunities to work pull-factor for middle-income students from developing and emerging countries A strong commitment to development cooperation On brain drain / brain circulation: join us tomorrow Session on Research and Policies in Highly Skilled International Mobility 14

39 Our Objectives for ,000 + international students 50% international experience for Bachelor s and Master s recipients Make Germany a leading provider of top quality cross-border higher ed 15

40 Thank You for Your Attention! Questions and comments, please. Visit (international website) and (regional website for North America) Subscibe to our weekly newsletter at Visit our booth: Study in Germany Land of Ideas. Or write me: 16