Category: Podcast

  • “Anything Can Be Done With Anything”: Innovative Universities with Dara Melnyk

    “Anything Can Be Done With Anything”: Innovative Universities with Dara Melnyk

    There’s an old joke about innovation in higher education.  It goes like this:  How many universities does it take to screw in a lightbulb.  Change? 

    Maybe that’s a bit unfair, but it’s unquestionable that the sector isn’t famed for welcoming change, in particular radical change.  One particular aspect is what is called isomorphism – the tendency of all institutions to look the same because they are copying some “ideal” model university (think Harvard or Oxford); indeed, that institutions which don’t copy the model followed by “prestige” universities must ipso facto lack “quality”. 

    But innovation does happen.  It’s just not always widely noticed or celebrated.  But there is one regular webinar that is trying to change that, and that’s the Innovative Universities Global Webinar Series.  Based at Constructor University in Germany, it’s co-hosted by two fantastic higher education researchers.  One is Isak Frumin, who joined our podcast last year to talk about post-Soviet universities, and the other is today’s guest, Dara Melnyk.

    We invited Dara onto the show today to discuss what she and Isak have discovered about innovative universities over the course of their webinar series.  What are the catalysts for innovation in higher education?  What kinds of structures or leadership are required to sustain innovation?  Does the innovation process look different in different parts of the world?  I found this an absolutely delightful conversation, mainly because Dana’s job allows her to delve deeply int topics that I wish I could spend more time on myself, and this was a chance for me to live that life vicariously.  I hope you find her as insightful as I did.  And so without futher ado: over to Dara.

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.26 | “Anything Can Be Done With Anything”: Innovative Universities with Dara Melnyk 

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): Dara, how did the Innovative Universities Global Webinar come about? What was the motivation to create a platform specifically focused on institutional innovation in higher education?

    Dara Melnyk (DM): So, there were practical reasons—I’d say three of them—and one completely impractical reason.

    The first practical reason is that we truly believe innovative universities are important. They’re useful because they test new approaches, and when those approaches are successful, other universities adopt them. That’s how you upgrade higher education systems. It’s, I think, one of the most powerful—and also most ethical—mechanisms for institutional change, as compared to implementing strict policies.

    The second practical reason is tied to my work. I’ve been consulting and advising universities for the past decade, and it’s simply easier to talk about universities when you can use extreme cases. These cases make for good examples, and innovative universities really have to get that one thing at the core of their distinction exactly right. They can typically articulate what they do very clearly, which makes it efficient to learn from them. For example, a lot of universities practice PBL, but if you want to really understand how it works, it makes sense to go to the core—to McMaster University, Maastricht University, whichever you prefer.

    The last practical reason is that innovative universities often have to fight private battles with regulators. They’re constantly trying to bridge the gap between their vision and the realities of everyday practice, and that can get pretty isolating. So we thought it would be helpful to create a gallery of cases, where university leaders could speak about their ideas and challenges—and where others could learn from those stories and feel a bit better about their own practice.

    And finally, the impractical reason—I promised you one of those! Isak, my co-host, and I have this acute curiosity about higher education. Innovative universities intrigue us. They surprise us. They’re hopeful. And most importantly, they make us question what we believe about higher education.

    AU: How do you go about selecting cases? What is it that makes a university truly innovative? Is it technology, governance, pedagogy? And how long do you have to wait to know if it’s an innovation worth copying?

    DM: Okay, so there are two questions here. First, about selecting cases—I’d love to tell you that we have a long, strict list of criteria, that we run them through models or maybe Excel files or something like that. But truly, we just follow our gut feeling. If something gives us pause, it might do the same for the audience. That’s how we choose. Someone tells us about an institution, and we think, “Okay, this is interesting—how do they do it?” And that’s when we decide to feature it.

    Now, in terms of what makes a university innovative, we mostly focus on innovations that are constitutive, not auxiliary—meaning they’re absolutely necessary for that specific university model to function. We do also like looking into innovations in the operational model. But typically, we concentrate on innovations in the core—so, in teaching and learning—because that seems to be the very essence of the idea of the university.

    AU: In your experience, I’m wondering to what extent institutions innovate for—how can I put this—internal reasons, as opposed to external challenges. What kinds of external challenges or changes in the environment, I guess, force institutions to rethink their model? And how often is it those external forces that are decisive in making institutions take that turn toward innovation?

    DM: I feel it’s not that cut and dried. While universities do sometimes respond to external forces or challenges, they also just as often stand idly by—disallowing what’s happening. Not in the sense of ignoring it, but rather acknowledging it, addressing it, and then denying any responsibility for taking action. That happens just as frequently.

    What I think triggers innovation more reliably is what I would call inflection points—periods in history when norms start shifting, and people begin to question what they believe in and what is right. And while that’s happening, you can sneak in something truly unusual.

    The largest and longest inflection period we’ve seen was probably in the 1960s and 1970s, when a lot of things were changing. Gender norms and generational roles were being questioned, there was widespread discontent with U.S. foreign policy and levels of inequality, and in Europe there was a kind of religious rebellion. That’s how we ended up with, I think, almost half of the cases in our collection.

    And possibly, we are living through an inflection period now as well. We’re seeing technological shifts, a new political order—or, as The Economist recently and aptly put it, “disorder”—emerging, as well as climate wars. Institutions are responding to all of that, but they’re also enabled to respond, because no one is quite sure what the correct university model is right now. For a time, that uncertainty creates room to innovate. I think at some point, it will settle again—and innovating will become difficult.

    AU: It seems to me that innovations require a pretty careful mix of institutional structures, leadership styles, funding mechanisms—these could be internal or external. Is there any configuration that you think is more likely to support long-term change?

    DM: First of all, anything can be done with anything. We’ve seen the most fascinating cases of innovation happen under really severe constraints. But at the same time, there are factors that significantly contribute to innovation. I’d classify them as stories, leaders, and policy.

    Starting with stories: if a university community believes it must innovate—for whatever reason, whether to be a pathfinder, to show other universities the way, or to solve problems because it has a vision it’s trying to implement—then it keeps solving issues in order to make that vision real.

    When it comes to leaders, personal drive matters. And you actually need several people with that drive, because they’ll argue, they’ll compete, they’ll collaborate—and ultimately, they’ll move the university forward. No university leader is an island, to paraphrase John Donne. No team, no vision, no innovation, ultimately.

    And finally, policy. I think you’d agree there needs to be sufficient autonomy to experiment. It sounds like a basic statement—like something you hear in every second university president’s speech—but universities are often quite limited by licensing and accreditation regulations. And also by something I’d call self-arrest, borrowing from Antony Giddens: playing it safe just in case, keeping still, not rocking the boat.

    So autonomy is really important. I love the title of the book by Bartlett Giamatti about universities—The Free and Ordered Space. I’ve been obsessed with that phrase. It seems incredibly relevant to universities, because, well—there is no order if you don’t have freedom. Freedom is the basis of order for universities.

    AU: Dara, your series features universities from all over the world. I’ve been so impressed by the way you’ve been able to go to various corners of the globe. What’s your impression about how the approach to innovation differs regionally? So, is there a North American path to institutional innovation that’s different from what you see in Europe or Asia? Is it about philosophy? Is it about traditions? I mean, what are the differences you see globally?

    DM: I think it’s about problem fields. A problem field is a cluster of issues you have to navigate and somehow address—quote in your design—for sponsors to even consider investing, for students to consider coming, and so on.

    If I were to walk you through the regions—this is a really rough typology at the moment, but still—
    For Africa, the problem field is the trifecta of affordability, quality, and regional relevance. That last part is sometimes interpreted as decolonization, but I think it’s more than that.

    Asia is incredibly diverse, both economically and culturally. I’d say China seems especially concerned with identifying its own way and positioning universities as economic drivers—meaning actual partnerships between higher education institutions and industry. And in developing countries, I think it’s mostly about securing social mobility for students.

    Now, traveling to North America—we’ve only looked at the U.S. so far; Canada is pending—it’s also very much centered on affordability. But with the University of Austin—not to be confused with the University of Texas at Austin—we’re seeing a return to thinking about and experimenting with what a university should be in the first place. That sounds a bit like the 1960s to me. So, we’ll see what happens there.

    And finally, Europe is all about Europe—Europeanness. Its largest innovation, the European University Networks, is centered on that. And apart from this sense of Europeanness, there’s a lot of attention to innovative and experimental pedagogies, partly in response to demographic changes.

    AU: About a year ago, we had a guest on the show, Brian Rosenberg—you’ve probably read his book, Whatever It Is, I’m Against It. He painted a picture of American institutions as being very resistant to innovation, basically because there are too many points of veto within the institution. What are the biggest obstacles you see preventing universities from adopting innovative practices? Are you as pessimistic as Brian? How do you get around that tendency toward inertia?

    DM: I am definitely not as pessimistic as Brian—maybe because I don’t live in the U.S. I hope the land down below Canada won’t be offended by that!

    Now, talking about obstacles, there are both external and internal ones. Externally, they’re quite plentiful, but I think it boils down to a conflict between open and closed systems. A higher education system is either welcoming—in narrative and policy—to innovation, or it’s not. And the way to overcome that barrier usually involves promotion, and often lobbying, for the importance of innovative universities.

    According to our observations, successful, innovative universities are typically led by talented lobbyists. You have to be able to fight back—to be an actor, not just an agent, in the national conversation.

    Now, for internal obstacles, the biggest one is a lack of critical discussion about the organization. If people can’t voice issues or share ideas—because, for example, they’re afraid to—then nothing changes, and nothing will change. So, step one is to create a platform for that discussion. And step two is not just to invite people to share their opinions—or embolden them, if you can—but to actually carry the conversation through to real projects. Try something out. It may or may not work, but at least you’ve tried. And then you can try again. That’s how you become an innovative institution.

    AU: What’s the most innovative institution you’ve seen? I know you’ve done dozens of these around the world. What’s the one that really affected you the most—one that you thought was the most interesting to think about or to look at?

    DM: It doesn’t really work like that. We tend to get excited about every single institution we look at. The more attention you pay to one, the more fascinated you get. For me, it’s typically the last case—either the one we just covered or the one we’re about to cover.

    So, the case we just covered is Roskilde University in Denmark, which is a cousin of McMaster University. They’re just wonderful. They have their own proprietary methodology—problem-oriented project learning—and they keep introducing new innovations. If you look at the news page on their website, it’s not just updates about research outcomes and student results. It’s also things like, “We’re going to introduce this,” or “We’re thinking about that.”

    And the case we’re going to cover very soon, in a couple of days, is Tidelines Institute. It’s a micro-college. There’s a proper definition for that, but I like to define micro-colleges as institutions where everybody knows everybody.

    Tidelines is located in the Alaskan wilderness and sees itself almost as complementary to traditional higher education institutions. It’s not a disruptive institution—it’s a complement. It’s an addition. It offers experiential learning through short-term projects for students. They can come for six months or even just a couple of weeks and learn something amazing by doing.

    AU: So, based on all these conversations you’ve had, what are the big themes that you think might affect—for lack of a better word—the university of the future? Obviously, there’s not one university of the future; there are lots of different possibilities and roles for individual institutions to play. But are there specific themes emerging from your research that you think might become a more hegemonic—or dominant—blueprint for higher education in the coming decades?

    DM: Some things are clear. First, affordable university models will keep appearing—because everyone wants them to. For that, you might look at NewU University in Washington, DC. It’s a really brave and persistent case that I admire deeply. Or the African Leadership University, which Brian Rosenberg—whom you mentioned—is an advisor to.

    Second, universities will implement more technology. We all know it; everybody talks about it. I’d recommend looking at MEF, a Turkish university, to see what they’re doing. They’re quite systematic in implementing new technological solutions.

    Third—and almost as a mirror to that technological implementation—universities will also have to compete with online platforms. They have to offer something no one else does. I really like the idea of Forward College, which is an itinerant college in Europe. Students study in Lisbon for their first year, Paris for their second, and Berlin for their third. Forward College believes that relational pedagogy should lie at the core of education—the relationship between teacher and student as the driver for learning. I think that has its place, maybe even a central place, in universities. These are the spaces where generations meet, and that should be used and leveraged.

    That said, I want to make a slightly extended comment about innovation. I’m not sure if Isak would agree, but even though I research innovative universities, talk about them, and write about them, I don’t truly believe in innovations in higher education. I don’t think they’re possible.

    Lately, I’ve been reading and listening to things about ancient Greece and ancient Greek education—and also listening to Bastille, because for me, that’s connected. There’s a line in their song Pompeii: “But if you close your eyes, does it almost feel like nothing changed at all?” The more I learn about innovative higher education, the more I believe in two things: first, nothing will fundamentally change; and second, nothing should.

    On that first point—about the lack of fundamental change—most innovations are reimaginings. We keep reimagining ideas that have already been discussed, that have already been tried, throughout the couple of thousand years of higher education history.

    And on the second point—maybe that’s not such a bad thing. Maybe it’s something universities should retain. They are organizations that manage knowledge. They gain knowledge through research, they transmit it through education, and they apply it through technology transfer. The formats might change, but at their core, universities should remain the one type of organization responsible for the complete knowledge cycle. Everything else seems secondary to me.

    AU: Dara Melnyk , thanks so much for joining us today. And it just remains for me to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek—and you, our viewers, listeners, and readers—for joining us today. If you have any questions or concerns about today’s episode, or suggestions for future ones, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with us at podcast@higheredstrategy.com. Run—don’t walk—to our YouTube channel. Subscribe to it so you never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education. Join us next week when I’ll be joined by Nicolas Badré, the Chief Operating Officer of the Galileo Global Education Group. We’ll be talking about the rise of private higher education in Europe and the Galileo Group’s fascinating experiments with artificial intelligence in teaching and learning. Bye for now.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.

    This episode is sponsored by Studiosity. Student success, at scale – with an evidence-based ROI of 4.4x return for universities and colleges. Because Studiosity is AI for Learning — not corrections – to develop critical thinking, agency, and retention — empowering educators with learning insight. For future-ready graduates — and for future-ready institutions. Learn more at studiosity.com.

    Source link

  • Conversations on the Future and Impact of Small Colleges – Edu Alliance Journal

    Conversations on the Future and Impact of Small Colleges – Edu Alliance Journal

    Small colleges have long played a significant role in shaping American higher education. They may not make national headlines every day, but their impact on students, communities, and the broader landscape of learning is undeniable. That’s why Kent Barnds and I, Dean Hoke, created Small College America. Its mission is to present critical discussions at the forefront by interviewing small college higher education leaders, policy experts, and innovators. The podcast delves into the evolving role of small colleges, their economic impact, innovative strategies for sustainability, and how they can continue to provide a highly personalized educational experience.

    Each episode explores the distinctiveness of small colleges—through conversations with presidents, provosts, foundation leaders, and changemakers who are deeply engaged in the work of shaping the future. We focus on the real issues small colleges face—from enrollment shifts and financial pressures to mission clarity, leadership, and collaborative innovation.

    Why is now the perfect time for this podcast? Higher education faces unprecedented challenges, and small colleges, with their adaptability and personalized approaches, offer valuable lessons and innovative solutions critical to the broader education landscape.

    Our most recent episodes include:

    • Wendy Sherman Heckler and Chet Haskell – From Otterbein University and Antioch University, respectively these two leaders discuss their groundbreaking collaboration known as the Coalition for the Common Good. It’s a bold new model for partnership between mission-driven institutions focused on shared values and long-term sustainability.
    • Eric Lindberg—Executive Director of the Austin E. Knowlton Foundation in Cincinnati, Ohio, shares insights into the Foundation’s commitment to supporting small colleges, reflects on his own liberal arts experience, and outlines how strategic philanthropy can strengthen institutional resilience.
    • Dr. Paaige Turner, Provost and Executive Vice President at Aurora University discusses her transition into the role after serving as Dean at Ball State University. She brings a fresh perspective on leadership, regional relevance, and the evolving communication needs of today’s students.

    Upcoming Guests:

    We’re excited to welcome several new voices to the podcast in upcoming episodes:

    • Charles Kim, retired Managing Director at Kaufman Hall and former head of its Higher Education division, now serves on the boards of Augustana College and Westminster College.
    • Scott Wiegandt, Director of Athletics at Bellarmine University, who helped lead the university’s move from NCAA Division II to Division I.
    • Karin Fischer, senior writer for The Chronicle of Higher Education and author of the Latitudes newsletter, brings deep insight into the global and domestic challenges facing small colleges.
    • Steve Bahls, President Emeritus of Augustana College and national expert on shared governance, discusses how collaboration can lead to institutional agility and long-term success.
    • Matthew Ward, Vice President of Enrollment Management at California Lutheran University.
    • Liz Nino, Executive Director of International Enrollment at Augustana College.
    • Dr. Marco Clark, President of Holy Cross College at Notre Dame, Indiana.

    Whether you’re a small college president, a prospective student, an alum, or simply someone passionate about the future of higher education, we invite you to join us. Each episode of Small College America is a chance to learn, reflect, and engage with the people who are shaping this vital sector.

    Subscribe on your favorite podcast platform or listen directly at https://www.podpage.com/small-college-america/. We hope you’ll tune in. If there’s a story or college you think we should feature, let us know.

    Small colleges are changing higher education—be part of the conversation.

    Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy, and a Senior Fellow with the Sagamore Institute. He formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on small colleges’ challenges and opportunities. Dean, along with Kent Barnds, is a co-host for the podcast series Small College America. 

    Source link

  • The Learning Centred University with Steven Mintz

    The Learning Centred University with Steven Mintz

    Hi everyone, Tiffany and Sam here — your World of Higher Education podcast producers. While Alex is away in Japan, we’re here to introduce this week’s episode.

    In this interview, Alex speaks with Steven Mintz, a renowned scholar and postdoctoral researcher, and author of the book, “The Learning-Centered University: Making College a More Developmental, Transformational, and Equitable Experience” In the following conversation, Mintz discusses what makes a learning-centered university, the benefits of active learning over traditional lectures, and the practical challenges faced in implementing these changes. The discussion also delves into alternative scalable learning models, competency-based education, and the importance of holistic student support systems. Steven also reflects on his experience leading digital learning transformations and provides actionable steps for universities aiming to become learning-centered institutions. Have a listen.

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.25 | The Learning Centred University with Steven Mintz 

    Transcript

    Alex Usher: Steve, your book makes a pretty strong case for universities shifting from being to what you’d call teaching-centred to being learning-centred. What does that actually mean? In practice, what is a learning-centred university, and how is it different from a teaching-centred one?

    Steven Mintz: If you look at the statistics—even in discussion classes—about 80 percent of classroom time is spent with the instructor transmitting information. And while you can certainly learn from listening to lectures, you can learn a lot more if you’re actually engaged in inquiry, analysis, discussion, and the like. What we’ve done is turn teaching pretty much into a performance, as opposed to focusing on what we’re really interested in—which is learning.

    Alex Usher: So, to use a phrase that was popular about a decade ago—more “guide on the side,” less “sage on the stage”?

    Steven Mintz: I actually disagree with that statement. I believe a professor needs to be a learning architect—essentially, a learning engineer who figures out what students need to know and develops strategies to help them acquire that knowledge. So, it’s not quite as passive as “guide on the side.” A professor is not just a tutor; a professor is a designer of learning experiences—or at least, that’s what a professor ought to be.

    Alex Usher: We’ll come back to how we achieve that in a minute, but—it seemed to me, as I was reading the book, that a lot of what you’re arguing for, implicitly at least, is a lot more resource-intensive than what we’re doing now. You know, we’re talking about smaller classes, personalized instruction, that kind of thing. How do universities manage that? How can they achieve it when budgets are shrinking all the time?

    Steven Mintz: Right now, we essentially have two types of classes: lecture classes and discussion classes. But there are other kinds of classes—other kinds of learning experiences—that we know work, and that we haven’t tried as much as we ought to. We know that in creative writing and art, students take studio classes, where they get a lot of input and feedback from peers. That’s scalable. We have experience with game-designed learning. The most famous example is Reacting to the Past, where students take on roles as historical actors. That’s expandable, and we know it works. Field-based learning works. Service-learning works. So let’s not stay wedded to just two models. Let’s think about other ways we can help students learn.

    Alex Usher: The great thing about the two types of classes we have now is that they seem easier to scale than what you’re talking about. Doesn’t cost come into it somewhere?

    Steven Mintz: Well, let’s think about that for a moment. If we adopt a hybrid approach, where a large part of the class is online and the active learning takes place face-to-face, that’s a scalable model. I’ve created interactive courseware with my students that includes simulations, animations, all kinds of exciting inquiry-based activities, and embedded assessments. But I combine that with active learning in the in-person environment. So in other words, by dividing the delivery, I can double the number of students served.

    Alex Usher: Presumably one of the barriers to this—and you’ll know this from your time in administration—is that it requires faculty to really change their approach, right? I mean, they’ve grown up in the kind of system you described, with those two kinds of classes, and many of them have become comfortable teaching that way over the course of their careers.

    How do you get faculty to rethink those traditional teaching methods? How do you incentivize them to adopt new approaches?

    Steven Mintz: You know, it’s shocking that college professors are the only professionals who aren’t mandated to do professional development. The assumption is that in graduate school, you learned everything you needed to know—and if you didn’t learn it there, you picked it up as an undergraduate by watching others teach. But we know we need to move in a different direction. So the question is: how do we do that?

    First of all, there are always individuals who are pace-setters—innovators—and we need to give those people greater leeway to do what they want to do.

    Second, we need to figure out how to offer professional development in ways that faculty find welcoming and appealing.

    Third, we need to showcase success. We need to reward and incentivize faculty to try new and interesting things.

    Many faculty members already have tools at their disposal that could offer real insight. For example, I get a lot of statistical information from my learning management system about student engagement and where students are getting confused. I can use that data to improve my classes. But we’re not doing enough to make it easy for faculty to use those tools.

    Alex Usher: One of the learning-centred models that’s often pitched is competency-based education. And it’s interesting—you talk a fair bit about it in your book. It strikes me that CBE is relatively straightforward in fields like nursing. Western Governors University, for example, is well known for its CBE models in nursing and other professional areas. But you don’t tend to see it in fields like English, history, or philosophy.

    How do you see competency-based education being integrated into the humanities, social sciences, or even the pure sciences?

    Steven Mintz: There are a couple of different ways to think about competency-based education—and one of those ways, I think, is quite misleading.

    Many faculty members assume that CBE is synonymous with online or asynchronous education. But that’s not how I see it. I think of it as an approach where you first determine what literacies and skills you want students to acquire, then figure out how to instill and cultivate those skills, and finally, how to assess them to make sure students have actually mastered them.

    This shouldn’t be a radical idea. Medical schools have already adopted competency-based education, and that’s largely because many medical students don’t go to lectures anymore.

    They’re do-it-yourself learners—they’re among the best students we have in higher education—and they needed a different approach. Medical schools have found that CBE is a big part of the answer. You tell students what they need to know, you tell them the level at which they need to perform—and, amazingly, they do it.

    Alex Usher: Well, they do it—but even medicine is a bit more outcome-based than, say, history or philosophy, right? I’m curious about your thoughts on examples like Minerva—the Minerva Project—and the way they’ve been trying to apply competency-based approaches to higher education. Their model involves having evaluators watch classroom recordings and assess whether students are demonstrating things like critical thinking or communication skills during those smaller, active learning phases. What’s your take on what Minerva has done?

    Steven Mintz: I’m all in favor of critical thinking, but it’s a pretty abstract term. If I want a student to analyze a work of literature, I can be much more precise than simply saying, “I want them to think critically about the text.” I want them to understand how the author uses language and characterization, what themes are embedded in the work, what symbols are being used, and how the text might be viewed from multiple perspectives. For example, how would a feminist critic read the text? A Marxist critic? A postmodernist? A postcolonialist? These are more precise in my mind—and we can objectively assess whether a student can demonstrate those skills. That’s where “critical thinking” as a term strikes me as overly abstract.

    Alex Usher: So it’s really about figuring out how to operationalize concepts like critical thinking—on a discipline-by-discipline basis.

    Steven Mintz: Precisely. When I think about my own history students, what do I want them to know? I want them to understand historical methods—how to conduct research. I want them to think like historians. That means seeing processes that unfold over time, and recognizing that everything has a history. I want them to have a command of content—and we all know how to measure that. In other words, let’s be precise about the actual learning objectives we want students to meet, and then figure out the best ways to measure them.

    Alex Usher: Steven, you argue that student support structures are really important to a learning-centred university model, and that they need to be redesigned. So, what role does holistic student support play in improving student outcomes? And how is it different from the current student support systems that most institutions have?

    Steven Mintz: We have, right now, all kinds of information that can tell us when students are off track. We have all kinds of information that can tell us that some classes have very high rates of Ds and Fs and withdrawals. And we don’t use that information—which strikes me as absurd. Because why not act proactively to help students when they’re off track? Why not act aggressively when they’re confused about a topic? We can measure that.

    Now, the key is what are called formative assessments. These are low-stakes, frequent assessments that just try to figure out what a student knows and what they don’t know and these are not high-pressure. In my own class, I have students use their cell phones to respond to certain questions, because it helps me understand where they are. I can then judge whether they’re engaged or disengaged, and what I can do to help them learn better.

    Alex Usher: So, technology is often seen as both a solution and a challenge in higher education reform. You know, these days we talk about AI, we talk about adaptive learning, online education—how do each of these things play a role in making learning-centred approaches scalable, while ensuring at the same time that technology doesn’t simply become a, uh, you know, a cost-cutting substitute for quality education?

    Steven Mintz: You know, I believe the key to a successful education—to a great education—is a relationship-rich education. Relationships with faculty and relationships with classmates. But that doesn’t mean we can’t use technology. Let me give you a couple of examples that I use, that I developed with a team of students.

    One is a simulation: you are Christopher Columbus. You are going to sail to the New World and back using current wind and ocean currents. So for every student, it’s different. And what the students discover is you have to sail along the coast of Africa before you swing west towards Brazil. Then you go up the coast of South America to the Caribbean. And to get back, you have to sail northward along the Atlantic coast to New England. And then you curve over towards England. And then head south along the European coast. For students, it’s Flight Simulator 2025. It’s an opportunity to play a bit with history, and it’s fun.

    Another simulation I give my students is—every student gets a number of 18th-century gravestones on Cape Cod. Each student gets different ones, so there’s no cheating possible. And what they do is they figure out how long people lived, whether men lived shorter or longer than women, to what extent children were likely to die, how old people lived—and they also analyze the iconography on the gravestones.

    They learn a lot about naming patterns. They learn about life. And they learn about it not through lecture, but by doing.

    Alex Usher: Look, you were once in a position to drive large-scale digital learning transformation, right? You were the director of the University of Texas System’s Institute for Transformational Learning—which ultimately was shut down after a few years. But looking back, what lessons did you take from that experience? What does it reveal about the challenges of implementing large-scale academic reform?

    Steven Mintz: Well, the first thing you learn, of course, is that it’s very difficult to do top-down. You have to have buy-in at every level. You have to have buy-in from senior leadership at the campuses, you have to have buy-in from faculty members, and the like.

    You can provide resources, which can help with buy-in, but mainly you have to find a coalition of the willing. You have to find innovative people who will buy into a project and who want to see it through—who really share your interest in improving student learning and then finding a way to do it.

    So let me give you an example. We opened a new university in South Texas, in the lower Rio Grande Valley—which is among the poorest parts of the country and urgently in need of more healthcare professionals. So we designed, in conjunction with the faculty, a competency-based biomedical pathway that we called Middle School to Medical School. In that program, every course was aligned. The English class was the literature of pain and illness. The history class was the history of medicine and public health. The economics class was health economics. The sociology class was the sociology of health. The art history class was representations of the body. In other words, what we were trying to do was produce well-rounded professionals. And everyone had a stake in that—not just the physicists, not just the chemists, not just the biologists, not just the mathematicians. Everyone had a stake in these students’ success. And together, we figured out what a wraparound program ought to look like.

    Alex Usher: So, if a university wanted to truly commit to becoming a learning-centred institution, what’s the first step they should take? My second question—my last question—is: how would they know they were on the right track? What metrics, if any, would you use to declare victory? To say, “Yes, now we are a learning-centred institution.” How would you know?

    Steven Mintz: Reform requires one of two things. It either requires a sense of urgency, or it requires a sense of opportunity. Now, many campuses these days feel a sense of urgency. We are experiencing what’s called the enrollment cliff. Because of changing demographics, we have fewer college students. And so, institutions—to survive—need to increase their retention and graduation rates. That’s the simplest solution to their economic problems. But other institutions, and many faculty, want to make a name for themselves. And that’s the opportunity they have: by doing something innovative, they can build their reputation. And more power to them, I say. This benefits everyone.

    So, how do we know that we’re getting there? It’s easy.

    We need to do many more exit surveys of students. We need to do more focus groups with students. And we need to ask them: How’s it going? What’s your level of engagement? Do you feel a sense of belonging on your campus? Do you have rich relationships with your faculty members? And if the answers are yes, then you’re accomplishing your mission. And if the answers are no, then you know you’re not.

    Alex Usher: Steven, thanks so much for joining us today.

    Steven Mintz: You’re welcome. It’s my pleasure.

    Alex Usher: And it just remains for me to thank our excellent producers, Sam Pufek and Tiffany MacLennan, and you—our viewers, listeners, and readers—for joining us. If you have any comments or questions about this week’s episode, or suggestions for future episodes, please don’t hesitate to get in contact with us at podcast@higheredstrategy.com. Please join us on our YouTube channel. Subscribe so you never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education Podcast.

    Next week, our guest is going to be Dara Melnyk. She’s currently a consultant and the co-host of Constructor University’s Innovative Universities global webinar series. We’ll be talking about what it is that makes a truly innovative university. Bye for now.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.

    This episode is sponsored by Studiosity. Student success, at scale – with an evidence-based ROI of 4.4x return for universities and colleges. Because Studiosity is AI for Learning — not corrections – to develop critical thinking, agency, and retention — empowering educators with learning insight. For future-ready graduates — and for future-ready institutions. Learn more at studiosity.com.

    Source link

  • From Soviet Influence to Market Economy: Mongolia’s Higher Education Journey

    From Soviet Influence to Market Economy: Mongolia’s Higher Education Journey

    It’s been a while since we did an episode looking at the higher education system of a far-flung corner of the world. Recently I was perusing the pages of International Higher Education, a wonderful quarterly publication out of Boston College, and I saw a great little article about the challenges facing Mongolian higher education, and I knew this was something we had to cover on the podcast.

    Unless you spend a lot of time reading about the Chinggis Khan Empire, or in my case, watching the upper echelons of professional Sumo, my guess is you probably don’t think about Mongolia that often.

    As a state it’s only a little over a century old, a child of the disintegration of the Chinese empire, which found protection under the Soviet banner. Its fortunes, both as a country and as a higher education system, therefore, look a lot like those from the further flung stands of Central Asia — that is seriously under-resourced and heavily influenced by a Russian model, which splits teaching and research into two very different buckets.

    Today my guest is Dendev Badarch, a professor at the Mongolian University of Science and Technology in Ulan Bator, and one of the co-authors of that IHE article. He has an interesting take on the current situation in Mongolia and the likely keys to the system’s future success as the country moves towards upper-middle-income status and deals with the challenge of becoming a service economy.

    But enough for me. Let’s turn it over to Dendev. 

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.24 | From Soviet Influence to Market Economy: Mongolia’s Higher Education Journey 

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): Let’s start with a brief history of Mongolian higher education. You’re from the oldest university in the country, and the National University of Mongolia is only about 80 years old, founded in 1942, if I’m not mistaken. My guess is that, at the start, the system would have been heavily dependent on the Soviet model.

    How did higher education develop during the socialist period up to the late 1980s? Beyond training government cadres, what industries was it designed to support, and how quickly did Mongolian become the primary language of instruction?

    Badarch Dendev (BD): First of all, thank you very much for inviting me to this podcast. Yes, you are correct—the Mongolian higher education system was heavily influenced by the Soviet system. The first university, the National University of Mongolia, was established in 1942, and its curriculum, structure, and administration closely followed the Soviet model.

    To meet the needs of Mongolia’s planned economy, several small, specialized schools were established from the 1950s to the 1960s, including institutions for medical training, agriculture, teacher education, and polytechnic studies. These schools played a significant role in supplying specialists with the skills necessary to support the Mongolian economy.

    In its early years, instruction at the university was conducted in Russian. However, as more Mongolian specialists graduated with higher education degrees, Mongolian gradually became the primary language of instruction. By the 1960s, many courses—particularly in the social sciences and humanities—were being taught in Mongolian.

    AU: By the 1970s, Mongolia had a system that was producing professionals, and instruction was primarily in the Mongolian language. Then, at the end of the 1980s, there was a shift to a market economy, which must have had a profound impact on higher education. What were the biggest changes that occurred in that first decade of a market economy?

    BD:  The Democratic Revolution of 1989–1990 marked a historic transition in our country. We moved from a socialist one-party system to a multi-party democracy and a free-market economy. This shift led to significant changes in higher education.

    In response to the pressure from the new democratic system, the government, in my opinion, took three key steps.

    The first was significant changes to public institutions, reclassifying old public institutes as universities and giving them more authority. Mongolia faced economic difficulties at the time. Under socialism, higher education was fully funded by the government—covering tuition, student stipends, faculty salaries, and more. But after the transition to democracy, we faced a very difficult situation.

    Second, under socialism, all higher education institutions were public. With the reforms, the government allowed the establishment of private universities and colleges, which significantly increased access to higher education.

    The third major step was the adoption of Mongolia’s first higher education law. These three key steps taken by the government shaped Mongolia’s higher education system as it exists today.

    AU: What’s the division now between public and private higher education? In countries like China and Russia, maybe three-quarters of students are still in public universities, but there’s still a significant private or non-state sector that educates about a quarter of the students. Is that the case in Mongolia as well? How big is the private sector?

    BD: You see, when the government made the decision to establish private institutions, there was a boom—a surge of small private colleges that had no infrastructure, no proper teaching facilities, and not enough qualified faculty. At one point, there were almost 200 private colleges.

    But as of last year, the 2022–2023 academic year, we have 69 higher education institutions—19 public and 50 private.

    However, in terms of student numbers, 60 percent of students are in public universities—because of reputation, infrastructure, and other factors. In total, Mongolia has about 145,000 students.

    AU: My understanding is that both public and private institutions rely heavily on tuition fees, and that tuition fees are quite high. Is that good for financial sustainability, or does it create risks for institutions?

    BD: Tuition fees are not high, but universities and higher education institutions depend almost entirely on tuition. About 90 percent of their income comes from tuition. There is no public funding—except for some government subsidies for students.

    AU: So, in that situation, it’s not really a question of whether a high dependence on tuition is bad. If there’s no public subsidy, it’s simply the only way to operate, right?

    BD: Yes. Exactly.

    AU: Badarch, another critical function of universities is research. How does Mongolia compare internationally in terms of scientific research? What are the successes, and what are the biggest barriers to developing a stronger research culture?

    BD: You know, from the beginning, Mongolian universities were primarily training institutions, not research institutions. But in the last 10 years, there has been significant investment in higher education, especially in public universities. For the first time, university professors have started publishing internationally. In fact, the five largest public universities now produce 65% of all internationally published research papers. However, in Mongolia, higher education and research have been separate from the start, following the Russian model.

    AU: You would have an Academy of Sciences?

    BD: Yes, research was traditionally conducted by the Academy of Sciences. But universities have received significant investment in research infrastructure. For example, the National University of Mongolia now has more than 40 research laboratories in fields like biology, environmental sciences, and even nuclear physics. The Mongolian University of Science and Technology has supercomputer laboratories and modern mechanical engineering facilities. In addition, we now have many graduates returning from foreign universities to work in Mongolian universities, and they are contributing to research.

    But there are still major challenges. Universities do not receive sufficient research funding because most of the research budget goes to the Academy of Sciences. There is very little collaboration with industry and almost no funding from the private sector. There are also no endowment funds or other financial support systems for university research.

    Another critical issue is the weak graduate programs. Almost 99% of graduate students are part-time—there are no full-time graduate students. This severely limits research output. Without strong graduate programs, research activity remains low. This is one of the biggest challenges for Mongolian universities.

    AU: A couple of years ago, a set of laws were passed aimed at increasing university autonomy—governance, leadership selection, those kinds of things. Do universities now have real independence, or does political influence remain a challenge? And what did the laws do to promote political independence?

    BD: Over the last three years, there were extensive discussions about the concept and details of these new laws. In July 2023, Parliament adopted a set of education laws. For the first time, these laws covered all levels of education as a single system, creating better interconnection between different stages of education. That is a very good sign.

    Second, for the first time, the law explicitly recognized academic freedom as a key principle of higher education, which is another positive step.

    The third important issue relates to governance. According to the law, if implemented correctly, universities should have independent governing boards. Another key aspect is the diversification of funding for universities, as well as strengthening university research. The law also states that public universities should receive government subsidies to help cover maintenance costs.

    I think these are the positive aspects of the new law. However, in reality, the implementation of these important measures has not yet happened. Political interference still exists, particularly in the selection of university directors and key leadership appointments.

    AU: We’ve talked a lot about the challenges in Mongolian higher education. What do you see as the opportunities? Where do you think the greatest improvements could happen in the next few years?

    BD: Yes, there are definitely opportunities. First, universities are expanding their cooperation with international communities, and they are learning a lot from these collaborations. Also, as I mentioned earlier, we have a new wave of young specialists and graduates from world-leading universities. We need to hire them. If we bring in these young professionals, give them opportunities to conduct research, teach, and help reform higher education institutions, we will see positive changes soon.

    Second, there is a major opportunity in digital technologies. If we use them smartly and correctly—things like AI, online learning, and MOOCs—then Mongolian universities can take a big step forward.

    But in order to take advantage of these opportunities, we need to ensure that the new laws are properly implemented.

    AU: If we think even further ahead, maybe to 2050, what do you think the system will look like? Will Mongolia have caught up with countries like China, Korea, or Japan? Do you think the system will have developed to the point where it can be considered alongside those peers?

    BD: You may know that the government has adopted the “Vision 2050” long-term strategic development plan. According to this plan, by 2050, Mongolia should have one of the leading universities in the region.

    I see two possible scenarios for the development of higher education in Mongolia by 2050—one optimistic and one pessimistic.

    Starting with the optimistic scenario: If we can reduce government and political interference in university governance and give universities full autonomy, that would be a big step forward. The government should also increase its support for universities, establish strong links with industry, and adopt models like the triple helix approach. Additionally, partnerships with leading international universities would help improve graduate programs.

    If these changes happen, Mongolia could develop strong higher education institutions. But right now, many of the most talented secondary school students are not choosing local universities—they are looking abroad for their education.

    The pessimistic scenario is that if things continue as they are today, universities will still exist, but they will lack freedom and independence. The issues we are currently facing—political interference, funding limitations, and weak institutional autonomy—will persist. That would be very unfortunate. However, I hope that we will see changes in government policy and that Mongolia will implement best practices from other higher education systems around the world.

    AU: Thank you so much for joining us today.

    BD: Thank you.

    AU: And before we go, I’d like to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek, as well as our listeners, viewers, and readers for tuning in. If you have any questions or comments about today’s podcast, please don’t hesitate to contact us at podcast@higheredstrategy.com. If you’re worried about missing an episode of The World of Higher Education, why not subscribe to our YouTube channel? Go there today—don’t delay—never miss an episode!

    Join us next week when our guest will be Steven Mintz, a professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin. We’ll be discussing his new book, The Learning-Centered University. Bye for now.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.

    This episode is sponsored by Studiosity. Student success, at scale – with an evidence-based ROI of 4.4x return for universities and colleges. Because Studiosity is AI for Learning — not corrections – to develop critical thinking, agency, and retention — empowering educators with learning insight. For future-ready graduates — and for future-ready institutions. Learn more at studiosity.com.

    Source link

  • Connecting Universities in a Divided World: International Association of Universities’ Mission

    Connecting Universities in a Divided World: International Association of Universities’ Mission

    There are a lot of transnational associations of universities out there. Some are meant to advance specific political goals, like the European Universities Association. Others exist simply to support their members without engaging in lobbying or political work, such as the African Association of Universities, whose former president, Ernest Aryeetey, was a guest on the show last year.

    But the oldest of all these associations is the International Association of Universities (IAU), based in Paris and created by UNESCO in 1950. I had the pleasure of attending their annual meeting in Tokyo last November—a unique opportunity to see global higher education, in all its glorious diversity, reflected in a single room.

    While I was there, I asked their Secretary-General, Hilligje Van’t Land, to join us on the show. Graciously, she agreed, leading to today’s podcast.

    My chat with Hilligje revolved mainly around two issues. First, the state of global higher education—spoiler: it’s been better. And second, the challenges of maintaining an association across a membership spanning over 100 countries.

    How do you keep an organization relevant across institutions with such different capacity levels, facing such different problems in vastly different external environments? And at the global level, can universities even be considered a single community?

    Hilligje, who has one of the most interesting vantage points in global higher education, brings sharp insights to these big questions. And so, without further ado, let’s turn it over to Hilligje.

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.23 | Connecting Universities in a Divided World: International Association of Universities’ Mission 

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): Hilligje, I’m not sure all our viewers, listeners, or readers are familiar with the history of the International Association of Universities. I know it was founded in 1950, but how has it evolved since then? And what does your membership look like geographically?

    Hilligje Van’t Land (HVL): Yes, well, my name is indeed HVL, and I’m the Secretary-General of this wonderful organization, the International Association of Universities.

    As you mentioned, it was founded in 1950 under the auspices of UNESCO, and its secretariat is based in Paris. I point that out because it’s one of the most common questions I get—where are you based?

    At the same time, we represent a truly global higher education community, with universities from 130 countries across five continents.

    How has it evolved over time? In the beginning, the association was largely led by universities from the Global North, working to rebuild the world after World War II on a foundation of shared values—values that would help create peace among people through higher education. And today, that vision still underpins much of what we do. Our goal is to bring together voices from around the world to collaboratively shape a collective vision of what universities can stand for, ultimately helping societies develop toward something better.

    So what does our membership look like? We have 600 engaged members who contribute financially to the association, and it’s an incredibly diverse group of universities spanning all five continents. That diversity is central to our mission—not just representing one group, but bringing together many perspectives.

    AU: We often think of university associations in terms of rectors’ conferences, where their primary job is to lobby—whether at a national level or through organizations like the European Universities Association. The International Association of Universities (IAU) obviously doesn’t have that kind of function. So is it more about universities speaking to each other? What exactly is its role in the global higher education ecosystem? Who is it speaking to beyond just its membership?

    HVL: That’s a very good question—sorry if my English stumbles sometimes!

    Indeed, we are a truly global association of universities, but without a specific regional or local resonance. For example, the European Universities Association engages with the European Commission, the Arab Association of Universities works closely with ministries across the Arab world, and American universities are involved in national-level associations that influence policy, like the Association of American Universities (AAU). In Africa, university associations work closely with the African Union.

    Our role is to bring these voices together, encouraging universities to collaborate globally in ways that contribute to transforming the world. From where we sit, we advocate to the United Nations and UNESCO, influencing policy decisions within global agenda-setting bodies affiliated with UNESCO.

    Right now, we are approaching the end of the UN Agenda 2030. A new global agenda will have to be developed because we are far from achieving the current goals. Yet, those goals have played a crucial role in bringing universities together around essential topics. As we look ahead, universities worldwide will help shape this next agenda, ensuring higher education continues to be a key driver of global progress.

    AU: One thing that struck me when I attended your meeting in Tokyo last November—an amazing gathering, by the way—was how difficult it must be to create an institutional agenda that speaks to universities from such different parts of the world. How can I put it? Institutions in Australia, Indonesia, and Somalia—where I think you even had a delegate from Somaliland—are all dealing with vastly different domestic challenges. Given that universities are so deeply embedded in their national contexts, how do you find themes that resonate across all of them? How do you create a common agenda that works for everyone?

    HVL: It’s both a challenge and an opportunity, Alex.

    When institutions are deeply embedded in their national dynamics, it can be difficult to see beyond them. But without looking outward, how can they truly make the case for what they do? Staying in an echo chamber or only engaging in national-level discussions limits the ability to develop informed policies. That’s why bringing in diverse voices from the global higher education community is so important—it enriches conversations at institutional, national, and regional levels.

    The agenda we co-develop with our board is then put to the IAU membership every four years for discussion at the global level. Are these the right topics to focus on? Yes or no? From there, a strategy is developed, and universities engage by seizing opportunities for responsible and meaningful internationalization.

    For example, universities rally around themes like fair and inclusive leadership, the role of higher education in sustainable development, and, since COVID, the global conversation on digital transformation in higher education. A major focus now is open science and AI—how do these shape the future of universities?

    And while institutions may come from Somaliland, Ghana, Colombia, Reykjavik, or Paris, they often grapple with similar questions. University rectors and policymakers worldwide are asking themselves the same things. By facilitating global leadership meetings, we create spaces where these shared concerns resonate and where new perspectives can emerge.

    AU: You’ve mentioned the three big areas that IAU works in—sustainability, internationalization, and digital transformation. You also have those large surveys and studies that go out every couple of years. How do you engage institutions in these areas? What are universities doing in each of these three areas with IAU, and what are they getting out of it?

    HVL: Fair and inclusive internationalization—one of the key topics that resonates strongly, even within the name International Association of Universities—translates into at least 10 different ways for universities to engage.

    For example, just yesterday, we hosted a webinar on what responsible internationalization means today. Does it mean closing borders and fencing off countries that are perceived as threats to our intellectual work? Or, on the contrary, is responsible internationalization an opportunity to connect universities globally around key topics and foster international research collaborations? These collaborations are critical for addressing global challenges like climate change and crises in their many forms.

    So, these discussions are one way we engage institutions. We also offer a service called HEIAS (Higher Education Internationalization Strategies Advisory Service), which helps universities refine their internationalization approaches.

    Additionally, we maintain a network of internationalization associations, including NAFSA in the U.S., EAIE in Europe, and the African Association for Internationalization. By bringing these voices together, we co-develop statements that universities can adopt, ensuring that key topics remain at the forefront of global discussions.

    On sustainability, we created the Global Cluster on Higher Education and Research for Sustainable Development. This initiative invites universities worldwide to champion specific Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) while ensuring their projects remain interconnected. The goal is not to work in silos but to collaborate and co-create solutions to pressing challenges—whether water issues, gender inequality, or unsustainable urban development.

    These efforts lead to research projects, joint initiatives, and meaningful impact across the global higher education community.

    AU: Hilligje, you held that meeting in Tokyo last November, which I mentioned earlier. What do you think were some of the main takeaways from that event? What did you learn about how universities are coping with the challenges of the 2020s?

    HVL: The 2020s—universities are coping with everything that comes their way, I would say.

    One of the major takeaways was something you might not expect: the theme itself—University Values for the Future in a Changing World. When planning the conference, we had many discussions with the program committee. People said, We need to talk about AI. We need to talk about sustainability. We have to discuss the financial sustainability of universities because that’s what institutions are struggling with.

    And I said—many organizations are already tackling these topics specifically. Let’s focus on values. Where do values stand today? What values do we need to cultivate to build a meaningful, impactful higher education system for the future?

    As you saw at the conference, we had an unusually large group of university leaders attending—more than in previous years. We brought together leadership from universities worldwide to discuss the values they stand for, each from their own unique perspectives.

    What this told me is that IAU has a unique opportunity to rally around topics that other organizations aren’t addressing. And these conversations are essential.

    We received a lot of feedback—messages and even letters—from participants saying these discussions were eye-opening. They allowed universities to develop new collaborations, whether by inviting each other to campuses or by looking at institutional challenges through a different lens.

    So the key takeaway? These conversations are crucial if we want to shape the future of higher education differently. Of course, IAU will continue to address the pressing issues on universities’ daily agendas, but leaders are also craving more space for these deeper discussions—discussions that are vital yet often overlooked.

    AU: At the meeting, one session in particular stood out to me—the one led by Fanta Aw from NAFSA in the United States. A lot of participants from North America, Australia, and other OECD countries came in very concerned about university values, feeling that they were under threat. This was just a week or two after the U.S. elections, so people were thinking about issues like that, as well as the rise of movements like Alternative für Deutschland in Germany and what these political shifts could mean for universities.

    What struck me, though, was the response from universities in other parts of the world—particularly in Asia and Africa. It wasn’t outright pushback, but more of a gentle chiding. Their message was, We live with these challenges all the time. From IAU’s perspective, that’s just another example of how institutions come from vastly different contexts. How do you bridge these experiences within IAU? How do you ensure that both perspectives are heard?

    HVL: Well, those perspectives were very much present on that panel, and the discussion continued long after the session ended.

    It’s important to recognize that these challenges aren’t confined to a single region or a divide between so-called “developed” and “developing” countries. In fact, I’d like to discard that terminology altogether—many of the countries we traditionally label as developing have advanced in ways that often surpass others.

    The key takeaway is that these conversations are essential. Just because one university or country is newly experiencing pressures from policymakers, threats to academic freedom, or restrictions on institutional autonomy doesn’t mean these issues are new globally. For some institutions, this is an everyday reality.

    But these challenges must be debated openly. If the future of higher education is one without institutional autonomy and academic freedom, what kind of education system are we building? What happens if governments dictate which topics can be discussed on campus, replace rectors at will, or shut down academic departments based on political agendas?

    These issues need to be confronted head-on. From these discussions, the conversation must be taken further—to the United Nations, to UNESCO policymaking forums, and to global decision-makers. If we don’t address them now, the future could be even bleaker than it already appears in many parts of the world.

    AU: A couple of weeks ago, we had American author Ben Wildavsky on the show. Of course, he wrote The Great Brain Race 15 years ago, and we invited him to discuss that book because it presented such an optimistic view of higher education—one where globalization would bring everyone closer together.

    But looking around the world today, I find myself questioning the future of globalization and internationalization. IAU is deeply tied to a version of internationalization—maybe not the one Ben was promoting, but still a vision of global academic collaboration. If globalization really does roll back over the next four or five years, what do you see as IAU’s role?

    HVL: Globalization is a complex phenomenon, with many facets—and it’s often questioned because it brings challenges alongside opportunities. Increasingly, it also comes with fear.

    What IAU fosters, however, is global cooperation. Cooperation starts at the institutional level, extends to national and regional levels, and then reaches the global stage. But cooperation is never a given—it must be nurtured carefully, strategically, and consistently.

    Just yesterday, during our Futures of Higher Education webinar series—which now includes 75 recorded sessions available on our website—we hosted Ayesha Maikundi, the new Vice Chancellor of the University of Abuja. She was asked about responsible internationalization and what globalization means today.

    She raised an important point: We send the best and brightest into the world, but they rarely come back. Some return as expats, contributing to higher education in their home countries occasionally, but not in a sustained way. The challenge of brain drain remains significant.

    While brain gain and brain circulation are often discussed—though, of course, brains don’t literally circulate on their own—the real issue is ensuring meaningful global academic connections. Different models have been used over time, but we need to continuously rethink how we facilitate these exchanges.

    For example, not every system is easy to engage with—Nigeria, as Ayesha noted, presents logistical challenges. But beyond that, there are many places around the world that remain overlooked, not because they lack value, but because we fail to recognize them as worthy academic destinations.

    That’s why global collaboration and mobility must be continuously worked on—strategically, deliberately, and persistently—to strengthen the international higher education ecosystem.

    AU: Beyond issues like globalization and state intrusion into university decision-making, from your vantage point, what are the other major trends shaping higher education globally today? Are we seeing a convergence of concerns at the university level? In other words, are institutions becoming more similar—more isomorphic, so to speak? Or, at a global level, are we seeing more diversification among institutions?

    HVL: Universities are institutions with many, many faces.

    There are certainly harmonization processes underway in different parts of the world. In Europe, for instance, you have the European Higher Education Area and the Bologna Process, along with ministerial meetings aimed at creating greater alignment among institutions.

    But the goal isn’t to make every university the same. In Europe, the aim is to embrace diversity while fostering better dialogue and collaboration across institutions. A similar trend is slowly emerging in Asia as well.

    Now, if you look at the United States—it’s technically one country, but in reality, it has so many states, so many systems, and so many different kinds of universities within those systems. That diversity is significant.

    This is why, right from IAU’s founding in 1950, we began developing the World Higher Education Database. At the time, it included just 50 universities. Today, we track and document over 21,000 institutions worldwide, mapping entire higher education systems in order to foster better understanding and appreciation of their differences.

    In the end, this work also feeds into UNESCO’s Global Convention on the Recognition of Higher Education Qualifications, which aims to improve system compatibility. Harmonization is important in the sense that it allows students and scholars to navigate different systems more easily and become true global citizens.

    If systems are entirely disconnected—with different academic calendars, study periods, and structures—it creates barriers. So yes, harmonization is happening, but there is no one-size-fits-all model. Universities will remain distinct, and that’s the beauty of it.

    AU: So, maintaining harmonization while preserving diversity—that could be one of the major global trends over the next 15 to 20 years. How do you see IAU evolving over the next 10 to 15 years as sustainability, internationalization, and digital transformation continue to accelerate? Will you stick with these three focus areas, or do you anticipate new priorities emerging? And will new ways for institutions to collaborate globally develop as well?

    HVL: I’m convinced that this will remain a movable feast, to borrow a phrase—because universities are never static. Their interests and priorities evolve over time.

    We host International Conferences annually, but every four years, we hold a General Conference where we elect a new board and bring together the global higher education community to define our next strategic plan.

    Right now, we have four priority areas—though leadership is a major focus as well. These priorities may shift over time, as they have in the past. While the core mission remains, new challenges continue to emerge.

    For instance, we need to address the massification of higher education, as more people around the world seek university degrees. We must also consider the commodification of higher education, which is becoming an increasing concern. At the same time, there is a strong push for skills-based education, which we try to balance by advocating for the continued importance of the humanities.

    Another tension that remains unresolved is collaboration versus competition—how universities navigate national interests while engaging in global partnerships. The rise of digital education also raises new questions about what it means to be a university in a rapidly changing world.

    In terms of IAU’s membership, we currently have 600 institutions that financially support our vision and mission. But many more universities align with our values and participate in our initiatives.

    Looking ahead 10 years, where do I see IAU? Well, in an ideal world, I’d love to see 21,000 universities as members—creating a truly global dialogue, not just about the future of higher education, but about how universities shape society itself.

    Because ultimately, we’re not just looking inward—we’re asking what universities contribute to the world.

    AU: Hilligje, thank you so much for joining us today.

    HVL: You’re welcome.AU: And before we wrap up, I’d like to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek, as well as you—our viewers, readers, and listeners—for tuning in. If you have any questions or comments about today’s episode, please reach out to us at podcast@higheredstrategy.com. And don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube channel so you never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education. Join us next week when our guest will be Dendev Badarch, a professor at the Mongolian University of Science and Technology. He’ll be with us to discuss the future of higher education in Mongolia. Bye for now.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.

    This episode is sponsored by Studiosity. Student success, at scale – with an evidence-based ROI of 4.4x return for universities and colleges. Because Studiosity is AI for Learning — not corrections – to develop critical thinking, agency, and retention — empowering educators with learning insight. For future-ready graduates — and for future-ready institutions. Learn more at studiosity.com.

    Source link

  • Why Boycott? Maya Wind on the Case Against Israeli Universities

    Why Boycott? Maya Wind on the Case Against Israeli Universities

    Over the past few years, calls for the boycott of Israeli universities have grown louder. This discourse generally entwines two different sets of arguments. The first is an argument about the effectiveness or validity of academic boycotts.  The second, because it’s Israel, is about whether Israeli universities are being unfairly targeted due to anti-Semitism. Curiously, what Israeli universities themselves might have specifically done to deserve is often relegated to an afterthought.

    My guest today is Maya Wind. She is an Israeli citizen, and a postdoctoral scholar at the University of California Riverside. She is also the author of Towers of Ivory and Steel, How Israeli Universities Deny Palestinian Freedom, published last year by Verso press. Her book is a direct answer to that last question.  The charge sheet that she brings against Israeli universities is a long one. And it should give people pause before thinking that Israeli universities are unproblematic.

    Some of you are not going to like this interview. I suspect some will not enjoy the platform given to these opinions. But given the tenor of the times, I very much think it is worth a listen. I think there are two points in particular that are worth thinking about. The first is whether the boycott is about the universities themselves, or about Israel in general. The second is the standard for boycott. Wind makes it clear that she doesn’t see an absolute standard here other than that some oppressed group requests. So, for her, the relative level of complicity of Israeli universities in the dispossession of Palestinians and, say, that of Chinese universities in the repression of Uyghurs is irrelevant because the key factor is that one group asked for the boycott and the other didn’t. It’s about consistent allyship rather than relative guilt.  That wasn’t something I had understood beforehand, and I’m guessing it might be new for many of you as well. But maybe it’s best if I let my guest explain things on her own. Over to Maya.

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.22 | Why Boycott? Maya Wind on the Case Against Israeli Universities 

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): Maya, your book lays out the case for sanctions against Israeli universities and for boycotting them. But before we get to that, I want to ask about something you don’t really cover in the book: What’s the evidence that boycotts or academic sanctions are an effective strategy for forcing political change?

    Maya Wind (MW): That’s a really crucial question. First, for listeners who may not be as familiar with the context, the movement for boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) was first called for by Palestinian civil society organizations in 2005—so, 20 years ago now. The BDS movement, including the call for an academic boycott of Israeli universities, was heavily inspired by the movement against apartheid in South Africa. In that case, the isolation of many apartheid institutions, including universities, played a key role in bringing an end to the apartheid system.

    Of course, as academics and students, we are all students of history. If we take seriously the idea that Israel is a settler state and that Israelis are colonizers, then history tells us that colonizers have never initiated the process of decolonization on their own. In every case of settler colonialism, external pressure has been necessary to compel colonizers to participate in that process. The BDS movement is specifically seeking to create that external pressure by building a grassroots international movement to hold the Israeli state—and its universities—accountable.

    PACBI, the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, actually predates the broader BDS call by a year. It was formed in 2004 and, even then—21 years ago now—identified Israeli universities as pillars of the system of racial rule and apartheid. As academics, particularly those in the West, we have an obligation to respond to this call by severing our ties to Israeli universities. Otherwise, we remain directly complicit.

    AU: Your charge sheet, if I can put it that way, against Israeli institutions is really threefold. The first major charge—using your words from the epilogue—is that they need to stop denying that their campuses stand on expropriated Palestinian lands and cease to serve as engines of Judaization, colonization, and Palestinian dispossession. What exactly do Israeli institutions do in this regard, and why does it matter so much?

    MW: Right. Here, I’m following not only Palestinian civil society and Palestinian scholars but also Indigenous scholars around the world—particularly in settler states—who have long examined the role of the settler university. These scholars have highlighted how universities have often functioned as pillars of ongoing Indigenous dispossession, built on stolen lands that were cleared through genocide. This is part of a broader, global movement, and there is extensive critical scholarship on this issue in other settler states as well.

    In the context of the Israeli settler state, “Judaization” is actually the official terminology used by the Israeli government. It refers to a process seen in many settler states: the twin projects of continual removal and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, the transfer of Palestinian land ownership to Jewish Israelis, and the ongoing expansion of Israeli frontiers—redistributing the Jewish population across what was historic Palestine.

    If we trace the history of Israeli universities, this pattern becomes clear. It starts with Hebrew University, the first university of the Zionist movement, and continues with all the universities established by the Israeli state since then. For example, the University of Haifa is in the Galilee, the region with the highest Palestinian population. Ben-Gurion University is in the Negev, an arid southern region where Jewish Israelis were historically less likely to settle. The most recent university to be accredited, Ariel University, is located in the illegal settlement of Ariel, deep in the occupied West Bank.

    For over a century, Israeli universities have been physically designed, built, and strategically located to support the state’s project of Palestinian dispossession, particularly in regions of strategic concern to the Israeli government. Any reckoning with Israeli universities—or settler universities more broadly—must begin with the question of land itself. This is one of the central issues I explore in the book.

    AU: Before I go into the other elements of the charge sheet, you’ve used the term “settler” and “settler colonialism” a couple of times. What distinction, if any, do you draw between the need to boycott Israeli universities, as you argue, and the historical case that could be made for boycotting institutions in Canada or the United States? Why sanction one and not the other?

    MW: That’s a really important question. The first and primary answer is that the Indigenous population most directly impacted by the violence of these settler universities—in this case, Palestinians—have explicitly called for a boycott. A boycott is not a value; it is a tactic. Indigenous movements around the world have used different tactics to advance decolonization, and these tactics change over time and depend on the specific context.

    In this case, more than 20 years ago, the overwhelming majority of Palestinian civil society came together to advance their liberation struggle and issued a call for boycott. They outlined a theory of change, arguing that Western governments—particularly those heavily invested in the Israeli settler state—not only provide arms but also offer diplomatic and legal immunity that allows Israel to continue committing war crimes, including, most recently, the crime of genocide. Given this, they have made it clear that those of us in the international community have an obligation to rise up and pressure our own governments to sever ties and isolate the Israeli regime until the process of decolonization begins and the system of apartheid is dismantled.

    This is a grassroots movement, and we do not need to wait for our governments to act.

    AU: That’s a useful clarification. The second area where you’re most critical is the cooperation between universities on one hand and the military, Shin Bet, and other security services on the other. You write about how the connection between university research and the military in Israel is somewhat different from how it operates in the United States or other countries, partly because research institutes in Israel cooperate so directly with the security sector. What does this military cooperation look like in practice? And is it just about research, or is there also an academic programming element?

    MW: Right. This is a very important question because the collaboration between Israeli universities, the security state, and the military industry is incredibly deep and comprehensive. We see this in several ways.

    First, Israeli universities function as military bases by designing and operating specialized, degree-granting programs tailored for security state personnel, including the Israeli Security Agency (Shin Bet), Israeli police forces, and soldiers. These are the same forces that have engaged in decades of daily violations of Palestinian rights and international law. This is well documented, and these academic programs actively train soldiers and security personnel to refine their operations.

    One example is Hebrew University, where the Department of Islamic and Middle East Studies trains soldiers in the Intelligence Corps, providing them with linguistic and regional expertise to improve their surveillance of the Palestinian population. This training directly contributes to the creation of target banks for airstrikes in Gaza, as we have seen over the past 16 months. That is just one of many examples.

    Another form of cooperation is research and institutional collaborations. The Institute for Criminology at Hebrew University and the Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University work closely with military and security state experts to produce scholarship that advances security operations. Their research informs policy recommendations for the Israeli security establishment.

    A third example is the close ties between universities and military industries. It is not widely known that major arms manufacturers like Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, Israel Aerospace Industries, and Elbit Systems—the largest suppliers to the Israeli military and major global exporters of weapons—were actually founded on Israeli university campuses. These companies develop and refine their technologies by testing them in occupied Palestinian territories, violating international and human rights law daily. They then market these products globally as “battle-proven.” To this day, Israeli universities serve as critical laboratories for these industries.

    In all of these ways, it is impossible to understand the Israeli security state and military-industrial complex without examining the role of the Israeli university system.

    AU: The third charge you discuss is that Israeli universities are not academically neutral—that they do not provide all staff and students with equal opportunities to be protected from outside influence or to thrive academically. We often hear that Israeli universities do not discriminate, but you have a different perspective.

    MW: Yes. One of the things that really struck me while researching and writing this book was the extensive scholarly work that already exists on this issue. I conducted an ethnography of Israeli universities, spending significant time across Israel’s eight major public universities. I spoke with and accompanied Palestinian student organizers, and I interviewed both Palestinian and Jewish Israeli faculty and staff.

    What stood out to me—both in my fieldwork and in my background research—was just how much has already been written about this. There is a rich body of scholarship, not only in Hebrew and Arabic but also in English, often published in leading peer-reviewed journals in Europe and North America. Palestinian scholars, both in Palestinian and Israeli universities, have extensively documented the constraints on knowledge production, the marginalization of Palestinian critical epistemology, and the challenges of producing anti-colonial scholarship within the confines of the Zionist university system. They have also written in detail about the systematic discrimination Palestinian students face and their experiences within these institutions.

    Yet, despite this extensive scholarship, I find that it is largely unread in Western academic communities. This raises important questions about why we, in the West, have failed to engage with this work and why we have instead accepted the narratives presented by Jewish Israeli university administrators and scholars, who often portray Israeli universities as beacons of democracy. In reality, this has never been the case, and Palestinians have been documenting and writing about these inequalities for a very long time. I cite much of this work in my book, and I also corroborated it through my own interviews.

    What I found was not only that Israeli universities are embedded within and implicated in a broader system of apartheid, but also that Palestinian student organizing and political activism on campuses are violently suppressed. This suppression has intensified over the past 16 months, as Palestinian scholars and students speak out against the genocide and mobilize for Palestinian liberation on Israeli campuses.

    Advertisement: Student success, at scale, with a proven ROI of 4.4 times return for universities and colleges. Studiosity’s AI-for-Learning is designed specifically for post-secondary students to develop real skills, critical thinking, agency, belonging, and retention; to empower educators with reporting and insight into learning progress; and to build human connection – made possible with Studiosity’s strictly help-not-answers formative feedback and integrated Humans in the Loop design. In partnership with post-secondary institutions in Canada and around the world, Studiosity is for future-ready graduates and future-ready institutions. With over 200 post-secondary partners and more than 2 million student users, Studiosity is grounded in an academically-driven evidence base, leading the way to increasing life chances for students everywhere. Learn more about the world’s leading, ethical, AI student support at studiosity.com.

    AU: Maya, you’ve discussed issues at several institutions across Israel. You’ve specifically singled out Ariel University for its role in normalizing the occupation and Hebrew University for its failure to protect academic freedom. Are there any institutions that stand out to you as having a better record than others? Is there one that you might say should not be subject to a boycott?

    MW: The call for an academic boycott was laid out by Palestinian civil society and Palestinian scholars. Just last year, in 2023, this call was reiterated by not only the Union of Palestinian Faculty and Employees but also by every single Palestinian student union at every Palestinian university. They reaffirmed their call for us to enact the academic boycott.

    This is a call coming from Palestinian civil society, and as it is worded, it applies to all complicit Israeli universities. In the course of my research, I found that every single Israeli university is deeply implicated in the structures of occupation and apartheid. Not one is exempt.

    At this time, the call remains for a boycott of all Israeli universities, and I hope my book helps to substantiate why that is necessary.

    AU: It sounds to me like the Palestinian call is really about Israel as a whole, rather than specifically about Israeli universities, right? And I have to say, when I read the chapter on the relationship between universities and the military, I thought to myself: I can’t imagine a university in any country—let alone one as highly militarized as Israel—saying no to providing academic training for military officers.

    Universities are instrumental to the state, right? So when we talk about disapproving of university policies, aren’t we really talking about disapproving of Israeli state priorities? Is there any way an individual Israeli institution could change this if it wanted to?

    MW: I think that’s a really critical question. We have to understand—and take seriously—that settler states, systems of violence, and even genocide do not reproduce themselves automatically. These are systems of violence that are upheld by a vast network of institutions, including many in civil society. It is not just the military, not just the security state, and not just military industries. A whole host of public institutions—what we often think of as civil society institutions—lend themselves to this violence of elimination. This case is no different.

    But what we also have to recognize is that it is not just the institutions—it is the people within them who sustain and reproduce these structures. There is the active labor of thousands of Israelis, across hundreds of institutions, including universities, who are making this violence possible.

    What I want to emphasize here is that Israeli academics have tried very hard to have it both ways. The call for an academic boycott has been underway for more than two decades, and one of the main arguments used by Israeli university administrators and academics who oppose it is that they cannot possibly be held accountable for the crimes of the Israeli state—if such crimes even exist, as is still debated within Israeli universities. They claim that it is unjust to hold them responsible for what the state is doing.

    But at the same time, when they are confronted—particularly over the last year—by thousands of students, faculty, and staff participating in the boycott, pointing out that they are directly complicit in apartheid and now genocide, these same university administrators and Israeli academics respond in exactly the opposite way. They say precisely what you just said: Of course, we are embedded in the state. Many of our students are soldiers. Why wouldn’t we cooperate with the state we are a part of?

    They often go even further, offering justifications for genocide and apartheid. So they cannot have it both ways. Either they defend themselves by claiming they are not at all accountable and cannot be implicated in what the state is doing, or they admit that they are, in fact, part of the state—at which point they must also take responsibility for their role in sustaining its system of oppression.

    AU: One argument that emerged in Canada over the last few months—particularly around the end of the encampment at the University of Windsor, if I’m not mistaken—was that the university agreed to boycott Israeli universities as part of a resolution. In response, some argued—I can’t remember if it was Michael Geist or Anthony Housefather in the House of Commons—that if you boycott Israeli institutions but not universities in other countries guilty of similar actions, then that is antisemitic.

    For instance, many of the same criticisms you make about Israeli universities—such as failing to uphold free debate and cooperating with the military—could likely be made about Chinese universities in relation to the government’s policies in Xinjiang or Tibet. What do you make of that argument? Should we also be boycotting Chinese universities? And if not, why not?

    MW: Boycotts—whether organized by unions or any other group—are always made in response to a call. It is not up to us to unilaterally decide to boycott a university system. That decision belongs to the communities directly impacted by the violence of that university system. When such a call is made, it is then up to the international community to assess whether the institutions in question are, in fact, complicit—and to decide whether to participate in the boycott.

    To my knowledge, there has been no such call from other Indigenous communities in similar contexts. There could be, and if there were, I think many of us would absolutely consider participating. But this argument is ultimately a distraction—one that is often pushed by Israel and its Zionist supporters to divert attention from the central issue at hand. The reality is that Palestinians have called for a boycott. Now, it is up to us to assess whether that call is justified and whether we will comply

    AU: You wrote this book prior to October 7, 2023. What has changed since then, both in terms of how Israeli universities behave and in terms of the boycott movement?

    MW: Over the past 16 months, we have seen a devastating acceleration of a project that has spanned over a hundred years. Genocide is structural to the Israeli state, just as it is to settler states elsewhere. For two decades, Palestinian civil society has been telling us that various institutions in Israeli society have long served as part of the infrastructure laying the groundwork for the genocide we have witnessed unfold over the last 16 months—part of the Israeli state’s long-term project to ethnically cleanse Palestine of the Palestinian people.

    My book, which I submitted to the press shortly before this latest acceleration of the genocide began, details many of the ways in which universities are implicated. But it should come as no surprise that this is a structural problem. Israeli universities have continuously worked in service of the state, uninterrupted and ongoing, from before the state’s founding to the present moment—including this phase of the genocide.

    Over the last 16 months, Israeli universities have continued to develop weapons and technologies used against Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. They have continued training soldiers and producing Hasbara—Israeli state propaganda—to shield Israel from international criticism. In fact, Israeli universities have actively intervened to prevent academic boycotts from being implemented on Western campuses, smearing student, faculty, and staff organizers, and in some cases, calling for them to be forcibly dispersed. They have also played a direct role in producing legal scholarship to aid the Israeli state in resisting the genocide case brought by South Africa at the International Court of Justice.

    Beyond this, universities have provided tangible benefits to soldiers, offering course credit, scholarships, and special privileges for those returning from Gaza. In countless ways, Israeli universities remain embedded in the infrastructure of violence that sustains the Israeli state, even as that state now stands on trial in the highest courts in the world for genocide.

    If you’re asking what has changed, I think the biggest shift is that more people have now come to recognize what Palestinians have been calling for over the past 20 years: the urgency of intervention. There is an increasing recognition that international civil society must take action and stand with the Palestinian people in their struggle for liberation—and participate in the broader project of decolonization. That is a significant development in the global movement for Palestinian liberation, and we will continue to build on it.

    There is no going back.

    AU: Maya, thanks so much for joining us today.

    MW: Thank you.

    AU: And that just leaves me to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek, as well as you—our viewers, listeners, and readers—for tuning in. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please don’t hesitate to contact us at podcast@higheredstrategy.com. Folks, please subscribe to our YouTube channel so you never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education.

    Join us again next week when I’ll be joined by Hilligje van’t Land. She’s the Secretary General of the International Association of Universities, located in Paris, and she’ll be talking about the joys of running the world’s oldest transnational university organization. Bye for now.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.

    This episode is sponsored by Studiosity. Student success, at scale – with an evidence-based ROI of 4.4x return for universities and colleges. Because Studiosity is AI for Learning — not corrections – to develop critical thinking, agency, and retention — empowering educators with learning insight. For future-ready graduates — and for future-ready institutions. Learn more at studiosity.com.

    Source link

  • Students on the Frontlines: The Ongoing Protests in Serbia with Jim Dickinson

    Students on the Frontlines: The Ongoing Protests in Serbia with Jim Dickinson

    If I say the word “Serbia”, chances are your mind goes to things like the NATO air attacks of 1999 and the associated Kosovo War, to the breakup of Yugoslavia and to Marshal Tito and maybe – if you’re more historically-minded – to the origins of World War I.  It probably doesn’t go to higher education or radical student politics.

    But that’s kind of unfortunate because in fact Serbia’s recent history has had plenty of instances where youth- or student-based movements have had an effect on politics, most notably with respect to the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic in 2000.  And that’s very relevant today, because for the last 18 weeks, Serbia students have been on a campaign to rid the country of the governing Serbian Progressive Party on grounds of corruption.  They have formed some extraordinary alliances across civil society leading to regular marches involving tens of thousands of people as well as a series of rotating strikes.  The movement has not yet reached its ultimate objective, but it has claimed some notable victories along the way, most notably when the Prime Minister, Milos Vucevic, was forced to resign in January. 

    With me today to analyze all of this is Jim Dickinson.  He’s an associate editor at Wonkhe in London, one of the most remarkable Higher education sites in existence, and to my mind absolutely the best-informed person on the European student politics scene.  Jim wrote an excellent summary of the situation in Serbia around the time of the Vucevic resignation, and we thought it was high time to finally bring Jim on the show. 

    Jim talks about the origins of the protests, its growth and metastasis into a genuinely popular national protest movement and its prospects for future success.  Will Serbia end up being like Bangladesh, with students actually forcing regie change?  The future is never certain, of course.  But what I liked about Jim’s perspective is the way he takes account of the interplay between official student “unions” and an unofficial student “movement” and explains why you need to take account of both to understand the current situation in Serbia.

    But enough from me.  Let’s turn it over to Jim.

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.21 | Students on the Frontlines: The Ongoing Protests in Serbia with Jim Dickinson 

    Transcript

    Alex Usher: Jim, before we get to current day events, tell me—what are student politics normally like in Serbia? Are student unions more about service delivery or activism? Is there just one national student union, or are there multiple ones? Are they organized on a party-political basis? Tell me how it all works in a normal year.

    Jim Dickinson: You know, we were there about 14 or 15 months ago, and we were quite impressed. We took a group of UK student unions on a little bus tour, as I do each year to different parts of Europe, and it was quite impressive. Student representation is guaranteed at both the faculty and university levels. Broadly speaking, what is also guaranteed is a student union, which has responsibility for extracurricular activities, as well as for student voice and representing students.

    These unions then feed into something called the Student Conference of the Universities of Serbia. What’s interesting—and a few countries in Europe have done this—is that they’ve put the national student union on a statutory footing. So, it’s actually mentioned in legislation. Essentially, they took the National Conference of Rectors, the university association, added an “S” at the front, and set it up as a statutory body that listens to students’ views on higher education.

    So, in theory, the legislation establishes representation at the faculty, university, and countrywide levels. Students have the opportunity to elect other students, organize student activities, and be the voice of students—which are broadly the two activities you would expect when you hear the phrase “student union.” Maybe not in the U.S., but certainly in most other parts of the world.

    Alex Usher: Is there party political involvement in student unions there?

    Jim Dickinson: I mean, this is really interesting. Some people would say there is. But one of the things that’s kind of, I guess, moderately characteristic of the former Yugoslavian and Eastern European countries is that there’s not much open talk of politics.

    Sometimes students will align with particular political views, but this isn’t like what we might see in Austria, Germany, or even Finland, where large factional or party political groups of students stand for election to student councils. In Serbia, student unions are framed as being independent from formal politics—pure, in a sense, and separate from direct political involvement.

    Now, of course, what actually happens—depending on who you listen to and believe—is that youth branches of political parties do stand in these elections. And depending on the perspective, the government—certainly the current government—is accused of pumping in money and candidates to ensure a level of control in these bodies, much like what might happen in other parts of civil society in the country.

    But officially, you don’t see that. In fact, in some of these countries, student unions will even sign documents declaring their complete independence from party politics as a way of signaling, “We’re not about that; we’re about the students.”

    Alex Usher: Tell me about the history of student unions getting involved in national politics. I know there’s a history going back to the 1960s in Bulgaria of student involvement in politics.

    After the fall of the Berlin Wall, there were two major instances in Serbia. In 1996–97, students led protests against what were seen as rigged elections in favor of Slobodan Milosevic. Then in 2000, there was a youth-led—but not student union-led—movement called Otpor, which was the central organizing group that ultimately helped remove Milosevic after the 2000 elections.

    Now, obviously, there’s a big mobilization happening today. What’s the connection between those events in the late 90s and early 2000s and what we’re seeing now?

    Jim Dickinson: So, ahead of putting student unions—both locally and nationally—on a statutory footing, there were always student groups and associations, often based around faculties or entire universities. Because these groups were relatively loose and voluntary, their level of political interest and influence would fluctuate.

    They often got caught up in the kind of events you described—first in the late 80s and then throughout the 90s. And that’s actually quite common. When student groups are loosely organized and not statutory, with many different associations and organizations floating around, they tend to get swept up in big political movements when those arise.

    Now, while you’re right that Otpor was technically a youth movement, in practice, it was largely dominated by students. That group of people was widely credited with the overthrow of Milosevic. We’ve actually visited some of the student accommodations where they were organizing, and you can really see how that must have worked—how students would have been talking to each other, coordinating, and mobilizing.

    Beyond that point, things get a bit more complicated.

    Alex Usher: So, Otpor was student-led, but not student union-led. That’s the distinction here?

    Jim Dickinson: Yeah.

    Alex Usher: Let’s get to current events. It’s November 1st, 2024. We’re at the railway station in Novi Sad, which is Serbia’s second-largest city. What happens next?

    Jim Dickinson: So, a canopy collapses, killing 15 people. By the time they’d completed their assessment about 24 hours later, the death toll had risen to 15. Pretty quickly, rumors started going around that this must be linked to corruption.

    There’s been a series of complex, controversial deals linked to some Chinese companies involving infrastructure projects across different parts of the country. So the view was that this was negligence, this was corruption, and that this was another example—right on their doorstep in this big student city—of the Serbian government’s corruption causing harm and death.

    Social media videos of the canopy collapsing on young people were pretty heartbreaking, and they went viral very quickly.

    What was interesting at that point was that this student group based in the Faculty of Philosophy, which had already been upset about the formal student union elections in their faculty and at the University of Novi Sad, then switched their attention from occupying the faculty building over student union election politics.

    They turned their focus to this incident, and quite quickly organized a blockade of the railway station, a blockade of the faculty, and then things kind of swept on from there.

    Alex Usher: I get that—it’s understandable why the collapse of a public building might make people upset about corruption. But why is it youth leading this charge? I mean, it’s not unnatural, but it’s also not a given that students would be the ones leading this.

    Why them and not some other group in society? Or even opposition parties? Why a small group of disaffected philosophy students?

    Jim Dickinson: Well, I mean, in many ways, that is the big question. I’m sure if the Serbian Progressive Party knew the answer, Alex, they’d have stopped it by now.

    I think the reality is that all of those involved in formal mechanisms of politics—to some extent—are discredited. And that’s something you see across many political systems, right? There’s a general distrust of politicians and of formal politics, both on the right and the left, in North America and across Europe.

    What’s interesting about this group of students is that, in many ways, you’ll find a similar type of group at almost every relatively elite, fairly academic, large university in the world. You’ve got the students who get elected to official positions, wear suits, and sit down with the rector, vice-chancellor, or president. And then there’s this other, rougher-looking group—the ones who like to think about bigger political issues. They’re the ones who will blockade a building, go on a protest, or join a demonstration.

    This particular group has probably always been there, usually complaining about student union elections. Then, suddenly, this huge tragedy happens in the city, and they find their big issue—something they can build their movement around.

    Often, they talk about building a social movement, but it’s hard to do when the issues they focus on don’t gain traction. This, however, was not a hard issue to mobilize around. It was a tragedy, it was clear-cut, and off the back of that, they took action.

    Alex Usher: That’s early November. The protests build and build, and by early December, they’ve secured the resignation of the minister of construction.

    So, at this point, what were the student movement’s aims? I get that they were upset about corruption, but what were they actually demanding in these demonstrations? And, given how informal the structure was, who was deciding what those demands were?

    Jim Dickinson: It’s really interesting because the demands haven’t really changed since then. Some were directly related to the tragedy, some were broader, and some were focused on higher education.

    Actually, if you look at some of the pro-Palestinian blockades and demonstrations in different countries over the past couple of years, they’ve also had a mix of demands like this.

    In this case, there were demands to publish all the documents related to the reconstruction of the station. There were calls to ensure that no criminal proceedings would be brought against protest participants. There was also a demand for the dismissal of all public officials who had assaulted students and professors—of which there were quite a few.

    Then there were demands related to higher education, like increasing the budget for higher education by 20%. And what’s fascinating is that this list of demands hasn’t really changed.

    Now, to answer your question about leadership—one of the defining characteristics of this kind of activism, which some people see as very old-fashioned, is that it’s highly decentralized. Decisions are made collectively, with lots of people sitting in circles discussing them. There’s no single figurehead. They’ve really tried to stick to those principles, even though, historically, that kind of approach sometimes falls apart depending on which allegorical novel you read.

    Despite the media’s efforts to identify particular ringleaders or intellectual figures behind the movement, it’s been difficult to pin down a single “bad guy” or figurehead. This stands in stark contrast to the formal student movement, which operates like a traditional hierarchy—a structured system where representatives elect other representatives, and so on.

    Alex Usher: So, it’s a little like the Occupy movement?

    Jim Dickinson: Yeah, very, very similar.

    Alex Usher: Over the course of December and January, the movement builds to the point where, eventually, the prime minister resigns on January 28th. That wasn’t even one of the demands, but it happened anyway. To make that happen, they had to build a coalition—not just within the student movement, which is one thing, but also by making links across civil society, with other groups like legal organizations, unions, teachers’ unions, and so on. How did a group of students manage that, especially given how decentralized their power structure was?

    Jim Dickinson: Part of it was about peaceful protest. If you look at historical examples like the Prague protests or the Velvet Revolution, they were always very deliberately peaceful, even though allegations are often thrown at them.

    So, good framing was key—absolutely sticking to those principles. And then, night after night, day after day, at each protest, they slowly built support from wider society. As time went on, they captured the imagination of more and more people. First, musicians got involved, then lawyers, then farmers, then taxi drivers.

    Each time a new group joined or more people expressed sympathy, the movement grew. And there’s historical precedent for this—going back to the late 80s and early 90s—where what started as a student movement began to voice deeper concerns about corruption, about the direction of the government, about how citizens are treated, and about the growing disconnect between the public and politicians. And they used powerful, simple, visually striking imagery. You might have seen the red hands in some of the protest photos—symbolizing “blood on their hands.” That really resonated with people.

    Because these countries have been through this kind of thing before—where students lead the charge and wider society gets behind them—there was this sense that both the students and the broader public felt the weight of history on their shoulders. And from there, it just kept growing.

    I was watching over Christmas—one night, there were 10,000 people in the streets, then 12,000 the next night, then 15,000. It just kept building. And every time the government tried to use traditional authoritarian tactics, the protesters held their nerve. They maintained their dignity, and in doing so, they were able to expose the government as authoritarian—cracking down on people who were making perfectly reasonable demands.

    Alex Usher: So that’s what’s happening in the streets. But what about the campuses? Are they shut down? Is there a strike? Is there a risk of losing the school year? And how are university administrations dealing with all of this?

    Jim Dickinson: That’s a really interesting question.

    Quite often—and this is probably true in the UK, certainly true in Canada and the U.S.—when there’s a blockade of a building, an occupation, or a major protest, you still get a form of teaching happening. There are efforts to ensure that education continues, though it might not be the same curriculum the university originally intended, and it often takes on a particular political edge.

    So, what they’ve been doing is blockading faculty buildings and university buildings, stopping some administrative functions from happening. But some teaching is still taking place.

    Now, whether that translates into exams happening or students receiving certificates at the end of the year varies widely. It depends on the campus, the faculty, and the university.

    A lot of that comes down to the level of support for the movement. So, it depends on what you mean by a “write-off.” There’s plenty of evidence that students are still getting an education, but if you’re the kind of student who isn’t interested in any of this and just wants your diploma at the end of the year, then it’s probably a disaster.

    Alex Usher: Just so listeners and viewers know, we’re recording this on February 11th—nine days before the air date. This is the 101st day of the protests. What do you think the endgame is here? What would it take at this point for students to achieve the aims you talked about earlier? Or are they going to have to settle for half a loaf?

    Jim Dickinson: Well, I mean, it’s really interesting.

    Just this week—or maybe it was right at the end of last week, I’ve lost track—they got the 20% budget increase, for example. Nobody expected that to happen two weeks ago. So, slowly, they’re managing to achieve pretty much everything except the dismissal of all the public officials they’ve been demanding.

    The problem, of course, is that even if they achieve all of those demands, they still won’t have reached their broader political goal—which is that they believe this is a deeply corrupt government. And while they don’t frame it in party political terms, they think this populist government needs to go. So, the endgame starts to get tricky for them.

    They’ve already achieved far more than most people expected. And historically, there’s precedent for this. There were plenty of student uprisings in Eastern Europe in the 1960s that captured the public’s imagination but ultimately didn’t lead to political change.

    So, once most of the demands are met and we get closer to the end of the academic year, will the movement start to fizzle out? Who knows?

    But for many of the people involved, they’re probably already thinking, “We’ve accomplished a hell of a lot more than we ever thought we would.” And certainly a lot more than the official student movement was ever going to achieve on these issues.

    Alex Usher: That brings me to my last question. This has been a success for the student movement—if you can call it that—but not necessarily a success for student unions. So, what do you think the impact will be on more official student organizations going forward? Are unions likely to be supplanted by something a little more anarchist? Or do they just go back to providing the same services they always have?

    Jim Dickinson: I mean, look—across the world, the bigger, more sophisticated, and more formally recognized student unions are, and the more access they have to decision-makers, the more mistrust tends to build.

    Both the textbooks and reality tell us that when student leaders start spending too much time with people who aren’t students, people begin to see them as too close to decision-makers. And that dynamic exists in every student movement around the world.

    The real question for a system like Serbia’s—which has student unions written into the constitution and structured to mirror the conference of rectors, university presidents, and vice-chancellors—is whether, in hindsight, that structure is simply too close to power.

    And that comes down to one of two concerns.

    If the official student movement hasn’t actually been controlled by the government but just appears too close to it, then there’s some broader reflection needed on the system’s credibility. But if it has been deliberately set up as a way for a corrupt national government to control it—to act as a puppet master—then that carries much bigger implications.

    Either way, you have to assume that where student energy is focused will shift. And that’s key because there’s only so much student energy available.

    Right now, the biggest problem for formal student unions is that student energy hasn’t gone into electing people to run the social committee or to be the faculty vice president and have a chat with the dean about curriculum.

    This year, the bulk of student energy has gone into something bigger—and they’ve won. That’s something a lot of people, both within the sector and seemingly within the country as a whole, will have to reckon with.

    Alex Usher: Jim, it’s been a pleasure. Thanks so much for joining us today. And I just want to take a moment to thank our excellent producers, Sam Pufek and Tiffany MacLennan, as well as you—our viewers, listeners, and readers—for joining us. If you have any questions about today’s episode, don’t hesitate to reach out at podcast@higheredstrategy.com. Never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education podcast—subscribe to our YouTube channel today. Next week, we’re off, but join us two weeks from today when our guest will be Israeli scholar Maya Wind. She’s a postdoctoral fellow at the University of California, Riverside, and the author of Towers of Ivory and Steel: How Israeli Universities Deny Palestinian Freedom. Bye for now.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service.

    Source link

  • Data, Decisions, and Disruptions: Inside the World of University Rankings

    Data, Decisions, and Disruptions: Inside the World of University Rankings

    University rankings are pretty much everywhere. Though the earliest university rankings in the U. S. date back to the early 1900s and the modern ones from the 1983 debut of the U. S. News and World Report rankings. The kind of rankings we tend to talk about now, international or global rankings, really only date back to 2003 with the creation of the Shanghai Academic Rankings of World Universities.

    Over the decade that followed that first publication, a triumvirate emerged at the top of the rankings pyramid. The Shanghai Rankings, run by a group of academics at the Shanghai Jiao Tong University, the Quacquarelli Symonds, or QS Rankings, and the Times Higher Education’s World University Rankings. Between them, these three rankings producers, particularly QS and Times Higher, created a bewildering array of new rankings, dividing the world up by geography and field of study, mainly based on metrics relating to research.

    Joining me today is the former Chief Data Officer of the Times Higher Education Rankings, Duncan Ross. He took over those rankings at a time when it seemed like the higher education world might be running out of things to rank. Under his tutelage, though, the Times Impact Rankings, which are based around the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals, were developed. And that’s created a genuinely new hierarchy in world higher education, at least among those institutions who choose to submit to the rankings.  

    My discussion with Duncan today covers a wide range of topics related to his time at THE. But the most enjoyable bit by far, for me anything, was the bit about the genesis of the impact rankings. Listen a bit, especially when Duncan talks about how the Impact Rankings came about because the THE realized that its industry rankings weren’t very reliable. Fun fact, around that time I got into a very public debate with Phil Beatty, the editor of the Times Higher, on exactly that subject. Which means maybe, just maybe, I’m kind of a godparent to the impact rankings. But that’s just me. You may well find other points of interest in this very compelling interview. Let’s hand things over to Duncan.

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.20 | Data, Decisions, and Disruptions: Inside the World of University Rankings 

    Transcript

    Alex Usher: So, Duncan, let’s start at the beginning. I’m curious—what got you into university rankings in the first place? How did you end up at Times Higher Education in 2015?

    Duncan Ross: I think it was almost by chance. I had been working in the tech sector for a large data warehousing company, which meant I was working across many industries—almost every industry except higher education. I was looking for a new challenge, something completely different. Then a friend approached me and mentioned a role that might interest me. So I started talking to Times Higher Education, and it turned out it really was a great fit.

    Alex Usher: So when you arrived at Times Higher in 2015, the company already had a pretty full set of rankings products, right? They had the global rankings, the regional rankings, which I think started around 2010, and then the subject or field of study rankings came a couple of years later. When you looked at all of that, what did you think? What did you feel needed to be improved?

    Duncan Ross: Well, the first thing I had to do was actually bring all of that production in-house. At the time, even though Times Higher had rankings, they were produced by Clarivate—well, Thomson Reuters, as it was then. They were doing a perfectly good job, but if you’re not in control of the data yourself, there’s a limit to what you can do with it.

    Another key issue was that, while it looked like Times Higher had many rankings, in reality, they had just one: the World University Rankings. The other rankings were simply different cuts of that same data. And even within the World University Rankings, only 400 universities were included, with a strong bias toward Europe and North America. About 26 or 27 percent of those institutions were from the U.S., which didn’t truly reflect the global landscape of higher education.

    So the challenge was: how could we broaden our scope and truly capture the world of higher education beyond the usual suspects? And beyond that, were there other aspects of universities that we could measure, rather than just relying on research-centered metrics? There are good reasons why international rankings tend to focus on research—it’s the most consistent data available—but as you know, it’s certainly not the only way to define excellence in higher education.

    Alex Usher: Oh, yeah. So how did you address the issue of geographic diversity? Was it as simple as saying, “We’re not going to limit it to 400 universities—we’re going to expand it”? I think the ranking now includes over a thousand institutions, right? I’ve forgotten the exact number.

    Duncan Ross: It’s actually around 2,100 or so, and in practice, the number is even larger because, about two years ago, we introduced the concept of reporter institutions. These are institutions that haven’t yet met the criteria to be fully ranked but are already providing data.

    The World University Rankings have an artificial limit because there’s a threshold for participation based on the number of research articles published. That threshold is set at 1,000 papers over a five-year period. If we look at how many universities could potentially meet that criterion, it’s probably around 3,000, and that number keeps growing. But even that is just a fraction of the higher education institutions worldwide. There are likely 30,000—maybe even 40,000—higher education institutions globally, and that’s before we even consider community colleges.

    So, expanding the rankings was about removing artificial boundaries. We needed to reach out to institutions in parts of the world that weren’t well represented and think about higher education in a way that wasn’t so Anglo-centric.

    One of the biggest challenges I’ve encountered—and it’s something people inevitably fall into—is that we tend to view higher education through the lens of our own experiences. But higher education doesn’t function the same way everywhere. It’s easy to assume that all universities should look like those in Canada, the U.S., or the UK—but that’s simply not the case.

    To improve the rankings, we had to be open-minded, engage with institutions globally, and carefully navigate the challenges of collecting data on such a large scale. As a result, Times Higher Education now has data on around 5,000 to 6,000 universities—a huge step up from the original 400. Still, it’s just a fraction of the institutions that exist worldwide.

    Alex Usher: Well, that’s exactly the mission of this podcast—to get people to think beyond an Anglo-centric view of the world. So I take your point that, in your first couple of years at Times Higher Education, most of what you were doing was working with a single set of data and slicing it in different ways.

    But even with that, collecting data for rankings isn’t simple, right? It’s tricky, you have to make a lot of decisions, especially about inclusion—what to include and how to weight different factors. And I think you’ve had to deal with a couple of major issues over the years—one in your first few years and another more recently.

    One was about fractional counting of articles, which I remember went on for quite a while. There was that big surge of CERN-related articles, mostly coming out of Switzerland but with thousands of authors from around the world, which affected the weighting. That led to a move toward fractional weighting, which in theory equalized things a bit—but not everyone agreed.

    More recently, you’ve had an issue with voting, right? What I think was called a cartel of voters in the Middle East, related to the reputation rankings. Can you talk a bit about how you handle these kinds of challenges?

    Duncan Ross: Well, I think the starting point is that we’re always trying to evaluate things in a fair and consistent way. But inevitably, we’re dealing with a very noisy and messy world.

    The two cases you mentioned are actually quite different. One is about adjusting to the norms of the higher education sector, particularly in publishing. A lot of academics, especially those working within a single discipline, assume that publishing works the same way across all fields—that you can create a universal set of rules that apply to everyone. But that’s simply not the case.

    For example, the concept of a first author doesn’t exist in every discipline. Likewise, in some fields, the principal investigator (PI) is always listed at the end of the author list, while in others, that’s not the norm.

    One of the biggest challenges we faced was in fields dealing with big science—large-scale research projects involving hundreds or even thousands of contributors. In high-energy physics, for example, a decision was made back in the 1920s: everyone who participates in an experiment above a certain threshold is listed as an author in alphabetical order. They even have a committee to determine who meets that threshold—because, of course, it’s academia, so there has to be a committee.

    But when you have 5,000 authors on a single paper, that distorts the rankings. So we had to develop a mechanism to handle that. Ideally, we’d have a single metric that works in all cases—just like in physics, where we don’t use one model of gravity in some situations and a different one in others. But sometimes, you have to make exceptions. Now, Times Higher Education is moving toward more sophisticated bibliometric measures to address these challenges in a better way.

    The second issue you mentioned—the voting behavior in reputation rankings—is completely different because it involves inappropriate behavior. And this kind of issue isn’t just institutional; sometimes, it’s at the individual academic level.

    We’re seeing this in publishing as well, where some academics are somehow producing over 200 articles a year. Impressive productivity, sure—but is it actually viable? In cases like this, the approach has to be different. It’s about identifying and penalizing misbehavior.

    At the same time, we don’t want to be judge and jury. It’s difficult because, often, we can see statistical patterns that strongly suggest something is happening, but we don’t always have a smoking gun. So our goal is always to be as fair and equitable as possible while putting safeguards in place to maintain the integrity of the rankings.

    Alex Usher: Duncan, you hinted at this earlier, but I want to turn now to the Impact Rankings. This was the big initiative you introduced at Times Higher Education. Tell us about the genesis of those rankings—where did the idea come from? Why focus on impact? And why the SDGs?

    Duncan Ross: It actually didn’t start out as a sustainability-focused project. The idea came from my colleague, Phil Baty, who had always been concerned that the World University Rankings didn’t include enough measurement around technology transfer.

    So, we set out to collect data from universities on that—looking at things like income from consultancy and university spin-offs. But when the data came back, it was a complete mess—totally inconsistent and fundamentally unusable. So, I had to go back to the drawing board.

    That’s when I came across SDG 9—Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure. I looked at it and thought, This is interesting. It was compelling because it provided an external framework.

    One of the challenges with ranking models is that people always question them—Is this really a good model for excellence? But with an external framework like the SDGs, if someone challenges it, I can just point to the United Nations and say, Take it up with them.

    At that point, I had done some data science work and was familiar with the tank problem, so I jokingly assumed there were probably 13 to 18 SDGs out there. (That’s a data science joke—those don’t land well 99% of the time.) But as it turned out, there were more SDGs, and exploring them was a real light bulb moment.

    The SDGs provided a powerful framework for understanding the most positive role universities can play in the world today. We all know—well, at least those of us outside the U.S. know—that we’re facing a climate catastrophe. Higher education has a crucial role to play in addressing it.

    So, the question became: How can we support that? How can we measure it? How can we encourage better behavior in this incredibly important sector?

    Alex Usher: The Impact Rankings are very different in that roughly half of the indicators—about 240 to 250 across all 17 SDGs—aren’t naturally quantifiable. Instead, they’re based on stories.

    For example, an institution might submit, This is how we combat organized crime or This is how we ensure our food sourcing is organic. These responses are scored based on institutional submissions.

    Now, I don’t know exactly how Times Higher Education evaluates them, but there has to be a system in place. How do you ensure that these institutional answers—maybe 120 to 130 per institution at most—are scored fairly and consistently when you’re dealing with hundreds of institutions?

    Duncan Ross: Well, I can tell you that this year, over 2,500 institutions submitted approved data—so it’s grown significantly. One thing to clarify, though, is that these aren’t written-up reports like the UK’s Teaching Excellence Framework, where universities can submit an essay justifying why they didn’t score as well as expected—what I like to call the dog ate my student statistics paper excuse. Instead, we ask for evidence of the work institutions have done. That evidence can take different forms—sometimes policies, sometimes procedures, sometimes concrete examples of their initiatives. The scoring process itself is relatively straightforward. First, we give some credit if an institution says they’re doing something. Then, we assess the evidence they provide to determine whether it actually supports their claim. But the third and most important part is that institutions receive extra credit if the evidence is publicly available. If you publish your policies or reports, you open yourself up to scrutiny, which adds accountability.

    A great example is SDG 5—Gender Equality—specifically around gender pay equity. If an institution claims to have a policy on gender pay equity, we check: Do you publish it? If so, and you’re not actually living up to it, I’d hope—and expect—that women within the institution will challenge you on it. That’s part of the balancing mechanism in this process.

    Now, how do we evaluate all this? Until this year, we relied on a team of assessors. We brought in people, trained them, supported them with our regular staff, and implemented a layer of checks—such as cross-referencing responses against previous years. Ultimately, human assessors were making the decisions.

    This year, as you might expect, we’re introducing AI to assist with the process. AI helps us filter out straightforward cases, leaving the more complex ones for human assessors. It also ensures that we don’t run into assessor fatigue. When someone has reviewed 15 different answers to the same question from various universities, the process can get a bit tedious—AI helps mitigate that.

    Alex Usher: Yeah, it’s like that experiment with Israeli judges, right? You don’t want to be the last case before lunch—you get a much harsher sentence if the judge is making decisions on an empty stomach. I imagine you must have similar issues to deal with in rankings.

    I’ve been really impressed by how enthusiastically institutions have embraced the Impact Rankings. Canadian universities, in particular, have really taken to them. I think we had four of the top ten last year and three of the top ten this year, which is rare for us. But the uptake hasn’t been as strong—at least not yet—in China or the United States, which are arguably the two biggest national players in research-based university rankings. Maybe that’s changing this year, but why do you think the reception has been so different in different parts of the world? And what does that say about how different regions view the purpose of universities?

    Duncan Ross: I think there’s definitely a case that different countries and regions have different approaches to the SDGs. In China, as you might expect, interest in the rankings depends on how well they align with current Communist Party priorities. You could argue that something similar happens in the U.S. The incoming administration has made it fairly clear that SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 5 (Gender Equality) are not going to be top priorities—probably not SDG 1 (No Poverty), either. So in some cases, a country’s level of engagement reflects its political landscape.

    But sometimes, it also reflects the economic structure of the higher education system itself. In the U.S., where universities rely heavily on high tuition fees, rankings are all about attracting students. And the dominant ranking in that market is U.S. News & World Report—the 600-pound gorilla. If I were in their position, I’d focus on that, too, because it’s the ranking that brings in applications.

    In other parts of the world, though, rankings serve a different purpose. This ties back to our earlier discussion about different priorities in different regions. Take Indonesia, for example. There are over 4,000 universities in the country. If you’re an institution like ITS (Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember), how do you stand out? How do you show that you’re different from other universities?

    For them, the Impact Rankings provided an opportunity to showcase the important work they’re doing—work that might not have been recognized in traditional rankings. And that’s something I’m particularly proud of with the Impact Rankings. Unlike the World University Rankings or the Teaching Rankings, it’s not just the usual suspects at the top.

    One of my favorite examples is Western Sydney University. It’s a fantastic institution. If you’re ever in Sydney, take the train out there. Stay on the train—it’s a long way from the city center—but go visit them. Look at the incredible work they’re doing, not just in sustainability but also in their engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. They’re making a real impact, and I’m so pleased that we’ve been able to raise the profile of institutions like Western Sydney—universities that might not otherwise get the recognition they truly deserve.

    Alex Usher: But you’re still left with the problem that many institutions that do really well in research rankings have, in effect, boycotted the Impact Rankings—simply because they’re not guaranteed to come first.

    A lot of them seem to take the attitude of, Why would I participate in a ranking if I don’t know I’ll be at the top?

    I know you initially faced that issue with LERU (the League of European Research Universities), and I guess the U.S. is still a challenge, with lower participation numbers.

    Do you think Times Higher Education will eventually crack that? It’s a tough nut to crack. I mean, even the OECD ran into the same resistance—it was the same people saying, Rankings are terrible, and we don’t want better ones.

    What’s your take on that?

    Duncan Ross: Well, I’ve got a brief anecdote about this whole rankings boycott approach. There’s one university—I’m not going to name them—that made a very public statement about withdrawing from the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. And just to be clear, that’s something you can do, because participation is voluntary—not all rankings are. So, they made this big announcement about pulling out. Then, about a month later, we got an email from their graduate studies department asking, Can we get a copy of your rankings? We use them to evaluate applicants for interviews. So, there’s definitely some odd thinking at play here. But when it comes to the Impact Rankings, I’m pretty relaxed about it. Sure, it would be nice to have Oxford or Harvard participate—but MIT does, and they’re a reasonably good school, I hear. Spiderman applied there, so it’s got to be decent. The way I see it, the so-called top universities already have plenty of rankings they can focus on. If we say there are 300 top universities in the world, what about the other 36,000 institutions?

    Alex Usher: I just want to end on a slightly different note. While doing some background research for this interview, I came across your involvement in DataKind—a data charity that, if I understand correctly, you founded. I’ve never heard of a data charity before, and I find the idea fascinating—intriguing enough that I’m even thinking about starting one here. Tell us about DataKind—what does it do?

    Duncan Ross: Thank you! So, DataKind was actually founded in the U.S. by Jake Porway. I first came across it at one of the early big data conferences—O’Reilly’s Strata Conference in New York. Jake was talking about how data could be used for good, and at the time, I had been involved in leadership roles at several UK charities. It was a light bulb moment. I went up to Jake and said, Let me start a UK equivalent! At first, he was noncommittal—he said, Yeah, sure… someday. But I just kept nagging him until eventually, he gave in and said yes. Together with an amazing group of people in the UK—Fran Bennett, Caitlin Thaney, and Stuart Townsend—we set up DataKind UK.

    The concept is simple: we often talk about how businesses—whether in telecom, retail, or finance—use data to operate more effectively. The same is true in the nonprofit sector. The difference is that banks can afford to hire data scientists—charities often can’t. So, DataKind was created to connect data scientists with nonprofit organizations, allowing them to volunteer their skills.

    Of course, for this to work, a charity needs a few things:

    1. Leadership willing to embrace data-driven decision-making.
    2. A well-defined problem that can be analyzed.
    3. Access to data—because without data, we can’t do much.

    Over the years, DataKind—both in the U.S. and worldwide—has done incredible work. We’ve helped nonprofits understand what their data is telling them, improve their use of resources, and ultimately, do more for the communities they serve. I stepped down from DataKind UK in 2020 because I believe that the true test of something successful is whether it can continue to thrive without you. And I’m happy to say it’s still going strong. I kind of hope the Impact Rankings continue to thrive at Times Higher Education now that I’ve moved on as well.

    Alex Usher: Yeah. Well, thank you for joining us today, Duncan.

    Duncan Ross: It’s been a pleasure.

    And it just remains for me to thank our excellent producers, Sam Pufek and Tiffany MacLennan. And you, our viewers, listeners, and readers for joining us today. If you have any questions or comments about today’s episode, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with us at podcast@higheredstrategy.com. Worried about missing an episode of the World of Higher Education? There’s a solution for that. Go to our YouTube page and subscribe. Next week, our guest will be Jim Dickinson. He’s an associate editor at Wonkhe in the UK, and he’s also maybe the world expert on comparative student politics. And he joins us to talk about the events in Serbia where the student movement is challenging the populist government of the day. Bye for now.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service.

    Source link

  • The Great Brain Race, 15 years later with Ben Wildavsky

    The Great Brain Race, 15 years later with Ben Wildavsky

    Sometimes books can be time machines. A few months ago, I started re-reading Ben Wildavsky’s excellent ‘The Great Brain Race: How Global Universities are Reshaping the World‘. First published by Princeton University Press in 2010. And it took me literally to another planet. An optimistic one where higher education and globalization went hand in hand to enrich the lives of students everywhere and which powered universities to new heights of competition and discovery. When the book came out, I remember reading all of this and being somewhat skeptical. But with all of the nonsense of the past decade or so in global higher education, frankly, it all sounds pretty good to me right now.

    Ben is, of course, a prolific author, and he’s written a great deal on the topic of higher education, most recently, ‘The Career Arts: Making the Most of Colleges, Credentials, and Connections‘. I could have asked Ben to come on to speak about pretty much any of them, but boy, did I want to talk about The Great Brain Race because it’s such a nostalgia sugar high.

    And so, on what is roughly the 15th anniversary of its publication, Ben agreed to come on and enlighten us about what seemed new and fresh back in 2010, things like global rankings and lavishly funded branch campuses, and let me ask him annoying questions, about whether and how it’s all gone wrong. And I’m very happy that he did.

    And so enough for me, let’s throw things over to Ben.

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.19 | The Great Brain Race, 15 years later with Ben Wildavsky

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): Ben, 15 years ago, you wrote The Great Brain Race. What was the thesis? What trends were you trying to illustrate?

    Ben Wildavsky (BW):  I was trying to take the much-discussed phenomenon of globalization—which, of course, we heard a lot about, including in bestsellers like The World is Flat by Tom Friedman—and apply that to higher education. I felt there was already so much evidence, both emerging and well-established, that globalization had made a significant impact on higher ed.

    I wanted the book to be both descriptive and, to some extent, prescriptive. I set out to highlight what I saw as a remarkable but somewhat under-discussed phenomenon: the massive mobility of students around the world. And beyond that, the mobility of faculty as well.

    Actually, David Lodge just passed away last week—he wrote a wonderful trilogy of academic novels that had an impact on me because he was such a sharp observer. But basically, I was looking at the mobility of students, faculty, and research. And to some extent, even the mobility of campuses themselves, with the rise of branch campuses and the increasing influence of global university rankings, which acted as a way to keep score.

    So, at its core, the book’s thesis was that much like I believe in markets and free trade as beneficial for the world economically, I also made the case for what I called free trade in minds—arguing that the global exchange of knowledge and talent has overwhelmingly positive effects. That idea sometimes faces backlash, often based on what I called academic mercantilism—the notion that countries should cling to their share of knowledge and fear if others start producing more PhDs.

    But I argued that knowledge is not a zero-sum game. In fact, we should welcome the expansion of education worldwide. If more people gain access to better education, it benefits the world as a whole.

    AU: You start the book by talking about the global war for talent. I have to say, I haven’t heard that term in a few years. We’re now in a world of tariffs and growing concerns about immigration. You actually interviewed me about this about a year ago. So, are we still in a global war for talent or not?

    BW: You know, I think there are two ways to answer that. I don’t know that we hear the rhetoric about the war for talent as much anymore, but if you talk to people in the global corporate world, they are still acutely aware of their need for well-trained workers. On the consumer side—on the student side—there’s still a strong demand for building human capital. And the evidence that education is critical for economic advancement seems as strong as ever.

    So, whether or not we still use the phrase war for talent, I don’t know. But look at what’s happening right now—we’re recording this on the verge of the second Trump administration. There’s a huge internal battle among Republicans over H-1B visas, which are issued to highly skilled university graduates. The assumption is that these graduates have talent since they’ve studied at American universities, and many foreign students want to stay and work in the U.S.

    This tension has existed in the Republican Party for a long time. Not to get sidetracked, but when I started working in Washington in 1995 for National Journal, the first article I wrote was about Republican infighting over free trade. Back then, people like Pat Buchanan represented the more economic nationalist wing of the party. That strain has become much more dominant in the Trump era. However, you still have figures like Elon Musk and others in Silicon Valley—people who see the clear benefits of allowing talented foreign graduates to stay in the U.S. and contribute to the innovation economy.

    So, again, whether or not we still use the term war for talent, I think there’s a strong awareness of the connection between education, experience, and economic growth.

    AU: So, to the extent that there is—or was—a war for talent 15 years ago, one of the ways people thought a country like the U.S. could win was by building what they called world-class universities. Our mutual friend, Jamil Salmi, even wrote a book with that title, right? And quite famously, I guess, just before your book came out. But the record of actually achieving world-class status is pretty small, isn’t it? Obviously, you have Harvard, Stanford, and Yale—places that were built 150 years ago and reached that status at least 50 years ago. Who has actually become a world-class university since then? A few in China, maybe the National University of Singapore, maybe Paris-Saclay through the merger process. Why do you think we haven’t seen more of this? Is achieving world-class status simply too difficult?

    BW: That’s a great question. To some extent, it depends on expectations—should we have seen an equal distribution of world-class universities around the globe by now, proportional to population or economic development? I don’t think so. I see it more as an aspirational goal.

    Many places—China, Germany with its Excellence Initiative, and others—clearly recognized the need to build high-quality research universities modeled on the U.S. system. And of course, as you know, and as you’ve discussed with other guests—and as I mention in my book—that U.S. model itself was originally based on the German Humboldtian Research University of the 19th century. So, there’s been this back-and-forth influence over time.

    But I think the more important question isn’t necessarily how many institutions have achieved world-class status. Sure, you can point to the National University of Singapore, some Chinese universities, and Paris-Saclay. But what really stands out—something Jamil Salmi wrote about so well—is why certain institutions have succeeded.

    Take the National University of Singapore. It embraced the merit principle, while the University of Malaya took a more insular approach—implementing admission quotas for certain ethnic groups instead of competing globally for top talent. NUS made a conscious decision to compete on a level playing field of excellence.

    So, I’m not trying to dodge the question, but I think in academia, not every institution is aiming for world-class status. Many universities focus on serving the masses, which is valuable in its own right. But at the top level, whether or not you break into the top 10 or top 20, if research excellence is your North Star, then that, to me, is a triumph of the aspirational principle of being world-class.

    AU: One way people tried to keep score in the world-class university race was through rankings. You dedicate a whole chapter to global rankings in your book. At the time, I remember thinking that this seemed newer to Americans than to everyone else. The U.S. started rankings back in the 1980s with U.S. News & World Report, but those rankings focused on very different factors. Now, we have more and more rankings—it feels like a new one comes out every couple of months. But do these rankings actually matter? Have they become more consequential over time, or not? Because I don’t get the sense that they’re driving policy the way they used to. And in your country, in the U.S., I don’t see much awareness of how far down the rankings the second- and third-tier American universities have fallen. The top-tier schools are still at the top, but the U.S. used to have 40% of the top 500 universities—now it’s maybe 20–25%. A lot of those second-tier institutions have dropped off, yet there’s been no reaction in the U.S. Why do you think global rankings have had less impact than expected?

    BW: Honestly, Alex, I can’t say I follow this as closely as I once did. But looking at the U.S. side of things, we’ve always been—famously or infamously—insular when it comes to higher education.

    We tend to focus more on how states compare to one another or on issues like student access to top institutions, especially economic access, which I think is a valid concern. But we don’t really worry about how our universities stack up internationally in the rankings. That’s partly a reflection of noblesse oblige—we’ve been such a dominant global force in higher education for so long that there hasn’t been a real sense of urgency.

    Despite the backlash against globalization and growing protectionist trends, the U.S. still remains the top destination for international students. And unlike many countries that have just one or two standout universities, we have what people in sports would call a deep bench—not just a few great universities, but dozens of truly world-class institutions.

    So, when I mention noblesse oblige, I’m half-joking, but the reality is that there’s never been much concern about losing that top-tier status. At the highest levels, sure, people care about reputation, but the U.S. doesn’t have a centralized Ministry of Education or a national funding mechanism that directly ties money to rankings, the way some other countries do.

    Our mutual friend Ellen Hazelkorn has written a lot about how rankings can create problematic policy incentives, but that’s just never been a major factor in the U.S. In other countries, I’m not sure how much weight rankings still carry, but I think there’s probably still a sporting interest in the latest Times Higher Education or QS rankings—seeing where universities land each year.

    That said, the idea that universities can directly link funding decisions to ranking outcomes—and that improving a ranking will necessarily lead to positive consequences—seems to be something people are increasingly skeptical about. From what I can tell, there’s a lot more agnosticism about rankings than there used to be.

    AU: Back in 2010, one of the things you were really interested in was the still-new rise of branch campuses. I think you spent time in Education City in Doha and spoke with John Sexton of NYU in Abu Dhabi. At the time, you saw these as representing a new stage of globalization—I think that’s the phrase you used in the book. How do you think these branch campuses have turned out? And what do you make of Texas A&M recently cutting and running from Education City?

    BW: Well, before getting into Texas A&M, I’d rather start with the broader picture. I certainly don’t want to be defensive about it—things change over time. But I don’t think I ever presented branch campuses as the next stage of globalization or the ideal model for every university. I saw them as part of a period of experimentation, and I think I made that pretty clear.

    These campuses were an effort to see what worked in different contexts—and, frankly, financial factors played a huge role. NYU wouldn’t be in Abu Dhabi without significant funding from the Emirates. The same goes for Georgetown, Texas A&M (when it was there), and the other universities in Qatar. A lot of money was poured into these initiatives.

    There was never really an argument that these campuses emerged purely from market forces. The free market alone wasn’t driving these incentives. But some of these institutions—especially the better-known ones—had strong global reputations. There was demand for their degrees from the same students who were eager to study in the U.S. because of the prestige of American research universities.

    For some students—particularly women in the Emirates—studying closer to home was especially appealing. Cultural norms made it more difficult for them to travel abroad, and even today, there are restrictions. So having branch campuses nearby offered opportunities that wouldn’t have otherwise been available.

    You still see NYU operating in both Abu Dhabi and Shanghai, even though John Sexton is now emeritus. Education City has lost Texas A&M, but as far as I know, none of the other American universities have left.

    AU: No, none of the other American ones have left.

    BW: That’s right. But to some extent, each case is unique. Qatar is in a complex geopolitical position—it presents itself as a mediator in the Israel-Hamas conflict while also having provided significant support to Hamas over the years. While many people are suffering in both Israel and Gaza, some Hamas leaders are living in luxury in Qatar.

    Now, I don’t know the exact reasons why Texas A&M left, but the optics of maintaining a campus there are certainly problematic—especially for a state institution from Texas. You could argue Qatar wants to have it both ways: pursuing forward-thinking educational initiatives, which I applaud, while also being a problematic actor in other ways. That tension likely played a role.

    It’s actually surprising that China, despite being a highly problematic state in different ways, has managed to maintain relatively strong relationships with American universities. There aren’t as many partnerships as there once were, but many U.S. institutions still have a presence there.

    AU: Those branch campuses were at least as much an experiment in cultural power as they were in education, right? That’s what people were after—a halo effect. That was certainly what the Emir of Abu Dhabi was aiming for.

    BW: I think that’s a fair point. And I should add—there’s still ongoing tracking of branch campuses worldwide. My former colleagues at SUNY, the State University of New York, have a great site that monitors the number of branch campuses across different universities.

    Kevin Kinser and others have been involved in that work, though I don’t know the exact numbers today. But I don’t think branch campuses have shrunk dramatically—it’s just that expansion hasn’t continued at the same rapid pace as before.

    AU: I guess a similar area at the time was global for-profit universities. These were still quite new back then. The dominant player at the time was Laureate, though there have been new entrants and a lot of movement in that market since. I was struck by one sentence in your book—let me read it to you: “The multinational for-profit firm could turn out to be the vehicle best suited for providing broad-scale access to practical higher education, benefiting students who might otherwise have had far fewer opportunities.” Do you think that statement still holds in 2025?

    BW: Great question. In a funny way, what comes to mind is that across all sectors, there’s a huge interest in what’s now called experiential learning. The idea of practical postsecondary education is as relevant as ever. And that doesn’t just mean vocational training—it’s something beyond secondary education, but still career-oriented.

    In fact, this is a topic I’m working on for a new book. There’s a major push to develop education that’s both advanced and directly connected to workforce needs. And that’s happening not just in the for-profit sector, but in the public and mainstream higher education sectors as well.

    So, perhaps you could argue that what I described in my book has been discovered more broadly. Despite some backlash against certain forms of higher education in the U.S., globally, there’s still a strong push to expand educational opportunities beyond secondary school. The OECD continues to track educational attainment by country, and there’s concern in many places about falling behind.

    As for whether the for-profit sector has unique advantages, I’m not sure. But in the parts of the sector I still follow, things like pathway programs—which help international students gain exposure to Western universities, either in their home country or abroad—are still popular. For-profit providers like Kaplan, which I do some consulting work with, remain very active in that space. They’re particularly effective at recruiting students and providing them with the preparation they need. It’s a win-win: students want access to universities, and universities want to fill seats. That’s one area where for-profits continue to play a role.

    I’m less familiar with what’s happening in Latin America today, but when I was researching for my book, I was particularly struck by places like Brazil. There, the idea of free public education at elite universities sounded noble. People in the U.S. often ask, Why don’t we have free public higher education? But when you look closer, the students who attend these elite public universities often come from wealthy families who could afford expensive secondary schooling.

    So, in practice, free higher education often ended up being free for the wealthy. Meanwhile, for-profit universities, which some critics saw as problematic, were actually serving middle- and lower-middle-class students—offering practical programs in fields like nursing, IT, and business.

    Again, I haven’t kept up as closely with what’s happening now, but I’d say that the demand for career-focused education has been increasingly absorbed by the mainstream higher ed sector as well.

    AU: A part of what’s happened is that the vocationalization of higher education has shifted more to the master’s level—or at least the post-baccalaureate level. That’s where a lot of these private, global universities are focusing now. It’s that master’s degree space—a practical degree, like you said. It’s post-bachelor’s, so there’s something both global and vocational about it, but it might not align with the way we typically think about access.

    Listen, when I reread your book, I had a smile on my face the whole time because I thought, Oh my God, this is such an optimistic book! You don’t really see optimistic books about globalization or higher education anymore. I’m not sure anyone has written one that optimistic since you did—maybe you were the last one. So let me ask: Do you think you were overly optimistic? Or did something specific happen that derailed the future you envisioned? Is it as simple as saying, Xi Jinping, Donald Trump, and Vladimir Putin ruined everything? What happened?

    BW: Well, I love that shorthand as a way of describing where we are today—but I don’t actually think it gives a full picture of what’s happened. And I proudly wear the optimist badge.

    I don’t think I was excessively optimistic. Of course, I could point to plenty of caveats and shades of gray in the book—I made it clear that this was a work in progress.

    Our mutual friend, Phil Altbach—who’s really the dean of global higher ed scholars, and a wonderful guy—was actually quite direct with me about this. He was kind enough to blurb my book, but he also made it very clear that he thought I was way too optimistic. He tends to have a more jaundiced view of some of these developments.

    That said, I don’t think I was being a Pollyanna about it. I never argued that every development was wonderful. But I do see globalization in higher education as similar to free trade. If you were writing about free trade—now, I’m not comparing myself to Adam Smith or John Stuart Mill—but if you were setting out the principles of free trade, you’d focus on the long-term economic benefits.

    There are always setbacks, political arguments, and waves of protectionism—like the tariffs and nationalist policies we saw during the Trump administration, which, frankly, some Democrats also supported. But none of that changes the fundamental principle that free trade is economically beneficial.

    In the same way, I still believe that global higher education is expanding in ways that are, ultimately, beneficial. When I wrote the book, there were about 3 million students studying abroad for a year or more. By 2019, that number had doubled to around 6 million. The OECD had projected 8 million by 2025. I don’t know exactly where we are now, but we’re certainly in the ballpark.

    So just in sheer numbers, this expansion is happening. People are getting more educated. Claudia Goldin, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, described the 20th century as the human capital century, and I think that trend is continuing—both in places like the U.S. and Canada and on a global scale.

    Yes, you can point to a million different setbacks. There have been waves of backlash against international students in the U.K., Canada, Australia, and sometimes in the U.S. Governments implement bad policies that create temporary setbacks. But if you look at the big picture, the historical trajectory suggests that people will keep seeking opportunities to get ahead.

    What I argued in the book is that people want to get ahead based on what they know and what they can learn—not based on where they’re from or how much money they have.

    Of course, in the first waves of internationalization, wealthier students had the most access to global education. But in the long run, I believe in a more meritocratic world—one where more and more people can improve their circumstances through education, with fewer barriers standing in their way.

    That’s not just idealism—I think it’s a reality that’s unfolding, incrementally, for more and more people.

    AU: The arc of higher education is long, but it bends toward globalization?

    BW: I would say so, yes.

    AU: How do we make it bend faster? If we come back here in 15 years, what do you think will have changed to speed things up? Or will anything? What’s your sense of how things will evolve over the next few years?

    BW: To some extent, it depends on things like global economic growth. If the global economy continues—maybe with some fits and starts—but generally moves forward, and if the world becomes wealthier, then I think people will continue to recognize that human capital is king. Education and economic development are deeply connected, and as long as that remains true, people will keep seeking out educational opportunities.

    In their own countries, I hope we’ll continue to see expanded access to education, higher completion rates, and greater equity across race and class. Obviously, in the U.S., we’ve had big fights over affirmative action, but regardless of what happens on that front, people will still want more education and opportunity. And I think the same will be true globally.

    So, the real question is: What can we do to stay out of the way? How do we prevent unnecessary restrictions on international students? How do we ensure there’s a sustainable funding model? On that point, I’m somewhat agnostic—there are relatively low-cost, mass-access universities that provide real opportunities, and there are incredibly expensive elite universities. I think we probably need both.

    AU: Ben Wildavsky, thanks so much for joining us.

    BW: Thanks so much for having me. It was a great conversation.AU: And that just leaves me to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek, and you—the reader, viewer, or listener—for joining us. If you have any questions or comments about today’s episode, don’t hesitate to get in touch at podcast@higheredstrategy.com. And don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube channel—sign up and never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education. Join us next week when our guest will be Duncan Ross, former Chief Data Officer at Times Higher Education. He’ll be talking with us about the world of global university rankings. Bye for now.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service.

    Source link

  • Small College America Podcast Returns for a New Season – Edu Alliance Journal

    Small College America Podcast Returns for a New Season – Edu Alliance Journal

    Dean Hoke and Kent Barnds Relaunch Acclaimed Series to Explore the Future of Small Colleges

    Bloomington, Indiana – February 3, 2025 – Small College America, the podcast dedicated to exploring the strengths, challenges, and future of small colleges, is officially relaunching with a new season. The series is co-hosted by Dean Hoke, Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group and former President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators, and Kent Barnds, Executive Vice President for Strategy and Innovation at Augustana College in Rock Island, Illinois.

    Both Hoke and Barnds are passionate advocates for small colleges, having graduated from Urbana University (OH) and Gettysburg College (PA), respectively. Their personal experiences and professional expertise have shaped their commitment to highlighting the vital role these institutions play in American higher education.

    “The landscape for small colleges is shifting rapidly, and we believe now is the time to amplify the conversation about their future,” said Kent Barnds. ” Dean and I are both passionate advocates for these institutions because we’ve experienced firsthand the impact of a small college education.”  Dean Hoke stated, “The first season of Small College America confirmed that there is a deep need for dialogue about the opportunities and challenges facing these schools. With this new season, we aim to engage with higher education leaders to explore innovative strategies that will help small colleges not just survive but thrive in an evolving higher education environment.”

    The original four-part series first aired on January 10, 2023, and was hosted by Dean Hoke and Tom Davisson, who now serves as Charter Commissioner for the National Association for Academic Excellence (NAAE). The inaugural season featured insightful conversations with small college presidents, including:

    • Dr. Barry Ryan, Former President of Woodbury University (Burbank, California)
    • Stefanie Niles, President of Cottey College (Nevada, Missouri)
    • Ryan Smith, President of the University of Rio Grande and Rio Grande Community College (Rio Grande, Ohio)
    • Janelle Vanasse, President of Alaska Pacific University (Anchorage, Alaska)

    The new season of Small College America will continue its mission of bringing critical discussions to the forefront by interviewing higher education leaders, policy experts, and innovators. The podcast will delve into the evolving role of small colleges, their economic impact, innovative strategies for sustainability, and how they can continue to provide a highly personalized educational experience.

    Season Two will begin weekly on March 11th at 11AM Eastern. More details, including upcoming, will be announced soon.

    For updates, visit [Podcast Website] or follow Small College America on [Social Media Links].

    About the Hosts

    Kent Barnds is the Executive Vice President for Strategy and Innovation at Augustana College, where he has been a senior administrator since 2005. A recognized thought leader in enrollment management and institutional strategy, Barnds is deeply invested in the success of small colleges and the students they serve.

    Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy, and formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on small colleges’ challenges and opportunities.

    ### END ###

    Source link