Tag: Influence

  • The Foreign Influence Registration Scheme has sector-specific implications

    The Foreign Influence Registration Scheme has sector-specific implications

    The Foreign Influence Registration Scheme (FIRS) emerged out of the National Security Act 2023.

    The idea was that, by way of the mandatory registration of activities broadly defined as involving “foreign influence” on the UK, both the UK’s political system and wider civil society would be made both more transparent and, in the case of certain countries’ actions, less of a national security risk.

    The government published light-touch draft guidance for FIRS in September 2023, promising further detail ahead of implementation – including sector-specific guidance for research, academia and higher education.

    FIRS trap

    Nothing happened for a while, and then following the general election news emerged of a delay to the scheme, seemingly tied up with the question of Labour’s (still ongoing) “China audit” and a (hotly contested) claim that guidance wasn’t ready to go live.

    One particular sticking point has become whether China would be put on the “enhanced tier” of the scheme, a development which would enormously increase the scrutiny faced by all organisations – including universities – involved in partnerships or collaborations with Chinese institutions. The Conservatives were rumoured to have been considering it while in power, and more recently Labour has reportedly been “resisting” such a move.

    Fast forward to today, and there is still no decision over China – but the government has laid draft regulations placing Russia and Iran on the enhanced tier, announced that FIRS will come into operation from 1 July, and published sector-specific guidance for academia and research.

    The additional wrinkle for higher education is that when the Department for Education announced that the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act would go ahead in revised form, it decided that the overseas funding measures in section 9 would be “kept under review” while FIRS was implemented and the interaction between the two was assessed.

    Tiers for FIRS

    You will be glad to learn that FIRS is not “a register of foreign spies” – we even get a short section in a fact sheet to make this clear. It is, however, a register of arrangements – and the individual or power who makes an arrangement with a foreign power (or controlled entity) has to let the Home Office know.

    At heart, FIRS is structured around two tiers: the “political influence tier” and the “enhanced tier”. All countries – except the Republic of Ireland – will be put in one or the other. And the difference between the two is vast.

    Political influence is restricted to specific “directions” from other countries to influence the UK’s political domain. So this involves things like elections and referenda (perish the thought), ministerial or departmental decision-making, political parties’ activities, or the actions of parliamentarians (including in the devolved nations). There’s also the wider concept of influencing “public life”, which includes certain kinds of communications and the disbursement of money.

    Where the Secretary of State deems it necessary to keep the UK safe or protect its interests, they will designate a foreign power (or part thereof) as being subject to the “enhanced tier”. This additionally requires the wider registration of “arrangements to carry out activities at the direction of a foreign power”, or activities carried out in the UK by specified entities controlled by a foreign power. In this case there is the possibility of a tailored approach to address particular risks.

    At each level, the requirement is that you register the activities to be carried out, their nature, their purpose, any intended outcomes – plus start dates, end dates, and frequencies where relevant. Of course registration will include passing on details of who is carrying out the activities, and which foreign power is directing them. Some of this information will be published – but this will be limited to what is needed to achieve the transparency aims of FIRS. Personal details, information that would prejudice personal safety or national security, and commercially sensitive information will not be published.

    Designating a country as being subject to the enhanced tier requires parliamentary approval – and as above this is currently being sought for Iran and Russia. How about China? As will be clear when we turn to some examples below, this is the big question when it comes to FIRS for UK higher education – China being moved up into the advanced tier would greatly complicate all kinds of educational and research initiatives.

    The Conservatives in opposition are pushing strongly for it, though they never bit the bullet while in power. Speaking in the House of Commons today, security minister Dan Jarvis said:

    For reasons that I completely understand, the shadow Home Secretary asked about China. He will recall the remarks I made to this House on 4 March, where I was very clear that countries will be considered separately and decisions will be taken by this Government based on the evidence. I said then, as I say again now, that I will not speculate on which countries may or may not be specified in future. That is the right way to proceed, and I hope he understands that.

    It’s likely the question will continue to recur, every time an issue involving national security and China (or other countries) rears its heads – we should expect calls in Parliament and in the press for a country seen as a national security threat to be moved over to the enhanced tier.

    Direction and production

    For the purposes of FIRS, “direction” implies a power relationship – a contract or conditional payment on the one hand, coercion or the promise of future benefits on the other. So for our purposes a genuine collaboration, or a very generic request, would not count as direction. Neither is something “direction” simply because it is funded by a foreign power.

    The actual registration and publication will be done by a special unit within the Home Office. This will also be the means by which the Secretary of State can issue “information notices” to get more information, or remind you to register activity should you be doing something that it is felt you should tell the Home Office about.

    FIRS is an information gathering tool – it doesn’t restrict anyone’s ability to do anything in and of itself, it simply requires that activity is registered appropriately. And it only applies where you are directed by a foreign power – anything else you do or say on your own behalf is not covered by these requirements.

    At FIRS I was afraid

    The meat of the higher education and research guidance (framed oddly as the “academia and research sector”) is a series of 34 examples, illustrating where registration is required and where it would not be. There’s a potential impact in every area of university and related activity – but rather than go through every example here it would make sense to pick out a handful of points to illustrate some key impacts on research, teaching, and SUs – both for enhanced and political tiers. If this stuff is your job, or becomes your job, chances are you’ll be getting to know these examples very quickly anyway.

    Teaching and recruitment

    Let’s start at the beginning (example 1) – the education department of country A (not subject to the enhanced tier) wants to build a relationship with a UK university: the university gets more students via promotion and enticements within country A, but it also has to lobby the UK government about a short-term visa study programme for students from country A.

    Clearly this is registerable – there’s an arrangement with country A, it is directed, and requires the use of political influence.

    A lot of the concerns that led to the requirements that went into the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act were about the potential for foreign powers to influence what is taught at universities. In example 6, a student from country G (enhanced tier) is studying a human rights course at a UK university, which includes material on the oppression of an ethnic group in country G by its government. The country G embassy contacts the students, and requires them to change course – threatening to force them to leave the UK if they don’t.

    Here it is the student that is obliged to register – they have been obliged, with coercion used, by a foreign power, to change their course. What’s not at all clear is what would convince said student that this would be a good idea, or what protections would be available to them when they reported their own government to UK authorities.

    But what about universities reporting back to an enhanced tier government on student behaviour? Examples 15, 16, and 17 all deal with reporting back to country V: we learn that a student reporting back on their progress, or a university reporting back on results, is not registerable. However, where the student is coerced into organising a protest about a speaker critical of country V, this is registerable (again, by the student).

    Elsewhere on the enhanced tier regulations, there’s been an important concession (following consultation responses) regarding scholarships, which are now exempt from being registered. And importantly, activities carried out wholly at overseas universities – such as transnational education – will not require registration either.

    A Swiss cheese of foreign influence

    The more tedious and public end of the free speech debate has been concerned with otherwise low-profile, little known, escaping the public attention student activity. Student societies, students getting together in their own time, and reasonable debate. Almost entirely absent from the public but not policy discourse has been the regulation of research activity. Put bluntly, the ways in which other countries influence research into lethal weapons has had less political attention than which culture issue The Telegraph is upset about this week.

    The new guidance provides that agents of specified foreign powers will have to register under the enhanced scheme where they are “undertaking a research project directed by a specified foreign power or specified foreign power-controlled entity.” As we learn from the Minister of State for Security Dan Jarvis the current specified countries under the enhanced tier are Iran and Russia.

    This means that individuals directed by Iran, Russia, and whoever else comes under the future ambit of the scheme, would be required to register that they are being directed by these states and declare they are undertaking state directed activity. Somehow, this seems extremely unlikely to capture the full range of state directed activity even with the threat of a five year custodial sentence.

    The scheme is narrowly applied and broadly defined as to avoid capturing a broad swathe of activities. Under the political tier

    Registration would only be required under the political tier if the research formed part of an intentional effort by a foreign power to influence the UK’s democracy, for example, a specific area of government policy.

    This is a really high bar to clear. As we learn further in the guidance activity which is funded and directed by a foreign power will not necessarily count as political influencing activity if researchers are free to arrive at their own recommendations. In other words, it is possible to influence the terms of the debate but not its conclusions and remain outside the scope of the scheme.

    One of the oddities of the regulation is that “activity is only registerable where carried out in the UK.” This would seem to mean that where there are campuses abroad which included UK researchers, researchers from other countries, and researchers who would be a specified power within the UK, activity would be outside of this scheme.

    The political influence tier of activity is designed to capture activities which are directly aimed toward parliamentary mechanisms and procedures. Aside from any debate on whether the specified countries are broad enough this means that political but not parliamentary political activities are not covered either. The guidance specifically states that

    …any published research which intended to influence a political process would not require registration under the political influence tier, if it was clear on the research report that it was completed as part of an arrangement with a foreign power.

    The scope of the research element of the scheme feels very narrow. The examples make clear that a UK provider would need to register under the political scheme where they are lobbying the UK government to further the interests of a foreign power as part of a funding arrangement. An individual would need to register under the political tier where they are acting as an intermediary for selling the technologies of a foreign power. And under the enhanced tier UK universities cannot rely on the ambiguity of a relationship and would seemingly have to register where there are future potential income opportunities.

    It is also made clear that just because activities clear these schemes they do not get a clean slate for other legislation like the National Security and Investment Act. As long as a provider is not taking funding from a foreign power, and especially specific foreign powers, to direct research, funding, and influencing outcomes, they should not be impacted by FIRS. This does not mean they will not be impacted by the bureaucracy of every other scheme.

    FIRS is helpful in setting an obvious floor for what is in scope but the ceiling is cavernous. There is significant latitude for influencing UK politics outside of parliamentary procedures and without directing research outcomes. The participants in the research ecosystem will on the one hand favour the flexibility but will rue the potential for being personally liable for another addition to an increasingly complicated web of international research rules.

    Societies, SUs and CSSAs

    One of the major concerns floating around the press coverage and the think tanks has been the activities of student societies on campus – specifically (but not exclusively), Chinese Students and Scholars Associations (CSSAs).

    Last year a Henry Jackson Society report, Studying Abroad to Serve China, alleged that CSSAs are closely tied to and influenced by the Chinese government, presenting themselves as cultural organisations while actually being integral to China’s “United Front Work” strategy.

    Meanwhile, the Telegraph has published allegations of Chinese students facing serious repercussions, including detention and interrogation in China, after participating in protests or making critical comments about the Chinese government while studying in the UK – which involve CSSAs locally and nationally.

    Like plenty of religious, political and sporting groups on campus, societies of this sort will say that they affiliate to a national body. Many rarely discuss or disclose the ways in which overt or covert control or influence may be placed on their activities.

    The sector-specific guidance covers “student bodies, societies or associations” – but there’s a problem. It appears from the guidance that Home Office officials think that student societies are legally separate bodies from their students’ union. But in the vast majority of cases, they have no separate legal personality – they are part of the SU. That matters because it impacts who has the legal duty to register.

    For example, in a section designed to reassure universities about their own liability to register, the guidance says:

    Where a registerable arrangement is made by a student society of a university: the society is required to register.

    And across three case studies discussing different types of activity, there’s the same issue. So where one describes a society being directed by the government of a country to sign a petition and campaign against a UK government decision, the guidance says:

    The student society is required to register as they are in an arrangement with the government of Country P (foreign power) from whom they receive funding (direction) to undertake campaigning activities to influence a government decision (political influence activities).

    But legally, in most universities the student society doesn’t exist. It’s a part of the SU – placing the onus on the SU to register – and so places duties on underfunded student activities staff to risk assess and probe the activities of societies in ways that many will object to.

    Separate guidance for charities then puts onerous duties on the trustees in the usual way.

    The upshot is that CSSAs – and any other international society undertaking activity of this sort – will soon clock that they themselves are under no legal duty to register. Universities will also take comfort in guidance that makes clear “societies” are separate and have their own reporting duties.

    The buck lands on the SU – who will be thinking hard about disproportionate scrutiny over a group of students that share protected characteristics, and who may object to their treatment by the SU to the university under OfS’ new harassment expectations.

    Not only will the SU not have experience of what amounts to a whole new type of complex risk assessment, it will all happen in a way that actually discourages joined-up risk assessment and sensible concern over the sorts of things the HJS and the Telegraph alleges. You really couldn’t make it up.

    If you believe the allegations that swirl around CSSAs, there are major student welfare concerns here – both for students who might be “under surveillance” from their colleagues, and for students who might be being coerced into watching others and reporting them. If you’re less sure that what the Telegraph or the HSJ say is widespread or even real, then there’s welfare and harassment concerns that surround poking around and applying heavy scrutiny to a particular group of students. And in England, the moment you start to think about potential interactions with free speech requirements and OfS’ new harassment requirements a headache ensues given both seem to cover SUs and societies without directly regulating them.

    If nothing else, the guidance repeatedly states that it’s not that the activity is per se illegal – and if not, is it “free speech within the law” or does the influence chill free speech, and so on and so on and so on.

    It would certainly seem like a good time to consider whether those straight-line cuts to the SU’s already tight budget are wise if junior staff are about to start to have to offer training on these complexities – and front out difficult conversations with those running international student societies.

    Upshots

    All of these new duties kick in on July 1st – so there’s very little time to understand the implications and get houses in order. The question on China and its tier allocation will be one to watch – the allegations are unlikely to go away.

    There are several “foreign influence” offences, including a failure to register a foreign influence arrangement, and carrying out political influence activity where the overarching arrangement is not registered and the person knows that the activity is being directed by a foreign principal. The maximum penalty for failure to comply with the requirements of the political influence tier is 2 years imprisonment – and the maximum penalty in the enhanced tier is 5 years imprisonment.

    If there are those who are carrying out what is currently covert activity who are under pressure to keep it that way – whether through incentives, or threats, or both, there is a real question about the way in which those individuals might evaluate that against any rules put in by a university (or so) in pursuit of the scheme.

    More broadly, it’s yet another thing in terms of regulatory burden – and another one of those things where a duty is being placed on a public authority to do what many would argue is not their job to do at all, that they’re not sufficiently funded to do, and have not even been properly consulted on.

    Source link

  • 6 higher education experts reflect on COVID’s sectorwide influence

    6 higher education experts reflect on COVID’s sectorwide influence

    In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic, grinding life to a halt and severely disrupting instruction across higher education. Colleges are still feeling the effects of the virus five years later.

    We asked higher education experts to look back at the changes made and how the pandemic continues to shape the sector today.

    Their written responses are below, lightly edited for brevity and clarity.

    Chief content officer at Coursera

    Marni Baker Stein

    Permission granted by Caroline Bresler

    The pandemic made online learning mainstream in ways that were unimaginable in 2019. A global generation of learners who would likely have not experienced the online classroom now understand its potential, pitfalls, and power. While online learning’s ubiquity didn’t last, its impact on student preferences and university strategy remains. For learners, Coursera research shows that a clear majority of students now want their universities to deliver short-form, job-relevant, for-credit content, delivered digitally. Universities have had to respond to remain attractive, with an increase in micro-credential adoption, and further plans to accelerate uptake among university leaders. Without the economic pressures created by the pandemic, and the exposure to online learning it accelerated, both demand and uptake would have been slower and less pronounced than we see today.

    Back to top

    CEO at National Association for College Admission Counseling

    Angel Pérez

    Permission granted by Melanie Marquez Parra

    We can’t talk about the impact of the pandemic in isolation — multiple converging factors have created a perfect storm for higher education. During the pandemic, we lost over a million students from the college pipeline — a loss the sector has yet to recover from. That blow, compounded by the ongoing FAFSA crisis, demographic shifts, and rising anti-higher education rhetoric, continues to destabilize institutions. Adding to the strain, executive orders and Dear Colleague letters coming out of Washington, D.C., are making it harder for colleges to move forward. Higher education is not just recovering — it’s fighting to remain relevant, accessible, and resilient.

    Back to top

    Vice president for policy analysis and research at the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education

    Patrick Lane

    Permission granted by Patrick Lane

    Five years after the pandemic started, data shows that there wasn’t a major impact on high school graduate numbers, though there may be about 1% fewer graduates in the future than previously projected. Whether these students choose to enroll in higher education at the same rates as they did in the past is a different question as the pandemic itself seems to have made some students less likely to pursue higher education. The bigger impact may come from learning loss and chronic absenteeism in K-12. Students who were in early grades when COVID started are facing uphill battles and probably will not be able to make up that ground by the time they finish high school. Postsecondary education (along with employers) will have to grapple with this challenge — on top of overall changing demographics – for years to come. But there are options, including doubling down on developmental ed redesign, enhanced advising, and simplifying postsecondary pathways (among others). 

    Back to top

    Executive director of Commonfund Institute

    George Suttles

    Permission granted by Chandler Stearns

    The pandemic forced colleges and universities to rapidly adopt online platforms for teaching and learning. The shift to remote learning has led to the widespread use of fully remote and hybrid models, combining in-person and online education. Relatedly, the pandemic exacerbated existing inequalities amongst student populations across the country. For example, students from low-income backgrounds faced greater challenges due to housing insecurity, lack of internet access, and limited access to technology. As we continue to learn lessons from the pandemic, it will be important to further leverage technology to enhance teaching and learning, while at the same time taking care of students across the socio-economic spectrum, recognizing that the student experience is just a part of their entire lived experience.

    Back to top

    Head of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at University of Tennessee, Knoxville

    Robert Kelchen

    Permission granted by Robert Kelchen

    A key lesson that higher education leaders remember from the early days of the pandemic is that cash is king. Colleges that had financial flexibility were able to avoid layoffs and budget cuts, while institutions that were unable to access funds had to make painful cuts that permanently scarred their communities. The financial state of American higher education is more uncertain right now than even in the darkest days of March 2020, and colleges are starting to implement cost-cutting measures in order to avoid having to make even more difficult decisions down the road.

    Back to top

    Executive director of WCET

    Van Davis

    Permission granted by Melanie Sidwell

    Even before the pivot to emergency remote instruction, the number of students enrolled in at least one distance education course was steadily rising. If you look at IPEDS data, that number has only accelerated since the pandemic. Many students, and some faculty, discovered that they liked the flexibility and opportunities that asynchronous distance education affords and have continued to enroll in that course modality. Institutions that offered very little distance education now find themselves responding to student demand and increasing their offerings. For many institutions, distance education is now a strategic part of their course offerings.

    Back to top

    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