对高等教育国际化的思考

高等教育国际化是21世纪全球高等教育的发展趋势,中国加入WTO以后,高等教育国际化进程面临新的挑战,同时也迎来前所未有的发展机遇。本文就此阐述了高等教育国际化的基本内涵、认识及发展中面临的问题,并对高等教育国际化的发展提出了战略决策。     

Higher education: a public good or a commodity for trade?

Conventionally, higher education is regarded as a public good, benefiting not only the individuals but also the whole society by producing a wide variety of externalities or social benefits. Of late, however, the chronic shortage of public funds for higher education, the widespread introduction of neo-liberal economic policies and globalization in every country and in every sector, and the heralding of the international law on trade in services by the World Trade Organization and the General Agreement on Trade and Services—all tend to challenge the long-cherished, well-established view of many that higher education is a public good, and to propose and legitimize the sale and purchase of higher education, as if it is a normal commodity meant for trade. The very shift in perception on the nature of higher education from a public good to a private good—a commodity that can be traded—will have serious implications. The paper describes the nature of the shift from viewing higher education as a public good to a private, tradable commodity and its dangerous implications.

Goals, components, and factors considered in university development

It is generally known that the general goals of universities are to produce high-quality graduates for the job market, to continuously advance the frontier of knowledge in all the disciplines, and ultimately to advance human civilization. There can, however, be numerous specific goals which differ from one university to the other. Whatever it is, in order to achieve the desired goals, universities need to design a realistic strategic development plan, which must include, among others, the important logistical components and factors of university development. In Malaysia, little is known about university development planning process as a subject area. Annual reports and calendars published by universities do not provide sufficient information about the elements and aspects of high priorities in their strategic development plan. As such, we decided to conduct a study on eleven (11) foremost public universities in Malaysia—a country with a centralized education system—in order to examine the goals, components, and factors considered by university top-management in planning university development. We administered a checklist to 296 respondents, comprising deputy vice-chancellors or deputy rectors, registrars, deans, and directors. The checklist required the respondents to rate the consideration level on a scale of 1 (least considered) to 5 (highly considered) for each of the items on goals, components, and factors. This article reports the main findings of our study. Among other things, the most obvious result revealed by the study was that universities were very concerned with the relevancy of academic programs offered and their performance in research. It was rather surprising, however, that the top-management of public universities in Malaysia placed the goal of providing quality infrastructure and facilities at the lowest ranking. Also, this study revealed that the government, as a factor, exerted its prominence only in terms of university budget and research grants and the execution of some policies of national interest, but university expansion and development was largely driven by the university organization itself, i.e., on where, what, and how it wants to expand and grow. In this regard, public universities in Malaysia still enjoy a large degree of academic autonomy and a strong support by the government.     

Changing the course: equity effects and institutional risk amid policy shift in higher education financing in Kenya

Reform in higher education financing in Kenya has been occasioned by both endogenous and exogenous variables. Internal pressures of a declining economy, rapid demographic growth and increased inter-and intra-sectoral competition for scare financial resources, couple with external neo-liberal doctrine championed by global donors like the World Bank have resulted in a new market-competitive policy of financing higher education. This paper analyzes the equity and risk effects of the new policy for the main stakeholders, namely students, academics and institutions themselves. The paper contends that the policy shift has had a significant effect on equity just as it has introduced universities to risks through engagement in academic capitalism with its emphasis on marketization of university programs and services. The paper concludes with suggestions on some policy options that could help to mitigate the negative consequences of this new policy.

高校“非理性”办学定位的理性省思——基于教育学类CSSCI论文的统计与分析

对教育学类CSSCI（1998-2008年）文献来源库中关于高校办学定位的论文做深入统计与分析研究后发现：学界近来对高校定位研究的关注度显著提高,相关研究自2002年以来大幅增加,研究主题与范围得到拓展和深化;研究中的问题比较突出,具体包括高校对此的重视程度仍显不足且规划专业化程度不高、研究方法与理论视角运用有待规范、研究者的立场单一、高校办学定位问题的严重程度和范围被过度夸大等方面。     

Taking stock of sustainability in higher education: a review of the policy literature

Abstract

This paper provides a review of the current literature that examines the uptake of sustainability policies in higher education. Articles were retrieved from both ERIC and Scopus databases and then manually reviewed to ensure that they focused on each of: higher education; sustainability; and policy. A total of 91 articles were analysed using a multi-stage process that involved sorting data according to typologies (i.e. temporal, terminology, methodology, geography), coding the text of the articles based on topical content, and an indexing method used to label data for further analysis and the development of broader code categories. Results suggest that drivers and barriers associated with the integration of sustainability policy in higher education are well known; yet increased research is needed to understand best practices and processes by which sustainability can be furthered through higher education policy. In addition, findings demonstrate the need for future research to focus on various aspects of the policy process, including policy development and enactment, and on implications of policy for practice. While there have been some reviews of sustainability policy in higher education research to date, this review contributes to this literature by highlighting research primarily focused on sustainability policy within higher education.     

国外高等农业教育支撑农业发展的机制研究

国外高等农业教育重视调整培养目标,培养农科学生职业“态度”,根据农业生产发展和社会需求的变化调整学科专业结构,强化实践教学。多层次、多形式培养农业人才,实行教学、科研与技术推广相结合。研究国外高等农业教育支撑农业发展的机制,对于我国高等农业教育服务新农村建设具有启示意义。     

‘Profitable for the country’. An Australian historical perspective of the contested purpose of public universities

ABSTRACT

This article analyses the social contract formulated between state and university, in the period 1850–1930. Using contemporary records – for example, legislation, parliamentary debates, university acts, newspaper articles, senate and professorial board minutes, and similar – this article examines how Australia’s early scholarly community contested and negotiated what it believed to be the purpose of higher education, with a sometimes-conflicting view held by the state. The analysis indicates that, from the outset, certain paradoxes have inscribed into these foundational negotiations. Conflicting narratives of opportunity and privilege positioned universities, simultaneously, as agents for social inclusion and maintainers of social privilege. The purpose of knowledge as either/both pure and practical has been another point of contestation. Consequently, universities vacillate between acts of social conservatism and progressivism. These tensions remain apparent in the modern purpose of higher education institutions.     

论UNESCO与WTO在高等教育国际化进程中的不同倾向

本文在分析了UNESCO和WTO两大国际组织的不同性质和宗旨的基础上,从约束成员国的方式、国际化进程的主要方式、对高等教育属性的认识、对高校学术研究的态度、主要合作对象以及发展中国家的地位六个方面,对两者在推动高等教育国际化进程中的不同倾向进行分析和归类,以促进我们对高等教育国际化有一个更加全面的理解.     

高职“形势与政策”教育教学规范化制度化研究

基于一定形式的调查,研究高职"形势与政策"教育教学中存在的问题,探索高职实现"形势与政策"教育教学规范化、制度化的有效途径。     

教育全球化：对抗还是对策

教育全球化是一个多层次、多阶段、内涵丰富的历史过程。教育服务的全球化贸易以及教育资源的全球化争夺是推动教育全球化的两个重要支柱。在1995～1996年至2002～2003年这7年中,教育全球化程度增强,但主要发达国家在教育全球化格局中的地位基本保持不变,只是彼此在全球教育资源上的争夺更加剧烈。面对这种格局,我们采取积极有效的对策将比对抗更有效。