Stern to Launch Masters Degree in NYU and Shanghai New York University?

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/a3b4b47e-8b01-11e1-912d-00144feab49a.html#axzz1uIaETth8

I missed this last week. NYU are launching a new Masters in Business Analytics, which will be simultaneously launched at the new ShanghaiNew York University in Pudong, Shanghai. First intake is reported to be in May 2013, when the Shanghai NYU is also expected to take in 300 undergrade students in Sept 2013, comprised of a minimum of 51% students from Tier 1 of the Chinese Gaokao system.

I am skeptical. No Sino-JV university has thus far been granted permission to issue Master's degrees, with the exception of UNNC, which received approval in 2005.

Only the State Council has the authority to grant licences to offer degrees at Masters level and SHNYU has yet to even publicly state what its tuition fees will be. This indicates that specific licences for UG degree programmes have yet to be agreed and/or that the Shanghai pricing bureau, which will set fees, has yet to make a decision.

There still seems to be little appreciation of the HE Law of PRC and the 2003 Regulations governing Sino-Foreign Education in the PRC. Similarly, if past experiences are anything to go by, obtaining permission to launch Masters degrees prior to first establishing robust teaching and administrative practices at UG level, gaining approval from the State Council for Masters degrees is highly unlikely (though, this is China, so lets not allow precedents to have an undue influence on any expectations).

Similarly, recent announcements by the MoE insist that the Masters application system must be followed by all universities in China, including (as they are established under Chinese law) all Sino-Foreign JVs.

See two previous posts:
MASTERS APPLICATION SYSTEM
http://www.thedaxue.com/2012/03/moe-announce-tougher-enforcement-of.html

CLAMPDOWN ON SINO-FOREIGN JV
http://www.thedaxue.com/2012/04/clampdown-ministry-of-education.html

MG

____________________________________________________________
Send your photos by email in seconds...
TRY FREE IM TOOLPACK at http://www.imtoolpack.com/default.aspx?rc=if3
Works in all emails, instant messengers, blogs, forums and social networks.

MoE Announcements on SUSTC and HK Chinese University JV

Sina Weibo, the popular microblogging platform, has been ringing with the news that Professor Zhu Qingshi's South University of Science and Technology China (SUSTC) has been given MoE approval.

This is quite interesting for those watching international education in China, whether involved in int'l HE or simply looking at Chinese HE, reforms and policies. The main reason being that SUSTC is the first university established without foreign assistance to teach programmes in English and utlizing a student centred learning approach. A more in-depth bog post on SUSTC will follow.

A second piece of news which seems to have slipped under the radar is perhaps of more concern/interest to Sino-Foreign educators in China. This is the news that China's second PRC-HK Joint Venture University has been given the go ahead (the first is UIC, a JV between Beijing Normal and HK Baptist).

This second university will be a JV between Shenzhen University (PRC) and Chinese University of Hong Kong, a world-class university located in HK.

With new announcements concerning NYU Shanghai last week (see last post), this really ups the the pressure, as both universities will be opening their doors in 2013, with Duke Kunshan also expected to do the same. It remains to be seen whether the universities of NYU Shanghai, DKU and CUHK Shenzhen will be able to secure quota to recruit from outside their home provinces (respectively Shanghai, Jiangsu and Shenzhen), but launching three universities with high fees, in addition to the established competition from UNNC, XJTLU, SBC and UIC who already operate at or near full capacity.

CUHK Shenzhen could be a major headache for NYU Shanghai. While NYU Shanghai aims to recruit 1400-2500 students, CUHK Shenzhen has a stated first phase target of 7000 students, building to 11000 by the end of the 2nd phase (expected 5 year phases).

Also, CUHK Shenzhen fees are reportedly equivalent to those already approved for the other existing Sino-British JV universities of XJTLU, UNNC and SBC - 60kRMB per annum. This could prove a major headache for NYU and Duke who, it is rumoured, will be hoping to be able to charge significantly more.

Existing JV's, particularly XJTLU and UNNC, can still rest easy knowing that the full approval process can take months, if not years, to play out. Recruiting large numbers of students from across China is impossible without quotas negotiated through the provincial and municpal education bureaus. This should give the existing universities a minimum of 2-3 years to adapt to the incoming competition, though NYU, Duke and CUHK are all big-hitters. If they can make it work.

MG

____________________________________________________________
FREE ONLINE PHOTOSHARING - Share your photos online with your friends and family!
Visit http://www.inbox.com/photosharing to find out more!

Shanghai New York University: How many Tigers on the Mountain?

Last week saw a raft of news stories covering developments at Shanghai New York University (上海纽约大学).  SHNYU have been going head to head with Duke University to become the first high-level US university to form a JV in China. Wenzhou University and  Kean University (New Jersey) announced in December 2011 that they had received approval from the MoE to establish a JV university in Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, with alleged funding of $250m provided by the Wenzhou and Zhejiang governments.  Nevertheless, all eyes are really focused on the big hitters: NYU and Duke.  

Various sources, including news reports on CCTV (中央电视台), China's national broadcaster, covered some important announcements on key positions at SHNYU.  Shanghai New York University is established under the 2003 Regulations Sino-Foreign Cooperative School Management, and is a JV between New York University (USA) and East China Normal University  （华东师范大学), ranked by the Chinese Academy of Management Science as the 4th ranked university in Shanghai behind Fudan University, Shanghai Jiaotong University and Tongji University.  However, as those familiar with Chinese HE will know, China's universities are not easily compared.  ECNU is a leading "teachers" university and competes very strongly in education, humanities and the social sciences in China; is in the elite Project 985 group of universities, and is one of the the most competitive universities in China in terms of admissions standards.  

On the 4th April, Minister for Education Yang Guiren (杨贵仁) expressed his view that the MoE hopes SHNYU will become a leading example for other reforming institutions in China's vast HE system.  

Under Chinese HE Law, the President of SHNYU must be a Chinese citizen.  This position has been taken by President Yu Lizhong who is the current President of ECNU.  It is my understanding (from knowing the arrangements at other JV universities) that the President Li will continue as President of ECNU, with the Presidency of SHNYU being a largely ceremonial role involving duties on the Board of SHNYU (essentially equivalent to the role of Chancellor at a UK university)

It was reported in the China Youth Daily (青年日报) that Professor Jeffrey S. Lehman has been appointed Deputy President and CEO of SHNYU.  I believe this may be an error of translation.  Deputy President (副校长) is likely to be translated as "Vice-Chancellor" in English, removing any confusion as to the role Professor Lehman has been appointed to.  Vice-Chancellor is the typical title for the defacto President of universities in England.  Nevertheless, he should perhaps be referred to in Chinese as 执行校长 or Executive President, rather than 副校长 Deputy President, which does not accurately describe his role.  Perception is everything in China and 副校长 does not accurately capture the nature of his appointment.  Professor Lehman will be the defacto President (or Principal Administrator) appointed by the Board of SHNYU and responsible for the establishment and day-to-day operations of SHNYU.  Vice-Chancellor in English and 执行校长(Executive President) in Chinese would appear to be the most accurate terms for Lehman's role.  

Interestingly, Duke Kunshan University (DKU), the proposed JV between Duke University (US) and Wuhan University in the city of Kunshan, Jiangsu (on the border with Shanghai) have also elected to advertise for a "Vice-Chancellor".  I had expected that the title "Provost" would be used in both situations, given its common usage in US HE.  I had also speculated privately in conversations with some contacts that DKU would move for Professor Lehman, especially given the apparent good fit for the DKU Vice-Chancellor job decription.  It appears NYU got there first, and it is probably significantly to their advantage that they did so, given Lehman's US and China experience.  

Professor Lehman served as Dean of the University of Michigan Law School between 1994 and 2003, under then President Lee Bollinger (who, interestingly, as the current President of Columbia, recently dismissed the possibility of Columbia establishing a JV in China - possibly Nanjing - on the basis of concerns over academic freedom).  Professor Lehman then became the 11th President of Cornell University in 2003.  

In 2007 Professor Lehman became the founding Dean of the Peking University School of Transnational Law in Shenzhen (PKU-STL).  PKU-STL offers J.D. degree programmes to Chinese students and was attempting to be the first school in China (possibly outside the US - unable to confirm) to secure accreditation by the American Bar Association.  

Since his appointment as President of Cornell University, Professor Lehman has spoken often of his passion for transnational education.  Since leaving Cornell, he has certainly attempted to bring US style education to China, and I wish him the best of luck in his new role.  

Especially considering the challenges that appear to be confronting SHNYU.  Of course, these are, as always, my own speculation as to the situation in which SHNYU finds itself.  But there are a number of key issues which need to be resolved:

1.  Tuition Fees

NYU fees are eye-wateringly expensive.  US$45k approx per annum.  The recent announcement on SHNYU detailed that 51% of the initial 300 students projected to be enrolled in 2013 must come from the Chinese National University Entrance Exam admissions system (gaokao 高考).   Current fees for other JV universities (see below) do not exceed 60k RMB for students recruited through the Gaokao.  It remains to be seen what fees SHNYU will be permitted to charge Gaokao students as these fees are set by the Shanghai municipal education bureau.  Anything in excess of 60kRMB per annum would be highly surprising.  Is it the case that SHNYU will cross-subsidize these students with full-fee paying international students (making up the remaining 49% of students)?  Will SHNYU be able to find 150 US students will to enrol at US$45k in 2013 without access to US educational financial aid?  It is probable that some spin will be put on the limiting of fees for Gaokao students, with SHNYU possibly preferring to say that only the best students will be recruited and given significant scholarships.  For example, rather than set Chinese student fees lower, SHNYU will say fees are US$45k with talented Chinese students (all of those admitted) receiving a scholarship calculated as: NYU fee - Maximum Fee chargeable by SHNYU to Gaokao students = SHNYU Scholarship (i.e. US$45k - US$9k (60kRMB) = US$36k Scholarship)

2.  A Nest of Vipers

This is a major flagship operation in China's financial capital.  Fudan and Shanghai Jiaotong universities are unlikely to welcome the competition, and these two universities wield an immense amount of political influence.  China Europe International Business School (CEIBS) is also likely to emerge as a strong competitor, especially if SNHYU move into graduate education, which they undoubtedley will at the earliest opportunity.  SHNYU will have the support of the Pudong government and those officials, cadres and academicians loyal to ECNU, but it could be tough going if the machinations of Chinese politics and HE are brought to bear on SHNYU (this could happen for any number of reasons).  

3.  Tigers on the Mountain

VC Lehman must have the political nouse to balance the interests of several very powerful interested parties, most notably the MoE, Pudong government, ECNU and NYU (in that order).  Far from implying VC Lehman will be unable to balance these interests, which already appear to be coming to fore in terms of tuition fees arrangements, this is simply an acknowledgement of the monumentally powerful vested interests tied up in SHNYU.  VC Lehman's lot is likely to be a thankless task.  If it goes badly, he'll get the blame; if it goes well, they'll be plenty of other people willing to take the credit (this is why the title VC Lehman has in Chinese and English is incredibly important).  Lets hope he's got some good people around him who (a) understand this delicate balance and (b) have a deep appreciation of the highly political and strategic nature of Chinese culture.  Such people are thin on the ground.  

I genuinely wish SHNYU the best of luck, but worry that the spotlight will shine brightly and at a very high temperature on SHNYU.  

Below is a little background on the exalted company which SHNYU joins in becoming a new Sino-Foreign JV university in China.  

Joinining the JV Crowd

Foreign universities are not permitted to establish campuses in China, but must form Sino-Foreign Joint Ventures (usually formed as a cooperative joint-venture, as opposed to an equity joint venture).  Several high profile JV's have already been established since the 2003 Regulations on Sino-Foreign Cooperative School Management were promulgated:

1.  University of Nottingham, Ningbo, China (UNNC)

Established in 2004, UNNC is the first Sino-Foriegn Joint Venture University between the University of Nottingham (UK) and Wanli University, a private (民办) university in the city of Ningbo, Zhejiang Province.  The Founding Provost and CEO of UNNC  was Professor Ian Gow OBE who is the current Principal and CEO of the Sino-British College in Shanghai (see below).  

2.  Xi'an Jiaotong Liverpool University (XJTLU)

XJTLU was established shortly after UNNC and took its first students in 2006.  Located in the city of Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, XJTLU is a JV between Xi'an Jiaotong University and the University of Liverpool.  Xi'an Jiaotong University (西安交通大学), the Chinese partner, is one of the most prestigious universities in China.  It is a member of the C9 Group, China's Ivy League, and a founding member of the 985 group of leading research intensive universities.  

3.  Sino-British College (SBC)

The Sino-British College is a slightly different model.  It is a JV between University of Shanghai Science and Technology (USST - 上海理工大学) and several universities in the north of England known as the Northern Consortium, including Sheffield, Manchester, Bradford and Leeds.  

4.  United International College (UIC) 

Established as the first cooperative university between PRC and HK, UIC is a JV between Hong Kong Baptist University and Beijing Normal University (北京师范大学).  

5.  Wenzhou Kean University (WKU)

Recently approved in December 2011, this raised a few eyebrows.  Firstly, because the decision to grant a licence for this JV seems to ride roughshod over the unwritten rule that only Top 20 universities from foreign countries will be considered.  Kean is certainly not in that category.  Secondly, because the application for a licence was submitted to the MoE in 2006, with Kean having been in talks with Wenzhou since 2004.  Speculation attributes this decision to the possibility that it has been influenced by the leadership change coming in PRC in October 2012.  Xi Jinping, who is expected to succeed Hu Jintao as Gen. Party Secretary of the CCP in October (and then as President in March 2013), was Party secretary of Zhejiang Province when this project was initially launched.  Thats not to suggest there's any pressure coming from Xi himself, more that rubber stamping projects launched during his tenure in Zhejiang could be seen as a sign of loyalty to his incoming administration.  

MG

---

Get Free Smileys for Your IM & Email - Learn more at www.crawler.com/smileys
Works with AIM^®, MSN^® Messenger, Yahoo!^® Messenger, ICQ^®, Google Talk^™ and most webmails

Clampdown: Ministry of Education announces strict enforcement of existing Sino-Foreign Education regulations

On the 19th March (see post below) this blog reported the tightening of regulations concerning the admission and assessment of students registering on Masters programmes at Chinese universities.  The post discussed the possible implications for Sino-Foreign cooperative programmes, specifically highlighting the system of conferring degrees at all levels in China, including 2+2 and joint-Masters programmes where Chinese students spend a portion of their time at a foreign partner university.  Suffice to say that this announcement makes it incredibly important that all Sino-Foreign cooperative programmes operate within the regulatory framework laid down by the Ministry of Education (MoE) and do not recruit students to programmes which have not been licensed and approved my the MoE.

Yesterday (1st April 2012), the MoE issued a circular via their website announcing the strict enforcement of regulations concerning Sino-Foreign cooperative education.  This includes all cooperative programmes and Sino-Foreign JV universities in China (i.e. any joint-programmes taught wholly or partially in the territory of the PRC) at Diploma, Foundation, UG, PG and Doctoral levels.  It appears not to be an April Fool's joke.  

The circular calls on all Sino-Foreign cooperative programmes/institutions to "accurately grasp the policy limits of Sino-Foreign cooperation in school management" and explicitly insists that the licensing procedures for programmes must be strictly adhered to, with approval being granted prior to the launch of new diplomas and degrees.  

The circular clearly states that programmes "foreign academic diplomas and degree certificates obtained in violation of regulations shall not be certified".  This means that, as has been pointed out on this blog in a recent post (see: http://www.thedaxue.com/2012/03/moe-announce-tougher-enforcement-of.html ), the MoE will not confer any foreign degrees wholly or partially taught in China unless they have specifically been approved by the Ministry of Education.  Lack of a conferral from the MoE essentially means the degree is not recognised in the PRC and renders any further study at Chinese universities impossible; means any subsequent PG or doctoral certificates will not be recognised either, and massively restricts (almost entirely) employment opportunities as most employers insist on a degree certificate and the MoE conferral (the conferral is seen as a check against fraudulent diplomas and degrees - all Chinese students who study entirely overseas must have their degrees notarised by the Chinese Embassy in that country and, upon return, the MoE will confer the degree).  

In addition, the MoE expressed their intention to enforce existing regulations and licence conditions concerning profit generation: "we must resolutely resist and correct (fix) misconceptions and practices of the foreign school as a means of income generation".  This clause of the circular should be noted by Sino-Foreign cooperative programmes which emphasise profit/high fees/marketing/recruitment over and above strong administration, quality teaching and management of their programmes in China.  

In instances where unlicensed programmes are in operation, the MoE advises that "unauthorised use of the name of the (Sino-Foreign) university and resources to run illegally held foreign school activities shall be promptly put to a stop" and "illegally held school activities, illegal issue of foreign diplomas...in a timely manner shall be punished".  The message could hardly be clearer.  Foreign universities must abide by the conditions of their licence, the 1998 HE Law of the PRC, the 2003 Sino-Foreign Cooperative Education Mgt Regulations and the 2006 amendment to those regulations.  

So, a warning indeed to all foreign educators involved in degree programmes in China: do your due diligence and make sure everything you are doing is above board and that all approvals have been obtained from the MoE in advance.  Those cooperative programmes operating within the parameters of their licences and observing the spirit and conditions of the 2003 regulations (amended in 2006) have little to be concerned about, save for an potential increase in monitoring by the HE bureaucracy.  This announcement merely announces that existing regulations will be much more strictly enforced with contravention of regulations being investigated by local/provincial education bureaus, the MoE and (if necessary) by the Public Security Bureau.  

Original article (Chinese only): http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s5987/201204/133501.html 

---

Free 3D Earth Screensaver
Watch the Earth right on your desktop! Check it out at www.inbox.com/earth

MoE Announce Tougher Enforcement of Masters Student Application System - Predicting the Impact on Sino-Foreign programmes

The PRC Ministry of Education has announced that the admissions system for Masters courses will be subject to very strict enforcement this year, calling on local education bureaus, admissions units to strengthen their administration of enrolment and assessment of prospective Masters students.

The announcement highlights the importance which the MoE attach to maintaining the integrity of applications, with irregularities being investigated by the MoE and, in severe cases where conspiracy is evident, by the Public Security Bureau. The MoE clearly states that coordinated attempts to influence the admissions process involving local officials constitutes a criminal act and will be dealt with accordingly.

Original Link (Chinese only)
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_1485/201203/132349.html

Such regulations exist for specific reasons. Firstly, and most obviously, these regulations exist to ensure fairness in the application system.

Secondly, and perhaps not as well known, is the issue of degrees in China being conferred by the MoE. This is a centrally controlled system of issuing and conferring degrees which fights academic fraud and also ensures that universities comply with various laws and regulations covering Chinese HE.

Masters candidates in China can only apply for a Masters course which appears on an approved list. In order to apply they must have taken the Masters Admissions Test referred to above. Consequently, prospective students can be sure that the Masters programme to which they are applying has been approved (Masters degree awarding status of a university must be given by the State Council - the PRC Cabinet), and, upon graduation, they will be issued with (a) their degree certificate from the awarding institution, and (b) the conferral from the Ministry of Education. This is the case with both UG and PG degrees in China.

It is important here to note that the conferral from the MoE is as important, if not more so, than the degree itself. Without the conferral, students will be unable to apply for jobs in China in state-owned companies, government departments, banks, universities, schools, hospitals and, increasingly, privately-owned and multi-national corporations operating in China. Also, no MoE conferral means the degree is not recognised as a legitimate academic qualification and any subsequent qualifications earned, such as a PhD, will thus also be declared invalid. This is a system which exists to make it near impossible for false or forged academic degree certificates to help secure employment or acceptance on a higher education course.

The system of centrally conferring degrees through the MoE is also extended, via the Chinese Embassies around the world, to foreign-educated Chinese citizens. For example, say a student decides to go to the UK to study, he/she must, upon completion of their degree, have the degree certificate validated and notarized by the Chinese Embassy or Consular Office in the UK. Then, upon return to China, the student will be added to the centrally-held list of graduates and have their degree conferred through the MoE, thus enabling the student to apply for a job (or further degree at a Chinese university).

Another consideration is for those students enrolled on a cooperative degree programme. These take many forms, but are essentially degree programmes taught entirely in China or partially in China and partially in a foreign country, and which offer a foreign degree or both a foreign and Chinese degree to graduating students. All 2+2 undergraduate programmes fall under this category, as do 1+1 Masters programmes and all programmes taught at Sino-Foreign JV universities. In this case, however, the degree must be approved by the Ministry of Education. Say, for example, an "under-the-radar" 2+2 UG programme recruits students. The student completes 2 years at the Chinese partner university. Then goes to the UK to complete the final 2 years. Upon graduation, the Chinese Embassy or consular office will refuse to validate and notarise a degree certificate obtained through a 2+2 programme unless that 2+2 programme has been specifically approved and licensed by the MoE.

This latest announcement from the MoE implies that all Masters courses in China will be subject to increased controls on admissions standards. Thus, any Masters programme launched in China, taught fully or partially in China, must be fully approved and taught at a university licensed by the MoE to offer Masters level degrees. Otherwise, students will be unable to apply. Any students enrolled outside the official application system (i.e. illegally) on "under-the-radar" Masters programmes will be unable to get the MoE conferral of their degree.

I am aware of several situations in China where cooperative UG/Masters degree programmes have been established outside the regulatory framework. I fully expect this to become a major issue for those institutions engaged in this practice next year, when those students graduate and discover their degree certificate is deemed invalid and they cannot obtain employment in China or go on to further study. This is an issue of those institutions running de facto illegal degree programmes in China which transgress either or all the 1995 HE Law, the 2003 Sino-Foreign JV Regulations, the 2006 Amendment to Sino-Foreign JV regulations and, perhaps most crucially, the conditions of the licence granted to those institutions to operate in China. Such instances will certainly bring a swarm of angry parents to the doors of these institutions, possible legal action and the wrath of the MoE, thus damaging both the reputation of the institution itself and the parent institutions including the foreign degree awarding institution. In most cases, only the foreign degree is being offered, thus making it all the more likely that the penalties and punishments for disregarding Chinese HE regulations will rest entirely with the foreign institution. It is also unlikely that the MoE will view such blatant disregard for HE regulations, whether deliberate or through ignorance, as anything other than a deliberate attempt to circumvent regulations, especially as such high fees (40k-90kRMB/£4k - £9k) are being charged.

There is also the question of morality here. As a teacher, I would find it absolutely immoral to market a programme to a student in the knowledge that it had not been officially approved. While the UK has the QAA and strong systems of checks and balances both within the university and from various external non-governmental bodies, in China this is all administered through the Ministry of Education. It is a basic and fundamental expectation that courses offered through a university in China satisfy the quality control and approval mechanisms devised by the MoE. Perhaps we will see a system of crippling fines introduced to dissuade fly-by-night courses being established, much the same as has been done in India recently. Predatory marketing of foreign universities in China, driven often by senior admin and international officers keen to reduce their reliance on recruiting international students from the open-market, is potentially very damaging to the British HE sector's reputation in China. It would perhaps be better for these universities to pay greater attention to compliance with Chinese HE regulations, rather than press ahead with marketing of programmes that have not yet been fully granted the necessary approval and licences. It would certainly be safer.

MG

The Spirit of Lei Feng lives on……On Chinese University Campuses

This year, August 15th to be precise, marks the 50th anniversary of the death of Lei Feng.  While this year marks 50 years since the passing of the icon of Communist China, every year on the 5th March young Chinese are encouraged to "learn from Lei Feng (向雷锋学习)" as part of Lei Feng Day 学雷锋日.  Needless to say, this year, in view of the 50 years since his death, events have been prominent and covered extensively in the national and local media.  

For those of you who have never heard of Lei Feng 雷锋, he was a young Communist and revolutionary soldier who dedicated much of his young life to selflessly helping others, adhering to socialist principles and revering the teachings of Chairman Mao.   

died at a tragically young at the age of 21, killed in an accident when a PLA transport truck struck a telephone pole which then fell on Lei, killing him instantly.  Here's a short 20min film for those with a penchant for late 60's CPC propaganda videos.  http://www.tudou.com/playlist/p/l3671273i18429974.html  (no English subtitles I'm afraid, but its a simple story.  Nice man helps others a lot and never thinks of himself).

The Ministry of Education has reported a wide range of activities conducted at famous universities across China, including Wuhan University, Beijing Foreign Studies University (BFSU), Shanghai Jiaotong University, Fudan University, Nankai University, North China Electrical Power University, Beijing Forestry University, Jiangnan University, Hebei Agricultural University, Dongbei Normal University, Tianjian Foreign Studies University and several city level business colleges across the country.  Doubtless that many more universities held similar activities on Lei Feng Day, urging students to develop a more considerate and less self-centred attitude towards their personal development.  Students volunteer to contribute to the improvement of campus life in a variety of different ways; to help individuals without thought for themselves; engage with the surrounding community, and 

Events like Lei Feng Day are often dismissed as quaint little nods to the CCP; a necessary ritual that all Chinese students must endure.  Conversely, many cynics (often foreigners - or at least those sufficiently out of the expat bubble to even know that such events exist) deride such occasions as subversive efforts to indoctrinate the youth of China with the poisonous ideologies of Communism and authoritarian rule.  

Yet if we look at many of the problems in modern China, problems that have been well-documented both inside and outside of the PRC, civility, at a very basic person-to-person level, is often absent in fast-moving contemporary China.  Whether its high-profile cases such as the young child left injured in a Guangdong street late last year, or a more cases of callousness towards fellow citizens (especially where money is concerned), it is perhaps apparent that a little more selflessness would be a good thing. 

The recent 2010-2020 Education Plan  (2010-2020 国家中长期教育改革和发展规划纲要) specifically addresses the role of education as primarily related to the moral education and moral development of citizens, a distinctly Confucian view of the role of education.  University Presidents and Party Secretaries are charged with not only providing moral leadership by example, but also in ensuring that  morality occupies a place of central importance in the development of students.  

Its also this type of interesting cultural event that makes China a fascinating place to be.  I would sincerely hope, as was the case when I studied at Fudan University (2004/05) and Peking University (2007/08) that these activities continue to offer windows into modern China's soul.  Its certainly my opinion that such activities are entirely benign, often useful, raise consciousness of civic responsibility (which is a fundamental prerequisite for democratic participation in any form), and contribute to an altogether more pleasant atmosphere.  

Such type of community-based, or sphere-based participation could well be the basis of political reform in China, given the great philosophical tradition of elevating the needs of society over and above the rights of the individual.  Indeed, there has already been much written about experiments in civic participation in municipalities in eastern China, and I've seen exactly this type of issue covered in-depth on local TV (one that springs to mind is issues of food hygiene in local restaurants being tackled by concerned citizens with the full backing of the city Mayor and various bureaus).  

While these may well be thoughts on the shape of China's coming transformation, despite Wen Jiabao's recent call for political reform, we should recognize that "democratization" does not necessarily equate with "electoral reform".  Personally, I feel that any system of democratization introduced in China will be done so gradually, and will emphasize social stability and social cohesion over individual political liberties (thus reducing the scope for any form of representative, multi-party democracy).  Where I differ from many of my friends (westerners, specifically), is that I do not view this as unfortunate.   I strongly feel that, since 1989 the west has rested on its laurels, convinced of the supremacy of its own political and economic model.  In reality, our cavalier attitude has allowed crony-capitalism and plural interests to undermine the very basis of our electoral system, placing our governments at the whim of big business: we may vote them in, but they've shown consistently over the years that once they're in they disregard the voter and pander to big business.  What excites me about China is two things: (A) their determination to forge their own path and (B) that this is going to force the West into a wholescale re-examination of our uncritical and absolute faith in a system which increasingly seems to be very far from the ideals upon which it is supposed to have been built.  

While little things like Lei Feng Day may appear insignificant, there is a small part of me that sees how the role of the university, as a place where new ideas are fomented, formed and enacted, could be crucial.  Even in a state-corporatist system like China, insitutional and social change is inevitable.  Even if the CCP maintain their power, change will occur in and out of university level activity.  Perhaps we will see a new form of political change arising from universities in China, but perhaps it will be as a result of CCP policies, not in spite of them.  

"Lei Feng on Campus: Education System carries out 'Study Lei Feng Activities'" from the MoE Website:
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s6321/list.html 

---

Free 3D Earth Screensaver
Watch the Earth right on your desktop! Check it out at www.inbox.com/earth

Sino British College - China Daily

A piece on the Sino-British College in the China Daily.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2012-03/13/content_14818404.htm
____________________________________________________________

Chinese Higher Education: Overseas Student Numbers for 2011

International students pursuing study in China rose again this year, according to figures released from the Ministry of Education (original Chinese language souce at: http://www.moe.edu.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s5987/201202/131117.html) 

Numbers appear to be calculated on a calendar year basis, as opposed to the academic year which runs from September to August.  Also, numbers appear to be calculated from visas granted or perhaps invitation letters issued by the provincial/municipal education bureaus.  

2011 saw an annual growth of total overseas student numbers by a figure of 27521 (10.38%) over 2010.  This took the total number of overseas students in China to 292611 students from a total of 194 countries, studying at 660 institutions across the PRC, but not in Taiwan, HK or Macao).  

FUNDING 2011 Change on 2010

Self Funding Students 266924 +22224 (9.98%)

Chinese Govt Scholarship 25687 +3297 (14.73%)

ORIGINATING REGION 2011 % of Total

Asia 187871 64.21%

Europe 47271 16.15%

The Americas 32333 11.05%

Africa 20744 7.09%

Australasia 4932 1.50%

ORIGINATING COUNTRY* 2011

South Korea 62442

USA 23292

Japan 17961

Thailand 14145

Vietnam 13549

Russia 13340

Indonesia 10597

India 9370

Pakistan 8516

Kazakhstan 8287

France 7592

Mongolia 7112

Germany 5451

*By-Country figures only given for countries sending in excess of 5000 students per year

PROGRAMME REGISTRATION 2011 % of Total

Non-Degree Seeking Students 173774 59.39%

Degree Seeking Students 118837 40.61%

DEGREE LEVEL 2011 % of Total Degree Seeking Students

Undergraduate Degree  88461 74.44%

Postgraduate Degree 23453 19.74%

Doctoral Candidates 6923 5.83%

The MoE report signs off with an unusually clear message on the objectives of Chinese Higher Education and specifically the increased recruitment of international students:

"The Ministry of Education will continue in the spirit of the 'National Medium-Long Term Education Plan Outline', earnestly implement the "China International Student Plan", improve the environment for international students through focusing on the standardizing management and improving quality of educational provision for international students.  By 2020 international student numbers will reach 500000 establishing China as the largest (most popular) destination for international students in the whole of Asia".  

MG

---

Free Online Photosharing - Share your photos online with your friends and family!
Visit http://www.inbox.com/photosharing to find out more!

University of Sydney - Tier 1 Gaokao Scores - What do they mean?

The University of Sydney (UoS) has adopted a strategy of accepting Chinese National University Entrance Exam, a.k.a. the Gaokao or 高考, as the criteria for entry.  As one of Australia's most prestigious universities, UoS appear to be jettisoning the requirement for Chinese students who have passed the Gaokao at "Tier 1" level to undertake a foundation year prior to enrolling on UG programmes.  

UoS' website states that this decision has been made to "make it easier for China's top students to study here".  The decision has been made to allow students with a Tier 1 Gaokao score and who satisfy the minimum English language requirements to be admitted directly to UoS programmes without the need for a foundation or pre-study programme.  

While this may, at first, seem like a good idea, this decision appears to betray a fundamental lack of understanding about the Gaokao system and what actually constitutes a "top student" in China.  Certainly, they appear to have confused Tier 1 Gaokao scores with an indication of student quality.  

Firstly, a Tier 1 score level differs from province to province.  Students in Shanghai and Beijing are at a strong advantage over students from richer coastal provinces, but which have fewer top class universities, such as Shandong, Jiangsu and Zhejiang.  In addition, provinces have a barter system to agree, in advance, how many students one province or municipality will take from another.  Additionally, while this is termed a "national" entrance exam, it is far from evenly applied.  Jiangsu (480), Zhejiang(810), Shanghai (630) (all major target markets for Chinese students) and Hainan (900) all have different total scores the standard 750 marks.  The exam content also differs from province to province.  

Tier 1 students are effectively those students who have scored a mark high enough to apply to university in China.  For example, the cut off for a student in the sciences in Shandong Province was around 570/750 last year (Science stream is more competitive than the Arts stream in Gaokao).  Should a student from Shandong score 570 and hold the requisite English language qualifications (IELTS 6.5 - 7.5 depending on course at UoS), they will be able to apply for direct entry to Year 1 of a 3yr UG programme.  

However, the actual score needed for a student from Shandong to gain admission to a top Chinese university is in 640-680 area, certainly admission to Peking or Tsinghua would require a minimum score of around 670-680.  Confused???  Welcome to the opaque world of chinese university admissions.  

Even if you look at the Sino-UK JV universities in China, XJTLU and UNNC, their entrance criteria are significantly above the Tier 1 cut-off points (provincial Tier 1 + 20-30 points as the lowest score in most cases, depending on the popularity of the UG programme, with scores ranging up to Tier 1 + 80 points).  In the case of XJTLU, it is tougher to gain access to degree programmes than it is to satisfy the minimum entrance requirements for study at the University of Liverpool, according to the UoL website, which asks for 530 at Gaokao, regardless of province or whether or not Tier 1 is satisfied (although, like UoS, studying at Liverpool UK requires IELTS 6.5 or higher, whereas XJTLU offers a 4year degree with the 1st year providing intensive English and study skills).  

We must remember here too that there are approximately 9m Gaokao candidates, with only 2m university places up for grabs.  Where UoS seem to have encountered confusion is that they believe Tier 1 is an indication of a minimum academic standard.  It is actually related to the number of places available at universities in the province (a); the number of places in other provinces that have been negotiated through barter (b). A+B = C  (total available university places).  The provincial/municipal government then takes (C), for example 200k places, and then looks at the first 200k students in terms of exam performance.  The lowest score (Student No. 200000) score is then  set as the Tier 1 score.  Also, students going to university in their home province require lower scores than if they go to another province.  Finally, depends to a great extent on the performance of the Gaokao cohort as a whole.  For example, last year Shandong's Tier 1 score was 570, about 20 points lower than in any of the previous 5 years.  

A final consideration UoS appear to have missed is the deficit in English language ability which will need to be plugged.  With a minimum of IELTS 6.5 required for entrance to UoS, students will need to study for a minimum of one year to raise their standards from Gaokao English to required standard.   Many students will cram through the summer to get IELTS 5.0, then look for foundation programmes overseas where they can study for 1yr prior to enrolling on a UG programme.  

I admire the attempt.  UoS is a world class institution and it is good to see a genuine attempt to increase admissions standards. Lancaster University, according to their website, admit students with a worryingly low 60% (450/750 in most cases) for their 2+2 programmes.  Students with this level of score would, in all likelihood, be unable to enrol for UG programs at any Chinese university (though a 3yr vocational degree may be an option).  450/750 in the Gaokao is a humiliating fail.  Unfortunately this level of entrance criteria appears to be the norm for many "world class" universities when assessing Chinese students.    

My fear in this case is that any self respecting first class student will balk at the idea of applying to a university which accepts a Tier 1 benchmark + English.  UoS could well be damaging their reputation in the eyes of the very market they are attempting to attract.  Top class students, those with Gaokao Tier 1 +10-15%, will avoid applying to universities who accept students with a flat Tier 1 score.  In China, the gulf in class between a university accepting Tier 1 and a university accepting Tier 1+10-15% is difficult to quantify.  It would not be an exaggeration to equate it with comparing a city level technical college with a world class university such as UoS or Cambridge or Columbia.  When I conducted study into Chinese students and the marketing of UK higher education for my graduate studies, the most consistent indicator of the quality of a university favoured by Chinese students was the difficulty in gaining entry.  

By accepting Tier 1, the University of Sydney may well be raising their standards, but they could well be damaging their reputation.   

---

Free 3D Earth Screensaver
Watch the Earth right on your desktop! Check it out at www.inbox.com/earth

The Increasing Importance of Cultural Exchange: Indications of a New Strategy to Internationalize Chinese HE?

An earlier post on this blog (The Internationalization of Chinese HE Part II - October 14th 2011) clearly expressed the opinion that, given the objectives outlined in recent national and MoE policy documents, a shift in the strategic focus for the internationalization of Chinese HE was on the cards.

The post argued that the PRC government is now following a three-pronged strategy to rapidly modernize, internationalize and improve the quality of Chinese HE. The first objective appears to be a shift away from teacher-led learning strategies to a more student-centred learning approach in HE, specfically as this is seen as the basis for creative and innovation in science and technology which the CCP view as central to the next stage of economic and social development. This will be realized through the achievement two further policy objectives: (1) the introduction of robust quality control systems for both teaching and research, and (2) the internationalization of Chinese HE, with increased numbers of overseas students helping to transform classroom and campus culture.

In an article published in the People's Daily (人民日报) on 13th Feb 2012, entitled "Hand in Hand, Towards the Future, Together we Go 携手同进，继往开来", the recent visit by Vice-President Xi Jinping to the US prompted some consideration of the importance of cultural exchange between China and the US.

Minister of Education, Yuan Guiren was quick to reference previous successes, specifically dialogue between CPC Politburo member and State Councillor Mme Liu Yandong and US Sectretary of State Hilary Clinton. Firstly, the Chinese govt has provided scholarship assistance for 10000 young Chinese to undertake study in the humanities at US universities. Secondly, for the training of primary and middle school teachers in the US in order to help facilitate the acceleration of education provision in the central and western regions of the Chinese mainland. Yet these trends still appear to be flowing in the direction of East-to-West

While in 2010/11 academic year there were 157558 Chinese students undertaking study at US HEI's, a growth rate of 23.3% over 2009/10 academic year, the imbalance is stark, with the US sending only 24000 students, most of whom are on short-term programs or language study programs, not full degree.

It is this apparent "cultural deficit" or lack of enough young Americans with the requisite cross-cultural and linguistic skills needed to effectively deal with China (in spheres such as business, education, diplomacy etc) that prompted the Obama administration to develop and launch the "100k Strong" initiative back in early 2010, with the aim of building to a figure of 100000 US students studying in China across all levels by 2015.

While China does not appear keen to restrict the numbers of students going overseas for higher education, they are certainly making noises about rebalancing these numbers. With the USA's "100k Strong" initiative and the EU's Leuven Initiative, and the fact that China still has the aura of a country unscathed by the financial turmoil that has embroiled the west, there is every reason to believe that this rebalancing will begin to accelerate.

One problem which will continue to face Chinese HE is the issue of teaching in the Chinese language. Chinese universities hoping to attract large umbers of full time students from N. America, EU, UK and Australasia will need to increase their capability for delivering programmes through English as the Medium of Instruction. If this is not done, Chinese universities will continue an effective "linguistic segregation" of their international student cohorts, which undermines the effectiveness of using international students as catalysts for transformation of classroom and campus culture.

The Sino-Foreign JV universities seem particularly well-placed to take advantage of this key tidal change in emphasis. However, it must be said that they must first wean themselves off their addiction to transferring Chinese students back to their parent campuses overseas, or at least balance exports with international students coming to study in China. Whether its Xi'an Jiaotong Liverpool University (XJTLU), Nottignham Ningbo (UNNC) or the Sino-British College (SBC), or even the potential new entrants of Duke Kunshan (DKU) or Shanghai New York (SHNYU), whoever can deliver the policy objectives regarding internationalization first is going to be flavour of the month with the MoE. Those that don't may well find ever decreasing ranges latitude and room for manoeuvre regarding the regulations under which they exist.

____________________________________________________________
Send your photos by email in seconds...
TRY FREE IM TOOLPACK at http://www.imtoolpack.com/default.aspx?rc=if3
Works in all emails, instant messengers, blogs, forums and social networks.

MoE Releases 2011 Statistics on Overseas Students and Returnees

According to recent figures released by the Ministry of Education (MoE), Chinese students pursuing degrees at overseas HEI's continued to show high growth in 2011.

The MoE reports that 339700 students in total left China to pursue study overseas. Of those, 12800 were sponsored by the national government; 12100 were sponsored by their work organisations, and 314800 were self-funding students. Overall this represents a 55000 increase on 2010 figures, meaning a year-on-year growth rate of 19.32%

Overseas students returning to China increased proportionally at a greater rate in comparison to 2010 figures. Figures for returnees in 2011 increased by 38.08% (51300) over 2010 numbers, with 186200 students returning. Of those, 9300 were nation government-sponsored students; 7700 were sponsored by work organisations, and the remainder 169200 were self-funding students.

The MoE states that, since the Gaige Kaifang (Opening and Reform Period) commenced in 1978, 2245210 Chinese students have received a international university education at UG or PG levels.

At present, the MoE states that 1108800 are currently pursuing degrees overseas.

Original Link (Chinese) http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s5987/201202/130328.html

MG

____________________________________________________________
Publish your photos in seconds for FREE
TRY IM TOOLPACK at http://www.imtoolpack.com/default.aspx?rc=if4

The Internationalization of Chinese Higher Education Part II: The Changing Tide in a Perfect Storm.

As discussed in the last post, the internationalization of ChineseHigher Education has been characterized by east-west student migration.   Strategies to exploit the vastness ofChina’s HE market have ranged from direct student recruitment, recruitment viaagents, 2+2 programmes (many of highly questionable quality) and theestablishment of JV universities. 

While there can be littledoubt that large numbers of Chinese students will continue to seek high qualityeducation overseas, both at UG and PG level, the Ministry of Education (MoE)has, since 2006, issued several policy documents which indicate a growingdissatisfaction with status quo. 

Firstly, in 2006, the MoEissued a policy amendment stating that:

“Education is a noble, public-interest undertaking whose basic goal isthe cultivation of human talent. Educational service is not trade in goods, noris it equivalent to trade in typical services. The aim and nature ofChinese-foreign cooperation in running schools must be correctly grasped. Theimplementation of random fees or high fees under the guise of Chinese-foreigncooperation in running schools is strictly prohibited; tendencies towards theindustrialization of education shall be guarded against”. 

MoEOpinion Concerning SeveralCurrent Problems in Sino-Foreign Cooperatively Managed Schools, 2006 (教育部关于当前中外合作办学若干问题的意见). 

This amendmentto the 2003 Regulations then continues in Article 2:

“In the process of developing Chinese-foreign cooperation in runningschools, attention shall be paid to strengthening the leading position of theChinese educational institution and adamantly carrying out national educationalpolicies”

MoEOpinion Concerning SeveralCurrent Problems in Sino-Foreign Cooperatively Managed Schools, 2006 (教育部关于当前中外合作办学若干问题的意见). 

A furthercircular issued in 2007, as well as recent comments by MoE officials, did nothide their contempt for the continuing treatment of China as a flesh market forforeign universities.  2006/7 certainlymarked the beginning of a shift in MoE thinking on Sino-Foreign HE cooperation,with the new emphasis appearing to focus more on the benefits provided toChinese HE and the achievement of national HE objectives.  

Thepublication of the 2010-2020 National Medium to Long Term Education Reform andDevelopment Plan Outline (2010-2020 国家中长期教育改革和发展规划纲要) constitutes a shift indirection for Chinese HE, moving away from the policy objectives of the last10-15 years; massification, marketization. The new catchwords in Chinese HE are “innovation”, “internationalization”and “quality standards”. 

“Innovation” refers to China’s deficit in intellectual property.  At the meeting of the Ministry of EducationScience and Technology Management Committee, which I was lucky enough to attendlast year, Professor Liu Renhuai gave a staggering statistic that outlines theenormity of this problem in China.  Chinain 2009 paid US$1.35 trillion per annum in oil imports to fuel its economicgrowth.  In comparison, Chinese companiespaid an estimated US$1.5 trillion in licensing fees for foreign technology.  Innovation, particularly in Science andTechnology, has become the overarching objective of education reform at alllevels in China.  Economists will notethat any moderate success in building an innovative, knowledge-based economy bythe PRC will have grave implications for foreign tech firms and for the nationaleconomies of developed nations where high-end science and technology innovationhas largely replaced downstream industries which have already been outsourcedto places like China, Vietnam, India, Brazil and other rapidly developingnations.  Even if China manage to snatch20% of this US$1.5tr over the next 10 years, this represents a US$300bn rise inthe trade deficit with advanced nations like UK, EU and US.  Western nations have, since the advent ofneoliberalism, shifted all of their economic eggs into one basket and China isnow looking at that basket and hoping to incorporate it into its own widerconfiguration of baskets.  Its somethingthat should give western politicians sleepless nights. 

“QualityStandards” aims to rapidly increase the delivery of quality education throughall tiers of China’s education system. There is a tacit recognition in the policy document that China needs towean itself off the teacher-centred model prevalent throughout the educationsystem.  More explicitly, the 2010-2020plan calls for student-centred learning to be adopted in higher education.  More robust teaching and assessment will beguaranteed to meet minimum criteria through the introduction of a quality assurancesystem.  However, this emphasis onquality standards fails to acknowledge the simple basic truth that it is verydifficult to rapidly improve education provision through qualityassurance.  Furthermore, it introduces a‘compliance culture’ into HE, where the prevailing attitude can often become“what is the least we can get away with”. Call me a bluff, old traditionalist, but I think academia is best leftin the hands of academics whose main interest is research and teaching thesubjects they are passionate about.  Onlyby creating an atmosphere conducive to scholarly excellence will you improvestandards rapidly.  Weaving aOrwellian/Weberian bureaucratic dystopia that constrains academic talent onlyserves to destroy the soul of the university, yet it is something you often seepursued with evangelist vigour by some hopelessly misled universityadministrators. 

Thisbrings us to the final catchword of China’s new HE vision:“internationalization”.  And this iswhere things begin to get interesting.  Priorto the 2010-2020 plan, internationalization has been carried out almostmindlessly in China.  In terms ofresearch, there have been no shortage of eager senior administrators from thewest, keen to sign on the dotted line, a phenomenon made all the more common byChina’s famous ability to massage the egos of rather vain westerners.  Similarly, Chinese academics score majorpoints for bringing an international tie-up. However, it is difficult to think of any really successful example of a research collaboration that hasachieved anything more impressive than its own inauguration ceremony and theaccompanying fanfare of flowers, red carpets, impromptu speeches, headlines andchauffeur-driven cars, kept on stand-by to whisk the visiting signatories backto the sanctity of their 5 star hotel as quickly as is humanly possible.   Collaborative teaching and joint programmesare also usually launched in this rather ostentatious manner before they begintheir decline, a decline often beginning at the exact moment the ViceChancellor or President (or a high-ranking representative) straps him/herselfinto a business class seat on the runway at Pudong or BeijingInternational.  OK.  Perhaps its easy to be cynical and dismissiveof many internationalization projects in China; many have been successful, butthey remain firmly in the minority. 

TheChanging Tide

Thedifference now is that China, the MoE and China’s universities are gettingwise.  They no longer want headlines, butrather programmes and partnerships that deliver the goals of the HE policiesnow being passed down through the administrative framework: State Council toMoE to the Party Secretaries and Senior Administrators in universities.  While there is acceptance that Chinesestudents will continue to seek education overseas, the MoE and Chineseuniversities are realizing that international students are needed to acceleratethe adoption of student-centred learning within their own universities.  I’ve come across several estimates of figuresfor international students that the MoE wants by 2020.  A reasonable estimate appears to be that theywant 500,000 foreign students studying in China by 2020, 150,000 of whom shouldbe enrolled on full-time Chinese university degree programmes (UG, PG andDoctoral).  This would deliver, withinten years, a total rebalancing of China’s brain-drain (although many overseaseducated Chinese are already returning to China now), and would transform Chinainto a net-importer of students.  While alarge amount of these students would come from advanced nations such as the US,Canada, UK, EU, Australia and New Zealand, many will come from countries whichtraditionally send students to those countries (India, Malaysia, Nigeria,Ghana, South Korea, Taiwan).  In short,China is transforming from a market for western HE sectors into acompetitor.  Western universities shouldbe concerned not about losing Chinese students to a rapidly improving ChineseHE industry, but to losing students from other markets who decide to undertakedegrees delivered through EMI in China’s top universities.  Really, although to achieve their goal of 150,000students on full time programmes might seem impossible, breaking thatfigure down shows that even if this effort is focused on the elite Project 985 universities,it is not actually that unfathomable.  I,for one, would never bet against China. 

Thereare 39 Project 985 Universities.  Theywould have to have 3846 foreign students each in order to hit the magic 150,000full time foreign students.  Lets say,for argument's sake 50 of those will be PhD’s, with a PhD lasting 4 years.  Masters generally last 2-3 years in China,but lets say 2 years.  UG programmes areall 4yrs.  Project 985 universities wouldhave to hit the following intake limits by 2015/16 academic year in order toensure the target is reached. 

UGInt’l Intake 2015/16         -            750 (x4yrs = 3000)

PhDInt’l Intake 2015/16        -            50 (x4yrs = 200)

MastersIntake 2018/19          -            325 (x2yrs = 650)

TOTALIntake                       -            1100

Thiswould give a total number of students at 3850 in the 2019/20 academic year(assuming no drop-outs), which when multiplied by the 39 Project 985 universities, gives a figure of 150,150.  OK, it’s theback-of-an-envelope calculation, but it illustrates that 150,000 students onfull time UG study may not be as laughable as it first appears.  Especially if you recognize that universitiesoutside the Project 985 group will almost certainly get in on the act, theactual number of universities recruiting significant numbers of foreignstudents will likely be around the 100 mark. 

Ofcourse, there are myriad obstacles, some seemingly insurmountable, which makethis prospect appear doubtful.  Firstly,the need to deliver UG and PG programmes largely in English and in a manneracceptable to western students (English as the Medium of Instruction or ‘EMI’)must be established on a previously unseen scale across China’s eliteuniversities (those 39 members of Project 985 and the 100+ members of Project211).  Secondly, the level of trustplaced in Chinese HE by prospective foreign students must be addressed.  This is easier said than done.  It is not merely a case of sendingInternational Officers to recruit international students - internationalrecruitment activities and the international recruitment marketplace are stilltotally focused on east-to-west student migration – it is a case of marketcreation.  Chinese universities haveseveral options at their disposal for this, namely: Exchange Programmes, StudyAbroad Programmes and World Rankings.  AsChinese elite universities rise in the rankings, so will the esteem of Chinese HEin general, and doubts as to the quality of Chinese HE will dissipate.  Through exchange and study abroadrelationships, Chinese universities can increase their visibility in thecurrent market.  Exchange and StudyAbroad carry less risk for the students, as they remain registered at theirhome institution, but it remains a powerful tool for Chinese universities toconstruct the foundations of the new market to lure foreigners to Chineseuniversities on a full time basis.   Itsall about building trust.  Finally, thereis the issue of talent.  Chineseuniversities are filled with lots of very hard-working, talented and passionateacademics, but they are also poorly remunerated, poorly treated and arepressured to direct their attentions to research outputs, with volume, notquality, being the key performance indicator. This certainly has to change and it is not difficult to foresee asituation whereby foreign student fees are used to raise conditions for Chineseacademics and administrators.  Regardlessof whether China is successful in this regard, this is something that musthappen if China wants a world-class HE sector. Its not rocket science. 

ThePerfect Storm

Thereare several other factors which are going to influence this process.  If the efforts of the Chinese noted above canbe described as “pull factors”, the “push” factors in the west are alsoconverging to direct more and more students to undertake study in China. 

TheUS State Department launched the rather clumsily titled “100k Strong” initiativein early 2010.  The stated objective ofthis programme is to have 100k US students undertake part of their UG study inChina by 2015 (yes, that does say 2015, its not a typo)  This is already having a clear impact inChina.  Although some universities, suchas NYU and UC Denver, have long established Study Abroad Centers in China, manyare moving now, with the likes of Stanford establishing a Study Abroad Centerat Peking University.  The top USuniversities are likely to enter into their own collaborations, but privateeducation providers such as INTO and a new US company called gMEO are aiming tobridge the gap between US and Chinese institutions and facilitate large scalenumbers of US students studying in China on credit-bearing UG courses.  Of course, organizations such a IIE, CIEE andAPI will continue to channel US students to well-estalbished language andcultural programmes at universities like Fudan, Peking, Tsinghua, BLCU,Shanghai Jiaotong and others. 

Lookingto Europe and we have a similar situation, although the EU is taking a lessaggressive approach.  The LeuvenInitiative is focused on promoting international student mobility for studentsfrom EU member states.  Its over-archingaim is to increase the percentage of students taking part of or all of their UGstudy outside their home country from the current 1% to 20% by 2020.  Again, this represents a major opportunity inthe area of Exchange Programmes (Study Abroad being a uniquely US phenomenon).  The issue here is that of English languagecapability as Chinese students will lack the requisite English language skills(or other European language skills) to undertake UG study in Europe, even inthe event Chinese universities have sufficient courses taught in English.  A possible fix, which no one appears to havethought of thus far, is a UG for PG exchange. i.e. sending European UG students to a Chinese university who then sendgraduate students to the European university (with the Chinese graduate simplypaying the Chinese university an agreed fee rather than paying the European universitythe graduate fees).  Whether it’s aworkable solution from a financial and administrative point of view is anotherquestion entirely, although internationalization of the student body is anobvious benefit to both institutions and should be judged on that basis ratherthan a financial basis. 

Toconclude, I think it would be fair to say that there is a possible convergenceof policy interventions at play which could work to China’s favour.  Policy aside, China’s place in the worldcontinues to become more central, both economically and politically, and itwould be reasonable to assume that many young people will have their headsturned east as financial turmoil in the west continues.  Talent usually goes where opportunitiesabound and China, as well as India, Brazil and several other non-traditionallocations, may offer more than the stagnating economies of the global North.  It will certainly be interesting to watch itall unfold and, hopefully, be a part of a very exciting juncture in thedevelopment of international HE. 

MG