Internationalization

NUMBER 53, FALL 2008

Globalization, Internationalization, and Rankings

Ellen Hazelkorn
Ellen Hazelkorn is professor, Director of Research and Enterprise and Dean of the Graduate Research School, Dublin Institute of Technology. She is also Director of the Higher Education Policy Research Unit, Dublin Institute of Technology, Dublin, Ireland. E-mail: ellen.hazelkorn@dit.ie.

Within days of each other, Times Higher Education published two articles (July 3, 2008 and July 10, 2008) and the Chronicle of Higher Education (July 11, 2008) published one about how domestic demographic shifts across Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries could cause a near doomsday scenario for, in this case, UK and Japanese higher education. UK universities were urged to "buckle up for a rough ride," while the latter paper told tales of how Japanese universities were responding to escalating competition by "sending recruiters out to high schools, holding open houses for prospective students, building swimming pools and revamping libraries, and recruiting more foreign students." Stories of what the Daily Yomiuri calls the "scramble for students" or the Economist calls the "battle for brainpower" are increasingly common as higher education moves center stage in the geopolitical contest for an increasing share of the global economic market. Indeed, the battle for talent now complements more traditional struggles for natural resources. Government policy aims to offset domestic demographic shifts with internationalization—once seen as a policy of cultural exchange. Global competition is reflected in the rising significance and popularity of rankings that attempt to measure the talent-catching capacity of higher education institutions.

The following observations are based on an international survey of higher education leaders in 2006 and interviews at higher education institutions in Australia, Japan, and Germany during 2008.

Higher Education Internationalization Policy
Internationalization has become both a university and a government priority—not just because it is seen as a sign of global competitiveness but also because it serves as a way to ensure the capacity to participate in world science. According to the OECD, countries with high levels of international students benefit from the contribution they make to domestic research and development, while those with low numbers find it "more difficult . . . to capitalize on this external contribution to domestic human capital production."

Previously protected by geography from the full effect of competition, Japan's 726 universities now face considerable pressure. According to census statistics, the number of 18-year-old Japanese has fallen to 1.3 million in 2007 from 2.05 million in 1992. The figure is likely to drop to 1.21 million by 2009. According to the International Herald Tribune (June 21, 2007), nearly a third of the nation's four-year universities were unable to fill all of their openings, and others have now closed. The government has set a target of increasing the number of international students from the current 100,000, to 300,000 by 2020.

Germany faces similar demographic challenges, with the greatest impact expected after 2015. The federal government predicts that even with 200,000 immigrants a year, Germany's population will shrink from today's 82.5, to 75 million by 2050. International student recruitment is now seen as vital as the number of students entering higher education and then matriculating from undergraduate to postgraduate falls. The government had anticipated restricting matriculation to only 50 percent of the cohort; but due to such small numbers, the idea was dropped.

Australia faces a converse difficulty. Education is a $12.5 billion export industry—half in higher education—the third-largest Australian export after coal and iron ore, a point of much celebration and much consternation. The former reflects the significance of higher education for the economy, but it also reveals Australia's overdependence on international students at a time when student-exporting countries—such as Singapore, China, and Malaysia—are rapidly expanding their own higher education systems. Australia has the highest proportion of international students in higher education (17.3%), which exceeds the OECD average of 6.7 percent, although its proportion of international students in advanced research programs (17.8%) lags behind competitive universities by up to 50 percent. This difference is now critical, because PhD students are seen, by all governments, as a talent metric vital for economic development and innovation. Accordingly, changes have been made in student visa requirements to allow easier transition to permanent residency.

Rankings and International Students
Australia, Germany, and Japan provide good illustrations of how global rankings have become a powerful weapon in the battle for talent. On a simple country comparison, 2 Australian universities are in the top 100 on the Shanghai Jiao Tong Academic Ranking of World Universities or 8 in the Times QS Ranking of World Universities in 2007. Germany had 6 and 3, respectively, and Japan had 6 or 4 universities, respectively. Despite this record, there is concern in all three countries about the ability to maintain competitive attractiveness.

International students, especially postgraduate students, are savvy consumers of global rankings. Almost without exception, all international students interviewed for this research indicated they used rankings to short-list institutions, sometimes within an identified country. For example, they "might know about Australia, but not where in Australia to go." Institutional rank transmits social and cultural capital that resonates with family, friends, and potential employers. It grants self-pride and peer-esteem. This is particularly true for Asian students—the prime recruitment target—who may seek employment in their home country upon graduation. One student explained:

at my university, I have a colleague who graduated from Columbia University and she's holding a very high position at the university now. They did not tell me frankly but I could read their minds that if I am lucky enough to graduate at this university I could not be as highly appreciated as the one who graduated from Columbia University.

While there is a growing international undergraduate student market, most of these students are spending either a semester or year abroad as part of their program of study. Nevertheless, even here, their decisions are often influenced by reputational factors.

Reputation, Visibility, and Brand
Higher education leaders and their admissions offices are very clear that rankings form a vital part of strategic positioning. A high rank enhances visibility and helps create brand. Higher education leaders, at all levels in the popularity stakes, commented that rankings made their institution better known, both nationally and internationally, in keeping with rankings among international students, recruitment agencies, and other higher education institutions interested in forming partnerships. While some institutions vie for a high rank, many others find just being mentioned beneficial—helping to overcome local bias or tradition.

In turn, higher education institutions and their governments are developing sophisticated marketing and recruitment strategies to woo high-achieving students with attractive financial and scholarship packages, often with other benefits (e.g., financial assistance and access to particular facilities, etc.). According to the 2006 international survey, almost 50 percent of institutions used their rank for publicity purposes—on their Web page, in speeches; at new faculty, student orientation, or international meetings; or when lobbying government:

those who are looking at their institution on an international scale are fully aware of the potential of these ratings, rankings, evaluations to attract students, to attract faculty and so on and it is also commented in . . . the newspapers, in comments in the media and so on. . . .

At the same time, institutions use rankings to help select prospective postgraduate students.

Yet, readying higher education for an influx of international students is not simple. In Germany and Japan, this means transforming programs and activities into English—even when, as in Japan, over 92 percent of foreign students come from Asia, of which 60 percent are Chinese and 15 percent Korean. Most Japanese universities are focusing on postgraduate activities, initially in science and technology fields. Institutional flexibility allowed under new "incorporation" legislation permits universities to offer distinctive tenure arrangements and salary packages to entice internationally competitive scholars. At one university, exceptional scholars can earn up to twice their baseline salary based on performance. Knowledge of Japanese is not required because these scholars will teach at the postgraduate level, with international or internationally minded students. New facilities include more dormitories, world-class laboratories, and international student services and amenities. At a time when university budgets are being reduced by one percent annually, many Japanese higher education leaders are worried.

Impact on Funding Internationalization
Competitiveness and funding are common themes in all countries—to make higher education institutions attractive academically, research-wise, and physically—and thus draw international students and faculty. There are two main policy regimes. Germany and Japan are unapologetically using marketing and rankings to create greater vertical (reputational) and horizontal (functional) differentiation, concentrating "excellence" in 10 and 30 world-class universities, respectively. This will probably involve closing down some regional and private universities. In contrast, Australia—with its newly elected social democratic government—wants to "brand Australia" with a "diverse set of high-performing, globally focused" higher education institutions. Because rankings and similar benchmarking assessments do influence institutional behavior and performance, the policy choices are critical.

[Online] Available: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/Number53/p8_Hazelkorn.htm