Transcript War of the Models: Can the Egalitarian EU Compete with the

What Does Growth of Higher Education
Overseas Mean to the US?
Part I: Facts
1. Worldwide Growth of Higher Education
2. International Students
3. Advanced country feminization of Higher Education
Part II: Interpretation
4. Models of University Sector Expansion
5. Implications for universities, students, firms
6. Policies to make worldwide growth more beneficial to the US
Richard B. Freeman, Harvard and NBER
I. Facts
Three “Big Facts” about the Growth
1.
The US share of world higher education enrollments and
degrees, particularly in science and engineering, is falling at
undergraduate and graduate level, due to increased propensity
for higher education in other countries and “human resource
leapfrogging” in highly populous developing countries.
2. The US share of the international students is falling while the
international share of US graduate studies, is rising; and
foreign-educated graduates are an increasingly important
source of labor in US and for US multinationals worldwide.
3. Women have become the majority of university students
throughout the advanced world, and thus an increasingly
important source of highly educated workers worldwide.
1: Millions of Enrollments in Higher Education (including
< 4 year) Worldwide and US Share of World Enrollments
1970
1980
1990
2005
World
29.4
55.3
67.6
135.9
US
8.5
12.1
13.7
17.3
Other
advanced
Developing
4.9
8.2
12.9
21.4
16.0
35.0
41.0
97.2
1.7
3.8
21.3
China
<0.1
India
2.5
3.5
5.0
11.8
US share
29%
22%
20%
13%
US Rank in Propensity for University
Training vs Other Advanced countries
Graduation Data from OECD for advanced countries
“tertiary A” graduation rates
1992 2 out of 15
“tertiary A” graduation rates
2005 13 out of 20
Phd or equivalent graduation rates 2005 9 out of 20
All Science Grads/ 25-34 yr olds,
2005 12 out of 20
Enrollment data from OECD for advanced countries
first time entry as % of age group
1995 2 out of 15
first time entry as % of age group
2005 7 out of 20
Enrollment % of 20-29 yr olds
1995 9 out of 20
Enrollment % of 20-29 yr olds
2005 12 out of 20
Survival Rates from OECD for advanced countries
Graduation/new entrants for type A 2004 17t out of 18
US Rank in Propensity for Bachelor’s Degrees and
Natural Science and Engineering Degrees (NSF)
Bachelor’s Grads/24 yr old pop,
1992
2 of 21 advanced countries
2002
14 of 23 advanced countries
Natural Science &Engineering Grads /24 yr
1992
3 of 21 advanced countries
2002
19 of 23 advanced countries
Millions of First University Degrees, Natural
S&E Degrees, 24 year olds, ~2002 and ~1995
US
2002
World
2002
US/World
2002
1.306
9.057
Nat S&E 0.219
2.395
24 yr old 3.851
First
Degree
14.4%
US/AsiaEur-NA,
2002
17.0%
US/AsiaEur-NA,
1995
22.5%
9.1%
9.9%
12.8%
79.363 4.9%
6.1%
5.5%
2.79
4.09
1.62
2.33
First/24 33.9% 11.4% 2.97
yr old
Nat S&E 5.7% 3.0% 1.90
/24 yr
Ratio of #S&E PhDs from Foreign Universities
to # from US Universities
1975
1989
2001
Asia major nations
0.22
0.48
0.96
China
na
0.05
0.32
Japan
0.11
0.16
0.29
EU major (Fr, Germ, UK)
0.64
0.84
1.07
All EU
0.93
1.22
1.54
Chinese ‘diaspora’ vs. US
‘stayers’ (estimate)
2003a
2010a
0.49
1.26
1.62c
1.92c
0.72b
a
For 2003 & 2010, ratios calculated using US doctorates at 2001 production level.
b ‘diaspora’ includes estimates of Chinese doctoral graduates from UK, Japan, and US
(with temporary visas). US ‘stayers’ include US citizens and permanent residents
c EU data extrapolated from earlier years.
Sources: Science & Engineering Indicators – 2004 (NSF), and primary sources referenced therein; Weigo & Zhaohui
National Research Center for S&T Development (China) – private communication
2. Millions of International Students and US
share, 1975-2005
Year
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
•
•
Numbers
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.2
1.3
1.9
2.7
US Share
38%
33%
35%
26%
22%
Source: OECD, Education at a Glance, 2007, Box c3.1 and
IIE, International Students and Mobility
http://exchanges.state.gov/universitysummit/mobility_report.pdf
Foreign-Born share of US degrees and enrollments
Bachelor’s
Natural S &E
1985
3.0
6.5
2002/3
3.1
6.8
Master’s
Natural S&E
9.4
22.8
13.2
36.4
Doctorate
Natural S&E
All S&E
14.5
22.4
18.3
21.4
37.5
32.2
Postdocs
39.6
57.7
Grad Student enrolments
Natural S&E
All S&E
21.3
18.7
31.7
27.2
Major sending countries in International
Graduate Students, by location
Do foreign “crowd out” US-born?
In aggregate, hard to see in data since US system
is highly elastic to enrollments
Most growth of FB enrollments in newer, lower
quality graduate programs
But US-born share in top universities in many
fields has fallen.
Any adverse impact on decisions of US students
more likely through job market effect of
immigrants or off shoring
3. The Surge of Female Enrollments, A
US Comparative Advantage?
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
F/M HSG Enr in College
F/M all College Enrollments
99
20
02
95
92
89
85
82
79
75
72
69
65
62
58
54
51
47
0
F/M HSG Enr Rate in College
Ratio of Females to Males in US higher
education, enrollments and by degree, 2004
College Enrolments
Bachelor’s
Master’s
Law
MD
MBA
PhD
1.29
1.37
1.43
0.98
0.87
0.72
0.92
Enrollment Ratios of Women/Men in higher
education, by age group, advanced countries, 2004
Norway
Iceland
Australia
Ireland
Sweden
Canada
US
Netherlands
Finland
Luxembourg
Portugal
OECD
1.54
1.78
1.23
1.28
1.55
1.36
1.39
1.08
1.20
1.18
1.32
UN
1.38
1.82
1.14
1.28
1.47
-1.27
1.17
1.26
---
Germany
Japan
..
0.89
0.97
0.73
Switzerland
0.80
0.97
Korea,
0.61
0.87
OECD
Belgium 1.21
Austria
1.19
Denmark 1.42
France
1.28
Italy
1.34
UK
1.37
Spain
1.22
NZ
1.41
Israel
1.33
Greece
1.17
UN
1.06
1.24
1.58
1.47*
1.27
1.17 *
1.41
1.41
-1.23
The Rapidly Growing US Supply to S&E: % of
NSF Fellowships Awarded to Women, 1952-2004
70%
60%
All Fields
Comp Sci
Engineer
Life Sci
Phys Sci
Social/Psych
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
II. Interpretation
4. Models of growth process
Logistic growth patterns in growth of enrollments,
lagging logistic growth of HSG
Growth of foreign-born grad students in US depends
largely on growth of bachelor’s grads in other country
Growth of foreign-born post-docs depends largely on
NIH spending; 2/3rd are from foreign universities
?? Field patterns differ depending on role of state in
admissions ??
?? Cost of higher education affects global differences in
enrollments ??
5. Implications: Macro-economy
Growth of college grad workers Growth of knowledge 
faster productivity growth  lower priced goods
good for humanity.
Lower cost of goods with low wage college graduates
elsewhere
Great for US/other multinationals, who source labor globally
But some adverse effects on US: Reduced US comparative
advantage in high tech/other college intensive sectors; loss
of dominance in military technology
Implications: US universities
Wider pool of applicants with same distribution of abilities
as US –> better selection of students.
Competition from foreign universities for top US/
international students … sometime in the future.
Branching overseas? Make immigrant status easier for
overseas students?
Fuel expansion of lower quality US institutions, but
greater supply of PhDs  improved quality
Exploiting the big edge – quality “brand” with graduates in
key positions in other countries
Implications: US students
Wider pool of applicants with same distribution as
US –> greater supply competition for slots in
top US institutions … mostly at graduate level
Improved quality of universities overseas will
offer new educational opportunities for US
students … sometime in future
Implication: job market for US graduates
Ratio of applicants to jobs for “best” places will rise. If
randomly hire observationally equivalent, chances for US
person fall.
Expect to see higher share of foreign-born and foreigntrained US graduates and foreign graduates in US
multinationals
Expansion of modern technology/globalization will offer
new job chances overseas
Should universities act more as agent of graduates in setting
policies that affect their labor market?
6. Conclusion
US cannot compete in quantity. So must find quality niches.
US advantages – close link to business; universities as
entrepreneurial institutions; first mover edge
Openness to accept and build on foreign-created knowledge.
The Question for US:
Can country maintain leadership in science, technology,
culture broadly defined by building on its “first mover”
advantage to be the spoke of networks linking US and
foreign scholars and sourcing students and faculty
worldwide as share of higher education falls?
University President Salaries Soar Into the Millions
By Michael Janofsky THE NEW YORK TIMES