Transcript The Rhetoric and Reality of Mobility and Migration in

The Rhetoric and Reality of Mobility
and Migration in Higher Education:
UCLA
John N. Hawkins
Professor Emeritus
Consultant East West Center
Introduction
• Large literature on M&M as a burgeoning
force in global HE (Great Brain Race; Minds on
the Move, etc.)
• First wave focused on students and scholars;
second wave (APRU, PECC) includes
institutional change, cross border supply, joint
degrees, branch campuses etc.
• Barriers continue to exist to this movement
Numbers Small
• Striking that for many Asian nations the
numbers are really quite small
• Most receiving nations are recommending a
doubling of the numbers in the near future:
Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan
• In terms of absolute numbers of students and
scholars, compared to increases in
enrollments and faculty hiring it “is nothing
explosive like we would expect” O’Hara
How Much Impact has M&M Had on
HEIs?
• One would expect to see changes of at least
three types:
1. Upward trend in percentages of students &
scholars going abroad and coming from
abroad as percentage institutional numbers
2. Institutional adaptation, structural, curricular
3. Institutional transformation, e.g. adopting
practices of other HEIs, ideas, etc.
US Context of Internationalization
• Lucky to have ACE Data mapping 3000 HEIs
according to following indicators:
• Institutional support and structure
• Academic requirements (curriculum etc.)
• Faculty policies and opportunities, the
academic culture
• International student mobility
Opening Statement
• “Given the geopolitical realities of the world
after September 11, the growing pace of
globalization, and repeated national calls for
‘globally competent college graduates’, one
might expect that US colleges and universities
today would be working avidly, perhaps
urgently, to retool their curricula, policies, and
practices to position themselves to fully
prepare students for work and life in this
changed world . . . .we might have anticipated
• That the survey would illustrate that US higher
education institutions were redoubling their
efforts to produce college graduates with
strong intercultural skills, by working diligently
to intensify language study, infuse their
curricula with international study and institute
policies and practices that promote campus
internationalization. The findings of this study
do not suggest that this happening”
What Did The Study Find?
• Most US HEIs have not made a public
commitment to M&M with strategic plans etc.
• Over 50% of US HEIs seem unaware that
M&M is occurring
• Large gap exists between institutional rhetoric
and reality
• Students in US generally receive little or no
exposure to global learning and M&M
• The curriculum is the least changed of all
elements of HE in the US
• Study abroad: gone up but still small
percentage, slightly over 1% of all US enrollees
• Only 37% had any courses that could be called
international in their GE requirements
• 60% of all undergraduates will graduate
without ever having taken an international
course
• Foreign language enrollments have fallen back
to 1965 levels
• Only 18% of doctorate granting institutions
require a foreign language either for
admission or graduation
• Institutional change has been limited and
faculty reward structure absent for supporting
international M&M
• Foreign students have increased but still
amount to about 4% of all enrollees both
graduate and undergraduate
• Graduate foreign students have remained flat
over the past 5 years with decreases in critical
STEM and business areas
• New competitors have further reduced the US
market share in M&M
• Circuits of exchange appear to be minimal
UCLA & M&M
• Established 1919 as a Normal School
• Renamed UCLA 1927
• Currently: teaching faculty: 4,000;
undergraduate enrollment: 26,687; graduate
enrollment: 11,863=total: 38,550
• Largest in the UC system
• 118 UG degree programs; 200 G programs
• Diverse: ranked in top 10 by Open Doors
Structural Impact of M&M
• Dashew Center for International Students and
Scholars; Bradley Hall—Service
• The UCLA International Institute—Academic
– Vice Provost, Chancellor’s cabinet
– Oversees 18 multidisciplinary centers and
programs
– Oversight over flagship EAP Program through
International Education Office (IEO)
The Flow of International Students
and Scholars
• Education Abroad Program--Students
• “We are working harder than ever to get the
message across that study abroad is for
everyone, and not only for financially
privileged and academically outstanding
students” 2009
• Flow of students in and out: over 60 countries
EAP: Let’s Look at the Numbers
• 2009 UCLA Ranked 8th in US in Foreign
Students and 5th in Students Studying Abroad
• Foreign Students: 5,685: S. Korea, China,
India, Hong Kong, Japan (UG & G +nondegree, ESL)
• Foreign Students in Degree Programs: 2,282 in
G; 1,737 UG or 10% of UCLA’s total degree
enrollment (Open Doors, 2010)
More on Foreign Students
• 7% of Freshman applicants
• 7% of total UG enrollment
• Over 10 year period these numbers have
hovered around 4-5%
• Last three years have increased by 1% each
year
• So, one could argue that since 2006 UG
international students have doubled
EAP Study Abroad
• Flagship EAP: 622 (out of total 2,230 UCLA UG
Students Abroad) or 2.3% of UG Class (200910)
• If All UCLA Students Going Abroad is Factored
in: 2,230 then it is 5.8% of all UG Enrollment
• All UCLA Students Typically Go to Europe, UK,
France, Italy, Spain and now China
Asymmetries
• International Students Occupy a Modest but
Respectable Share of UG and G students
• Graduate Students are Skewed Toward
Engineering, Management and Sciences
• Incoming International Students are about
Three Times Outgoing UCLA Students
• Most UCLA Study Abroad Students are not in
the Prestigious EAP Program
• For Past Five Years EAP Students Have
Remained Constant about 2% of Total Enroll.
Asymmetries
• International Students are From Asia; UCLA
Students Go to Europe (exception-China)
• Those that go to Asia are Primarily Heritage
Students
• Both Study Abroad Students who Return and
International Students Remain Marginalized
Having Little Impact on the Campus as a
Whole
• Conclusion: Numbers are Small and Not
Growing; Hardy an M&M Surge
Visiting Scholars
•
•
•
•
•
•
2002
2003
2005
2006
2007
2008
586
574
609
669
574
586
Visiting Scholars
• For this period they average about 14% of
UCLA’s ladder faculty count
• Numbers have not changed much over last ten
years
• Over half come from China, India, Japan, and
South Korea, Germany, France and UK
• Clustered in engineering, sciences, and
medicine
• Little contact or influence on the campus at
large
Institutional Priorities & Curricular
Impact
• Mission Statements and Strategic Plans:
ambiguous, depending on Chancellor
• Generally a Shift Toward Local California and
LA Social and Economic Issues
• Lots of International and Global Courses a Few
at GE Level, Mostly US Based
• No Foreign Language Requirement
• CIDE Project
• No Branch Campuses, Few Joint Degrees
Discussion
• UCLA, highly ranked international university in
fact predominantly domestic/local
• International flows do not represent large
percentages of key cohorts of incoming or
outgoing faculty, students and scholars
• Little impact on key components of the
university (strategic plan, curriculum,
structure of knowledge, support personnel or
institutional forms
Forces That Resist M&M
• International flows have been flat for past 510 years
• Public nature of UCLA limits numbers of nonresident UG students
• Graduate students are better but skewed
toward “pragmatic” disciplines and come from
narrow band of countries
• UCLA students still Europe oriented
• Foreign scholars do not come in large
numbers and their mobility is flat
• Institutional structures must fight the
dominant paradigm when budgets get tight
• “Brain circulation” and “Brain race” are
asymmetric, international talent coming in
small numbers and UCLA going out in even
smaller numbers and then to familiar settings
• Worldwide recession is slowing M&M
everywhere according to recent IIE study
• Only 8 countries worldwide host 72% of
world’s students (US, UK, Germany, France,
Australia, China, Canada, Japan)
• Question: What quantum qualifies a HEI as
“internationalized” or “globalized”?
• Is the US an outlier on these numbers: a short
circuit of exchange?