Global & National
Trends in Higher Education
Global Trends
• Globalization
–
–
–
–
Increasingly integrated world economy
New information and communications technology
Emergence of international knowledge network
Role of the English language
• Internationalization
– Response to globalization with policies and programs
such as study abroad, branch campuses oversees, and
engaging in inter-institutional partnership
Altbach, P. G. , Reisberg, L. & Rumbley, L. E. (2009). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. A
Report Prepared to the UNESCO 2009 World Conference on Higher Education.
The Bologna Process
• Central Objective
– To enhance the international competitiveness of
the European system of higher education (EHEA)
• Driving forces included a desire to be a student-driven
and outcome-based system, and employers’ concerns
in a globally-changing labor market
– Membership includes 46 Nations from 1999 to
2007, and has impacts far beyond Europe
Altbach, P. G. , Reisberg, L. & Rumbley, L. E. (2009). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. A
Report Prepared to the UNESCO 2009 World Conference on Higher Education.
The Bologna Process 2020 – The European Higher Education Area in the New Decade: Communiqué of
the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve,
28-29 April 2009.
The Bologna Process
• This voluntary process has led to:
– Initiatives to define outcomes/competencies
– Discussions about recognition/transfer processes for students who
have studies elsewhere
– Efforts to develop transnational quality-assurance standards
– Initiatives to make higher education more responsive to the needs of
business an industry and help Europe become the most competitive
knowledge-based economy in the worlds
– Efforts to develop common curricular standards
Sursock, A. & Smidt, H. (2010). Trends 2010: A decade of change in European Higher Education. ECU Publications 2010.
The Bologna Process
• Higher Ed participation rates have increased
by 25% between 1998 and 2006.
• But much work is needed to convince
employers of it’s value.
Sursock, A. & Smidt, H. (2010). Trends 2010: A decade of change in European Higher Education. ECU Publications 2010.
Global Trends
• Increased Mobility
– More than 2.5 million students studied outside
their home countries, and this trend is expected
to increase drastically in the coming years.
• Institutions are taking action to attract international
students
– Branch campuses, off-shore academic programs, franchising
arrangements for academic degrees
Sursock, A. & Smidt, H. (2010). Trends 2010: A decade of change in European Higher Education. ECU Publications 2010.
Global Trends
• The global demand on higher education
has increased dramatically.
Higher Ed enrollment ratio by region
Source: UNESCO Global Trends, Figure 1
Growth in Enrollment
• The National Center for Education Statistics
projects a 13% growth in enrollment from
2007 to 2015.
– 12% for undergraduate students
– 18% for graduate students
– 20% for first-time professionals
Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., Tahan, K. (2011). The Condition of Education 2011 (NCES 2011-033).
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Global Trends
• Privileged classes attending Higher Ed at greater rates
in nearly all nations even the U.S.
– Due to geography, unequal distribution of wealth and
resources.
Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. Building a better America—One wealth quintile at a
time. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 9-12.
(U.S)
Global Trends
• Private education market in 2006 approached
US$400 billion worldwide.
– Expected to grow especially rapidly in emerging
economies.
Private % of total
Higher Ed Enrollments
Japan & Indonesia
> 70%
United States
< 35%
Germany, New Zealand
< 10%
Bjarnason, S., Cheng, K-M., Fielden, J., Lemaitre, M-J., Levy, D., & Varghese, N.V. (2009). A new dynamic: Private
higher education. Paris: UNESCO.
Institution Types
• For-profit Institution enrollment growth in U.S.
Global Trends
• Information and communication technology
– ICTs can enhance information distribution more
affordable and available anytime, anywhere
Fall 2003
Fall 2004
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Annual Growth Annual Growth
Rate for Total
Rate for Online
Enrollment (US) Enrollment (US)
1.80%
23.00%
2.10%
18.20%
1.20%
36.50%
1.60%
9.70%
1.20%
12.90%
1.20%
16.90%
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States, 2009. The Sloan
Consortium. Babson Survey Research Group.
Global Trends
•
Key demographic trends identified by the Organization for Cooperation and
Development in 2008:
– student participation will continue to expand, as will higher education systems. Only a
few countries will see a contraction in student numbers;
– women will form the majority in student populations in most developed countries and
will substantially expand their participation everywhere;
– the mix of the student population will become more varied, with greater numbers of
international students, older students, part-time students, and other types;
– the social base in higher education will continue to broaden, along with uncertainty
about how this will affect inequalities of educational opportunities between social
groups;
– attitudes and policies relating to access as well as the consciousness among
disadvantaged groups will change and become more central to national debates;
– the academic profession will become more internationally oriented and mobile but will
still be structured in accordance with national circumstances;
– the activities and roles of the academic profession will be more diversified and
specialized and subject to varied employment contracts; and
– for many developing countries, the need for ever-expanding numbers of university
teachers will mean that overall qualifications, now rather low, may not improve much,
and current
Changing U.S. Demographics
Projected enrollment growth: 2007 to 2018
• Age
– 18 to 24 9%
– 25 to 34 25%
– 35 and older 12%
• Gender
– Female
– Male
16%
9%
• Race/ethnicity
–
–
–
–
–
–
White
4%
Black
26%
Hispanic 38%
Asian or Pacific Islander 29%
American Indian or Alaska Native 32%
Nonresident aliens 14%
Hussar, W.J., and Bailey, T.M. (2009). Projections of Education Statistics to 2018 (NCES 2009-062). National Center
Changing Demographics
Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., Tahan, K. (2011). The Condition of Education 2011
(NCES 2011-033). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Changing Demographics
Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., Tahan, K. (2011). The Condition of Education 2011 (NCES 2011033). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Access to Higher Education: U.S.
• Main barrier is financial
– Reasons given for not pursuing further education
among 18-34 year olds:
• 67% reported needing to support a family
• 57% preferred to work to make money
• 48% simply say they can’t afford college
Pew Research Center (2011). Is college worth It? College presidents, public assess value, quality and mission of higher
education. Pew Social & Demographic Trends, Washington, DC.
Access to Higher Education
• Family income continues to predict college
attendance among high school graduates
Employment during College
Employment percentages of 16- to 24-year old college students
Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., Tahan, K. (2011). The Condition of Education 2011 (NCES 2011033). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Employment cont.
Access to Higher Education
• Lack of sufficient preparation for college is another barrier
• Students reporting haven taken at least one remedial college course
in 2007-2008
– Differs by race/ethnicity
• 36% of students overall
• 45% of Black students
• 43% of Hispanic students
– Differs by age
• 35% of ages 15 to 23
• 40% of ages 24 to 29
• 38% of ages 30 and older
– Differs by college type
•
•
•
•
42% at 2-year public
39% at 4-year non-doctorate, 24% at 4-year doctorate
26% at private not-for-profit non-doctorate
22% at private not-for-profit doctorate
Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., Tahan, K. (2011). The Condition of Education 2011 (NCES 2011033). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Remedial Coursetaking
• High participation rates result in high costs for
students and postsecondary institutions
• State and student costs estimated up to $2.3 billion
American Schools, “Diploma to Nowhere,” 2008, available from
annually Strong
http://www.strongamericanschools.org/edin08pr/4188 (accessed September 5, 2011).
– Lumina Foundation for Education’s Achieving the Dream
Initiative found for new entering community college
students placed into remedial education:
• 15% completed their remedial education sequence in one year
• 40% partially completed their sequence in one year
• 46% did not begin their sequence
Sue Clery, “Data Notes,” Achieving the Dream, Vol. 3, No 4, July/August, 2008, http://www.achievingthedream.org/_pdfs/datanotes/
DataNotes_JulyAugust_08.pdf (accessed November, 2009).
Remedial Coursetaking
• Obama’s goal that US will have the highest
college attainment rate in the world by 2020
– Would require additional 781,000 degrees per
year through 2025
– 42 million Americans ages 18 to 64 are college
candidates, but are not prepared.
• 64% of college presidents surveyed in 2011 say that it is
unlikely we will achieve this goal (Is college worth it? Pew Research Center).
Vandal, B. (2010). Education Commission of the States, Getting Past Go: Rebuilding the Remedial Education Bridge to College Success.
Denver: Education Commission of the States.
College Affordability
• Cost and value
– In a survey of the general public, 57% say the
higher education system fails to provide students
with good value for the money they and their
families spend.
Pew Research Center (2011). Is college worth It? College presidents, public assess value, quality and mission of higher
education. Pew Social & Demographic Trends, Washington, DC.
College Affordability
The College Board (2010). Trends in College Pricing 2010. Princeton, NJ. The College Board.
California
•
Net tuition and fees, after considering grant and aid and
tax benefits, are lower than they were 5 years ago.
The College Board (2010). Trends in College Pricing 2010. Princeton, NJ. The College Board.
College Affordability
• As college costs rise,
student debt has
risen significantly.
– 53% of full-time, fullyear undergraduates
received a loan in 20072008, up from 45% in
1999-2000
College Affordability
• Of borrowers in the 2005 cohort (based on
data from the 5 largest loan agencies):
– About 37% of borrowers made timely payments
without postponing.
– About 26% became delinquent, and 15% became
delinquent and defaulted on loans at some point
in the first five years of repayment
Cunningham, A. G., & Kienzl, G. S. (2011). Delinquency: The untold story of student loan borrowing. A report prepared by the
Institute for Higher Education Policy
College Affordability
• Institution Type
– Between 25 to 33% of students at 2-year institutions were making
timely payments, compared to nearly half of borrowers at 4-year
institutions.
• Graduation Success
– Many students who left without graduating had difficulty (33%
became delinquent, 26% defaulted)
– Students who graduated faired better (21% became delinquent and
16% defaulted)
Cunningham, A. G., & Kienzl, G. S. (2011). Delinquency: The untold story of student loan borrowing. A report prepared by the Institute
for Higher Education Policy
Graduation Rates
Associate degree completions has increased, but graduation
rates still remain low (2009 rates: 14% in CA, 21% in US)
Institutional Revenues
• Total state appropriations for higher education
institutions increased by 8% from 1989-90 to
1999-00, and by another 8% from 1999-00 to
2009-10, after adjusting for inflation.
Hussar, W.J., and Bailey, T.M. (2009). Projections of Education Statistics to 2018 (NCES 2009-062). National Center
for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.
Institutional Revenues
• However, because of increased participation,
– State appropriations per FTE student declined by
9% in 2008-09 and by another 5% in 2009-10,
after adjusting for inflation.
– Federal stimulus funds accounted for 3% of these
state appropriations in 2008-09 and 5% in 200910.
The College Board (2010). Trends in College Pricing 2010. Princeton, NJ. The College Board.
Institutional Revenues
The College Board (2010). Trends in College Pricing 2010. Princeton, NJ. The College Board.
For-Profit Revenues
For-Profit Revenues
• For-Profit Institutions are profitable because
they operate at much lower total cost per
student than traditional institutions.
Bennett, D. L., Lucchesi, A. R., & Vedder, R. K. (2010). For-profit higher education: growth, innovation and regulation. A Policy Paper from the
Center for College Affordability and Productivity.
Value of Higher Education
Value of Higher Education
• According to the AACC:
– 95% of all businesses that employ graduates of community
colleges give high recommendations for the training and
education given in community colleges.
– Community college grads dominate certain professional
fields including:
• Healthcare Professionals (> 50% of new nurses)
• Homeland Security Careers (80% of all law enforcement officers,
EMTs and firefighters)
– Demand for grads will continue to grown in next ten years.
Employers
Raising the Bar: Employer’s Views on College Learning in the Wake of the Economic Downturn (2010). Prepared by Hart
Research Associates on behalf of the Association of American Colleges and Universities.
.
Employers
Raising the Bar: Employer’s Views on College Learning in the Wake of the Economic Downturn (2010). Prepared by Hart
Research Associates on behalf of the Association of American Colleges and Universities.
.
Employers
Raising the Bar: Employer’s Views on College Learning in the Wake of the Economic Downturn (2010). Prepared by Hart
Research Associates on behalf of the Association of American Colleges and Universities.
.
Employers
Raising the Bar: Employer’s Views on College Learning in the Wake of the Economic Downturn (2010). Prepared by Hart
Research Associates on behalf of the Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Academic Demands
Large numbers of
undergraduates report
that they experience only
limited academic
demands and invest only
limited effort in their
academic endeavors.
On average, students spend between 12
and 14 hours per week studying
(~50% less than a few decades ago).
Arum, R. Roksa, J. & Esther, C. (2009). Improving undergraduate
learning: Findings and policy recommendations from the SSRC-CLA
longitudinal project. Social Science Research Council.
Academic Success
• Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on
College Campuses (University of Chicago
Press, 2011)
– This recent publication, that has gained significant
media press, tracked learning gains of a sample of
2,000 four-year institutions using the CLA
• 45% of students did not demonstrate any significant
improvement in learning in the first two years
• 36% of students did not demonstrate any significant
improvement in learning in after four years.
Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Academically Adrift
• Students who spent more hours studying alone had greater
gains (opposite with peers)
• Students who took courses requiring both significant
reading (>40 pages per week) and writing (> 20 pages) had
greater gains
• Students reporting faculty with higher expectations at their
institutions had higher gains
• Students who had more advanced coursework in high
school had greater subsequent college gains
Successful Community Colleges
• A recent study of 6 Texas Community Colleges
with higher-than expected transfer rates
found three commonalities:
– Structured academic pathways
– Student-centered culture that emphasizes
personal attention
– Culturally sensitive leaders who understand the
backgrounds of their students
Smith, C. T., Miller, A, & Bermeo, C. A. (2009). Bridging the Gaps: Promising Practices for Promoting Transfer among Low-Income and
First Generation Students. The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education.
Grade Inflation
Source: Teachers College Record, 2009
Grade Inflation
Students of Today
• For first-year students just out of high school,
most born in 1993
– There has always been an Internet ramp onto the info highway
– There has always been at least two women on the Supreme Court
– Adult experts have constantly fretted about their alleged deficits of empathy and
concentration
– Their school’s blackboards have always been getting smarter
– American tax forms have always been available in Spanish
– More Americans have always traveled to Latin America than to Europe
– Amazon has never just been a river in South America
– Women have never been too old to have children
– The Communist Party has never been the official political party in Russia
– Video games have always had ratings
– First generation to grow up hearing about the dangerous overuse of antibiotics
– Public schools have always made space available for advertising
– Charter schools have always been an alternative
– They’ve often broken up with their significant others via texting, Facebook, or MySpace
Beloit College, The Mindset List, 2015 List. http://www.beloit.edu/mindset/2015/
Trends in Student Satisfaction
• National Satisfaction and Priorities 15-year
Trend Report:
Community Colleges
Observation 1What is most important has
stayed important
National student satisfaction and priorities 15year trend report: Community colleges. Findings
and observations from 1994-1995 to 2009-2010.
2011 Research Report prepared by Noel-Levitz.
Trends in Student Satisfaction
• The following have shifted up in importance by 7 ranking
spots or more
Trends in Student Satisfaction
• The following have shifted down in importance by 8 ranking
spots or more
Trends in Student Satisfaction
• Satisfaction levels have risen overall at
community colleges
– Statistically significant improvements were
identified in 69 out of 70 standard items on the
survey.
– Satisfaction levels have also risen at four-year
public and private institutions.
• Community college satisfaction levels are
general higher than four-year private and
public institutions.
– A few important items have seen a decrease. These include the
perception of the quality of instruction in most classes and the
amount of available student parking.
Redesign Initiatives
• National Center for Academic Transformation
(NCAT)
– Worked with numerous institutions to improve
quality and reduce cost in higher education by
using technology to redesign learning.
– Critical factors:
» Eliminating lecture and using interactive computer software
combined with personalized, on-demand assistance
» Example: Mathematics software (ALEKS, Hawkes Learning
Systems, MyMahtLab) allows students to spend more time on
task, and they receive instant feedback.
The National Center for Academic Transformation (2011). Retrieved September 5, 2011, from
http://www.thencat.org/whoweare.html
Redesign Initiatives
• NCAT Success
– 25 out of 30 projects showed significant increases in
student learning.
– Student and instructor satisfaction increased
– 30 projects using NCAT’s redesign methodology had
an average cost reduction of 37%.
• The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
estimated that cost of instruction for all U.S. colleges and
universities would decrease by 16% annually if an institution
adopted NCAT’s methods for their top 25 courses, and student
learning would improve.
Source: NCPPHE, 2005, http://www.highereducation.org/reports/pa_core/possibilities.shtml
Redesign Initiatives
• Other Course Redesign Efforts:
Cal State: Remedial Math
Colorado State University: Essential IT Skills
East Carolina University: Chemistry
Florida International University: English Composition
Glendale Community College: Developmental English
Glendale Community College: Learning Options
Harvard University: Undergraduate Science
Indiana University: Physics
Kansas State University: Introductory Psychology
Michigan State: Physics
New England Tech: Technical Writing
North Carolina State University: Physics
Northern Arizona University: Psychology
Penn State: Spanish
Rockford Business College: Introduction to Computers
Rutgers: First-year Introductory Courses
University of Maryland-Baltimore County: Science
University of Massachusetts at Amherst: Chemistry
University of Mississippi: College Algebra and
Elementary Statistics
University of Mississippi: Geospatial Science
University of Nebraska-Lincoln: Crop Technology
University of North Texas: Library and Information
Sciences
University of Southern Mississippi: College Algebra
University of Texas: Engineering Graphics
University of Western Ontario: Teacher Education
University of Wisconsin-Madison: Engineering
Virginia Union University: English, Psychology, and
Drama
References
•
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States, 2009. The Sloan Consortium.
Babson Survey Research Group.
•
Altbach, P. G. , Reisberg, L. & Rumbley, L. E. (2009). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. A
Report Prepared to the UNESCO 2009 World Conference on Higher Education.
•
Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., Tahan, K. (2011). The Condition of Education 2011 (NCES 2011033). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
•
Arum, R. Roksa, J. & Esther, C. (2009). Improving undergraduate learning: Findings and policy recommendations from the
SSRC-CLA longitudinal project. Social Science Research Council.
•
Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
•
Bennett, D. L., Lucchesi, A. R., & Vedder, R. K. (2010). For-profit higher education: growth, innovation and regulation. A
Policy Paper from the Center for College Affordability and Productivity.
•
Bjarnason, S., Cheng, K-M., Fielden, J., Lemaitre, M-J., Levy, D., & Varghese, N.V. (2009). A new dynamic: Private higher
education. Paris: UNESCO.
•
Cunningham, A. G., & Kienzl, G. S. (2011). Delinquency: The untold story of student loan borrowing. A report prepared by the
Institute for Higher Education Policy.
•
Hussar, W.J., and Bailey, T.M. (2009). Projections of Education Statistics to 2018 (NCES 2009-062). National Center for
Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.
•
Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve . The Bologna Process 2020 – The European Higher Education Area in the New Decade:
Communiqué of the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, 28-29 April 2009.
References cont.
•
Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. Building a better America—One wealth quintile at a time. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
6(1), 9-12.
•
Pew Research Center (2011). Is college worth It? College presidents, public assess value, quality and mission of higher
education. Pew Social & Demographic Trends, Washington, DC.
•
Smith, C. T., Miller, A, & Bermeo, C. A. (2009). Bridging the Gaps: Promising Practices for Promoting Transfer among LowIncome and First Generation Students. The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education.
•
Sursock, A. & Smidt, H. (2010). Trends 2010: A decade of change in European Higher Education. ECU Publications 2010.
•
Vandal, B. (2010). Education Commission of the States, Getting Past Go: Rebuilding the Remedial Education Bridge to College
Success. Denver: Education Commission of the States.
•
Beloit College, The Mindset List, 2015 List. http://www.beloit.edu/mindset/2015/
•
National student satisfaction and priorities 15-year trend report: Community colleges. Findings and observations from 19941995 to 2009-2010. 2011 Research Report prepared by Noel-Levitz.
•
Raising the Bar: Employer’s Views on College Learning in the Wake of the Economic Downturn (2010). Prepared by Hart
Research Associates on behalf of the Association of American Colleges and Universities.
•
Sue Clery, “Data Notes,” Achieving the Dream, Vol. 3, No 4, July/August, 2008,
http://www.achievingthedream.org/_pdfs/datanotes/DataNotes_JulyAugust_08.pdf (accessed November, 2009).
•
Strong American Schools, “Diploma to Nowhere,” 2008, available from
http://www.strongamericanschools.org/edin08pr/4188 (accessed September 5, 2011).
References cont.
•
The College Board (2010). Trends in College Pricing 2010. Princeton, NJ. The College Board.
•
The National Center for Academic Transformation (2011). Retrieved September 5, 2011, from
http://www.thencat.org/whoweare.html
•
The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2005). Policy Alert: What are the Possibilities?
Retrieved September 5, 2011, from http://www.highereducation.org/reports/pa_core/possibilities.shtml