“This is a group of respected leaders in higher education, accreditation and quality assurance internationally,” said CHEA President Judith Eaton. “We are fortunate to have these outstanding colleagues to help guide the CIQG and its work.”
The advisory council will provide guidance with regard to strategic direction, membership development and projects that the CIQG will undertake, as well as identifying key trends and issues in international quality assurance.
The advisory council is made up of individuals from the academic and accreditation/quality assurance communities in a number of countries, reflecting geographic diversity and expertise in international quality assurance, as well as individuals from major multinational organizations that focus on higher education or quality assurance.
Members appointed to the CIQG Advisory Council are:
- Nadia Badrawi, President, Arab Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (Egypt)
- Barbara Brittingham, President, Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, New England Association of Schools and Colleges (USA)
- Sir John Daniel, Education Master, Beijing DeTao Masters Academy (China)
- Mark Darby, Counselor, Australian Education International (Australia)
- A. Lee Fritschler, Professor, School of Public Policy, George Mason University (United States)
- Allan Goodman, President, Institute for International Education (USA)
- Madlyn L. Hanes, Vice President, Commonwealth Campuses, Pennsylvania State University (United States)
- Maria Jose Lemaitre, Director, Centro Interuniversitario de Desarrollo and President, International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (Chile)
- Michael Milligan, Executive Director, ABET (United States)
- Judy C. Miner, President, Foothill College (United States)
- Deane Neubauer, Senior Fellow, Globalization Research Center, University of Hawaii – Manoa (United States)
- Michal Neumann, Deputy Director General for Quality Assessment, Council for Higher Education (Israel)
- Peter Okebukola, President, Global University Network for Innovation – Africa (Nigeria)
- Ved Prakash, Vice Chairman, University Grants Commission, New Delhi (India)
- Jamil Salmi, Consultant, Global Tertiary Education Expert, Global View on Tertiary Education (United States)
- Craig Swenson, Chancellor, Argosy University (United States)
- Lesley Wilson, Secretary General, European University Association (Belgium)
- Richard Yelland, Head of Division, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (France)
- Jianxin Zhang, Director, Research Institute of Higher Education, Yunnan University (China)
In addition, David G. Carter, Chair of the CHEA Board of Directors, Judith Eaton, CHEA’s President and Stamenka Uvalić-Trumbić, CHEA’s Senior Advisor on International Affairs, will serve as Ex Officio members of the advisory council. Launched in September, 2012, the CIQG provides an important forum for colleges, universities, accrediting and quality assurance organizations and others worldwide to address issues and challenges focused on quality and quality assurance in an international setting.
La crisis económica lo ha cambiado todo. Parece una eternidad el lapso de los cuatro años transcurridos desde que el autor publicó su obra La Universidad, corazón de Europa. Muchos sueños se han desvanecido. El blanco de entonces se ha convertido en negro, las esperanzas en dificultades y los deseos de avanzar en voluntad de resistir. ¿Quién se acuerda de las ilusiones y las expectativas optimistas que se generaron con la culminación de los procesos vinculados con la construcción del Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior? Incluso, ¿qué fue de aquellos movimientos de rechazo a la mercantilización que según algunos amenazaba a la universidad con esos cambios europeizantes? ¿Cuál es la salida de la situación actual? No ayudará a encontrarla la reducción de la inversión en educación. Tampoco servirá a la causa universitaria el incremento desproporcionado de los costes de las matrículas, que ya eran de las más altas entre los países europeos. Bolonia en crisis es un libro lleno de cuestiones de hoy y de mañana, de búsquedas, aquí y allá, de buenas prácticas que importar, de aprender de América a la vez que de destacar lo mejor que caracteriza al proyecto europeo de convivencia. Bolonia en crisis es sobre la universidad de nuestros días, sus luces y sus sombras. Bolonia en crisis, en sus dos acepciones. Crisis como escasez, como época con dificultades, sí, así se entiende generalmente. Pero también en su otra interpretación etimológica griega: crisis como una situación sujeta a evolución y a cambios críticos o un momento decisivo. Ambas lecturas del título del libro tienen cabida en su texto. No es cuestión de optimismo o de pesimismo, sino de voluntad de superar las dificultades. En esta ocasión el prólogo es de un destacado protagonista social. La obra se honra con el prólogo de Emilio Botín, cuya gran sensibilidad por los temas educativos, y universitarios, en particular, es conocida, reconocida, respetada y admirada. Francisco Michavila (Autor/a), Emilio Botín (Prologuista).
GUNi invites you to participate in a research project on community-university engagement by completing an online survey questionnaire. The conclusions of the research will be published in the next GUNi Report, “Higher Education in the world 5”.
Currently, the main activities of GUNi are focused on one of the most significant trends in higher education over the 10-15 years: the growth of the theory and practice of Community-University Engagement (CUE). The centrality of engagement is critical to the success of higher education in the future (Fitzgerald, Bruns, Sonka, Furco, and Swanson, 2012).
Within this framework GUNi is conducting a research project on CUE to document and study the wide range of CUE initiatives around the world. The final purpose is to define a typology of mechanisms and partnership structures that can integrate teaching, learning, research and/or knowledge creation with community engagement.
Following the Carnegie Foundation, CUE can be defined as “the collaboration between institutions of higher education and their larger communities (…) for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity” (Driscoll, 2008, p.39).
The highlights that in the CUE movement the practices and structures of engagement are rich and continually evolving. The main ways and practices of engagement are service learning (Campus Compact, McIlrath and MacLabhrainn, 2007), community-based research (Strand et al, 2003), engaged scholarship (Boyer, 1996, and Fitzgerald et al, 2012), community-university research partnerships (Hart et al, 2007, and Hall, 2011), knowledge mobilization and its variants such as knowledge translation, impact or utilization (Levesque, 2010, blog), among others.
Research design and process
In order to identify different typologies of CUE, the research will be focused in initiatives and not in institutions (that can embrace a wide range of them). The first step in the process of the research has been the development of an initial theoretical framework on CUE, counting with the contribution of a scientific reference group of authors. As a result of it, we have drawn a conceptualization of CUE initiatives based in five key points (see Figure 1):
- The creation of the partnership
- The common vision of engagement
- The partners and their role (including participation, power relations and commitment)
- The outcomes
- The continuance or sustainability of the initiative
Figure 1. Key points of CUE initiatives
The next step has been the design of the research methodology and a survey questionnaire (following the five key points previously mentioned). For this purpose a working group has been created at the GUNi knowledge community for debating about the questions and contents of the survey questionnaire. Parallel to that, GUNi has developed a database of the target, which counts with a contact list of CUE networks and their affiliates, and a collection of two thousand CUE initiatives identified around the world.
The launch of the survey questionnaire was at the end of October 2012 and it will be open until the end of December 2012. Once the data is collected it will be analyzed by GUNi, and the results will be presented and discussed in the GUNi Academic Seminar (March, 2013) and at the 6th International Barcelona Conference on Higher Education (May, 2013).
The survey questionnaire
The survey is conducted as an online questionnaire for each participating initiative. The questionnaire includes both scaled response-type questions and questions requiring evidence of a more qualitative nature. The questionnaire is organized in six parts or sections according with the theoretical reflection based on relevant literature. The first section consists on basic data from the initiative. The aim of the second section is to collect data regarding the creation of the initiative and of the partnership, and what this initiative is about: Where did the idea come from? Who are the members of the partnership? What is the aim of this initiative? The third section is about the vision of engagement and community that the partnership has. In this part it is interesting to know the level of partnership that is related to the leadership, power relations, commitment and participation of all members of the partnership. It also asks about the type of community and how research, teaching, learning and engagement are linked. The following section is focused on the specific role of each member of the partnership, especially concerning its contribution to the project, the mechanisms and structures developed to support the initiative, and the involvement of people. The fifth section is about the main outcome and the impact of the project on each partner. The final section is about the sustainability or continuance of the initiative and includes the self assessment and the recommendations for overcoming difficulties. The questionnaire ends with a space for complimentary information.
Call for participation
GUNi invites all those involved in engaged initiatives to take part in this research by completing the survey questionnaire. To access to the questionnaire click . All responses of the survey questionnaire will be featured in the research project’s publication and at the GUNi website. Also, the conclusions of the research project will be published in the next GUNi Report, Higher Education in the world 5. We would be very grateful if you could disseminate this project among those persons involved in community university engagement that might be interested. Please do not hesitate contacting us for any clarification on the project you may need.
Many thanks in advance for your collaboration!
Boyer, E. L. (1996) The Scholarship of engagement, Bulletin of the American Arts and Sciences, 49(7), pp 18-33
Driscoll, A. (2008) Carnegie’s community-engagement classification: Intentions and insights, Change, 39-41
Fitzgerald, H.E., Bruns, K., Sonka, S., Furco, A., and Swanson, L. (2012) Centrality of Engagement in Higher Education, Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, Vol. 16, Num. 3, pp. 7-33
Hall, B. et al (2011) “Towards a Knowledge Democracy Movemment: Contemporary Trends in Community University Research Partnerships” in Special Issue of Rizoma Freireano on “Global Developments in Community University Research Partnerships. Vol 9
Hart , A., Maddisson, E. and Wolff, D. (2007) Community-university partnerships in practice. Leicester, UK: National Institute for Adult and Continuing Education
Levesque (2010) knowledge Mobilization (Retrieved from: )
McIlraath and Mac Iabhrainn (2007) McIlrath, L., & Mac Labhrainn, I. (Eds.). (2007). Higher Education and Civic Engagement: International Perspectives. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Strand, K., & Marullo, S., Cutforth, N., Stoecker, R., & Donohue, P. (2003) Principles of Best Practice for Community-Based Research. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 9(3), 5–15.
This publication provides an overview of the methods underpinning the project. Cedefop’s forecast is not intended to replace forecasting efforts in individual countries, but to share the knowledge acquired during the development of different systems and methods, and to highlight the results. This shared knowledge can help to improve the methods used in each country and to resolve outstanding issues.
Cedefop’s forecast can also inspire new forecasting initiatives.
The feedback provided by countries can in turn help make the European forecast even more precise. The more solid the method, the more reliable the results. Download Skills supply and demand in Europe.
1.1. Background and rationale
Equipping the labour force with the right skills is one of the key policy focuses of the European Union’s (EU) strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Anticipation of skill needs has received more attention in the EU, as illustrated by several policy documents such as the Integrated guidelines for growth and jobs (2008-10) (European Commission, 2007), the Council Resolution on new skills for new jobs, and the Spring 2008 Council Conclusions (Council of the European Union, 2007; 2008), in which the EU Member States asked the European Commission to report on future skills requirements in Europe up to 2020. New skills for new jobs: action now (European Commission, 2010a), a report prepared by an expert group set up by the European Commission, also emphasised the need for a coordinated approach to improve Europe’s capacity to anticipate change. After a wide consultation among stakeholders, the Commission included the New skills and jobs agenda as a flagship initiative in the EU 2020 strategy (European Commission, 2010b).
It is in this context that Cedefop conducts regular, coherent and systematic skill demand and supply forecasts. In 2008, Cedefop released the first pan-European skill needs forecast, i.e. employment projections by sector, occupation and qualification level across Europe up to 2015. In 2009, Cedefop forecast the supply of skills by gender, age group and qualification level. Finally, in 2010 the first parallel forecast of skill supply and demand up to 2020 was presented.
A variety of forecasting methods are used. The accuracy of methods must be tested and compared with available alternatives to increase the quality of results. At the same time statistical authorities publish new data regularly. Finally, forecasting is an ongoing exercise, affected by changing reality, which means it is important to use the most up-to-date information and to reflect trends and changes to achieve the most reliable results.
This publication presents the complex methodological framework used by Cedefop to forecast skills supply and demand and some current attempts to improve it. It does not promote Cedefop’s methodology as the only correct methodology. Moreover, Cedefop’s forecast does not replace those conducted at national level. Instead, this publication presents the problems that we have encountered and the solutions we have adopted to produce a unique pan-European skills supply and demand forecast
1.2. General overview of the methodological framework
Europe’s pan-European forecast of skill needs requires complex methods, relying on long-term research and drawing on the expertise of several high-level European research institutions. The modelling tools have been designed to enable further development and customisation. The general framework consists of methods developed in two pilot studies on Future skills needs in Europe (Cedefop, 2008) and Future skill supply in Europe (Cedefop, 2009). These were combined to produce the first pan-European forecast of skills supply and demand in Europe (Cedefop, 2010). Forecasting is a dynamic process, and important developments took place in 2010 made possible by the modular approach adopted, which enables the different parts of the system to be improved independently. As shown in Figure 1, the model breaks down into different building blocks and into several interrelated components.
Even though the modelling framework has proven to be rather robust, a dialogue must be established with experts from European countries, who are likely to have much greater knowledge of employment trends and data sources within their own countries. By making it easy to incorporate new data and alternative or additional assumptions, the modelling framework provides an opportunity for knowledge and input of experts to be built in efficiently and transparently.
The project involved developing consistent databases and related tools to produce a comprehensive and consistent set of skill projections for all EU Member States plus Norway and Switzerland (EU-27+). The system, models and modules rely upon official data sources, drawing primarily on Eurostat, in particular on Eurostat demographic data, national accounts (NA), the EU labour force survey (EU-LFS), as well as additional data on flows of qualifications. Compilation and harmonisation of the best possible data available for measuring employment was a major achievement of the project. Historically, most countries have invested considerable resources in developing data for their NA. In many respects estimates of employment on this basis are to be preferred as they are consistent with other key economic indicators, such as output and productivity. On the other hand, the EU-LFS has the advantage of providing measures of employment structured by skills (occupation and qualification), as well as by gender and age, which are not available from NA-based estimates.
1.2.1. Supply of skills
The skill supply projections produce consistent pan-European projections broken down by age, gender and formal qualification. The results indicate the future skill supply by highest qualification held as well as by age groups and gender for the population and labour force aged 15 and over. The skill supply projections are compatible with the skills demand projections (when focusing on qualifications).
The historical analysis and projections of overall labour supply by age and gender are provided by an extended version of the existing pan-European macroeconomic model E3ME developed by Cambridge econometrics, which incorporates a new demographic and labour-supply module. E3ME models labour supply as a function of economic activity, real wage rates, unemployment and other benefit rates. At present, the model parameters are estimated for labour market participation in each country by gender and separately for different age groups. This is of key importance for modelling educational participation and attainment since these are known to be gender and age specific. This expanded model framework is then used to create a detailed set of baseline projections for labour supply, disaggregated by country, age groups and gender and covering a 10-15 year period. This model forms a key input for the analysis of the supply of qualifications and provides the link between economic activity and labour market supply. Finally, this link can be used to provide a range of projections of available skills through scenario-based analysis around the baseline forecast, indicating areas that are most sensitive to the economic climate and change.
Modelling and forecasting the supply of qualifications ideally requires a detailed and comprehensive stock-flow model, with behavioural links which can be used to predict the distribution of people in the total population and labour force (employed and unemployed people) by highest qualification held. In practice, this ideal is hard to realise, as a detailed demographic or educational and labour market accounting system is still lacking at EU level.
The methods currently used for modelling forecasts are less ambitious. They range from rather simple models, based on fitting trends of aggregate qualification patterns among the population and/or labour force, to more sophisticated approaches based on econometric analysis of microdata on individuals, mainly using LFS data. All focus on overall stocks rather than flows.
1.2.2. Demand for skills
The demand side involves four main elements or modules. Each module contains its own database and models. The results focus on future demand trends at a pan-European level (EU-27+): by sector (up to 41 industries based on NACE classification); by occupation (up to 27 occupations based on ISCO classification); by qualification (three broad levels based on the ISCED classification); plus replacement demands by occupation and qualification. Together these produce estimates of the numbers of job openings (net employment change plus replacement demand) by skill (as measured by occupation and by qualification). The detailed classifications and aggregations used are provided in Annex 2.
The forecast of employment by economic sector is provided by a module which is based on results from the existing pan-European multisectoral macroeconomic model (E3ME). This model delivers a set of consistent sectoral employment projections, which are transparent in terms of the assumptions made about the main external influences on the various countries (including technological change and the impact of global competition).
E3ME combines the features of an annual short- and medium-term sectoral model, estimated by formal econometric methods, with the detail and some of the methods of the computable general equilibrium models that provide analysis of the movement of the long-term outcomes. It can also be used for dynamic policy simulation and for forecasting and projecting over the medium and long term.
The LFS conducted in all countries provides a source of information for the construction of occupation-industry matrices of employment. These surveys have the advantage of being conducted regularly. They also adopt standardised sets of questions and systems of classification. While there are still some differences among countries, LFS provide a broadly consistent set of data which can be used for producing occupational employment projections within the industries identified in macroeconomic models such as E3ME. The forecasting module designed to calculate changes in employment (expansion demand) by occupation (EDMOD) based on these data works out the implications for occupational employment.
Occupational employment patterns are only one way of measuring skills. An occupational category can be understood as broadly describing a particular job (related tasks, requirements, position, etc.). Qualifications represent the characteristics of people filling these jobs as well as one of the selection criteria for filling a particular job. From the education and training policy and planning point of view, the types of qualifications typically required are important. Even with only weak data for (formal) qualifications, it has been possible to develop the module (QMOD) which allows inferences to be made about implications for qualifications.
In addition to changes in overall occupational employment levels, it is important to consider replacement demand arising from outflows from a job/occupation, such as retirements and deaths, transition to non-employment, net migration and inter-occupational mobility. Estimating replacement demand is not straightforward and is quite sensitive to the data sources used. Ideally, detailed data on labour market outflows and transitions (mainly retirements and occupational mobility) would be required to analyse replacement demand more accurately. However, these are not currently available and therefore this forecast relies on a methodology that is based on stocks of age-cohorts by occupation and qualification, and excludes transitions from one occupation to another.
From the LFS, it is possible to analyse the demographic composition of each occupation. This allows specific rates of retirement to be estimated for each occupational class (but still not taking account of inter-occupational mobility). LFS data can also be used to estimate rates of outflow. The replacement demand model (RDMOD) has been developed on the basis of data sources that are similar to the occupational model (EDMOD). The model is driven in part by the occupational and qualification employment levels projected from EDMOD and QMOD, combined with models and information on the probability of leaving employment owing to retirement or migration and for other reasons (e.g. transition to inactivity).
1.2.3. Comparing skill supply and demand
To provide information on possible labour market imbalances and skill mismatches, a further module (BALMOD) has been added. This module compares the skill demand and skill supply projections (focusing on qualifications) and attempts to reconcile the two.
The possibility to analyse potential skill imbalances in the labour market is important from a policy and individual point of view. Such information can, in conjunction with corresponding demand estimates, shed light on possible future developments in European labour markets, highlighting potential mismatches and thus helping to inform decisions on investments in skills (especially in formal qualifications) made by individuals, organisations and policy-makers.
However, simply comparing current demand and supply projections is problematic for both practical and theoretical reasons. Although the two sets of results are based on common data and are carried out simultaneously, they do not incorporate direct interactions between supply and demand and, therefore, they cannot be directly compared. Cedefop has started to work on modelling interactions between supply and demand, but due to the complexity of the task these interactions might be incorporated only in the medium to long term. There are various other conceptual and methodological issues regarding imbalances that need to be considered to avoid misleading inferences and interpretations.
A final adjustment has been made to the estimates of employment by qualification (demand side) to take account of the labour market accounts residual. This residual measures the difference between employment as measured for the NA estimates (workplace based, jobs) and the corresponding LFS estimates (heads, residence based). Both measures are used in the project (5). The difference between the NA and LFS can be quite significant and needs to be considered, especially when comparing demand and supply.
Differences between skill demand and supply can include:
(a) double jobbing (some people have more than one job) or one full-time job is shared by two or more people;
(b) distinction between residence and workplace (many people do not live in the same country as they work; this is especially significant for some small countries such as Luxembourg);
(c) participants in training and related schemes who are also working in parallel (they may be included in the labour force and in education statistics – double counting);
(d) different definitions of unemployment (e.g. ILO definition versus limited to unemployment beneficiaries);
(e) statistical errors (in measures of employment, unemployment and related indicators, including sampling and measurements errors);
(f) other differences due to the use of different data sources such as treatment of nationals working abroad.
Vous pointez des résultats "décevants" du PRL. Quelles sont les raisons de cet échec?
Notre recherche met au jour une situation préoccupante avec un échec massif et des résultats moins bons, année après année. Cela pose un certain nombre de questions, notamment par rapport au changement observé, sur six années, dans la structure de la population étudiante arrivant en L1: la proportion de bacheliers non généraux aux résultats plus médiocres, c'est-à-dire avec moins de mention et souvent en retard, s'accroît. Autre problème: il n'y a pas eu de consignes précises d'application de ce plan qui définissait des objectifs très généraux (rénovation des contenus, mise en place d'un enseignant référent pour chaque étudiant, accroissement du volume horaire...) et laissait les équipes pédagogiques libres d'adapter ce plan en fonction des situations locales. Dans une note parue en 2010, l'Inspection Générale de l'Administration, de l'Education Nationale et de la Recherche (IGAEN) pointait déjà le fait que les universités éprouvaient "de réelles difficultés à identifier les crédits PRL et à en assurer le suivi" et que l'application du plan était très inégale selon les universités. Suite de l'article...
Un appel étrange: pourquoi refuser l'autonomie, dont tout le monde rêve? C'est que, rétorque les présidents d'universités signataires, ils ont été dupés par le pouvoir politique. Ce dernier leur a délégué la gestion de la masse salariale des universités... mais en transférant moins d'argent que nécessaire pour payer les personnels et les frais afférents à une telle opération. Du coup, les présidents se trouvent confrontés à un choix cornélien: pour payer les personnels, puiser dans les fonds prévus pour les activités pédagogiques et scientifiques.
Alors que les Assises nationales de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche doivent s'ouvrir le 26 novembre au Collège de France, la pression monte sur le ministère. Les Assises territoriales ont permis l'expression de revendications très fortes sur les réformes de structures ou le financement (lire ici le document des Assises du Languedoc Roussillon). Les précaires se font entendre et s'organisent (lire cette note).
Voici le texte des 14 présidents. Voir l'article entier...
According to a team of Ph.D’s and NASA scientists assembled by Post University, distance learning began in 1892 when the University of Chicago created the first college-level distance learning program. Expanding from this initial use of the U.S. Postal Service for course correspondence, distance education moved towards live radio shows in 1921 and then televised broadcasts in 1963.
In 1970, Coastline Community College became the first college without a physical campus, offering exclusively televised college courses. Many other schools followed Coastline’s lead with televised courses of their own. And, in 1985, National Technological University became the first school to offer online degree courses via satellite transmission.
In the 1990s and 2000s, distance learning over the Internet became the dominant remote learning craze. As more schools embraced online education, smaller, less well-known colleges and for-profit universities drove further innovation in the online education space. For instance, in 1993, Jones International University became the first fully online university accredited by the Higher Learning Commission. And, in 2002, MIT launched its popular OpenCourseWare initiative. Babson Research Survey Group and College Board estimate that in the fall of 2010 6.1 million students took at least one online education course. In addition, according to Babson and College Board, 65 percent of higher education institutions say online education is now a critical part of their long-term strategy.
However, what has really blown the virtual lid of online education numbers was the 2011 introduction of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). As noted in a previous Crotty on Education column, in the fall of 2011 Stanford University Professor, Sebastian Thrun, launched a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) on artificial intelligence that attracted more than 160,000 students. Thrun’s success inspired other universities — such as Princeton, Penn and the University of Michigan — to join the Stanford MOOC fiesta.
Now a full-blown race to become the dominant MOOC is well underway, with Coursera, World Education University, Udacity, edX and many others competing for critical mass and first-mover advantage. With the tremendous increase of students participating in MOOCs and sundry online courses, distance learners are forced to become even more self-directed, engaged, and collaborative than ever before. As educational technology and students inevitably evolve, distance learning design will need to evolve as well. I have no doubt that it will, since it’s been doing so since 1892. More...
Although the decision to accept credits is ultimately up to an institution, the 2,000 institutions that currently accept the recommendations of ACE CREDIT will likely follow suit, says Jeffrey von Munkwitz-Smith, president of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers and assistant vice president and university registrar at Boston University. More...
By Julia Lawrence. Higher education systems in developing countries might find themselves under threat from the growing popularity of online education, according to the MIT Technology Review. It’s been less than two years since some of the most prominent American and international universities began offering free college-level courses over the internet, and already more than half of the students who sign up are located outside the United States. One of those who was instantly won over by the potential offered by these massive online open courses was University of El Salvador professor of electrical engineering Carlos Martinez. When edX, a MOOC consortium put together by MIT and Harvard University, started offering a course in electronic circuits, Martinez enrolled and henceforth considered himself a MOOC convert. His experience convinced him that online education offered by some of the best colleges and universities in the world could prove to be the future of higher education in his own country. Convinced of this, he started traveling around El Salvador to recruit converts and documenting his journey as a self-appointed “MOOC Advocate,” – the first one in El Salvador and Latin America. More...
By Julia Lawrence. International students studying in the United States in the 2011-2012 academic year contributed more than $21.8 billion to the economy, according to research by the National Association of Foreign Student Advisers. The report, titled What is the Value of International Students to Your State in 2012? also finds that the biggest beneficiaries of the foreign students largesse over that year were California, New York and Texas. Marlene M. Johnson, NAFSA Executive Director and CEO, said the international students don’t just bring financial benefits to the states that host them. They also contribute academically to US colleges and universities while providing cultural value to the surrounding communities of their schools.
According to the NAFSA, international students, as well as US students who choose to pursue studies abroad, create a strong cultural link between other countries and the United States. In addition, bringing international students into American classrooms provides a global perspective that is often limited or even non-existent. Foreign students in US colleges and universities often enroll in some of the toughest engineering and science courses, thus making it economically feasible for schools to offer them to more students including those that come from the US. Outside of class, spending by foreign students supports many local businesses, and their money also goes to benefit other parts of the local economy via rent and transportation payments and other expenses. More...