Le Volontariat International en Entreprise, UNE FORMULE SOUPLE, SIMPLE ET ATTRACTIVE POUR TROUVER LE PROFIL RARE. Depuis la création du V.I.E en 2000, plus de 35 000 jeunes ont été envoyés à l’étranger pour le compte de plus de 4 000 entreprises dont 68% de PME.
Vous souhaitez renforcer vos équipes localement avec de jeunes talents, dynamiser votre réseau à l’export ou consolider vos parts de marché?
Le V.I.E, Volontariat International en Entreprise, permet aux entreprises de droit français de confier à un jeune, homme ou femme, âgé de 18 à 28 ans, une mission professionnelle à l’étranger durant une période modulable de 6 à 24 mois, renouvelable une fois dans cette limite. La formule du V.I.E est gérée, pour le compte de l’État, par UBIFRANCE, l’Agence française pour le développement international des entreprises.
Vous pouvez confier tout type de mission aux Volontaires: commerciales ou techniques, les missions sont décidées par l’entreprise : études de marchés, prospection, renforcement d’équipes locales,…
Vous êtes exonérés des démarches liées à la gestion du personnel à l’international
La gestion administrative et juridique du V.I.E est déléguée à UBIFRANCE qui s’occupe pour vous des aspects contractuels, du versement des indemnités et de la protection sociale du volontaire. Vous pilotez bien sûr en direct son activité opérationnelle.
Vous pouvez choisir votre V.I.E dans le vivier du civiweb.com
UBIFRANCE met à votre disposition en permanence un vivier riche de très nombreux candidats aux profils et formations très variés, ayant souvent une première expérience de l’international. Identifier le bon profil à l’aide de la base de données des candidats.
UBIFRANCE peut vous aider à trouver un profil spécifique: des chargés de recrutement V.I.E, spécialisés par métiers, pourront vous accompagner dans votre recherche de candidats et sélectionner avec vous les profils adaptés à vos attentes.
Vous bénéficiez d’avantages financiers
Les dépenses liées au recours à un V.I.E sont éligibles au Prêt pour l’Export (PPE) d’OSEO, le budget V.I.E est intégrable dans une assurance prospection COFACE . Le recours à un V.I.E ouvre droit au crédit d’impôt export, mesure destinée aux PME qui engagent des dépenses de prospection commerciale afin d’exporter.
Dans certains cas, les entreprises peuvent bénéficier d’aides régionales qui offrent la prise en charge partielle du coût du V.I.E. dans de nombreuses régions françaises.
Solutions PME-PMI
Pour que l’accès à la formule V.I.E soit le plus simple possible, UBIFRANCE met en place des solutions d’accompagnement adaptées aux problématiques des PME.
• UBIFRANCE vous propose des solutions d’hébergement professionnel : portage par des grands groupes, au sein du réseau consulaire, des bureaux UBIFRANCE ou parrainage par les Conseillers du Commerce Extérieur de la France.
• La formule du temps partagé vous permet de bénéficier d’un V.I.E tout en partageant ses services et son coût avec d’autres entreprises, de votre filière professionnelle ou de votre région.
• Des organismes fédérateurs par ailleurs proposent aux PME de se regrouper autour d’un V.I.E à temps partagé en favorisant le rapprochement d’entreprises ayant un projet sur la même destination.
Comment faire une demande de V.I.E ?
Contactez nos conseillers au n° AZUR 0 810 659 659 (prix d’un appel local) ou par email à infoVIE@ubifrance.fr. Ils vous présenteront les modalités de mise en place d’une mission V.I.E et vous accompagneront dans la définition de votre projet et la recherche d’un candidat.

By Philip G Altbach and Jamil Salmi. The latest accoutrement of world-class universities, or those aspiring to world-class status, is an international advisory group.
Heidelberg University in Germany has one headed by a former Oxford vice-chancellor. Moscow’s Higher School of Economics’ committee is chaired by a Nobel Prize-winning American economist. And several prominent Saudi Arabian universities have committees composed of top-ranking academics and a few business executives.
The launch of national Excellence Initiatives in various parts of the world – China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, Spain and South Korea, to mention only a few – has often been associated with the creation of such advisory boards at the institutional level. The laudable goals of such committees, which meet on an occasional basis to review and evaluate the institution’s plans and performance, include bringing new ideas and analysis from the experience of academe beyond the borders and especially from the pinnacles of higher education globally, and hopefully assisting the institution to understand itself and improve.
Committee members have a continuing relationship with the university and, presumably, a commitment to its welfare and improvement. They can be called on for occasional advice, generally on a pro bono basis. These committees may also bring added prestige to the university. A distinguished group of internationally respected academics provides lustre – having connections with a Nobel Prize winner helps, even if in an advisory group.
Such committees meet once or twice a year, usually at the university, and their sessions are typically attended by the top management of the university. Sessions last for a day or two and often include a consideration not only of the broad performance and plans of the institution but also a specific analysis of one or more programmes, departments or initiatives thought to be worth detailed consideration.
Who serves and why?
Although not based on a careful and systematic analysis of advisory committee membership, the impression is that most committees consist of prominent academics and institutional leaders, from a range of disciplines chosen from top universities worldwide – with a predominance of participation from major universities in the English-speaking world. The natural sciences and ‘hard’ social sciences, such as economics, seem to be predominantly represented.
Perhaps the largest numbers are senior administrators from top-tier universities – sitting or recently retired presidents, vice-chancellors, rectors and the like. Few members seem to be from middle-ranking universities or emerging academic systems, and there are rarely members from universities within the country. An occasional business leader, often from the high-technology sector, is included. Seniority and maleness tend to predominate on the committees. From the university, members are often the senior management team – president, provost, vice-presidents and deans.
Advisory committee members generally focus on service to overseas colleagues and assisting other universities. Many enjoy a bit of academic tourism, and some wish to learn some useful lessons from the university or committee colleagues. Few, if any, are able to devote a significant amount of time to the enterprise.
Do the benefits outweigh the costs?
International advisory committees, while not a major part of any university’s budget, entail considerable costs. While the members typically serve without significant remuneration, with some exceptions, expenses are not inconsequential. Direct costs usually include business-class air transportation and related travel, and hospitality while on campus.
Indirect costs, often not considered carefully, are not negligible and include the time of members of the entire senior management team of the university during the meetings, considerable preparation time mainly by the president and senior staff, and logistical arrangements. A two-day international-advisory committee meeting might cost well over US$100,000.
Characteristics of an effective committee
Members must not only be committed to the university, but also need to be knowledgeable about the institution and its challenges. Thus, they must be provided in advance with appropriate documentation and be committed to preparing well before arriving at the meeting. An advantage of the committee is a continuing relationship with the university, and thus trust and insights are built up over time. Committee members need some hands-on experience at the host institution through conversations with professors, students and other key stakeholders plus interactions with top management.
The topics discussed at committee meetings must be relevant and within the purview of expertise of the members. These policies might involve long- and medium-term institutional strategy, proposed polices relating to governance, the academic profession, new curriculum plans, internationalisation and other macro issues. Detailed administrative actions, specific personnel policies – the promotion of academics, for example – and other detailed management and academic decisions are not the purview of advisory committees, although policies concerning the promotion and evaluation of academics might be.
The meetings themselves must be carefully prepared, with sufficient time allocated for themes so that the discussion can be effectively organised. Lengthy presentations by university administrators must be avoided. A good balance between providing information on the one hand and allowing for in-depth discussion on the other, is of basic significance. While the size of the university group that participates in the meeting must be small enough to permit productive discussions, the advisory board’s contribution can be more useful, along with a wider representation from the academic community.
Senior faculty members and also junior colleagues may constructively be included in meetings. It is important that the discussions remain confidential, so the careful choice of local membership is important. The university must be willing to expose problems and even crises, as well as to present good news and accomplishments. The advisory committee should not be considered as a rubber-stamping group but must be seen as part of the academic community.
Unlike the case with a formal university board of trustees or governors, which exercises statutory supervisory responsibilities that sometimes place university leaders and board members in an antagonistic relationship, a major benefit of an international advisory board is that it can provide a non-threatening platform for candid feedback on the host university’s performance and for sharing relevant experiences to inform the university’s strategy and new projects.
Conclusion
Distinguished outsiders can bring an original perspective, help raise awareness about new challenges, provide relevant advice based on long experience from a range of institutions, and perhaps present innovative approaches derived from international good practices.
Dialogue between the university community and knowledgeable and sympathetic outsiders can yield useful insights. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with the added prestige of an international advisory committee.
* Philip G Altbach is Monan professor of higher education and director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College, US. Jamil Salmi is former coordinator of the World Bank’s network of higher education professionals. This is an edited version of the article, “What International Advice do Universities Need?”, published in International Higher Education, Number 67, Spring 2012.

By Brendan O'Malley. Three significant blows were struck this week for the international cause of achieving open access to scientific research.
Neelie Kroes (pictured), vice-president of the European Commission, who is responsible for the Digital Agenda for Europe, has confirmed that the commission is drawing up a proposal to open up access to the results of research funded under its proposed €85 billion (US$111 billion) Horizon 2020 research programme.
The World Bank announced that it is to make findings of research that it funds freely available under Creative Commons licensing. And the Wellcome Trust, one of the world’s largest biomedical charities, announced that it will launch its own free online publication to compete with subscription-based journals and enable scientists to make their research findings freely available.
Kroes said the European Commission’s plan will reflect its decision to make all outputs from research funded under Horizon 2020 openly accessible. Speaking on 11 April at the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities annual meeting, which focused on "Open Infrastructures for Open Science", she was due to say that the commission’s proposal will look at the role of e-infrastructures in supporting open access and the role of rewards that incentivise researchers to share.
“Alltogether, it will show how widening access to publications and data generates substantial benefits and how we can, together, make the European Research Area a successful enterprise,” she said in a pre-released copy of her speech. She said openness should apply for sure to all research that is at least partly funded by the public.
“But the logic of openness and sharing of course holds for all scientific and scholarly research.
“We already have the infrastructure supporting open access. Researchers, funding bodies and the public are already using and re-using thousands of publications hosted around the world in e-Infrastructures like OpenAIRE.
“This is important. Not just because it helps scientists and science to progress. But because we should never forget that the number one research funder in Europe is the taxpayer. And they deserve to get the largest possible reward from that investment.”
Kroes said there was no reason why subscription access only models should remain dominant for access to research publications in an era when distribution costs approach zero. Her speech came a day after the World Bank announced details of its open access policy, which will take effect from 1 July. Two years after opening its vast storehouse of data to the public, the bank is consolidating more than 2,000 books, articles, reports and research papers in a search-engine friendly Open Knowledge Repository, and allowing the public to distribute, reuse and build upon much of its work – including commercially.
The bank says the repository is a one-stop-shop for most of its research outputs and knowledge products, providing free and unrestricted access to students, libraries, government officials and anyone interested in its knowledge. Other material, including foreign language editions and links to datasets, will be added in the coming year. Further, the World Bank will become the first major international organisation to make much of its research output available under Creative Commons licensing. This will mean that any user located anywhere in the world will be able to read, download, save, copy, print, reuse and link to the full text of the bank’s research work, free of charge.
This will apply to monographs, externally published sections or chapters of books written by world Bank staff, working papers, journal articles and datasets. Author versions of articles published by commercial publishers and currently available only to journal subscribers will be made freely available via the public repository after embargo periods elapse, though their reuse will be more restricted than bank-published material, the bank said.
Robert B Zoellick, World Bank group president, said: “Knowledge is power. Making our knowledge widely and readily available will empower others to come up with solutions to the world’s toughest problems.”
The Wellcome Trust, which provides £400 million (US$636 million) a year in funds for research on human and animal health, announced on 10 April that it too would throw its weight behind efforts by scientists to make their work freely available to all. It said it would launch its own free online publication to compete with existing academic journals in an effort to force publishers to increase free access. Currently most scientific journals are only available by subscription.
Sir Mark Walport, head of the Wellcome Trust, said: “One of the important things is that up until now if I submit a paper to a journal I've been signing away the copyright, and that's actually ridiculous.
“What we need to do is make sure the research is available to anyone to use for any purpose."
He said the peer review system would operate in the same way on open access sites as subscription journals. Speaking to BBC Radio’s Today programme, he said the paradox was that peer review was one of the biggest costs of publishing papers: scientists do it for free and then the fruits of their review work are "locked behind a paywall".
This week’s moves will be welcomed by nearly 9,000 researchers who signed up to a boycott of journals that restrict free sharing, initiated by Tim Gowers, the British mathematician. It is part of a campaign that supporters call the 'academic spring', due to its aim to revolutionise the spread of knowledge. The European Commission's Kroes stressed that its digital openness proposal would be about sharing both findings and data. On data, she said the world was just beginning to realise how significant a transformation of science the openness enabled by ICT infrastructures can mean.
“We [are entering] the era of open science,” she said. “Take ‘Big Data’ analysis. Every year, the scientific community produces data 20 times as large as that held in the US Library of Congress.”
Big data needs big collaboration. Without that, it is not possible to collect, combine and conclude results from different experiments, in different countries and disciplines, she added, citing the example of genome sequencing.
“Open access databases like the European EMBL and the US GenBank double every nine months, and already store over 400 billion DNA bases. These initiatives deliver more efficient, practical and important results than could ever have been achieved with separate, closed data systems. And indeed, this approach can be credited with having created the whole new science of systems biology.
“That is why we've invested in high-speed research networks like GÉANT. Today, GÉANT is connecting millions of researchers, scholars, educators and students. That is why we want to promote ever better and open infrastructures for research collaboration.”
Kroes said the EC was working with international partners – the G8 but also major emerging economies – to come up with a global approach, to make the world's scientific resources inter-operate and open to discovery. Alongside that, the commission is working with the US, Canada and Australia to create a global coordination mechanism that puts scientific communities in the lead to define the global web of knowledge.
“With these initiatives, we can create a resource to link up researchers and their data wherever they are, whatever their field,” she said.
The UK government has already signalled its intention to press for increased access to public knowledge or data created by publicly funded research and universities. In its December 2011 Innovation and Research Strategy for Growth, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said: “We believe publicly funded research should be freely available.”
Independent groups of academics and publishers have been commissioned to review the availability of published research, and to develop action plans for making it freely available.
In the long run there is a huge potential cost saving to make, since British universities spend £200 million a year on subscriptions to electronic databases and journals and many of Britain’s big universities spend around £1 million a year with publishers, according to a report in the Guardian.

Meeting at the Institute’s Headquarters in Paris, IIEP and its partners reviewed successes, analysed lessons learned, and explored future orientations
On 9 March 2012, IIEP met with its main financial partners and other bilateral agencies in Paris to stock take on the different institutional changes and adaptations, which the institute introduced over the past two years, as well as and to discuss recent successes in delivery at country level, as well as future collaboration with development partners in educational planning and management.
The meeting was the occasion to highlight IIEP’s varied contributions to policy-formulation and planning processes in various contexts and domains around the world. IIEP staff presented examples of results from its work on:
- the implementation of fee-abolition in the Republic of Congo;
- mainstreaming conflict and disaster risk reduction strategies in planning procedures and processes of the ministries of Burkina Faso and Chad,
- developing nationally-owned planning processes and plans in Afghanistan and South Sudan,
- setting up new school mapping tools and supporting their implementation in Madagascar.
Other aspects of IIEP’s work were also discussed, particularly those related to the Institute’s capacity to guide decision-making and policy formulation in such areas as ethics and corruption, decentralization of education, and management reforms in higher education in Asia.
In their brief interventions, Raymond E. Wanner, Chairman of IIEP Governing Board, and Qian Tang, Assistant Director-General for Education at UNESCO, stressed the value of IIEP as a strong technical and results-oriented institute, further commenting that support and financial contributions to the Institute were a good investment to help countries improve education service delivery.
As the Institute has recently begun deliberations on its new Medium-Term Strategy (which begins in 2014), the meeting also provided an opportunity to consult with IIEP’s partners on preliminary ideas for broad, future orientations in the context of the post-2015 discussions. The fruitful and lively discussion focused on the quality of learning and the overall good functioning of education systems and their relationship to employability and social transformation, transparent governance, and integration of risk analysis in plan preparation, as well as persistent gender inequalities in education.
At a time of policy shifts in development cooperation, IIEP did not miss the opportunity to make the case for a continued focus on education, with investments commensurate with the aspirations of youth and the challenges of a world in deep transformation.
Eleven countries* were represented at the meeting, including representatives of bilateral agencies, UNESCO Headquarters, and Ministries of Education and Foreign Affairs. Discussions on IIEP’s services and future programmes will be ongoing with the Institute’s beneficiaries and core funders, including those partners who could not attend the meeting such as Australia, and Finland.
* Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom
Links: IIEP in action (2010-2011).

The following is a guest post by Markus Laitinen, head of international affairs at the University of Helsinki. Imagine a university without an international office, internationalization strategy or a committee for internationalization; not really international, right? Not necessarily. For the past eight years the University of Helsinki has had no single office or entity bear the responsibility for internationalization. Today, this approach is sometimes called “mainstreamed” or “deep” internationalization, but I actually prefer “embedded.” From my perspective, sharing the responsibility for internationalization–an issue central to many universities worldwide–throughout a university, rather than charging it to a select few administrators, is the right path to take.
To illustrate the point, some background information is necessary. The University of Helsinki is Finland’s first university and largest, serving 36,000 students. It established an international office in the late 1980s with the main focus to respond to correspondence in foreign languages and the need for “diplomats” to work with visitors from foreign universities. During the 1990s, the university experienced a big increase in student exchange, first sending more students to study abroad and later, after increasing the number of courses offered in English, enrolling more international exchange students. Today, we have about 2,000 foreign students pursuing a degree, a 30 percent increase from three years ago. The university does not charge tuition, so the focus on bringing in more international students was not a financial motivation. Instead it was a means to diversify our campus and partly to offset the fact that the majority of the students did not have an opportunity to study abroad.
In 2003, the university decided to revamp its central administration, which led to the international office being abolished. To be honest; this was not a result of a careful analysis of how best to manage international affairs at the university. It was, rather, a byproduct of a larger reform. It placed the office’s former staff members in several parts of the central administration. In my interpretation, the true motive for the reform was to make a clearer distinction between services and strategic planning. Thereby the people responsible for services related to student mobility, for example, were placed with the rest of student services, whereas I, as the head of international affairs, remained near the leadership.
The new setup meant that offices previously focused on domestic concerns were now charged with new responsibilities for internationalization. Student services and academic affairs could no longer rely on an international office to deal with all issues international. As an example, academic affairs needed to take the responsibility of implementing the Bologna Process at the university. There was a huge learning curve for them and required a shift in thinking from, in particular, the line managers on whose lap this new responsibility was dumped. In our case, luckily, key managers accepted the task with a positive attitude.
To maintain coherence between the different international administrators, we put in place mechanisms to encourage internal collaboration. Initially we drew up a common operational budget across various offices (this has since been discontinued). But we still have regular joint meetings, e-mail lists and other ways to share information electronically, and common projects, such as organizing the rector’s annual welcoming reception for international students and staff members, helps us to cross organizational boundaries.
After some eight years of experience, I can identify the benefits and challenges of this embedded internationalization. On the downside, the approach requires unconventional management structures, which may lead to internal conflicts or breaks in communication. But the advantages far outweigh the challenges.
First and foremost, under this approach internationalization cannot be marginalized to be the responsibility of a few. Second, by having internationalization experts placed in domestically-oriented units, these experts have been able to “contaminate” their surroundings and more and more people are now involved with international activities. As a result, we have been able to add much more resources towards internationalization than any single office could ever have, especially since internationalization in our context does not generate income. During the past five years, 35 master’s programs in English have been introduced in part by providing seed money of over 1 million euros per year. This has required a lot of internal discussion, preparation, and collaboration, and in my view would not have been possible if only a single office was involved.
The third main benefit of embedded internationalization is that we have been able to harness the expertise of different sectors of administration to international needs; services related to international students and faculty members, for example, have improved significantly. For example, the electronic systems for international-student admissions and student-exchange management have improved and simplified processes for international students.
My point of view, of course, has been that of an administrator and I do realize that this is not the full picture when it comes to internationalization activities at a university. But I do believe that embedded internationalization is not restricted to administrative issues but rather is something the whole university should adopt as a way of thinking and as a basis of operations.
Today, one of the most difficult questions I get from colleagues is: “How many people do you have in the international office?”
The direct answer is that we have some 30 internationalization experts throughout our central administration. But if I have time, I explain our somewhat radical setup and say, the number is impossible to count and that this is the beauty of our way of doing things. While such a response may seem long, I hope the question remains difficult to answer in the future as we continue to develop our approach to embedded internationalization.

By Simon Marginson. All tertiary education systems face the problem of breadth and depth. More specifically, where should they strike the balance between extending tertiary participation across more of the population in good institutions (breadth), and building the scientific firepower of a small number of outstanding research universities so that they rise in the global rankings (depth)?
Naturally everyone wants both. Equally naturally, resources are scarce and at any given time governments must determine the next investment. Strategies vary. Nations might try to go broad and deep at the same time, like China. Or system building might alternate between a breadth phase – in which many new institutions are built and overall rates of participation are pushed sharply upwards; and a depth phase – in which priority is given to world-class science.
The dilemma is especially acute in developing countries. Resource shortages and other urgent priorities force them into an ‘either-or’ rather than a ‘both and more’ approach. Breadth tends to take priority, if only because universities in the research rankings seem out of reach of nations with a per capita income of less than USD$10,000 per year. The exception is China, which combines a large pre-modern economy with global cities and industrial might.
No golden development path
The political implications differ in each case. Breadth promises to fulfil the aspirations of a much larger proportion of families and lift economic capacity across the board, though only if graduate labour is used effectively. Depth – globally recognised universities – speaks to national pride, industry innovation and the desire for a position near the front row of the global grid. Rightly or wrongly, universities in the rankings are seen as an essential marker of national capacity and preparedness for the technological and economic challenges ahead. Nations give different answers depending not only on economic policy but cultural values. There is no single answer, no one golden development path.
Some nations place a very high priority on building national universities with the gravitas of national banks, peak institutions for leadership training and social selection. There was a long tradition of such institutions in the Confucian world, prior to the modern university with its Humboldtian forms. All East Asian systems are crowned by institutions of this kind: Peking and Tsinghua in China, Tokyo and Kyoto in Japan, National Taiwan University, Seoul National in South Korea, and Hong Kong University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong – not to mention Singapore National University in South East Asia.
These institutions are now expected to be not just nationally dominant but globally prominent. They lead tertiary education systems going from strength to strength. Korea and Taiwan have the world’s highest tertiary participation rates. The Asia Pacific has 25 universities that produced over 4,000 science papers in 2005 to 2009 and had more than 10% of those papers in the world top 10% in their field. Western Europe and the United States each have twice as many such universities, but there is no doubt East Asia is catching up. The peak institutions in the US also tower over the rest.
Interestingly, both the US model and the post-Confucian model are characterised by high rates of participation by international standards. They combine breadth with depth, though only up to a point. If they have a flaw it lies in the long tail of private sector institutions lacking status and resources. Still, if the peak institutions were weakened, this would be unlikely to broaden participation or improve quality at the bottom end, though it might lift the status of upper middle institutions.
Other nations place a larger emphasis on broad-based capacity. This was long a strength of Germany, with many world top 500 research universities, excellent technical universities and on-the-job training, and a modest number of top 100 universities. The Excellence Initiative signalled a change in the balance, with a new emphasis on research concentrations.
Greater emphasis on depth
One common feature of policy in this period, almost everywhere, is a greater emphasis on depth. It is hard to say whether this has been fostered by global rankings, which began in 2003, or has catapulted the rankings into prominence. What is clear is that ‘world-class’ universities will not go away. Policy experts from the developed West often advise developing country governments to eschew the dream of world-class research universities and concentrate on lifting participation rates and standards. There is an obvious realism to this, but it begs the question: When does the aspiration kick in? There is also a hint of condescension: "Leave the science to us, get your basics right, and one day you’ll be ready to join the main game. When we say so."
Unsurprisingly, many policy leaders in emerging countries are not interested in waiting that long. And they have the example of East Asia to encourage them. If China or Korea (and before them Japan) had waited to be told they were ready for universities of Western European standard, they would still be waiting.
The example of East Asia reminds developing country aspirants that to achieve both broad-based tertiary participation and research science, they must have economic growth and modernisation. East Asia has achieved world-class finance and industry as well as world-class tertiary education. You cannot create leading universities out of nothing. Arguably, emerging countries should not use global rankings as a benchmark of national university performance until they are ready to do so, when the top 500 can be reached within the next generation. But nor should they suppress the evolution of their own capacity in global science.
In future years, the absence of global science capacity will be an increasing handicap. Nations unable to interpret and understand research – a capacity that necessarily rests on personnel themselves capable of creating research – will find themselves in a position of continuing dependence. The ambition for world-class universities is not a superficial or elitist whim. It is an entirely valid aspiration.
* Simon Marginson is a professor of higher education at the University of Melbourne, where he works at the Centre for the Study of Higher Education. His most recent book is Ideas for Intercultural Education, with Erlenawati Sawir. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, November 2011.

OECD countries in which students can benefit from sizeable financial support have above-average levels of access to university-level education, even when tuition fees are comparatively high.
Student financial support systems that offer loans with income-contingent repayment to all students combined with means-tested grants can be an effective way to promote access and equity while sharing the costs of higher education between the state and students.
An increasing number of OECD countries are charging higher tuition fees for international students, and many also differentiate them by field of study.
Tuition-fee structures and systems of student support vary widely across OECD countries.
When it comes to higher (tertiary) education, many countries have similar goals, such as strengthening the knowledge economy, increasing access for students, encouraging high completion rates, and assuring the financial stability of their higher education systems. Yet OECD countries differ dramatically in how the cost of higher education is structured – and in the financial support they provide to students.
For example, in countries with more progressive tax structures, such as Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, students pay low or no tuition fees and have access to generous public subsidies for higher education, but face high income tax rates. By contrast, tuition fees can be much higher in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Netherlands and the United States, though students in these countries also have access to significant financial support. Before recent reforms in Japan and in Korea, students paid comparatively high tuition fees, but had relatively low access to public subsidies. Meanwhile, in Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Switzerland, Spain and Mexico, students pay little or nothing for higher education, but have limited access to financial aid.
At a time when most OECD countries are grappling with the twin challenges of ballooning higher education enrolments and constrained budgets, how well are these approaches enabling countries’ higher education systems to achieve their key goals?
In many countries, a well-developed student financial support system is vital to achieving key outcomes…
OECD research suggests that charging a moderate level of tuition fees – while simultaneously giving students opportunities to benefit from comprehensive financial aid systems – is an effective way for countries to increase access to higher education, make efficient use of limited public funds, and acknowledge the significant private returns that students receive from higher education. While what constitutes “moderate” is not easy to define, OECD countries that charge for higher education most commonly have average annual tuition fees ranging from USD 800 to 1 300 per year for full-time national students enrolled in university-level programmes. Many factors influence higher education entry rates, such as the quality of a country’s primary and secondary education systems, the prevalence of vocational programmes, and the number of international students in the country’s higher education system.
However, it’s worth noting that countries with particularly well-developed financial aid systems – such as Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States – all have above-average university entry rates compared to other OECD countries, despite having very high tuition fees. To be sure, this approach has its limits: if the cost of higher education is perceived as too expensive, individuals may choose not to pursue it, even if public subsidies to support them are available.
What’s more, the high entry rates seen among some countries that charge no tuition fees may also be due to their highly-developed student financial support systems to cover living expenses, not just the absence of tuition fees. For instance, in Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden – four countries with above-average university entry rates – more than 55% of students benefit from public grants, public loans, or a combination of both. By contrast, countries with no tuition fees but less-developed student aid systems – such as Ireland and Mexico – have lower entry rates.
… but the types of student aid that countries provide may be even more important.
At the same time, the existence of a robust financial support system may not be enough to assure good outcomes for higher education students; the type of aid is also critical. Here again, approaches vary across OECD countries: more than one-third have systems that focus exclusively on providing grants, scholarships, or direct payments to universities in order to support students. Iceland provides only student loans, while the rest make a combination of grants and loans available.
OECD research suggests that student financial support systems that provide both loans with income-contingent repayments and means-tested grants not only promote access and equity at the front end of higher education, but also lead to better outcomes for students at the back end. For example, Australia and New Zealand have used this approach to mitigate the impact of high tuition fees, encourage disadvantaged students to enter higher education, and reduce the risks of high student loan indebtedness. Other OECD countries that offer meanstested grants and income-contingent loan repayments include Chile, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States – although in some of these countries, income-contingent repayments are initiated at the borrower’s request.
A well balanced mix between public and private funding is becoming increasingly important.
Increasingly, countries are also turning to other means to strike the right balance between keeping student charges reasonable and finding sufficient funding for their higher education systems. For example, some countries with highly subsidised higher education systems, such as Denmark and Sweden, increased tuition fees for non-European Union students in recent years, joining a long list of countries that charge higher rates for international students. At least 14 OECD member and partner countries differentiate tuition fees among fields of study to account for the higher cost of operating some academic programmes. Australia has even attempted to link the level of fees to labour-market opportunities by lowering tuition fees for fields with skills shortages, in order to attract more students.
As 2012 advances, further changes beckon. Later this year, tuition fees at some universities in England will triple as part of a government plan to stabilise university finances, and in the United States, leaders have introduced a plan to tie eligibility for student aid to institutions’ success in keeping their prices down. In an era of booming enrolments and tightening belts, it won’t be surprising if still more changes are on the horizon.
Download Eduction indicators in Focus 2.

By Jason Lane and Kevin Kinser. What role does higher education play in the relationship between nations? This question guided the conversation of a gathering of approximately 50 academics, international-education experts, and current and former foreign-service officers at the Rockefeller Institute of Government in Albany, this past Tuesday. The meeting was propelled by a growing acknowledgment that, for better or for worse, higher-education institutions are significant players in the international landscape.
But, just how significant is this for the international relations between nations?
It is widely acknowledged that higher education facilitates the movement of a large number of individuals (faculty, students, and staff) between nations and cultures. Indeed, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 3.7 million tertiary level students studied outside of their home country in 2009. Colleges and universities also provide important functions in terms of foreign-language acquisition, area studies, and intercultural appreciation.
Moreover, institutions of all types—public or private, for-profit or nonprofit, two-year or four-year, liberal-arts focused or research-oriented—have developed offshore presences. These include a range of foreign outposts such as branch campuses, research labs, and outreach offices in dozens of countries. Furthermore, an increasing number of colleges and universities are entering into relationships (e.g., dual degrees, joint degrees, collaborative research projects, consulting contracts, and others) with foreign higher-education institutions. These activities represent the creation of multinational educational enterprises and suggest colleges and universities to be international actors.
Moreover, it is not just that higher education increasingly transcends national borders; it is also the types of activities in which these institutions engage that can affect international relations. For example, we’ve written previously about the size and scope of international branch campuses (there are now about 200 operating globally). In addition to educating students, their service and research work may also support the development of other influential actors. For example, Northwestern University in Qatar works with Al Jazeera, the widely-watched Arabic news channel; and Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service in Qatar is charged with training international affairs specialists for the Arab Gulf region.
Colleges and universities also provide consultancies in the creation and evolution of foreign educational institutions. In the 1960s and 1970s, MIT helped to establish the Indian Institute of Technology in Kanpur, India; the Birla Institute of Technology and Science in Pilania, India; and the Aryamehr University of Technology in Iran. More recently, Houston Community College has been contracted by the Qatar government to help establish the Community College of Qatar.
Institutions also operate teaching and research locations that serve to support ventures based at the home campus. For example, Michigan State University has created project offices in Burundi, China, Dubai, Kenya, Mali, Mozambique, India, Tanzania, and Zambia to assist their faculty researchers in coordinating projects in foreign countries. Columbia University’s Graduate School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation created its Studio X program. With architecture studios located in the heart of cities in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe, and Asia, the Studio X program supports faculty and student engagement in some of the most rapidly developing metropolises in the world. Furthermore, MIT has offices in Africa, Asia, Europe, and South America to help create internship opportunities for their students.
Clearly, some colleges and universities now have extensive international engagements. All of these activities and many more that we did not reference, help facilitate the creation of global connections between current and future institutional and government leaders. They are a source of new resources and financial investment for foreign nations, developed and developing. Their actions and activities can affect the perceptions of prospective and current students; and those students may eventual hold leadership positions in business, government, and civic society.
But, what does this all mean for the relationship between nations? Is there a role for higher education in diplomacy? Are colleges and universities legitimate sources of soft power? To what extent do international-education professionals recognize that their actions, positive and negative, can have lasting effects on their nation’s credibility? Are governments purposeful in using colleges and universities as instruments of public diplomacy? Should colleges and universities be concerned about the diplomatic implications of their actions?
The consensus from our meeting was that it is clear that higher-education institutions are now major actors in the international environments. It is time to accept this fact and begin the search for the answers to these questions. See also Oversight of Internationalization—Who’s Responsible, Building Capacity in India: What Role for Cross-Border Higher Education.

By Olga Gorshkova. RBTH got in touch with former Minister of Education Vladimir Filippov to discuss how Russia has been adjusting to the Bologna Process that started in 2003.
On Nov. 17, 2011, the website of the newspaper Izvestia posted an article on the decision of the Russian Ministry of Education and Science to reform the academic degree system. Izvestia quoted Elena Nechaeva, director of the Ministry’s Department of Scientific and Pedagogical Staff, as saying that there were plans to abolish the Candidate of Science degree in the next two years. Russia Beyond the Headlines’ Olga Gorshkova spoke with Vladimir Filippov, the rector of Peoples’ Friendship University and a former Minister of Education who led Russia’s accession to the Bologna Process in 2003 about the changes.
Russia Beyond the Headlines: The new reform of academic degrees is a continuation of the reform you initiated back in 2003, isn’t it?
Vladimir Filippov: This sort of transformation in Russia is a natural process. Russia joined the Bologna Process, which currently has 49 signatories from Europe, as well as from many CIS countries. It is the uniform system of higher education and research personnel training. However, it is a three-tier system [Bachelor’s-Master’s-Ph.D.] rather than a two-tier system [Bachelor’s-Master’s]. Abroad, they call what we know in Russia as a doctor’s degree a Ph.D. Russia started the transition to this system in 2003, when it joined the Bologna Accords, and we now have to complete it.
RBTH: Does this mean that the Candidate of Science degree will soon cease to exist?
V.F.: For decades, Russia has had its own unique system of accreditation and training for academic staff, with two successive degrees – a Candidate and Doctor of Science. Our task is not to abolish the Candidate’s or Doctor’s degree, but to have our Candidates practically and legally be recognized as Ph.D.s. This already works for some academic disciplines – mathematics, physics and chemistry –  but we need the same for the social sciences and humanities, where we traditionally award too many degrees and often to those who do not deserve them. As for the Doctor’s degree, the West has never asked us to abolish it. The only thing we want is to have our Candidates recognized globally as Ph.D.s – this will only benefit our students.
RBTH: What benefits will the new system offer?
V.F.: It is in the best interests of most people, now that globalization and internationalization are happening. We know that scientific exchange is very useful, and it is important to encourage our researchers who obtain Ph.D. degrees in the West to come back to Russia to obtain globally-recognized Ph.D. degrees in Russia, and vice versa. In this context, we have to create a system of easy, automatic recognition of our education certificates. This is a global trend that is recognized by the world community. In 2009, the UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education in Paris, where more than 180 countries were represented, declared that all higher education systems would be harmonized based on the Bologna system of Bachelor’s-Master’s-Ph.D. If Russia fails to follow suit, it will be left all alone, so there is no way around it for us. Many countries, including China and some CIS countries, have been sending their students to complete post-graduate programs only at universities that provide Ph.D.s. Chinese students are aware that a Ph.D. degree will offer better employment opportunities.
RBTH: What will the reform look like in our country?
V.F.: When adopting an international system, each country needs to factor in its special features. For example, Russia has preserved the 4+2-year pattern for the Bachelor’s-Master’s system, although many countries have adopted a 3+2-year system. We told our counterparts – education ministers from other countries – that we needed the 4+2-year system, because our students have 11 years of schooling, while theirs have 12 or 13 years. We now have every chance of modifying our graduate education system [aspirantura] in order to have our Candidates of Science equal Ph.D.s. The Ministry of Education and Science has adopted a four-year postgraduate course. We can also make other changes to the timeframe. When it comes to the structure, we can make amendments to have more exams within post-graduate programs instead of having combined qualifying exams for foreign languages, history and philosophy and a single big, complicated specialist exam. The latter can be split into six or seven smaller exams that postgraduates can take once every semester, as they do it in the West. But the main thing is the level of publications. We have to challenge our postgraduates to publish their work not only in the journals approved by the Higher Attestation Commission, but also in leading global academic periodicals. Among the many benefits of this initiative are the enhanced prestige of Russian academics and the promotion of Russian researchers and publications in the English language. Also, publications in foreign journals confirm the high level and authenticity of research. We will thus comply with all requirements.
RBTH: A Ph.D. degree means a Doctor abroad. After the reform, will we have two doctoral degrees – ours and theirs?
V.F.: A Ph.D. is a Doctor of Philosophy, an outdated name. We will have a Ph.D. degree first and then the Doctor of Science, followed by an Academician. A Doctor of Science degree is an incentive for those who obtain a Ph.D. degree and want to go further in an academic field. In Russia, you cannot become a professor without a Doctor of Science degree, and a Doctor earns 40-50 percent more than a Candidate. Furthermore, a Doctor of Science has a far better chance of being employed abroad than a Ph.D. Statistically, only 10 percent of Candidates in Russia go on for a Doctor’s degree later. That proportion should stay the same. Speaking of which, some countries have academic degrees higher than the Ph.D.
RBTH: Why wasn’t the Ph.D. degree adopted simultaneously with the transition to Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees?
V.F.: First, because at that time we had the Ministry of Education, and science was supervised by a different agency. Now that we have the Ministry of Education and Science, the transition is possible. Second, it would have been hard to make such a complex change – first, we needed to have a smooth transition to the Bachelor’s-Master’s track and work out new standards, which required lots of effort and time. The final transition had been postponed twice, but on Sept. 1, 2011, the entire Russian higher education system finally adopted the Bachelor’s-Master’s program, so it became possible to think about the next step.
RBTH: Will foreign degrees also be easily recognized in Russia?
V.F.: When our students come back to Russia after completing education programs abroad, they are unwanted on the Russian job market, even if they obtain Master’s degrees. Russian Master’s programs do not accept students with European Bachelor’s degrees, because they completed three-year courses, while we require a four-year Bachelor's program. They have four-year Bachelor’s programs in China, but we still need interstate agreements to accept them. This is why our students often try to complete foreign and domestic graduate programs simultaneously. If they come home with a Ph.D. degree, they can obtain Candidate’s degrees here based on the decision of the Russian Higher Attestation Commission, but on the condition that the duration of the educational programs are equal.
RBTH: How will employers respond to this transition?
V.F.: Their attitude is still distrustful. We have no standards yet to identify which positions require which degrees. All the ministries are working to develop these standards. In the West, only 20-30 percent of graduates of Bachelor’s programs choose to apply for Master’s programs, but the figure is at 70-80 percent  in our country – this is a huge waste of time and effort, but many graduates are afraid they won’t be able to find a job, because their Bachelor’s degrees might not be recognized. As a result, the country loses billions, and people lose time and then work in positions that do not require Master’s degrees.
RBTH: Won’t this reform result in another wave of brain drain?
V,F.L We could shut all borders and never let anyone out, and then do everything our own way, but it wouldn’t be efficient. In order to keep academics in Russia, we must provide an adequate standard of living – pay decent salaries, provide housing to young researchers, and, above all, invest in modern equipment; otherwise we will lag behind the entire world. Young people leave looking not only for more money, but also for equipment and opportunities that we cannot offer them here.