Formation Continue du Supérieur

EUA launches “Autonomy Scorecard”: new report compares and benchmarks levels of university autonomy in 26 European countries
The European University Association has today (15 November) launched a major new report which compares university autonomy across 26 European countries. In addition to an in-depth analysis of the current state of institutional autonomy in Europe, the study includes four scorecards which rank and rate higher education systems in four autonomy areas: organisational, financial, staffing and academic autonomy.
The new EUA “Autonomy Scorecard” will be launched today (15 November) at a stakeholder event in Brussels. In each scorecard (published as a table), national or federal state systems are ranked according to a percentage score, with 0% being the lowest and 100% the highest possible level of autonomy in a given area. The system with the highest percentage is considered to grant the most autonomy to universities in a specific dimension. In each scorecard, each system has also been assigned to one of four groups – high, medium high, medium low and low – depending on their score. The report, “University Autonomy in Europe II-The Scorecard”, can be downloaded here.
La France dans le rapport: dernière position pour l'Academic autonomy et le Staffing autonomy
3.4 Academic autonomy
France and Greece are included in the “low” group, which includes countries scoring below 41%. First, universities in both systems lack flexibility in setting overall student numbers: in Greece, they are negotiated with the government, while France uses a system of free admission. Heavy constraints also relate to the introduction of degree programmes: all must be submitted to prior accreditation. Quality assurance processes and providers are prescribed, and institutions’ ability to choose the language of instruction is curtailed in both systems: all Bachelor and a set proportion of Master’s programmes must be taught in the national languages... In France, only an external authority is entitled to dismiss the executive leader. p.54
In Cyprus, France and Iceland, they are appointed partly by the university, partly by an outside body. Finally, in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Sweden, the ministry selects external members upon proposal by the institution. p.55
The third (“medium low”) cluster, which includes systems scoring between 41% and 60%, consists of Austria, Brandenburg, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Iceland, Lithuania, Norway, North Rhine-Westphalia, Poland, Spain, Sweden and Turkey. p.57
In Austria, Finland, France, Iceland, North Rhine-Westphalia and Spain, universities may keep and spend their surplus freely... The situation is markedly different for bottom-tier systems, which include Brandenburg, the Czech Republic, France, Iceland and Norway. p.58
3.3 Staffing autonomy
The third (“medium low”) cluster, which includes systems scoring between 41% and 60%, consists of Brandenburg, Cyprus, France, Italy, Slovakia, Spain and Turkey. Institutional independence in these systems is strongly curtailed. In France, promotions are governed by annual quotas, while Italy carries out a national competition... Both France and Spain practice a system of preselection: in Spain, candidates for academic and administrative posts must be personally accredited by the national accreditation agency before being hired by universities. French institutions can only recruit academic staff out of a national list drawn up by peers who were partly nominated by the ministry. The number of academic posts is limited by an external authority in France and Turkey. An external authority confirms some academic staff appointments in Slovakia, and even carries out the recruitment (of senior administrators) in France. p.61
3.4 Academic autonomy
France and Greece are included in the “low” group, which includes countries scoring below 41%. First, universities in both systems lack flexibility in setting overall student numbers: in Greece, they are negotiated with the government, while France uses a system of free admission. Heavy constraints also relate to the introduction of degree programmes: all must be submitted to prior accreditation. Quality assurance processes and providers are prescribed, and institutions’ ability to choose the language of instruction is curtailed in both systems: all Bachelor and a set proportion of Master’s programmes must be taught in the national languages. p.64
Autres passages
In France and Turkey, dismissal procedures are laid down in the law and conducted by an external authority. p.23
A board- or council-type body exists in Denmark, France, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal and Sweden. (Higher education institutions in Brandenburg in fact share a common board, which provides strategic advice to the university leadership and puts forward candidates for the university presidency). p.26
External members of governing bodies are usually fully integrated into the decision-making process. There are only some restrictions in this respect: in France, for instance, external members cannot participate in the election of the rector. In dual systems, external members are typically included in the board-type or council-type body. Of the unitary systems with a senate-type governing body, only Estonia and Ireland include external members. p.27
In France, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovakia and Sweden, the block grant is divided into broad categories, such as teaching and research (Iceland, Sweden), teaching, research and infrastructure (Latvia, Lithuania), salaries and operational costs (Portugal), or investments, salaries and operational costs (France). As a rule, universities are unable to move funds between these categories. In France, funds can be transferred into operations and investments, but not into salaries; in Iceland, shifting funds is possible in theory, but rarely done in practice... Universities in the following 15 systems are entirely
free to keep a surplus on their public funding: Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Hesse, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands, North Rhine-Westphalia, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. p.31
In Cyprus, France, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Spain, institutions can borrow money with the approval of an external authority, while in Sweden and Brandenburg they can only use specific, stateowned banks. In Brandenburg, Ireland, Italy, North Rhine-Westphalia and Slovakia, the law prescribes that universities may only borrow up to a maximum percentage. p.32
Feature 5 - Legal vs. actual ownership of university buildings (Denmark, Austria & France)
Universities’ legal or formal ability to own buildings, and the extent to which they actually do so, may diverge widely. Universities in Austria and Denmark, for instance, are theoretically able to own real estate. However, in both countries, universities actually own only a minority of the buildings they occupy... French universities can only own their buildings if they have the technical competencies and resources to do so. Following the implementation of the autonomy reform in 2007, universities are now able to request the ‘dévolution’, i.e. the handing over of all university buildings owned by the state to the institution. Universities have to fulfil certain conditions to qualify for this scheme, which was voluntarily piloted by three universities in 2011. However, despite obtaining full ownership of their real estate, universities still need to secure the approval of a state authority to sell their assets. p.33-34
Finally, universities in some systems have at least formally increased their financial autonomy by gaining ownership of the buildings they occupy. In France, a new university law is gradually giving universities the option of acquiring their buildings. In 2011, three universities, which fulfilled the necessary technical requirements, were granted ownership of their buildings in a pilot project. p.37
In France, Greece and Turkey, the number of posts for some or all senior academic staff is regulated by an external authority. In Turkey, for instance, the council for higher education allocates a specific number of vacancies to universities, which may then carry out the recruitment process on their own. p.39
Feature 6 - Recruitment practices for senior academic staff (Czech Republic, Finland, Sweden, France & Italy)
Although there is of course some variation with regard to recruitment practices for senior academic personnel, most systems follow fairly similar procedures. It is common practice to specify selection criteria at faculty level and to set up a selection committee to evaluate candidates. The successful applicant is subsequently appointed at faculty level or, alternatively, by a decision-making body at university level. The selection committee either recommends one candidate or provides the decision-making body with a shortlist of preferred candidates in order of priority... In France, academic staff is recruited from a list of candidates drawn up by a national committee of academic peers. This committee, whose membership is partly decided by the academics themselves and partly nominated by the ministry, decides on applications of scientists who wish to be included in the list. Universities then fill open positions with candidates from this list. Following the autonomy reform, universities have also been given the opportunity to hire non-permanent, non-civil servant staff freely, although these represent only a minority of university personnel. P.39-40
In France, the ability to recruit administrative staff varies by category. The recruitment of personnel working in libraries and central administration is carried out by an external authority in a national competition. On the other hand, universities are free to recruit heads of administration and other staff categories, such as ‘ingénieurs de recherche’. p.40
Salary bands are prescribed for all or some staff in France, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland and Turkey... In Denmark, France, Ireland, Poland and Turkey, salary bands are fixed by an external authority. p.41
Dismissal is strictly regulated for all academic and administrative staff in France, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Norway and Slovakia. In Brandenburg, Hesse and North Rhine-Westphalia, academic and administrative staff members are either civil servants or public sector employees and therefore enjoy special protection from dismissal. p.42
In France, promotion quotas are imposed by the state. For senior academic staff, half of all promotions granted are determined at the national level. The same group of academic peers that sets up the national recruitment list decides on these. The remaining promotions are allocated to individual institutions, which are then free to decide whom they wish to promote. For senior administrative staff, promotions are not usually decided by the universities, but rather by other administrative staff who have been elected into a committee. For noncivil servant staff, promotions are freely decided by the university. However, these cases currently make up only a minority. p.43
Even in free admission systems, such as France, the Netherlands or Switzerland, a numerus clausus may apply for these (and similar) fields. In the case of France, the principle of free admissions only applies to first-cycle students in their first year of study. p.45
In France, the Netherlands and Spain, programmes must be accredited in order to receive public funding. In the Netherlands, privately funded study programmes are also commonly submitted to voluntary accreditation, since this is seen as a quality label. p.48
By contrast, in some systems, the requirements for programmes beyond Bachelor level, particularly doctoral ones, are more stringent. In France and Spain, all doctoral programmes must be accredited before introduction, whereas at Bachelor and Master’s level, accreditation is only necessary if programmes are to be publicly funded... In the remaining seven countries, some restrictions may apply to all or some degree levels. In Cyprus, France and Greece, universities may only offer undergraduate degrees in the national language. There is some more flexibility regarding Master’s programmes: Greece and France may offer certain Master’s programmes in other languages, while Cyprus may use other languages as long as the courses in question are also available in Greek. p.49
Annex 1 – Contributors to the study: Alain Abécassis, Secretary General & Harald Schraeder, Policy Adviser, Conférence des Présidents d’Université (CPU).
The report, “University Autonomy in Europe II-The Scorecard”, can be downloaded here.

Paul Santelmann, Responsable de la Prospective à l’AFPA. La DARES a publié en novembre (bulletin Analyses n°082) une synthèse de la « dépense»  nationale pour la formation continue et l’apprentissage en 2009. Dépense est bien le mot qui convient puisque cette étude de 17 pages ne permet d’établir aucune corrélation entre ce budget qui atteint  31,3 milliards d’euros et des performances sociales, économiques ou technologiques tangibles. Année après année ces bilans qui rendent compte des dépenses des entreprises et des pouvoirs publics et des entrées en formation par dispositifs ne sont étayés d’aucune évaluation de leur impact réel sur l’économie ou le pacte social de lutte contre les inégalités.

Certes, personne ne doute qu’une partie de ces investissements a des conséquences sur l’employabilité des actifs,  la performance des entreprises ou les innovations technologiques… Le problème est que personne ne sait véritablement quelle est la part de cette dimension vertueuse par rapport au poids des stages-parking, des formations-bidons et des prestations redondantes avec les processus d’auto-formation des adultes les plus qualifiés.
Bien pire on n’a toujours aucune idée de la clef de répartition de ce budget de plus de 31 milliards d’euros par catégorie socioprofessionnelle puisque les orientations et les ambitions affichées du système d’acteurs de la formation sont de s’adresser prioritairement  aux publics les moins qualifiés et les moins scolarisés ! Cette occultation est d’autant plus surprenante que la France dispose de données quantitatives particulièrement sophistiquées sur la formation comparativement aux autres pays. Ainsi les différentes sources statistiques permettent d’établir des volumes d’heures de formation assez précis pouvant être complétés par des données tarifaires publiques et des objectifs de formation facilement catégorisables par objectifs et publics cibles ! De plus la segmentation de l’offre de formation par publics qui fait que les prestataires de formation dédiés aux cadres n’occupent guère les marchés de la formation des moins qualifiés, facilite cette approche de l’investissement formation par catégorie socioprofessionnelle non plus sous l’angle de la consommation d’ heures de formation mais sous celui des budgets !
Contrairement à des représentations courantes et erronées la formation professionnelle des actifs les moins qualifiés nécessitent des investissements financiers  plus lourds en contenus, en ingénierie, en logistique  et en pratiques que la formation continue des cadres qui bénéficient des échanges, des ressources et des processus permis par la société de la connaissance et des réseaux sociaux et professionnels. La formation des moins qualifiés comporte des objectifs sociaux et professionnels complexes à combiner y compris en termes de formateurs qui doivent à la fois être référents sur le plan technique et professionnel et efficace sur le plan de la pédagogie et des pratiques de formation. Or un survol des tarifications en matière de formation permet de constater que le financement des formations des moins qualifiés est à des taux horaires bien en deçà de ceux des formations destinées à l’élite. Cela serait moins gênant si les prélèvements obligatoires liés au système français de formation continue n’étaient pas organisés de telle façon à subventionner les deux types de prestations dont les finalités sont, pour le moins, socialement éloignées… La France est le seul pays qui mobilise autant de prélèvements obligatoires (de dizaines de milliards d’euros !) pour former non pas sa future élite mais celle qui est en place tout en défendant l’idée que la formation continue est un marché ! Un paradoxe qui ressemble à une fuite en avant…

Santelmann Paul, Head of Forecasting at the AFPA. The DARES published in November (Analysis Bulletin No. 082) a summary of the "expense" for national training and learning in 2009. Spending is the right word because this 17-page study is no evidence any correlation between the budget reaching 31.3 billion euros, and performance of social, economic or technological tangible. Year after year these assessments that reflect the costs of businesses and public authorities and came into training devices are not supported in any assessment of their impact on the economy or the social pact to fight against inequality. More...

By Yojana Sharma. There are big differences around the world in the reasons why students turn to education agents for university and student visa applications, with use of agents highest in regions and countries where there is less familiarity with the target education system. Language issues are also important, a new study by the British Council has found.
Analysis of 131,000 student responses, or 30,000 responses each year since 2007 gathered by the British Council for its just-released Student Insight report Why Students use Agents, found students in Europe were the least likely to use an education agent for assistance in applying for a university place while students in East Asia are most likely to commission their services. In Latin America and Africa, use of education agents varies more broadly from country to country.
"Prospective students and their parents view agents differently, depending on where in the world they live," said Elizabeth Shepherd, research manager for the British Council's education intelligence unit in Hong Kong.
However, in all countries they sought an agent only once they were seriously considering overseas study. "They see it as a final stage of the process," Shepherd said.
"A big part of it is confidence. Study abroad is such a complicated issue and the perception is that it's an in-depth process to go through with a number of hurdles to cross," Shepherd told University World News.
"There will always be, especially for students entering an education system for the first time, a lot of them who have never been outside their own country."
Above all they want a time-saving and trustworthy source of guidance. "Students may seek an agent if they or their parents have never studied overseas before, or if they intend to study a newly popular subject and do not have an easily accessible reference point, or for many practical reasons, including needing someone to submit an application on their behalf or identify suitable accommodation," the study said.
"Agents have got a bad reputation. There are many awful stories. The purpose of our study was to look at students perception to gain an insight into how they have been treated," said Shepherd.
African students and students in China turn to agents to get information about universities themselves, while in South Asia the most sought after service is assistance in obtaining a student visa - possibly because there is already some familiarity with education systems in countries like Britain and the US.
"Visa application would always be high on students' need for assistance. The visa system has always been one that required time, including the need for referencing and other documentation that applies to academic study and credibility that visa regimes now call for," Shepherd said. Among the largest groups of students going abroad, Indian students were less likely than Chinese students to use an agent, while Indian students who have previously studied overseas are less likely to use agents for subsequent applications. European Union students wanting to study in another European country are least likely to have visa issues and as EU citizens they are entitled to pay the same tuition fees as home students.
"A large number of European organisations and associations provide information on obtaining financial aid in a student's home country for study in another EU country, they also provide advice on students rights as EU citizens and possible scholarship opportunities," the study said.
German students were the least likely to use an agent, with three-quarters of them responding negatively, followed by Belgium at 65%. Of the French students surveyed, three out of five said they would not go to an agent. Like non-Europeans, European students sought assistance or reassurance that they are choosing the right institutions and help with accessing additional information on the institutions, the study noted. Accommodation advice is another important service.
East Asia and China
The East Asian region was the most inclined to use education agents. More than half of students in China, Malaysia, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam said they were likely to use and agent's services although many in Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines and Thailand appeared unsure about the value of agents. In East Asia the most popular service was the provision of information relating to institutions, followed by advice on which institutions to apply to.
The most likely to use such services were students in China. "They really do feel it is such a well-established trend in the industry and a common-place practice to engage an education agent. What comes across most is the language barrier for the parent and the need to assist the child with an English language process and the time frame," Shepherd said.
In Guangzhou province in southern China, students were more likely to say they did not see the internet as a resource, referring to internet censorship issues. In Hong Kong, where internet censorship is not a problem, language was cited one of the biggest obstacles to using online resources and print materials. Students in China with the US as their first choice destination were most likely to seek advice from an agent about institution choice. Chinese students were also most likely to use an agent when they wanted to study subjects such as business administration.
"A possible explanation of this could be the huge and daunting number of possible course options which vary in cost and quality across all possible hosting countries. For any prospective student this would be a daunting prospect and one that would almost certainly justify the expense of consulting and education agent," the study said.
Africa
In African countries, internet connectivity and reliability are much more prominent factors in whether students turn to education agents or not. But the issue of agent reputation has had an impact in this region, with much controversy surrounding the high number of fraudulent applications from education agents acting on behalf of students from African countries, who have been seen as trying to gain access to loans and benefits or gain residency through the back door.
"The reputation of education agents has suffered as a result of this controversy and institutions and students are reportedly wary of having applications denied as a result of being suspected as fraudulent," the report said.
A slightly higher proportion of Kenyan, Nigerian and Ugandan respondents indicated they were more likely than not to use an agent. However for Zimbabwean and Ghanaian students a slightly higher proportion said they would not.
But in Nigeria, a high proportion - almost two-thirds - of students wanting to study Veterinary Science said they would use an agent, much higher than the 40-50% of students applying for other subjects.

By Claire Potter. We return to guest blogger, historian and former Zenith provost Judith C. Brown.  Her full biography and Part I of this series can be viewed here.  Brown ended the first section of her essay by reflecting: “in the early 19th century, it was in the relative ‘backwater’ of the German universities as well as in the newer universities of Europe, where imagination and flexibility with regard to change were able to flourish, that we see the beginnings of the modern research university.”  She then asked: “Are we in that kind of turning point in American higher education?”  The answer is yes.
American higher education is at a major turning point.

By Wagdy Sawahel. Despite dramatic growth since the 1990s in the number of private institutions, which make up about 45% of all Arab universities and have a market size of US$1.2 billion in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates alone, these institutions continue to have little impact on the development of higher education systems in the Arab world.
This is due to limited capacity, lack of academic credibility, absence of quality control and performance standards, and the perceived threat to Arab cultural identity that branches of Western universities represent. Educational reform is urgently needed to reach minimum levels of quality and produce students who meet national needs.
The status of private universities
Private universities in the Arab world emerged as a result of the inability of most public universities to meet the demand for higher education, in terms of both student numbers and academic quality. Public universities are heavily subsidised and run at a considerable financial loss. They are intensely overcrowded and cannot absorb the high demand for places, estimated at about 6.2 million in 2010. The problems of Arab public universities were outlined in the 2009 report Challenges Facing the Privatisation of Higher Education in the Arab World. As a result, since the early 1990s, 14 out of 22 Arab countries have officially opted for privatising higher education and started licencing private universities, which have been set up by either local investors or foreign universities.
Two-thirds (around 70) of the new universities founded in the Arab states since 1993 are private, and at least 50 of them are branches of Western, mostly American, universities, according to another 2009 report, The Politics of Higher Education in the Middle East: Problems and prospects. For example, Jordan has at least 12 private universities and Lebanon has only one public university and 28 private institutions. Syria has licensed some 20 private universities since 2001, 14 of which are up and running. Tunisia had the highest increase in the number of universities, up from 22 in 2003 to 44 in 2008, including 31 private universities.
Manar Sabry, a higher education expert at State University of New York in Buffalo, US, and the author of the report Funding Policy and Higher Education in Arab Countries, said Arab nations were the last to establish private universities. However, the number of private universities is increasing: of 152 new universities established in Arab countries from 2003-08, 115 were private - about 4.4 times the figure for 1993.
Nevertheless, private universities have little impact on higher education in the Arab world. Regardless of their increased numbers, Sabry told University World News, the public sector remains dominant in the provision of higher education "with the private sector still playing a small role in most countries in the region, as private universities are usually small and offer limited disciplines".
Market- or state-driven private universities?
A 2010 report, Universities in the Arab East: A crisis of privatisation and internationalisation, indicated that besides private for-profit universities, the Arab world has two types of universities: public or national universities, which absorb the overwhelming majority of students; and private non-profit universities, which attract the upper-middle class. Some private institutions historically belonged to missions, such as the American University of Beirut in Lebanon and the American University in Cairo. And some public universities have created private programmes, leading to the creation of what are in effect semi-private universities. While private non-profit universities in Lebanon date from the 19th century, Jordan opened its first private for-profit university in 1990, followed by Egypt, Syria and the Gulf region.
In Saudi Arabia the private higher education sector, although still small in size, is growing at an annual rate of more than 35% compared to the public sector, which is expanding at only 10%, according to an October 2011 study, GCC Insight Report: Investment opportunities in K-12 and higher education in the United Arab Emirates and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, prepared by the Parthenon Group, a strategic advisor to the global education industry. Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have adopted a model of offshore campuses of foreign universities in remote educational cities.
Since 2003, Qatar's Education City has welcomed at least eight universities (six American and two Australian). A 2009 study, The Politics of Higher Education in the Middle East: Problems and prospects, indicated that in Qatar funding is mainly governmental, through the Qatar Foundation, which covers the bulk of the construction costs for branches of foreign universities. But in the UAE, Dubai International Academic City, or DIAC, is following a market-driven approach, where branches of foreign universities are covering their own costs in what is designed as a co-investment operation.
According to a May 2011 report, The Higher Education Landscape in Dubai 2010, published by Dubai's Knowledge and Human Development Authority, DIAC currently hosts 32 institutions from 13 countries including the US, UK, Canada, Australia, India, France, Singapore, Belgium, Russia, Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon and the UAE. It has 20,000 students from more than 100 nationalities on some 300 higher education programmes. The Parthenon Group's study pointed out that Western-branded higher education institutions in the UAE are growing at 18% per annum.
DIAC is hosting 58% of the foreign branch universities in the Arab world, according to the Guide to Universities in the Arab Countries issued by the Beirut-based UNESCO Regional Bureau for Education in the Arab States. According to the UNESCO document, which covered 22 countries in the Arab world, the UAE hosts the most foreign universities. Of the 15.4% of the universities based there, 6.4% operate under DIAC. Among the Arab states of the Gulf, DIAC and the Dubai Knowledge Village host 23% of the total number of universities.
Foreign university-based private institutions
The higher education community has expressed divergent views concerning the significance of establishing foreign branches of international universities in the Arab world. Sabry indicated that the inability of some governments to improve the quality of their public higher education institutions due to management difficulties led them to partner with foreign universities to fill the gap.
But Hilmi Salem, an international consultant in higher education, told University World News: "This is just a transplant process for setting up revenue and profit-orientated fully fledged foreign branch campuses in the national education system, leading to the production of a foreign brain-washed generation as well as a new form of mental colonisation."
Salem continued: "Some of the off-shore campuses of foreign universities in the oil-rich Gulf states are running out of cash as they struggle to attract enough students and develop a viable business model."
According to an October report on the website of international business services company High Street Partners, titled Universities Re-thinking Global Expansion, George Mason University left the UAE two years ago, before its inaugural class could graduate, and Michigan State University, failing to recruit even a quarter of its planned student numbers, pulled out of Dubai after just two years in business.
"Answers to several questions remain to be seen, especially regarding who is evaluating foreign branches: the local authorities or overseas quality assurance and accrediting agencies? Who will control admission fees, how will foreigners be admitted, and how they will be managed?," asked Hilmi Salem.
"And who will control a highly complex set of foreign university practices and relationships, and how will the cultural identity of these universities interact with the local cultural identity and the meeting of societal needs?"
Salem's views echoed a statement made in a paper, "The Impact of Globalisation on Higher Education and Research in the Arab States", presented at a 2007 seminar held in Morocco.
"These private universities were not created following the models of Western countries. Instead, they were established in haste to try to solve a social problem rather than to improve higher education research activities and the quality of education. They were not well planned and could be compared to fast-food stands in the crowded streets of Western cities, whose role is to provide food to appease hunger," argued part of the report.
On the other hand, a UAE economic expert was quoted as saying to Gulf News: "I believe those who criticised the move have extremely exaggerated the issue, with no consideration of the scientific and developmental role that can be played by the branches of these universities. We must take into consideration that some of these universities are prestigious ones with rich contributions to human development for more than 200 years."
Problems facing Arab private universities
The main problem with the establishment of private universities in Arab countries is that they are mostly for-profit and many have been established without adequate planning, clear policy or regulations, funds or even qualified staff, according to Manar Sabry.
He said that in most Arab countries, private university programmes were duplicating the public model. They neither offered innovative nor were they responsive to the needs of the job market. The lack of clearly implemented policy and regulations produced low quality private universities, and had frustrated private providers. Politics and cumbersome approval processes by regulatory committees often restricted the establishment of new universities and discouraged international investors.
As a result, the establishment of private universities in Arab countries has not, in most cases, led to improving education quality, Sabry argued. With one public university and 28 private universities licenced through the government but operating independently, Lebanon could be considered an extreme example of the crisis of Arab university privatisation, which was highlighted in the Muhanna Foundation's November 2010 study Private Universities in Lebanon: Performance indicators, accountability and value-for-money.
The report highlighted several challenges, especially with regard to producing adequately qualified human capital responding to the needs of the labour market and the sector's quality assurance and brand standing in the region.
"Several countries have passed to us their complaints over the quality of graduate and doctoral education received by Lebanese students," the local Daily Star quoted Education Ministry Director General Ahmad Jamal as saying at a June 2011 workshop.
Suggested reforms
Hilmi Salem argued that given problems associated with branches of foreign universities, "private universities built by wealthy Arab businessmen, individuals or national organisations must be encouraged, without scarifying quality and performance standards".
But Sabry warned that heavy regulations could demolish the private sector completely. Instead, there should be a functional legislative framework that would ensure transparency and accountability - legislation to offer the basis for rights and responsibilities, he suggested.
The strategy to achieve reform must include establishing quality assurance mechanisms to evaluate and accredit programmes and degrees offered by educational providers, Sabry argued. Although some countries had established a national system for quality assurance, the infancy of these systems limited their effectiveness. Besides encouraging and supporting non-profit private universities and academically elite universities, more use should be made of international benchmarks, Sabry added.
In addition to improving quality in private universities built by local investors, Salem called for building regional world-class universities and expanding partnerships with the world's best universities in the form of student and faculty exchanges, collaborative research, joint degrees and twinning programmes as well as help in setting up regional research centres.
* Wagdy Sawahel is a higher education and scientific research advisor and the general coordinator of the Science Development Network, as well as the director of the Virtual Incubator for Science-based Business. He was a guest on the Aljazeera programme "Foreign Universities in the Arab World".