- Monday, 09 July 2012
- Roger Mitton
- As the famous American financial strategist Warren Buffet likes to say:
“It’s only when the tide goes out that you learn who’s been swimming
naked.”
For some years now, Vietnam’s Communist Party leaders have frolicked in the surf, their brazen nudity hidden by bubbling waves of frothy, easy-credit growth.
But as is now frighteningly evident, there has been far too much froth and not enough substance.
Starting soon after Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung took office in June 2006, it was clear that the tide was drifting out and exposing some very unsavory figures.
Of course, the full extent of Dung’s naked incompetence was not immediately apparent.
Growth rates for the first two years of his administration chugged along at about 7 per cent; less than others in the region, but still not too bad.
Concurrently, a campaign against corruption, the nation’s endemic Achilles’ heel, was launched – with Dung himself becoming head of the new Anti-Corruption Steering Committee.
All fine and dandy and everyone cheered.
Unfortunately, it was soon apparent that the rosy economic figures were built on sand and about to be washed away by the retreating tide.
And that anti-corruption committee was a toothless quango designed by Dung to deflect attention from the staggering misappropriation of funds by the state-owned enterprises.
Yet for some reason, many journalists, diplomats and even alleged experts continued to report that everything was swell.
To hear them prattle on about “dynamic” Vietnam and its “booming” economy was totally baffling – as it still is today.
If only they would just Google “economic rot in Hanoi”, or “Vietnam’s financial woes” or anything similar and see the cascade of fiscal obituaries.
What is really shocking is that the malaise is far worse now than it was when Dung took over.
As Vietnam’s own General Statistics Office reported last month: “The economy is facing major challenges.” When the regime itself says that, you know things are pretty desperate.
And they are. According to the GSO, 70 per cent of the country’s businesses reported losses in the first half of this year and nearly 22,000 went bankrupt.
The inventory index of many products surged sharply, while consumption continued to decline – basically, people had less money, and the money they had was worth less, so they weren’t spending.
Vietnam’s currency, the dong, remains prone to regular devaluations – it lost 10 per cent of its value last year and is forecast to drop another 2 to 3 per cent this year.
All the country’s state-owned banks are effectively bankrupt due to the massive non-performing loans they are carrying.
Property prices, which fell 10 to 20 per cent last year, are expected to dip another 5 to 10 per cent this year.
And Vietnam’s trade imbalance not only remains huge, but it is growing – its state budget deficit alone was $2.87 billion to June 15, equal to 42.8 per cent of the full-year estimate and nearly double that of last year.
The stock market is among the world’s worst performers, and the much-heralded growth rate is down to 4.4 per cent and falling.
In short, Vietnam’s top-down command economy is dying. As the World Bank said last month, there is a drastic need for structural reforms in the state-owned companies, banks and public investments.
Thankfully, the party has finally got the message and Dung is under fire.
After it was officially conceded that “corruption is still taking place in a rampant, serious and complicated fashion in multiple areas”, he was sacked as head of the anti-corruption committee.
That was humiliating enough, but now there is open talk in many ministries, and even in the military, that Dung simply cannot cut the mustard.
Of course, we should not only blame him and his cronies, but also the people themselves for putting up with this dreadful performance.
Instead, they should heed the regime-changing message from Myanmar to Tunisia: If you want reform, it can happen.
Wednesday 18 July 2012
Vietnam in need of reform
Monday 16 July 2012
វិភាគ៖ កម្ពុជាអាចមានអតិផរណាសញ្ញាប័ត្រជាន់ខ្ពស់នាពេលអនាគត?
(អត្ថបទចុះផ្សាយនៅថ្ងៃ 11-07-2012, 10:07 am) | ដោយ កញ្ញា បូរមី
ភ្នំពេញ៖ និស្សិត ខ្មែរកាន់តែច្រើនកំពុងរៀនយកសញ្ញាប័ត្រអនុបណ្ឌិតនិងបណ្ឌិត។ នេះជាសញ្ញាល្អមួយក្នុងវិស័យអប់រំ។ ប៉ុន្តែ គុណភាពសញ្ញាប័ត្រគឺជាក្តីបារម្ភជាទូទៅមួយ។ សម្រាប់ក្រុមអ្នកតាមដានព្រឹត្តិការណ៍នេះ ប្រសិនបើគេមិនពង្រឹងគុណភាពសញ្ញាប័ត្រទេ កម្ពុជាអាចនឹងប្រឈមនឹងអតិផរណាថ្នាក់អនុបណ្ឌិតឬថ្នាក់បណ្ឌិតដែល គ្មានគុណភាពជាមិនខាន។
សព្វថ្ងៃនេះ មាននិស្សិតច្រើនម៉ឺននាក់បានចេញពីសាកលវិទ្យាល័យជារៀងរាល់ឆ្នាំ។ ប្រទេសកម្ពុជាមិនខ្វះទៀតឡើយចំនួននិស្សិតទទួលបានសញ្ញាប័ត្របរិញ្ញា ប័ត្រ អនុបណ្ឌិត និងបណ្ឌិត ប៉ុន្តែ ធនធានមនុស្សដែលមានតែសញ្ញាប័ត្រតែមិនសូវមានគុណភាព និងកង្វះការងារសមរម្យសម្រាប់អ្នកទាំងនោះគឺជាចំណោទបញ្ហាសង្គមមួយ។ បើយោងតាមការអង្កេតជាក់ស្តែង កង្វះការងារសមរម្យសម្រាប់អ្នកមានសញ្ញាប័ត្រខ្ពស់អាចជារឿងមួយ ប៉ុន្តែ បញ្ហាមួយទៀតដែលអ្នកជំនាញមួយចំនួនកំពុងតែបារម្ភដែរនោះគឺ សញ្ញាប័ត្រហាក់បានមកដោយស្រួលពេកដែលមិនឆ្លុះបញ្ចាំងពីសមត្ថភាព ធនធានមនុស្ស។ មិនមែនតែនិស្សិតទេដែលកំពុងផ្អើលរៀនយកសញ្ញាប័ត្រថ្នាក់ខ្ពស់ ប៉ុន្តែ មន្ត្រីរាជការមួយចំនួនក៏កំពុងផ្អើលនាំគ្នារៀនយកសញ្ញាប័ត្រខ្ពស់ ផុតលេខនេះដែរ។
តើមូលហេតុអ្វីបានជាមាននិន្នាការរៀនយកសញ្ញាប័ត្រជាន់ខ្ពស់នេះ?
ហេតុផលទី១ វាមិនពិបាកក្នុងការឆ្លើយទេពីព្រោះជាក្រិតក្រមសត្យានុម័ត នៅពេលដែលមនុស្សមានឱកាសកាន់តែច្រើន មានជីវភាពកាន់តែធូរធារ ពួកគេចង់តោងចាប់យកការសិក្សាកាន់តែខ្ពស់។ ការសិក្សាកាន់តែខ្ពស់ធ្វើអោយមនុស្សមានការពិចារណាកាន់តែជ្រៅ។ ការពិចារណាកាន់ជ្រៅអាចជំរុញអោយមនុស្សមានលទ្ធភាពទទួលបានជ័យជំនះ ក្នុងជីវិតកាន់ច្រើន។ ប្រទេសមួយដែលសប្បូរអ្នកចេះដឹងនឹងស្គាល់ការអភិវឌ្ឍន៍ប្រកបដោយ និរន្តរភាព។
ហេតុផលទី២ អ្នករៀនយកសញ្ញាប័ត្រថ្នាក់ខ្ពស់មួយចំនួនហាក់មាននិន្នការចង់បាន កិត្តិយសច្រើនជាងចំណេះដឹង មានន័យថា ពួកគេរៀនបន្តយកសញ្ញាប័ត្រអនុបណ្ឌិតឬបណ្ឌិតគឺដោយសារតែចង់អោយ មនុស្សនៅជុំវិញខ្លួនឬសង្គមអោយតម្លៃទៅលើពួកគេ។ អ្នកខ្លះទៀត សុខចិត្តបន្តការសិក្សាយកសញ្ញាប័ត្រជាន់ខ្ពស់គឺដោយសារតែពួកគេមាន តួនាទីតំណែងខ្ពង់ខ្ពស់នៅក្នុងជួររដ្ឋាភិបាល។ នៅពេលដែលពួកគេមានតំណែងខ្ពស់ហើយ ដូច្នេះ ពួកគេត្រូវការសញ្ញាប័ត្រដើម្បីឲ្យស័ក្តិសមនឹងតំណែងរបស់ពួកគេ។ មានតំណែងខ្ពស់ មានសញ្ញាប័ត្រខ្ពស់ ពួកគេអាចចៀសផុតពីការរិះគន់របស់មនុស្សនៅក្រោមបង្គ្រាប់។ នេះជាគំនិតត្រឹមត្រូវ ប៉ុន្តែ តើសញ្ញាប័ត្រនោះឆ្លុះបញ្ចាំងពីការខិតខំរៀនសូត្ររបស់ពួកគេដែរឬទេ? នេះទើបជាសំណួរសំខាន់។
រីឯមូលហេតុទី៣វិញ អ្នកសិក្សាដែលប្រាថ្នាចង់បានសញ្ញាប័ត្រជាន់ខ្ពស់ពីព្រោះពួកគេ រំពឹងថា រៀនកាន់តែខ្ពស់ទទួលបានប្រាក់ខែកាន់តែច្រើន។ ប៉ុន្តែ ដោយសារតែសញ្ញាប័ត្រខ្វះគុណភាព អ្នករៀនសូត្រមួយចំនួនបានទទួលការខកចិត្តដ្បិតគ្មានការងារធ្វើទៅវិញ។
អ្នកជំនាញសង្គមនៅក្នុងប្រទេសកម្ពុជាមួយចំនួនវិភាគថា ជារួម រៀនតែកាន់ខ្ពស់គឺជាប្រការល្អសម្រាប់ជីវិតរបស់បុគ្គលខ្លួនឯងនិង សម្រាប់សង្គមជាតិទាំងមូល។ ប៉ុន្តែ នៅកម្ពុជាបច្ចុប្បន្ន និស្សិតដែលមានសញ្ញាប័ត្រខ្ពស់មួយចំនួនកំពុងប្រឈមនឹងការលំបាកក្នុង ការរកការងារធ្វើ។ បញ្ហាបណ្តាលមកពីទីផ្សារការងារជាច្រើនមិនទាន់ហ៊ានអោយតម្លៃប្រាក់ខែ ខ្ពស់ទេ បញ្ហានេះ បានធ្វើឲ្យការងារសម្រាប់អ្នកមានសញ្ញាប័ត្រខ្ពស់ហាក់នៅមានកម្រិត។
និយាយបែបនេះមិនមែនមានន័យថា ប្រទេសកម្ពុជាមិនត្រូវការអ្នកចេះដឹងច្រើននោះទេ តាមពិតប្រទេសនេះនៅខ្វះអ្នកចេះដឹងច្រើនណាស់សម្រាប់ជាធនធានមនុស្ស កសាងប្រទេសទៅថ្ងៃធនាគត។ ប៉ុន្តែ គុណភាពសញ្ញាប័ត្រ ការរៀនសូត្រដែលខ្វះការតម្រង់ទិសទៅរកទីផ្សារការងារ និងប្រពន្ធ័គ្រប់គ្រងសង្គមដែលនៅប្រកាន់បក្សពួកបានធ្វើឲ្យ អ្នកចេះដឹងខ្ពស់ខ្លះគ្មានការងារពិតប្រាកដទៅវិញ។
សរុបសេចក្តីមកវិញ ការសិក្សារយកសញ្ញាប័ត្រជាន់ខ្ពស់ជាប្រការល្អហើយ ប៉ុន្តែ និស្សិតទាំងឡាយគួរពិចារណារៀនយកមុខវិជ្ជាជំនាញផង។ ម្យ៉ាងវិញទៀត អ្នកសិក្សាគួរតែក្រឡេកមើលគុណភាពសិក្សាជាជាងសំឡឹងមើលតែសញ្ញាប័ត្រ ពោលគឺ ពួកគេគួរអោយតម្លៃលើសមត្ថភាពផ្ទាល់ខ្លួនឲ្យបានខ្លាំងជាជាងការ កាន់តែសញ្ញាប័ត្រដើររកការងារធ្វើ។ ម្យ៉ាងទៀត ប្រេសិនបើគេមិនប្រញាប់ពង្រឹងគុណភាពសញ្ញាប័ត្រទេនោះ កម្ពុជានឹងជួបអតិផរណាសញ្ញាប័ត្រជាន់ខ្ពស់ដែលគ្មានគុណភាពជាមិនខាន៕
ភ្នំពេញ៖ និស្សិត ខ្មែរកាន់តែច្រើនកំពុងរៀនយកសញ្ញាប័ត្រអនុបណ្ឌិតនិងបណ្ឌិត។ នេះជាសញ្ញាល្អមួយក្នុងវិស័យអប់រំ។ ប៉ុន្តែ គុណភាពសញ្ញាប័ត្រគឺជាក្តីបារម្ភជាទូទៅមួយ។ សម្រាប់ក្រុមអ្នកតាមដានព្រឹត្តិការណ៍នេះ ប្រសិនបើគេមិនពង្រឹងគុណភាពសញ្ញាប័ត្រទេ កម្ពុជាអាចនឹងប្រឈមនឹងអតិផរណាថ្នាក់អនុបណ្ឌិតឬថ្នាក់បណ្ឌិតដែល គ្មានគុណភាពជាមិនខាន។
សព្វថ្ងៃនេះ មាននិស្សិតច្រើនម៉ឺននាក់បានចេញពីសាកលវិទ្យាល័យជារៀងរាល់ឆ្នាំ។ ប្រទេសកម្ពុជាមិនខ្វះទៀតឡើយចំនួននិស្សិតទទួលបានសញ្ញាប័ត្របរិញ្ញា ប័ត្រ អនុបណ្ឌិត និងបណ្ឌិត ប៉ុន្តែ ធនធានមនុស្សដែលមានតែសញ្ញាប័ត្រតែមិនសូវមានគុណភាព និងកង្វះការងារសមរម្យសម្រាប់អ្នកទាំងនោះគឺជាចំណោទបញ្ហាសង្គមមួយ។ បើយោងតាមការអង្កេតជាក់ស្តែង កង្វះការងារសមរម្យសម្រាប់អ្នកមានសញ្ញាប័ត្រខ្ពស់អាចជារឿងមួយ ប៉ុន្តែ បញ្ហាមួយទៀតដែលអ្នកជំនាញមួយចំនួនកំពុងតែបារម្ភដែរនោះគឺ សញ្ញាប័ត្រហាក់បានមកដោយស្រួលពេកដែលមិនឆ្លុះបញ្ចាំងពីសមត្ថភាព ធនធានមនុស្ស។ មិនមែនតែនិស្សិតទេដែលកំពុងផ្អើលរៀនយកសញ្ញាប័ត្រថ្នាក់ខ្ពស់ ប៉ុន្តែ មន្ត្រីរាជការមួយចំនួនក៏កំពុងផ្អើលនាំគ្នារៀនយកសញ្ញាប័ត្រខ្ពស់ ផុតលេខនេះដែរ។
តើមូលហេតុអ្វីបានជាមាននិន្នាការរៀនយកសញ្ញាប័ត្រជាន់ខ្ពស់នេះ?
ហេតុផលទី១ វាមិនពិបាកក្នុងការឆ្លើយទេពីព្រោះជាក្រិតក្រមសត្យានុម័ត នៅពេលដែលមនុស្សមានឱកាសកាន់តែច្រើន មានជីវភាពកាន់តែធូរធារ ពួកគេចង់តោងចាប់យកការសិក្សាកាន់តែខ្ពស់។ ការសិក្សាកាន់តែខ្ពស់ធ្វើអោយមនុស្សមានការពិចារណាកាន់តែជ្រៅ។ ការពិចារណាកាន់ជ្រៅអាចជំរុញអោយមនុស្សមានលទ្ធភាពទទួលបានជ័យជំនះ ក្នុងជីវិតកាន់ច្រើន។ ប្រទេសមួយដែលសប្បូរអ្នកចេះដឹងនឹងស្គាល់ការអភិវឌ្ឍន៍ប្រកបដោយ និរន្តរភាព។
ហេតុផលទី២ អ្នករៀនយកសញ្ញាប័ត្រថ្នាក់ខ្ពស់មួយចំនួនហាក់មាននិន្នការចង់បាន កិត្តិយសច្រើនជាងចំណេះដឹង មានន័យថា ពួកគេរៀនបន្តយកសញ្ញាប័ត្រអនុបណ្ឌិតឬបណ្ឌិតគឺដោយសារតែចង់អោយ មនុស្សនៅជុំវិញខ្លួនឬសង្គមអោយតម្លៃទៅលើពួកគេ។ អ្នកខ្លះទៀត សុខចិត្តបន្តការសិក្សាយកសញ្ញាប័ត្រជាន់ខ្ពស់គឺដោយសារតែពួកគេមាន តួនាទីតំណែងខ្ពង់ខ្ពស់នៅក្នុងជួររដ្ឋាភិបាល។ នៅពេលដែលពួកគេមានតំណែងខ្ពស់ហើយ ដូច្នេះ ពួកគេត្រូវការសញ្ញាប័ត្រដើម្បីឲ្យស័ក្តិសមនឹងតំណែងរបស់ពួកគេ។ មានតំណែងខ្ពស់ មានសញ្ញាប័ត្រខ្ពស់ ពួកគេអាចចៀសផុតពីការរិះគន់របស់មនុស្សនៅក្រោមបង្គ្រាប់។ នេះជាគំនិតត្រឹមត្រូវ ប៉ុន្តែ តើសញ្ញាប័ត្រនោះឆ្លុះបញ្ចាំងពីការខិតខំរៀនសូត្ររបស់ពួកគេដែរឬទេ? នេះទើបជាសំណួរសំខាន់។
រីឯមូលហេតុទី៣វិញ អ្នកសិក្សាដែលប្រាថ្នាចង់បានសញ្ញាប័ត្រជាន់ខ្ពស់ពីព្រោះពួកគេ រំពឹងថា រៀនកាន់តែខ្ពស់ទទួលបានប្រាក់ខែកាន់តែច្រើន។ ប៉ុន្តែ ដោយសារតែសញ្ញាប័ត្រខ្វះគុណភាព អ្នករៀនសូត្រមួយចំនួនបានទទួលការខកចិត្តដ្បិតគ្មានការងារធ្វើទៅវិញ។
អ្នកជំនាញសង្គមនៅក្នុងប្រទេសកម្ពុជាមួយចំនួនវិភាគថា ជារួម រៀនតែកាន់ខ្ពស់គឺជាប្រការល្អសម្រាប់ជីវិតរបស់បុគ្គលខ្លួនឯងនិង សម្រាប់សង្គមជាតិទាំងមូល។ ប៉ុន្តែ នៅកម្ពុជាបច្ចុប្បន្ន និស្សិតដែលមានសញ្ញាប័ត្រខ្ពស់មួយចំនួនកំពុងប្រឈមនឹងការលំបាកក្នុង ការរកការងារធ្វើ។ បញ្ហាបណ្តាលមកពីទីផ្សារការងារជាច្រើនមិនទាន់ហ៊ានអោយតម្លៃប្រាក់ខែ ខ្ពស់ទេ បញ្ហានេះ បានធ្វើឲ្យការងារសម្រាប់អ្នកមានសញ្ញាប័ត្រខ្ពស់ហាក់នៅមានកម្រិត។
និយាយបែបនេះមិនមែនមានន័យថា ប្រទេសកម្ពុជាមិនត្រូវការអ្នកចេះដឹងច្រើននោះទេ តាមពិតប្រទេសនេះនៅខ្វះអ្នកចេះដឹងច្រើនណាស់សម្រាប់ជាធនធានមនុស្ស កសាងប្រទេសទៅថ្ងៃធនាគត។ ប៉ុន្តែ គុណភាពសញ្ញាប័ត្រ ការរៀនសូត្រដែលខ្វះការតម្រង់ទិសទៅរកទីផ្សារការងារ និងប្រពន្ធ័គ្រប់គ្រងសង្គមដែលនៅប្រកាន់បក្សពួកបានធ្វើឲ្យ អ្នកចេះដឹងខ្ពស់ខ្លះគ្មានការងារពិតប្រាកដទៅវិញ។
សរុបសេចក្តីមកវិញ ការសិក្សារយកសញ្ញាប័ត្រជាន់ខ្ពស់ជាប្រការល្អហើយ ប៉ុន្តែ និស្សិតទាំងឡាយគួរពិចារណារៀនយកមុខវិជ្ជាជំនាញផង។ ម្យ៉ាងវិញទៀត អ្នកសិក្សាគួរតែក្រឡេកមើលគុណភាពសិក្សាជាជាងសំឡឹងមើលតែសញ្ញាប័ត្រ ពោលគឺ ពួកគេគួរអោយតម្លៃលើសមត្ថភាពផ្ទាល់ខ្លួនឲ្យបានខ្លាំងជាជាងការ កាន់តែសញ្ញាប័ត្រដើររកការងារធ្វើ។ ម្យ៉ាងទៀត ប្រេសិនបើគេមិនប្រញាប់ពង្រឹងគុណភាពសញ្ញាប័ត្រទេនោះ កម្ពុជានឹងជួបអតិផរណាសញ្ញាប័ត្រជាន់ខ្ពស់ដែលគ្មានគុណភាពជាមិនខាន៕
Sunday 15 July 2012
Publishers say new bill will strip incentive to supply textbooks in Canada
MJ Deschamps15 July 2012 Issue No:230
Canadian publishers say recently passed copyright reform is stripping
away some of their financial incentive to provide books to the country’s
universities and colleges.
In the new law, ‘education’ – the term is otherwise undefined – has been added as a purpose under ‘fair dealing’ which, according to Carolyn Wood, executive director of the Canadian Association of Publishers, means “copying need not be compensated if the purpose of the copying is education”.
Wood told University World News that this provision under the Copyright Modernization Act (Bill C-11) could be interpreted as permitting uncompensated access to copyrighted materials in schools and universities, without requiring them to pay levies to collecting societies for photocopying or scanning.
“It seems inevitable that such interpretations will be made, and that rights holders will be forced to challenge them through the courts,” she said.
“At the very least, we are facing a new dimension of market uncertainty, the likelihood of expensive litigation, and the possibility of substantial erosion of a crucial revenue stream.”
Greg Nordal, president and CEO of Nelson Education Ltd, Canada’s leading educational publisher, agreed that expanding provisions for ‘fair dealing’ within Bill C-11 to include educational purposes creates great uncertainty for publishers and authors.
“The expanded fair dealing provisions change the investment climate for new curriculum resources, in that the principles of reimbursement to rights holders appear to be undermined,” he said.
“Why would publishers and authors invest their time and money creating new, indigenous materials in support of Canadian educational requirements, unless there is confidence of getting viable financial returns?”
A letter sent to Canadian government senators in June 2012 on behalf of the Canadian Publishers’ Council, the Canadian Educational Resources Council, the Association of Canadian Publishers and the Literary Press Group of Canada, reflects the same sentiment.
It advocates that marketplace predictability is an essential requirement for any publisher assessing investment opportunities, and weighing risks. If publishers become uncertain about the stability and viability of the market, said the letter, “they will pull back on their investment and innovation”.
The fair dealing exception will not only have an impact on the segment of Canadian publishing and writing geared specifically towards education, the letter argued, but will also harm those “whose works are not primarily created for the education market, but are nevertheless frequently used for educational purposes”.
There is even concern from publishing groups in other countries.
In May, Thomas H Allen, president and CEO of the Association of American Publishers, sent a letter to the Canadian government: “If adopted in its current form, [the law will] be extremely detrimental to the educational publishing industry, both in Canada and the US,” he wrote.
Allen added that leaving the term ‘education’ undefined could lead to a dramatic change in the industry, and may also bring “destabilising disruptions to long-established licensing arrangements”.
While the publishing industry appears to be up in arms, Canadian universities are welcoming the passage of the bill.
“The bill will…help to balance the needs of researchers, students and professors with those of creators,” said Paul Davidson, president of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC), in a statement.
“Universities, as both users and creators of copyrighted works, have worked hard for more than a decade to push for a new copyright act, and see Bill C-11 as a very fair approach to competing interests.”
According to the AUCC, Bill C-11 will permit university researchers to obtain and keep research materials in digital format, which is expected to help facilitate online learning and distance education.
Dr Michael Geist, who holds the Canada research chair of internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa, said he believes that concerns from the industry are “unfounded” and that claims that the changes will allow for unlimited copying are false.
“Canadian fair dealing analysis involves a two-part test,” he said. “First, does the use – or dealing – qualify for one of the fair dealing exceptions? Second, if it does qualify, is the use itself fair?”
The extension of fair dealing to education, said Geist, only affects the first part of the test – which means that while legislation will extend the categories of what qualifies as fair dealing, it does not change the need for the use itself to be fair.
In the new law, ‘education’ – the term is otherwise undefined – has been added as a purpose under ‘fair dealing’ which, according to Carolyn Wood, executive director of the Canadian Association of Publishers, means “copying need not be compensated if the purpose of the copying is education”.
Wood told University World News that this provision under the Copyright Modernization Act (Bill C-11) could be interpreted as permitting uncompensated access to copyrighted materials in schools and universities, without requiring them to pay levies to collecting societies for photocopying or scanning.
“It seems inevitable that such interpretations will be made, and that rights holders will be forced to challenge them through the courts,” she said.
“At the very least, we are facing a new dimension of market uncertainty, the likelihood of expensive litigation, and the possibility of substantial erosion of a crucial revenue stream.”
Greg Nordal, president and CEO of Nelson Education Ltd, Canada’s leading educational publisher, agreed that expanding provisions for ‘fair dealing’ within Bill C-11 to include educational purposes creates great uncertainty for publishers and authors.
“The expanded fair dealing provisions change the investment climate for new curriculum resources, in that the principles of reimbursement to rights holders appear to be undermined,” he said.
“Why would publishers and authors invest their time and money creating new, indigenous materials in support of Canadian educational requirements, unless there is confidence of getting viable financial returns?”
A letter sent to Canadian government senators in June 2012 on behalf of the Canadian Publishers’ Council, the Canadian Educational Resources Council, the Association of Canadian Publishers and the Literary Press Group of Canada, reflects the same sentiment.
It advocates that marketplace predictability is an essential requirement for any publisher assessing investment opportunities, and weighing risks. If publishers become uncertain about the stability and viability of the market, said the letter, “they will pull back on their investment and innovation”.
The fair dealing exception will not only have an impact on the segment of Canadian publishing and writing geared specifically towards education, the letter argued, but will also harm those “whose works are not primarily created for the education market, but are nevertheless frequently used for educational purposes”.
There is even concern from publishing groups in other countries.
In May, Thomas H Allen, president and CEO of the Association of American Publishers, sent a letter to the Canadian government: “If adopted in its current form, [the law will] be extremely detrimental to the educational publishing industry, both in Canada and the US,” he wrote.
Allen added that leaving the term ‘education’ undefined could lead to a dramatic change in the industry, and may also bring “destabilising disruptions to long-established licensing arrangements”.
While the publishing industry appears to be up in arms, Canadian universities are welcoming the passage of the bill.
“The bill will…help to balance the needs of researchers, students and professors with those of creators,” said Paul Davidson, president of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC), in a statement.
“Universities, as both users and creators of copyrighted works, have worked hard for more than a decade to push for a new copyright act, and see Bill C-11 as a very fair approach to competing interests.”
According to the AUCC, Bill C-11 will permit university researchers to obtain and keep research materials in digital format, which is expected to help facilitate online learning and distance education.
Dr Michael Geist, who holds the Canada research chair of internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa, said he believes that concerns from the industry are “unfounded” and that claims that the changes will allow for unlimited copying are false.
“Canadian fair dealing analysis involves a two-part test,” he said. “First, does the use – or dealing – qualify for one of the fair dealing exceptions? Second, if it does qualify, is the use itself fair?”
The extension of fair dealing to education, said Geist, only affects the first part of the test – which means that while legislation will extend the categories of what qualifies as fair dealing, it does not change the need for the use itself to be fair.
Diversify expansion to avoid a glut of ‘carbon copy’ graduates – Advisors in Singapore
Adele Yung12 July 2012 Issue No:230
Singapore’s university sector no longer needs to catch up with the rest
of the world and should not slavishly follow Western models, simply
expanding to produce more “carbon copy” graduates, according to a
high-level international panel advising the government on its strategic
higher education policies.
The eminent International Academic Advisory Panel that met in Singapore earlier this month cautioned the city-state against expanding the university sector without taking into account the needs of students and the economy.
This had happened in some countries where the value of the degree had become eroded and job prospects for graduates reduced, while university drop-out rates had risen, the panel said.
In particular, it warned against “the risk of gradual homogenisation of the university landscape as seen in other countries, where what started out as different models and institutions eventually drifted towards an increasingly similar, academically and research-oriented model of universities”.
The 12-member panel, headed by Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, includes: Andrew Hamilton, vice-chancellor of Oxford University; Paul Romer, professor of economics at New York University; Yang Wei, president of Zhejiang University; Sanjay Dhande, director of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur; and other university leaders from the United States, Finland and The Netherlands.
They also held discussions with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Education Minister Heng Swee Keat this month.
“We are no longer in catch-up mode. We should keep taking lessons from the rest of the world but we should have the confidence to develop new pathways and models,” said Tharman during a 4 July press conference.
With an unclear economic climate and unknown future, a diverse education system was the best way to prepare young people. “Singapore must not put all its eggs into one basket,” Tharman said.
Expansion
The panel highlighted the risks of rapidly expanding traditional, academically oriented degrees in advanced and emerging economies. The consequences apparent in other countries have been “high attrition rates, reduced graduate employability and a dilution in the value of new university degrees.
“The expansion of the university sector should not simply be about producing more graduates, but should focus on ensuring quality in education and the development of skills of an applied nature, which would ensure good employment outcomes and careers,” the panel said in a statement released at the end of three days of deliberations.
While supporting an expansion of public higher education, the panel said new institutions should offer something different from existing universities.
“New models of applied education should seek to complement the existing universities and offer a ‘unique value proposition’. This distinctive model of education should nurture a different type of graduate, one who is practice-oriented and has a strong entrepreneurial and innovative bent.”
The Singaporean government has been examining whether to set up a fifth public university or invest public money in more vocationally oriented or applied higher education – for example, by expanding the number of places in polytechnics and other non-research institutions – as it moves towards admitting a third of the school-leaving cohort into tertiary education by 2015 compared to 25% now.
The panel’s message was echoed by the prime minister, who said on 7 July that Singapore had diversified the university sector and would continue to do so. Lee Hsien Loong was speaking at the ground-breaking ceremony for the new Yale-National University of Singapore liberal arts college.
Singapore would enlarge its higher education sector “not by doing more of the same but by diversifying the tertiary landscape”, including looking at alternative pathways for ‘applied’ degrees, Lee said.
Social science and humanities research
The advisory panel also backed government proposals to expand social sciences and humanities research, “which would provide research on new ways to prepare people for a rapidly changing world”, according to Romer of NYU’s Stern School of Business.
There was also a need for a research council that focused funding on the social sciences and humanities while building linkages with other areas of research excellence in Singapore, the panel said.
“These linkages could advance knowledge in areas that are of local and global interest, such as in healthcare services and sustainable development.”
Other niches to develop research excellence in Singapore could include: Asian societies and markets; management of multi-ethnic social compacts; challenges and opportunities facing cities, especially global cities (for instance, sustainable urban living and social support systems); and comparative studies of governance models and practices.
The panel was established by the Ministry of Education in 1997 to advise the government on major trends and directions in university education and research, with a view to developing Singapore’s universities into world-class institutions.
It has since been broadened to provide strategic guidance on Singapore’s higher education system as a whole
The eminent International Academic Advisory Panel that met in Singapore earlier this month cautioned the city-state against expanding the university sector without taking into account the needs of students and the economy.
This had happened in some countries where the value of the degree had become eroded and job prospects for graduates reduced, while university drop-out rates had risen, the panel said.
In particular, it warned against “the risk of gradual homogenisation of the university landscape as seen in other countries, where what started out as different models and institutions eventually drifted towards an increasingly similar, academically and research-oriented model of universities”.
The 12-member panel, headed by Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, includes: Andrew Hamilton, vice-chancellor of Oxford University; Paul Romer, professor of economics at New York University; Yang Wei, president of Zhejiang University; Sanjay Dhande, director of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur; and other university leaders from the United States, Finland and The Netherlands.
They also held discussions with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Education Minister Heng Swee Keat this month.
“We are no longer in catch-up mode. We should keep taking lessons from the rest of the world but we should have the confidence to develop new pathways and models,” said Tharman during a 4 July press conference.
With an unclear economic climate and unknown future, a diverse education system was the best way to prepare young people. “Singapore must not put all its eggs into one basket,” Tharman said.
Expansion
The panel highlighted the risks of rapidly expanding traditional, academically oriented degrees in advanced and emerging economies. The consequences apparent in other countries have been “high attrition rates, reduced graduate employability and a dilution in the value of new university degrees.
“The expansion of the university sector should not simply be about producing more graduates, but should focus on ensuring quality in education and the development of skills of an applied nature, which would ensure good employment outcomes and careers,” the panel said in a statement released at the end of three days of deliberations.
While supporting an expansion of public higher education, the panel said new institutions should offer something different from existing universities.
“New models of applied education should seek to complement the existing universities and offer a ‘unique value proposition’. This distinctive model of education should nurture a different type of graduate, one who is practice-oriented and has a strong entrepreneurial and innovative bent.”
The Singaporean government has been examining whether to set up a fifth public university or invest public money in more vocationally oriented or applied higher education – for example, by expanding the number of places in polytechnics and other non-research institutions – as it moves towards admitting a third of the school-leaving cohort into tertiary education by 2015 compared to 25% now.
The panel’s message was echoed by the prime minister, who said on 7 July that Singapore had diversified the university sector and would continue to do so. Lee Hsien Loong was speaking at the ground-breaking ceremony for the new Yale-National University of Singapore liberal arts college.
Singapore would enlarge its higher education sector “not by doing more of the same but by diversifying the tertiary landscape”, including looking at alternative pathways for ‘applied’ degrees, Lee said.
Social science and humanities research
The advisory panel also backed government proposals to expand social sciences and humanities research, “which would provide research on new ways to prepare people for a rapidly changing world”, according to Romer of NYU’s Stern School of Business.
There was also a need for a research council that focused funding on the social sciences and humanities while building linkages with other areas of research excellence in Singapore, the panel said.
“These linkages could advance knowledge in areas that are of local and global interest, such as in healthcare services and sustainable development.”
Other niches to develop research excellence in Singapore could include: Asian societies and markets; management of multi-ethnic social compacts; challenges and opportunities facing cities, especially global cities (for instance, sustainable urban living and social support systems); and comparative studies of governance models and practices.
The panel was established by the Ministry of Education in 1997 to advise the government on major trends and directions in university education and research, with a view to developing Singapore’s universities into world-class institutions.
It has since been broadened to provide strategic guidance on Singapore’s higher education system as a whole
Controversial higher education bill clears parliament after delays in Indonesia
Ria Nurdiani14 July 2012 Issue No:230
Indonesia’s House of Representatives finally endorsed a controversial
higher education bill on Friday, amid criticism of the way important
issues such as foreign universities and student access have been handled
in the legislation.
The bill had been postponed a number of times in the past year, most recently in April, over various contentious issues including financial autonomy for universities, which student groups feared would lead to tuition fee hikes.
However, all political parties agreed it was important to pass the bill into law.
“This is the right time to endorse the Higher Education Bill,” said Minister of Education and Culture Mohammad Nuh, adding that postponing the bill again could have “negative consequences”.
The bill allows some public universities to seek funding outside government sources while remaining under government regulation. Nuh insisted that increased autonomy would not mean increased fees and that tuition fee levels would be set for each region of the country.
“Universities cannot charge their students whatever they please, because we will set standards for tuition fees,” he said.
Regulation of foreign universities
Other articles that raised strong objections include the regulation of foreign universities.
Nuh said on Thursday: “This is a dilemma. We cannot remain closed [to foreign institutions], but we cannot open up [completely] either. That's why we will regulate them in the Higher Education Bill.”
Under the bill, only foreign universities of ‘good quality’ will be allowed accreditation. Foreign providers must be non-profit and can only set up campuses in cooperation with an Indonesian university.
Nuh said he would soon issue ministerial regulations on where foreign universities will be allowed to set up and the programmes they will be able to offer.
“They cannot open up everywhere; there are only certain areas and major subjects, for example, programmes that we ourselves cannot open because they need huge investment,” said Nuh.
But the government has given way to demands from private providers for more freedom to set their own curriculum, scrapping an article in previous drafts that gave the responsibility for regulating the curriculum to the Ministry of Education.
The National Commission for Education has criticised this, saying it is concerned that foreign institutions will not instil Indonesian cultural values, including religion and the nationalist political philosophy pancasila (five principles).
“These probably will not be included in their curriculum,” said Andreas Tambah, secretary-general of the commission.
The Indonesian Association of Private Universities said that some articles included in the bill did not need parliamentary legislation. Rather, they could have been “under government regulations or ministerial regulations”, according to Suyatno, the association’s secretary-general.
Andreas agreed, saying that some major issues such as student access had been left out of the bill while technical matters – such as the appointment of a board of trustees for universities – were included even though in his view this did not need to be regulated by a law.
“If it is regulated under the bill, it's a dead end,” Andreas told University World News.
Besides that, according to Andreas, some issues remain such as a gap between Indonesia's credit standard of 150 credit points on average compared to foreign degrees, which require only 130 to 140 credits. “That means the length for study is shorter [for foreign degrees].”
The qualifications of foreign universities, which will be legally allowed in the country, “will have more value than [those of] national universities. Students will choose foreign universities, and the national universities will be crushed,” said Andreas.
Critics also said the new bill has been rushed to fill a vacuum left after the 2008 legal entities bill had to be annulled, following a Supreme Court ruling in April 2010 that it promoted the aggressive privatisation of higher education.
The bill had been postponed a number of times in the past year, most recently in April, over various contentious issues including financial autonomy for universities, which student groups feared would lead to tuition fee hikes.
However, all political parties agreed it was important to pass the bill into law.
“This is the right time to endorse the Higher Education Bill,” said Minister of Education and Culture Mohammad Nuh, adding that postponing the bill again could have “negative consequences”.
The bill allows some public universities to seek funding outside government sources while remaining under government regulation. Nuh insisted that increased autonomy would not mean increased fees and that tuition fee levels would be set for each region of the country.
“Universities cannot charge their students whatever they please, because we will set standards for tuition fees,” he said.
Student protesters outside the legislature said increased autonomy would
pave the way for the commercialisation of higher education.
Nuh said that the bill ultimately sought to increase access to higher
education, and would ensure social justice by setting a minimum seat
allocation of 20% for poor students.
Regulation of foreign universities
Other articles that raised strong objections include the regulation of foreign universities.
Nuh said on Thursday: “This is a dilemma. We cannot remain closed [to foreign institutions], but we cannot open up [completely] either. That's why we will regulate them in the Higher Education Bill.”
Under the bill, only foreign universities of ‘good quality’ will be allowed accreditation. Foreign providers must be non-profit and can only set up campuses in cooperation with an Indonesian university.
Nuh said he would soon issue ministerial regulations on where foreign universities will be allowed to set up and the programmes they will be able to offer.
“They cannot open up everywhere; there are only certain areas and major subjects, for example, programmes that we ourselves cannot open because they need huge investment,” said Nuh.
But the government has given way to demands from private providers for more freedom to set their own curriculum, scrapping an article in previous drafts that gave the responsibility for regulating the curriculum to the Ministry of Education.
The National Commission for Education has criticised this, saying it is concerned that foreign institutions will not instil Indonesian cultural values, including religion and the nationalist political philosophy pancasila (five principles).
“These probably will not be included in their curriculum,” said Andreas Tambah, secretary-general of the commission.
The Indonesian Association of Private Universities said that some articles included in the bill did not need parliamentary legislation. Rather, they could have been “under government regulations or ministerial regulations”, according to Suyatno, the association’s secretary-general.
Andreas agreed, saying that some major issues such as student access had been left out of the bill while technical matters – such as the appointment of a board of trustees for universities – were included even though in his view this did not need to be regulated by a law.
“If it is regulated under the bill, it's a dead end,” Andreas told University World News.
Besides that, according to Andreas, some issues remain such as a gap between Indonesia's credit standard of 150 credit points on average compared to foreign degrees, which require only 130 to 140 credits. “That means the length for study is shorter [for foreign degrees].”
The qualifications of foreign universities, which will be legally allowed in the country, “will have more value than [those of] national universities. Students will choose foreign universities, and the national universities will be crushed,” said Andreas.
Critics also said the new bill has been rushed to fill a vacuum left after the 2008 legal entities bill had to be annulled, following a Supreme Court ruling in April 2010 that it promoted the aggressive privatisation of higher education.
The rise of for-profit universities and colleges in US
John Aubrey Douglass15 July 2012 Issue No:230
In the midst of the Great Recession, for-profit colleges and
universities in the United States grew at a staggering pace in
enrolment, profits and the corporate value of those traded on the New
York Stock Exchange.
The 11 largest for-profit higher education companies, for instance, experienced an increase in enrolments of over 30% between 2008 and 2010. The downturn in the economy triggered ‘hypergrowth’ in for-profit institutions, including a rush of laid-off workers seeking job retraining.
Before the recent bubble, steady growth in American for-profits was already a well-worn pattern. From 2000-10, the sector grew by some 235% in enrolment, increasing its market share from 3% to 9.1% of all tertiary enrolled students.
At the same time, and not surprisingly, the number of new for-profit institutions grew. In the five-year period beginning in 2005, a total of 483 new colleges and universities gained regional or national accreditation in the US. Of those new institutions, some 77% were for-profits, compared to only 4% public and 19% independent non-profit institutions.
In total, and while still representing less than 10% of all enrolments, the for-profit sector currently accounts for 26.2% of all the post-secondary institutions.
There are specific characteristics of the for-profit sector that are peculiar to the US; others reflect global trends largely seen in developing economies. Simply put, in the US as in other parts of the world, the for-profit sector is a modern feature of changing market dynamics related to demand and supply – or the lack thereof.
The ‘Brazilian Effect’
The current US experience is a version of what I call the ‘Brazilian Effect’: when public higher education cannot keep pace with growing public demand for access and programmes, governments often allow for-profits to rush in and help fill the gap, becoming a much larger and sometimes dominant provider.
This is the pattern in many developing economies such as Brazil, where some 50% of student enrolment is in profit-driven private institutions, together with Korea, Poland and many other parts of the world.
The American case is a different twist in this common theme.
For example, Brazil began with an elite university sector and is trying to build a mass higher education system that includes for-profits and private non-profits. In the US, a once robust mass higher education system is in various stages of decline, exacerbated by the onset of the Great Recession.
Throughout the US, state governments – the primary funders and regulators of higher education – are making massive cuts in their public higher education systems and an array of social services. The decline in funding higher education is a trend long in the making, accelerating mightily over the past three years.
In the mega-state of California – the largest state in population and with an economy that would rank among the world’s top 10 in size if it were a country – budget cuts are greatly diminishing the ability of public colleges and universities to hire faculty and provide courses to meet enrolment demand. There are similar examples of retrenchment in public higher education in about half of the 50 states.
The future
The question is how this story will unfold over the next decade in the US.
Under the creed that a variety of providers creates more avenues for socio-economic mobility, the US needs a robust for-profit sector as part of any coherent effort to increase educational attainment rates, improve the nation’s labour pool, and help create a more competitive economy.
But there are indicators that an era of unquestioned and largely unregulated growth of the for-profit sector may be ending. There are new concerns at the national and state levels about the economic model of for-profits, their low degree completion rates, the quality of those degrees, their high tuition and fee levels, and the high levels of debt and poor employment record of graduates.
Despite these concerns that are spawning new federal regulations and a series of lawsuits, my prediction is that the for-profit sector will continue to grow over the long term, not so much because it meets societal demands for diverse forms of higher education, but because of the inability of the public sector to return to the levels of public subsidies it had in the past – the Brazilian Effect.
The result now, and in the future, is a kind of policy default: the future tertiary market will not be the result of a well-thought out policy at the national or state levels, but a quasi-free market consequence that will foster lower quality providers and fail to meet national goals to increase the educational attainment level of Americans.
Higher education policy is about broad issues of socio-economic mobility and economic competitiveness, but it is also about money, big business and political influence.
* John Aubrey Douglass is a senior research fellow at the Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley. Email: douglass@berkeley.edu. This is an excerpt from Douglass' article, “The Rise of the For-profit Sector in US Higher Education and the Brazilian Effect”, which appears in the European Journal of Education, Volume 47, Number 2, 2012.
The 11 largest for-profit higher education companies, for instance, experienced an increase in enrolments of over 30% between 2008 and 2010. The downturn in the economy triggered ‘hypergrowth’ in for-profit institutions, including a rush of laid-off workers seeking job retraining.
Before the recent bubble, steady growth in American for-profits was already a well-worn pattern. From 2000-10, the sector grew by some 235% in enrolment, increasing its market share from 3% to 9.1% of all tertiary enrolled students.
At the same time, and not surprisingly, the number of new for-profit institutions grew. In the five-year period beginning in 2005, a total of 483 new colleges and universities gained regional or national accreditation in the US. Of those new institutions, some 77% were for-profits, compared to only 4% public and 19% independent non-profit institutions.
In total, and while still representing less than 10% of all enrolments, the for-profit sector currently accounts for 26.2% of all the post-secondary institutions.
There are specific characteristics of the for-profit sector that are peculiar to the US; others reflect global trends largely seen in developing economies. Simply put, in the US as in other parts of the world, the for-profit sector is a modern feature of changing market dynamics related to demand and supply – or the lack thereof.
The ‘Brazilian Effect’
The current US experience is a version of what I call the ‘Brazilian Effect’: when public higher education cannot keep pace with growing public demand for access and programmes, governments often allow for-profits to rush in and help fill the gap, becoming a much larger and sometimes dominant provider.
This is the pattern in many developing economies such as Brazil, where some 50% of student enrolment is in profit-driven private institutions, together with Korea, Poland and many other parts of the world.
The American case is a different twist in this common theme.
For example, Brazil began with an elite university sector and is trying to build a mass higher education system that includes for-profits and private non-profits. In the US, a once robust mass higher education system is in various stages of decline, exacerbated by the onset of the Great Recession.
Throughout the US, state governments – the primary funders and regulators of higher education – are making massive cuts in their public higher education systems and an array of social services. The decline in funding higher education is a trend long in the making, accelerating mightily over the past three years.
In the mega-state of California – the largest state in population and with an economy that would rank among the world’s top 10 in size if it were a country – budget cuts are greatly diminishing the ability of public colleges and universities to hire faculty and provide courses to meet enrolment demand. There are similar examples of retrenchment in public higher education in about half of the 50 states.
The future
The question is how this story will unfold over the next decade in the US.
Under the creed that a variety of providers creates more avenues for socio-economic mobility, the US needs a robust for-profit sector as part of any coherent effort to increase educational attainment rates, improve the nation’s labour pool, and help create a more competitive economy.
But there are indicators that an era of unquestioned and largely unregulated growth of the for-profit sector may be ending. There are new concerns at the national and state levels about the economic model of for-profits, their low degree completion rates, the quality of those degrees, their high tuition and fee levels, and the high levels of debt and poor employment record of graduates.
Despite these concerns that are spawning new federal regulations and a series of lawsuits, my prediction is that the for-profit sector will continue to grow over the long term, not so much because it meets societal demands for diverse forms of higher education, but because of the inability of the public sector to return to the levels of public subsidies it had in the past – the Brazilian Effect.
The result now, and in the future, is a kind of policy default: the future tertiary market will not be the result of a well-thought out policy at the national or state levels, but a quasi-free market consequence that will foster lower quality providers and fail to meet national goals to increase the educational attainment level of Americans.
Higher education policy is about broad issues of socio-economic mobility and economic competitiveness, but it is also about money, big business and political influence.
* John Aubrey Douglass is a senior research fellow at the Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley. Email: douglass@berkeley.edu. This is an excerpt from Douglass' article, “The Rise of the For-profit Sector in US Higher Education and the Brazilian Effect”, which appears in the European Journal of Education, Volume 47, Number 2, 2012.
Uncapped student market to cost more than expected
12 July 2012
Canberra coffers hit by response to new 'demand-driven' enrolment policy. Susan Woodward reports
Enrolments in Australia's newly uncapped market for students are
outstripping predictions and will force the federal government to fund
tens of thousands more places than anticipated.In January, Australia ushered in a "demand-driven" system, allowing its 37 publicly funded universities to accept as many undergraduates as they choose - or who choose them - while continuing to fund each place.
According to data recently released, the policy change has led to an average rise of 5.3 per cent on offers of undergraduate places compared with 2011. They have also increased 15.9 per cent since 2009, when the government announced plans for the policy and began to ease caps.
For students, the impact of the policy has meant an 87.2 per cent success rate in applications in 2012, compared with 83.7 per cent in 2009.
Daniel Edwards, who compiled the data as senior research fellow for the Australian Council for Educational Research, said growth of such magnitude had forced the government to adjust its forecast.
In 2009, federal budget estimates predicted that 458,000 government-supported places would need to be funded in 2012-13. By this May's budget, however, the figure had increased more than 50,000 places to 512,000.
A tertiary education department spokesman said the government had injected an additional A$759 million (£500 million) to meet the increased demand for 2012. It now estimates that supported places will top 560,000 by 2015, he added.
Dr Edwards said that he was in favour of the idea of a demand-driven system, but added that underestimating its impact had put the current Labor government, which is bent on cutting budget deficits, in a tight spot.
"When it grows this quickly and when it's a bit of an open cheque to the universities, it does have a bottom-line impact," he said. "There are political implications across the board when you've got something that's open and that universities are finding a market for."
The Australian Catholic University is one institution to have seized the chance to expand its offerings.
The university, which has had a 40 per cent spike in student numbers across its six campuses since 2009, now has 18,000 students. Deputy vice-chancellor Pauline Nugent said it aimed to have 25,000 students by 2017.
"ACU began a calculated growth plan several years ago in a bid to position itself for the introduction of the demand-driven system in 2012," Professor Nugent said.
Fears that the new system will mean Australia's regional universities losing students to metropolitan counterparts have not been supported by the data.
Caroline Perkins, the executive director of the Regional Universities Network, confirmed that early trends indicated that enrolments had risen by 10 per cent at some regional institutions.
"We're undergoing fairly healthy growth, but we know that it's early days...It will probably take a few years for the full impact to be felt, and we need to remain fairly vigilant about how we respond," Dr Perkins said.
"This is also a broader issue about the national need for regional universities and the training of professional people in the regions," she added.
Deputy positions mushroom at universities
Global Times | 2012-7-10 22:25:03
By Xuyang Jingjing
By Xuyang Jingjing
Two heads are better than
one, as the saying goes. But when it comes to running a university,
scholars and Web users in China are debating whether it's necessary for
one president to have dozens of deputies.
The ever-expanding administrative departments of Chinese universities have long been a focal point of debate, with reformers clashing with entrenched interest groups. Not much has changed, and scholars say the bureaucracy is only getting worse.
Public information regarding school leadership shows that most Chinese universities have an administrative team including six or seven vice presidents and some have multiple assistants, on top of a separate Communist Party of China committee.
Peking University (Beida) has eight vice presidents, 11 assistant presidents (a role one rung down from a vice president) and about 18 Party committee leaders. The Renmin University of China has six vice presidents and six assistant presidents.
Most of the 11 assistant presidents at Peking University have other titles, such as directors of research institutes or school administrative departments, and most of the vice presidents are also on the Party committee.
Unclear roles
Web users joke that Beida, one of the most prestigious universities in China with over 100 years of history, has more deputies than some ministries. The university explained last week that most assistant positions are part-time and do not occupy any administrative resources or ranking.
"The main responsibilities of the assistant presidents are still teaching and researching, and they are helping the president handle relevant affairs part-time, which is standard practice at Beida," read the announcement.
It also said that the school is considering necessary changes and reforms to their administrative structure.
Experts and educators have pointed out that this explanation does not hold water, as the schools clearly list "assistant presidents" in the "school leadership" section.
The school didn't specify each assistant president's responsibilities, and it would seem that the vice presidents have already been assigned certain areas, such as undergraduate students or graduate students.
Gu Binglin, the president of Tsinghua University, said in 2010 that they are probably among the most exhausted presidents as they are swamped with specific affairs every day and don't have time for strategic planning. But Web users have been asking: If presidents are busy dealing with specifics, what are the roles of deputies?
These positions have been created as a consolation prize for those who didn't make vice presidents, or to give leading scholars an edge in academia, said Xiong Bingqi, an education scholar and deputy director of the 21st Century Education Research Institute in Shanghai.
"It's about status symbols, recognition and resources," said Xiong.
Perks and status
Qiao Mu, a professor at Beijing Foreign Studies University (BFSU), said that the assistant presidents get lots of perks such as a budget, transportation, housing and research funding. The university has four vice presidents and four assistant presidents, some of whom are also school deans.
Things are getting worse, said Qiao, adding that they also have assistant deans or assistant directors. In contrast to teaching assistant positions in Western universities, these are all administrative titles with related benefits.
Scholars with an administrative title such as assistant president have a better chance of getting grants or having projects approved, compared to ordinary teachers.
At Beijing Foreign Studies University, a high-level professor title was given to the school's Party secretary, who hadn't been teaching for decades, according to Qiao.
Administrative positions provide a fast track for promotion, while teachers could struggle for years to move from lecturer to professor, said Qiao. Under the circumstances it's no wonder many scholars give up teaching and research to seek out power.
Assistant president positions can be a stepping stone to promotion. Five vice presidents in Peking University and two vice presidents in Renmin University used to be assistant presidents at one time or another, information on the school websites shows.
The ever-expanding administrative departments of Chinese universities have long been a focal point of debate, with reformers clashing with entrenched interest groups. Not much has changed, and scholars say the bureaucracy is only getting worse.
Public information regarding school leadership shows that most Chinese universities have an administrative team including six or seven vice presidents and some have multiple assistants, on top of a separate Communist Party of China committee.
Peking University (Beida) has eight vice presidents, 11 assistant presidents (a role one rung down from a vice president) and about 18 Party committee leaders. The Renmin University of China has six vice presidents and six assistant presidents.
Most of the 11 assistant presidents at Peking University have other titles, such as directors of research institutes or school administrative departments, and most of the vice presidents are also on the Party committee.
Unclear roles
Web users joke that Beida, one of the most prestigious universities in China with over 100 years of history, has more deputies than some ministries. The university explained last week that most assistant positions are part-time and do not occupy any administrative resources or ranking.
"The main responsibilities of the assistant presidents are still teaching and researching, and they are helping the president handle relevant affairs part-time, which is standard practice at Beida," read the announcement.
It also said that the school is considering necessary changes and reforms to their administrative structure.
Experts and educators have pointed out that this explanation does not hold water, as the schools clearly list "assistant presidents" in the "school leadership" section.
The school didn't specify each assistant president's responsibilities, and it would seem that the vice presidents have already been assigned certain areas, such as undergraduate students or graduate students.
Gu Binglin, the president of Tsinghua University, said in 2010 that they are probably among the most exhausted presidents as they are swamped with specific affairs every day and don't have time for strategic planning. But Web users have been asking: If presidents are busy dealing with specifics, what are the roles of deputies?
These positions have been created as a consolation prize for those who didn't make vice presidents, or to give leading scholars an edge in academia, said Xiong Bingqi, an education scholar and deputy director of the 21st Century Education Research Institute in Shanghai.
"It's about status symbols, recognition and resources," said Xiong.
Perks and status
Qiao Mu, a professor at Beijing Foreign Studies University (BFSU), said that the assistant presidents get lots of perks such as a budget, transportation, housing and research funding. The university has four vice presidents and four assistant presidents, some of whom are also school deans.
Things are getting worse, said Qiao, adding that they also have assistant deans or assistant directors. In contrast to teaching assistant positions in Western universities, these are all administrative titles with related benefits.
Scholars with an administrative title such as assistant president have a better chance of getting grants or having projects approved, compared to ordinary teachers.
At Beijing Foreign Studies University, a high-level professor title was given to the school's Party secretary, who hadn't been teaching for decades, according to Qiao.
Administrative positions provide a fast track for promotion, while teachers could struggle for years to move from lecturer to professor, said Qiao. Under the circumstances it's no wonder many scholars give up teaching and research to seek out power.
Assistant president positions can be a stepping stone to promotion. Five vice presidents in Peking University and two vice presidents in Renmin University used to be assistant presidents at one time or another, information on the school websites shows.
Government run?
Internal reform is difficult, especially when Chinese universities also face the reality that they are not independent education and research institutions but a government agency.
Universities in China have different administrative rankings and enjoy different levels of status and government funding. Some top schools such as Beida or Tsinghua are ranked at the vice ministerial level, which means their presidents enjoy administrative power equal to that of a vice minister.
The government has considerable control over the school, ranging from the appointment of school leaders to the number of students it can enroll.
For instance, universities across China were asked to expand their enrollment intake from the year 2000. University presidents are appointed by the government and sometimes became ministers or vice versa.
Educators and school administrators have realized the need for reform but admit it is very difficult.
The government has vowed to remove administrative rankings and transform the management styles of academic institutions, while giving them full autonomy by 2020.
Many universities have also tried to set up a teaching committee or academic council to take some of the power back from the administrators. But they lack resources or real decision-making powers.
In an attempt to build an ideal university that focuses purely on academic excellence, the South University of Science and Technology was founded in 2010 and is funded by the local government of Shenzhen and modeled after the Hong Kong University of Science & Technology.
Zhu Qingshi, the president of the university, was not appointed by the government, but instead was chosen by a board of experts. The new school has no administrative ranking either, even though Zhu enjoyed vice ministerial level treatment at his former position as president of the University of Science and Technology of China.
Zhu envisions a university without bureaucratic influence and run by professors, which challenges the current exam-driven education system.
But the new institution was met with a string of obstacles, ranging from its location to the legitimacy of its diplomas. Half of the school board members were local officials.
"The administrators should give the power of school affairs back to educators in order to make it the academic institution it should be," said Xiong. "But ultimately, the government does not want to relinquish the power to run, oversee or evaluate schools."
Internal reform is difficult, especially when Chinese universities also face the reality that they are not independent education and research institutions but a government agency.
Universities in China have different administrative rankings and enjoy different levels of status and government funding. Some top schools such as Beida or Tsinghua are ranked at the vice ministerial level, which means their presidents enjoy administrative power equal to that of a vice minister.
The government has considerable control over the school, ranging from the appointment of school leaders to the number of students it can enroll.
For instance, universities across China were asked to expand their enrollment intake from the year 2000. University presidents are appointed by the government and sometimes became ministers or vice versa.
Educators and school administrators have realized the need for reform but admit it is very difficult.
The government has vowed to remove administrative rankings and transform the management styles of academic institutions, while giving them full autonomy by 2020.
Many universities have also tried to set up a teaching committee or academic council to take some of the power back from the administrators. But they lack resources or real decision-making powers.
In an attempt to build an ideal university that focuses purely on academic excellence, the South University of Science and Technology was founded in 2010 and is funded by the local government of Shenzhen and modeled after the Hong Kong University of Science & Technology.
Zhu Qingshi, the president of the university, was not appointed by the government, but instead was chosen by a board of experts. The new school has no administrative ranking either, even though Zhu enjoyed vice ministerial level treatment at his former position as president of the University of Science and Technology of China.
Zhu envisions a university without bureaucratic influence and run by professors, which challenges the current exam-driven education system.
But the new institution was met with a string of obstacles, ranging from its location to the legitimacy of its diplomas. Half of the school board members were local officials.
"The administrators should give the power of school affairs back to educators in order to make it the academic institution it should be," said Xiong. "But ultimately, the government does not want to relinquish the power to run, oversee or evaluate schools."
Oxford University record donation cuts fees for poorest
BBC15 July 2012 Issue No:230
Michael Moritz is giving £75m to remove any financial barriers to poorer students
Oxford University will
use a record donation to abolish the tuition fee increase for its
poorest students - keeping fees at £3,500 per year.
University self-supporting Mr Moritz, chairman of the US-based venture capital firm, Sequoia Capital, spoke of his own family's debt to benefactors, when they had been refugees from Nazi Germany.
"I would not be here today were it not for the generosity of strangers," said Mr Moritz.
From his business experience in the US, he said many of the great innovators were from "the most unlikely and impossible circumstances".
But their progress had been made possible by university scholarships - and he wanted to support such opportunities.
The financial package will be worth about £11,000 per student per year - and will be available for students from families with an income below £16,000 per year.
This will continue in perpetuity - using the investment income from the donation - in a way similar to the endowments that underpin the finances of major US universities.
It also marks a UK university taking a greater step towards self-funding some students - and loosening its students' reliance on the state-funded student finance system.
Under the scholarship scheme, students will only have to borrow the £3,500 per year, rather than the £9,000 which will be charged from this autumn.
Professor Hamilton spoke of his concern about the deterrent effect of the debts facing students, when fees are £9,000 per year.
Charlotte Anderson, currently studying German at the university, said she was the first person in her family to go to university - and that debt had been a major cultural obstacle for her family.
"All they saw was a huge debt - and the stress attached to that... they couldn't see beyond it."
She said that attending a summer school made her change her mind about seeing Oxford as a credible option.
Reaching out Jo Dibb, head teacher of Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School in north London, said that poorer parents were often "desperate to support their children" - but couldn't support their children as easily as better-off families and were afraid of getting into debt.
From his business experience in the US, he said many of the great innovators were from "the most unlikely and impossible circumstances".
But their progress had been made possible by university scholarships - and he wanted to support such opportunities.
The financial package will be worth about £11,000 per student per year - and will be available for students from families with an income below £16,000 per year.
This will continue in perpetuity - using the investment income from the donation - in a way similar to the endowments that underpin the finances of major US universities.
It also marks a UK university taking a greater step towards self-funding some students - and loosening its students' reliance on the state-funded student finance system.
Under the scholarship scheme, students will only have to borrow the £3,500 per year, rather than the £9,000 which will be charged from this autumn.
Professor Hamilton spoke of his concern about the deterrent effect of the debts facing students, when fees are £9,000 per year.
Charlotte Anderson, currently studying German at the university, said she was the first person in her family to go to university - and that debt had been a major cultural obstacle for her family.
"All they saw was a huge debt - and the stress attached to that... they couldn't see beyond it."
She said that attending a summer school made her change her mind about seeing Oxford as a credible option.
Reaching out Jo Dibb, head teacher of Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School in north London, said that poorer parents were often "desperate to support their children" - but couldn't support their children as easily as better-off families and were afraid of getting into debt.
She said the scholarships could help "the brightest young people who slip away now".
Mr Moritz, who went to school in Cardiff and attended Oxford in the 1970s, said that for families with £16,000 per year, the level of student debt represented a "terrifying figure".
The intention is that within three years half of all eligible
students will receive this support package - with the later aim of
rolling it out to all students from such low-income families.
Earlier this week, the university admissions service, Ucas, published figures showing that applications had fallen by 8.9%, raising concerns that potential students were being deterred by the increase in fees.
Last week, the Office for Fair Access published a report showing that universities were switching more of their funding into outreach projects, such as summer schools.
The fair access watchdog also produced figures comparing the proportion of students eligible for full state support - with Oxford having among the lowest levels of such poorer students.
The university has been investing heavily to attract students from a wider range of social backgrounds, putting £2.5m into outreach and £6.6m on bursaries.
Oxford's latest announcement of such a large-scale scholarship programme will raise comparisons with leading US universities.
The income from endowments allows them to offer places to the most talented, regardless of income or nationality, with means-testing then determining any level of fee.
The biggest source of Harvard's operating income is its endowments, worth £24bn at present. Fees provide only about a fifth of its operating costs.
Oxford's biggest source of income is external research, accounting for two-fifths of income.
Professor Hamilton said the challenge for UK universities facing budget pressures was to diversify their incomes - including encouraging such philanthropy as the donation from Mr Moritz and Ms Heyman.
Mr Moritz, who went to school in Cardiff and attended Oxford in the 1970s, said that for families with £16,000 per year, the level of student debt represented a "terrifying figure".
About one in 10 of Oxford's students are from
families with an income below this threshold - and the first wave of
scholarships will be awarded this autumn.
Earlier this week, the university admissions service, Ucas, published figures showing that applications had fallen by 8.9%, raising concerns that potential students were being deterred by the increase in fees.
Last week, the Office for Fair Access published a report showing that universities were switching more of their funding into outreach projects, such as summer schools.
The fair access watchdog also produced figures comparing the proportion of students eligible for full state support - with Oxford having among the lowest levels of such poorer students.
The university has been investing heavily to attract students from a wider range of social backgrounds, putting £2.5m into outreach and £6.6m on bursaries.
Oxford's latest announcement of such a large-scale scholarship programme will raise comparisons with leading US universities.
The income from endowments allows them to offer places to the most talented, regardless of income or nationality, with means-testing then determining any level of fee.
The biggest source of Harvard's operating income is its endowments, worth £24bn at present. Fees provide only about a fifth of its operating costs.
Oxford's biggest source of income is external research, accounting for two-fifths of income.
Professor Hamilton said the challenge for UK universities facing budget pressures was to diversify their incomes - including encouraging such philanthropy as the donation from Mr Moritz and Ms Heyman.
More Disadvantaged Students to be Enrolled in College
Some 570 Chinese universities and colleges have promised to enroll a
total of 10,000 more students from the country's 14 least developed
areas in central, southwest and northwest China this year. This is the
first time for China's universities to offer privileged admission to
students from poverty stricken areas. This gives disadvantaged students a
better opportunity to realize their university dream.
Zhang Wan takes a closer look.
These universities and colleges include 73 universities under the
Ministry of Education, such as Peking University and Tsinghua
University, China's two most prestigious schools. Their plan is to
enroll about 3,000 more students from the least developed areas of
China.
Around 500 other universities under provincial departments of education have joined this project and have promised to enroll 7,000 additional admissions.
Xu Xiaoli, head of the Southwest University in Chongqing Municipality, says that they decided to admit around 200 more freshmen this year, the largest number of all the state key universities.
"Making the decision to get more rural students into universities is an inescapable duty for our university to make."
The majors included in the project are mainly favorable to the development of rural areas such as agriculture, water engineering and medical science.
In order to meet the demand for rural sustainable development as well as the wishes of students, there are also majors including computer engineering, electronic engineering and majors related to economics.
Cao Xiangming is a student from Huining County, a poverty stricken area in Gansu province. He was recently admitted to the Beijing Jiaotong University with a score of 570 points, and he will major in mechanical engineering and automation in September.
"I am so happy. Without these policies for students from the least developed areas, I would not be able to enroll in a key university. I'll study hard in university and do my best to make a contribution to the country."
Wang Huashen is the director of the admissions office at Beijing Jiaotong University. He says their admission score line this year in Gansu province is 591 points, but thanks to the new policy, students from poverty stricken areas who get slightly lower scores can now also be enrolled.
Under the current system, students are admitted to universities according to their College Entrance Examination scores. The poverty-stricken areas in China, with weaker elementary education, always have fewer opportunities when it comes to universities, especially to good ones.
For instance, the enrollment rate at the first class universities for four-year college students in China's 680 poverty-stricken counties in 2011 was 5.7 percent, much lower than the country's average of 8.5 percent.
However, according to the Ministry of Education, about 1.3 million students from poverty stricken areas attended this year's national college entrance exam, and with this new program, about 10 percent more students will be enrolled by key universities.
The project this year covers a total of 592 counties in 13 provinces, mostly in northwest and southwest areas of the country.
For CRI, I am Zhang Wan.
Zhang Wan takes a closer look.
These universities and colleges include 73 universities under the
Ministry of Education, such as Peking University and Tsinghua
University, China's two most prestigious schools. Their plan is to
enroll about 3,000 more students from the least developed areas of
China.Around 500 other universities under provincial departments of education have joined this project and have promised to enroll 7,000 additional admissions.
Xu Xiaoli, head of the Southwest University in Chongqing Municipality, says that they decided to admit around 200 more freshmen this year, the largest number of all the state key universities.
"Making the decision to get more rural students into universities is an inescapable duty for our university to make."
The majors included in the project are mainly favorable to the development of rural areas such as agriculture, water engineering and medical science.
In order to meet the demand for rural sustainable development as well as the wishes of students, there are also majors including computer engineering, electronic engineering and majors related to economics.
Cao Xiangming is a student from Huining County, a poverty stricken area in Gansu province. He was recently admitted to the Beijing Jiaotong University with a score of 570 points, and he will major in mechanical engineering and automation in September.
"I am so happy. Without these policies for students from the least developed areas, I would not be able to enroll in a key university. I'll study hard in university and do my best to make a contribution to the country."
Wang Huashen is the director of the admissions office at Beijing Jiaotong University. He says their admission score line this year in Gansu province is 591 points, but thanks to the new policy, students from poverty stricken areas who get slightly lower scores can now also be enrolled.
Under the current system, students are admitted to universities according to their College Entrance Examination scores. The poverty-stricken areas in China, with weaker elementary education, always have fewer opportunities when it comes to universities, especially to good ones.
For instance, the enrollment rate at the first class universities for four-year college students in China's 680 poverty-stricken counties in 2011 was 5.7 percent, much lower than the country's average of 8.5 percent.
However, according to the Ministry of Education, about 1.3 million students from poverty stricken areas attended this year's national college entrance exam, and with this new program, about 10 percent more students will be enrolled by key universities.
The project this year covers a total of 592 counties in 13 provinces, mostly in northwest and southwest areas of the country.
For CRI, I am Zhang Wan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The 2024 Workshops for Foreign Confucius Institute Directors on June 13-21, 2024 at Sichuan Province, China
My sincere thanks and gratitude go to my respectful Rector, H.E. Sok Khorn , and the Chinese Confucius Institute Director, Prof. Yi Yongzhon...
-
Wachira Kigotho 09 May 2014 Issue No:319 Unequal access to university education is likely to persist in most countries globally ...
-
លោកនិពន្ធនាយកជាទីគោរពរាប់អាន! តាម ការពិនិត្យសង្កេតរបស់ខ្ញុំ មានប្រព័ន្ធផ្សព្វផ្សាយជាតិ និងអន្តរជាតិជាច្រើន បានច... -
ការពិនិត្យមើលផលអាក្រក់កើតចេញពីវប្បធម៌ប៉ែងជើង ឬក្ដិចត្រួយគ្នា ដោយ កែវពេជ្រ មេត្តា 2011-11-03 ទម្លាប់នៃការប...
-
Chambers and Partners - Home 1 Bun & Associates THE FIRM Sources single out this firm as a market leader, highlighting its inc...
-
Combat Journalism: CQR Is reporting on global conflict worth the risk? By Frank Greve Introduction Chr...
-
ព្រះករុណាព្រះបាទសម្តេចព្រះនរោត្តម សីហនុ « ព្រះបរមរតនកោដ្ឋ » បានស្ថាបនាសាកលវិទ្យាល័យភូមិន្ទបាត់ដំបងតាមរយៈ ព្រះរាជក្រឹត្យលេខ ៣៤/៦៨.ប.រ ចុះថ្... -
By Sam Rany 1. There is a jump in higher education in Cambodia, what do you see from this development? Actually, I o...
-
https://www.box.com/files/0/f/0/1/f_2876428255#/files/0/f/0/1/f_2876428255 International Journal of Higher Education ISSN 1927-... -
Academic Adjustment Issues in a Malaysian Research University: The Case of Cambodian, Laotian, Burmese, and Vietnamese Postgraduat...
-
https://www.box.com/profile#/profile/183918435/page/1/1/2876421805 International Journal of Learning & Development ISSN 216...
