A spectre of corruption is haunting the global campaign toward higher
education internationalisation. An overseas degree is increasingly
valuable, so it is not surprising that commercial ventures have found
opportunities on the internationalisation landscape. New private actors
have entered the sector, with the sole goal of making money. Some of
them are less than honourable. Some universities look at
internationalisation as a contribution to the financial “bottom line,”
in an era of financial cutbacks. The rapidly expanding private higher
education sector globally is largely for-profit. In a few cases, such as
Australia and increasingly the United Kingdom, national policies
concerning higher education internationalisation tilt toward earning
income for the system.
Widespread
Countries whose academic systems suffer from elements of corruption are
increasingly involved in international higher education — sending large
numbers of students abroad, establishing relationships with overseas
universities, and other activities. Corruption is not limited to
countries that may have a reputation for less than fully circumspect
academic practices, but that problem occurs globally. Several scandals
have recently been widely reported in the United States, including the
private unaccredited “Tri-Valley University,” a sham institution that
admitted and collected tuition from foreign students. That institution
did not require them to attend class, but rather funnelled them into the
labour market, under the noses of U.S. immigration authorities. In
addition, several public universities have been caught admitting
students, with substandard academic qualifications. Quality-assurance
agencies in the U.K. have uncovered problems with “franchised”
British-degree programmes, and similar scandals have occurred in
Australia. A prominent example is the University of Wales, which was the
second-largest university in the U.K., with 70,000 students enrolled in
130 colleges around the world. It had to close its highly profitable
degree validation programme, which accounted for nearly two-thirds of
institutional revenue.
With international higher education now a multibillion dollar industry
around the world, individuals, countries, and institutions depending on
income, prestige, and access — it is not surprising that corruption is a
growing problem. If something is not done to ensure probity in
international relationships in higher education, an entire structure —
built on trust, a commitment to mutual understanding, and benefits for
students and researchers — a commitment built informally over decades
will collapse. There are signs that it is already in deep trouble.
A serious and unsolved problem is the prevalence of unscrupulous agents
and recruiters funnelling unqualified students to universities
worldwide. A recent example was featured in Britain’s Daily Telegraph
(June 26, 2012) of an agent in China caught on video, offering to write
admission essays and to present other questionable help in admission to
prominent British universities. No one knows the extent of the problem,
although consistent news reports indicate that it is widespread,
particularly in countries that send large numbers of students abroad,
including China and India. Without question, agents now receive millions
of dollars in commissions paid by the universities and, in some
egregious cases, money from the clients as well. In Nottingham’s case
the percentage of students recruited through agents has increased from
19 per cent of the intake in 2005 to 25 per cent in 2011, with more than
£1 million going to the agents.
Altered and fake documents have long been a problem in international
admissions. Computer design and technology exacerbate it. Fraudulent
documents have become a minor industry in some parts of the world, and
many universities are reluctant to accept documents from institutions
that have been tainted with incidents of counterfeit records. For
example, a number of American universities no longer accept applications
from some Russian students — because of widespread perceptions of
fraud, document tampering, and other problems. Document fraud gained
momentum due to commission-based agents who have an incentive to ensure
that students are “packaged” with impressive credentials, as their
commissions depend on successful student placement. Those responsible
for checking the accuracy of transcripts, recommendations, and degree
certificates face an increasingly difficult task. Students who submit
valid documentation are placed at a disadvantage since they are
subjected to extra scrutiny.
Examples of tampering with and falsifying results of the Graduate Record
Examination and other commonly required international examinations used
for admissions have resulted in the nullifying of scores, and even
cancelling examinations in some countries and regions, as well as
rethinking whether online testing is practical. This situation has made
it more difficult for students to apply to foreign universities and has
made the task of evaluating students for admission more difficult.
Several countries, including Russia and India, have announced that they will be using the Times Higher Education
and Academic Ranking of World Universities (Shanghai rankings), as a
way of determining the legitimacy of foreign universities for
recognising foreign degrees, determining eligibility for academic
collaborations, and other aspects of international higher education
relations. This is unfortunate, since many excellent academic
institutions are not included in these rankings, which mostly measure
research productivity. No doubt, Russia and India are concerned about
the quality of foreign partners and find the rankings convenient.
Several “host” countries have tightened up rules and oversight of
cross-border student flows in response to irregularities and corruption.
The U.S. Department of State announced in June 2012 that visa
applicants from India would be subjected to additional scrutiny as a
response to the “Tri-Valley scandal.” Earlier both Australia and Britain
changed rules and policy. Corruption is making internationalisation
more difficult for the entire higher education sector. It is perhaps
significant that continental Europe seems to have been less affected by
shady practices — perhaps in part because international higher education
is less commercialised and profit driven.
The Internet has become the “Wild West” of academic misrepresentation
and chicanery. It is easy to set up an impressive Web site and
exaggerate the quality or lie about an institution. Some institutions
claim accreditation that does not exist. There are even “accreditation
mills” to accredit universities that pay a fee. A few include pictures
of impressive campuses that are simply photo-shopped from other
universities.
What can be done?
With international higher education now big business and with commercial
gain an ever-increasing motivation for international initiatives, the
problems mentioned are likely to persist. However, a range of
initiatives can ameliorate the situation. The higher education community
can recommit to the traditional “public good” values of
internationalisation, although current funding challenges may make this
difficult in some countries. The International Association of
Universities’ recent report, “Affirming Academic Values in
Internationalization of Higher Education,” is a good start. The
essential values of the European Union’s Bologna Initiatives are also
consistent with the best values of internationalisation. The University
of Nottingham, mentioned earlier, provides transparency concerning its
use of agents, supervises those it hires, and in general adheres to best
practice — as do some other universities in the U.K. and elsewhere.
Accreditation and quality assurance are essential for ensuring that
basic quality is recognised. Agencies and the international higher
education community must ensure that universities were carefully
evaluated and that the results of assessment are easily available to the
public and the international stakeholders.
Governmental, regional, and international agencies must coordinate their
efforts and become involved in maintaining standards and protecting the
image of the higher education sector. Contradictions abound. For
example, the U.S. Department of State’s Education USA seeks to protect
the sector, while the Department of Commerce sees higher education just
as an export commodity. Government agencies in the U.K. and Australia
seem also to be mainly pursuing commercial interests.
Consciousness-raising about ethics and good practice in international
higher education and awareness of emerging problems and continuing
challenges deserve continuing attention. Prospective students and their
families, institutional partners considering exchanges and research, and
other stakeholders must be more sophisticated and vigilant concerning
decision-making. The Boston College Center for International Higher
Education’s Corruption Monitor is the only clearinghouse for
information, relating directly to corrupt practices; additional sources
of information and analysis will be helpful.
The first step in solving a major challenge to higher education
internationalisation is recognition of the problem itself. The higher
education community itself is by no means united; and growing
commercialisation makes some people reluctant to act in ways that may
threaten profits. There are individuals within the academic community
who lobby aggressively to legitimise dubious practices. Yet, if nothing
is done, the higher education sector worldwide will suffer and the
impressive strides taken toward internationalisation will be threatened.
Author’s note: I acknowledge comments from Rahul Choudaha and Liz Reisberg.
(Philip G. Altbach is Monan University Professor and director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College
No comments:
Post a Comment