*** You may suggest other issues to your teacher, too, according to your interests. ***
Topics in this grouping attempt to question the university as an institution, the meaning of that institution is changing, what pressures exist that are creating that change. Universities are highly complex machines and it is felt that for the student to understand them, and to understand not only their own country’s higher education institutions but other country’s also, the student will be far more successful at being able to operate within them.
This topic addresses the differences in institutional thinking and educational outputs that come from being organized as publically dependent, privately dependent, or perhaps as a mixture of the two. It also addresses the moral question of what differing responsibilities to society that such universities may or may not have.
This topic aims to examine what an ‘academic’s role is the modern university – as a student oriented teacher or as a research oriented researcher. Universities are mainly financially supported by the former but also require the status of the latter, and time constraints mean that sometimes doing both is difficult. Universities can then become divided into ‘research universities’ and ‘teaching universities’, with status differentials resulting. The topic has implications for study abroad plans, ie: related to the levels of knowledge and engagement already existing with the potential student.
Universities are status driven institutions, and this operates not only at national levels but now global levels too. As a result, universities are more and more concerned about ‘brand management’ and being regarded as ‘famous’. What does this mean for the student experience? For allocation of resources? For the image created by universities for sub-regions, regions, and countries in a global education space?
This controversial topic addresses a critical question at all levels of education – is it a good idea to stratify, or to have everybody at the same level? The Ivy League (in the US, 8 universities) and Russell Group (in the UK, 24 universities) are groupings of the top universities that then by their status are able to better attract the best students in addition to being able to better attract public and private funding. Is this a way of producing the best, that then in turn advances society as a whole? Or is it a way of cementing privilege in addition to existing power structures, as the same classes of people get taught the same things and then go into the same positions of power?
Is the university a space of pure and unbiased knowledge and learning, or a specialized market/research sector to be focused on by marketing executives and corporate interests? Universities that face financial burdens or simply seek to gain greater wealth, are increasingly turning to private funding as public funding decreases. Does this mean a dilution and/or a biasing of the university space and/or forms of research being conducted?
What is the proper relationship between the student and the teacher? Is it for the university teacher to address the student’s academic and knowledge needs only, or to also attempt to develop ‘character’ or other socially desirable traits? Is the university teacher a professional knowledge gatekeeper, or a life guide? What are the implication of this for how different universities have different intra-institutional norms of attitude and behavior?
A very political issue in the Anglo-Saxon countries where university education is being regarded as a private commodity and so liable for large amounts of debt and borrowing, students are now leaving university with record amounts of debt. This free enterprise belief is however supported by a strong socially sanctioned norm that going to university is an expectation rather than a freely made choice. What implications does this have for the next generation’s start in life; for the future of society as these young adults find it hard to deal with life’s other challenges (eg: buying a home); and how does it embed the privilege of those who are able to fund university and those who require debt?
Given two shifts in government’s attitudes towards the role of universities – first that they are private goods rather than public goods and therefore should receive less public funding, and second, that universities should be doing things that are ‘practical’ and ‘demonstrable’, there is an increasing political re-focus away from ‘soft subjects’ (humanities and social sciences) and onto ‘hard subjects’ (STEM subjects). What does this mean for the future of liberal societies if the liberal education that universities were founded on is in decline? Should universities be the actors providing the training that companies then use, or should the companies be training their own staff?
Nearly all areas of print media are in decline as e-reading in its various forms becomes more popular and the print media too expensive. However one sector that is extremely profitable is academic publishing. Researchers and academics are expected to produce streams of high quality content for free, but publishers are able to charge extremely high fees to university libraries (and therefore at some point, the students) for access to this free content. Should all research be available to all for free? Should university libraries pay for single access to all publications as opposed to now where differing levels of subscriptions exist (meaning some universities have less or more access than others)? What is the morality of a system that expects the free input of content but that charging of fees for its output and access?
The notion of the university being an ‘ivory tower’, a super elite place that is separate from even higher than ‘normal’ society, is an old one. Governments are beginning to try to change this however, and expect universities to demonstrate their public ‘impact’ or ‘engagement’. Is this fair? Does it dilute the highly speciliased and often difficult work done in universities? Does it open universities, and their staff, up to potentially difficult problems that they are not trained for eg: dealing with the media/social media.
There is a classic idea of education at university of a person who has all the knowledge (the teacher) ‘giving’ that knowledge to those who are empty of that knowledge (the student). Is this correct? Is the educational experience about the proverbial “glass being poured into” or the “fire waiting to be lit”? Is the lecture still the best form to most efficiently impart knowledge to the largest amount of people in the quickest way? Or is it time for more ‘flipped classrooms’, where most knowledge learning is done outside of class and the classroom becomes a space for sharing and thinking about that knowledge.
There are big differences between Japan and other countries on the responsibilities of the university in the student’s future job plans. Japan’s approach is obviously very structured, with processes that begin to be considered from as early as year two. Other country’s university’s may take a more laissez-faire approach and help prefer to advise only. Which is best? Is the university an educational institutional or a business-serving institution? What implications does job-hunting have for the student’s education, as so much time is lost in the pursuit of the former that the latter suffers? What social and political power structures are replicated by the closeness or distance that exists in the step from education into the workplace?
Topics in this grouping view universities and higher education as social actors, at both a micro and macro level. Micro in the sense of what forms of sociological practices exist within a university campus, and macro in the sense of how wider society relates to the university. Students interested in this grouping will gain a fuller appreciation of the social pressures and joys of university, and be able to relate critically to national debates on universities and higher education.
Universities are very public institutions and frequently the interest of the mass media. What different forms has this relationship taken? Is it always a positive one? Does the media have a role in constructing or de-constructing the social image of a university?
Universities are uniquely global institutions, both in their orientation and the make-up of their populations. But bring different peoples and groups together with different values, ideals, and languages, is always going to be a challenge. This cross-cultural nature will inevitably result in peoples either mixing and learning the values of either other (or perhaps a universalistic liberal value) – hybridization; or not mixing and staying with their own preferred in-groups – ghettoization. Which is better? Should the university attempt to create or change which of these is occurring? What are the challenges or dangers presented by too much of one or the other?
Universities are increasingly coming under criticism for not wishing to deal properly with various on-campus issues (discrimination, rape, drugs, bullying) due to their increasing concern with their public image and therefore funding. Is this fair? Are universities being focused on too closely as ‘different’ rather than as representative of problems that exist in society as a whole? What can, or should, universities do to deal either these issues?
From Lucy Cavendish College (University of Cambridge, UK), to Tsuda College (Japan), or Wellesley College (US) who admit only women; or to Howard University in the US which is 93% African American; what are the advantages and disadvantages of such identity based divisions of higher education? Is it right to remove all distractions and differences and be able to simply focus on education, or is it better to encounter social differences and distinctions at university? Do these institutions have a role in correcting structural disadvantages that traditional universities continue to propagate, or is it better for all parties to change together rather than only one group?
There is an ever increasing burden being placed on student’s time; from needing part-time work, to gaining work experience, to gaining internships. What impact does this have on the university experience? Should the student be spending all of their time in the library or getting experience in the ‘real world’? What are the social and economic drivers that are pushing this trend?
University campuses are special places. They are sites where, fairly uniquely in society, different ideas are encouraged and challenged; and given the energy of the youth of most of its members, these encounters can become heated. Is this right for universities to be political spaces for free speech and civil disobedience? Or are they educational institutions delivering a ‘product’ to its ‘customers’, and as such, be maintained as “safe spaces” where “trigger warnings” may be used?
Going to university and gaining an academic education are often the norm in most advanced countries now, and are seen as necessary for finding a job and a sign of social status to many. But is this fair? Does it privilege a certain type of education (academic) over the practical (vocational or technical training)?
Universities are often historical, legacy institutions, and as such, a repositories of legacy issues. In Japan, Hokkaido University has issues surrounding its relationship with the Ainu and its collection of Ainu bones that it refuses to return. Todai has a similar issue with Ainu bones, in addition to many more legacy issues including (a) Todai’s role in WWII with the Emperor-Organ debate between Minobe Tatsukichi, and Hozumi Yatsuka and Uesugi Shinkichi; and (b) Todai’s political role as trainer of most of Japan’s bureaucrats and politicians and therefore propagator of the same status quo thinking generation after generation. What should be done, if anything?
Topics in this grouping address the rapidly transformative role that technology, and particularly the internet, is playing in changing the way tertiary level knowledge is being accessed, related to, and then re-presented. Students will gain a knowledge of not only the issues involved but also be presented with some of the vast arrays of new technologies on offer to the contemporary university student.
A virtual university is a new phenomenon brought about by improvements in the quality and access to the internet. A pure virtual university is completely online, with everything being done electronically. What issues are there surrounding all parts of the educational experience; from admissions, to delivery of lessons, to testing, to quality control….?
The Open University in the UK is the world’s largest university by student population. This is because it is a distance learning university which, at the time of its founding in 1969, was a controversial thing. Its social justice mission was to open up university education to all, including the working classes, by providing flexibility that allowed for working lives to continue. Critics would say that this kind of distance learning is an inferior version of the real thing – the classroom, and the university campus. What do you think?
Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) are a recent form of distance learning whereby content is delivered from the best classrooms in the world, for free, via recorded content and exercises. They lack two- way communication of some forms of distance learning but because of this, are able to be accessed by many more people. MOOCs have become increasingly popular in the recent years as more and more prestigious universities adopt them. But what the dangers? Understanding that “nothing is free” in the world, is there another agenda behind the MOOC trend?
Topics in this grouping address the part of education systems that most people hate - testing. However since any test or evaluation system serves an important gatekeeping role into not only higher education but different areas of higher education, there are important questions to be asked about who creates these systems and what possible values underpin them. Students will learn not only how to critically engage with these sometimes controversial issues, but also gain a knowledge of the vast (and increasing) array of testing systems on offer around the world.
The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) and its subject specific studies - First International Mathematics Study (FIMS), International Mathematics Study (SIMS), International Science Study (ISS), Preprimary Education (PPP), Computers in Education Study (COMPED), Information Technology in Education (ITE), Civic Education Study (CIVED), Languages in Education Study (LES) – aim to create a uniform, standardized, global standard measure of abilities in a given subject field. As such, they are often used by international institutions such as UNESCO and others to measure (and therefore then ‘recommend’ or pass judgement) on countries. But is this attempt at a universal standard possible? Are there national or cultural differences that such tests cannot account for? What are the power relations involved in designed and propagating such global systems?
International English testing systems, supported by Western universities increasing reliance on foreign students, have become ever more sophisticated (and more expensive). But given that there are so many different types, they logically are not all testing the same things. What does this say about the ability for tests to gauge language ability? What issue are there surrounding the faking or cheating on these tests? Is there any issue with learners “learning to test” rather than “learning to communicate”?
Pearson’s is a huge private educational company and in 1994 began rolling out a new model of testing to replace pens and paper – electronic testing systems aka. computer based tests. Ever since, many have followed in their footsteps. But what impact has this computerization of testing had on educational standards?
Imagine a situation, you are a university admissions officer and you have to choose between two candidates: (1) a student from a priviledged background with overall scores of 90%, or a student from a less privilege background who has overall scores of 80%. Which one do you choose? This is the issue with this topic – should universities simply choose based on ability, or moderate this by social factors such as class background, racial background, gender, etc.?
Every country conducts university entrance exams differently. From the Confucian based models of East Asia where all rests on a single (and hard) exam, to the more longitudinal and broad approach taken by many in the West. What are the advantages and disadvantages of these differing systems? What are the social drivers and impacts of these systems; what problems does the system create in Japan? What is the financial motivation for entrance tests?
Topics in this grouping examine the greater focus outwards that universities are increasingly being expected to adopt. That is, the expectation of their engagement with various strands of globalization. Never has there been a time when the question of whether universities are meant to be global or only national institutions been more relevant, and students interested in topics within this grouping will obviously be at the forefront of some of these questions as they are likely going to affect you. As such, and as students with study abroad intentions, students will gain a deeper understanding of some of the processes and changes that they themselves will likely be engaging with first hand in the near future.
An elementary question for a study abroad student – why are you doing it? The reason for students studying abroad has changed dramatically over the 20th/21st centuries. From the Satsuma 14 and the Choshu 5 travelling the world in search of knowledge to be used to modernize Japan, to contemporary students choosing to study abroad for more personal reasons; there are many functions that studying abroad has served. But is it always necessary? Why are Western universities often the more appealing places for studying abroad? What global power dynamics are in place here?
Universities are less and less national institutions than global ones. University presidents no longer can focus only on their national student populations but also have to consider global rankings, international students, and multi-level research across continents. But the obsession with the global displacing the concerns of the national? Are local students missing out to higher fee paying foreign students? What is the impact on the mental health of staff in universities having to deal with so many more layers of activity? Are some universities better or worse at being ‘global’?
The World Trade Organisation is designed to help liberalise the international system, and in terms of services, the main instrument is the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The trade under higher education services falls under this instrument. In addition, research and publications will be covered by the WTO’s Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). These agreements are far from uncontroversial, and so what is the relationship between these global liberalizing agreements and institutions, and the role of higher education as a traded service.
The International Association of Universities is a professional body representing 650 universities worldwide, and is an institutional body linked with UNESCO. What are the advantages and disadvantages of such large-scale collaborative global bodies? What are the entry criteria for inclusion or exclusion? Is global level collaboration a good thing or a bad thing?
From the US based Temple University campus in Japan to Nottingham University’s branch campus in China, Western universities have for a long time desired to provide greater opportunities for connectivity by not only hosting students ‘over here’ but by them also going ‘over there’. What are the ethical issues surrounding this? Unfair competition or simply providing greater choice? Reinforcing Western liberal standards and dominance of English, or providing an internationalist orientation in an otherwise nationally oriented educational marketplace?
From the Times Higher Education rankings to endless other ranking systems with differing criteria, all universities now exist on a spectrum of ‘good’ to ‘bad’. Tokyo University may be Japan’s and East Asia best university but globally it is only 39th and within East Asia has now dropped from first to seventh. Are such rankings helpful? What are the metrics, and their power relations, used to calculate the rankings? Does it privilege English-speaking universities? Do they privilege the already powerful universities? Can, or should, the rankings be used to inform government policy?
If universities are global institutions, are they really ‘global’ in the fullest sense ie: allowing of all in the world to participate. Or are they instead echo chambers for the privileged to speak to each other and exclude the subaltern. Given the increasing costs of academic conferences, of access to global publishers, of costs to purchase academic research, the developing world is being left out of higher education’s increasingly expensive world. How, or should, this be resolved?
The US based Apollo Education Group, Inc. is a consortium of for-profit universities, representative of a private equity firm. The issue here is whether such corporate driven educational endeavors are a welcome addition to a diverse educational landscape, or manipulative bottom line hungry entities that care littler for educational outcomes or standards. Controversies surrounding Trump University can be referenced here.
In 1998 UNESCO issued the World Declaration on Higher Education For The Twenty-First Century: Vision and Action and Framework for Priority Action for Change and Development in Higher Education, at the World Conference on Higher Education. With the goal of establishing global standards for higher education and research. Is it possible to create such a global standard? Should UNESCO be doing such things? What impact did the declaration have?
‘Global’ in higher education inevitably means English. This topic focuses on the power dynamics of English as a global language, as it relates to higher education and globalization. English is the world’s language of business, of science, and also of research. What implications does this have? Does it privilege English speaking countries and disadvantage those that are not? Does it privilege students with wealthy parents who can provide them with second language starts in life? Should universities that are trying to be ‘global’ but which are not in English speaking countries, adopt English speaking campuses eg: as Akita University has done? What are the issues there?
Japan’s prime minister Abe seems to have been alarmed by Japan’s universities dropping in the global rankings, and has launched a renewal of the governments previous Global 30 project with the ‘super global daigaku’ project. Running from 2014 to 2023, 37 universities were selected and grouped into two classes, A & B. All sorts of issues surround why some universities were or were not chosen, and whether the project is really an attempt at re-invigorating Japan’s higher education or simply as way of saving money by reducing funding to only those already at the top (and focused heavily on research).