You can study abroad, except where you can’t: Uzbekistan restricts students from some Kyrgyz and Tajik universities
After a minor uproar over Uzbekistan’s February 2020 announcement that its students abroad should return home, the country’s latest announcement about where its citizens may (and may not) study abroad was unlikely to go unnoticed – even as regional travel remains restricted as a result of Covid-19.
A total of 16 universities – 8 each in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan – have been identified by the Uzbek government as not providing a sufficient quality education for the ‘level of demand in the Uzbek labour market’.
This recommendation was made on the basis of reseaarch commissioned by the Uzbek State Inspectorate for Education Quality Control of the government as well as on the universities’ test results.
The universities that Uzbek students are no longer to study at are:
- International University of Central Asia
- Kyrgyz-Uzbek University
- International Medical Higher School
- Kyzyl-Kia Pedagogical Institute at Batken State University
- Osh Humanities and Pedagogical Institute
- Jalalabad State University
- Osh State Law University
- Maylu-Suu Institute of Law and Government
- Tajik Open University
- Khujand State University
- Tajik State Pedagogical University
- Tajik Institute of Enterprise and Service
- Tajik Tax and Law Institute
- Tajik State University of Languages
- Kurgan Tyube State University
- Tajik State University of Law, Business and Politics
Some of the inferior institutions listed above are not a surprise (although this is the first I’ve heard of an Open University in Tajikistan, and I thought I had a pretty decent grasp of the country’s higher education sector) but others do raise eyebrows – Tajikistan’s teacher training (pedagogical) university certainly used to be among the best in the country. Perhaps – let’s hope – it is more a case of Uzbek teachers planning to teach the Uzbek curriculum in Uzbekistan needing to be trained in Uzbek universitires rather than their Tajik counterparts.
There weren’t any universities in Kazakhstan in the list, although some dissatisfaction was raised with the institutions that allow students to enrol without admissions exams and which are fully distance learning (i.e. beyond the current Covid-19 shift to remote higher education).
Overall, this is a rather dismal end of year report for Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan’s higher education institutions, despite the diplomatic language the recommendations are couched in.
It also highlights again the pivot Uzbekistan has been making away from its common Soviet past with its neighbours and towards a more global position in a seemingly relentlessly competitive world. As the report pointedly recommends, ‘it would be better for Uzbekistanis to study at universities in countries that are ranked higher in important university rankings’…
This is the excellent question posed by Khaidar Shodiev writing for Asia-Plus, the nearest thing Tajikistan has to an independent newspaper. Strictly speaking, the country’s higher education system is not entirely devoid of international universities, with the regional University of Central Asia’s campus in Khorog and three Russian branch campuses all in the capital Dushanbe.
But the bigger question Shodiev is asking in the article links to the broader systemic disincentives for foreign institutions to set up shop in Tajikistan on the one hand, and the lack of discernable will to fundamentally reform the education system from the Tajik government’s side. Yes, it’s accepted a heck of a lot of cash from the World Bank to implement the Bologna Process, but scratch the surface and most people will tell you that the so-called ‘transition’ to this series of European-inspired educational transformations is nowhere near getting off the ground.
The article can be found at https://asiaplustj.info/ru/news/tajikistan/society/20191204/pochemu-v-tadzhikistane-ne-otkrivayutsya-zarubezhnie-vuzi but in case the website gets blocked again, and for non-Russian readers, here it is below after an English translation by me.
Why are there no foreign universities in Tajikistan?
By Khaidar Shodiev
Tajikistan’s higher education institutions (HEIs) don’t fall into any of the university rankings, whether global or among the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Only one well-known foreign university has opened a branch in the country – Moscow State University.
Asia-Plus reports on why this is this case, and why the country is not rushing to increase the number of prestigious foreign universities.
Past the rankings
The well-known British newspaper Times Higher Education (THE) recently released its annual World University Rankings for 2019.
The top three universities in the world haven’t changed. For the third year in a row, the first place is held by Oxford University, which has the top indicators in research (quantity of research, research income and reputation). As before, second and third places are occupied by Cambridge University and the US’ Stanford University.
Of all the countries in the CIS, Russia has the most HEIs in the ranking with 35 contenders. Kazakhstan is the Central Asian leader with 10 HEIs in the QS international education ranking. No HEIs in Tajikistan were listed in these international rankings.
What are the reasons for this state of affairs?
“If you are talking about the criteria that are used to compile international rankings, then this is first of all about scientific (research) output and the quality of teaching,” says Ilhom Kamolzoda, head of the department of international affairs at the Ministry of Education and Science.
“The level of research is measured by the quality and quantity of articles that are published in top international journals that are included in the Scopus citation database. Following that, the rankings measure the ratio of teaching staff to students, the number of international students and faculty, and so on.”
Kamolzoda noted that Tajikistan is currently in transition to the Bologna system of education.
“Furthermore, for HEIs in the country to be recognized in international rankings, degree programs need to undergo international accreditation. And of course, as I’ve already noted, more high-quality research and training of highly qualified professionals to an international standard are necessary. Work on this is ongoing,” he says.
“The old school has fallen but a new one hasn’t yet been formed”
Education expert Bakhtiyor Asliddinov believes we need to dig deeper to find the reason for the current state of affairs in the country’s higher education.
“After the fall of the USSR, the single education system collapsed, and links between HEIs in the former Soviet republics were lost,” he says.
“The situation was exacerbated by the events of the 90s [ES note: the civil war from 1992-97] as a result of which thousands of academics, researchers and lecturers fled Tajikistan. Universities like Tajik Technical University, the Polytechnic and the Medical Institute – which had been well known in the Soviet Union – lost many of their best people. The old school fell and a new one hasn’t yet formed.”
Bakhtiyor Asliddinov also explains that in its drive to increase quantity, the Ministry of Education and Science has been unable to assure the quality of education in many HEIs. This has also led to declining education quality in his opinion.
“Previously in Tajikistan there were around 10 HEIs. Now there are over 30. Previously, each course had three cohorts (per year) and now there are up to 10 and sometimes more. How do you find qualified candidates for all these HEIs with such large numbers of students? How much are these degree programs in demand? Is work available for all graduates? I don’t think these questions will find answers for some time,” the expert says.
According to Asliddinov, beyond these factors, the quality of secondary [high] school education also needs to be taken into account: how can you get a high quality higher education if the secondary level leaves much to be desired?
“For our universities to be part of the global higher education landscape and for graduates to be desirable to employers, this education issue needs to be dealt with holistically,” he noted.
Foreign universities: To be or not to be?
The establishment of branches of well-known international HEIs in a country is a common practice around the world.
In recent years, our neighbours have been actively working on this. The number of foreign branch campuses has begun to grow in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, and in Uzbekistan their number has grown three times in the last two years, and now there are 21 of them!
The situation changed at the end of 2017 when the government of Uzbekistan decided to fundamentally reform the education system in the country. It announced a five-year moratorium on all forms of taxes as well as exemption from mandatory contributions to state funds for foreign branch campuses. Furthermore, branch campuses do not have to pay the single social payment and income tax on foreign individuals working at the HEI. After this, the number of foreign branch campuses grew dramatically.
In Tajikistan today there are just three Russian branch campuses: Moscow State University, the National University of Science and Technology MISIS (Moscow Institute of Steel and Alloys), and the National Research University MEU (Moscow Power Engineering).
The Ministry of Education and Science has not indicated whether there are plans to open additional branch campuses of Western or Asian universities. The government did agree that a campus of the Malaysian Limkokwing University of Creative Technology could open in Bokhtar in 2013, but that project has yet to come to fruition.
“There are particular difficulties,” explains Ilhom Kamolzoda, “largely due to the fact that Western branch campuses teach in English. Applicants are required to confirm their language proficiency by passing an IELTS exam. This would require a lot of preparation of facilities, teachers, completion of the transition of the education system to meet international standards, and much more.”
“For these reasons, I believe that it’s too early to open Western branch campuses here. But we are moving in that direction. At the moment, high school graduates have the opportunity to study abroad and over 35,000 of our citizens are studying in 40 countries.”
Competition shouldn’t be alarming
“The opening of well-known Western and Asian branch campuses will help increase the level of education and the image of Tajikistan, which at the same time will turn into an international education centre for the region. This could attract international students and researchers and overall, enhance the opportunities for international investment in Tajikistan,” believes Makhmadsalim Abdukarimov, Acting Deputy Director of Moscow State University in Dushanbe.
“As is known, we already have experience of opening such branch campuses,” said Abdukarimov. “For example, our campus in Dushanbe has been operating successfully for nearly 10 years, and it attracts experienced global authorities in research and teaching. Our students have the opportunity to do placements at the main university in Moscow.”
“Moscow State University graduates have a good education toolkit and are able to continue their studies or find work even in developed countries. For example, our graduate Farangis Umedzoda was accepted to study for a Master’s degree at Oxford University.”
According to Abdukarimov, there are many educational establishments in the country that teach in English. Graduates of these schools can be potential students of Western branch campuses in Tajikistan.
“Moreover, there will be competition between our HEIs and the foreign branch campuses, and this shouldn’t alarm local teachers. On the contrary, it’s all for the good of our education system. Another advantage of opening foreign branch campuses is that they are more affordable. For example, at the Moscow State branch in Dushanbe, the annual fees are $1,400.”
“Now try to imagine how much money a Tajik student would need if he or she studies in Moscow – for fees, living costs, food and much more. Using the educational experience of leading world universities and their potential is a sign of the times. And the sooner we start this process, the faster we will make progress in our education system.”
Почему в Таджикистане не открываются зарубежные вузы?
Автор: Хайдар Шодиев
Таджикские высшие учебные заведения не входят в рейтинг лучших университетов не только мира, но и стран СНГ. А филиалов известных зарубежных вузов в стране, по сути, только один – МГУ.
С чем это связано и почему в республике не спешат увеличить количество престижных иностранных вузов – в материале «АП».
Недавно известный британский журнал Times Higher Education (THE) опубликовал очередной ежегодный рейтинг университетов мира THE World University Rankings-2019.
Первая тройка университетов-лидеров в мире не изменилась. Первое место в рейтинге уже третий год подряд занимает Оксфордский университет, имеющий также самые лучшие показатели исследовательской деятельности (объем исследований, поступления от исследовательской деятельности и репутация). На втором и третьем местах по-прежнему остаются Кембриджский университет и Стэнфордский университет США соответственно.
Среди стран СНГ больше всего представлены вузы России – 35. В Центральной Азии лидирует Казахстан – 10 вузов страны входят в международный образовательный рейтинг QS. Вузы Таджикистана в международные рейтинги не попали.
В чём же причины подобного положения дел?
– Если говорить о критериях, которые учитываются при составлении мировых рейтингов, то это в первую очередь, научные труды и качество преподавания, – говорит начальник управления международных связей Министерства образования и науки Таджикистана Илхом Камолзода.
– Уровень научных исследований, в свою очередь, измеряется количеством и качеством научных статей, которые были опубликованы в ведущих научных журналах мира, включенных в международную реферативную базу данных Scopus.
Следующие параметры – это соотношение количества преподавателей по отношению к студентам, число иностранных студентов и преподавателей и т.д.
Камолзода отметил, что Таджикистан в настоящее время находится в периоде перехода на Болонскую систему образования.
– Кроме того, для признания вузов страны в мировом рейтинге, нужно провести международную аккредитацию специальностей наших вузов. Ну и, конечно же, как я уже указал, нужно проводить больше качественных научных исследований, готовить высококвалифицированные кадры мирового уровня. Работа в этом направлении ведётся, – говорит он.
«Старая школа распалась, новая ещё не сформировалась»
Эксперт в области образования Бахтиёр Аслиддинов считает, что причину нынешнего положения дел с отечественным высшим образованием нужно искать глубже.
– После распада СССР разрушилась единая система образования, были утрачены связи между вузами бывших советских республик, – говорит он.
– Усугубили ситуацию события 90-х, из-за которых Таджикистан покинули тысячи научных работников, ученых, преподавателей вузов. Такие известные в Союзе и за её пределами вузы республики как ТГУ им. Ленина, Политехнический и Медицинский институты лишились многих своих лучших кадров. Старая школа распалась, а новая еще не сформировалась.
Падение качества образования Бахтиёр Аслиддинов объясняет еще и тем, что в погоне за количеством руководство Минобрнауки не смогло обеспечить качественное образование во многих вузах.
– Раньше в республике было около десяти высших учебных заведений. Сейчас их более тридцати. На каждом курсе раньше было по три группы, сейчас их до десяти и более. Где найти квалифицированные кадры для всех этих вузов с огромным количеством студентов? Насколько востребованы все эти специальности, смогут ли обеспечить работой всех выпускников? Эти вопросы ещё долго не найдут ответа, – говорит специалист.
По его словам, помимо всего вышесказанного, невозможно получить качественное высшее образование, если среднее оставляет желать лучшего.
– Чтобы наши университеты котировались в мире, а выпускники были желанными работниками, нужно решать образовательную проблему в комплексе, – отметил он.
Зарубежные вузы: быть или не быть?
Открытие филиалов известных зарубежных вузов в стране – часто применяемая практика в сфере образования в мире.
В последние годы в этом направлении активно работают и наши соседи. Так, число филиалов зарубежных вузов начало расти в Казахстане, Кыргызстане, а в Узбекистане их число увеличилось за последние два года в три раза, и сейчас их там – 21!
Ситуация изменилась в конце 2017 года, когда правительство Узбекистана решило коренным образом улучшить систему образования в стране, и объявило о пятилетнем освобождении иностранных вузов от уплаты всех видов налогов и обязательных отчислений в государственные фонды. Им также разрешили не платить единый социальный платеж, и налог на доходы физлиц, в части оплаты труда иностранных работников. После этого число зарубежных филиалов резко возросло.
В Таджикистане на сегодня действуют филиалы лишь трех российских вузов – филиалы Московского государственного университета имени М.В. Ломоносова и Национального исследовательского технологического университета «МИСиС» (Московский институт стали и сплавов), а также Национального исследовательского университета «МЭИ» (Московский энергетический институт).
Об открытии в Таджикистане престижных вузов западных или азиатских стран, пока сообщений со стороны Минобрнауки не было, если не считать решения правительства страны об открытии Малайзиского университета креативных технологий Лимкоквинг в Бохтаре в 2013 году. Но этот проект так и остался невыполненным.
– Есть определенные трудности, – поясняет Илхом Камолзода. – Во многом это связано с тем, что обучение в филиалах вузов западных стран ведется на английском языке. Абитуриенты обязаны подтвердить уровень владения языком, сдав международный экзамен IELTS. Нужно подготовить базу, кадры, завершить переход системы образования на международные стандарты и многое другое.
По этим причинам, на мой взгляд, сейчас рано открывать вузы западных стран у нас. Но мы идем к этому. Пока же у выпускников школ республики есть возможность обучения в зарубежных вузах, выезжая из страны. Так, на сегодня свыше 35 тысяч наших граждан учатся за рубежом в 40 странах.
Конкуренция не должна тревожить
– Открытие филиалов известных вузов Запада и Азии будет способствовать повышению уровня образования и имиджа Таджикистана, который таким образом превратится в образовательный международный центр региона, сможет привлечь зарубежных студентов, иностранных специалистов, и в целом, будет способствовать привлечению иностранных инвестиций в РТ, – считает заместитель исполнительного директора Филиала МГУ им.Ломоносова в Душанбе Махмадсалим Абдукаримов.
– У нас, как известно, уже есть опыт открытия подобных филиалов, – говорит специалист. – Например, наш вуз вот уже 10 лет успешно ведет свою деятельность в Душанбе, к нам приезжают опытные, авторитетные в мире науки и образования преподаватели, наши студенты имеют возможность практиковаться в головном вузе в Москве.
Выпускники филиала МГУ имеют достаточный багаж образования, чтобы продолжить учебу или работать даже в развитых странах мира. Так, например, выпускница нашего вуза Фарангис Умедзода поступила в магистратуру Оксфордского университета.
По словам Абдукаримова, в республике много образовательных учреждений, где обучение проводится на английском языке. Выпускники этих школ могут стать потенциальными студентами западных вузов в республике.
– Кроме того, будет конкуренция между нашими вузами и филиалами зарубежных вузов, и она не должна тревожить местных преподавателей. Наоборот, это только на пользу нашей образовательной системе. Другое преимущество открытия филиалов зарубежных вузов – более доступная цена. Например, в филиале МГУ в Душанбе годовая оплата за обучение – $1400.
А теперь представьте, сколько денег нужно таджикскому студенту, чтобы он прошел обучение в Москве – за учебу, общежитие, питание и многое другое. Использование образовательного опыта ведущих университетов мира, их потенциал – требование времени. И чем раньше мы наладим этот процесс, тем быстрее достигнем прогресса в образовательной системе.
In 2019, over 25,000 international students chose to study abroad in Kazakhstan. This figure is up from 16,000 last year, an impressive year-on-year increase of 64%.
According to the Ministry of Education and Science, most international students come from India, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia.
The Ministry believes that one reason for the growth is that universities in Kazakhstan have been given greater academic freedom including the ability to offer double degrees i.e. degrees jointly offered by a university in Kazakhstan and one abroad. The implication of this shift is that international students may be more attracted to study in Kazakhstan on the basis that they’ll end up not only with a degree from the Kazakh side, but from its foreign partner too.
Impressive as these figures are, they pale in comparison to the 70,000 Kazakh students who are currently studying outside the country. Most of them – as is the case with many other former Soviet countries – head to Russia.
Thus, for the time being, Kazakhstan remains a net exporter of international students, despite aspirations to become a regional education hub.
The number of international students around the world is on the increase (see UNESCO graph for growth from 2011-17), and has now reached five million people.
Whilst there are major disparities in the desinations chosen by international students (Anglophone/former colonial nations top the list) and the resources they need to get there (the more financial/social capital your family has, the easier it is for you to become internationally mobile), one remarkable trend is that international students are now drawn from every country in the world.
That includes the former Soviet space, where student mobility until 1991 allowed travel only as far as Moscow, Leningrad (St Petersburg), Novosibirsk and a handful of other academic centres in the Soviet Union. Students could travel between republics but the idea of getting a degree from outside the communist space was out of the question.
In the nearly 30 years since the fall of the Soviet Union, that picture has changed dramatically. Long term readers of my blog will remember the results of a survey I did of international students from Tajikistan who had ended up far and wide, from the UK to Uruguay, from Slovakia to Singapore.
In revisiting the survey data for a new paper I am working on and will present at CHER in August 2019, I took the opportunity to look at longitudinal trends across the former Soviet space. Using data from UNESCO’s Institute for Statistcs, the graph below shows how patterns have changed since 1998 (the point at which data starts to become more reliable) across 14 of the 15 Soviet republics (there’s no data for Moldova). There are three time points over roughly ten year periods – 1998, 2008 and 2017, the latest data that is available.
The overall picture is of dramatic growth: if there were 120,000 international students leaving this region in 1998, that number had leaped to almost half a million by 2017. That’s an impressive increase of 265%!
As the graph shows, Kazakhstan now sends nearly 100,000 students abroad, a much higher number than second placed Ukraine (coming up for 80,000). And both those countries send significantly more students to other countries than Russia (not quite 60,000) despite Russia’s population being more than three times bigger than Ukraine’s and about six times higher than in Kazakhstan.
The big picture inevitably hides the array of scenarios seen in different countries at different points. In the last 10 years, for example, the number of intenrational students leaving Uzbekistan has been relatively flat, increasing by just 5%. Compare that to much larger increases in other countries such as Azerbaijan (475%) and Turkmenistan (550%). Over the period since 1998, the lowest growth in the number of international students has been from Estonia (up 20%), dwarfed by enormous increases in Tajikistan which are over 1,400%!
That’s a very quick analysis of some extremely interesting similarities and differences between these 14 countries. The aim was to make these numbers available in an accessible format and hopefully to inspire some curiosity to ask why we see these trends, and to think about how these might change over the next ten years.
Everyone’s at it these days – internationalization of higher education, that is. Internationalization is a loose enough term that it can encompass a wide range of activities, from attracting more international students to redesigning the curriculum to incorporate a broader array of global perspectives.
Higher education systems in the Central Asian countries have dutifully leaped onto the internationalization bandwagon since obtaining independence in 1991. The last decade has seen a particular uptick in activity, although in Kazakhstan this can be dated back even further to the late 1990s.
Prominent features of internationalization in Central Asia are similar to trends found in other countries that have been paying greater attention to global higher education in recent years. These include:
- Inviting foreign universities to open branch campuses – Russian institutions lead the way in Central Asia, but Uzbekistan has been incredibly open to invitations from all over the world of late;
- Joining the Bologna Process, the European Union led initiative seeking to harmonize systems and qualifications to enable greater transferability across Europe (and now beyond);
- Seeking to position a country as a regional education hub;
- Attracting international students and faculty members.
A recent conference in Kyrgyzstan [ru] sought to tease out some of the challenges and opportunities faced as the country continues its internationalizing path in higher education.
An interview [ru] with Rector of ADAM University and higher education expert Dr Svetlana Sirmbard revealed two interesting emerging trends for Kyrgyzstan. The first of these is the development of double degrees, degrees taught and certified equally by two universities in different countries. Sirmbard offers double degrees as a cost-effective alternative to studying for a degree abroad, noting that an increasing number are organized not by two universities but by a larger consortium, allowing each to draw on its strengths and tap into the resources already available elsewhere.
The second area for development noted by Sirmbard is digitalization. Thus, we should expect to see further expansion of online learning that will widen access to highier education (for those with good internet connections) – especially women at home with young children, Sirmbard suggests. Massive open online courses (MOOCs), which took off in a big way in English speaking countries a few years ago, will also be in the pipeline for Kyrgyzstan.
A challenge that remains as Kyrgyzstan – and indeed, other countries around the world – continue their drive to internationalize is how to ensure that the opportunities opened up internationalization are available to everyone. Online learning and MOOCs are two ways to open or extend access to higher education, but as Dr Sirmbard notes, challenges remain for students with additional needs, whether as a result of disabilities or other issues. Really emphasizing the importance of ensuring internationalization is maximally inclusive will be where value can really be added for higher education.
If you’re excited by internationalization and its possible futures, let me offer a quick plug for a conference I am co-organizing on exactly this topic. Being held at the University of Toronto on June 24-25, Shaping Sustainable Futures for Internationalization in Higher Education has an excellent line-up of no fewer than 36 workshops, roundtables, sharing circles and panels along with three exceptional keynote speakers. Registration for the conference is open and I hope you will consider joining us!
If you should find yourself in Pittsburgh, PA, today – October 27, 2018 – please join us at the Central Eurasian Studies Society’s 2018 Annual Conference for our roundable on Global Bolognaization: Central Asian Encounters with the European Higher Education Area.
Followers of my blog may remember the call for proposals that co-convenor Aliya Akatayeva and I put out at the end of last year when we first started planning the roundtable. We had an excellent response and our original line-up of panellists included colleagues from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan (and me!) all ready to share experiences and analyses of the impact of the European Union inspired Bologna Process reforms on higher education in Central Asia.
At our roundtable today, we will be taking three directions of travel to reflect the research and experiences of the three panellists who will be present:
Professor Gulnara Mendikulova, a distinguished scholar of Kazakh and world history, will set the general scene for the roundtable, considering questions such as: what is the history of the Bologna Process across Central Asia? What were the drivers for Kazakhstan to adopt the Bologna Process? What have been the challenges and opportunities presented by the reforms?
Aliya Akatayeva, Head of the Social Studies Department at Satbayev University (Kazakhstan), will focus on the knotty issue of academic freedom. Whilst academic freedom – including autonomy for universities – is a core value of the European Union higher education ‘package’, there are a number of tensions and challenges in embedding this broad principle in Kazakhstan. As one of the universities in the country that has been given some degree of autonomy under a 2017 law, she will offer a case study of the journey of Satbayev University towards academic freedom.
I will discuss Tajikistan, not (yet) a signatory to the Bologna Process but aspiring to follow in the footsteps of Kazakhstan and become one. By highlighting findings from in-depth interviews in two cities in the country, I will draw out the experiences of some of the faculty members who are on the front line in living with the new higher education reforms. Whilst many are positive about the potential of related changes to the curriculum on the quality of the learning experience, others expressed resistance and resentment towards a series of changes they felt they were not consulted on or given time to adapt to.
We’d love to see you at the roundtable – 11am today in Posvar 4217!
I realized I didn’t blog about a recently published article I co-authored with Prof Creso Sá, my supervisor at the University of Toronto. How remiss of me! (?!)
So, let me tell you about our article, The politics of the great brain race: Public policy and international student recruitment in Australia, Canada, England and the USA, which was published in leading journal Higher Education in February 2018.
For regular readers of the blog, the first thing you may notice is that this is not about Central Asia or indeed anywhere in the former Soviet space. Keep breathing!
The rationale for looking in depth at Australia, England, Canada and the US, four majority Anglophone jurisdictions, was based on their historic ability to attract significant numbers of international students – just under 40% of the world’s total in 2015. The fact that all have similar linguistic and cultural characteristics in their higher education systems was a deliberate choice to compare similar cases (take a look at this article by Chris Pickvance for more on types of comparative analysis).
We wanted to find out how governments in these four jurisdictions have used public policy to deal with (I wouldn’t go as far as to say ‘manage’) international students in the period 2000-2016. To do this, we looked at legislation that had been passed, new programmes, and other policy changes. Overall, I read somewhere around 200 articles, books, reports and other publications to learn more about student mobility in the four case study jurisdictions.
A nice addition to this was a comprehensive table I compiled that gives you a side-by-side comparison across the four jurisdictions in the policy areas of immigration, labour market, family and health, finance, education and quality assurance, and promotion/marketing. So if you want to know, for example, which is the only jurisdiction that has legislation protecting the (financial) rights of international students, check it out!
Creso has written up a very nice summary of our findings in the most recent issue of International Higher Education. This is open access and the article, with the excellent title, Forget the Competition Trope, can be downloaded here.
The title of his piece makes the key idea pretty clear. As he notes in the article (page 11):
we argue that none of these major countries have dealt coherently with international student attraction and retention. Furthermore, the long-term outlook required to cope with the assumed global competition for students is glaringly absent.
International student growth has been fairly consistent over the 16 years we studied (despite the odd dip e.g. after violence against a small number of students from South Asia studying in Australia).
That was a real surprise to us.
Not only is policy towards international students fragmented across a range of goverment ministries and agencies, but there were no clear patterns of governments facilitating international student mobility. This is not the kind of behaviour you would expect to see of a truly competitive jurisidiction engaging in the so-called ‘great brain race’.
This led us to the conclusion that international student enrolments are likely to continue to grow and that this happens despite not because of political and policy changes.
This article was the result of a nine month long project funded by the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities under their OHCRIF scheme. Miigwetch / Thanks / Merci!
Sá, Creso M. 2018. “Forget the Competition Trope.” International Higher Education 0 (95): 11–12.
Seminar // March 5, 2018 // Comparing internationalization in higher education in Tajikistan and Iraq, plus other papers
I’m delighted to invite you to a seminar I have organized being held on Monday March 5, 2018 from 11.30am-1pm in Toronto and also livestreamed online.
The seminar showcases some of the student research on internationalization in higher education being done at my faculty, OISE, that will be presented at the prestigious Comparative & International Education Society Annual Conference in late March.
It’s an opportunity for us to give our presentations a trial run and get your feedback, and for you to learn about our research without travelling all the way to Mexico City where the conference is being held!
There will be four presentations, each lasting 15 minutes, with a question and answer session at the end moderated by OISE faculty member Dr Elizabeth Buckner.
I will be giving a presentation with Hayfa Jafar on our brand new study Iraq and Tajikistan, two countries where dramatic political, social and economic changes have taken place over the last 30 years. As these two states recover from the impact of conflict and international isolation, spaces are being created for higher education to open up and (re)connect with the international academic community. In our study, we look closely at internationalization of higher education as a symbol of change by examining and comparing the experiences of academics in both countries.
The other presentations, detailed in the poster below, take us on a global journey through the liberal arts curriculum in China’s Christian universities, the intersection of regionalization with internationalization in Chile and Brazil, and the experiences of leaders of internationalization in Ontario universities.
It promises to be a fascinating session and I hope you can join us. If you are in Toronto, the seminar is in room 7-105 at OISE (address in the poster below). If you would like to join us online, go to https://classroom.oise.utoronto.ca/cidec (enter as a Guest).
Test your connection ahead of time at https://admin.adobeconnect.com/common/help/en/support/meeting _test.htm
If you’re the Kazakh state, the answer is an obvious “yes”. No details have yet to emerge from the Centre for International Programmes, the government agency tasked with internationalizing Kazakh higher education, but you can bet that if the public policy agenda is leading in this direction, it won’t be long before the hub becomes a reality.
Higher education hubs have been successfully created in the Middle East (Dubai is a great example) and South-East Asia (Malaysia is another success story), and create special spaces for foreign universities to set up a branch campus or partner with a local university. Thus, students in the hub country and its neighbours can study for an overseas degree without leaving the region.
This has many advantages for students – hub-based campuses tend to offer a similar quality of education for a fraction of the regular tuition fee ticket, and with all the benefits of not having to travel far.
For the host country, acting as a hub can bring economic benefit by attracting more international students and staff/faculty, and enhance the country’s reputation through the legitimacy generated by the international universities. For Kazakhstan, reputation really matters and I imagine this would be seen by the state as a major benefit to creating an education hub.
This year, 14,000 international students are already studying in Kazakhstan, mainly coming from neighbouring countries. At the same time, 70,000 Kazakh students are studying abroad – not quite 10% of the total student population of a little under 650,000 – and there are plans to make the renowned Bolashak Scholarship more accessible in the coming years.
Interestingly, it was neighbouring Kyrgyzstan that until recently seemed the most likely Central Asian country to set up a regional education hub. In the 2000s, Kyrgyzstan was hosting up to ten times more international students each year than Kazakhstan, despite a population seven times smaller.
A 2012 study by Nurbek Jenish found that relatively low tuition fees and a low cost of living were the main reasons that international students head to Kyrgyzstan. International students – mainly from Central and South Asian countries – also perceived the quality of higher education and the opportunity to study in Russian or English to be beneficial, as well as the perception that admission requirements were soft.
But it is dynamic Kazakhstan that now appears to be running with the hub idea. This is not just because of the economic and reputational benefits, although those are evidently highly influential policy considerations. As Zhanbolat Meldeshov, President of the Centre for International Programs, pithily puts it:
«Студенческая и академическая мобильность, это мировой тренд в эпоху глобализации. Нельзя остановить этот процесс, можно только в нем активно участвовать.»
“Student and academic mobility is a global trend in the era of globalization. It’s impossible to stop this process, so you can only actively participate.”
This is another classic example of Kazakhstani policy pragmatism: if you can’t beat them, join them… and ultimately seek to beat them at their own game.
New education research on Central Asia – “Reverse Flow in Academic Mobility from Core to Periphery: Motivations of International Faculty Working in Kazakhstan” by Jack Lee and Aliya Kuzhabekova
This is the second in an occasional series on the blog called New education research on Central Asia. In this series, I review new books/book chapters and journal articles written about education in Central Asia. My aims are to raise awareness of these new publications and offer a summary of the key points and my views on the piece.
If you would like to suggest a publication for review – or would like to review something yourself for this blog – please use the Comments section underneath this post to get in touch.
I’m very pleased to review (and recommend) a new article by Jack T. Lee (now at University of Bath, UK) and Aliya Kuzhabekova (Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan) called Reverse flow in academic mobility from core to periphery: motivations of international faculty working in Kazakhstan.
Lee and Kuzhabekova used to work together at Nazarbayev University and this article is the result of a Kazakh Ministry of Education and Science funded research project they undertook to interview international faculty members working in Kazakhstan.
The article seeks to answer two questions:
- What factors persuade faculty members to relocate to Kazakhstan for full-time employment?
- What types of individuals pursue this relocation?
Using a well-recognized “push-pull” framework to analyse the reasons that faculty are pushed from their home country to work in Kazakhstan and pulled towards Kazakhstan, the authors identify the following motivational factors amongst their interview participants:
- Job market – lack of employment opportunities in home context, (for junior scholars) avoid a post-doctoral position or contract position;
- Unsatisfactory work conditions – mismatch between academic’s interests and that of their previous institution, workplace bullying, desire for greater freedom/creativity;
- Age and marital status – youth and lack of family obligations (those in their 20s and 30s), good health and grown up children who have left home (older participants), purposefully seeking international/intercultural experience for children (30s and 40s).
- Salary – whilst not the most important pull factor, a decent financial package acts as a good incentive to move;
- Adventure – wanting to explore a new geographic context, curiosity about Kazakhstan;
- Institution building – opportunity to engage meaningfully in building something new, from a new program through to a new university;
- Research opportunities – especially important for junior scholars and regional experts.
These factors are largely in line with findings from other studies, which Lee and Kuzhabekova review very helpfully in the literature review section.
The article adds to our understanding of recent trends in internationalization in higher education in three ways:
Firstly, Lee and Kuzhabekova are very clear that the push and pull factors they identify should not be viewed in isolation. They recognize that “a person’s reasons for mobility are often enmeshed with other push and pull factors” (p. 8) and thus a more nuanced analysis is critical. They very skilfully demonstrate the need for this nuance when they discuss the push factor of age and marital status, which as the bullet point above demonstrates, they break down by different groups.
Secondly, in the Discussion section, they bring up two extremely pertinent points which I think are worthy of further resarch (both p.14). The authors suggest that the era of “permanence”, when academics remained at one university or country for their entire career, is now far less common. This fluidity is driven at least as much by universities as by individual faculty members, they suggest.
They then ask whether “Perhaps international faculty mobility is a rite of passage for contemporary academics rather than a voluntary pursuit?” This is a great question and I would be curious to know how this might be addressed in future studies.
Thirdly, although the authors begin by emphasizing Kazakhstan as a “peripheral” country in the world system (partly, I think, to show the novelty of their research), they nevertheless treat Kazakhstan as a serious player in higher education. I applaud all efforts seeking to move beyond the notion of North/South, developed/developing (etc) because I feel that these binaries strongly limit our ability to understand and analyse the contemporary world.
This sentence in the conclusion suggests a future research agenda that continues to raise Kazakhstan’s visibility and explore what we can learn from policymaking in the country: “While Kazakhstan may not be very visible in the international arena, the country touts a dynamic policymaking landscape that affirms a strong desire to change and improve society.”
Lacking in the article is any discussion of the social and political situation of Kazakhstan, and the impact this may have on faculty members’ decision to move and then stay in the country. This is hinted at e.g. on p.7 when they mention “a largely traditional Kazakhstan” in the context of faculty marital status, but not fleshed out. Recent reports on global student mobility show that domestic politics does make a difference: applications from European Union students are down in Brexit-era Britain; applications to study in Trump-era USA are also down – and I would be surprised if faculty members were totally unaffected by this broader context.
However, I am told by one of the authors (personal correspondence) that the reason this is not raised in the article is that none of the 50+ participants raised the social or political dimension of Kazakhstan when asked about motivations for moving there.
Overall, however, this article is a solid contribution to the literature and an excellent addition to English language studies of contemporary higher education in Kazakhstan. As an open access article, the full text is available to download (see link below) and I hope you will enjoy reading it too.
Lee, Jack T., and Aliya Kuzhabekova. 2017. “Reverse Flow in Academic Mobility from Core to Periphery: Motivations of International Faculty Working in Kazakhstan.” Higher Education, November. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0213-2.