MCLC: Chinese universities attract foreigners (1)

[Denton, Kirk]

MCLC LIST
From: Joe Alvaro (jjalvaro at student.cityu.edu.hk)
Subject: Chinese universities attract foreigners (1)
*********************************************************

The following is from the 'Agora Report on China'. It makes an interesting
balance to the picture presented in the NYT article. It's the other side
of the coin. The full report can be found at:

http://academiccouncil.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/Agora-China-Repo
rt1.pdf

Joe 

========================================================

Removing the Rose-Tinted Spectacles
by Professor Ian Gow

³The Chinese no longer have to persuade, they seem to have everyone eating
out of their hands. The pull factor is being replaced by a push from the
foreign institutions. But we are not thinking sufficiently about how to
engineer a win-win situation.²

China: Threat or Opportunity?

Much of the discussion about China in the higher education sector is
missing the point. The reality is that when it comes to higher education,
China may be more of a threat than an opportunity. There is no question in
my mind that China is aiming to become - and is well on the way to
becoming - the new global hub for higher education. I am not saying that
we should not get involved with China. However, British institutions must
stop viewing this aggressively ambitious country through rose-tinted
spectacles. Make no mistake: China wants to be the leading power in higher
education, and it will extract what it can from the UK. In particular they
want to benefit from our strengths in science and technology, and to
absorb our talent and our intellectual property. I think handing over our
research in these key areas is incredibly naïve.

There is evidence that only top institutions in China will be allowed key
strategic partnerships and they will be urged to make all future
partnerships with top 20 foreign institutions. Meanwhile Chinese
universities are continually being instructed to increase modules and
degrees taught in English. This big push for institutions to switch to
teaching in English is not only a threat to our ability to recruit
students from Asia Pacific, but it also means westerners can now study in
English in China much more cheaply than they could here in the UK. Vice
chancellors have to be far more aware of China¹s plans for HE in English
and at least consider whether it is a threat or whether, by careful and
continual recalibrating, it can continue to be an opportunity.

UK institutions are rushing to partner with China but the risks are very
considerable. They are capable of gaining more from the partnerships than
we are if we do not do our homework properly and negotiate a win- win
situation. At present we may procure a short-term win, but without thought
will lose out in the end. It is not enough to hope it will all be ok in
the long-term.

Setting up a Campus: The Reality

Under 2003 law, joint foreign ventures must have at least a 50/50 control
share between China and the foreign institution. The president must also
be Chinese. However, the real issue is not the legal requirements, but the
fact that China frequently reinterprets what they mean. Plus they have
laws for Sino-foreign joint ventures but no enabling regulatory
frameworks, which means they default to the older higher education
regulatory systems where China has much more control. I think it is
unlikely that any other institution will negotiate the sort of freedom
that the University of Nottingham and the University of Liverpool
achieved. It is much more likely that institutions will come in and teach
and research what the Chinese want them toteach (science and technology)
and where they want them to teach it. Officials are keen to push all new
projects towards the under-developed Western provinces.

Many UK vice chancellors and other senior managers go over to China where
they are wined, dined and courted, and given the impression that this is a
wonderful place to work. They therefore tend to assume that everyone would
think that going to China to work would be very attractive. This is an
error. The day-to-day reality of working longer term in China is much
tougher. There is a world of difference between a brief senior management
tour and longer term working in China with all the difficulties that
entails.

The biggest single problem for any institution setting up a campus in
China is continually securing enough high quality staff able to teach in
English to the highest levels. Inevitably only a small number of people
will be excited about an opportunity to leave the UK to work in China.
Many academic staff do not want to work abroad at all, and some might like
an experience working elsewhere but would not go to China for ideological
reasons. Of those who might consider coming, some will have family
commitments that might prevent them. New campuses have to compete with
elite Chinese institutions for this limited pool of people. Generally it
is easier to persuade people to spend one semester in China for two or
three years, but this is not the vision that the Chinese have. Chinese
students (and their opinionated parents) want western faces if they are
paying the higher fees. The Chinese government want us to send our top
research staff ­ especially core research staff in the sciences ­ to work
full-time for three years or longer. There is a reluctance to let foreign
institutions hire Chinese academic staff, even if they are are outstanding
Chinese academics currently working at your home institution. Top research
academics who come to China have to carry out much more onerous and time
consuming academic administrative duties than back home, and therefore
their research output often suffers. When such stories are fed back to
colleagues in the UK it is inevitably off-putting.

Vice chancellors must be very careful not to get sucked in too quickly to
agreements. Often when confronted with the next stage they will find the
agreement has apparently changed - partners are very adept at changing
direction because ³Beijing said no². When the new venture has attracted
publicity, suddenly your exit costs become very high: you are risking
alienating a very powerful country and driving away Chinese students who
might come to your university. And withdrawal could mean a serious loss of
face for your vice chancellor. These costs are such that if things do not
go according to plan many institutions may have to stay in but with an
uncomfortable compromise. Most importantly universities need to remember
that in China the agreement is the beginning of the negotiation.

Helping the Competition?

There are certainly big opportunities in China. However, there is not
enough thought within institutions, government, or the Higher Education
Funding Council for England about how we protect our advantage. The
Chinese are expanding fast and we are rushing in to help them catch up and
possibly surpass us. They are working hard to stop student outflow and to
attract foreign students. The Tsinghua University masters programme in
Chinese law, which is taught in English, attracts more than half of its
students from abroad. Students can get MBAs or other masters or
undergraduate degrees for a lot less in China - enjoying a combination of
lower fees and a very low cost of living. These students will have the
added benefit of learning Chinese and making connections in one of the
world¹s most important countries. Another emerging issue that people are
missing altogether is the growing number of millionaire Chinese ex-pats
who may be keen to help set up Chinese campuses abroad.

We seem at times to be falling over ourselves to partner with China, but
in the process we are feeding a major competitor. It may be that we have
to do this in order to compete and collaborate. Yet there must be some
strategy to ensure that we can win. British universities should not be in
China as a government tool for furthering Sino-British relations. They
should have an eye on the competition, on their own reputation, and on
generating surpluses to develop their academic strengths further. Learning
to manage reputational and financial risk is paramount if British
institutions are to maintain or strengthen their global competitiveness.

Watching the new changes in the Sino-foreign higher education joint
venture legislation and its administrative guidance ­ and how they
interpret that legislation - is very worrying. The Chinese government are
allowing foreign partnerships, but with the Chinese institution very much
in control. The University of Nottingham¹s Ningbo campus and The
University of Liverpool¹s joint institution with Xi¹an Jiaotong University
are two brave attempts at partnership with China. Yet this is a model that
is unlikely to occur again, unless a world class US institution manages to
get through. The institutions currently negotiating entry will gain it on
Chinese terms, with the Chinese very much in control. The Chinese no
longer have to persuade, they seem to have everyone eating out of their
hands. The pull factor is being replaced by a push from the foreign
institutions. But we are not thinking sufficiently about how to engineer a
win-win situation: we are simply rushing to establish any sort of
partnership, to get out there. Unless emerging Sino-UK strategic alliances
are better thought through, British higher education could be sorry.