Macro level

In the past the decision to establish a presence overseas was motivated in part by prestige. US institutions of higher education wanted to maintain their reputation at home and expand it worldwide. This move also afforded American scholars the opportunity to study abroad and immerse themselves in a different culture while attending a US accredited university. Today, the move is driven by economic factors. In the face of shrinking enrolment figures at home, skyrocketing costs and tightening budgets [3] and heightened competition [4], US institutions of higher education are forced to look abroad for solutions.

Further, policy makers have long held to the position that international students either here or abroad enrol in American-model institutions to avail themselves of an education with uniquely American features. At a macro level, five such features are noteworthy: Curriculum standardization that supports seamless transfer across institutions; an internationally recognized accreditation system certifying high quality educational experiences and credible degree paths; the ability to innovate, inter alia, the flexibility and capacity to involve other community and nongovernmental institutions; the capacity to combine vocational and technical education rather than treating them as separate streams; and the multi-level educational system (2-year, 4-year and graduate education) that support variable access avenues to learning across the lifetime. Policy makers may well wish to consider parlaying these hallmarks in efforts to address the inevitability and imperative of globalization.

Inevitability of globalization

Globalization is broadly understood as being the removal of barriers to the movement of funds, services, goods and labor around the world. Along with this barrier removal come the introduction of common rules, policies and practices.

It is a human process that has started millennia ago. Today’s communications technology and international cooperation make it happen faster and in a more visible way. Thus, under the present circumstances, globalization is unavoidable. It is a strong wind that “…properly harnessed (can) provide the impetus for achieving the millennium development goals…” [5] and help in the “…fight to curb hunger…” [6], or may wipe out those who are unprepared [7]. In this paper this inevitability of globalization is taken as a fact. The immediate consequence is that education in general and higher education in particular has become a commodity, treated as any other services, potentially subject to the regulations of the trade organizations. There have been, and there will be further, endless debates as to the origins, impact and side effects of globalization on the various aspects of life. There have been optimists, who see globalization as innovation [8] and the only way out of the world’s multitude of crises. Others, however, view globalization as an imperial politico-economic design [9] that could lead to catastrophic outcomes [6] and as the latest version of anglobalization. In the US, higher education is one of the country’s largest service sector exports, contributing over $15.5 billion to the US economy [10].The World Trade Organization in its General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) has set out to specify the rules and conditions to liberalize and regulate trade in services, which include education. Negotiations are still ongoing and due to the complexities of the issues on the table and the number of nations involved (140) the possibility of a stalemate is real. What is at stake is the overhaul of all aspects of education as we know it. [11]

The current campus-based model

In response to the demand to open opportunities and widen access to higher education across the globe, AHE implemented a traditional industrial-university paradigm based upon transport and building technologies [12]. Defining characteristics of this model include the movement of students, faculty, and research projects across borders, and/or the establishment of branch campuses in other countries. In either case, the physical classroom continues to provide the foundation of the communication system for the educational experience. Citing the desirability of AHE, many foreign institutions also adopted this model. American-model higher education institutions overseas operate under a variety of structural and organizational models ranging from being regional, for profit or not for profit, public or private, to being an affiliate of an American university with zero to one hundred percent affiliation. Until the end of the last century, overseas-based AHE was represented abroad by notable institutions like the American University of Beirut, the American College of Greece, and the American University of Cairo; to mention a few. Also, there were a few true extensions of US-based universities like those of the Boston University in London and in Brussels. Irrespective of the operational model, the survival of these institutions depends not only on financial factors but also on political ones.

Until recently this approach was quite successful. The US experienced ongoing growth in international student enrolments. Concurrent with this growth was the rapid establishment of branch campuses and American-model institutions occurring after the mid-1990s. In 2005, the US and Australia shared the distinction of having the largest number of cross-border campuses [13]. Today, the entire globe is dotted with American-model institutions of higher education. Recognizing the inherent benefits of branch campuses in reducing the “brain drain” phenomenon, governments and quasi-governmental agencies in developing countries often provide significant financial incentives to US institutions. Ample evidence exists that the issues surrounding continued establishments of branch campuses are proving increasingly prohibitive to such ventures. Worth mentioning are two government-supported academic mega projects; the Qatar Foundation Education City in Doha, and the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, KAUST, in Saudi Arabia [14]. Education City is a major academic teaching centre in cooperation with Cornell University, Georgetown University, Carnegie Mellon, and others. KAUST will be a major academic research centre in cooperation with seven international institutions such as Stanford University, and KFUPM of Saudi Arabia. However, success for these projects can only be categorized as “pending”. In two other cases, success did not bloom. At the overseas campus of the George Mason University, GMU, in the UAE emirate of Ras Al Khaimah, the emirate discontinued its cooperation with GMU and soon after established its own university under the name the American University of Ras Al-Khaimah, carrying along the students, faculty and staff of the GMU extension. Johns Hopkins University is yet another example of a failed attempt by a US university to transnationalize via a branch campus [15]. While divergent reasons contributed to the failures, each case highlights the complexities of the issues and barriers associated with the current expansion paradigm.

Accreditation

Carried out within a comprehensive system of over 80 nonprofit, private organizations, US accreditation is undeniably unique and provides a prestigious imprimatur throughout the world. Nestled within this system, US branch campuses enjoy the associated cachet, whereas American-model universities may encounter significant barriers in attaining and maintaining these credentials. While many of the institutions exceed the posed requirements, a large number are no match to US based counterparts in terms of physical and policies infrastructure. Some foreign officials are moving to counter the trend of US accreditation. As an example, the result of recent reviews of 27 accredited business schools by South African officials found that seven did not meet minimum local standards despite the fact that several of those were US accredited. These findings confirm for some foreign officials that cross- border accreditors may lack an adequate understanding of local social, economic, and educational conditions.

While the Council for Higher Education Accreditation principles encourage US accreditors operating abroad to work closely with and seek information and guidance from local national accrediting agencies, many developing countries lack such an agency. Considering the complication of operating in a foreign educational environment, many US accreditors are reluctant to do so. The dearth of international accreditation standards presents perhaps the most fundamental of challenges in quality assurance in global education partly because quality and socio-cultural issues converge at the core of this dilemma. The quality benchmarks used by US agencies are based on national curricula and national standards which may or may not be applicable in other contexts. [12] In the absence of global standards, the value of regional and national accreditation will be quite limited in the global context.

Socio-cultural issues

The American dominant role in world affairs, often but erroneously, places American- model overseas educational institutions at “harms way”. In certain, xenophobic cultures and societies, such institutions are viewed as official American presence under cover, and while the institutional objectives are to offer the respective societies a window into the Western World, they are being viewed as a cultural invasion.

Fundamental questions focus on: Will the academic programs of American-model institutions reflect American cultures and values or will they adapt to reflect the local culture? Ancillary to this question is the following one – what does adaptation mean? Where does one draw the line between adaptation and censure? Who will be allowed to teach what, to whom and with what effect?

There is no quick solution to these issues. Face-to-face programs have to reflect the host county culture, values and customs to be successful. Yet, students and host country governments insist on getting the same programs and content as in the US. Finding such a balance requires effort and capital outlays that universities may not be ready or willing to embark on and may not be able to explore given current financial constraints.

Funding

Traditionally, in the United States, higher education funding has come from state governments for state universities, from tuition for private universities and from the federal government under research funding programs.

With the weakening economy, the prediction is that all fifty states are expected to face budget deficits by 2013 [16]. This will cause appropriation for higher education to suffer. Tuition has risen at alarming rates and there is a limit to how much higher tuition can rise without serious effects on enrolment. In retrospect, it is apparent that the higher education sector has weathered previous recessions reasonably well. This was due in part to the fact that higher education enrolment has a tendency to rise when the economy slumps. This time with budget cuts forcing universities to limit the number of students they admit and students reluctant and/or unable to secure loans to finance their education, the surge in enrolment has not materialized [17]. As funding becomes difficult to secure universities are becoming more innovative in seeking, earning as well as spending funds. Branding in the international arena a new university, or even a new program, is a very costly and long term endeavour. The current trends appear to be that elite universities, already enjoying a high level of fame, are entering the Higher Education international markets worldwide. Most such programs are established in the Middle East, China and countries that can afford to pay for them. This trend has not yet reached Africa on any significant scale. Within this context, there is a growing recognition that expanding traditional modes and provision of campus-based transnational education is unsustainable over time.