promoting effective co- and self-regulation. The task and finish group proposes that HEFCE evolves to take on this wider role and supports the HEC proposal to rename HEFCE the Council for HigherEducation, set out in their report on highereducationregulation. We would point out, however, that this change will need to reflect the continuation of its specifically English role. This would mean renaming HEFCE the Council for HigherEducation England (CHEE). We would stress the importance of HEFCE’s continued public funding role for teaching, research and knowledge transfer. We see no valid reason why roles for regulation and strategic funding for teaching and research cannot sit side by side. Indeed, this avoids duplication of requirements and accountability from separate bodies. In making this shift we would stress the importance of maintaining the current effective HEFCE operating culture that is based around constructive dialogue and appropriate escalation of issues and concerns. Legislative change will be required to establish CHEE’s remit and close scrutiny should be given to defining and limiting its powers to maintain an arms-length relationship and protect institutional autonomy.
17. A key milestone in promoting the work of the Group during the past year was the Concordat Workshop held on 16 May 2007. This brought together signatories to the Concordat, potential signatories, and other key stakeholders including a representative of UUK. The Group was grateful to the Minister of State for Lifelong Learning, Further and HigherEducation, Bill Rammell, for delivering a keynote address to open the Workshop and to Ruth Thompson, the Director General for HigherEducation within DfES (now DIUS), for chairing it. The event provided an opportunity for all those present to discuss their progress in implementing the Concordat, to identify issues still needing to be addressed, and to exchange ideas with others. A report of the Workshop can be found on the HERRG
institution as equivalent to their own and thus allow it to award their qualification (this latter modality was found only in Russia).
Twinning and joint study programmes cover very different realities in the case countries; only those countries such as Oman, which directly encourage their provision, have detailed information on such programmes. Most countries have only scattered knowledge on such provision. Chile mentions that many twinning programmes are organized under an ‘academic umbrella’ of a licensed local university, but they are often not equivalent to those offered in the home country, and are also frequently not recognized by the foreign country. In some cases, students are required to travel to the provider institution for a specific period of time. In Chile, most twinning programmes (32 out of 45) were of the Master’s level, only seven were located at the diploma level, and the other ones were at the PhD level. Joint degree programmes, where two highereducation institutions commit themselves to grant a double degree, were perceived by case-study authors as more reliable arrangements from a qualitative point of view.
The growing presence and transient nature of for-profit highereducation institutions in the United States (US) pose governance and regulatory challenges for bureaucratic structures, legislatures and non-profit postsecondary institutions. One such challenge is the perceived lack of governance and regulation of for-profit highereducation institutions. The inability of data to meet the assumptions of both multiple linear regression and Poisson regression required utilization of ordinal logistic regression to investigate the impact of the highereducation regulatory environment (independent variables) in the US on the presence of for-profit highereducation institutions (dependent variable). The study found that state highereducation governance structure and two regional accrediting agencies influence the prevalence of for-profit colleges and universities. These findings suggest that policies that support the growth of for-profit highereducation institutions as part of state economic development goals undermine policies that attempt to regulate highereducation in that state, resulting in the need for strengthened state governance as well as laws and policies that are congruent with state and federal economic development goals.
Participation in highereducation is important be- cause of its implications for an individual’s life chances in the long term. This is an important part of higher ed- ucation’s role in the ‘export’ of equity and social justice to the wider society. This role has been given rather less attention in the research literature. This is not alto- gether surprising. It refl ects an underlying assumption that ‘unequal treatment’ on the basis of possession of educational credentials is both legitimate and neces- sary.Inequality of inputs is of concern but inequalities of output are regarded as necessary, even essential. This is basically a functionalist belief in the need to get the ‘right people’ into the ‘right social positions’, to the general benefi t of all. According to this way of think- ing, it is of concern if the rules of the competition are unfair – if certain social groups are excluded or dis- advantaged from the competitive game. Central to the game is ‘access’ to highereducation and progression and success within it. The outcome for society is not that there is greater social equity but that the lack of it is legitimised by the perceived existence of broadly equal opportunities. This is an argument for meritoc- racy, about ensuring that positions are fi lled by and rewards go to the ‘best equipped’ people to undertake them and about legitimising the resultant inequalities of wealth and status in these terms. As Calhoun com- ments, “people get to be elites not just because they are good – even if they are – but because there is a system that offers those elite positions and preparation for them” (Calhoun, 2006, p. 32).
While the general description of the role of the governing body applies best to a free-standing institution, many institutions have different governance structures that depart in specific ways from this model. Examples of such institutions include individual units within a system, public institutions whose governing bodies’ decisions are subject to review by a higher-level board or administrative agency, religious institutions whose governing bodies are obliged to follow direction provided by a sponsoring religious organization, some proprietary institutions, and educational units of organizations whose primary business is not education and whose leaders are responsible to corporate boards. In all of these circumstances, the roles and powers of the governing body and of any higher or other related authorities should be explicitly stated in the institution’s charter, articles of incorporation, enabling statute, by-laws, or other documents. In a multiple-unit system, the governing body should clearly establish
The long-term enrollment growth documented by SHEF reports illustrates the importance of highereducation to the American people. That importance is further underscored by the resiliency of state support per student in the economic recoveries following previous recessions. Those recoveries notwithstanding, students and their families have persistently been asked to shoulder a larger share of the cost of public highereducation in the United States. The depth and breadth of the 2008 recession and the challenges of financing health care and retirement costs for an aging population leave little room for hope that this trend can easily be reversed. While serving continuing enrollment demand is an urgent fiscal priority, health care inflation and retirement expenses are also significant cost drivers in highereducation. These broadly recognized pressures on public resources compound the financial challenges facing colleges and universities.
Many respondents welcomed HEFCE’s proposed role as lead regulator and positive comments were made about HEFCE’s efforts in working closely and considerately with the highereducation sector. However, many respondents were concerned that HEFCE will need to be sufficiently resourced in future and that a dual role for HEFCE as both a funder and a regulator of English highereducation could lead to conflicts of interest unless handled carefully, with some stating that this dual role is inherently conflicted. Concerns over the lead regulator role were raised in relation to partner organisations, particularly that HEFCE should not have overlapping responsibilities with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator and that duplication should be avoided more generally. There were also concerns that the level of regulation may increase, with some suggesting that this could be avoided with streamlined and better coordinated data requests and a reduction in non-highereducation specific regulation, such as the application of the Freedom of Information Act. 6
IN LINE WITH European developments in highereducation, particularly the Bologna Process, the university study system has been divided into bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degree programmes. Degree programmes as previously organised will only continue until the students enrolled in them have graduated. BASED ON INITIAL experiences with the 2002 Universities Act, a 2009 amend- ment provided clarity on some issues which arose and also reﬁned certain points of the law with regard to electing a Rector, for example, or appointing staff to research, teaching or arts positions. The collective bargaining agreement for uni- versity staff was ﬁnalised at the same time.
Dr. Aimee Henderson, Department of Pharmacy
Dr. Henderson is the Principal Investigator for the grant, "Improving the Health of Americans through the Prevention and Management of Diabetes, Heart Disease, and Stroke," through the Oklahoma Department of Health. This grant supports healthcare teams as they integrate pharmacists into team- based models of care, provide continuing education programs and resources to pharmacists in diabetes and cardiovascular management, prevent and promote MTM with healthcare providers, and provide other services to promote success.
The final outcome of their work was carefully scrutinised by numerous parties: the competent internal department and the Directorates General of the Ministry; the relevant institutional representative and consultative bodies, such as the National University Council (Consiglio Universitario Nazionale); the National Council of University Students (Consiglio Nazionale degli Studenti Universitari); the Conference of Rectors of Italian Universities (Conferenza dei Rettori delle Università Italiane); the National Council for Higher Schools of Arts and Music (Consiglio Nazionale per
The Graduate Certificate in HigherEducation Administration offers opportunities for any individual interested in working in colleges and universities to hone their skills by taking coursework that focuses on the current trends and methodologies in the highereducation administration sector. A minimum of 15 semester credit hours is required to obtain the Graduate Certificate.
SHEF also draws on the surveys and analytical tools provided by the Grapevine survey, established in 1962 by M.M. Chambers and maintained by his successors, Edward Hines and, currently, James Palmer, at Illinois State University. In the summer of 2010, SHEEO and Illinois State University aligned the Grapevine and SHEF data collections into one. Since then, the combined State Support for HigherEducation Database (SSDB) data collection has simplified and aligned data collection procedures, reduced the burden placed on state offices, and created a more timely and comprehensive picture of state fiscal support for highereducation. We are grateful for the leadership of James Palmer in making this effort possible. SHEEO is deeply indebted to the staff of state highereducation agencies who annually provide the state-level data essential for the preparation of this report. Their names and organizations are listed in Appendix C. We also appreciate the input and suggestions from many state highereducation finance officers (SHEFOs) and others who have contrib uted much to the development of this report over the years. Once again, Andrew Carlson was the principal analyst for the State HigherEducation Finance study this year, building on the foundation laid since 2003 by a talented group of other SHEEO staff. Katie Zaback, Gloria Auer, and Chris Ott made important contributions to this year’s study, and I am grateful for their dedicated professional work.
For many students, the completion of a college degree is an achievement that should lead to a promising economic future. The investment in an education is expected to put a person on a pathway to a life of economic stability. In large part, this is true. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015) earnings for someone with a high school diploma will have a median weekly earnings of $678. This compares to the median weekly earnings of someone with a bachelor’s degree of $1,137. For this same period, 2015, individuals with a bachelor’s degree enjoyed a lower unemployment rate (2.8%) compared to those with only a high school diploma (5.4%). Demand for workers with college educations will outpace supply to the tune of 300,000 per year (A. Carnevale, Smith, & Strohl, 2010). Since January 2010, the economy has added 11.6 million jobs (A. P. Carnevale, Jayasundera, & Gulish, 2016). Nearly all the jobs created in the recovery, 11.5 million out of 11.6 million, have gone to workers with at least some postsecondary education (A. P. Carnevale et al., 2016). According to the College Board (“Lifetime Earnings by Education Level - Trends in HigherEducation - The College Board,” n.d.), a typical bachelor’s degree recipient can expect to earn about 66% more than the typical high school graduate earns over a 40-year career. When looking at millennial, age 25-32 as a group, the Pew Research Center (Street, NW, Washington, & Inquiries, 2014) found those with a bachelor’s degree or more had a median income (full-time workers in 2012 dollars) of $45,500 compared to $28,000 for those with a high school diploma. Unemployment rates were dramatically lower (3.8% vs 12.2%) as was the percentage of those living in poverty (5.8% vs 21.8%). With the growing demand for skilled workers, it appears that an educated individual will have much better chances of gaining employment in the current environment than a less skilled candidate (A. P. Carnevale, Jayasundera, & Gulish, 2016). All these support the economic benefits of college completion.
HRC is an independent public corporation entitled to represent highereducation institutions and to protect their interests. HRC may deliver an opinion on any issue with relevance to the operation of the highereducation system and may make proposals for decision-makers or those in charge of preparing decisions. The Statutes include the regulation of operation and a four-level system of organization of HRC. The supreme decision-making organization of HRC is the Plenary Sessi- on, comprising all of the rectors of the Hungarian highereducation institutions (66). Universities and colleges are represented by a specific University Section and a College Section. Operative decision-making and implementation duties are fulfilled by the Presidency with ten members. Special professional issues are discussed by nineteen committees with powers of decision-preparation. The bodies of HRC are supported by the Secretariat headed by the Secretary General.
The BME is proud of its more than 225-year tradition of excellence in engineering education. It has developed into the largest institutions of highereducation in Hungary and it is one of Central-Europe's most important research centers. Her results in the EU 6. R+D Framework Program proves, that BME was in fact the most successful participant of the Framework Program, not just in Hungary but also among the 10 new member state participants. The University considers scientific and applied research and development of equal importance not only to its educational activities, but also to economic and social development. BME has 7 knowledge centers and is the member of the most respected European and worldwide communities for highereducation and engineering, such as EUA, CESAEER, SEFI, IAUP, INU.
Tourism is one of the dynamically developing industries and the fastest growing markets in Latvia, Europe and worldwide with unlimited perspectives. The programme gives its share to the growing needs in highly qualified specialists as well as caters for young people’s interests in getting a state-of-the-art education, ensuring them with a good advancement in professional growth and career. The graduates are capable of carrying out qualitative market research and providing effective development of tourism products in Latvia and abroad. They can take responsibility to run different organizations in tourism industry (travel agencies, hotels, restaurants, transport organizations, leisure and tourism inforrmation offices, tourism advertising companies). They can apply their knowledge in journalism.
Debbie enrolled on the Foundation Degree Care Studies in September 2012. Debbie said “Going back into education after numerous years away was a forbidding thought, I was apprehensive as I lacked confidence in my ability to produce the work that would be needed. As a full-time mum I wanted to be a good role model for my children, I also knew it was important to gain a qualification for when I went back to employment. I found the Foundation Degree very hard and nerve racking at first but with the support off the tutors and students alike it has enabled me to achieve good results in my course work and helped me to gain confidence in my ability. During my two year course I have been volunteering at a residential care home which has given me a great insight into the hard work that goes into caring for the elderly and has prepared me for entering back into full-time employment. My future aspirations are to help vulnerable people, specifically to help abused women/children which is a cause that is close to my heart and I believe that the Foundation Degree has helped me get closer to my desired goal”
This literature review has provided some key metrics for further analysis. Utilizing Orr’s (2000) criteria, the triple bottom line in relation to highereducation institutions can be explored in depth for each assessment method. Shriberg’s (2002) criteria provide for a more in-depth review of cross-institutional metrics beyond just the social, economic and environmental parameters. While most of the criteria of Saadatian et al. (2011) have been addressed with the previous two metrics, the metric of popularity has not, providing a significant factor for determining the effectiveness of a system.