WASHINGTON DC, 2010

The Association of International Education Administrators (AIEA) annual meeting was held in Washington DC this year.  It was my first.  Several colleagues had told me the AIEA hosted the most informative discussions of international education matters in American universities.  Based on what I heard in DC, I am inclined to agree.  Australian Education International in Washington, primarily Yvonne Oberhollenzer and John Hayton, had organised the program for six senior international education managers from Australia.

The snow over the previous week or two had been the heaviest in a century.  It remained piled on the side of the roads, slowing traffic and confining pedestrians to narrow channels on the footpaths.  Having experienced a long, hot Adelaide summer, the coldness was refreshing, and it was not too difficult to walk the streets, despite the risks from the slippery ice (although Kim Beazley may have a different view).

I thought the presentations on the outreach activities of American universities were well informed; they have good financial support, but also have a fair amount of experience in these matters.  Discussion on reform movements in the US, paralleling the Bologna process, revealed the barriers inhibiting change, especially because of the absence of a nation-wide approach to universities. The  discussion of quality assurance focused on the sharp contrast between the American focus on accreditation and institutional QA, and the national emphasis in Australia.

The luncheon plenary address by Arthur Levine, President of the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, was a delight.  His thoughts on the nature of university education were sardonic, self-deprecating, and very funny.  An excellent lunch-time speaker.  (20/2/10)

ATTRACTING TALENT

A connection has been building between international education and Australia’s strengthening knowledge economy.  Immigration policy has been a critical element, facilitating a sophisticated (though imperfect) range of opportunities for international students and graduates to progress through to permanent residence and citizenship.  It is now under threat.

The program has, arguably, been too successful, if judged by sheer numbers.  A massive influx of students flowed into vocational education programs oriented to jobs on the Migration Occupations in Demand List (the MODL).   The result was a dramatic increase in the number of hastily formed private colleges, particularly in Melbourne.  Many were geared to meeting demand primarily from a few states in northern India.  Questions began to be asked about the sustainability of international education, based on concerns about the quality of many new education providers, and their fit with the labour market.

When random attacks on Indian students were reported in mid 2009, student safety issues exacerbated concerns by students about the precarious future of colleges, and snowballed with media reporting on negative student opinion.  The Indian media also took an interest, fanning outrage among xenophobic nationalists, leading to demonstrations and protests, and catapulting the issue across the world.

A response in Australia was necessary.  State governments tightened up on private colleges, and the universities devised a Ten-Point Plan to address concerns about student well-being.  Taskforces and inquiries were set-up all around the country.

The Department of Immigration and Citizenship’s (DIAC) response was to significantly tighten processes leading to the awarding of student visas in India, dramatically reducing the number of students able to come to Australia.  More significant changes by DIAC are to follow and are going to impact right across the international student program.

The risk is that DIACs actions will discard the peas with the pods.

Australia had been nudging along a pathway leading to a significant strengthening of the knowledge economy.  Central to this is making it possible for international students when they graduate to stay in Australia, even if only for a few years, and contribute to research, innovation and commercialisation.  Australia as a talent bank, into which international students both deposit and withdraw, depends on a well-balanced and efficient nexus between immigration, labour-force requirements, innovation policy and higher education.

However there are multiple agendas within government and not all align with the need to build these aspects of Australia’s knowledge economy.  DIAC is now fuelling the population debate, and seems to have decided that immigration numbers must be reduced, along with the rate of Australia’s population growth.  Invariably students (and refugees) will feel the effects.

Securing a niche in the global knowledge economy is more complex and less easily managed by the media than immigration.  The Cutler Report (Venturous Australia) called for a strategic alignment between Australia’s aspirations as a leading knowledge economy and its immigration strategy.  Now the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Innovation is looking into Australia’s international research collaborations.  It is an opportunity to again make some key points.

Most importantly, the immigration-education nexus needs to be built, not dismantled.  This includes thinking about how Australia can foster its talent bank function. 

We need to focus on building genuine knowledge cities and universities that  attract talented undergraduates, postgraduates and researchers. 

In parallel, much better integration is required between the forging of strategic international research links, domestic innovation policy, and the international education strategies of universities.

This would include an expanded and much more strategic approach to the Australian Endeavour scholarships, and a more supportive approach to short and long term immigration issues. 

And finally, it requires a better resourced and more strategic approach to building collaborative links in countries that are going to shape the global knowledge economy in the second half of the 21st Century: China and India to begin with, and in due course, countries such as Vietnam, Brazil and Russia.

Not everything can be done at once.  Getting right the nexus between immigration and international education is probably the most critical issue of the day.  It is the issue where there is the greatest risk of undoing the good work of the last decade.  (31/1/10)

ASIAN CITIES

Drafts of chapters for a book that Stephen Hamnett and I are editing have been arriving; five so far, with another six to come soon.  We are concurrently thinking about our (8,000 words!) introductory chapter. 

The themes of the book are planning, risks and resilience in the very large cities of the Pacific Rim.  Mostly analysts talk about urban resilience in the face of natural disaster eg the recent earthquake in Port-au-Prince.  The resilience of the Pacific Rim megacities can be the response to environmental catastrophies, but it is also expressed in their resilience in the face of continuing rapid population growth, the spread of cities over vast distances, and the growing, complex new global roles of these cities.  The grit of past and current residents in overcoming the obstacles created by urban growth is to be admired. We want to explore these themes. (17/1/10)

STUDENT SAFETY

The tragic news overnight of the death of a recent Indian graduate in Melbourne will keep media attention on the well-being of international students/graduates in Australia.  Universities are already expecting lower acceptances from India and China; this incident will compound it.  Collectively we must ensure the key recommendations of the many reports now appearing on international student welfare get due attention with actions to follow.  What a sad issue to have to deal with first day back at work. (4/1/10)