Environmental Threat I

Author(s):  
Robert B. Archibald

Changes in the American income distribution since the 1970s are a major source of turbulence in the higher education industry. Family incomes at the bottom of the distribution have not grown since the 1960s, while family incomes at the top have soared. For families in the middle- and upper-middle-income groups, incomes have been flat in the twenty-first century. We show how this sea change in inequality helps fuel the increase in tuition discounting, the rise in student debt, and the separation of the higher education system into well-resourced institutions for the haves and poorly financed institutions for the have-nots.

2011 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 58 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Pringle ◽  
Jeroen Huisman

In analyses of higher education systems, many models and frameworks are based on governance, steering, or coordination models. Although much can be gained by such analyses, we argue that the language used in the present-day policy documents (knowledge economy, competitive position, etc.) calls for an analysis of higher education as an industry. In this paper, the university sector in Ontario’s higher education industry is analyzed by applying Michael Porter’s five forces framework defined by the following forces: the threat of new entrants, supplier power, buyer power, the threat of substitutes, and industry rivalry. Our assessment revealed that competition in Ontario’s higher education industry (university sector) is currently mixed. The findings suggest that policy-makers, the sector, and individual institutions will need to consider more seriously the impact of technology and globalization when seeking a competitive position for the Ontarian higher education system.  


2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 15-19
Author(s):  
Bart Houlahan ◽  
Dan Osusky

The higher education industry faces many challenges.  Despite the recognition that a college degree is essential to developing skilled employees, informed citizens, and flourishing people, there is a shortage of skilled workers, college costs (and student debt) are rising, and the attainment gap for minorities and underrepresented populations remains stark.


2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 25-40
Author(s):  
Corina Doboș

Abstract: With the development of demography and population studies in the second half of the 1960s in Romania, a special attention was given to the economic efficiency of the Romanian education system, as education was considered ‘the main factor of economic growth’. Several demographic and economic studies reveal a special concern for the developmental effectiveness of the higher education system. This article examines several key concepts (such as ‘intellectual capital’ as opposed to ‘physical capital’, or ‘education stocks’), used by Romanian demographers for the evaluation of the economic efficiency of the Romanian higher education system at the end of the 1960s.


2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zahraa Sameer Sajwani ◽  
Joe Hazzam ◽  
Abdelmounaim Lahrech ◽  
Muna Alnuaimi

PurposeThe purpose of the study is to investigate the role of the strategy tripod premises, mediated by future foresight and its effect on merger effectiveness in the higher education industry.Design/methodology/approachA quantitative survey method was implemented, with the data provided by senior managers of 14 universities that went through a merger from the years 2013–2016. The proposed model was tested using partial least squares (PLS) of structural equation modeling (SEM).FindingsThe results indicate that government support, competitive intensity and knowledge creation capability relate positivity to merger effectiveness, and these relationships are mediated by future foresight competence.Originality/valueThe study provides a better understanding of merger effectiveness in the higher education industry by identifying the role of future foresight competence in the application of strategy tripod and its contribution on merger effectiveness. Results indicate that future foresight competence contributes to the merger effectiveness and enables the effective implementation of the strategy tripod dimensions in higher education mergers.


Author(s):  
Sukanya Chaemchoy ◽  
Thunwita Sirivorapat Puthpongsiriporn ◽  
Gerald W. Fry

Thai higher education has a long history dating back to the 19th century. Its great modernizer, King Chulalongkorn the Great, was visionary in realizing the importance of expanding education to modernize his kingdom and avoid Western colonization. Thailand was the only country in Southeast Asia never to have been colonized. The country’s first formal institution of higher education, Chulalongkorn University, was established in 1917, named in honor of this visionary king. Since that time, Thai higher education has evolved in diverse ways. Key trends have been (a) massification, (b) privatization, (c) diversification, and (d) internationalization. Massification began in the 1960s with the opening of universities in each of Thailand’s major regions. In the 1970s, two open universities with huge enrollments were established. One of those, Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University (STOU), was a university without walls, serving students throughout the Kingdom. Then Thailand’s teacher training colleges became a large system of comprehensive Rajabhat Universities (38 universities, across every region of the nation). In 1969, authority was granted for private universities to be established, and over the past decades there has been a proliferation of such institutions (now totaling 71). Thailand’s system of higher education is highly diverse, with many different genres of institutions under 12 different ministries and agencies. Another important trend is internationalization, with a dramatic growth in the number of international programs and students during the period 2000-2020. Major reforms of higher education have been primarily structural in nature. In 2003, the Ministry of University Affairs merged with the Ministry of Education (MOE) to become one of its five major commissions, the Office of the Higher Education Commission (OHEC). Then in 2019, OHEC was moved out of the MOE to become part of a new Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research, and Innovation (MHESI). As the nation moves into the decade of the 2020s, Thai higher education faces major challenges. The most critical is declining enrollments, primarily the result of Thailand’s great success in reducing its fertility rate. With the dramatic growth in higher education institutions, there are simply inadequate numbers of Thai students to fill available spots. A second related issue is the problem of the quality of Thai higher education. Reflective of this problem is the failure of any Thai higher education institutions to be highly ranked in international systems. Many of Thailand’s best students choose to study overseas. Another major issue is funding, with problems related to the ways funds are spent and the low pay of university professors. Also related to the funding issue is Thailand’s low ranking on how much it spends on research and development. This important area receives inadequate priority, though there were significant improvements in 2018 and 2019. There are also curricular issues in terms of what students should be taught and how, as well as concerns that Thai students are not being adequately prepared for the new digital 4.0 knowledge economy. In 2021, Thailand is mired in a “middle-income trap,” and to move beyond that, it is imperative that Thailand improve the quality, equity, and efficiency of its higher education system.


Author(s):  
David V. Tolliver ◽  
Michael T. Miller ◽  
Jennifer M. Miles ◽  
Daniel P. Nadler

Colleges and universities can be important social drivers in the functioning of society. Through their efforts and activities, they can educate an electorate and teach behaviors that ultimately benefit the society in which they work. Additionally, students can learn from their faculty mentors not only academic content, but important behaviors about how to be involved activists in seeking change. This chapter explores how faculty and students are activists, how they learn and interact with each other, and ultimately, what impact this has on the operation on individual higher education institutions and the higher education industry at large.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document