higher education policy field

Higher Education Policy

• ISSN : 0952-8733 (print)
• ISSN : 1740-3863 (electronic)
• Journal no. : 41307

Higher Education Policy is an international, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on issues of significance in higher education policy. The journal publishes original analyses, whether theoretical, empirical or practice-based. The range of coverage extends from case studies of developments in individual institutions, to broad examination of policy-making at the system, national and regional levels.

The journal addresses issues in higher education related to governmental and institutional policies and governance, including analyses of developments in quality assurance; funding of higher education; accountability; academic freedom; institutional autonomy; competition; academic careers; stratification; organizational strategies and change; access and exclusion. Given the many developments in higher education, the journal is keen to address contemporary themes like rankings and excellence and authors are invited to think outside the box as well.

Higher Education Policy assembles special issues which devote coverage to a single subject. Recent specials have addressed the consequences of global competition for local scholarship; student engagement; higher education research in East Asia; and early career researchers.

The journal reaches an international audience which includes researchers specializing in higher education, and policy-makers, administrators, managers and practitioners working in the field of higher education.

Higher Education Policy is the quarterly journal of the International Association of Universities (IAU).

Latest issue

Volume 37, Issue 2, June 2024

Original Article

The College Admission Policy Evolution from 2003 to 2020 in China—A Social Network Analysis

Kun Yan , Han Wu , Kaiming Bu , Lingli Wu

Game of Brains: Examining Researcher Brain Gain and Brain Drain and Research University Policy

Yuan Chih Fu , Juan José Moradel Vásquez , Bea Treena Macasaet , Angela Yung Chi Hou , Justin J. W. Powell

Time Matters in Higher Education: How the ECTS Changes Ideas of Desired Student Conduct

Laura Louise Sarauw

Publishing with us

For authors.

• Accessibility
• Contacting editors
• Contacting sales reps
• eBook collections
• Help overview
• Rights and permissions

Information for

• Book reviewers
• Booksellers
• Journalists

Other sites and products

• Macmillan Education
• Macmillan International Higher Education
• Palgrave Journals
• Springer Link
• Springer Nature

Palgrave Macmillan publishes journals, monographs and reference books in print and online.

What education policy experts are watching for in 2022

Subscribe to the brown center on education policy newsletter, daphna bassok , daphna bassok nonresident senior fellow - governance studies , brown center on education policy @daphnabassok stephanie riegg cellini , stephanie riegg cellini nonresident senior fellow - governance studies , brown center on education policy michael hansen , michael hansen senior fellow - brown center on education policy , the herman and george r. brown chair - governance studies @drmikehansen douglas n. harris , douglas n. harris nonresident senior fellow - governance studies , brown center on education policy , professor and chair, department of economics - tulane university @douglasharris99 jon valant , and jon valant director - brown center on education policy , senior fellow - governance studies @jonvalant kenneth k. wong kenneth k. wong nonresident senior fellow - governance studies , brown center on education policy.

January 7, 2022

Entering 2022, the world of education policy and practice is at a turning point. The ongoing coronavirus pandemic continues to disrupt the day-to-day learning for children across the nation, bringing anxiety and uncertainty to yet another year. Contentious school-board meetings attract headlines as controversy swirls around critical race theory and transgender students’ rights. The looming midterm elections threaten to upend the balance of power in Washington, with serious implications for the federal education landscape. All of these issues—and many more—will have a tremendous impact on students, teachers, families, and American society as a whole; whether that impact is positive or negative remains to be seen.

Below, experts from the Brown Center on Education Policy identify the education stories that they’ll be following in 2022, providing analysis on how these issues could shape the learning landscape for the next 12 months—and possibly well into the future.

I will also be watching the Department of Education’s negotiated rulemaking sessions and following any subsequent regulatory changes to federal student-aid programs. I expect to see changes to income-driven repayment plans and will be monitoring debates over regulations governing institutional and programmatic eligibility for federal student-loan programs. Notably, the Department of Education will be re-evaluating Gainful Employment regulations—put in place by the Obama administration and rescinded by the Trump administration—which tied eligibility for federal funding to graduates’ earnings and debt.

But the biggest and most concerning hole has been in the  substitute teacher force —and the ripple effects on school communities have been broad and deep. Based on personal communications with Nicola Soares, president of  Kelly Education , the largest education staffing provider in the country, the pandemic is exacerbating several problematic trends that have been quietly simmering for years. These are: (1) a growing reliance on long-term substitutes to fill permanent teacher positions; (2) a shrinking supply of qualified individuals willing to fill short-term substitute vacancies; and, (3) steadily declining fill rates for schools’ substitute requests. Many schools in high-need settings have long faced challenges with adequate, reliable substitutes, and the pandemic has turned these localized trouble spots into a widespread catastrophe. Though federal pandemic-relief funds could be used to meet the short-term weakness in the substitute labor market (and mainline teacher compensation, too ), this is an area where we sorely need more research and policy solutions for a permanent fix.

First, what’s to come of the vaccine for ages 0-4? This is now the main impediment to resuming in-person activity. This is the only large group that currently cannot be vaccinated. Also, outbreaks are triggering day-care closures, which has a significant impact on parents (especially mothers), including teachers and other school staff.

Second, will schools (and day cares) require the vaccine for the fall of 2022? Kudos to my hometown of New Orleans, which still appears to be the nation’s only district to require vaccination. Schools normally require a wide variety of other vaccines, and the COVID-19 vaccines are very effective. However, this issue is unfortunately going to trigger a new round of intense political conflict and opposition that will likely delay the end of the pandemic.

Third, will we start to see signs of permanent changes in schooling a result of COVID-19? In a previous post on this blog, I proposed some possibilities. There are some real opportunities before us, but whether we can take advantage of them depends on the first two questions. We can’t know about these long-term effects on schooling until we address the COVID-19 crisis so that people get beyond survival mode and start planning and looking ahead again. I’m hopeful, though not especially optimistic, that we’ll start to see this during 2022.

The CTC and universal pre-K top my list for 2022, but it’s a long list. I’ll also be watching the Supreme Court’s ruling on vouchers in Carson v. Makin , how issues like critical race theory and detracking play into the 2022 elections, and whether we start to see more signs of school/district innovation in response to COVID-19 and the recovery funds that followed.

Electoral dynamics will affect several important issues: the selection of state superintendents; the use of American Rescue Plan funds; the management of safe return to in-person learning for students; the integration of racial justice and diversity into curriculum; the growth of charter schools; and, above all, the extent to which education issues are leveraged to polarize rather than heal the growing divisions among the American public.

Early Childhood Education Education Policy Higher Education

Governance Studies

Brown Center on Education Policy

Modupe (Mo) Olateju, Grace Cannon, Kelsey Rappe

June 14, 2024

Jon Valant, Nicolas Zerbino

June 13, 2024

Douglas N. Harris

June 6, 2024

• Higher Education Today
• American Council On Education
• Carnegie Classifications
• Race and Ethnicity In Higher Education

Policy & Research

Commentary and analysis on today’s most pressing concerns and innovative practices in higher education policy and research. Staffed by ACE’s Research and Government Relations departments, along with guest posts from ACE members and other scholars working in the field to define and assess the critical challenges facing colleges and universities. Together, these posts provide college leaders and public policymakers with the latest on issues such as access, financial aid, data, Congress and the administration, re-imagining diversity and equity on campus, and public higher education finance.

Contributors

• CEU PU - Deutsch
• Közép-európai Egyetem

The course is open to all CEU faculty and staff

Elective Course

The course provides an introduction to fundamental issues and topics in contemporary higher education policy, with a focus on the design and implementation of higher education policies. It invites students to explore and debate some of the most contested questions in the field: Who should pay for higher education? Is an university education a right or a privilege? Is online education a quality alternative? Who benefits from the internationalisationalization of higher education? Is university research a public good?

Higher education is seen as a particularly contested area of public policy, which has important connections with, and impact on, other fields or policy areas. Higher education policies can foster social integration and economic development, but also reproduce inequalities; help the creation of shared identities, but also contribute to societal divisions; and have as much to do with the production of knowledge as with broader political agendas, tensions and conflicts. 

Using an interdisciplinary perspective, the course offers a systematic overview of the key actors, structures and dynamics in the field of higher education. Policy areas covered in the course include policies related to higher education provision and governance, higher education access policies, funding policies, and policies related to accreditation, quality assurance, and performance measurement.

The course combines theories of the policy process with relevant case studies, in order to bring both the theoretical and practical world of higher education policy closer to students. The course aims to equip students with knowledge and analytical skills that can help them better understand the issues and challenges of present-day higher education systems and how government policies seek to address those.

The course is intended to provide a platform on which further, more specialized, studies in the domain of higher education policy can be built. It also prepares students to pursue a professional career in the governmental or non-governmental sector dealing with educational matters.

After the successful completion of the course, students will be able to:

• recognize the main actors and policy challenges in contemporary higher education settings; 
• analyze and explain the dynamics shaping current higher education policies in various contexts; 
• understand and critically assess how specific higher education policies are designed and implemented; and 
• participate in work aiming at developing alternative solutions to specific problems or situations facing higher education. 

Students will be assessed based on their performance on the following:

• Class participation and pre-session assignments                                (20%)
• Midterm paper                                                                                           (20%)
• In-class presentation                                                                                 (20%)
• Final paper                                                                                                  (40%)

Class participation and pre-session assignments: Students are expected to attend all classes and fulfill pre-session assignments as listed in the course schedule. The pre-session assignments include the requirement to read the mandatory readings and be ready to discuss them during the sessions (graduate seminar style). 

Midterm paper: Students must submit a 1,500 words description of a higher education policy, program, or intervention of their choice. The midterm paper should include a review of relevant scholarly or policy literature (based on 5-6 research articles, studies or reports). Students can propose their own topics in discussion with the instructors. 

The deadline for submitting the midterm paper is October 25, 2023

Class presentation: A brief presentation must be prepared to summarize the analysis of the chosen higher education policy, program, or intervention. In the presentation, students must introduce the policy in terms of the actors involved in conceiving it, its characteristics and design, and the process of how it was implemented. Students must not only describe, but also critically assess the design and implementation of the policy that their presentation is focused on.

Final paper: Students must submit a 2,500 words critical assessment of a higher education policy, program, or intervention of their choice. The final paper must combine a revised version of the midterm paper (the first assignment) with a discussion and critical assessment of the implementation of the same policy, program, or intervention. Students also need to incorporate the feedback they got during their class presentation. The deadline for submitting the final paper is January 7, 2024

There are no prerequisites for this course.

Class participation (20 hours)

Pre-session assignments, including readings (18 hours) 

Group activity (4 hours)  

Midterm paper (20 hours) 

Class presentation (12 hours) 

Final paper (32 hours) 

New research explores how wealth impacts college access and success

The Institute for Higher Education Policy is celebrating 30 years of promoting access and success in higher education for all students with a focus on students from low-income backgrounds and others historically marginalized on the basis of race, background, or circumstance. We are a nonpartisan nonprofit research, policy and advocacy organization.

Evidence-Based Completion

Higher education can be a pathway to economic security, social mobility, and society-wide value – but only if the student completes their degree.

Equitable College Admissions

Higher education is a door, but recruitment, admissions, and enrollment policies and practices dictate how wide that door is open.

Data & Transparency

Our system of higher education is data-rich but information-poor.

Need-Based Aid

Need-based aid does more than make college more affordable – it makes college possible.

Strong Outcomes for All Students

All institutions and programs should deliver value to students.

TransferBOOST (Bachelor’s Opportunity Options that are Straightforward and Transparent)

Amanda Janice Roberson, Katelyn DiBenedetto and HCM authors

The Most Important Door That Will Ever Open: Realizing the Mission of Higher Education Through Equitable Recruitment, Admissions, and Enrollment Policies

Karen Bussey, Kimberly Dancy, Alyse Gray Parker, Eleanor Eckerson Peters, and Mamie Voight

Implementing a Student-Level Data Network (Part IV): Exploring Design Options

Erin Dunlop and James Isaac, RTI International, and Amanda Janice Roberson, IHEP

Rising Above the Threshold: How to Increase Equitable Postsecondary Value

Kim Dancy, Genevieve Garcia Kendrick, and Diane Cheng

Breaking the Cycle of Racial Wealth Inequities and Higher Education Outcomes

Charles Sanchez, Eleanor Eckerson Peters, Diane Cheng, and Sean Tierney

LATEST UPDATES

IHEP and 15 partners share recommendations for the timely implementation of the Financial Value Transparency framework

IHEP Joins Call for On-Time FAFSA Launch

How Wealth, Not Just Income, Shapes College Access and Success

Diving Deeper into Postsecondary Value, IHEP Research Series Explores Equity and Economic Outcomes

IHEP-Led Coalition Urges ED to Recognize Student Experience and Belonging in New Postsecondary Student Success Recognition Program

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

Higher Education: An Emerging Field of Research and Policy

DOI link for Higher Education: An Emerging Field of Research and Policy

Click here to navigate to parent product.

An Emerging Field of Research and Policy PHILIP G. ALTBACH

Higher education has become a vast twenty-first century enterprise, central to postindustrial globalized economies everywhere. More than 100 million students study in at least 36,000 postsecondary institutions worldwide. In most countries, higher education has become a large, complex enterprise, comprising large academic systems, nonprofit and for-profit private institutions, and an array of specialized schools. As universities and other postsecondary institutions have grown, they acquire elaborate administrative structures in need of major expenditures of public and, often, private funds. Moreover, higher education has become big business. Academic institutions employ thousands of people and educate tens of thousands-or in some cases hundreds of thousands. Degrees in a multiplicity of specialties from ancient history to biotechnology are offered. In 1971 Eric Ashby characterized the American academic system as offering “any person, any study,” in describing its diversity and scope. Martin Trow analyzed the progression of higher education from elite to mass and finally to universal access (2006). In the industrialized nations, at least, mass access has been achieved, and a few countries-first the United States and Canada and, recently, South Korea, Finland, Japan, and many others-enroll upwards of 70 percent of the relevant age group. Many others, mainly in Europe and the Pacific Rim, educate half or more of the age group. Developing countries lag behind, and the main growth in the coming decades will be in this part of the world (World Bank 2000).

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Taylor & Francis Online
• Taylor & Francis Group
• Students/Researchers
• Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content

Center for Higher Education Policy and Practice

On a mission to redefine the future of higher education

The Center for Higher Education Policy and Practice

On a mission to center learners in the future of higher education.

About CHEPP

The Center for Higher Education Policy and Practice (CHEPP) is a non-partisan higher education research, policy, and advocacy organization, promoting solutions that deliver transformative outcomes for all learners.

Who are today’s learners?

Today’s learners are working adults. Caregivers. Veterans. They are living with low income, or with food or housing insecurity. While these students don’t fit the profile of the traditional college student, they are the majority of today’s learners—it’s time to build systems that support and empower them.

37% of today’s learners are 25 and older.

24% of today’s learners are parents or have other dependents.

40% of today’s learners work full-time, and 49% are financially independent.

36% of today’s learners don’t know where their next meal will come from.

At CHEPP, we believe:

Post-secondary education unlocks social and economic mobility.

A learner’s lived experience is an asset to their education and institution, not a barrier to success.

Learning and progress should be measured by a demonstration of knowledge and skills, not time spent in a classroom.

Learner-centered design should shape all post-secondary education policy and practice change.

As a public good, post-secondary institutions bear responsibility to relentlessly focus on student success and equitable outcomes.

Get In Touch

CHEPP is actively seeking partners. Get in touch to learn more and work together.

Higher Education Programs

Designed for higher education leaders — from directors, department heads, and deans, to vice presidents, provosts, and presidents — our programs group you with peers who share similar experiences, perspectives, and specific problems of practice, creating a vibrant learning community. All of our programs are grounded in evidence-based research and the expertise of faculty at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

When you pursue professional development at HGSE, you’ll find participants who bring multiple perspectives from a broad range of institutions, including large research universities, comprehensive regional institutions, small liberal arts colleges, and community colleges — creating a rich, multi-layered, and dynamic learning environment in which your thinking and approaches will be challenged, and you will gain insight from the research and teaching of our outstanding faculty and your peers. 

Harvard Institutes for Higher Education

The Harvard Institutes for Higher Education (HIHE) offers comprehensive leadership development programs for higher education leaders. With an almost 50-year history of advancing the practice of higher education administrators, and a vibrant network of thousands of alumni who maintain long-term relationships and return to HIHE as their careers advance, our programs will have a transformative impact on your practice — and will allow you to make that same transformative impact in your professional community.

Program Finder

• Higher Education

Bravely Confronting Racism in Higher Education

• Oct 10, 2024 - Nov 8, 2024 Price: $2,195.00

Women in Higher Education Leadership

• Apr 3, 2025 - Apr 5, 2025 Price: $2,995.00

Harvard Seminar for Presidential Leadership

Organizational change in uncertain times: a leadership program for higher education, crisis leadership in higher education, aligning strategic priorities with financial resources in higher education, leading strategic student success, the online classroom: strategies for higher ed teaching and learning, mental health in higher education: a theory-to-practice approach for student well-being, institute for management and leadership in education.

Policy Brief: The Future of Higher Education Enrollment in California

Hans Johnson , Cesar Alesi Perez , and Mary Severance

Supported with funding from College Futures Foundation and the Sutton Family Fund

Higher education has long been a driver of economic mobility and well-being in California. In recent years, declines in the number of young adults led to falling enrollment at many colleges and universities across the country, but not at most of California’s higher education institutions. During the pandemic, however, the state population fell and higher education enrollment declined. What should California’s colleges and universities expect over the next couple of decades?

PPIC projections suggest enrollment increases until 2035

While the population of young adults most likely to attend college is expected to grow very slowly, or not at all, over the next couple of decades, we project that enrollment will increase slightly at least until 2035.

We expect college-going to resume the upward trajectory that we observed before the pandemic. Increases in college participation will be driven partly by increases in the share of high school graduates who complete the college prep courses required for admission to the University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU)—known as the A–G requirement. In recent years, the number of high school graduates has grown very little—from 411,000 in 2010–11 to 418,000 in 2020–21. But the share of graduates who complete A–G coursework has grown from 37% to 52%.

Over the past decade, high school graduates have become more likely to complete A–G courses

SOURCE: Author calculations based on CDE data.

NOTE: Completion of A–G courses is a requirement for admission to UC and CSU.

Community colleges are likely to face bigger enrollment challenges than the state’s four-year colleges and universities. Our projections suggest that community colleges will see limited growth in enrollment after recovering from pandemic losses. Enrollment increases will require improvements in persistence among community college students. UC is projected to have robust growth, while growth at CSU and private nonprofit colleges will be modest.

We project improvement in one key area: diversity at California’s colleges will increase. In particular, continued improvements in completion of A–G coursework will lead to notable increases in the share of Latino students at UC and CSU. In contrast, the share of Black students will not change much; declining populations of young Black adults will counteract increases in participation. The share of white students will vary by institution, and college-going rates will continue to be highest among Asian students.

Notable increases in Latino students are projected at CSU and UC

SOURCE: UCOP to 2022 and PPIC projections 2023 to 2040.

NOTE: Fall enrollment. See the full report’s Technical Appendix A for details.

Policy implications

Increases in enrollment will help the state reach its goal of 40% of working-age adults with bachelor’s degrees by 2035. But this goal is reachable mostly because 57% of residents ages 25–54 born outside California have college degrees, compared to only 35% of California-born young adults. Increasing college completion among young Californians would improve educational mobility—and help close equity gaps in the state’s higher education systems.

• One approach would be to focus on the pathway from grade 9 to high school completion and then onto college completion. Currently, only about 35% of California ninth-graders will have bachelor’s degrees by the time they reach their mid- to late 20s.
• Setting a goal of 45% of young Californians holding degrees would complement the existing state goal and allow California policymakers and higher education officials to center their efforts on students and young adults who are making critical decisions about their educational pathways.
• Our projections of enrollment growth assume that the state’s university systems will be able to grow to accommodate student demand. Funding for capacity is often a challenge, but California has a long history of public investment in higher education. A long-term flexible approach, involving a combination of tuition increases combined with increased financial aid, could help make higher education finance more predictable and sustainable.
• Our projections also assume continued increases in A–G completion among high school graduates. The state has made impressive gains over the past couple of decades, but some disturbing trends—absenteeism, in particular—emerged during the pandemic. Local policies and practices, such as making A–G the default curriculum and creating a college-going culture, can and do make a difference.

Our most fundamental assumption is that if the state can increase the number of Californians who enroll in and graduate from college, the Golden State will continue to be a place of opportunity.

Adapted by Mary Severance from The Future of Higher Education Enrollment in California , by Hans Johnson and Cesar Alesi Perez.

About the Authors

Hans Johnson is a senior fellow at the  PPIC Higher Education Center   and a member of the   PPIC Economic Policy Center .   His research focuses on improving college access and completion. He  frequently  presents his work to policymakers and higher education officials, and he serves as a technical advisor to many organizations seeking to improve college graduation rates, address workforce needs, and engage in long-term  capacity  planning. His other areas of expertise include international and domestic migration, housing in California, and population projections. Previously, he served as research director at PPIC. Before joining PPIC, he worked as a demographer at the California Research Bureau and at the California Department of Finance. He holds a PhD in demography and a master’s degree in biostatistics from the University of California, Berkeley.

Cesar Alesi Perez  is a research associate at the  PPIC Higher Education Center . His work has focused on understanding how educational opportunities and outcomes differ across California, examining the relationship between higher education and economic opportunity, and analyzing the impact of placement and curricular reforms at California community colleges. Before joining PPIC, he was a research assistant at the San Diego Housing Commission, concentrating on evaluating economic security and mobility among rental assistance recipients. He also worked at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth and as a hands-on educator at multiple levels of education. He holds an MPP from the School of Global Policy and Strategy at University of California, San Diego and a BA in economics from University of California, Los Angeles.

Mary Severance is a senior editor at the Public Policy Institute of California. She edits and helps develop publications and briefings so that they are accessible to their audiences. She also writes copy for the PPIC website and for institutional publications. Before she joined PPIC in 2008 as the institute’s production editor, she was a senior project editor at University of California Press. She has also worked as a copyeditor and college English instructor. She holds an MA and PhD in English from the State University of New York, Buffalo, and a BA in English from Carleton College.

Does Transfer Reduce Regional Enrollment Gaps at CSU and UC?

Testimony: Improving College Access and Success through Dual Enrollment

College Enrollment Is Holding Steady among First-time Students at UC and CSU

Website cookie notice.

This website uses cookies to analyze site traffic and to allow users to complete forms on the site. PPIC does not share, trade, sell, or otherwise disclose personal information.

More From Forbes

Measuring the long game in education.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

If the ultimate goal of education is to prepare students for successful futures after they leave our ... [+] schools, we should prioritize those long-term outcomes.

With graduation season in full swing, many students and their families are deservedly celebrating a major milestone. Successfully completing high school or college is a great accomplishment; but when “Pomp and Circumstance” fades into the background and the graduation parties are over, how do we know whether education has actually provided students with what they need for their futures?

The true marker of success in education shouldn’t be the graduation cap; it’s what happens after the tassel is turned.

Traditionally, our measures of educational outcomes have been pretty basic and not directly related to how graduates are using their education to improve their lives and their livelihood beyond school. Success has largely been measured by the number of students who graduate from high school or a postsecondary program, along with test scores designed to assess their knowledge and skills at a given point in time. These things are undoubtedly important, but graduation rates and test scores alone do not tell the full story of whether education is equipping students with the knowledge and skills necessary to build well-paying careers and actively contribute to their communities.

It’s time to think differently about how we measure success in our education systems—both K-12 and higher education. If the ultimate goal of education is to prepare students for successful futures after they leave our schools, we should prioritize those long-term outcomes.

A new report from Education Strategy Group and American Student AssistanceⓇ examines how all 50 states are approaching the complexities of measuring long-term success in both K-12 and higher education. Though many states are making good faith efforts to capture data to better understand how education impacts students in the next phase of their lives, the report finds that too few are currently attaching meaningful incentives to reward schools and colleges for improving students’ postsecondary and workforce success.

More specifically, at the K-12 level, while many states now include college and career readiness metrics in their performance goals for high schools, just eight states extend their models to include measures of how high school graduates ultimately do after they graduate and get to college and the workforce. In higher education, only six states use measures of how students do in the workforce after leaving postsecondary institutions to inform funding decisions.

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024.

If we want to ensure that K-12 graduates do well in college and careers, and that college graduates, in turn, do well in the labor market, leaders at all levels of the education system need better, timelier and more detailed information about those outcomes. That information also needs to be attached to real incentives—including serving as part of funding and accountability models—to drive change. Leaders can only make changes to improve outcomes if they first have an understanding of what those outcomes are; otherwise, they are flying blind.

Part of the challenge in doing this well lies in the historical siloes that exist between K-12 education, higher education and the workforce. Each sector has developed its own measures and data systems over time, making it difficult to connect them and track a student’s progress and outcomes over time and across sectors.

Fortunately, a few states are leading the way in demonstrating what it looks like to build the infrastructure needed to understand long-term outcomes. Kentucky’s KYSTATS database sets a gold standard for data systems by collecting and integrating education and workforce data to offer policymakers and the public a more complete picture of how the systems connect to one another. This resource is a one-stop shop for understanding how the education to workforce continuum in Kentucky—from K-12 to postsecondary to employment—is serving Kentuckians. As an early leader in this work, Kentucky has offered a blueprint for other states to emulate in building their own systems to understand long-term outcomes.

With better systems in place, more states can and should hold themselves, their schools and their colleges accountable for the outcomes that matter the most for students’ long-term economic well being. Though there is a long way to go, a select few states are stepping up in meaningful ways.

Vermont is the only state to include employment outcomes in its federal K-12 school accountability system. The state’s Post-Secondary Outcomes indicator measures the percentage of graduates who enroll in college or trade school, enlist in the military or work full time in a job. By attaching this measure to formal accountability, Vermont plans to hold K-12 schools partially responsible for setting students up for long-term success.

On the financial side, Texas is leading the way by providing incentive funding to both K-12 districts and higher education institutions attached to the long-term measures that matter most. For K-12 districts, the state funds a College, Career and Military Readiness Outcomes Bonus by which districts can earn bonus funding when they increase the number of high school students who enroll in higher education or complete an industry-recognized credential. Similarly, the state’s new outcomes-based funding model for community colleges provides funding based on the number of learners who earn credentials of value rather than the traditional approach of funding colleges based on the number of students enrolled in classes.

These changes in performance goals and funding levers are making a difference with schools. The financial bonuses for Texas high schools have driven higher participation rates in the college and career readiness offerings, and although it’s early, the new funding formula for community colleges is shifting the emphasis toward credential attainment and readiness for careers.

Long-term outcome measures aren’t only important for driving the performance of education institutions. This information needs to be shared with students and their families so that they can make informed choices about which options to pursue.

Some of the states with the best information are taking steps to use it to empower consumers, particularly when it comes to making informed choices about higher education.

Kentucky’s Students’ Right to Know dashboard , which is powered by KYSTATS, is a student-facing tool that allows users to see job projections, salary information and where programs are offered for different majors. Even more impressively, Kentucky and its neighbors in Ohio, Indiana and Tennessee are addressing the challenge of gathering wage data for college graduates who move out of state by linking data in what they are calling a Multi-State Postsecondary Report .

Colorado, too, is helping students and institutions to understand the potential return on investment in higher education. Students can use the earnings outcomes dashboard to make informed decisions based on projected earnings by institution and major. The state also produces an annual return on investment report and is working to develop a “minimum value threshold” to ensure that institutions are only offering programs that will pay off for students.

While data and measurement might not be the flashiest topics in the education debate, they are among the most foundational. Centering long-term outcomes as core drivers of our educational priorities will help expand economic mobility for all. We need to think differently about success—and do a better job of measuring it—to improve outcomes for every student.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

• Trustees & Regents

UNC System’s Controlled DEI Demolition

The University of North Carolina System Board of Governors voted to repeal the system’s DEI policy. Will the outcomes differ from those in states that did so through legislation?

By  Liam Knox

You have / 5 articles left. Sign up for a free account or log in.

UNC System president Peter Hans has defended the board of governors’ DEI repeal vote as a measure of political neutrality.

Illustration by Justin Morrison for Inside Higher Ed | Screenshot from YouTube

The University of North Carolina system last month became the latest public university system to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) offices and spending. It’s another victory for the national anti-DEI crusade that has become a defining higher ed issue in state politics.

But unlike in states such as Texas and Florida, where policymakers mandated DEI cuts by law, the decision in North Carolina was made by the university system’s governing board.

On May 23, the board voted 22 to 2 to repeal its DEI policy and replace it with one called “ Equality Within the University of North Carolina ,” which does not mention race at all and enshrines commitments to nondiscrimination, viewpoint equality and freedom of expression. It also includes a clause on “maintaining institutional neutrality,” which requires university employees—staff, not faculty—to refrain from voicing opinions on “social policy” or “political controversies of the day.” Campus leaders are required to report their compliance plans to system officials by Sept. 1.

After the vote, board member Pearl Burris-Floyd, a Black woman and former Republican state legislator, attempted to reassure constituents that the vote would not lead to the total elimination of services and support staff for minority students, and that the board has not “turned their backs on them.”

“Even if it’s not called DEI, we have a way to help people and make that path clearer for all people,” she said at the meeting .

She was trying to assuage concerns that the decision would lead to a cascade of layoffs and the shuttering of support resources for UNC’s students of color—understandable fears given the way DEI restructuring has played out in states where lawmakers are enforcing cuts. In Texas, state authorities balked at colleges’ initial strategies to meet a legislative anti-DEI mandate, forcing them to take more drastic measures or face legal and financial consequences . In Florida, the first state to pass an anti-DEI law, universities have been slashing diversity offices and administrative positions left and right.

Things could have gone the same way in North Carolina. The Carolina Journal and The Raleigh News & Observer both reported in March that state lawmakers were discussing the possibility of introducing an anti-DEI law this session similar to Texas’s. Wade Maki, a philosophy professor at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and chair of the system’s faculty assembly, said he supported the board’s DEI measure in part because he’d heard the system pushed to keep the decision in-house and out of lawmakers’ jurisdiction for enforcement.

“My understanding is that the board and the system leadership together managed to get the vote delayed in the Senate, so that we could look at doing something internally,” Maki told Inside Higher Ed in April , when the DEI repeal proposal first passed out of the university governance committee.

Now the campus community is waiting to see whether UNC’s gambit to maintain control will make any difference in the outcomes for students and staff. Maki believes it will.

“We all value controlling our own future,” he said. “This will help us ensure that we can keep what is important for our diverse students’ success while also addressing the concerns of our legislators and stakeholders.”

Others are skeptical, especially since the system’s board has weathered accusations of partisan overreach in recent years.

A system spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed that officials don’t yet have guidelines for how campuses can comply with the new policy but they should soon. Implementation is expected to begin in the fall.

Editors’ Picks

• UNC Fires Professor They Secretly Recorded

University of Arts Closure Remains Shrouded in Mystery

• Trustees Vote to Dissolve University of Kentucky Senate

Tai Stephen, an incoming freshman at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is worried about not only the repeal of DEI but also the message it sends to students of color on the system’s campuses.

“It makes me feel like UNC isn’t a place for people like me,” said Stephen, who is Black and identifies as queer. “It’s turned a very happy, exciting thing into something I’m nervous and kind of sad about.”

‘Institutional Neutrality’

UNC system leaders and governing board members are emphatic that the repeal and replacement of the DEI policy is not a political crusade. Art Pope, a board member and former Republican state legislator, said it’s a stopgap against political entanglement, and a cautionary measure to keep the system from running afoul of anti-discrimination laws.

“There is pending litigation which would not be appropriate for me to speak on over concerns at the campus level that some DEI program did discriminate based on an assignment to a class or identified group, rather than based on individuals,” he said. “This makes it very clear that there’s no conflict between our policies and the constitution.”

The UNC board’s policy vote differs in some significant ways from anti-DEI legislation passed in other states. For one, it has no bearing on classroom content, whereas “divisive concept” bans have been central to anti-DEI laws in Alabama and Florida . And it includes some measures to ease heightened political tensions over DEI funding: at the same meeting where the board repealed the DEI policy, system leaders said UNC Chapel Hill’s Board of Trustees did not have the authority to divert its $2.3 million DEI budget to fund police and campus safety, overturning a decision that Chapel Hill board chair Dave Boliek told Inside Higher Ed was a direct result of trustees’ displeasure with pro-Palestinian student protesters.

A UNC system spokesperson wrote that the goal of the new Equality Within the University policy “is not necessarily to cut jobs,” but to distance the university from “administrative activism” on hot-button social and political issues.

“It is going to take some time to determine how many positions could be modified or discontinued to ensure that institutions are aligning with the revised policy,” the spokesperson wrote. “Any savings would be directed to student success initiatives.”

Stephen worries that the redirection will dismantle spaces intended to give students like him a sense of belonging.

“Going to a predominantly white high school, myself and a lot of my peers who already struggled to find community were really looking forward to college, which promised to have those structures for us,” he said. “Now I don’t know if those will be around when I get there.”

UNC Chapel Hill has 35 staff members with roles related to DEI functions, whose salaries total upwards of $3 million, according to the conservative Martin Center for Academic Renewal . Only North Carolina State University has a comparable budget and staff for DEI—36 employees, earning about $3.3 million in salaries—but most campuses have fewer than 10 DEI staff.

Stephen, whose parents teach at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, said he fears a mass exodus of minority and speciality staff from UNC campuses.

“Growing up around UNC educators, I know people want to keep doing this good work. But this is going to make it hard for them,” he said. “How will those communities persist if there’s a mass exodus?”

Taking Back Control

Maki said the legislature’s decision to put DEI into the hands of the board of governors is indicative of a unique relationship in North Carolina between lawmakers and the university system, which he calls “the North Carolina way.”

“There’s just more trust between our legislature and our board, our board and our system office and our system office and the faculty,” he said.

In other states, a lack of trust between those parties has led to chaotic results. In Wisconsin, the Republican-led state house held up millions of dollars in funding for the state university system over disagreements on DEI spending, kicking off a war of attrition that lasted over six months and nearly derailed the University of Wisconsin system budget.

Paul Fulton, a former UNC system board member who served on the UNC board of governors with current system president Peter Hans, sees the board’s DEI vote as a sign that system leadership managed to talk legislators down from taking unilateral action on DEI themselves—no small feat, he added, for a higher ed leader in today’s political climate.

“If they leave it to the board of governors, then I think there is hope. They’re much more trustworthy than Republican lawmakers or those darn Chapel Hill trustees,” he said. “That’s the sort of stuff [Hans] deals with: How far do I need to go to keep the peace and still keep my job? It’s an impossible task, but he’s very savvy.”

Pope said he isn’t aware of any backroom negotiations that put the DEI policy in the hands of the system. But from his experience on both sides of system governance, issues of complicated administrative restructuring are best handled by the universities themselves.

“I have full confidence in the legislature, and they have full constitutional authority to have the last say in governance and spending here if they want,” he said. “But I think there’s agreement that it’s a better approach to delegate governance to those that are closer to the issues.”

He added that he’s sympathetic to the needs of a diverse range of students on UNC campuses, and that he wants to prevent the loss of effective student success resources as a result of the policy change. But he’s long been keen to trim what he sees as excessive funding for DEI, and to chastise campuses that he says have, over the past several years, “crossed a line” from inclusion to discrimination.

For students like Stephen, the damage is already done regardless of how the policy implementation plays out.

He hoped that college would provide an escape from the constant incursion of politics that shaped his high school education. After the North Carolina legislature passed a Parents Bill of Rights law last summer giving local school boards more control over K-12 schools, Stephens’s high school in Charlotte stopped allowing students to change their pronouns on school forms without parental permission and offered fewer lessons about slavery in America.

“I wasn't really that surprised to learn that now diversity as a whole is being attacked [at UNC],” he said. “But it's still very disheartening.”

When Language Is a Weapon

Social scientists should resist the distortions of language that are (mis)shaping perceptions of the war in Gaza, Mic

Share This Article

More from trustees & regents.

The institution’s sudden shutdown has prompted its accreditor to step in and help guide students—and inspired legisla

Universities of Wisconsin Wants to Fire Joe Gow—Again

The chancellor of the University of Wisconsin at La Crosse was fired last year for making and distributing porn.

What Prompted Pittsburgh Technical College to Close?

Beyond the college’s business challenges, President Alicia Harvey-Smith alleges “orchestrated attacks” sank PTC.

• Become a Member
• Sign up for Newsletters
• Learning & Assessment
• Diversity & Equity
• Career Development
• Labor & Unionization
• Shared Governance
• Academic Freedom
• Books & Publishing
• Financial Aid
• Residential Life
• Free Speech
• Physical & Mental Health
• Race & Ethnicity
• Sex & Gender
• Socioeconomics
• Traditional-Age
• Adult & Post-Traditional
• Teaching & Learning
• Artificial Intelligence
• Digital Publishing
• Data Analytics
• Administrative Tech
• Alternative Credentials
• Financial Health
• Cost-Cutting
• Revenue Strategies
• Academic Programs
• Physical Campuses
• Mergers & Collaboration
• Fundraising
• Research Universities
• Regional Public Universities
• Community Colleges
• Private Nonprofit Colleges
• Minority-Serving Institutions
• Religious Colleges
• Women's Colleges
• Specialized Colleges
• For-Profit Colleges
• Executive Leadership
• State Oversight
• Accreditation
• Politics & Elections
• Supreme Court
• Student Aid Policy
• Science & Research Policy
• State Policy
• Colleges & Localities
• Employee Satisfaction
• Remote & Flexible Work
• Staff Issues
• Study Abroad
• International Students in U.S.
• U.S. Colleges in the World
• Intellectual Affairs
• Seeking a Faculty Job
• Advancing in the Faculty
• Seeking an Administrative Job
• Advancing as an Administrator
• Beyond Transfer
• Call to Action
• Confessions of a Community College Dean
• Higher Ed Gamma
• Higher Ed Policy
• Just Explain It to Me!
• Just Visiting
• Law, Policy—and IT?
• Leadership & StratEDgy
• Leadership in Higher Education
• Learning Innovation
• Online: Trending Now
• Resident Scholar
• University of Venus
• Student Voice
• Academic Life
• Health & Wellness
• The College Experience
• Life After College
• Academic Minute
• Weekly Wisdom
• Reports & Data
• Quick Takes
• Advertising & Marketing
• Consulting Services
• Data & Insights
• Hiring & Jobs
• Event Partnerships

4 /5 Articles remaining this month.

Sign up for a free account or log in.

• Create Free Account

• Progress towards quality education was already slower than required before the pandemic, but COVID-19 has had devastating impacts on education, causing learning losses in four out of five of the 104 countries studied.

Without additional measures, an estimated 84 million children and young people will stay out of school by 2030 and approximately 300 million students will lack the basic numeracy and literacy skills necessary for success in life.

In addition to free primary and secondary schooling for all boys and girls by 2030, the aim is to provide equal access to affordable vocational training, eliminate gender and wealth disparities, and achieve universal access to quality higher education.

Education is the key that will allow many other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be achieved. When people are able to get quality education they can break from the cycle of poverty.

Education helps to reduce inequalities and to reach gender equality. It also empowers people everywhere to live more healthy and sustainable lives. Education is also crucial to fostering tolerance between people and contributes to more peaceful societies.

• To deliver on Goal 4, education financing must become a national investment priority. Furthermore, measures such as making education free and compulsory, increasing the number of teachers, improving basic school infrastructure and embracing digital transformation are essential.

What progress have we made so far?

While progress has been made towards the 2030 education targets set by the United Nations, continued efforts are required to address persistent challenges and ensure that quality education is accessible to all, leaving no one behind.

Between 2015 and 2021, there was an increase in worldwide primary school completion, lower secondary completion, and upper secondary completion. Nevertheless, the progress made during this period was notably slower compared to the 15 years prior.

What challenges remain?

According to national education targets, the percentage of students attaining basic reading skills by the end of primary school is projected to rise from 51 per cent in 2015 to 67 per cent by 2030. However, an estimated 300 million children and young people will still lack basic numeracy and literacy skills by 2030.

Economic constraints, coupled with issues of learning outcomes and dropout rates, persist in marginalized areas, underscoring the need for continued global commitment to ensuring inclusive and equitable education for all. Low levels of information and communications technology (ICT) skills are also a major barrier to achieving universal and meaningful connectivity.

Where are people struggling the most to have access to education?

Sub-Saharan Africa faces the biggest challenges in providing schools with basic resources. The situation is extreme at the primary and lower secondary levels, where less than one-half of schools in sub-Saharan Africa have access to drinking water, electricity, computers and the Internet.

Inequalities will also worsen unless the digital divide – the gap between under-connected and highly digitalized countries – is not addressed .

Are there groups that have more difficult access to education?

Yes, women and girls are one of these groups. About 40 per cent of countries have not achieved gender parity in primary education. These disadvantages in education also translate into lack of access to skills and limited opportunities in the labour market for young women.

What can we do?  

Ask our governments to place education as a priority in both policy and practice. Lobby our governments to make firm commitments to provide free primary school education to all, including vulnerable or marginalized groups.

Facts and figures

Goal 4 targets.

• Without additional measures, only one in six countries will achieve the universal secondary school completion target by 2030, an estimated 84 million children and young people will still be out of school, and approximately 300 million students will lack the basic numeracy and literacy skills necessary for success in life.
• To achieve national Goal 4 benchmarks, which are reduced in ambition compared with the original Goal 4 targets, 79 low- and lower-middle- income countries still face an average annual financing gap of $97 billion.

Source: The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2023

4.1  By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and Goal-4 effective learning outcomes

4.2  By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and preprimary education so that they are ready for primary education

4.3  By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university

4.4  By 2030, substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship

4.5  By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations

4.6  By 2030, ensure that all youth and a substantial proportion of adults, both men and women, achieve literacy and numeracy

4.7  By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development

4.A  Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, nonviolent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all

4.B  By 2020, substantially expand globally the number of scholarships available to developing countries, in particular least developed countries, small island developing States and African countries, for enrolment in higher education, including vocational training and information and communications technology, technical, engineering and scientific programmes, in developed countries and other developing countries

4.C  By 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers, including through international cooperation for teacher training in developing countries, especially least developed countries and small island developing states

UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UN Children’s Fund

UN Development Programme

Global Education First Initiative

UN Population Fund: Comprehensive sexuality education

UN Office of the Secretary General’s Envoy on Youth

Fast Facts: Quality Education

Infographic: Quality Education

Related news

‘Education is a human right,’ UN Summit Adviser says, urging action to tackle ‘crisis of access, learning and relevance’

Masayoshi Suga 2022-09-15T11:50:20-04:00 14 Sep 2022 |

14 September, NEW YORK – Education is a human right - those who are excluded must fight for their right, Leonardo Garnier, Costa Rica’s former education minister, emphasized, ahead of a major United Nations [...]

Showcasing nature-based solutions: Meet the UN prize winners

Masayoshi Suga 2022-08-13T22:16:45-04:00 11 Aug 2022 |

NEW YORK, 11 August – The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and partners have announced the winners of the 13th Equator Prize, recognizing ten indigenous peoples and local communities from nine countries. The winners, selected from a [...]

UN and partners roll out #LetMeLearn campaign ahead of Education Summit

Yinuo 2022-08-10T09:27:23-04:00 01 Aug 2022 |

New York, 1 August – Amid the education crisis exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, the United Nations is partnering with children's charity Theirworld to launch the #LetMeLearn campaign, urging world leaders to hear the [...]

Related videos

Malala yousafzai (un messenger of peace) on “financing the future: education 2030”.

VIDEO: Climate education at COP22

From the football field to the classrooms of Nepal | UNICEF

Share this story, choose your platform!

Volumes and issues

Volume 37 march - june 2024.

• June 2024, issue 2
• March 2024, issue 1

Volume 36 March - December 2023

• December 2023, issue 4
• September 2023, issue 3
• June 2023, issue 2
• March 2023, issue 1

Volume 35 March - December 2022

• December 2022, issue 4

SPECIAL ISSUE: Impact of COVID-19 on Higher Education: Policy Implications for Student Mobility, Teaching and Learning, Research and University Governance

• June 2022, issue 2
• March 2022, issue 1

Volume 34 March - December 2021

• December 2021, issue 4
• September 2021, issue 3
• June 2021, issue 2
• March 2021, issue 1

Volume 33 March - December 2020

• December 2020, issue 4

SPECIAL ISSUE: Globalization and Resurgent Nationalism in Higher Education

• June 2020, issue 2
• March 2020, issue 1

Volume 32 March - December 2019

• December 2019, issue 4
• September 2019, issue 3
• June 2019, issue 2

SPECIAL ISSUE: Taking Account of 20 years of Quality Assurance in German Higher Education

Volume 31 March - December 2018

• December 2018, issue 4
• September 2018, issue 3
• June 2018, issue 2
• March 2018, issue 1

Volume 30 March - December 2017

SPECIAL ISSUE: The Role of Higher Education in the Socio-Economic Development of Peripheral Regions

• September 2017, issue 3
• June 2017, issue 2

Critical and Alternative Perspectives on Student Engagement

Volume 29 March - December 2016

SPECIAL ISSUE: Measuring Up: Consequences of Global Competition and Metrics on Local Scholarship

• September 2016, issue 3
• June 2016, issue 2
• March 2016, issue 1

Volume 28 March - December 2015

Special Issue: Higher Education Research in East Asia

• September 2015, issue 3
• June 2015, issue 2

Special Issue: Higher Education Transformations for Global Competitiveness in Asia

Volume 27 March - December 2014

Special Issue: Early Career Researchers and Changing Working Conditions in Academia

• September 2014, issue 3
• June 2014, issue 2
• March 2014, issue 1

Volume 26 March - December 2013

• December 2013, issue 4
• September 2013, issue 3
• June 2013, issue 2
• March 2013, issue 1

Volume 25 March - December 2012

• December 2012, issue 4

Special Issue: Collaboration and Competition in Research

Special Issue: Transnational Education and Student Mobility in Asia

• March 2012, issue 1

Volume 24 March - December 2011

Sustainability in Higher Education

• September 2011, issue 3
• June 2011, issue 2
• March 2011, issue 1

Volume 23 March - December 2010

• December 2010, issue 4
• September 2010, issue 3

Special Edition: Two great European ideas: Comparing Humboldt and Bologna

• March 2010, issue 1

Volume 22 March - December 2009

• December 2009, issue 4
• September 2009, issue 3
• June 2009, issue 2
• March 2009, issue 1

Volume 21 March - December 2008

Realizing the Global University: Comparative Perspectives and Critical Reflections

Academic Vigour in Changing Contexts

Diversity of Missions

World-Class Universities

Volume 20 March - December 2007

Sustaining Diversity: Differentiating Higher Education Systems in a Knowledge Society

• September 2007, issue 3
• June 2007, issue 2
• March 2007, issue 1

Volume 19 March - December 2006

• December 2006, issue 4

Redefining the Social Contract

Incorporating the University

Transitions in Higher Education

Volume 18 March - December 2005

Intercultural Learning and Dialogue

Knowledge Flow and Capacity Development

• June 2005, issue 2

Reform – Contemplated and Reconsidered

Volume 17 March - December 2004

On Prizes, Entrepreneurialism and Bologna

The Vision of Reform

Science, Training and Career

The Business of University Research: Cross national perspectives

Volume 16 March - December 2003

• December 2003, issue 4
• September 2003, issue 3
• June 2003, issue 2
• March 2003, issue 1

Volume 15 March - December 2002

• December 2002, issue 4
• September 2002, issue 3
• June 2002, issue 2
• March 2002, issue 1

Volume 14 March - December 2001

• December 2001, issue 4
• September 2001, issue 3
• June 2001, issue 2
• March 2001, issue 1

Volume 13 March - December 2000

• December 2000, issue 4
• September 2000, issue 3
• June 2000, issue 2
• March 2000, issue 1

Volume 12 March - December 1999

• December 1999, issue 4
• September 1999, issue 3
• June 1999, issue 2
• March 1999, issue 1

Volume 11 March - December 1998

• December 1998, issue 4
• June 1998, issue 2-3
• March 1998, issue 1

Volume 10 March - September 1997

• September 1997, issue 3-4
• June 1997, issue 2
• March 1997, issue 1

Volume 9 March - December 1996

• December 1996, issue 4
• September 1996, issue 3
• June 1996, issue 2
• March 1996, issue 1

Volume 8 March - December 1995

Organizing Higher Education for the 21st Century

Managing the Autonomous University

The Role of Universities in Developing Areas

Management in African Universities

Volume 7 March - December 1994

The Mobility of Brains

Higher Education and European Integration

Cross-National Perspectives on the Academic Profession

The Changing Graduate Training System

Volume 6 March - December 1993

The Changing Role of the State

Process in Higher Education

Higher Education in East Asia

Academic Mobility: Strengthening the Internationalization of the University

Volume 5 March - December 1992

Different Systems, Different Issues

Intermediary Bodies

Research and Training: Towards Innovative Strategies of Financing

University Action for Sustainable Development

Volume 4 March - December 1991

Leverage and Change

Reconstructing Higher Education

Student Mobility: Reciprocity and Exchange

Volume 3 March - December 1990

At the Frontiers of Practice and Theory

Mobilizing for Change

Higher Education: Public Service and Private Commitment

Higher Education and Culture

Volume 2 March - December 1989

Informatics and Education: Implications for Higher Education

Problems of Higher Education in Latin America

Higher Education: Resource, Service or Good?

Access to Higher Education

Volume 1 March - December 1988

Points of Tension: Higher Education and Society in the late 1980s

The Response of Higher Education to New Priorities

Conflict and Peace: A Challenge for Universities

Higher Education and Development: A Reappraisal

For authors

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research