Altbach, Philip G. & Umakoshi, Toru. (Eds). (2004). Asian universities: Historical perspectives and contemporary challenges. Reviewed by Matthew Church, University of Louisville

Altbach, Philip G. & Umakoshi, Toru. (Eds). (2004). Asian universities: Historical perspectives and contemporary challenges. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Pp. 376 $65     (Hardcover) ISBN 0-8018-8036-X $35   (Papercover) ISBN 0-8018-8037-8 Reviewed by Matthew Church University of Louisville July 31, 2006 Asian higher education is undergoing dramatic expansion and transformation. The expansion will continue to increase the international importance of Asian higher education and the challenges faced by Asian institutions. The challenges will result from increasing demand for higher education, expanding numbers of potential students, and the dilemma of aim. The latter dilemma refers to the question of how to provide access to higher education but also have leading universities in the academic world. The growing influence of India and China on the world economy and the shifting geopolitical scene make the importance of Asia clear. It is only expected that Asian higher education will go through equivalent changes during this time of increased geopolitical importance. Altbach and Umakoshi provide an excellent analysis on numerous facets of Asian higher education and cover the full range of issues. The authors present each country in the context of historical background and current trends and challenges. Eleven countries are profiled representing various positions along the economic and political spectrum. Numerous higher education systems and situations are presented beginning with India and China and ending with Vietnam and Cambodia. Throughout the text, a clear and vivid view of current issues is presented. Altbach begins with a discussion of 21st century challenges facing Asian higher education. The central reality involves coping with the expansion and "massification" of education. Another challenge is the peripheral role of Asian higher education in the world education community. This is termed "knowledge dependency" later in the work. While Asian institutions are among the fastest growing institutions in the world, Western institutions still retain scientific and research leadership. Asian universities have not been able to break into this upper echelon. Part of this peripheral status relates to the fact that no Asian university is truly Asian. All Asian institutions are based on Western models either voluntarily adopted or imposed by former colonial rulers. Either way, the educational models were not designed specifically for Asian institutions, and the pressure of expansion prevents any upgrades in institutional structure. Altbach’s chapter frames the work and provides a macro level perspective on issues facing Asian higher education. Several issues are enumerated in the chapter and include such varied challenges as massification and the continued strain placed on public systems; differentiation and clear definition of goals and mission; accreditation and quality control; the role of research institutions, the academic profession, and globalization. (pp. 24-31). The latter two challenges merit some elaboration. The academic profession faces challenges in the form of low wages, high workloads, and an increased reliance on part time faculty. Globalization affects Asian higher education through the challenge/impact of distance education and the challenge posed by foreign institutions setting up branch campuses in Asian countries. Altbach notes that it is clear that universities are an essential part of future knowledge economies. (p. 31) If Asian states cannot build effective universities capable of educating the population and competing globally, Asian institutions will be doomed to reside at the educational periphery. Umakoshi provides an excellent chapter on the role of private education in Asian higher education. He notes that Asia is home to the largest and most diverse private higher education sector in the world. Umakoshi introduces and defines the J-Model to clarify the current status of Asian higher education. The J-Model originated in Japan and spread throughout East Asia. It includes state coordination of education and research with an emphasis on indigenous values and mastery of foreign technology; a high priority on universal primary education, with state investment in secondary and tertiary areas limited to critical areas, an expectation that students, families, and the private sector provide backup to state provided education; and state involvement in manpower planning, job placement, and the coordination of science and technology. By providing this model, Umakoshi lays the foundation for the growth of private higher education in Asia. Traditionally, primary education was the focus and higher education was the responsibility of families and private sectors. This led to the current situation where private higher education accommodates three-quarters of the higher education population in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines. After discussing the J-Model, Umakoshi offers three models of private education: Private peripheral, private complementary, and private dominant. Private peripheral models are found in China, Vietnam, and Malaysia. Under this model, the government established key national and regional institutions, which comprised the core of the education system. Private institutions are not authorized by the state and exist on the periphery of the education system. The private complementary model exists in Thailand and Indonesia. In this model, the state provided the initial core of institutions and private education began on the periphery. Private institutions then became the fastest growing segment of education, complemented the public sector, and were of equal or greater size then the public core. The last model, private dominant, is found in Japan, Korea, and the Philippines. In this model, the private sector led the expansion. While historical public universities still make up the core, private institutions comprise the majority of the education system. Umakoshi notes that there are numerous problems existing within the private dominant model and believes private institutions have the potential to undermine the education system of a particular country. Private dominated education will make it harder to maintain levels of quality, and the institutional output will be greatly differentiated. An increased reliance on part-time instructors by private institutions is also expected. He believes private institutions have developed in response to social demands, but not in response to what society really needs. Essentially, private higher education will continue to be a dominant force in Asian higher education and could have unwelcome consequences. The first two chapters by Altbach and Umakoshi frame the rest of the work. The remainder of the text presents differing examples of trends and challenges in Asian higher education on a country specific basis. Each chapter begins with the historical context for a country’s higher education system and then proceeds to address contemporary issues. The editors divide the countries into several subgroups beginning with the Asian Giants (China, India) and ending with low per capita income countries (Vietnam, Cambodia). The scope of the work is such that it is not possible to adequately comment on all the profiled countries, so only a few will be highlighted. Any summary of a text on Asian higher education would be remiss without discussing the situations in China and India. China currently has the largest education system in the world. Chinese institutions have undergone dramatic changes, and many institutions have the goal of becoming world class. Chinese higher education originated in 1100 BCE, but is now based on western models. China encountered the western models of education after the 1840 Opium War. During the post World War I era, China adopted the western university model, promoted the learning of Western science and technology, established western military academies, and created the first modern higher education institution: Capital Metropolitan University, later renamed Peking University. These developments were undone in the post World War II era when the Chinese system was reformed along Soviet Russia lines. In recent years, economic growth has led to an increased call for higher education access since education was considered a foundation of economic success. From 1993 to 2001, the Chinese system was reorganized. China has reformed the curriculum, attempted to generate broader education attainment, and focused on critical thinking. The 1993 Provisional Stipulation for the Establishment of Minban Higher Education Institutions allowed for the establishment of private institutions (Minban) in China. This establishment of private institutions was undertaken to mobilize private sector resources to accelerate higher education development. China has also embarked on a plan of making select universities world class institutions through the allotment of additional funding. Finally, the Chinese Government has doubled faculty salaries. There are some challenges and problems associated with Chinese higher education, most notably the lack of quality assurance, a rigid institutional hierarchy, and regional disparities with the majority of the best institutions in the most successful provinces and regions. These issues aside, the text portrays the future of Chinese higher education as promising. While Chinese higher education is favorably portrayed in the work, Indian higher education exists at the opposite end of the educational spectrum. Jayaram contributes an interesting piece on Indian higher education. He begins with the foundations of the system dating back to the British Empire. All Indian institutions under British rule were modeled after the University of London and designed to serve the economic, political, and administrative interests of Britain. After depicting the British lineage of the Indian higher education system, the 1990 adoption of structural adjustment reforms is presented; and the impact of this gradual withdrawal of state patronage from higher education is discussed. The various typologies of Indian higher education are presented including the two tracks of postsecondary education, the affiliating and unitary institutions, and the demarcation of state and regional universities. The institutions of national importance are of particular interest. These institutions include the five Indian Institutes of Technology and three specializing in medical techniques; among others, they are able to grant degrees not available at other institutions. These institutions exist as exemplars of the Indian higher education system at the same time as a crisis exists in the same system. The crisis was described as an overproduction of certified persons; increasing educated unemployment; weakness of student motivation; increasing unrest and lack of discipline on the campuses; administrative collapse, deterioration of standards, and demoralization. Institutions face a lack of quality, and suffer from a lack of facilities, poor instruction, under-qualified instructors, and administrative problems. This is not to say all Indian institutions are in crisis. Schools such as the Indian Institute of Management, Indian Institute of Technology, and the National Law School among others exist as islands of excellence in a sea of mediocrity. All pedagogy is geared towards examinations and certification. Students' desire for specialized courses and professional courses has further hampered curriculum development. India lacks a central educational planning or regulating body, and there is dire need for at least a central regulating body. The government has implemented a freeze on the establishment of new institutions, and the increased government disinterest has led to fears of increased costs, disenfranchisement of the masses, lower quality, and a brain drain. Private higher education offers some options, but runs a high risk of reinforcing the extant class system. As bright as the prospects of Chinese higher education appear, India's prospects appear exceptionally dismal. With the increasing population in India, there is exceptional need to not only reign in institutional quality, but also find a way to establish a regulating body to restructure the system, assure quality, and prevent a brain drain with India's best and brightest seeking education abroad. While China and India are the two largest and most prevalent countries in the text, the profiles of some of the smaller states offer interesting and intriguing portrayals. Among the most interesting topics in the latter portion of the text are the discussions of academic nationalism in South Korea, the Singaporean efforts to become a hub of international education, and Thai higher education. Korean academic nationalism dates back to the 1970s and involved conflicts between American education faculty and Korean trained faculty. This dispute was manifested in the effort to replace and overcome Western techniques with Korean techniques and the separation of westernization from modernization. On the positive side, this academic nationalism has led to the philosophy that a country's education system need not emulate the West to be modern. The negative side of this academic nationalism is the potential end results and efforts. If Korean higher education system maintains this path, there will be a need to become self sufficient in terms of research and knowledge as well as elevate Korean institutions to the upper echelon of world institutions. The pursuit of academic nationalism can yield great benefits or result in atrophy. There appears to be a need for the Korean system to achieve a balance with non-Korean education. While pursuing the excellence of Korean education, the system needs to be capable of adopting useful western ways if they can help in bettering Korean institutions. The Singaporean goal of becoming a hub of international education is laudable as is the goal of attracting top institutions to the country. The question arises over co-existence. Presumably, the attraction of top institutions and the establishment of Singapore as a center of international education involves the installation of multinational institutions and concerns in the country. Traditionally, the Singaporean central government has acted with a heavy hand and directly intervened in educational matters. If this governmental trend persists, it will be interesting to see if the Singaporean educational aims can be achieved. The educational system of Thailand provides an interesting case study and one with the most opportunity for speculative solutions. Thai universities still are debating the best way to prepare graduates for the globalized economy. This debate is paired with a lack of knowledge production and a knowledge dependency on the West. Thailand lacks accreditation, and the system is not based on quality. After the Tom Yam Kang crises of 1997 led to a questioning of universities, higher education institutions are being asked to play a progressive role in societal development and provide guidance with social issues. Currently, half of the Thai education budget is spent on higher education; and there is a need to produce results. The text notes that there is little understanding of university management and suggests a need for the inclusion of higher education administration into the curriculum (p. 218). It would be feasible for administrators and researchers from other Asian nations or the United States to travel to Thailand and lecture on higher education administration. This could be done through a series of institutes and could be sponsored by the Thai government and various international educational concerns. After a period of training through these institutes, exchanges could be pursued where Thai faculty take part in exchanges to assist in their ability to produce knowledge and research. The entire situation offers a wealth of opportunities for many groups. The Thai education system would benefit from the partnership and enhance their educational management and, presumably, their institutional quality. Furthermore, the process would offer an excellent laboratory in the transmission and instruction in higher education methods on a transnational basis. It could work. Altbach and Umakoshi have produced an excellent work. Throughout the text, several common themes across the various countries emerge. No matter how accomplished the national system, every Asian state profiled in this text faces issues of quality and knowledge production. With the expansion of Asian higher education, many states will need to find ways to both expand and assure the quality of the expanded system. Knowledge production focuses on the peripheral status of Asian institutions mentioned by Altbach in the first chapter. At the present time, Asian institutions occupy peripheral status in a world education system with Western dominance of research and knowledge production. The true success of Asian higher education will involve the movement from the periphery to the center of the knowledge production world. Asian states have the resources, drive, and means to become elite institutions; and this aim will play out in the early portion of the 21st century. Aside from these unifying themes, the work provides excellent depictions of various Asian states and the relative success of their higher education systems. The methods of presentation allow for a comparative analysis of the various states. While an exceptional piece of scholarship, there are a few flaws in the work. Most importantly, the text tries to cover too much material. The scope of material covered is immense and at times overwhelming. The subject matter could very easily be transformed into a series of comparative educational texts on various national systems of education. Another drawback is the organization of the chapters with the history of the national systems provided first. In future editions, it may prove beneficial to provide a common educational history of Asian higher education and then proceed to the individual countries. Flaws aside, Altbach and Umakoshi have outdone themselves. This is a well written, expertly researched text on what will be the most important region of higher education in the world. The future holds many opportunities for Asian higher education and this text provides an excellent depiction of these potential opportunities. One can only hope that Altbach and Umakoshi produce a similar volume in the next few years to update the situations described here. About the Reviewer Matthew Church is an Academic Counselor Senior with the College of Arts & Sciences Advising Freshmen/Sophomore Division at the University of Louisville. He is currently pursuing a PhD in Educational Leadership and Organizational Development with a concentration in Postsecondary Administration. Matthew has Bachelors in History from Bellarmine University and a Master's Degree in history from the University of Louisville Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.