| 来源类型 | Report |
| 规范类型 | 报告 |
| International higher education rankings: Why no country’s higher education system can be the best | |
| Jason D. Delisle; Preston Cooper | |
| 发表日期 | 2019-08-08 |
| 出版年 | 2019 |
| 语种 | 英语 |
| 摘要 | Key Points An analysis of the higher education systems of 35 developed countries reveals that nations face trade-offs between large government subsidies for higher education and other desirable qualities, such as widespread degree attainment and well-resourced universities. The United States ranks 31st of 35 countries on government support for higher education but 11th on degree attainment and third on resources available to colleges. It is rare for a country to design a higher education system that combines high attainment and well-resourced schools with high government subsidies. An analysis of the higher education systems of 35 developed countries reveals that nations face trade-offs between large government subsidies for higher education and other desirable qualities, such as widespread degree attainment and well-resourced universities. The United States ranks 31st of 35 countries on government support for higher education but 11th on degree attainment and third on resources available to colleges. It is rare for a country to design a higher education system that combines high attainment and well-resourced schools with high government subsidies. Executive Summary By international standards, American colleges charge high tuition, and students must often take out loans to cover the cost of their higher education. This has prompted many to wonder why the United States cannot copy the higher education policies of certain other rich countries, such as Finland, where students at public universities pay zero tuition thanks to a heavy government subsidy. But subsidies are not the only aspect of a country’s higher education system that policymakers should care about. Whether universities produce enough graduates and have enough resources to provide a high-quality education also matter—but these aspects of higher education are usually in tension with higher government subsidies. This report compares the United States to 34 other developed countries, all members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and illustrates how these nations navigate the trade-offs between the various qualities policymakers and the public would like to see in their higher education system. While the public purse bears a relatively low share of the costs in the American university system, the United States ranks ahead of most of the developed world on other goals, such as college degree attainment and resources available for higher education. Conversely, “free college” nations such as Finland more often than not rank behind other countries on these other metrics. While the analysis in this report cannot establish a causal relationship between these different qualities of higher education systems, the findings are consistent with a world in which government higher education regimes face budget constraints. A government that pays for a greater share of each student’s college education can afford to send fewer of those students to college, resulting in lower overall degree attainment. Similarly, without the ability to raise revenue through tuition, colleges may have fewer resources to spend on each student’s education. While this report does not take a position on how countries should design their university systems, thinking about higher education policy in the context of the trade-offs illustrated in this report will help policymakers craft higher education systems that best reflect their priorities and their citizens’ values. Introduction High tuition and student debt have prompted many would-be reformers of the American higher education system to look to other developed countries for a “better” model. Which countries have gotten higher education “right,” and how can we replicate their success in America? Some observers look to the Scandinavian countries, where public college tuition is largely free, while others cite Germany’s low-cost colleges and expansive vocational training system. While one can certainly draw lessons from other countries’ higher education systems, searching for the “best” system can lead reformers astray. It results in one-dimensional comparisons of international higher education systems that focus on just one variable, such as whether a nation offers free tuition. These sorts of comparisons ignore crucial context, as a more desirable outcome on one dimension may lead to less desirable outcomes on another. We propose a different lens to compare the higher education systems of the developed world. Rather than rank systems along one dimension, we measure how each performs on three metrics: attainment, resources, and subsidies. These are the outcomes of three goals that policymakers often pursue when designing a higher education system: Increase the number of students with a college education (attainment), boost the quality of universities by enabling them to spend more per student (resources), and lower the end prices that students pay by covering a greater share of education costs through state support (subsidies). While policymakers frequently cite all these goals as desirable, in practice they are often in tension with one another. For instance, if the government pays a greater share of the cost of college, it can afford to send fewer students to college. If institutions are to have more resources, prices must rise. And if a university system enrolls more students to increase attainment, its existing resources are stretched thinner. These trade-offs exist no matter how much money a government spends on higher education. Increasing the share of national income devoted to higher education raises the question of how that additional funding should be applied. Should extra funds go to enrolling more students, increasing colleges’ resources, or lowering prices students pay? While no nation can escape these decisions, observers who cite other countries without context to make the case for reform in America imply otherwise. Indeed, policymakers often do not think about designing higher education systems in the context of these trade-offs. Sometimes, the trade-offs become apparent only after a policy has been implemented. In this report, we assess how the higher education systems of 35 developed nations compare to one another on attainment, resources, and subsidies. While our analysis cannot make causal claims about the relationship among these three qualities, we can show whether the evidence is consistent with the theory that trade-offs exist between desirable aspects of a higher education system. Generally, a country that ranks higher on one quality should rank lower on the others, though there will of course be exceptions. Viewing higher education systems in the context of these three competing goals will enable policymakers in the United States to be more fiscally and politically prudent about how to reform the American higher education system, if at all. Recognizing that trade-offs between desirable goals exist will also force policymakers to think critically about whether pursuing a certain goal is worth it. Finally, this lens also reveals the strengths of America’s higher education system relative to other countries and warns that mimicking other countries’ higher education policies might undermine those strong points. Read the full report. |
| 主题 | Higher Education |
| 标签 | College costs ; college outcomes ; Higher education ; University |
| URL | https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/higher-education-rankings-no-countrys-system-best/ |
| 来源智库 | American Enterprise Institute (United States) |
| 资源类型 | 智库出版物 |
| 条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.153/handle/2XGU8XDN/206710 |
| 推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | Jason D. Delisle,Preston Cooper. International higher education rankings: Why no country’s higher education system can be the best. 2019. |
| 条目包含的文件 | ||||||
| 文件名称/大小 | 资源类型 | 版本类型 | 开放类型 | 使用许可 | ||
| International-Higher（6629KB） | 智库出版物 | 限制开放 | CC BY-NC-SA | 浏览 | ||
除非特别说明，本系统中所有内容都受版权保护，并保留所有权利。
