Author Archives: hy2483

The share of private institution in HE across Asian countries

Posted on by
Hi class,
As this class comes closer to the end, I feel like delving into another important factor of HE across Asian countries – the role of private institutions.
For comparison, I attached data from Asian Development Bank (https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/29869/private-higher-education-across-asia.pdf) about private enrollment and institutional share.
Moreover, it presents a kind of typology classifying each country in Asia into 3 categories (see below).
To me it seems that each country’s situation reflects not only on their economic situation but also on social and political contexts and government policies related to HE.
Here are questions for discussion;
1. How do you relate each country’s situation to government policies that we covered or not in the class?
2. This data is in late 2000s – do you see drastic changes to this trend nowadays and if so, what’s the driver?
Thanks for reading!
Hiro

Flow of International Students in Asia

Posted on by

Hi Class! This time I present data relevant to our previous classes – flow of international students in Asia.

This excel below shows from which country in Asia to which country (mostly OECD) students are enrolled abroad at a tertiary level. (e.g. 90245: number of Chinese students studying in Australia)

international student-2b65dm2

(Reference: OECD Statistics, http://stats.oecd.org/)

 

And not surprisingly, aside from U.S. and UK, this revealed one important country with regard to international students’ flow, which could be categorized into Asia but had not been covered by this particular class – Australia. I wanna focus on this country in this blog because I believe we cannot discuss students’ flow within Asian countries without referring to Australia.

Here are some excerpts from an interesting article elaborating difficult situation surrounding this country

 

“In 2015, there were 272,095 higher education international students in Australia who contributed almost A$12.5 billion to the economy.”

“In Australia, however, international students have few scholarship opportunities, and no local jobs specifically waiting for them after graduation.”

“One aspect of this discussion policymakers might want to consider is becoming host to satellite campuses from world-renowned universities. So far only Carnegie Mellon has an offshore campus in Australia. Having such satellite campuses creates not only diversity and internationalisation in the Australian higher education space, but also provides other benefits. These include more competitive choices of institutions on Australian soil, as well as greater opportunities for students to move between countries on exchange. Having top Asian universities set up campuses in Australia promotes increased flows of top students and staff. This would help strengthen Australia’s position in the region as a high-quality education hub.”

 

So here clearly we can see another type of dilemma – different from Japan (attracting foreign students into homogeneity), South Korea (getting out of brain drain), Hong Kong and Taiwan (aiming to become international hub in Asian HE). Maybe Australia’s situation is somewhat similar to Singapore, but still a lot of differences in terms of country size and its historical context etc.

 

Let us know any thoughts or comments. Thank you for reading!

 

(Reference: Rising players in higher education: the countries to watch out for)

http://theconversation.com/rising-players-in-higher-education-the-countries-to-watch-out-for-62964

Gender Parity Index and more

Posted on by
Hi class! This time our data team focuses on Gender Parity Index across countries.
Gender Parity Index (GPI) is a socioeconomic index usually designed to measure the relative access to education of males and females. It is calculated as the quotient of the number of females by the number of males enrolled in a given stage of education. (If the value is less than 1, then it means that the number of males enrolled is greater than that of females enrolled)
Here is the source from UNStats.
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=614

And this is my summary!
U.S.A.: 1.37 (in 2013)
China: 1.15 (in 2013)
Peru : 1.09 (in 2010)
Pakistan: 0.98 (in 2013)
Mexico: 0.96 (in 2013)
India: 0.92 (in 2013)
Japan: 0.90 (in 2012)
Viet Nam: 0.90 (in 2013)
Korea: 0.75 (in 2014)
Singapore: – (no data found)
To be honest, I’m very surprised by the fact there is less differences across Asian countries than I thought and there is almost no correlation with gross enrollment ratio that I posted last time (http://edblogs.columbia.edu/inafu6653-001-2017-1/2017/02/08/international-comparison-gross-enrollment-ratio/). Another striking fact is Korea and Japan is lagging behind even within Asian countries.
And rather than just showing this alone, we also wanna share World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Rankings in 2016. This index is composed mainly of four factors (economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment)
U.S.A.: 45th
Singapore: 55th
Viet Nam: 65th
Mexico: 66th
Peru : 80th
India: 87th
China: 99th
Japan: 111th
Korea: 116th
Pakistan: 143rd
Anything strikes you? Please share and discuss it!

The reform of the Law Schools in Japan/Korea and the relation to the Western Model

Posted on by

Hi all! This is Hiro.

Thank you for yesterday’s amazing discussion about Law School reforms!!

Below is my presentation slide. The key points are;

Korea: strong quantity control by government, but delay abolishing traditional bar exam for three times, also corruption

Japan: loosened quantity control, preliminary exam as a shortcut, mismatch between demand and supply

Both: Inconsistent policy

 

Please share any comment or further insight about law school reforms in these two or any other countries. Thank you!

 

HE presentation (Japan&Korea Law School)-1hoquei

International Comparison : Gross Enrollment Ratio

Posted on by
Hi all! My name is Hiro, member of the data team.
Today I’d like you to step into one of the indicators for higher education – Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER).
To catch your eyes (honestly), here are the GERs as of 2014 for our classmates’ country (sorry if I missed any of you).
China: 39.39% (male 36.56%, female 42.53%)
India: 25.53% (male 25.74%, female 25.31%)
Japan: 63.36% (male 65.73%, female 60.88%)
Mexico: 29.94% (male 29.85%, female 30.03%)
Pakistan: 10.35% (male 10.06%, female 10.67%)
Peru : 40.51% (male 38.59%, female 42.50%) (as of 2010)
Korea: 95.34% (male 107.84%, female 81.27%) (as of 2013)
Singapore: 69.81% (male 68.82%, female 70.84%) (as of 2013)
U.S.A.: 86.66% (male 73.47%, female 100.70%)
Viet Nam: 30.48% (male 29.76%, female 31.23%)
You can find more detailed data by accessing this website below and sort by “Gross enrollment ratio, tertiary” indicator.
What struck me at first was China’s rapid growth over time (6.5% as of 1999), Korea’s significant gender gap (male > female) and that of the U.S (the opposite way, female > male).
But trends can always be explained in terms of policy context – for example, in Japan higher education policy clearly focued on increasing access to HE until 1970s and 1980s, after when shifted to quality, governance and diversification.
Please share any thoughts about your own or any country!
Thank you for reading!