Highlighting trends and realities of private higher education around the world, this book is organized into two sections. The first deals with international trends and issues, while the second--much longer--section focuses on countries and regions. (Education)

A World of Private Higher Education is the definitive treatment of a sector accounting for a third of the world's 200 million higher education enrolment--yet remaining largely unknown even to scholars of higher education and widely mis-characterized when it is considered by stakeholders or the general public. Beyond the eye-popping numbers, several inter-related thematic findings regarding the Private and the Public underscore the subject matter's importance. First, private-public differences are significant-it matters that so many students are in a sector that not long ago was only marginal in much of the world. Second, private higher education (PHE) itself is increasingly diverse, with significant and private-private differences. Third, the overlaying of the first two realities yields increasing diversity in private-public higher education distinctions. Especially for its pioneering mapping of PHE globally, regionally, and nationally, the book draws on the pioneering dataset of the pioneering scholarly program for research on PHE (Program for Research on Private Higher Education). Unprecedented in geographical scope, the dataset is unprecedented in longitudinal coverage too, dating back to 2000. Empirical methods allow for extensive analysis, and theoretical analysis draws on key private-public concepts embedded in literatures on privatization, nonprofit studies, and policy models. For the major challenge of penetrating inside the increasingly diverse private sector of higher education, Levy revises his heralded and widely employed PHE typology.

After World War II, elite private universities in the South faced growing calls for desegregation. Though, unlike their peer public institutions, no federal court ordered these schools to admit black students and no troops arrived to protect access to the schools, to suggest that desegregation at these universities took place voluntarily would be misleading In Desegregating Private Higher Education in the South,Melissa Kean explores how leaders at five of the region's most prestigious private universities -- Duke, Emory, Rice, Tulane, and Vanderbilt -- sought to strengthen their national position and reputation while simultaneously answering the increasing pressure to end segregation. To join the upper echelon of U. S. universities, these schools required increased federal and northern philanthropic funding. Clearly, to receive this funding, schools had to eliminate segregation, and so a rift appeared within the leadership of the schools. University presidents generally favored making careful accommodations in their racial policies for the sake of academic improvement, but universities' boards of trustees -- the presidents' main opponents -- served as the final decision-makers on university policy. Board members--usually comprised of professional, white, male alumni--reacted strongly to threats against southern white authority and resisted determinedly any outside attempts to impose desegregation. The grassroots civil rights movement created a national crisis of conscience that led many individuals and institutions vital to the universities' survival to insist on desegregation. The schools felt enormous pressure to end discrimination as northern foundations withheld funding, accrediting bodies and professional academic associations denied membership, divinity students and professors chose to study and teach elsewhere, and alumni withheld contributions. The Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954 gave the desegregation debate a sense of urgency and also inflamed tensions -- which continued to mount into the early 1960s. These tensions and the boards' resistance to change created an atmosphere of crisis that badly eroded their cherished role as southern leaders. When faced with the choice between institutional viability and segregation, Kean explains, they gracelessly relented, refusing to the end to admit they had been pressured by outside forces. Shedding new light on a rare, unexamined facet of the civil rights movement, Desegregating Private Higher Education in the South fills a gap in the history of the academy.

Although an entirely unknown part of higher education worldwide, there are literally hundreds of universities that are owned/managed by families around the world. These institutions are an important subset of private universities—the fastest growing segment of higher education worldwide. Family-owned or managed higher education institutions (FOMHEI) are concentrated in developing and emerging economies, but also exist in Europe and North America. This book is the first to shed light on these institutions—there is currently no other source on this topic. Who owns a university? Who is in charge of its management and leadership? How are decisions made? The answers to these key questions would normally be governments or non-profit boards of trustees, or recently, for-profit corporations. There is another category of post-secondary institutions that has emerged in the past half-century challenging the time-honored paradigm of university ownership. Largely unknown, as well as undocumented, is the phenomenon of family-owned or managed higher education institutions. In Asia and Latin America, for example, FOMHEIs have come to comprise a significant segment of a number of higher education systems, as seen in the cases of Thailand, South Korea, India, Brazil and Colombia. We have identified FOMHEIs on all continents—ranging from well-regarded comprehensive universities and top-level specialized institutions to marginal schools. They exist both in the non-profit and for-profit sectors.

Forty years after Clark Kerr coined the term multiversity, the American research university has continued to evolve into a complex force for social and economic good. This volume provides a unique opportunity to explore the current state of the research university system. Charles M. Vest, one of the leading advocates for autonomy for American higher education, offers a multifaceted view of the university at the beginning of a new century. With a complex mission and funding structure, the university finds its international openness challenged by new security concerns and its ability to contribute to worldwide opportunity through sharing and collaboration dramatically expanded by the Internet. In particular, Vest addresses the need to nurture broad access to our universities and stay true to the fundamental mission of creating opportunity.

Based on studies of higher education in seven countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, and Peru), the volume identifies opportunities for raising Latin America's profile on the global stage"--Jacket.

Why higher education in the United States has lost its way, and how universities and colleges can focus sharply on their core mission. For The Real World of College, Wendy Fischman and Howard Gardner analyzed in-depth interviews with more than 2,000 students, alumni, faculty, administrators, parents, trustees, and others, which were conducted at ten institutions ranging from highly selective liberal arts colleges to less-selective state schools. What they found challenged characterizations in the media: students are not preoccupied by political correctness, free speech, or even the cost of college. They are most concerned about their GPA and their resumes; they see jobs and earning potential as more important than learning. Many say they face mental health challenges, fear that they don’t belong, and feel a deep sense of alienation. Given this daily reality for students, has higher education lost its way? Fischman and Gardner contend that US universities and colleges must focus sharply on their core educational mission. Fischman and Gardner, both recognized authorities on education and learning, argue that higher education in the United States has lost sight of its principal reason for existing: not vocational training, not the provision of campus amenities, but to increase what Fischman and Gardner call “higher education capital”—to help students think well and broadly, express themselves clearly, explore new areas, and be open to possible transformations. Fischman and Gardner offer cogent recommendations for how every college can become a community of learners who are open to change as thinkers, citizens, and human beings.