Chinese varsities forging aheadAlthough the economic booms of china and India have been fuelled by cheap labour and inexpensive low-end manufacturing, the future of these countries relies on a better-educated workforce. Both countries lack sufficiently educated personnel to meet demand for employment in the expanding and increasingly sophisticated sectors of manufacturing and services.
Universities are central in the race to arm these countries respective workforces with skills to make them competitive in the global knowledge system. However, neither China nor India is well-equipped to face their common challenges in improving the quality of post-secondary education and increasing access to these institutions. The two countries are taking widely different approaches to their education dilemmas, with China working hands-on to build world-class institutions, while India appears to turn a blind eye to the urgency of increasing education funding.

Today, neither country is an academic powerhouse, although China may be moving in that direction. According to the London-based Times Higher Education Supple-ments 2006 ranking of the top 100 universities, two are in China (Peking and Tsinghua universities), three in Hong Kong (Hong Kong University, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology), while only one is in India (Indian Institutes of Technology).

China and India have huge higher education enrollments, yet still struggle to meet growing demand for access to post-secondary education. China has 23 million students in post-secondary education — the largest enroll-ment in the world — although it educates only 21 percent of the 18-24 age group, still low by the standards of indust-rialised nations. India has the third largest post-secondary enrollment in the world with 11 million students, but this accounts for only 9 percent of the relevant age group.

As a percentage of GDP (gross domestic product), neither country spends enough on higher education; both are well under the international average for investing in higher education. India spends 0.37 percent and China 0.50 percent of GDP on higher education, compared to the US at 1.41 percent and UK at 1.07 percent.

Consequently in both countries there is a stark shortage of globally competitive researchers, scholars, and managers to staff world-class universities or other institutions. Employers in both countries complain that graduates of the bottom levels of the higher education systems are not sufficiently trained to be productively employed in the new high-technology and service sectors. There is too much reliance on rote learning in the university selection process and in the academic curriculum, and too little creativity from graduates.

In common with other developing countries, China and India see the private sector as a way of absorbing rapidly expanding demand for access to higher education without much additional public expenditure. However both countries have realised that an unregulated private sector is an invitation to chicanery of all kinds, and they are moving to enhance scrutiny and regulation. Ensuring that the private higher education sector serves the broad public interest is a significant challenge.

At the top of the Indian higher education system there are only a small number of institutions with high standards, innovative curricula, and competent and committed faculty. While these institutions are not lavishly funded by international standards, they have had fairly consistent public support. Examples include the Indian Institutes of Technology, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences and the Indian Institute of Science, among others. These schools are extraordinarily competitive — thousands of applicants sit for national examinations each year, and only the cream of the crop is accepted. But total student enrollment in top institutions is still only about 50,000 students out of 11 million nationwide.

Many in india recognise that higher education is in crisis and is not contributing to economic development. The establishment of a Knowledge Commission by prime minister Manmohan Singh in 2005, to recommend ways of improving higher education and linking it better to development is a sign of this concern. The fact that several members of the commission have resigned in frustration does not bode well for its future.
Both countries are major targets for the international strategies of other countries and their universities. The US, UK, Australia, the Netherlands, Germany and others are establishing links with Chinese universities and are moving towards establishing branch campuses in China. They are also looking to India as a location for branches and linkages, but a changing regulatory environment, and lack of clarity on how programmes might work have been impediments.
The two Asian giants will dominate their regions — and perhaps the worlds — economic future. If they can build world-class higher education systems that serve demands for mass access, the needs of a sophisticated economy, and active participation in the world knowledge system, their development will be quicker and sustainable.
(Dr. Philip G. Altbach is director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College, USA)