This “bubble of
prosperity” could not last much. In 1983, and for the next five years, the Mexican
economy was hit by decreasing economic rates due to the government’s failure to
meet its debt obligations. Therefore, the top priority for the government was
to control the chaotic inflation rates and, consequently, the dominant social
policy in the 70s had to be ignored in the mid 80s. The consequence for higher
education was the freezing of budgets as public funds allocation was kept at
the same level. This situation deteriorated the real value of faculties’
salaries by 40% (Rolling, 1995).
In the decade of 1990, with a national
population of 81,2 million, the total enrollment in higher education institutions
reached 1,200,000 students. However, public universities stopped growing, thus making
possible the expansion of private education. Private institutions grew from 34
in 1970 to 103 in 1980 and to 206 in 1990. The lack of a rationally oriented
policy in higher education during the 70s and 80s, led by social and economic
forces, resulted in the absence of academic excellence and scarce technological
development (Rolling, 1995). The last defining aspects of Mexican universities
during those decades were both the intense nationalism and the institutional
autonomy cultivated as sacred heritage in all public universities across the
country. Such nationalism was linked, for the most part, to the leftist
thought; indeed almost all faculty members in public universities were
favorable to socialist theories. The Cuban revolution of 1959 fueled most of
these radical positions (Gonzalez, 2004).
The important shift that President Carlos Salinas
gave to Mexican Economy redefined the future of Mexican higher education.
President Salinas implemented aggressive economic measures to open the
overprotected Mexican market, and to reduce the role of an omnipresent state.
Such measures included the reduction of import tolls, the privatization more
than 1000 public sector firms in order to bring public finances under control,
and the deregulation of the agriculture and the export sector. Besides, in 1993
Mexico, USA and Canada signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA);
and, in 1994 Mexico entered the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) (Teichman, 1997). By mid 90s, Mexican economy was back on
track and a renewed interest in modern higher education policies came up. The
main change was the introduction of a novel mechanism to allocate federal funds,
which principal components were focused grants, incentives for institutional
reform, differentiated salary scales, individual productivity grants and investment
in academic infrastructure. Additionally, the government stimulated
universities to increase their own income through student fees and the sale of assorted
services. Entrance examinations were introduced in most public universities as
well as the establishment of institutional evaluation and external peer review
(Rolling, 1995).
In 2000, Mexico had 97.5 million inhabitants
and more than 2 million students attending classes in higher education
institutions. During those years, the need of higher quality standards in higher
education services –which started in the 90s- became stronger. Universities’
authorities set a new array of evaluation tools in order to assess the higher
education performance: diversified funding, account giving, strengthening of
infrastructures, and linkage with social needs. In order to achieve these goals,
universities had to develop ambitious academic programs of teaching formation,
and opened additional better-paid positions for top researchers (Rodriguez and
Ziccardi, 2001).
The historic context of Mexico’s higher education
makes easier to understand why internationalization did not become a true
concern among Mexican universities until the late 90s. Before mid 90s, there were
two international practices in some Mexican universities that preceded the
modern understanding of internationalization. First, Mexico intensified its
relationship with industrialized countries like France, Germany and England in
the form of vertical cooperation in research projects to understand Mexican
culture, history, economic system, etc. In the same category, Mexico strengthened
its traditional links with Spain and France by sending the most outstanding
students to pursue graduate degrees in Spanish and French institutions. This
was a mean for developed countries, especially France and Spain, to export
their educational models to Mexican ground (Gacel, J. 2001).
The second practice took place during the mid
80’s, when timid attempts to internationalize higher education started, and
some universities created their first offices for international academic
exchange. The main interests during those years were academics mobility and
research cooperation among public universities, as well as the reception of
international students among private universities. Nonetheless, this
international activity was largely focused in the most economically developed
areas of Mexico, like Mexico City, Guadalajara, Jalisco and Monterrey, Nuevo
Leon (Gacel, 2001).
after the North America Free Trade
Agreement was signed, (which went into effect the first day of 1994), pressures
for internationalization forced Mexican universities to define their
strategies. The globalization of Mexican economy was everywhere, and
universities could not stay behind. According to Gacel (2001), who conducted a
national survey on the international dimension of Mexican universities in 2000,
an effective internationalization policy should cover two aspects: the
organizational structures and the academic curriculum. As discussed in class
this semester, many authors consider that an effective internationalization
policy has to be integrated as one of the institutional priorities and, as with
any other priority, it should be expressed in the institution’s mission,
general policy, and main functional areas. In this sense, the situation of
Mexican universities results ambiguous: while internationalization is commonly
mentioned in authorities rhetoric, it is far from the real institutional
agenda. Some universities at least mention internationalization as a goal or
strategic policy, but they do not do much in real terms. Some authorities do
not even mention internationalization anywhere in their institutional planning.
The former illustrate the worst situation. When universities mention internationalization
as an institutional priority, it is common to not find professionalized
committees working on the elaboration, implementation and supervision of their presumed
internationalization programs. In
general, there seems to be a confusion between having international activities
and having a holistic, international policy. As a result, many
internationalization initiatives take place outside the institutional frame and
in most cases reflect personal initiatives and interests. This circumstance is
created largely because Mexican universities lack of a common concept of
internationalization among the different members of the academic community.
Following Gacel findings (2001), one of the
most serious challenges for internationalization of Mexican universities lies
on the fact that many universities require continuity to succeed. Continuity is
hardly seen in any Mexican institution. With every authority change, the internationalization
programs’ approach, significance and even the personnel change, as well.
Moreover, it is usual to find diverse internationalization offices within the
same institution working uncoordinattedly, ignoring each other’s functions and
wasting limited resources. Another confronting fact is the nonexistence of a
professional track for internationalization practitioners. When new authorities
arrive, they normally do not choose the best-prepared people to occupy the international
exchange office. Senior-level administrators make this decision based largely on
personal criteria. With just a few well-prepared professionals and many improvised
practitioners changing positions each presidency term, it is impossible to gain
expertise in the international scene, develop international relationships or
increase administrative leadership.
Funding internationalization activities is
another central issue in Mexican universities. It is extremely difficult to
establish the exact amount of resources used in this area. This problem is a
direct consequence of the poor planning, and, therefore, the lack of a financial
budgeting. Almost any university in Mexico has a budget for international
activities. Most of the times the resources for international projects are fragmented
among the different administrative and academic budgets. Except for a few exceptions,
there are no databases available to help internationalization practitioners to
obtain national or international funding for their projects (Espinosa, 2000).
Many public universities run programs for
international students, either to learn Spanish or to enroll international students
seeking academic credits, but most of these programs work with enormous
deficits. It is also a widespread practice in public universities not to link
their offices of academic exchange and international students’ programs.
Private universities do a better performance in terms of international
students’ programs, and their offices of academic exchange and international
students’ programs are usually under the same authority.
The last aspect of internationalization of Mexican
universities is the academic curriculum. Harari (1997) affirms that the
internationalization of the curriculum in undergraduate students should be a
priority. Without knowledge of international cultures, foreign languages and
global trends, Mexican students will fail to face the growing interdependent
and multicultural world. The reality is disappointing. The number of Mexican
students from public universities studying abroad is still disappointingly low.
There are only three public programs that promote international student
mobility: the Program for North American
Mobility in Higher Education, and the Regional
Academic Mobility Program, both allowing Mexican students to pursue higher
education in USA or Canada; and Programa
Intercampus de la Agencia Espanola de Cooperacion, which allows Mexican
students to seek degrees in Spain. In the private sector, student mobility is
more frequent than in the public sector. This is understandable if we take into
consideration the higher socioeconomic background of its students.
Mexico’s undergraduate studies are organized
in a highly inflexible way. Most public universities organize their services
around the French ecoles et facultes
model (Kogan and Bleiklie, 2007). This organizational model forces students to
choose their major at the very beginning of their studies. Once a student chose
a professional school, it is awfully difficult to change, unless the student is
willing to start all over. This rigid model raises many problems to transfer
credits, and recognition of oversees studies is still a difficult task.
Research cooperation is the
best-internationalized area in Mexican public universities. Many elite
researchers, especially those who earned a doctoral degree abroad, keep
intensive collaboration relationships with their degree granting institutions.
However, these qualified researchers do not extend their collaboration to
institutional level (Gacel, 2001).
This broad overview of the history and
contemporary practices of higher education in Mexico would be incomplete
without referring to three key institutions: The National Council for Science
and Technology, (Consejo Nacional de
CIencia y Tecnologia, CONACYT); the National
Association of Universities (Asociacion Nacional de Universidades e
Institutos de Educacion Superior, ANUIES); and the Mexican Association of International Education (Asociacion Mexicana
para la Educacion Internacional, AMPEI).
Founded in 1971, CONACYT has been developing
four strategic lines: knowledge
production, scholarship programs for graduate studies in Mexican or foreign
institutions, the promotion of international research projects, and the
national development of quality graduate programs (CONACYT, 2010). By funding
these strategic lines, CONACYT has played a leading role in the internationalization
of Mexican institutions since its programs are the most influential providers
of qualified teachers and researchers. Although 64% of CONACYT scholarship
students return to teach in Mexican Institutions, “there are no systematic national
or international policies designed to take advantage of returning students in
order to internationalize the curriculum” (Wit, 2005).
The National Association of Universities and
Institutions of Higher Education (ANUIES) is a nongovernmental organization
that represents most of public higher education institutions and many of the
most prestigious private institutions in Mexico. It comprises 154 members. It
plays a highly influential role in the design and implementation of national
education policy. ANUIES annual meeting is the most prominent debate forum of
the current trends and development of higher education policy (ANUIES, 2010).
Accordingly with the social and economic trends in the end of 1990s, ANUIES
authorities started drawing attention to internationalization as a crucial
element to improve the quality of education. In 2000, ANUIES presented a report
of a sweeping survey called “Higher Education in the 21st Century,
Paths for Strategic Development”. In this report, ANUIES recommended the implementation
of four fundamental programs of educational policy: evaluation and
accreditation, a national information network, academic networks and mobility,
and the virtual university. This document was a watershed for Mexican higher
education policies. Among other quality enhancing policies, the report sets the
goal of establishing a national network of cooperation and exchange with
regional nodes that are the responsibility of the regional councils of ANUIES.
These networks would design and implement strategies for internationalization
and cooperation at a national and international level (ANUIES, 2010). These
strategic programs for developing cooperation and exchange emphasize horizontal
collaboration and exploitation of institutional areas of strength. It also
urges member institutions to create practical schemes for recognizing credits
and academic equivalence in order to facilitate the mobility of students. It
also suggested the creation of mobility programs for faculty at the regional,
national and international level. Finally, the document requests institutions
to increase the flexibility of their schemes of organization and administration
for cooperation and exchange and advocate for the creation of new curricula
with flexible syllabuses in order to facilitate student mobility. Again reality
beat good wishes, and four years later ANUIES reported insufficient progress in
its ambitious goals. The weaknesses of ANUIES continue to be the lack of a
common and strengthen policy on internationalization among all its members, and
the nonexistence of a proposal of professionalization for staff in charge of
internationalization activities.
AMPEI is the Mexican Association for
International Education. It is a nonprofit organization founded in 1992 at the
initiative of a group of academics and professionals with interest in academic
exchange and international cooperation. Its goal its to “improve the quality of
higher education by integrating an international dimension into its substantive
functions” (AMPEI, 2010). AMPEI has been tremendously successful in rising
consciousness about internationalization among its almost 200 members (51%
private, 38% public and 11% foreign institutions. Among AMPEI main functions
are the organization of an annual meeting on education and international
cooperation; the publication of Educacion
Global an annual journal committed with internationalization issues; the
realization of surveys, research and questionnaires on related topics; and the
representation of Mexico in prestigious international meetings like the
National Association of International Educators (NAFSA) in the USA and the
European Association for International Education (EAIE) in Europe.
Among the many adaptations of these suggested
policies, there are two models that have been gaining leadership among Mexican
universities. The first one is the public, nationalistic model led by the Universidad
National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), and the second one is the Americanized
model led by the Technological Institute of Superior Studies of Monterrey
(ITESM). Both models have developed successful internationalization strategies,
and many other institutions are mimicking them both across Mexico.
The UNAM is one of the largest universities
in the world, unquestionably the best university in Mexico, and arguably the best
university in Latin America. One of its most distinctive characteristics is its
nationalism and its deep connection with Latin America. UNAM is a complex
institution with more than 280,000 students, and more than 35,000 faculty
members. It comprises 14 high schools, 21 schools and facultades (called “academic units”) that grant undergraduate and
graduate degrees in more than 150 programs. UNAM conducts almost 50% of all
research projects in Mexico in 29 specialized research institutes, 6 centers
and 8 programs (UNAM, 2010).
Since its foundation in 1910, UNAM has been open
to international exchange, and at present, there is almost no academic unit
without some international activity. All of them have international projects
with NAFTA members, Latin American countries, and European countries like
Spain, France and England. Most of these projects initially focused on students
and academics exchange, but currently all of them also have different levels of
academic and technological cooperation, as well as research projects. Many
graduate programs have attracted international students, especially from Latin
America. Academic units have been integrating into its curricula more and more
international accreditation standards, basic bibliography in English, and
global connectivity through Internet. UNAM has a Learning Center for
International Students that offers courses on Spanish, Mexican culture,
literature and history. It also has two extension centers, one in San Antonio,
Texas and another in Hull, Canada. These centers spread Spanish language and
Mexican culture. Besides, there is a Learning Center for International
Languages that serves academic units by providing high-quality teaching of 14
languages, although English and French are the most demanded. (Malo, Valle and
Wriedt, 2001).
As mentioned before about the Mexican higher
education system, all these astonishing activities and programs carried on UNAM
lacked for many years a central authority that can plan, implement, supervise,
and evaluate a unified international policy. All these actions were carried out
in an isolated way in each academic unit, and frequently, as the result of
personal interests. A unified, central international policy was a desire of the
lasts UNAM presidents, and finally, in 2009 the current president Luis Narro
established a senior-level position, the Division of International Cooperation,
along with the creation of the Cooperation and Internationalization Council.
These structures were generated to cope with the chaotic and disperse
international activity in the academic units. Among the Division duties are: to
develop a database about cooperation and internationalization; to coordinate the
signing of new academic cooperation agreements between UNAM and international
institutions; and to implement the internationalization policy set by the
Cooperation and Internationalization Council (UNAM, 2010). This initiative of
president Luis Narro may be the beginning of a holistic internationalization
policy which will take advantage of the ongoing activities and, at the same
time, will set more ambitious internationalization objectives. If things go
well, UNAM will increase its reputation as a world-class university.
The second model of internationalization is
ITESM, a private, non-denominational higher education institution with 33
campus in Mexico and 7 international branches in different countries. ITESM was
founded in 1943, and it currently has more than 90,000 students and 880 faculty
members. It grants 57 professional undergraduate majors and 53 graduate
options. ITESM develops high-quality research in its main campus in Monterrey,
Nuevo Leon. Although ITESM offers professional education in many fields, its
reputation was constructed over the quality of its business administration
formation. The business administration programs emphasize the development of
entrepreneurial abilities of students. Internationalization is one of the top
priorities for ITESM. In its mission 2010, the prominence of
internationalization is very clear: “Our
mission is to prepare upstanding, ethical individuals with a humanistic
outlook, who are internationally
competitive in their professional fields, and become committed to the
economic, political, social, and cultural development of their communities and
to the sustainable use of natural resources.” (ITESM, 2010). To achieve this
mission, ITESM uses numerous academic, language acquisition and research strategies:
first, by encouraging faculty, students and administrative personnel to master
the English language; second, by inviting international scholars to become part
of its faculty; third, by keeping a vibrant relation with other regions of the
world through its international offices in the United States, Canada, Europe,
China, Central and South America; forth, by promoting international exchange
programs; fifth, by keeping effective the accreditation the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools in the United States, and sixth, by
granting dual certification degrees with partner institutions around the world.
ITESM commitment to internationalization is not new. In its
organizational chart, the senior position of vice rector of internationalization
has been active since 1995. The International vice rectory has the mission of
defining and implementing the international policy of ITESM in all its areas.
It also analyzes, evaluates and approves international cooperation initiatives,
opportunities and offers. It carries out the administration of the
international offices. The vice rectory coordinates promotion activities in
international forums and approves international promotion materials (ITESM,
2010.
Students and academics mobility is a distinctive feature of ITESM. The
vice rectory has reached the goal of 50% of all ITESM students having at least
one international experience during one semester or one summer. Academics
mobility is also rising and in 2009, 25% of faculty had some international experience
in congresses, research meetings or joint research internships (ITESM, 2010).
Teachers in ITESM frequently receive invitations to join international
associations of their specialization fields, and at the same time, ITESM keeps
information available on possibilities of funding their research projects.
Having a clear international policy reflected in the mission of its
institutional development plan is the key to understand the success of ITESM.
This approach integrates internationalization in the regular process of
planning, programming, budgeting, and quality assessment. While quality
assessment in Mexican public universities lack indicators of
internationalization, ITESM has developed international standards to assess its
progress.
Conclusion
Internationalization has been growing at a
slow but steady pace in Mexico since mid 90s, still there is much to do. With a
complex system of public higher education, and most of it depending on federal
or state funds, internationalization has to compete with other priorities in
the national agenda. In authorities rhetoric, it is clear the significance of
internationalization, but a few effective international needs are covered in
real life. It is true that the existence of student and academics mobility
programs has rise international awareness, but the numbers are insignificant
compared with total enrollment.
Internationalization has to be included in all levels of the educational
process in order to form a central component of universities. The creation of
the Division of International Cooperation in UNAM in 2009 is the long awaited
step international practitioners in Mexico were waiting. The transcendence of
this decision is still unclear, but, considering the influence UNAM has over
state universities, is almost predictable that this will become a trend in the
next decade. The example of ITESM can be useful for many private universities,
not quite for public institutions. It is no secret that behind ITESM success is
an aggressive competition for high-income students who can afford some time
abroad. Public universities educate low-income students who would never be able
to pay high tuition fees, expensive travels or language courses. This fact raises
the importance of an extensive program of scholarships for those students. The
Mexican government has to allocate more resources to public universities if the
objective is to make them internationally competitive.
The mentioned lack of professionalism is
another challenge for Mexican public universities. It would be advisable that
ANUIES would take advantage of this fact and would offer a training course for
internationalization practitioners. Not one institution is doing anything about
it. Some similar challenges are the non-updated and rigid curricula still
subsisting in many public institutions, the lack of direction in national
policy and the few efforts to increase the attractiveness of Mexican
universities to international students.
In brief, it is necessary to design and
implement a clear national policy of internationalization that includes all the
actors in the university community. This policy has to be precise,
institutionally driven, and supported by organizational structures. The urgency
of this policy requires a reorientation of the existing practices to transform
them into productive, unified outcomes. Otherwise, we risk of losing the
opportunity to become an active player in an interconnected world.
Mario Cisneros, December 2010
References
Asociacion Mexicana para la Educacion Internacional AMPEI, (2010). Retrieved on
December 4, 2010 from:
http://www.ampei.org.mx/ampei.html
Asociacion Nacional de Universidades e Instituciones de Educacion
Superior, ANUIES
Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Geografia (INEGI, 2010). Retrieved on December 2, 2010 from: http://www.inegi.org.mx/Sistemas/temasV2/Default.aspx?s=est&c=17484
Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia, (2010). Retrieved on December 4, 2010 from:
http://www.conacyt.mx/Paginas/default.aspx
Espinosa, P. (2000). Internacionalizacion de la educacion superior. Retrieved on December
2, 2010 from: http://tinyurl.com/28jad8
Gacel, J. (2001). La dimension internacional de las universidades
Mexicanas. Retrieved on
December 2, 2010 from: http://tinyurl.com/24r6hy
Gil P.,
Gediaga A., and Perez S., (1996). Mexican Public Universities. In Kempner, K. M., &
Tierney, W. G. (1996). The
social role of higher education: Comparative perspectives.
New York: Garland Pub.
Gonzalez, R. (2004). Las revoluciones latinoamericanas del siglo
XX: tras las huellas del
pasado. Retrieved on December 2, 2010 from: http://tinyurl.com/28juf8
Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey ITESM, (2010). Retrieved on
December 4, 2010 from: http://tinyurl.com/3xug9kd
Kogan, M. and Bleiklie, I., (2007). Organization and Governance of
Universities. Retrieved
on December 2, 2010 from: http://tinyurl.com/3yv68bv
Malo, S., Valle, R., and Wriedt, K., EL Proceso de la revision de la Calidad de la
Internacionalizacion
en la UNAM. Retreived
on December 4, 2010 from:
Rolling, K. (1995). Higher Education in Mexico, the tensions and
ambiguities of
Modernization. Retrieved on December 2, 2010
from:
Rodriguez, R. and Ziccardi, A. Propuesta para el desarrollo de las
ciencias sociales y las
humanidades en Mexico. Retrieved on December
2, 2010 from:
http://www.tuobra.unam.mx/publicadas/010909003010.html
Teichman, J. (1997). Neoliberalism and the transformation of
Mexican authoritarianism.
Mexican studies. Retrieved on December2, 2010
from:
Universidad National Autonoma de Mexico, (2010). Retrieved on
December 4, 2010 from:
http://www.estadistica.unam.mx/numeralia/
Wit,
H. , & World Bank. (2005). Higher
education in Latin America: The international
dimension. Washington, D.C: World Bank. Retrieved on December 3,
2010 from:
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario
¿Qué opinas de esto? Deja tu comentario!