sábado, diciembre 08, 2012

Trends in Internationalization of Mexican universities


Mexico’s higher education system is one of the biggest and most diverse in Latin America. In order to understand the current situation of this complex system, it is necessary to look at the past decades to identify the most significant trends that have shaped Mexican universities. According to official data (INEGI, 2010), in 1970 with a population of 48.2 million, Mexican universities had 212,000 students. In just ten years, the general population grew to 66 million and student population to 730,000. During these years, the Mexican government policy was to build a social welfare net aimed providing higher education for the rising middle and lower-middle class. The main interest was to broaden the public university scope without necessarily paying attention to issues like quality standards, research productivity or financial accountability (Rolling, 1995).  This unregulated expansion forced many institutions to recruit massive amounts of teachers without suitable training, many of them held only a licenciatura, or bachelor’s degree, and no interest nor background in research. The outcome of this policy was disastrous as an impoverished academic profession took over universities’ classrooms and “thousands of young people who returned to teach at the same universities from which they had only recently graduated without having experienced graduate school, research or further socialization in philosophically or educationally educational settings.” (Gil, Gediaga and Perez, 1994, p. 81). The reasons behind this explosive expansion were the growing oil-exporting economy, the government willingness for indebtedness, and the need of national political stability. With enormous amounts of money available, the government paid for salaries in the rising number of public institutions.
            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).File:Diplomatic missions of Mexico4.png
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
(2010). Retrieved on December 4, 2010 from: http://www.anuies.mx/
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:





http://tinyurl.com/29keejd

No hay comentarios.:

Publicar un comentario

¿Qué opinas de esto? Deja tu comentario!