challenges in tertiary education

The 4 biggest challenges to our higher education model – and what to do about them

How can higher education systems better prepare for our Fourth Industrial Revolution future? Image:  REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Simon Fuglsang Østergaard

Adam graafland nordlund.

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Education is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:.

• Education models need to reflect the demand for lifelong learning to cope with the technological and social changes brought by the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
• Skills not degrees may be the reality of the future.
• Start-ups and new business models are disrupting traditional educational institutions and operating models.

In a future of unprecedented societal shifts, education is crucial to managing the challenges ahead. With more automated, digitized and fluid job markets, today’s higher education systems are quickly becoming incompatible with the future we are looking towards. We are two decades into the 21st century, yet higher education is generally still geared to succeeding in the 20th. Indeed, universities themselves (at least in the US) express doubts about their ability to adapt to future developments .

While most debates around the future of education focus on the skills needed for the future and the imperative of reskilling , it is equally important to discuss the inevitable structural transformations of higher education.

Have you read?

We need an education revolution – and it starts in your local community, is online learning the future of education, these countries could be the world's new education superstars.

There are at least four – and arguably many more – major developments that in their interconnectedness structurally challenge the current higher education model.

We need to continually learn and update our skills in order to stay relevant. Work in the digital economy will, not surprisingly, consist increasingly of knowledge work. More jobs will require substantial interaction with technology, shaped by technological disruption, labour automation and more flexible and fluid employment. The outdated industrial-age mindset where people received an education early in life to be ready for a lifetime of work no longer reflects the individualized and unexpected trajectories of modern careers.

The idea of life-long learning is nothing new. But in a world that has become much more non-linear, the conditions for lifelong learning have changed significantly since the concept was first introduced. The need for lifelong learning to enable individuals to access learning opportunities – in different ways, for different purposes and at various career stages – has never been greater. We need to build education models that reflect this change and a culture that promotes it.

Like any other business sector, the changing demands of consumers (in this case, students and life-long learners) drive change in the education sector. Student demographics are changing, while learners who would previously be considered ‘non-traditional’ are becoming the new norm. As a result, there are new expectations for seamless higher education and life-long learning experiences that fit different lifestyles, individual circumstances and preferences.

Younger generations entering higher education have a completely different point of departure than previous generations. As digital natives, they have always had technology fully integrated into most aspects of their lives, so why would they expect anything else when it comes to their educational experience?

One-size-fits-all in education will soon be a thing of the past and individual learning paths will arguably be less defined by traditional educational structures. Consequently, students increasingly adopt a consumer’s mindset and shop for flexible, seamless and personalized educational experiences. They look at an increasingly diverse array of education providers to fulfill their demands and will exercise choice by going elsewhere if their expectations are not met – as is the case in most aspects of their lives.

Even though the pace of change in the education sector is generally slower than in other more profit-driven sectors, business model innovation is becoming ever more prevalent thanks to digital transformation. As such, the education landscape is bound to change significantly in the next decades as new actors shake up conventional higher education and life-long learning models.

Fast-growing innovators in educational technologies and education industry outsiders are already challenging the status quo by structurally undermining the long-established business models of higher education. These new actors use technology and data to introduce new, alternative approaches that better deliver on the evolving expectations of learners. Imagine tech giants such as Google, Microsoft, or Amazon offering inexpensive, personalized, AI-driven education, maybe on a flexible “ Netflix for education ” style scheme.

This will inevitably test the agility and adaptability of established players and their long-prevailing business models. In response, more and more universities are experimenting with changes to their business models, but the future higher education landscape will almost certainly include disruptive new entrants , competing and collaborating with the traditional actors – maybe with a redefined role for traditional institutions altogether.

While the degree still rules, by and large, we are slowly moving towards a reality with more focus on acquiring skills not degrees. Conventional thinking tells us that the surest route to success in professional life lies at the end of a higher education degree and, not surprisingly, that holding a degree correlates with improved chances of employment as well as higher income .

However, the value of degrees is being questioned more than ever before and not just in places where students face high tuition fees and life-long debt, but also in education systems where university is “free” (the opportunity cost of spending several years on study are worth the next 60 years in a career that will likely constantly change over time). Whether traditional higher education is still the best way to provide people with the skills needed to compete in unpredictable job markets is debatable.

For most companies, degrees continue to function as a signalling device that vouches for a potential employee’s abilities. But research shows that education level is only weakly correlated with job performance and, in fact, more and more companies, including prominent ones such as Google, Apple, Penguin Random House, Ernst & Young UK and IBM, are actively shifting focus away from degrees to new ways of measuring employability as a consequence of the changing nature of work.

Higher education today finds itself in a society in flux and it is becoming increasingly difficult for “education incumbents” to keep up.

Almost everything developed for the 20th-century workforce is being dismantled and reconstructed; higher education is no exception. Universities must reevaluate their roles now and what they could grow to be in the future. We will have to acknowledge that the educational systems and pathways of the future will be better served by alternative, innovative models that do not necessarily add up to four or five years, and that likely involve new actors – however uncomfortable this first makes us feel.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:

The agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} weekly.

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Education .chakra .wef-17xejub{-webkit-flex:1;-ms-flex:1;flex:1;justify-self:stretch;-webkit-align-self:stretch;-ms-flex-item-align:stretch;align-self:stretch;} .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

How universities can use blockchain to transform research

Scott Doughman

March 12, 2024

Empowering women in STEM: How we break barriers from classroom to C-suite

Genesis Elhussein and Julia Hakspiel

March 1, 2024

Why we need education built for peace – especially in times of war

February 28, 2024

These 5 key trends will shape the EdTech market upto 2030

Malvika Bhagwat

February 26, 2024

With Generative AI we can reimagine education — and the sky is the limit

Oguz A. Acar

February 19, 2024

How UNESCO is trying to plug the data gap in global education

February 12, 2024

Higher Education

Higher Education is instrumental in fostering growth, reducing poverty and boosting shared prosperity. It benefits not just the individual, but the entire educational system.

Tertiary education refers to all formal post-secondary education, including public and private universities, colleges, technical training institutes, and vocational schools. Tertiary education is instrumental in fostering growth, reducing poverty, and boosting shared prosperity. A highly skilled workforce, with lifelong access to a solid post-secondary education, is a prerequisite for innovation and growth: well-educated people are more employable and productive, earn higher wages, and cope with economic shocks better.

Tertiary education benefits not just the individual, but society as a whole. Graduates of tertiary education are more environmentally conscious, have healthier habits, and have a higher level of civic participation. Also, increased tax revenues from higher earnings, healthier children, and reduced family size all build stronger nations. In short, tertiary education institutions prepare individuals not only by providing them with adequate and relevant job skills, but also by preparing them to be active members of their communities and societies. 

The economic returns for tertiary education graduates are the highest in the entire educational system – an estimated 17% increase in earnings as compared with 10 % for primary and 7% for secondary education.   These high returns are even greater in Sub-Saharan Africa, at an estimated 21% increase in earning for tertiary education graduates.

Today, there are around 220 million tertiary education students in the world, up from 100 million in 2000. In Latin America and the Caribbean, for example, the number of students in tertiary education programs has doubled in the past decade. This is critical because, according to a World Bank Group (WBG) report , a student with a tertiary education degree in the region will earn more than twice as much as a student with just a high school diploma over a lifetime. 

As the youth population continues to swell and graduation rates through elementary and secondary education increase dramatically, especially in regions like South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East and North Africa, there is an intensifying demand for expanded access to tertiary education of good quality. Tertiary technical and vocational education and training can provide an effective and efficient complement to traditional university studies in providing students with skills and knowledge relevant to the labor market. 

Governments are increasingly understanding that the entire educational system – from early childhood through tertiary education – must reflect the new social and economic needs of the global knowledge economy, which increasingly demands a better-trained, more skilled, and adaptable workforce. 

However, challenges remain – even with the larger pool of graduates of tertiary education, many do not have locally relevant skills needed for a successful integration into the labor market. At the same time, larger numbers of students increase the strain on publicly-funded institutions of higher learning, and many countries with limited resources are struggling to finance the growing needs of a larger student body, without compromising the quality of their educational offerings. Tertiary education also remains out of reach for many of the world’s poorest and most marginalized. In Latin America and the Caribbean, on average, the poorest 50% of the population only represented 25% of tertiary education students in 2013.  In Sub-Saharan Africa, only 9% of the traditional aged cohort for tertiary education continues from secondary to tertiary education – the lowest regional enrollment rate in the world.

Countries all over the world have undertaken major restructuring of their tertiary education systems to enhance their reach and effectiveness. However, progress has been uneven. All countries engaging in strategic reforms of their tertiary sectors benefit from ensuring that their national strategies and policies prioritize equitable access, improved learning and skills development, efficient retention, and considerations of the employment and education outcomes sought by graduates and the labor market.  Both policies and academic degrees need to be strategically tailored to fit the needs of the local society and economy.  Only then can governments realize the gains in primary and secondary school attainment through tertiary education access and progression and turn these successes into increased and sustained economic and social development.

Last Updated: Oct 22, 2021

STRATEGIC POLICY ADVICE

As the world seeks to build back better into a new era of green and equitable economic growth, tertiary education systems are at the heart of the big transformations required throughout economies and societies. Tertiary education is vital for the development of human capital and innovation. Strategic and effective investments in tertiary education can serve every country – from the poorest to the richest – by developing its talent and leadership pool, generating and applying knowledge to local and global challenges, and participating in the global knowledge economy. Effective tertiary education systems ensure that countries have well-trained doctors, nurses, teachers, managers, engineers, and technicians who are the main actors of effective education and health service delivery and public and private sector development. 

The imperative for investing in tertiary education derives from two major questions: What are the benefits of investing, and what are the consequences of not investing? The benefits include higher employment levels (that is, lower levels of unemployment), higher wages, greater social stability, increased civic engagement, and better health outcomes. Even more significant and, perhaps, revealing, is examining what happens when countries underinvest in their tertiary education systems. The consequences of underinvestment include brain drain and talent loss, limited access to applied research capacity for local problem solving, limitations to economic growth due to low levels of skills in the workforce, low-quality teaching and learning at every level of education, and, perhaps most glaringly, expanded wealth inequality within and among nations, with those investing proportionately more experiencing resultant growth rates far outpacing those with lower levels of investment and strategic development.

Key elements of strategic policy advice for tertiary education

Decades of insufficient and ineffective investment in postsecondary education and the advanced skills developed through higher learning opportunities have only exacerbated global equity gaps. The World Bank’s new STEERing Tertiary Education: Toward Resilient Systems that Delivery for All policy approach paper describes the approach of the World Bank to support the development of effective, equitable, efficient, and resilient tertiary education systems and institutions. 

The paper seeks to: (i) reinforce the imperative that every country – regardless of level of development – invest thoughtfully and strategically in diversified, well-articulated, and inclusive tertiary education systems; (ii) provide a framework for policymakers and other tertiary education stakeholders to examine critical traits responding to the needs for advanced skills and lifelong learning in support of growth and development and key interventions for tertiary education systems in the decades ahead; (iii) examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the global tertiary education sector and share ideas that promote a resilient recovery from the crisis ; and (iv) provide key information about the decades of commitment the World Bank has shown to utilizing tertiary education for sustainable development, including context, concepts, and scale of the World Bank’s operational and analytical work.

Within this steering framework and with a view to turning the challenges wrought by the COVID-19 crisis into opportunities for impactful reforms, this paper encourages tertiary education policymakers and stakeholders to STEER their tertiary systems and institutions toward greater relevance and impact, utilizing five framing principles:

I. Strategically diversified systems — supporting all postsecondary institutions, ensuring agile, articulated pathways and diversity of forms, functions, and missions

• Developing future-oriented strategies that center on a strong contribution of tertiary education not only to growth and competitiveness but also to social cohesion and human development more broadly for the tertiary education sector, subsectors, and institutions. This is an agenda for high- and middle-income countries but is particularly important for fragile and low-income countries that need to kick-start the technological innovation and adaption engine and provide the young generation a productive and peaceful future.
• Positioning tertiary education in a lifelong learning context with flexible pathways, second-chance options, and greater adaptability to the needs and opportunities afforded by employers, civil society, and governments. This means permeability across pathways and providers, modularization of learning offers, and student-centered credit systems to allow for flexible pathways as well as bridging and mentoring programs to boost tertiary remedial education to give everyone a good start and adequate support in tertiary education.

II. Technology — designed and applied in a purposeful and equitable manner

• Harnessing the power of technology to improve teaching and research capacity while simultaneously acknowledging and countering the impact of expanding digital divides. With tertiary education sectors massively expanding across the globe and low-income groups and countries trailing behind, technology might be the only way to effectively ensure equity and resilience.
• Building a digital ecosystem with the help of National Research and Education Networks (NRENs) and effective collaboration across government portfolios. Harnessing the power of technology means that tertiary education institutions not only profit from digitalization but also advance digitalization through the development of digital skills, and application of digitalization across its functions and related research and development.

III. Equity — a universal approach to the benefits and opportunities of postsecondary learning

• Acknowledging that inequity is a form of injustice .
• Acting to ensure that equity and inclusion in access and success are a driving ethos for an effective and relevant tertiary education system.

IV. Efficiency — a goal-oriented, effective use of resources

• Improving information systems so that sectors, subsectors, and institutions can be managed and enhanced utilizing evidence and sound information
• For financing , this means, for example, that systems and institutions diversify their funding base and reduce dependency on a single income source (which will require revisiting questions of cost-recovery and are thinking of student grant and loan schemes in many countries) and use innovative funding mechanisms.
• For quality assurance, this means that remote options for accreditation and evolution are established and applied when the environment requires such agility in ensuring quality under all conditions.
• For governance , this means ensuring the external governance — legislative and ministerial oversight — and institutional governance — boards and oversight bodies — are developed and operated in such a manner that promotes effective connections with external actors and the world of work and allows for rapid innovations to be tested and embraced in such a way that institutions are able to continue their operations within the scope of their charters and missions.

V. Resilience — the ability to persist, flourish, and deliver agreed goals despite adversity

• Acknowledging the need for resilience planning , by taking stock of the successes and failures of the COVID-19 response at the systems and institutional levels and analyzing options that would have mitigated the failures.
• Utilizing adaptive governance frameworks to embed immediate, strategic resilience interventions to address significant short- and long-term challenges facing tertiary education systems and institutions as a result of the shocks brought on by the pandemic, including diminished resources for institutions, personal and academic challenges for institutions and students, demand for improved infrastructure to support continued distance and blended learning models, reduced mobility placing pressures to improve regional and local tertiary institutions, questions of sustainability of funding models, and much more.

These five priorities present critical building blocks with which leaders and institutions can reframe and strengthen their tertiary education systems for greater impact on learning, growth, innovation, and social development.

The WBG has a highly diversified portfolio of lending and technical assistance projects in tertiary education, which deal with a variety of specific areas, including quality assurance, performance-based funding schemes, alignment of academic offerings with market needs, public-private partnerships, and governance reform, among others. The tertiary education portfolio represents approximately 25% of the total WBG investment in education.

Tanzania : The WBG’s Higher Education for Economic Transformation project aims to strengthen the learning environment, ensure greater alignment of priority degree programs to labor market needs, and improve the management of the higher education system. HEET will achieve its objective by (i) strengthening and building the capacity of 14 public higher education institutions in both Mainland and Zanzibar to become high quality centers of learning, focusing on areas with the greatest potential for growth over the coming decade; and (ii) enhancing the management of the higher education system through the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, and subsidiary agencies. Expected results include the addition of over 260 academic programs within priority areas at participating universities, and over 100,000 students benefiting from direct interventions to enhance learning. 

Colombia : Since 2017, the WBG has been supporting the Program for Higher Education Access and Quality (PACES, in Spanish) project, which works to enhance the quality of tertiary education, while also improving access for economically and regionally disadvantaged students. PACES provides loans for poor students, as well as grants for master’s and doctoral programs in the world’s leading universities, while giving priority to victims of the country’s armed conflict.

Vietnam : The WBG’s Vietnam University Development Project , financed through a US$295-million credit, will improve teaching and research capacity at Vietnam National University-Hanoi, Vietnam National University-Ho Chi Minh City and the University of Danang. Through investments in modern infrastructure, cutting-edge equipment, and knowledge transfer, it will help accelerate the transformation of these three universities into regionally competitive institutions with advanced teaching and research capabilities.

Africa Centers of Excellence (ACE) program :  As part of the African Centers of Excellence, an Africa-wide program that is financed by the WBG and implemented by national governments, 24 centers in eight east and southern Africa countries will enroll about 3,500 graduate students. The centers, located in countries including Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, will generate African expertise in areas ranging from phytochemicals and textiles to water, agribusiness and renewable energy. In West and Central Africa, where ACE has been operational for a few years , results are already visible. The ACE for Genomics of Infectious Diseases at Redeemer’s University in Nigeria has published crucial research on the Ebola virus. 

Romania : The Romania Secondary Education Project (ROSE) supports 80% of Romania’s public high schools and 85% of tertiary education faculties in addressing factors preventing Romanian students from successfully transitioning from upper secondary to tertiary education and completing the first year of university. ROSE targets support to address both academic and personal factors that lead students to drop out of tertiary education, supporting interventions such as: remediation and socialization activities and supports, tutoring, counseling, extracurricular activities, internships, summer bridge programs and on-campus learning centers.

The WBG works in coordination with several academic institutions and multinational organizations across the world. These include the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD); the British Council; the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO); the International Association of Universities (IAU); the Association of Arab Universities (AArU); the Center for International Higher Education (CIHE) at Boston College; and the Association of African Universities.

Initiatives

Human development topics.

Human Development

Human Capital Project

Social Protection

STAY CONNECTED

Guidance Note

Preventing, reporting and responding to sexual assault and sexual harassment in tertiary education institutions.

Summary Page

Sexual assault and sexual harassment in tertiary education institutions.

Additional Resources

This site uses cookies to optimize functionality and give you the best possible experience. If you continue to navigate this website beyond this page, cookies will be placed on your browser. To learn more about cookies, click here .

This New Year, our focus is clearer. Wiley Education Services is now Wiley University Services. Explore our flexible, career-connected services.

Top Challenges Facing U.S. Higher Education

Last updated on: November 2, 2021

Historically, colleges and universities have relied on traditional economic models to sustain them. For the majority of private institutions, that meant enrolling a stable number of tuition-paying students. In the case of public institutions, it meant receiving consistent state appropriations, in addition to tuition revenue. The pace of change in the economy, as well as the global COVID-19 pandemic, has impacted the reliability of traditional models, putting pressure on institutions to readjust their strategies.

Below is a list of the top challenges confronting U.S. institutions:

• Student Enrollment is Declini ng Overall :  In a survey conducted by  Inside Higher Ed  and Gallup, only 34 percent of the institutions polled met their enrollment targets for the fall 2017 term by May 1 (declining from 37 percent in 2016 and 42 percent in 2015). In addition, 85 percent of senior admission staff reported that they are very concerned about reaching institutional enrollment targets.
• Financial Difficulties:  Inside Higher Ed also surveyed 400 chief business officers in 2017 and reported that 71 percent agreed that higher education institutions are facing significant financial difficulties. This is an increase of 8 percent from 2016.
• Fewer High School Graduates: T he Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education data estimated that in 2017 there were 80,000 fewer high school graduates than in the previous year, a decline of more than 2 percent. The sharpest declines were in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana.
• Decreased State Funding: Multi-year decreased state funding for public institutions and community colleges has resulted in reduced critical services for students, putting significant strain on institutions.
• Lower World Rankings:  Decreased state funding for flagship universities is responsible, in part, for the United States slipping in world rankings.  Times Higher Education’s  publication of the 14th annual World University Rankings of 1,000 institutions from 77 countries revealed that America’s domination of the rankings has slipped. For the first time in the history of the report, no U.S. school ranked in the top two spots.
• Declining International Student Enrollments: According to estimates cited by ICEF Monitor, 28 percent of all international students were enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities in 2001, but by 2014, the amount dropped to 22 percent. In addition, 40 percent of U.S. college and university deans expected declines in international student enrollments for the fall 2017 term.

To address these challenges, a number of institutions have reported that they will increase their focus on:

• Online Education:  A survey of chief academic officers conducted by  Inside Higher Ed  revealed that 82 percent plan to grow their institution’s online course offerings to expand access to  adult and non-traditional students  in the next year.
• International Student Recruitment:  In an attempt to offset the decline in the number of U.S. high school graduates, an increasing number of admission officers plan to expand their international student recruitment programs.
• College Mergers and Acquisitions:  Schools with little brand‐name recognition and low endowments may not be able to effectively navigate the impact of decreased domestic and international  student enrollments  and decreased state funding. Some institutions may choose to merge to save money, add depth or breadth to their operations, or supplement resources.

Updates for 2021

While the above challenges remain valid, there have been new trends heating up the higher education industry:

• COVID-19 Impact: As the global COVID-19 pandemic changed the way we live, it also resulted in a new group of challenges for higher ed. Not only did universities have to transition their on-campus classes to virtual settings, but they have also have had to address concerns around enrollment, finances, and student support . While it’s too early to tell what the long-term effects will be, presidents and chancellors have voiced their concerns in this  Inside Higher Ed survey . For more information about supporting students in virtual settings, check out our  Virtual Instruction Resources .
• AI Will Personalize the Student Journey: While some higher education professionals worry that AI could weaken the personal connection students have with universities, studies have shown that  AI boosts personalization . Administrators should explore the variety of benefits AI offers and identify ways to tailor student support for every step of their journey.
• Competency-Based Education: Competency-based education has long been inconsistent in the education landscape. Universities should work together to clearly define standards and measurements when awarding credit for work experience. This will help students graduate faster.
• Personal growth and career advancement are top-of-mind for online students: Online students seek to achieve personal and career success through their degrees. Our 2021 Voice of the Online Learner report shows that online learners list their top outcomes as salary increase, new career, a promotion, and increased confidence in the workplace.

The trends outlined above suggest that higher ed administrators will need to explore new technologies and strategies to reach  new student populations . Read the  full article  from  Enrollment Management Report  about shifts in higher education driving new approaches within institutions.

For higher education trends and approaches to change management, visit our  Resources  page.

Subscribe today  to  Enrollment Management Report  for proven solutions to admit, recruit, and retain high-quality students.

Research Report

Voice of the online learner 2023.

Inside Higher Ed: 2023 Survey of College and University Chief Academic Officers

State of the Education Market 2023 Graduate Report

Recent articles.

Putting community first: growing nursing program enrollments at Florid...

These cutting-edge techniques are an enrollment game changer

New year, new trends: Discover three insights and predictions for 2023...

Ohio University: Continuous Progress Through a Student-Centered Partne...

Is Your University Prepared to Recruit Graduate Students to Online Pro...

Marketing Practices That Make You A Top-Of-Mind University

Student Retention Strategies

It’s Time for Your University’s Digital Wellness Check-Up

Personalize Your Student Engagement Process in 6 Steps

Academic Ghost Hunters: Bringing Learners Back to Lifelong Learning...

Small Changes Can Make Your Courses More Inclusive

By Simplifying the Student Application Process, Your University Wins...

Let's Talk.

Complete the form below, and we’ll be in contact soon to discuss how we can help.

If you have a question about textbooks, please email [email protected].

• First Name *
• Last Name *
• Organization *
• Country * Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Costa Rica Côte d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Polynesia Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Greenland Grenada Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati North Korea South Korea Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestine, State of Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Romania Russia Rwanda Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Saint Martin Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Sudan, South Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Vatican City Venezuela Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe
• I'm interested in * Wiley University Services Wiley Beyond Advancement Courses Wiley Edge Other
• What would you like to learn more about—partnership models, technology services, media request assistance, etc.? *

By submitting your information, you agree to the processing of your personal data as per Wiley's privacy policy and consent to be contacted by email.

• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

New Challenges for Tertiary Education in the Twenty-First Century

• First Online: 30 May 2020

Cite this chapter

• Jamil Salmi 2  

391 Accesses

1 Citations

Developing countries face significant new challenges in the global environment, affecting not only the shape and mode of operation but also the purpose of their tertiary education system. Among the most critical dimensions of change are the convergent impacts of globalization, the increasing importance of knowledge as a driver of growth, and the information and communication revolution. Both opportunities and threats are arising out of these new challenges. The role of tertiary education in the construction of knowledge economies and democratic societies is now more influential than ever. Tertiary education is central to the creation of the intellectual capacity and critical thinking on which innovation depend. Another favorable development is the transformation of curricular and pedagogical practices by the opportunities offered by the new information and communication technologies. Against this background, the chapter focuses on the new challenges faced by tertiary education systems in developing countries.

• Tertiary education
• Universities
• Knowledge economy
• Curricular and pedagogical innovations
• Globalization

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Quoted in Newsweek , December 12, 2005, p. 84.

AHELO stands for the Assessment of Learning Outcomes in Higher Education. Universities from about fifteen countries participated in the pilot study that was implemented in 2012, with a focus on generic skills and specific professional skills in economics and engineering.

Barro-Lee. (2012). Educational attainment data set. Retrieved December 29, 2019, from http://www.barrolee.com .

BBC. (2001). Is there a genius in all of us? Retrieved January 20, 2011, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12140064 .

Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2004). The new division of labor: How computers are creating the next job market . Russsel Sage Foundation and Princeton University Press.

Google Scholar  

OECD. (2014). Education at a Glance . Paris: OECD.

Rodriguez, A., Dahlman, C., & Salmi, J. (2008). Knowledge and innovation for competitiveness in Brazil . Washington, DC.

Salmi, J., & Bassett, R. M. (2014). The equity imperative in tertiary education: Promoting fairness and efficiency. International Review of Education, 60 (3), 361–377.

Article   Google Scholar  

Shenk, D. (2011). The genius in all of us: New insights into genetics, talent, and IQ. Anchor.

Solow, R. M. (2001). What have we learned from a decade of empirical research on growth? Applying growth theory across countries. World Bank Economic Review, 15 (2), 283–288.

Torgerson, C., Gascoine, L., Heaps, C., Menzies, V., & Younger, K. (2014). Higher education access: Evidence of effectiveness of university access strategies and approaches (pp. 47–64). Sutton Trust.

World Bank. (1999). World development report 1999: Knowledge for development . New York: Oxford University Press.

World Bank. (2002). Constructing knowledge societies: New challenges for tertiary education . Washington DC: The World Bank.

World Bank. (2011). Learning for all—Investing in people’s knowledge and skills to promote development . Washington: The World Bank.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centro de Políticas Comparadas de Educación, Universidad Diego Portales, Santiago, Chile

Jamil Salmi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jamil Salmi .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Instituto de Estudos de Política Econômica, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Simon Schwartzman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Salmi, J. (2020). New Challenges for Tertiary Education in the Twenty-First Century. In: Schwartzman, S. (eds) Higher Education in Latin America and the Challenges of the 21st Century. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44263-7_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44263-7_2

Published : 30 May 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-44262-0

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-44263-7

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

The New Equation

Executive leadership hub - What’s important to the C-suite?

Tech Effect

Shared success benefits

Loading Results

No Match Found

The state of higher education: Challenges and opportunities in 2023

Perspectives in higher education.

In an increasingly competitive and complex environment, management and trustees of higher education institutions are facing a growing number of issues that require attention. As colleges and universities emerge from their intense focus on the COVID-19 pandemic, new challenges are taking its place. These challenges include grappling with the state of the economy and the related fiscal impact on the institution, focusing on admissions policies and procedures in response to declining college enrollment, and devising appropriate strategies around the safety and security of the campus community.

In this edition of Perspectives in Higher Education, we highlight these pressing challenges, as well as related opportunities for institutions. Other key areas include environmental, social and governance considerations, the state of university compliance programs, and ways to strengthen the path between higher education and postgraduate careers. We also provide our annual update on activities in Washington and how they are affecting higher education. Finally, we offer commentary on how institutions can enhance the educational experience of international students.

Download the report Challenges and opportunities for higher education in 2023

• Challenges and opportunities in 2022
• Challenges and opportunities in 2021
• Challenges and opportunities in 2020
• Challenges and opportunities in 2019

{{filterContent.facetedTitle}}

{{item.publishDate}}

{{item.title}}

{{item.text}}

Get started with PwC's preference center

Our insights. Your choices.

Margaret Stover

National Higher Education Advisory leader, PwC US

Christopher Cox

National Higher Education Assurance leader, PwC US

© 2017 - 2024 PwC. All rights reserved. PwC refers to the PwC network and/or one or more of its member firms, each of which is a separate legal entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details.

• Data Privacy Framework
• Cookie info
• Terms and conditions
• Site provider
• Your Privacy Choices

How technology is shaping learning in higher education

About the authors.

This article is a collaborative effort by Claudio Brasca, Charag Krishnan , Varun Marya , Katie Owen, Joshua Sirois, and Shyla Ziade, representing views from McKinsey’s Education Practice.

The COVID-19 pandemic forced a shift to remote learning overnight for most higher-education students, starting in the spring of 2020. To complement video lectures and engage students in the virtual classroom, educators adopted technologies that enabled more interactivity and hybrid models of online and in-person activities. These tools changed learning, teaching, and assessment in ways that may persist after the pandemic. Investors have taken note. Edtech start-ups raised record amounts of venture capital in 2020 and 2021, and market valuations for bigger players soared.

A study conducted by McKinsey in 2021 found that to engage most effectively with students, higher-education institutions can focus on eight dimensions  of the learning experience. In this article, we describe the findings of a study of the learning technologies that can enable aspects of several of those eight dimensions (see sidebar “Eight dimensions of the online learning experience”).

Eight dimensions of the online learning experience

Leading online higher-education institutions focus on eight key dimensions of the learning experience across three overarching principles.

Seamless journey

Clear education road map: “My online program provides a road map to achieve my life goals and helps me structure my day to day to achieve steady progress.”

Seamless connections: “I have one-click access to classes and learning resources in the virtual learning platform through my laptop or my phone.”

Engaging teaching approach

Range of learning formats: “My program offers a menu of engaging courses with both self-guided and real-time classes, and lots of interaction with instructors and peers.”

Captivating experiences: “I learn from the best professors and experts. My classes are high quality, with up-to-date content.”

Adaptive learning: “I access a personalized platform that helps me practice exercises and exams and gives immediate feedback without having to wait for the course teacher.”

Real-world skills application: “My online program helps me get hands-on practice using exciting virtual tools to solve real-world problems.”

Caring network

Timely support: “I am not alone in my learning journey and have adequate 24/7 support for academic and nonacademic issues.”

Strong community: “I feel part of an academic community and I’m able to make friends online.”

In November 2021, McKinsey surveyed 600 faculty members and 800 students from public and private nonprofit colleges and universities in the United States, including minority-serving institutions, about the use and impact of eight different classroom learning technologies (Exhibit 1). (For more on the learning technologies analyzed in this research, see sidebar “Descriptions of the eight learning technologies.”) To supplement the survey, we interviewed industry experts and higher-education professionals who make decisions about classroom technology use. We discovered which learning tools and approaches have seen the highest uptake, how students and educators view them, the barriers to higher adoption, how institutions have successfully adopted innovative technologies, and the notable impacts on learning (for details about our methodology, see sidebar “About the research”).

Double-digit growth in adoption and positive perceptions

Descriptions of the eight learning technologies.

• Classroom interactions: These are software platforms that allow students to ask questions, make comments, respond to polls, and attend breakout discussions in real time, among other features. They are downloadable and accessible from phones, computers, and tablets, relevant to all subject areas, and useful for remote and in-person learning.
• Classroom exercises: These platforms gamify learning with fun, low-stakes competitions, pose problems to solve during online classes, allow students to challenge peers to quizzes, and promote engagement with badges and awards. They are relevant to all subject areas.
• Connectivity and community building: A broad range of informal, opt-in tools, these allow students to engage with one another and instructors and participate in the learning community. They also include apps that give students 24/7 asynchronous access to lectures, expanded course materials, and notes with enhanced search and retrieval functionality.
• Group work: These tools let students collaborate in and out of class via breakout/study rooms, group preparation for exams and quizzes, and streamlined file sharing.
• Augmented reality/virtual reality (AR/VR): Interactive simulations immerse learners in course content, such as advanced lab simulations for hard sciences, medical simulations for nursing, and virtual exhibit tours for the liberal arts. AR can be offered with proprietary software on most mobile or laptop devices. VR requires special headsets, proprietary software, and adequate classroom space for simultaneous use.
• AI adaptive course delivery: Cloud-based, AI-powered software adapts course content to a student’s knowledge level and abilities. These are fully customizable by instructors and available in many subject areas, including business, humanities, and sciences.
• Machine learning–powered teaching assistants: Also known as chatbot programs, machine learning–powered teaching assistants answer student questions and explain course content outside of class. These can auto-create, deliver, and grade assignments and exams, saving instructors’ time; they are downloadable from mobile app stores and can be accessed on personal devices.
• Student progress monitoring: These tools let instructors monitor academic progress, content mastery, and engagement. Custom alerts and reports identify at-risk learners and help instructors tailor the content or their teaching style for greater effectiveness. This capability is often included with subscriptions to adaptive learning platforms.

Survey respondents reported a 19 percent average increase in overall use of these learning technologies since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Technologies that enable connectivity and community building, such as social media–inspired discussion platforms and virtual study groups, saw the biggest uptick in use—49 percent—followed by group work tools, which grew by 29 percent (Exhibit 2). These technologies likely fill the void left by the lack of in-person experiences more effectively than individual-focused learning tools such as augmented reality and virtual reality (AR/VR). Classroom interaction technologies such as real-time chatting, polling, and breakout room discussions were the most widely used tools before the pandemic and remain so; 67 percent of survey respondents said they currently use these tools in the classroom.

About the research

In November 2021, McKinsey surveyed 634 faculty members and 818 students from public, private, and minority-serving colleges and universities over a ten-day period. The survey included only students and faculty who had some remote- or online-learning experience with any of the eight featured technologies. Respondents were 63 percent female, 35 percent male, and 2 percent other gender identities; 69 percent White, 18 percent Black or African American, 8 percent Asian, and 4 percent other ethnicities; and represented every US region. The survey asked respondents about their:

• experiences with technology in the classroom pre-COVID-19;
• experiences with technology in the classroom since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic; and
• desire for future learning experiences in relation to technology.

The shift to more interactive and diverse learning models will likely continue. One industry expert told us, “The pandemic pushed the need for a new learning experience online. It recentered institutions to think about how they’ll teach moving forward and has brought synchronous and hybrid learning into focus.” Consequently, many US colleges and universities are actively investing to scale up their online and hybrid program offerings .

Differences in adoption by type of institution observed in the research

• Historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and tribal colleges and universities made the most use of classroom interactions and group work tools (55 percent) and the least use of tools for monitoring student progress (15 percent).
• Private institutions used classroom interaction technologies (84 percent) more than public institutions (63 percent).
• Public institutions, often associated with larger student populations and course sizes, employed group work and connectivity and community-building tools more often than private institutions.
• The use of AI teaching-assistant technologies increased significantly more at public institutions (30 percent) than at private institutions (9 percent), though overall usage remained comparatively higher at private institutions.
• The use of tools for monitoring student progress increased by 14 percent at private institutions, versus no growth at public institutions.

Some technologies lag behind in adoption. Tools enabling student progress monitoring, AR/VR, machine learning–powered teaching assistants (TAs), AI adaptive course delivery, and classroom exercises are currently used by less than half of survey respondents. Anecdotal evidence suggests that technologies such as AR/VR require a substantial investment in equipment and may be difficult to use at scale in classes with high enrollment. Our survey also revealed utilization disparities based on size. Small public institutions use machine learning–powered TAs, AR/VR, and technologies for monitoring student progress at double or more the rates of medium and large public institutions, perhaps because smaller, specialized schools can make more targeted and cost-effective investments. We also found that medium and large public institutions made greater use of connectivity and community-building tools than small public institutions (57 to 59 percent compared with 45 percent, respectively). Although the uptake of AI-powered tools was slower, higher-education experts we interviewed predict their use will increase; they allow faculty to tailor courses to each student’s progress, reduce their workload, and improve student engagement at scale (see sidebar “Differences in adoption by type of institution observed in the research”).

While many colleges and universities are interested in using more technologies to support student learning, the top three barriers indicated are lack of awareness, inadequate deployment capabilities, and cost (Exhibit 3).

Students want entertaining and efficient tools

More than 60 percent of students said that all the classroom learning technologies they’ve used since COVID-19 began had improved their learning and grades (Exhibit 4). However, two technologies earned higher marks than the rest for boosting academic performance: 80 percent of students cited classroom exercises, and 71 percent cited machine learning–powered teaching assistants.

Although AR/VR is not yet widely used, 37 percent of students said they are “most excited” about its potential in the classroom. While 88 percent of students believe AR/VR will make learning more entertaining, just 5 percent said they think it will improve their ability to learn or master content (Exhibit 5). Industry experts confirmed that while there is significant enthusiasm for AR/VR, its ability to improve learning outcomes is uncertain. Some data look promising. For example, in a recent pilot study, 1 “Immersive biology in the Alien Zoo: A Dreamscape Learn software product,” Dreamscape Learn, accessed October 2021. students who used a VR tool to complete coursework for an introductory biology class improved their subject mastery by an average of two letter grades.

Faculty embrace new tools but would benefit from more technical support and training

Faculty gave learning tools even higher marks than students did, for ease of use, engagement, access to course resources, and instructor connectivity. They also expressed greater excitement than students did for the future use of technologies. For example, while more than 30 percent of students expressed excitement for AR/VR and classroom interactions, more than 60 percent of faculty were excited about those, as well as machine learning–powered teaching assistants and AI adaptive technology.

Eighty-one percent or more of faculty said they feel the eight learning technology tools are a good investment of time and effort relative to the value they provide (Exhibit 6). Expert interviews suggest that employing learning technologies can be a strain on faculty members, but those we surveyed said this strain is worthwhile.

While faculty surveyed were enthusiastic about new technologies, experts we interviewed stressed some underlying challenges. For example, digital-literacy gaps have been more pronounced since the pandemic because it forced the near-universal adoption of some technology solutions, deepening a divide that was unnoticed when adoption was sporadic. More tech-savvy instructors are comfortable with interaction-engagement-focused solutions, while staff who are less familiar with these tools prefer content display and delivery-focused technologies.

According to experts we interviewed, learning new tools and features can bring on general fatigue. An associate vice president of e-learning at one university told us that faculty there found designing and executing a pilot study of VR for a computer science class difficult. “It’s a completely new way of instruction. . . . I imagine that the faculty using it now will not use it again in the spring.” Technical support and training help. A chief academic officer of e-learning who oversaw the introduction of virtual simulations for nursing and radiography students said that faculty holdouts were permitted to opt out but not to delay the program. “We structured it in a ‘we’re doing this together’ way. People who didn’t want to do it left, but we got a lot of support from vendors and training, which made it easy to implement simulations.”

Reimagining higher education in the United States

Takeaways from our research.

Despite the growing pains of digitizing the classroom learning experience, faculty and students believe there is a lot more they can gain. Faculty members are optimistic about the benefits, and students expect learning to stay entertaining and efficient. While adoption levels saw double-digit growth during the pandemic, many classrooms have yet to experience all the technologies. For institutions considering the investment, or those that have already started, there are several takeaways to keep in mind.

• It’s important for administration leaders, IT, and faculty to agree on what they want to accomplish by using a particular learning technology. Case studies and expert interviews suggest institutions that seek alignment from all their stakeholders before implementing new technologies are more successful. Is the primary objective student engagement and motivation? Better academic performance? Faculty satisfaction and retention? Once objectives are set, IT staff and faculty can collaborate more effectively in choosing the best technology and initiating programs.
• Factor in student access to technology before deployment. As education technology use grows, the digital divide for students puts access to education at risk. While all the institution types we surveyed use learning technologies in the classroom, they do so to varying degrees. For example, 55 percent of respondents from historically Black colleges and universities and tribal colleges and universities use classroom interaction tools. This is lower than public institutions’ overall utilization rate of 64 percent and private institutions’ utilization rate of 84 percent. Similarly, 15 percent of respondents from historically Black colleges and universities and tribal colleges and universities use tools for monitoring student progress, while the overall utilization rate for both public and private institutions is 25 percent.
• High-quality support eases adoption for students and faculty. Institutions that have successfully deployed new learning technologies provided technical support and training for students and guidance for faculty on how to adapt their course content and delivery. For example, institutions could include self-service resources, standardize tools for adoption, or provide stipend opportunities for faculty who attend technical training courses. One chief academic officer told us, “The adoption of platforms at the individual faculty level can be very difficult. Ease of use is still very dependent upon your IT support representative and how they will go to bat to support you.”
• Agree on impact metrics and start measuring in advance of deployment. Higher-education institutions often don’t have the means to measure the impact of their investment in learning technologies, yet it’s essential for maximizing returns. Attributing student outcomes to a specific technology can be complex due to the number of variables involved in academic performance. However, prior to investing in learning technologies, the institution and its faculty members can align on a core set of metrics to quantify and measure their impact. One approach is to measure a broad set of success indicators, such as tool usage, user satisfaction, letter grades, and DFW rates (the percentage of students who receive a D, F, or Withdraw) each term. The success indicators can then be correlated by modality—online versus hybrid versus in-class—to determine the impact of specific tools. Some universities have offered faculty grants of up to $20,000 for running pilot programs that assess whether tools are achieving high-priority objectives. “If implemented properly, at the right place, and with the right buy-in, education technology solutions are absolutely valuable and have a clear ROI,” a senior vice president of academic affairs and chief technology officer told us.

In an earlier article , we looked at the broader changes in higher education that have been prompted by the pandemic. But perhaps none has advanced as quickly as the adoption of digital learning tools. Faculty and students see substantial benefits, and adoption rates are a long way from saturation, so we can expect uptake to continue. Institutions that want to know how they stand in learning tech adoption can measure their rates and benchmark them against the averages in this article and use those comparisons to help them decide where they want to catch up or get ahead.

Claudio Brasca is a partner in McKinsey’s Bay Area office, where Varun Marya is a senior partner; Charag Krishnan is a partner in the New Jersey office; Katie Owen is an associate partner in the St. Louis office, where Joshua Sirois is a consultant; and Shyla Ziade is a consultant in the Denver office.

The authors wish to thank Paul Kim, chief technology officer and associate dean at Stanford School of Education, and Ryan Golden for their contributions to this article.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Setting a new bar for online higher education

How to transform higher-education institutions for the long term

Scaling online education: Five lessons for colleges

• IIEP Buenos Aires

• A global institute
• Governing Board
• Expert directory
• 60th anniversary
• Monitoring and evaluation

Latest news

• Upcoming events
• PlanED: The IIEP podcast
• Partnering with IIEP
• Career opportunities
• 11th Medium-Term Strategy
• Planning and management to improve learning
• Inclusion in education
• Using digital tools to promote transparency and accountability
• Ethics and corruption in education
• Digital technology to transform education
• Crisis-sensitive educational planning
• Skills for the future
• Interactive map
• Foundations of education sector planning programmes
• Online specialized courses
• Customized, on-demand training
• Training in Buenos Aires
• Training in Dakar
• Preparation of strategic plans
• Sector diagnosis
• Costs and financing of education
• Tools for planning
• Crisis-sensitive education planning
• Supporting training centres
• Support for basic education quality management
• Gender at the Centre
• Teacher careers
• Geospatial data
• Cities and Education 2030
• Learning assessment data
• Governance and quality assurance
• School grants
• Early childhood education
• Flexible learning pathways in higher education
• Instructional leaders
• Planning for teachers in times of crisis and displacement
• Planning to fulfil the right to education
• Thematic resource portals
• Policy Fora
• Network of Education Policy Specialists in Latin America
• Publications
• Briefs, Papers, Tools
• Search the collection
• Visitors information
• Planipolis (Education plans and policies)
• IIEP Learning Portal
• Ethics and corruption ETICO Platform
• PEFOP (Vocational Training in Africa)
• SITEAL (Latin America)
• Policy toolbox
• Education for safety, resilience and social cohesion
• Health and Education Resource Centre
• Interactive Map
• Search deploy
• The institute

Three challenges for higher education and the SDGs

Sd-_he_dimension_site_web.jpg.

The UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP-UNESCO) convened a strategic debate this week on the important and unprecedented role of higher education in the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Keynote speaker Eva Egron-Polak, the Secretary-General of the International Association of Universities (IAU), began the discussion by highlighting some of the key aspects of the new agenda. “The SDGs are interconnected, and comprehensive. There is recognition that we cannot meet one goal without achieving the other goals. Education and research are essential to all SDGs,” she said. "For higher education there is a lot to be pleased about because the contribution of higher education to the SDGs is clearly recognized in the new agenda and higher education is included in the Education Goal (SDG4).”

A new opportunity for higher education

Unlike previous agendas – such as the Millennium Development Goals and Education for All – the SDGs explicitly refer to higher education as part of the vision for lifelong learning for all. Higher education plays a vital role in teacher training and other aspects of educational development, as IAU has been underlining, but more than that it can contribute to the advancement of all other goals, spanning health, gender equality, water and sanitation as well as industry and innovation. The Education 2030 framework for action for implementing SDG 4, stresses the interdependency of all education levels, from pre-primary through to higher education, and formal and non-formal education.  While the new agenda is good news overall for higher education, Egron-Polak also raised some precautions and challenges ahead.

Challenge #1: Making higher education an integral part of the new agenda

The event stressed that higher education still has a way to go to become and be recognized as an integral part of the overall action plan for implementing the SDGs, and not simply one of the targets. As it stands now, Egron-Polak worried higher education’s inclusion in the agenda was little more than an afterthought. To help address this, IAU has been advocating for broader recognition of the role higher education plays in research for planning, curriculum design, teacher training, evaluation and assessment, and IT use. Egron-Polak warned against perpetuating silos within both the education sector and within institutions.

Challenge #2: Mobilizing higher education institutions worldwide

Higher education institutions need to be both better informed and mobilized to engage in the overall SDG agenda and Education 2030. This is especially the case for universities in industrialized countries and for those not well-versed in the UN discourse and policy agenda circles. “The SDGs are still insufficiently on the radar of higher education leaders in industrialized nations, and if they are aware of this agenda, it is often limited to issues of environment, greening the campus or climate change. The knowledge about Education 2030 is quite limited,” said Egron-Polak. “We need to build awareness and show in concrete ways how universities do and can contribute.”

Challenge #3: Turning goals into action 

The third challenge, outlined by Egron-Polak, has to do with turning lofty goals and targets of this global agenda into meaningful and feasible strategies and actions at government and institutional levels. Egron-Polak took the example of target 4.3 : “By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university.” To meet all three of these targets – access, affordable, and quality – she says countries and HEIs require different strategies shaped to respond to their unique obstacles and resources. For example, equal access may mean building physical or human capacity or it may mean overcoming long-standing exclusions based on language, disability, socio-economic background.  Often it may mean a combination of both. As the discussant to the presentation, Michaela Martin, IIEP Programme Specialist on higher education policy, planning and governance, spoke about some further implications for higher education that are related to the new agenda.

Developing national capacities

The universalization of secondary education will increase the pressure for access to higher education, as well as the need to further diversify higher education opportunities. “The emphasis on higher education as being part of a life-long learning system with multiple and flexible pathways will also increase the need to strengthen often weak national capacities for recognition, validation and quality assurance,” she said. During a lively debate, participants emphasized the important potential of higher education institutions to contribute to the implementation of all SDG through their role of knowledge producers and educators of advanced human resource. It will be important to mobilize them for the new international development agenda and to make available funding for targeted inter-university cooperation.   Click here to view Eva Egron-Polak’s entire presentation, and here for highlights from our live-tweeting of the event. 

• Where to build new schools: A methodology for ministries 25 March 2024
• UNESCO’s Innovative Approaches to Women Empowerment at CSW68 22 March 2024
• 10 key steps for integrating technology into educational planning 19 March 2024

• Privacy Notice

Four of the biggest problems facing education—and four trends that could make a difference

Eduardo velez bustillo, harry a. patrinos.

In 2022, we published, Lessons for the education sector from the COVID-19 pandemic , which was a follow up to,  Four Education Trends that Countries Everywhere Should Know About , which summarized views of education experts around the world on how to handle the most pressing issues facing the education sector then. We focused on neuroscience, the role of the private sector, education technology, inequality, and pedagogy.

Unfortunately, we think the four biggest problems facing education today in developing countries are the same ones we have identified in the last decades .

1. The learning crisis was made worse by COVID-19 school closures

Low quality instruction is a major constraint and prior to COVID-19, the learning poverty rate in low- and middle-income countries was 57% (6 out of 10 children could not read and understand basic texts by age 10). More dramatic is the case of Sub-Saharan Africa with a rate even higher at 86%. Several analyses show that the impact of the pandemic on student learning was significant, leaving students in low- and middle-income countries way behind in mathematics, reading and other subjects.  Some argue that learning poverty may be close to 70% after the pandemic , with a substantial long-term negative effect in future earnings. This generation could lose around $21 trillion in future salaries, with the vulnerable students affected the most.

2. Countries are not paying enough attention to early childhood care and education (ECCE)

At the pre-school level about two-thirds of countries do not have a proper legal framework to provide free and compulsory pre-primary education. According to UNESCO, only a minority of countries, mostly high-income, were making timely progress towards SDG4 benchmarks on early childhood indicators prior to the onset of COVID-19. And remember that ECCE is not only preparation for primary school. It can be the foundation for emotional wellbeing and learning throughout life; one of the best investments a country can make.

3. There is an inadequate supply of high-quality teachers

Low quality teaching is a huge problem and getting worse in many low- and middle-income countries.  In Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, the percentage of trained teachers fell from 84% in 2000 to 69% in 2019 . In addition, in many countries teachers are formally trained and as such qualified, but do not have the minimum pedagogical training. Globally, teachers for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects are the biggest shortfalls.

4. Decision-makers are not implementing evidence-based or pro-equity policies that guarantee solid foundations

It is difficult to understand the continued focus on non-evidence-based policies when there is so much that we know now about what works. Two factors contribute to this problem. One is the short tenure that top officials have when leading education systems. Examples of countries where ministers last less than one year on average are plentiful. The second and more worrisome deals with the fact that there is little attention given to empirical evidence when designing education policies.

To help improve on these four fronts, we see four supporting trends:

1. Neuroscience should be integrated into education policies

Policies considering neuroscience can help ensure that students get proper attention early to support brain development in the first 2-3 years of life. It can also help ensure that children learn to read at the proper age so that they will be able to acquire foundational skills to learn during the primary education cycle and from there on. Inputs like micronutrients, early child stimulation for gross and fine motor skills, speech and language and playing with other children before the age of three are cost-effective ways to get proper development. Early grade reading, using the pedagogical suggestion by the Early Grade Reading Assessment model, has improved learning outcomes in many low- and middle-income countries. We now have the tools to incorporate these advances into the teaching and learning system with AI , ChatGPT , MOOCs and online tutoring.

2. Reversing learning losses at home and at school

There is a real need to address the remaining and lingering losses due to school closures because of COVID-19.  Most students living in households with incomes under the poverty line in the developing world, roughly the bottom 80% in low-income countries and the bottom 50% in middle-income countries, do not have the minimum conditions to learn at home . These students do not have access to the internet, and, often, their parents or guardians do not have the necessary schooling level or the time to help them in their learning process. Connectivity for poor households is a priority. But learning continuity also requires the presence of an adult as a facilitator—a parent, guardian, instructor, or community worker assisting the student during the learning process while schools are closed or e-learning is used.

To recover from the negative impact of the pandemic, the school system will need to develop at the student level: (i) active and reflective learning; (ii) analytical and applied skills; (iii) strong self-esteem; (iv) attitudes supportive of cooperation and solidarity; and (v) a good knowledge of the curriculum areas. At the teacher (instructor, facilitator, parent) level, the system should aim to develop a new disposition toward the role of teacher as a guide and facilitator. And finally, the system also needs to increase parental involvement in the education of their children and be active part in the solution of the children’s problems. The Escuela Nueva Learning Circles or the Pratham Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL) are models that can be used.

3. Use of evidence to improve teaching and learning

We now know more about what works at scale to address the learning crisis. To help countries improve teaching and learning and make teaching an attractive profession, based on available empirical world-wide evidence , we need to improve its status, compensation policies and career progression structures; ensure pre-service education includes a strong practicum component so teachers are well equipped to transition and perform effectively in the classroom; and provide high-quality in-service professional development to ensure they keep teaching in an effective way. We also have the tools to address learning issues cost-effectively. The returns to schooling are high and increasing post-pandemic. But we also have the cost-benefit tools to make good decisions, and these suggest that structured pedagogy, teaching according to learning levels (with and without technology use) are proven effective and cost-effective .

4. The role of the private sector

When properly regulated the private sector can be an effective education provider, and it can help address the specific needs of countries. Most of the pedagogical models that have received international recognition come from the private sector. For example, the recipients of the Yidan Prize on education development are from the non-state sector experiences (Escuela Nueva, BRAC, edX, Pratham, CAMFED and New Education Initiative). In the context of the Artificial Intelligence movement, most of the tools that will revolutionize teaching and learning come from the private sector (i.e., big data, machine learning, electronic pedagogies like OER-Open Educational Resources, MOOCs, etc.). Around the world education technology start-ups are developing AI tools that may have a good potential to help improve quality of education .

After decades asking the same questions on how to improve the education systems of countries, we, finally, are finding answers that are very promising.  Governments need to be aware of this fact.

To receive weekly articles,  sign-up here  

Consultant, Education Sector, World Bank

Senior Adviser, Education

Join the Conversation

• Share on mail
• comments added

1 hr 10 min

Intergroup Dialogue in Higher Education: Navigating Campus Challenges through Intentional Conversation Student Affairs NOW

Join us for an overview of intergroup dialogue (IGD) in higher education, featuring expert perspectives from scholars and practitioners Drs. Ximena Zúñiga, Bridget Turner Kelly, Mark Kamimura-Jiménez, and Nina Tissi-Gassoway. Panelists explore the philosophy and practice of IGD, discuss a four-stage approach, the relevance amidst campus unrest and polarization, implementation in student affairs graduate programs, and considerations for effective facilitation. Whether you're new to IGD or seeking advanced insights, this episode offers valuable perspectives on fostering inclusive and intentional dialogues on college campuses.

• More Episodes
• Student Affairs NOW © 2021

Top Podcasts In Education

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy .

Tertiary education challenges

Tertiary education responds to three distinct national goals. First, it aims to educate the youth to become active and productive members of society. Second, it seeks to meet and match industry demand with a competent and globally competitive workforce. Finally, through a continuing effort to reach global education standards, our universities aim to increase the quality of human capital and productivity vis-à-vis national and economic progress.

Naturally, many issues continue to plague our tertiary education system. Substandard institutions habitually fail to produce graduates with industry-standard competencies. Lately, we have seen the emergence of institutions that take advantage of industry trends by offering courses that aim solely to generate more revenue for the institution rather than deliver quality education to its enrollees. We have also seen the proliferation of  so-called state and community colleges that create poor options for students by providing substandard education. Given these circumstances, the following tertiary education components now deserve tighter scrutiny.

1. Teacher quality. Do college instructors consistently meet the minimum qualifications as faculty?  Do they have the skills and experience to guide the students in their chosen programs, and do they exhibit the professionalism and dedication needed to  inculcate the discipline of scholarly inquiry?

2. Quality of programs and course offerings.  Are the course offerings designed to provide students with the needed skills and knowledge to become competitive individuals, achievers in the workplace, or have they just been re-programmed to meet market demand and generate more revenue for the school at the expense of quality?

3. Governance. How are these schools managed? Are they run by education professionals? Are the schools affected by politics or are they used for political motivations and gain? Do the school administrators have the professionalism and expertise to run the schools?

Consider the nursing sector, for instance. We now have an oversupply of nursing graduates. However,  the low passing rates of licensure examinations are a huge cause for concern. We can only speculate that the apparent abundance of nursing graduates who fail their licensure exams may be due to the penchant of some rather unscrupulous nursing colleges to sacrifice quality in favor of higher enrollment figures.

Then there are the Teacher Education Institutions. The Unesco report on Reorienting Teacher Education to Address Sustainability states:  “Teacher Education Institutions fulfill a vital role in the global education community; they have the potential to bring changes within educational systems that will shape the knowledge and skills of future generations.” The culture, character and development of our nation rely on the quality of teachers we produce. These are the individuals who mold the minds of our future generations. It is necessary to make sure that these institutions are monitored strictly for compliance in their curriculum and values, and that they are provided with the innovative teaching strategies and methods that can help them reach out to students and achieve global standards for teacher education.

The Commission on Higher Education has announced that it will step up efforts monitor substandard colleges and universities. The CHEd is fully aware that it needs to actively regulate all programs—including Nursing—that produce unemployable graduates or exhibit low or even zero passing rates in board exams. It faces the challenge of making sure that all non-performing schools are closed and minimum qualifications for faculty are monitored. It  must also exhibit strong governance over state colleges and universities as well as colleges developed by local governments to ensure compliance with quality education standards.

Public and private higher education should not compete but complement each other, with the primary objective of meeting national development goals. Educational institutions must develop programs to reflect the needs of education and the youth.

Erda Tech Foundation is an educational and training institution that aims to provide technical/vocational skills to disadvantaged youth. It provides five-year secondary education programs with a six-month training in the final year. Over the years, with its focused, quality programs, it has produced graduates that are able to meet industry demand in their respective fields.

The One School calls itself a non-traditional college and puts emphasis on personalized learning. It offers a three-year undergraduate course in Entrepreneurship and Fashion Design and Marketing. The One School employs alternative education techniques where mentoring, low teacher-student ratios, one-on-one instructions are arranged. Its curriculum and method of teaching have adapted to the changing learning needs of students today.

These two programs in different sectors show that excellence in learning can be achieved with innovation, quality education and with the formation of skilled, empowered individuals as its top priority. Setting up schools for higher education is much more than providing infrastructure. It is about being able to produce individuals who can compete locally and globally in their chosen fields. With this we will be able to produce a highly educated citizenry that will pave the way to progress in the country.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

Ching Jorge is the executive director of Bato Balani Foundation, an Asia21 Fellow of the Asia Society, lead convenor of Young Public Servants and a trustee of the International Center for Innovation Transformation and Excellence in Governance. Email Ching at [email protected] .

Fearless views on the news

Disclaimer: Comments do not represent the views of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments which are inconsistent with our editorial standards. FULL DISCLAIMER

© copyright 1997-2024 inquirer.net | all rights reserved.

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.

Artificial Intelligence

How ai can address critical challenges facing higher education, by abbie misha     mar 29, 2024.

Image Credit: Gorodenkoff / Shutterstock

Artificial intelligence is increasingly being integrated into higher education to address challenges such as personalized learning and operational efficiency . AI-powered tools are streamlining administrative tasks like scheduling, registration and financial aid management , freeing up valuable staff time and reducing errors. AI-enhanced learning analytics provide more comprehensive data analysis, enabling professors to understand student behaviors and needs while identifying at-risk students early in their courses .

However, the integration of AI into higher education also raises concerns about its ethical use , including data privacy, security and the potential for bias in algorithms . While AI has the ability to enhance personalized learning experiences, there are concerns about the quality of education delivered through AI-driven platforms. Additionally, faculty members might encounter a learning curve as they integrate AI into their instructional approaches, while the fear of increased plagiarism by students is a valid concern.

Recently, EdSurge spoke with Bruce Dahlgren about the power of AI in higher education. Dahlgren’s experience in the technology sector spans four decades, with the first half of his career in large public IT companies and the latter half in private, software and SaaS-oriented firms. He brings a passion for higher education, evidenced by his service on a university board in Florida . Combining his love for IT with his dedication to advancing higher education, Dahlgren now serves as the CEO of Anthology , a leading global provider of edtech ecosystems for universities. In this role, Dahlgren aims to leverage the company's talent and technology to support higher education institutions effectively.

EdSurge: What critical challenges is the higher education industry currently facing?

Dahlgren: Higher education is at a significant crossroads. There are active debates about the value of the traditional college experience, and I understand that perspective. Rising tuition costs, concerns about employability and alternative credentialing options have fueled this conversation. Students are increasingly questioning the necessity and return on investment (ROI) of a four-year degree.

Students who choose that route expect greater flexibility, personalization and real-world relevance in their education. To meet these expectations, institutions will need to invest in both technology and innovative teaching methods that meet students’ valid expectations.

Add the financial pressure caused by falling enrollment, reduced state funding and heightened competition for limited resources, and institutions are facing a real inflection point. These challenges have forced them to reassess how they deliver education and find innovative ways to remain viable and relevant. To secure their future, they will likely need to embrace some bold initiatives.

How do you believe artificial intelligence can play a role in addressing those challenges?

This is the really exciting part. AI is going to transform every aspect of higher education and the student journey. How students engage with their professors, the methods used to evaluate learning and retention and course curriculum design will all be influenced by the opportunities and challenges posed by AI. There has been a progression from data processing to networking to workflow automation to data warehousing. AI is a natural evolution of all these digital changes.

I’ve been in the tech industry for a long time, and every time there is an advancement in technology, there are fears about the risks. Right now, there are worries about generative AI. Could it create an opportunity for cheating, plagiarism and hallucinations? And universities are feeling the stress.

But this is an exciting time. AI is pervasive in everything we do. The ability to use this data, the skillset and its impact on our lives — it all must be a part of higher ed.

The answer is integrating the responsible use of AI, which is why Anthology came out with the AI Policy Framework . It is like setting up guardrails. We want to help institutions embrace AI in an ethical and responsible structure. We want universities to see Anthology as a partner in this exciting journey.

More from EdSurge

EdSurge Podcast

Could ai give civics education a boost, by jeffrey r. young.

Defending Our Schools: The State of Cybersecurity in K-12

Alternative Pathways

In coastal alaska, 2 visions for the future of higher education, by rebecca koenig.

Mental Health

Will banning tiktok make kids safer online it’s more complicated than that, by nadia tamez-robledo.

Journalism that ignites your curiosity about education.

EdSurge is an editorially independent project of and

• Product Index
• Write for us
• Advertising

FOLLOW EDSURGE

© 2024 All Rights Reserved

Vanderbilt University to co-host summit exploring the value of liberal arts education

Media inquiries.

• 615-322-6397 Email

Latest Stories

• Spring Faculty Assembly on April 11 
• NIH honors Vanderbilt with prestigious research prize 
• Vanderbilt University Statement – March 28, 2024

Mar 28, 2024, 9:00 AM

As higher education faces public scrutiny over the value of college in today’s increasingly complex society, Vanderbilt University will co-host an inaugural summit to explore the value of liberal arts education and how to transform its delivery to align with a quickly evolving digital world.

The 2024 Liberal Arts Summit is scheduled for Nov. 18–20 in Nashville on the Vanderbilt campus, with a theme of “Liberal Arts and Innovation in the Digital Age.” Higher education leaders from across the globe will gather to share perspectives on how to meaningfully express the value of the liberal arts to engage students; discuss practical strategies for harnessing AI and big data; hear how other institutions are bridging the gap between disciplines to radically collaborate; and explore best practices for successful funding initiatives and cross-sector partnerships.

“Vanderbilt University is at the forefront of global discourse, setting the stage for critical conversations on liberal arts with prominent education leaders worldwide,” Chancellor Daniel Diermeier said. “The summit will provide an opportunity to explore global perspectives on how we should approach rebranding liberal arts education to meaningfully engage all students, society and industry and ensure how it can be fit for the future. We look forward to seeing how these conversations unfold.”

The summit is designed for leaders of liberal arts programs to gain knowledge on several emerging issues. Sessions will allow those in attendance to delve into what successful funding initiatives look like and best practices for galvanizing cross-sector partnerships for liberal arts programs; offer practical strategies to harness the digital revolution and embed innovation into liberal arts teaching and learning; and learn from peers about how other institutions have been bridging the knowledge gap between disciplines and discovering the importance of liberal arts in accelerating developments in STEM.

Vanderbilt is partnering with Times Higher Education to host the summit, which is part of the organization’s broader World Summit Series . A detailed agenda and registration information will be shared as the event approaches.

Keep Reading

Daring to Grow: The stories that shaped Vanderbilt in 2023

Vanderbilt hosts Summit on Modern Conflict and Emerging Threats

DEA Administrator Anne Milgram to keynote 2024 Vanderbilt Summit on Modern Conflict and Emerging Threats

Explore story topics.

• myVU Latest Headlines
• Chancellor Daniel Diermeier
• Daniel Diermeier
• liberal arts
• Liberal Arts Summit
• Office of the Chancellor
• times higher education
• World Summit Series

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Opinion article, non-western theorizing: the challenge of international relations curriculum in indonesia.

• 1 School of Sociology, Politics, and International Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, Indonesia
• 2 Department of International Relations, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, Indonesia

1 Introduction

What is the issue encountered in the International Relations (IR) curriculum shared across divergent Indonesian higher education institutions? Since the first IR program was formed in 1957 at Gadjah Mada University ( Fakih, 2020 ), a lingering issue persists in the teaching curriculum. That is a dominant, positivist-inspired inquiry in the study of IR. This focuses on constructing empirically verifiable predictions as a methodology, leading to the endorsement of specific epistemological, theoretical, and methodological perspectives to be taught and grasped by students. Consequently, despite the growing number of post-positivist scholarship taught in universities, this still remains a marginalized topic.

In this opinion piece, I argue that only by reflexivity and self-reflection can higher education lecturers in Indonesia be aware of this. Eun (2020) raised this issue in several of his works in 2020 by arguing that academics can realize the severe lack of theoretical diversity in IR teaching if one reflects on what is being taught to students. Recently, Umar (2023) argued that Western IR dominance in Indonesia is due to the naturalized and reproduced institutional practices of power, which causes dominant schools of thought to be the main topics in IR teaching. I build up those opinions and echo the importance of further galvanizing IR studies in Indonesia's higher education institutions by focusing on broadening its curriculum. In doing so, I argue for theoretical diversity in teaching IR programs at Indonesian universities and a more robust adoption of “non-western” IR theorizing. In doing so, it allows consideration of divergent histories, philosophies, and knowledge, which spans across different ontological, epistemological, theoretical, and methodological thoughts that Acharya claimed to “…not impose any particular idea or approach on other but respects diversity” ( Acharya, 2016 , p. 4).

The existing marginalization of post-positivist scholarship is concerning. Indonesian IR curriculum is geared toward establishing future diplomats for the state. However, a curriculum comprising dominant Western-based IR theories impedes creative thinking and theoretical building outside the existing schools of thought. As future diplomats, it is pivotal for those taught in Indonesian universities that it is possible to theorize outside of the dominant Western theories. This allows students to be equipped with the knowledge to adapt to different geopolitical changes without succumbing to great powers' preferences.

2 The problem with the Indonesian International Relations curriculum: outmoded substantives

Higher education institutions teaching IR in Indonesia greatly emphasize Western-centric IR traditions. As Umar explained, this instance can be traced to institutionalizing IR studies during Suharto's presidency in the late 1960s. Not only were “sensitive” topics such as Marxism disregarded in the Indonesian curriculum, but an intentionally constructed curriculum focused on patterns of economic development in the West ( Heryanto and Nancy, 1988 ; Umar, 2023 ). Indonesian IR curriculum geared to support the New Order era of Suharto was also highly relevant to the geopolitical crisis, which inquired into Indonesia's position vis-à-vis the Cold War ( Hadiwinata, 2017 ).

Critical perspectives in Indonesian IR studies have been left out over the years. There was an increasing marginalization of critical perspectives within Indonesia's IR studies. This initially started during the New Order Era, when the Indonesian government left out the knowledge contributions of leftists, which then continued during Indonesia's democratic era through the imposition of development-based curriculum and the presence of government-determined curriculum approvals ( Nugroho, 2005 ; Wahid, 2018 ). Consequently, this hierarchical structure in constructing Indonesian higher education curricula has left out many insightful studies on global south IR theories. Within IR scholarship, these are known to be non-Western IR theories, a critical stance in understanding the world outside the dominant Western-centric IR traditions.

A number of IR scholars have echoed this in the past. Buzan and Acharya have been among the most vocal on this topic, criticizing that “Western theories, the criticism goes, misrepresent and therefore misunderstand much of the rest of the world” ( Acharya, 2014 , p. 647). Before this opinion, the non-convergence of the Western-centric IR traditions in Asia is described by David Kang as doing “…a poor job as they are applied to Asia” ( Kang, 2003 , p. 58). Inspired by this thought, Acharya and Buzan (2010) asked, “Why is there no non-western international theory”? Such scholars have argued for diversifying the IR theories, pointing to how non-Western societies' cultures, philosophies, and historical contexts can contribute to theorizing IR. As a result, we are now witnessing more IR schools of thought assessing the unique contexts within Asian societies, with the rise of China being a dominant discourse in contemporary IR studies ( Qin, 2011 , 2016 ; Yan et al., 2011 ). Consequently, contemporary IR theorizing has allowed for divergent views and points of analysis, transcending the ontological, epistemological, and methodological starting points under Western-inspired IR. However, Indonesian higher education institutions have not effectively adapted to this trend.

The development of the IR curriculum has been somewhat stagnant since Indonesia's democratization era. Transcending the Western-centered IR school of thought, there is a growing number of developments within Indonesia's IR curriculum to assess the role of non-state actors, non-traditional security threats, evolutions of human rights, and other empirically rich studies. However, when it comes to the core departure of analysis, what dominates is Western-inspired inquiries: the role of the state, power, political economics, and international system. Based on data from the Indonesian International Relations Association (AIHII), 73 IR programs in Indonesia are spread across different islands ( AIHII, 2023 ). However, despite the country's growing number of IR programs, they all share a curriculum that sidelines the importance of alternative IR thoughts. Looking deeper into prominent IR programs in the country, such as Universitas Hasanuddin, Universitas Indonesia, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Universitas Sriwijaya, Universitas Pertamina, Universitas Katolik Parahyangan, and Universitas Diponegoro, alternative schools of thoughts only occupy one or two classes within a course (Introduction to International Relations, Theories of International Relations, Foreign Policy, or International Politics). A heavier emphasis is placed on divergent empirical investigations of interest to the study program, such as regional issue areas, traditional security, and gender in IR, rather than exploring alternative ways of interpreting the empirical points of investigation.

As a result, theorizing in this field of study is exceptionally confined to those theoretical commitments. Although there have been notable attempts to discuss non-Western IR theories, this agenda is still lacking within Indonesia's higher education institutions. When Indonesian IR studies are anchored to place the importance of great power politics in the early years of one's studies, it affirms the importance of a Eurocentric Westphalian system and Western history, marginalizing other analysis points within the study.

It is, however, fair to state that other universities outside of Indonesia also face this issue. In a study conducted by Hagmann and Biersteker (2014) , they concluded that 23 American and European universities lacked any non-western scholarship introduced throughout their courses of studies. As Eun (2020) states, “…IR is too Western-centric”, and the Indonesian IR curriculum has adopted this for decades.

3 Discussion: reflexivity, self-reflection, and theoretical pluralism

I echo the importance of reflexivity and self-reflection, as argued by Eun (2020) . Doing so makes us academics realize that IR structure is the making of us (academics) as critical agents in IR knowledge dissemination ( Eun, 2020 ). By embracing this role, we can recognize that the Western-centric IR theories within Indonesia's IR curriculum are concerning and may impede our students' creative non-Western IR theorizing. As a lecturer myself, given the responsibility to develop the critical minds of young Indonesian students, developing a curriculum that teaches the diverse range of available theories is vital. Through self-reflection, we will realize that this existing structure is not fixed and can face changes once we realize the issue. As Umar recently wrote, this may not be easy to recognize due to the naturalized Western IR dominance through Indonesian institutions ( Umar, 2023 ). However, we can tackle this issue by constantly questioning what it is and why we teach our students a particular paradigm. In terms of ontological, epistemological, and methodological stance, is it justifiable not to introduce other emerging Asian and non-Western schools of thought?

After reflexivity and self-reflection, we will realize that other parts of the world have attempted to develop this non-Western-centric IR thinking. This considers the vast historical, cultural, and philosophical contexts underpinning foreign policies and how non-Western states think of the world.

An example is Chinese IR. Vis-à-vis the rise of China, western academics have adopted a somewhat stagnant view of this phenomenon. However, Chinese scholars have argued the importance of indigenous theories and concepts related to Chinese cultures, which allows for a better understanding of how China views the world ( Qin, 2011 , 2016 ; Yan et al., 2011 ). For these scholars, it is pivotal to develop IR studies that consider “Chinese characteristics,” which leads to a unique construction of a ‘Chinese School' that studies Confucianism, Marxism, Tianxia , and other concepts highly related to China. Take, for example, Qin Yaqing's relational theory, which perceives state foreign policies in the context of relationality. He argued state interactions can be comprehended by understanding the existing relationship among states and considering aspects of hierarchy and equality ( Qin, 2016 ). In contrast with the dominant realism school of thought in IR, Qin's relational theory abandons notions of state dominance and power and starts by inquiring about the relations between two different states.

Although Chinese IR is starting to be introduced within Indonesian IR programs, this has not been a consistent path taken across the nation. As in the case of the prominent IR programs mentioned in Indonesia, most have only adopted the curriculum of understanding IR theorizing in the Global South rather than a specified inquiry into interpreting Chinese IR. This is concerning, as Indonesian students are currently confined to power transition theories in comprehending Indonesia's relations with China and a rather binary view of the state's relations with other secondary states of Southeast Asia. Part of this problem is that different cultural, historical, and philosophical contexts are left out in IR curriculums, which severely impedes how Indonesian students can creatively theorize IR.

However, the most concerning development has been how Indonesian students understand Indonesia within the IR context. Due to the dominance of power transition theories, there is a stagnant view of Indonesia as a middle power in the international system. Some have discussed Indonesia's soft and niche diplomacy, but perceptions tend to start from a realist, liberalist, or constructivist theoretical foundation. Another consequence is the lack of efforts in considering a separate ‘Indonesian IR' school of thought, which would consider the theoretical richness that Indonesia's history, culture, and philosophies can contribute to IR theorizing. This is problematic. Indonesian academics such as Wicaksana have criticized this, arguing that Indonesia thus remains a ‘silent subject' within the study of IR ( Wicaksana and Santoso, 2022 ).

I close this opinion piece by echoing the importance of embracing theoretical pluralism in Indonesia's higher education IR curriculums. Students must be exposed to the various theories available within IR scholarship. The divergent ontological, epistemological, and methodological approaches are essential for students to develop the critical thinking necessary to be successful IR graduates. Being confined to the theoretical commitments of Western-centric theories severely limits this creative thinking process and students' ability to explore different topics contrary to the dominant schools of thought within the IR discipline. Non-western theorizing allows for diversity, which is currently dominated by the importance of ‘generality' compared to theoretical pluralism.

Author contributions

BP: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acharya, A. (2014). Global international relations (IR) and regional worlds: a new agenda for international studies. Int. Stu. Q. 58, 647–659. doi: 10.1111/isqu.12171

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Acharya, A. (2016). Advancing global IR: challenges, contentions, and contributions. Int. Stu. Rev. 18, 4–15. doi: 10.1093/isr/viv016

Acharya, A., and Buzan, B. (2010). Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives On and Beyond Asia. Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives On and Beyond Asia. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.

Google Scholar

AIHII. (2023). “ Perguruan Tinggi.” Asosiasi Ilmu Hubungan Internasional Indonesia . Available online at: https://aihii.or.id/perguruan-tinggi/ (accessed March 6, 2023).

Eun, Y. S. (2020). “ Non-Western International Relations Theorisation: Reflexive Stocktaking.” E-International Relations . Available online at: https://www.e-ir.info/2020/04/12/non-western-international-relations-theorisation-reflexive-stocktaking/ (accessed April 12, 2020).

Fakih, F. (2020). Authoritarian Modernization in Indonesia's Early Independence Period: The Foundation of the New Order State (1950-1965). Authoritarian Modernization in Indonesia's Early Independence Period. Leiden: Brill.

Hadiwinata, B. S. (2017). Studi Dan Teori Hubungan Internasional: Arus Utama, Alternatif, Dan Reflektivis . Jakarta: Pustaka Yayasan Obor Indonesia.

Hagmann, J., and Biersteker, T. J. (2014). Beyond the published discipline: Toward a critical pedagogy of international studies. Eur. J. Int. Relat. 20, 291–315. doi: 10.1177/1354066112449879

Heryanto, A., and Nancy, L. (1988). The development of ‘development. Indonesia 46:24. doi: 10.2307/3351042

Kang, D. C. (2003). Getting Asia wrong: the need for new analytical frameworks. Int. Secur. 27, 57–85. doi: 10.1162/016228803321951090

Nugroho, H. (2005). “Chapter 6: The political economy of higher education: the university as an arena for the struggle for power,” in Social Science and Power in Indonesia , eds V. R. Hadiz, and D. Dhakidae (Sheffield: Equinox Pub), 143–166.

Qin, Y. (2011). Development of international relations theory in China: progress through debates. Int. Relat. Asia-Pacific 11, 231–257. doi: 10.1093/irap/lcr003

Qin, Y. (2016). A relational theory of world politics. Int. Stu. Rev. 18, 33–47. doi: 10.1093/isr/viv031

Umar, A. R. M. (2023). ‘Which Part of Your Work is IR?' on Western dominance and the discipline of international relations in Indonesia. Alternatives 5, doi: 10.1177/03043754231176868

Wahid, A. (2018). Campus on Fire: Indonesian universities during the political turmoil of 1950s-1960s archipel. Études Interdis. Monde insulindien 95, 31–52. doi: 10.4000/archipel.612

Wicaksana, I. G. W., and Santoso, Y. W. (2022). Promoting global IR under the dominance of mainstream theories and the liberalization of universities. Contemp. Southeast Asia 44, 207–229. doi: 10.1355/cs44-2c

Yan, X., Daniel, A. B., and Zhe, S. (2011). Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Keywords: non-western theorizing, curriculum, higher education, International Relations, teaching

Citation: Putra BA (2024) Non-western theorizing: the challenge of International Relations curriculum in Indonesia. Front. Educ. 9:1378316. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1378316

Received: 29 January 2024; Accepted: 19 March 2024; Published: 28 March 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Putra. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Bama Andika Putra, bama.putra@bristol.ac.uk

Challenges of Ethically Regulating Free Speech on College Campuses

By shoellis

By: Olivia Welsh, Ethics and Policy Intern

Each day, headlines highlight the ongoing questions we have about the role of universities in public discourse. These conversations center on questions surrounding political neutrality, what is considered “appropriate” speech from students and faculty, and how to protect university community members from harm. These are not new questions, but the escalation of the Israel-Palestine conflict, from everyday campus protests to Ivy League president resignations, has brought the issue of free speech on college campuses to a boiling point.

A university or higher-education institution is inherently a setting where intellectual and ideological disagreement will occur – and should even be encouraged. The challenge is where and how do we draw the line. What type of speech is so harmful to members of the community that it must be restricted? Who gets to decide the line between right and wrong? What is a university’s responsibility to speak out about the social and political issues of the day?

Being uncomfortable is a necessary part of growth. Being unsafe is not. This is the balance that colleges and universities are trying to strike every day. Can there ever be an institution that gets it exactly right in the eyes of all?

The background of college campus free speech

In the 1960s, free speech on college campuses was at the forefront of higher education discussions. The University of Chicago made its first attempt at taking an official stance by publishing the Kalven Report. This 1967 statement, still in use today, argues that institutions should remain socially and politically neutral while fostering lively debate among their members. The authors of the Kalven Report believed that a university should not suppress any viewpoints or change its corporate activities to foster social or political values.

“The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic. […] To perform its mission in society, a university must sustain an extraordinary environment of freedom of inquiry and maintain an independence from political fashions, passions, and pressures” [5].

In short, the report states that a university should be a place to discuss all possible perspectives without censorship. The members of a university community can come to their own conclusions and act independently of the institution itself. The Kalven Report pushes back at anyone who might consider such a choice to not weigh in on the topics of the day as cowardly or uncaring:

“The neutrality of the university as an institution arises then not from a lack of courage nor out of indifference and insensitivity. It arises out of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints. And this neutrality as an institution has its complement in the fullest freedom for its faculty and students as individuals to participate in political action and social protest.” [5]

In 2014, the University of Chicago decided to make another statement amidst an onslaught of various free speech lawsuits against universities nationwide. The resulting Chicago Principles delineate a clear and longstanding commitment to free speech and allow a wide diversity of ideas to be discussed in the University setting. The Chicago Principles reiterate the sentiment of the Kalven Report, calling debate and deliberation essential to higher education, even if the ideas discussed are viewed as “offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed” [8]. It guarantees “the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn,” provided that such behavior does not interfere with the core functioning of the university [8]. Furthermore, the Chicago Principles demand that all community members not obstruct or otherwise interfere with others’ freedom of speech. The Chicago Principles conclude by arguing that “without a vibrant commitment to free and open inquiry, a university ceases to be a university” [8].

These are the positions that the University of North Carolina System (“UNC System”) adopted in 2017, as endorsed by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s (“UNC-Chapel Hill”) Faculty Council and Board of Trustees [10] [3]. The UNC System schools are among over 100 other colleges and universities nationwide that have adopted the Chicago Principles, including several of our peer institutions [4]. In 2022, the UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees took a further step in protecting free speech by adopting the Kalven Report [2].

“The mission of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is advanced by our commitment to the aspirational principles that guide our public conversation no matter how unsettling […] At Carolina, we have long known that light and liberty are the essential tools that allow problems to be seen, ideas to be tested, and solutions to be found,” the Faculty Council states [10].

Of course, both the UNC System and UNC-Chapel Hill have policies regulating free speech, which forbid defamation, unlawful harassment, true threats, unjust invasions of privacy, and more (see the UNC System Policy and the UNC-Chapel Hill Policy ). However, these policies leave several unanswered questions. For example, it is not always clear what speech falls under the category of a “true threat,” especially because that might mean different things to different people.

When does protecting free speech interfere with a university’s teaching mission and functioning? Do institutions have a different obligation to protect historically marginalized groups compared to historically well-represented groups? What is a university’s responsibility in addressing social and political issues? There are no “right” answers, but some views on these questions are explored below.

When does protecting free speech inhibit a university’s functioning?

The Kalven Report, the Chicago Principles, and the UNC policies all indicate that it is appropriate to restrict free speech when it interferes with the necessary functioning of the university, with safety concerns being of utmost importance. Beyond cases like riots that would physically disallow classes from taking place and endanger members of the university, disruptions like exclusionary speech could also be viewed as interfering with a university’s core functioning by hindering equal access to education. If it is a university’s mission to educate all its students, but a particular group feels unreasonably ostracized due to the free speech of others and feels unable to attend or participate in class, then one could argue that speech is interfering with the necessary functioning of the university.

Say that, while not violating any laws, an anti-Black Lives Matter (“BLM”) speaker comes to campus and delivers a scathing condemnation of the BLM movement. However, the speaker’s remarks and student participation in the event make Black students feel unwelcome on campus, and therefore, these students find it harder to benefit from their education. Does this qualify as speech that interferes with the university’s functioning? And if so, should it not be welcomed on campus?

On the flip side, does inhibiting a challenging viewpoint negatively impact the educational environment? Students should have the opportunity to grapple with difficult ideas and the controversies of the day – that is part of what is so valuable about a liberal arts education. Colleges are not full of fragile students who cannot stand to hear free speech, and they should not be portrayed as such. The key is creating an environment where the needs of all students remain supported even during protests, controversial speakers, and difficult discussions. However, it is not easy to prescribe a single policy for handling free speech since circumstances vary dramatically from institution to institution [1].

Is there a different obligation to protect historically marginalized groups at a university?

Continuing with this hypothetical of an anti-BLM speaker on campus, how might appropriate free-speech regulation differ based on context? According to UNC System data, just over 8% of UNC-Chapel Hill’s undergraduate student body identifies as Black/African American [11]. In the context of having such a significant minority, is it justified to more strictly regulate free speech that makes Black students feel unwelcome and further marginalized at the university?

One might think that free speech should be fully protected regardless because any university member in opposition has an equal right to free speech in response. However, just because someone has the right to free speech does not mean they feel reasonably empowered to use it. This highlights the important distinction between equality, which treats everyone the same, and equity, which recognizes that creating a level playing field often means allocating more or less resources to particular individuals or groups based on their specific circumstances. Giving all campus community members the same right to free speech is equal, but equitable free speech would amplify and protect minority groups.

The teaching mission of a university relies on an inclusive climate. Institutional attention is necessary to ensure that all students in diverse classrooms are comfortable being involved in the learning experience. Because it is important to include ALL students in an environment of free inquiry, there is an argument that free speech that specifically marginalizes an already minority group must be more strictly regulated than controversial speech that makes a majority group uncomfortable [1].

This is where context is important because, unlike UNC-Chapel Hill, Howard University (“Howard”) has a very strong majority of Black students. At Howard, Black students would likely not feel as threatened by an anti-BLM speaker; therefore, students could more comfortably engage in rigorous debate and grapple with differing viewpoints, which is essential in higher education.

What is a university’s responsibility to govern speech on campus about social and political issues?

This past November, a speaker unaffiliated with UNC-Chapel Hill made remarks on campus that sympathized with the violence perpetrated by Hamas against Israeli citizens on October 7th, 2023 [7]. Such tolerance for violence (which killed over a thousand Israeli citizens) is clearly alarming and certainly falls under the category of speech seen as “offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed.” But remember that, in the spirit of free inquiry and true academia, the Chicago Principles protect such speech. The remarks did not include a threat or any other banned speech.

Then-Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz strongly condemned the remarks, as did the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and many others at UNC-Chapel Hill. Months later, the Faculty Council, the same one that originally endorsed the Chicago Principles, considered a resolution to “strongly condemn the antisemitic statements at the event.” The group decided to indefinitely postpone the resolution, avoiding taking a side on its merits. While some did feel strongly that the remarks were antisemitic, others viewed this as a mislabeling since the comments contained no mention of the Jewish religion or people and only directly criticized the actions of the Israeli state .

There is another tricky consideration – if the Faculty Council passes a resolution condemning antisemitism, must it follow this up with a condemnation of Islamophobia to ensure neutrality and inclusivity? Does this set a precedent by which the Faculty Council must condemn any speech it regards as harmful, even if the speech does not violate the UNC System or UNC-Chapel Hill free speech policies? Who decides what should and should not be condemned, and where is the line drawn regarding what warrants a comment?

Certainly, this is not to say that members of an institution cannot or should not speak up against violence or perceived hate. Still, at the institutional level, there are significant policy ramifications to consider in protecting free speech and thorough education [7]. Starting to weigh in on social and political issues is a slippery slope for universities because it creates an expectation of doing so for all issues. The authors of the Kalven Report anticipated this and promoted institutional neutrality, trying to make a university a simple facility where lively debates on the day’s topics can occur.

This is a perfectly reasonable argument, but there is another drastically different viewpoint. Is institutional neutrality just a convenient excuse for universities to stay silent and take the “easy way out?” [12]. At Indiana University (“IU”), administrators recently caused an uproar when they canceled a scheduled art exhibition by a Palestinian-American artist. IU administration cited security concerns as the reason for the cancellation. However, the artist, members of the IU community, and outside organizations speculate that the real reason is a reaction to comments by an Indiana congressman who threatened to withhold federal funding from IU if it failed to address perceived antisemitism concerns adequately [6].

Walking a political tightrope does not seem to be a legitimate reason for censorship at a public university. Institutional neutrality that allows for all viewpoints to be expressed is very different than a restrictive “institutional neutrality” that prohibits any viewpoints from being expressed. Universities risk establishing an orthodox view on campus by making statements or taking actions regulating free speech, thereby ostracizing alternative thinkers [9]. While a university might not be responsible for acting on social and political issues (the substance for a whole different debate), it does have a responsibility to facilitate an environment that considers social and political issues and equips its students to handle these difficult or delicate issues once they graduate.

Between a rock and a hard place

There are still so many unanswered questions regarding free speech on campus, and it is doubtful that a satisfactory solution will ever be reached. Any policy on free speech must consider legal constraints, institutional missions, and the feelings of students, faculty, and staff. With so many stakeholders to satisfy, it makes sense that the issue of free speech on campus keeps coming up.

During controversial times, it is helpful to remember that heated moments subside, and history reflects that. “Right answers” are hard to come by, but at the end of the day, a university that can keep its campus community safe and facilitate productive conversations is doing its job pretty well.

Biomedical Engineering Education in Nigeria

Emergence, challenges, prospects and areas for development.

• Ayodele James Oyejide Afe Babalola University

In the past five decades, Nigeria has witnessed a range of Biomedical Engineering (BME) and technology activities within private and public hospitals, research institutions, and a limited number of universities. These have mainly centred on the procurement, installation, and maintenance of medical equipment and devices. Trained technologists and technicians, equipped with relevant skills and certification, have primarily spearheaded these efforts. Consequently, the country has made a minimal contribution to the global knowledge base in BME research. However, academic programmes leading to degrees and dedicated research in BME have recently emerged within Nigerian universities. This article assesses the current state of BME education in the country, including the milestones achieved, ongoing challenges, and prospects for future development. It draws on a critical analysis of the existing literature on BME practices and education in Nigeria as well as the author’s informed perspective. The findings highlight that BME education in Nigeria is yet to match international standards. To further develop these programmes, it recommends that attention focus on seven key areas that have proven instrumental in the development of similar university programmes in developed nations. Strategies are also proposed to foster collaboration among universities, researchers, the health sector, and government entities that would promote interdisciplinary BME education, ultimately enhancing the healthcare delivery system, and research and development (R&D) in Nigeria.

How to Cite

• Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

Copyright (c) 2024 International Journal of African Higher Education

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

Developed By

Information.

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

Make a Submission