Assessing the Challenges of Collaborative Innovation Systems in Public Higher Education: Interval-valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Combined Compromise Solution Approach

In current issue of the Journal of Medical Education, Afshar in the Editorial “The Role of Private Sector in Higher Education; From Quantity and Quality to Access and Social Justice” proposed the importance of justice and quality. (1) It seems that there are some differences between two types of private sector in higher education. One type of private financial support in higher education comes purely from private sector without any contribution of public sector. The second type of private finance in the higher education especially the type which has grown recently in Iranian higher education is a type of combination between public higher education and private sector the so called international branch of the university till recent years, and nowadays called selfgoverning campus of the university. (2) In this type of private contribution to public higher education those who have no or little money must pass very hard national examination to be accepted in the university, and those who can pay the tuition fee could enter to the best schools of that university without the exam (in the first year of the project) or by loose standards or lower cut off scores. Actually, this is an instance of the double standards. One of the elements of being equitable and avoiding discrimination is to prevent undue achievement by the owners of the power such as owners of political, religious, economic, or military power, and to avoid any distinction according to race, colour, sex, language, and etc. (3) In this type of private money absorption in the higher education, while the others have no extra way to enter to the university that would lead to achievement of scientific power, the owners of the economic powers’ daughters and sons could have a special chance to achieve scientific power by the power of their parents, and there is a different criterion to enter the university based on non-scientific differences. In such situation growing student movements against commercialism of knowledge and education which is contrary to their culture and also against fair distribution of educational opportunities is probable. (4-6) In this condition the pressure of stigma on the student with lower scores in the entrance and the other examinations is not ethically acceptable either. The other problem of this type of private financial support in higher education is the matter of distinguishing the clear border between public sector incomes regarding the private one. Some similar studies in combining public and private healthcare services showed that it is the private sector that finally has income from the public one contrary to the presuppositions. (7) From another view supporters of self-governing branch (previously called international branch, while it doesn’t have real international students, faculty members or staffs) could state some benefits for private contribution to public sector higher education such as taking financial resources from private to the public, preventing capital leakage of rich people in the country to abroad. More over, It is said that “it is better to spend your money to attain knowledge and degree comparing with those who spend their talents and academic knowledge and degree to attain money in an unethical way”; namely if rich persons tend to spend their money to improve their family members knowledge and to help the scientific sector of the public, it would be appreciated as a good practice and act. on the other hand, could see some talent students or graduates who committed immoral practices such as a case in which a doctor explicitly states to the laboratory or other Para clinics colleague: “how much do I get if I send you patients?” (8) Conclusion: Entering best fields of best universities by the lower cut off scores comparing other similar applicant merely because of parents’ economic status could consider as an exemplary of unequal opportunity for equal ones. Helping public science sector of the society via paid tuitions may diminishes the ugliness of injustice, however public sector incomes clearance is essential to make public benefit claims real and documented. In the other hand stigmatization of the student with lower scores after their entrance to the university also seems to be unethical.

Challenges of the collaborative innovation system in public higher education in the era of industry 4.0 using an integrated framework

Reviewed by: What’s Happening to Public Higher Education? Matthew R. Wawrzynski (bio) and Jody E. Jessup-Anger (bio) Ronald G. Ehrenberg (Ed.). What’s Happening to Public Higher Education? Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2006. 381 pp. Cloth: $59.95. ISBN: 0-275-98503-2. Robert Ehrenberg, who serves as the director of the Cornell Higher Education Research Institute (CHERI), noted that "public higher education appears to be in a state of crisis" (p. 1). He therefore devoted the spring 2005 (CHERI) conference to providing a detailed description and analysis of public higher education at the beginning of the 21st century. Revised papers presented at this conference by more than two dozen authors evolved into the bulk of What Is Happening to Public Higher Education?, which Ehrenberg edited. The first of the book's three parts is aptly titled "Setting the Stage." In this section, various authors provide background data on national trends occurring in public higher education, the forces that have led to these trends, and the effects of these trends on students. Each of the four chapters in this section offers a detailed, empirically based study addressing topics such as "why public higher education institutions find themselves in the precarious budget situations they are in today" (p. 3), the impact of the growth in part-time or full-time non-tenure-track faculty on undergraduate student graduation rates, the relationship between the increasing use of adjunct professors and reductions in undergraduate students' persistence from their first to second year, and the effect of institutional funding cuts on baccalaureate graduation rates. As Ehrenberg notes, the first section of the book is more technical than the other two sections; therefore those interested in only a summary of the major findings from the studies presented in the first part of the book will find the introduction beneficial. The most valuable contributions are in Part 2, "Individual State Experiences," which includes Chapters 5 through 14. These chapters provide case-study analyses of how higher education has evolved in 10 states (one chapter per state) and how public higher education in these states has been affected by these changes. The states examined are California, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. Chapter authors note that some states are prioritizing access despite reductions in state funding while other states are raising tuition at the expense of access because financial aid is not keeping pace with tuition increases. Similarly, although some state institutions have increased the number of part-time and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty as a cost-saving measure, other institutions are guarding the high number of full-time, tenure-track faculty and instead are cutting costs in other ways. Despite the varied approach taken by the authors, one theme that emerged from the chapters in this section is the steady decline in state appropriations for higher education and the steady increase in tuition levels. This resounding theme reinforces the magnitude of the challenges facing public higher education nationally in the 21st century. The final section of the book, "Looking to the Future," comprises Chapters 15 and 16. In Chapter 15, John Wiley, Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison presents a detailed argument on the infeasibility of public universities being able to adapt to the funding structure of private universities. In the final chapter F. King Alexander, President of California State University-Long Beach, asserts that more than 40 years have passed since the last national dialogue on public higher education occurred and that the time is ripe for another one. The book's strengths clearly reside in the second section where various authors provide an overview of current economic challenges facing higher education and how individual states [End Page 490] have responded to these challenges. The unique programs that states have initiated to address student affordability issues provide snapshots of possibility for state and federal policymakers who aspire to maintain or increase access. Furthermore, the diversity of states examined provides a comprehensive look at the complexity involved with understanding public higher education at the state level, as there is great variability in how each state structures and funds public higher education. Those seeking a better understanding...

A Policy of AccessibilityOhio Public Higher Education’s Attempt at Equity, 1975–1983 Jonathan Tyler Baker (bio) introduction Since 1966, when the Ohio Board of Regents—the governing body of Ohio higher education—published their first “Master Plan for Ohio Higher Education,” political and economic factors played an influential role in determining the purpose of the state’s system of public higher education. For the first 10 years after their establishment in 1963, the Regents worked to build a system of public higher education that emphasized both academic excellence at the graduate level and universal access for lower-division students. The clear priority for the Regents, however, was the need to demonstrate that Ohio could compete with other states at the highest academic levels in the areas of research and technological development in order to earn lucrative government contracts that would, in theory, diversify Ohio’s economy and provide thousands of jobs for all facets of a workforce. But, in addition to Republican governor of Ohio Jim Rhodes’s decreasing support of advanced higher education, a significant string of economic setbacks in the late 1970s undercut the dual purpose of Ohio public higher education of elite graduate-level research programs and accessible higher education programs for working Ohioans. These economic setbacks were accompanied by an emerging service-sector economy that brought jobs requiring skills or credentials that higher education could provide. Unless the state wanted increased numbers of unemployment, higher education had to be both financially accessible and relevant to the needs of Ohio’s workforce. [End Page 112] During the process of repurposing public higher education in the late 1960s, the Regents discovered that Ohio’s public colleges and universities had historically, when compared to other states in the Midwest, enrolled a significantly smaller percentage of the state’s population in higher education, regardless of how many campuses opened across the state. Moreover, Ohio had a smaller percentage of college-aged students enrolled at two- or four-year colleges than any other state in the Midwest despite the influx of baby boomers driving up enrollment at four-year public campuses. Even though Ohio had more students enrolling in higher education than ever before, roughly 70 percent of the state’s traditional college-aged population was forgoing college altogether. The Regents found that a significant portion of the traditional college-aged population who forewent college were women who were either low-income, black, or divorced single mothers, or, in some cases, all of the above. Examining how the purpose of Ohio higher education changed, and who was affected by the changes, in the late 1970s and early 1980s is important because the story illustrates how politics, policy, and the economy play an outsized role in what version of public higher education a state’s residents receive. Moreover, the changing purpose of public higher education during this period of Ohio’s history provides a powerful example of the way that centralized state control over higher education is not always a guaranteed way to fix systemic socioeconomic problems. American higher education has, in some ways, represented a route toward economic and social mobility, but those routes are only available if state policy-makers stay committed to providing access through long-term planning. In other words, a policy of accessibility needs to be tailored to a wide variety of groups of people: what is accessible to one group may not be accessible to another. Even when enrollments were reaching all-time highs across Ohio and the nation, a significant number of students still couldn’t access higher education due to financial restrictions. From the mid-to-late 1970s through the early 1980s, the Regents turned their focus to increasing the percentage of Ohio’s population enrolled in college. While such actions may seem counterintuitive to the belief that college and university enrollments were experiencing unprecedented enrollments, the fact of the matter is that aside from increased enrollments at large, public four-year schools and some of their two-year satellite campuses, the overall enrollment in Ohio’s public colleges and universities was comparatively low. This article seeks to complicate what historians of higher education believe about the enrollment spikes caused by the...

Chapter 1 Setting the Stage Chapter 2 State Preferences for Higher Education Spending: A Panel Data Analysis, 1977-2001 Chapter 3 Do Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Matter? Chapter 4 The Increasing Use of Adjunct Instructors at Public Institutions: Are We Hurting Students? Chapter 5 The Effect of Institutional Funding Cuts on Baccalaureate Graduation Rates in Public Higher Education Chapter 6 Individual State Experiences Chapter 7 The Effects of a Changing Financial Context on the University of California Chapter 8 Assessing Public Higher Education in Georgia at the Start of the 21st Century Chapter 9 Changing Priorities and the Evolution of Public Higher Education Finance in Illinois Chapter 10 Michigan Public Higher Education: Recent Trends and Policy Considerations for the Coming Decade Chapter 11 North Carolina's Commitment to Higher Education: Access and Affordability Chapter 12 State Support for Public Higher Education in Pennsylvania Chapter 13 The Changing Accessibility, Affordability and Quality of Higher Education in Texas Chapter 14 Higher Tuition, Higher Aid, and the Quest to Improve Opportunities for Low-Income Students: The Case of Virginia Chapter 15 Consequences of a Legacy of State Disinvestment: Plunging State Support Reduces Access and Threatens Quality at University of Wisconsin System Institutions Chapter 16 Public Higher Education in Washington State: Aspirations Are Misaligned with Fiscal Structure and Politics Chapter 17 Looking to the Future Chapter 18 Why We Won't See Any Public Universities Going Private Chapter 19 Concluding Remarks

I. INTRODUCTION The much discussed and widely debated recent conditions in public higher education include expanding enrollments, flat if not declining public appropriations per resident student, and rapid increases in tuition rates. (1) To many observers, tuition policy in public higher education appears be explained as an attempt to set tuition at whatever level is necessary to compensate for shortfalls between public appropriations and instructional expenditures. Ehrenberg (2006) asserts that public higher education has been buffeted by a perfect storm, in which state appropriations to public higher education institutions have failed to keep pace with per student expenditures in private higher education because of economic recession, the priorities placed on alternative uses of state tax revenues (such as elementary and secondary education, Medicaid, welfare, and criminal justice), and efforts to reduce income and sales tax rates. A considerable empirical literature examines the relationship between tuition in public higher education and state appropriations. Koshal and Koshal (2000) identify a negative relationship between tuition and state appropriation. A study of college costs and prices, which is conducted by Cunningham et al. (2001), identifies an inverse association between tuition rates and annual budget appropriations but finds little evidence of a link between tuition and expenditures on instruction. Lowry (2001) treats state appropriations as exogenous in a resident tuition equation and discovers a significant negative relationship between state funding and tuition. Rizzo (2005) finds that increases in tuition are linked to declines in future levels of state funding, which hints at a dynamic association. Rizzo and Ehrenberg (2004), in one of the more extensive examination of the topic, treat real state appropriations per student as an exogenous variable in their resident tuition equation and find that schools that receive higher state appropriations per student charge lower tuition, though the elasticity is far from unity. Acknowledging the economic and demographic conditions of public higher education and the empirical literature linking appropriations and tuition raises a number of questions. What activities are legislatures supporting when they allocate public funds to higher education? What are the implied responsibilities for subsidizing residents versus nonresidents? How are resident and nonresident tuition rates determined, and what are the relationships among tuition rates, resident and nonresident enrollments, and state appropriations to higher education? In particular, there appears to be the need to develop a better understanding of the decision processes that determine both the public subsidy and the setting of tuition rates. A goal of this article is to develop a conceptual framework for that process. There is a widely held notion that residents should pay a lower tuition than nonresidents, and as a result of a resident subsidy, they do so in nearly all public universities. One rationale for favorable treatment is that residents and their parents pay state taxes. Another claim, which receives some support by Groen (2004), is that residents are likely to remain in the state after graduation and thus contribute future tax revenues. Although the public subsidy to higher education is justified for these, and many other economic-development reasons, some argue that the higher education subsidy is simply a payoff to special interest groups who influence legislatures and governors. Friedman (1968) and Goldin and Katz (1998) provide a general discussion of the objectives of subsidized higher education. For whatever reasons, resident students continue to receive a substantial publicfinanced subsidy, while nonresidents pay close to full cost. There are two basic arrangements for determining tuition rates in higher education: (1) institutions determine tuition rates under the direction of an independent governing board; and (2) state legislatures, who are governed by statues and budget policies, make tuition decisions. …

The main question that this paper seeks to explore is: What contextual factors and conditions are contributing to the present higher education environment in Malta? To address this question, the author conducts a systematic study by examining the changing context of higher education from a legislative, economic and political perspective. The aim of this paper is to outline the determining influences that are shaping Malta’s higher education context.The research methods employed in this paper are mainly two: the first method involves the analysis of documents and data published in international academic journals and local reports. Statistics published by the National Commission for Further and Higher Education (NCFHE) and the National Statistics Office (NSO) were the main sources of local Maltese statistics. The second research method involves national and institutional data that was specifically requested by the author and that was never published before. NCFHE, the University of Malta (UM) and Malta College for Arts, Science and Technology (MCAST) were asked to provide data in order to present a comparative analysis by comparing local data with what has been published internationally. UM and MCAST are the two main public Maltese higher education institutions. In all instances headcount data is presented.

Reviewed by: Saving State U: Why We Must Fix Public Higher Education Michael Cohen (bio) Saving State U: Why We Must Fix Public Higher Education By Nancy Folbre (The New Press, 2009) Campus radicalism is back, big time. For the first time in a generation, massive rallies, marches, blogs, and, increasingly, student strikes, building occupations and confrontations with the police are drawing the public’s attention to the crisis in public higher education. On March 4 of this year, rallies in 28 states and 11 different countries testified to a growing movement to reverse the now thirty-year neoliberal trend towards privatization and inequality not just in higher education but in American life in general. These growing protests have both immediate causes and long term roots. In California, where I live and teach, we are witness to the spectacle of the richest state in the country claiming that it is broke, and that billions in deficits must be made up for exclusively by cuts to schools, parks, food stamps, and other necessities of public life. These cuts have fallen hard on public higher education where the community colleges are canceling entire quarters, the California State schools are reducing enrollment by nearly 40,000 and the University of California system just raised student fees 32% while furloughing faculty and laying off 1900 unionized workers. In a shocking reminder of the state’s skewed priorities, California now has the dubious honor of spending more to incarcerate people [End Page 72] than it does to subsidize higher education. Statewide, our higher education leadership, like the state’s politicians, chirp the same failed conventional wisdom: it is the crisis! we can’t raise taxes! there is no alternative! Apparently, California’s only choice is to gut our middle class and deny college opportunities to the poor. And as goes California, so goes the nation, right? Not so, says Nancy Folbre, professor of Economics at UMass Amherst, a leading voice in feminist economics and long-time activist for public higher education. Now is the time, Folbre argues in Saving State U: Why We Must Fix Public Higher Education, for us to assert “why we need free public higher education in the United States and how we should pay for it.” Folbre’s purpose in this wide-ranging yet efficient new book is “to explain how public higher education fits into the bigger picture, to explain the strings that tie it to our understanding of global capitalism.” This large scale view affords her the opportunity to lay out a broad re-imagining of the political economy of education. A convincing reorientation towards the public aspects of economic thinking— as opposed to the self-seeking (i.e. privatized) elements— empowers Folbre to argue that public schooling is more than a form of job training or personal investment. Rather, public education is a social good, creating richer cultures, healthier people, technological dynamism, and social democracy. Having fixed our gaze on what she calls “The Big Deal,” Folbre undertakes a quick but confident discussion of a wide range of topics intersecting with higher education and public policy, beginning with the economic history of the modern university from the Progressive era to the GI Bill (“The Sweet Boom”) through the Tax Revolt and the triumph of conservatism (“The Slow Fizzle”). From there, armed equally with anecdote and data, she tackles questions about the political economy of student loans and admissions, the penetration of market values into the university’s character, the casualization of academic labor (i.e. less tenure, more adjuncts), the influence of college rankings and prestige, the complexities of state funding and public finance, and why it is so hard for most Americans to pay for and get through college right now. Of course, the brevity of the book means that many huge topics get only summary discussions. Her sense of the political is rather professorial and is limited to formal democratic practices like lobbying, campaigning and elections. She discusses leafletting parents as they help move their kids into freshmen dorms, organizing for and against ballot measures, forming acronymed faculty groups, and sharing advice on how to talk about taxation and revenues with legislators. Yet she carefully shows...

Public higher education in South Africa is governed by the Higher Education Act (Act No. 101 of 1997). Governance of public higher education in South Africa is just one element of governance practised across the entire domain of government to ensure accountability to the citizens of the country. This paper refers to four different, but related, levels of governance that span the landscape of public higher education: firstly, within the global context, secondly, in the context of the country with all of its government ministries; thirdly, the “system” of education in the context of legislative governance within the public higher education sector in South Africa; and finally, the institutional governance arrangements required in terms of legislation or regulation, which will be reviewed with particular attention being given to IT governance. Further, the notion of “managerialism” will be discussed to provide some structure to the context in which governance is practised. IT governance, as a subset of institutional governance, within and across the public higher education system is subsequently addressed. Finally, the current absence of IT governance oversight or reporting to the public higher education authority and mechanisms to improve governance in the sector are discussed, which provide an indication of the value that can be created by the implementation of a best practice IT governance framework at institutional level. Accordingly, an IT governance framework can be used to measure the maturity of a wide range of IT processes that The layered approach to governance investigated in this paper provides insight into the factors that influence the ability to govern subsystems, particularly the IT subsystem, in the public higher education sector in South Africa.

<p>This research examined the zakat agencies which concern to the education program. This research used library reserach. The documents used were the ins and outs of zakat agencies that have educational development programs. These documents were taken from the website of zakat agencies both BAZNAS and Dompet Dhuafa (DD). The data taken consisted of information, data, and news related to the alocation of zakat for education, education variations of education program, the type of zakat disbursement, and the path alocation in education. The data analysis was descriptive qualitative analysis. The results showed that BAZNAS gave scholarships from Elementary School – Undergraduate (Islamic Religious Higher Education and Public Higher Education) and in-country scholarships. DD gave scholarships for undergraduate – Post graduate (Islamic Religious Higher Education and Public Higher Education), in-country scholarships, overseas scholarships, middle and high school level, education for teacher and literacy school. Zakat agencies are very varied in the development of education especially in Dompet Dhuafa from upstream to downstream.</p>

Islamic Education in Higher Education is a subject spearhead the development of the personality. The hope is that students have a strong character in the practice of science, technology and art. In practice in Public Higher Education, the course is not getting treatment that is consistent with the spirit of building a formidable generation. Lakidende University also showed the same trend in which universities do not have a clear design of the position of subjects of Islamic education in the curriculum is. The response of students to the courses of Islamic education is still the same with other subjects. The measures taken by the lecturer of Islamic education are still in the context of educational interaction in the classroom, there was no movement in the form of additional activities outside of the classroom as on material enrichment classes. Keywords: Islamic Education, Public Higher Education, Curriculum

Expenditure-tax incidence studies have been unsuccessful in determining whether public higher education promotes more or less inequality , primarily because of their inability to assess the system's impact on the distribution of lifetime income. This paper suggests that the difficulty may be overcome by applying Becker's analytical framework for explaining income distribution to the structuring and interpreting of expendituretax incidence studies. A study of the St. Louis-St. Louis County Junior College District is presented which indicates the system does not have an equalizing effect on educational opportunity and the distribution of lifetime income. Y'he decade of the 60 's witnessed an increasing willingness among political decision makers to utilize the public budget not only as a stabilization tool but also as a means of promoting less inequality among people of various economic backgrounds. Research effort was directed to the empirical analysis of the distributional impact of the public budget. A prime result of this effort is Hansen and Weisbrod's (H & W) book on the direct benefits and costs of California public higher education in which they assess that system's impact on the distribution of current family income.1 Their basic finding is that University (U) students receive the largest average subsidy (expenditure minus ♦Assistant Professor of Economics, Wayne State University. Part of this paper is from my dissertation, completed at Washington University under the direction of John Legier, Ted Bergstrom, and Murray Weidenbaum. I am also indebted to Masanori Hashimoto and an anonymous referee for comments which have significantly improved the paper. family tax payment) and have the highest median family income, while Junior College (JC) students receive the smallest average subsidy and have the lowest median family income. State College (SC) students are in t e middle. Various individuals have commented critically on these results, emphasizing possible deficiencies in the computational procedures and the policy implications of the empirical work.2 The discussants generally agree, however, that this type of expendituretax incidence study is not suitable for determining whether public higher education is promoting more or less inequality among people of various economic backgrounds. The Musgrave budget system indicates that using public higher education transfers of income-in-kind as a means of redistributing current family income is less efficient than using direct transfers of money.3 Thus, utilizing public higher education as a redistributive tool must rest on the premise that it is more efficient than a system of direct transfers at redistributing the future or lifetime income of students. The success of public higher education at promoting more or less inequality must therefore be based on its impact on the distribution of future or lifetime income.

Compared with those of its more advanced ASEAN peers, Cambodia’s higher education system is still in its infancy. Its higher education governance, financing and financial management are neither sophisticated nor robust enough to deliver high-quality, relevant higher education to the society and economy. Higher education institutions have mushroomed amid inadequate regulation, supervision and support to meet national needs. The current legal framework for higher education has perpetuated an inefficient, fragmented and reactive regulatory regime. Similarly, the development of the subsector has been dictated by a distorted market system without comprehensive policy or well-thought-out state intervention. This study explores the current governance of higher education in Cambodia. It overviews conceptual discussions and examines key governance issues in public higher education. It reflects also on practices across Southeast Asia to draw academic and policy implications for improving public higher education governance in Cambodia.

This paper is concerned with determining the effects of public higher education on the distribution of income in New York City. Distributional effects are determined by distributing the current expenditures of New York City and New York State for public higher education according to the percentage distribution of New York City and New York State taxes by income class and the percentage income distribution of students' families. This provides an estimate of the taxes paid by families in each income class to support public higher education, and the direct monetary benefits received by families in each income class from public higher education. Net benefits for each income class are obtained by subtracting total costs from total benefits for each income class. The net benefits from the public higher education system in New York City are positive for each income class below $15,000. There is a redistribution of income from the $15,000 and above income class to all income classes below $15,000. Distributional effects differ by type of college. At the community colleges, net benefits are positive for all income classes below $10,000. At the senior colleges, net benefits are also positive for the $10,000-$14,999 income class.

This paper is concerned with determining the effects of public higher education on the distribution of income in New York City. Distributional effects are determined by distributing the current expenditures of New York City and New York State for public higher education according to the percentage distribution of New York City and New York State taxes by income class and the percentage income distribution of students' families. This provides an estimate of the taxes paid by families in each income class to support public higher education, and the direct monetary benefits received by families in each income class from public higher education. Net benefits for each income class are obtained by subtracting total costs from total benefits for each income class. The net benefits from the public higher education system in New York City are positive for each income class below $15,000. There is a redistribution of income from the $15,000 and above income class to all income classes below $15,000. Distributional effects differ by type of college. At the community colleges, net benefits are positive for all income classes below $10,000. At the senior colleges, net benefits are also positive for the $10,000-$14,999 income class.