Tim Sullivan: We now shift geographical focus to Africa/Europe. Our panelists have been given various topics to choose from.

　

Wilhelm Löwenstein: (refer to Appendix 7-4) I shall discuss the Bologna Process from the European perspective, with not too much emphasis on my own university, and base my SYLFF-related comments on my 11 years experience with the program.

　

 The Bologna Process involves a large number of countries. The idea was to create a European Higher Education Area; at the beginning the planners had no idea of what they were proposing. In 1999, 20-odd countries signed the Bologna Declaration. Now 45 countries participate and a 46^th country has applied.

　

 Institutions had different understanding of a degree, that is, how long it takes to obtain one? The system that was agreed upon is the 3 years (bachelor) + 2 years (master) + 3 years (Ph.D.)

　

 In Germany, we set-up a several-layered accreditation system, so the European system was encouraged.

　

 Description of the German system: diploma lasted 9 semesters, admission conditions were the same, so everything was quite homogeneous. In reality, it lasted 10 or 11 semesters. The doctorate, however, could last as long as necessary; the candidate was a lonely fighter. Under the new system, we have a bachelor or licence (6 semesters), then a master's (4 semesters), and from 10th to 15th semester, the Ph.D. We now have to "fade out" the old diploma courses and to "fade in" the new bachelor + master's programs. In the Bologna Process, some countries already had the bachelor + master's program while others faced much work implementing this. If the process works, it will facilitate students' mobility by easier reception of credits received abroad, and will allow deeper cooperation in education inside and outside Europe, and support the SYLFF Program.

　

Ersin Onulduran: (refer to Appendix 7-5) I think there is a tremendous parallel between SYLFF and Fulbright, although in Turkey the Fulbright Program spends 5 million dollars every year. Qualitatively, the two are very similar. The purpose was to seek diversity among participants but how do you do this when potential grantees are not different. Our task in the Fulbright Program has been to seek under-represented areas of Turkey and persons from different socio-economic backgrounds. We promote the program as best we can in newspapers and television. The result was that in 2005, we received 25 applications for 5 scholarships. In 2006, we had 400 applications; for 2007 1,050 applied for 65-70 scholarships. There is one major diverse group (in a Muslim group), i.e. females; 48% of recipients were females. Diversity was a challenge, but we were able to achieve it and parallels the bigger (Fulbright) and the smaller (SYLFF) Program.

　

Jan Persens: (with apologies for having only arrived in the early hours of the morning and misplacing slides for his presentation) The SYLFF Program primarily recognizes academic excellence that will necessarily affect globalization.

　

 One of the most interesting aspects of the SYLFF Program is the very interesting network of institutions. There is a receiving side and a losing side. Some countries can afford to retain their students, but other countries cannot even afford to support their own students. Often students from poorer countries are drawn to industrialized countries with better opportunities but this is considered "brain drain". In the final analysis, it is "brain circulation" and not "brain drain" or "brain gain". This may involve avoiding "brain waste" if you cannot find ample opportunities in your own country.

　

 The best we can hope for is brain circulation instead of brain drain. This is a normal process that should not be stopped. Mobility may now also mean returning to one's country. Circulation, however, may still cause inequality. For example, India has a massive re-influx of students who have been to the U.S.

　

 Nevertheless, programs may still improve human and intellectual capital for institutions. Perhaps, SYLFF should consider supporting people going back to their own countries.

　

　

 Tim Sullivan: (in concluding the session) Thank you, Jan, for making comments on what is normally considered "brain drain" saying that this can instead stimulate things through the brain circulation process. It seems quite obvious that programs are designed for people to go abroad and then to return. The two points made by Orlando and Joyashree, respectively, need to be discussed and considered. Most countries do not want their students to go abroad and not come back.

　

　

Agus Dwiyanto: (refer to Appendix 7-6) The focus of this presentation was university autonomy, as a response to globalization in higher education. The Indonesian perception of globalization in higher education, he explained, is that it is unavoidable, brings benefits and challenges, and serves as a catalyst to improve the quality of higher education. Furthermore, university autonomy is perceived as a strategic way to empower higher education institutions to respond to globalization.

　

 The potential benefits (faculty and student mobility, university networking and partnerships, joint research and education, internationalize vis-à-vis standards, curricula and language, and quality improvement) and challenges (determining the quality of partner institutions, establishing policy instruments to promote quality of higher education services, increasing the competitiveness of the university, and increasing flexibility to respond to change) of globalization were put forward.

　

 The presentation then turned to university autonomy in the Indonesian context. Why university autonomy? Universities have been highly regulated, thus autonomy was needed to allow universities more authority to manage institutional affairs and to facilitate reorganization to respond to the dynamics of globalization. In addition, university autonomy was also needed to motivate universities to find alternative sources of revenue to improve quality beyond the means of the Government of Indonesia and to authorize universities to determine costing.

　

 The presenter then shared the policies and processes of granting selected universities autonomy, impacts of university autonomy, and constraints in implementing university autonomy. In closing, the presenter responded to the question, does university autonomy improve the quality of higher education? Responses were positive and included, education and research becoming more responsive to community needs, more international collaboration (research, education), innovation in research and teaching, and increasing revenues and encouraging increased investment in personnel and facilities.

　

Hideyuki Tokuda: (refer to Appendix 7-7) The presentation began with an introduction of Keio University and higher education reform in Japan (1991). There are growing needs and competition for collaboration among industry, government and academe.

　

 e-Education at Keio University's Shonan Fujisawa Campus (SFC) was introduced and linked to a suggestion that an e-SYLFF network be created that will empower SYLFF-endowed institutions. e-Education has accelerated a more open culture and internationalization, and is contributing to the improvement of the quality of education, providing a wider range of educational opportunities, and contributing to society. The Keio Information Super Highway (1994〜), a zero-stop service provider, he explained, was created at no cost because the university worked with companies. He also introduced the SOI Portal, as an example of what can be accomplished by universities.

　

 Issues (software development and maintenance costs, web-based services, faculty/staff workload) and future directions (adopting various types of classrooms, single sign-on for all services) were also shared.

　

 The presentation ended with a strong message for e-Education as a viable means to further open culture and internationalization.

　

Ya Deng: Like it or not, globalization goes deeper and deeper, throughout the world. We share the responsibility to give our young people the chance to be part of internationalization, and to promote world peace and understanding of world culture. Creative development of students was emphasized.

　

 The demand for higher education in China has increased dramatically from 863,000 to 20 million (2005). To meet increasing needs, reforms in financing of higher education have taken place. Now higher education institutions must generate revenues from various sources. The government now provides only 60% of university budgets; universities must rely on other sources for the remaining 40%. Thus, social donations play an increasingly important role.

　

 SYLFF is a prominent example of a social donation. More than 1,200 outstanding students at Peking University have been supported by SYLFF. In the early-1990's, there were few scholarships, but the living costs and tuition fees were quite low. At that time more than 100 students were selected and supported by SYLFF. Now, tuition fees and living costs have increased greatly, so last year only 16 students were awarded SYLFF fellowships.

　

 To improve our efforts vis-à-vis SYLFF, We try to make sure that all students are informed. SYLFF is distinctive in two ways − being international and providing opportunities for international exchange. And, we need more young leaders, and future leaders must have global vision and must cooperate with all parts of our system. There has been an increase of international exchange but this has caused "brain waste". Nevertheless, we need to increase international scholarship programs. I hope that more young people can have international experiences.

　

　

 The other is about diversity. We have very different backgrounds and experiences. Our meetings are very general, perhaps we should concentrate on more country topics rather than on general topics.