The Crisis of Higher Education Access—A Crisis of Justice

  • Heinz-Dieter Meyer
  • Edward P. St. John
  • Maia Chankseliani
  • Lina Uribe

Abstract

We view globalization as an ambivalent phenomenon. It spreads neo-liberal and managerialist beliefs in the wholesome effects of free markets around the world, but it also brings human rights based beliefs in equal opportunity to people in all corners of the globe. As these ideas spread, all three of the above models come up hard against the emerging social and moral realities of the 21st century. The old ‘elite only’ model excludes too many talented children of the lower classes from access to higher education in addition to flagrantly violating even the semblance of equal opportunity. The social-democratic model in which all qualified candidates can access higher education at no or little cost has boosted equity, but turned out to be both too expensive and too inefficient to be a viable candidate for future policies.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Altbach, P.G. (2010). Preface. In G. Goastellec (Ed.). Understanding inqualities in, through, and by higher education. (vii–ix). Boston: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Brunsdon, C., Longley, P., Singleton, A., & Ashby, D. (2011). Predicting participation in higher education: A comparative evaluation of the performance of geodemographic classifications. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 174(1), 17–30. doi:10.1111/j.1467-985X.2010.00641.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Callender, C., & Jackson, J. (2005). Does the fear of debt deter students from higher education? Journal of Social Policy, 34(4), 509–540. doi:10.1017/S004727940500913X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cortes, K. (2010). Do bans on affirmative action hurt minority students? Evidence from the Texas Top 10% Plan. Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 1110–1124. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cupito, E., & Langsten, R. (2011). Inclusiveness in higher education in Egypt. Higher Education, 62(2), 183–197. Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-79958735606&partnerID=40&md5=d237c54ffd97e270c79d73e9573960ec Google Scholar
  6. Eggins, H. (Ed.) (2010). Access and Equity. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  7. Gaziel, H.H. (2012). “Privatisation by the Back Door: the case of the higher education policy in Israel.” European Journal of Education, 47(2): 290–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gebel, M., & Baranowska-Rataj, A. ( 2012). New Inequalities Through Privatization and Marketization? An Analysis of Labour Market Entry of Higher Education Graduates in Poland and Ukraine. European Sociological Review. http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/03/02/esr.jcs012 (Accessed October 22, 2012).
  9. Goastellec, G. (Ed.) (2010). Understanding Inequalities In, Through And By Higher Education. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  10. Hawkins, J., Jacob, W., & Wenli, L. (2008). Higher education in China: Access, equity and equality. In D. Holsinger & W. Jacob (Eds.), Inequality in Education (pp. 215-239). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Retrieved from www.springerlink.com/content/x4h6234t02730888/
  11. Henry, M., Lingard, B., Rizvi, F., & Taylor, S. (2001). The OECD, globalization and education policy. Amsterdam: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  12. Jamshidi, L. et al. (2012). “Developmental pattern of privatization in higher education: a comparative study.” Higher Education, 64(6), 789–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnstone, B. (2006). Financing Higher Education. Cost Sharing in International Perspective. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  14. Knight, J. (Ed.) (2010). Financing Access And Equity In Higher Education. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  15. Kroth, A.J. (2012). Tuition Fees and Their Effect on Social and Gender Disparities in College Enrollment in Germany. Results from a Natural Experiment (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  16. Kwiek, M. (2008). The Two Decades of Privatization in Polish Higher Education: cost-sharing, equity, and access. Die hochschule, 2, 94–112.Google Scholar
  17. McCowan, T. (2007). Expansion without equity: An analysis of current policy on access to higher education in Brazil. Higher Education, 53(5), 579–598. doi:10.1007/s10734-005-0097-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McCoy, S., & Byrne, D. (2011). ‘The sooner the better I could get out of there’: barriers to higher education access in Ireland, Irish Educational Studies, 30(2), 141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Morley, L., & Lugg, R. (2009). Mapping meritocracy: intersecting gender, poverty and higher educational opportunity structures. Higher Education Policy, 22, 37–60. Retrieved from https://secure.palgravejournals.com/hep/journal/v22/n1/full/hep200826a.html
  20. Quast, H., Spangenberg, H., Hannover, B., & Braun, E. (2012). Determinanten der Studierbereitschaft unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Studiengebühren. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 15(2), 305–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sanyal, B., & Johnstone, D. (2011).“International trends in the public and private financing of higher education.” Prospects, 41(1), 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sen, A. (2010). Introduction [to Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments]. In: Smith, Adam, Armatya Sen, Ryan Patrick Hanley. 1759/2010. Theory of Moral Sentiment. Penguin: London.Google Scholar
  23. St. John, E.P., Kim, J., & Yang, L. (Eds.) (in press). Privatization and Inequality: Comparative Studies of College Access, Education Policy, and Public Finance. Globalization and social justice, Vol. 1. NY: AMS Press.Google Scholar
  24. Stiglitz, J.E. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  25. Trow, M. (1974). Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heinz-Dieter Meyer
    • 1
  • Edward P. St. John
    • 2
  • Maia Chankseliani
    • 3
  • Lina Uribe
    • 4
  1. 1.State University of New York AlbanyAlbanyUnited States
  2. 2.University of MichiganAnn ArborUnited States
  3. 3.Oxford UniversityUnited Kingdom
  4. 4.Research Group on Higher EducationTeaching University of ComfacaucaColombia

Personalised recommendations