1. Higher education in the BRICS: Balancing quality and inequality?
Dr Michael Cosser
BRICS Research Centre
Human Sciences Research Council
South Africa

2. Aim of paper and structure of presentation
Impact of relationship between elitism & massification in HE systems of BRICS countries on inequality
Structure:
Global university rankings
Profile of HE systems of BRICS
Implications for inequality; and
Pointers for BRICS promotion of common good

3. BR
THE (2016)
QS (2015/2016)
Institution WR 1
Peking University (C) 42
Tsinghua University (C) 25 2 47 41 3
University of Cape Town (S)
120
Fudan University (C) 51 4
Lomonosov Moscow State University (R)
161
Shanghai Jiao Tong University (C) 70 5
University of Sao Paulo (B)
Zhejiang University (C)
110 6
University of Science & Technology of China (C)
113 7
Peter the Great St Petersburg Polytechnic University (R)
Nanjing University (C)
130 8
Indian Institute of Science Bangalore (I)
147 9
University of the Witwatersrand (S)
171 10
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi (I)
179

4. BR
ARWU (2015)
CWUR (2016)
Institution WR 1
Lomonosov Moscow State University (R) 86
Peking University (C) 60 2
Tsinghua University (C) 74 3
Shanghai Jiao Tong University (C) 77 4
University of Sao Paulo (B)
138 5
166 6
Zhejiang University (C)
University of the Witwatersrand (S)
176 7
Fudan University (C)
184 8
Sun Yat-sen University (C)
192 9
University of Science & Technology of China (C)
Moscow Institute of Physics & Technology (R)
218 10
Beijing Normal University (C)
223

5. Profile of BRICS HE systems: Brazil
Public-private divide:
Federal vs private
High quality vs poor quality
Free public HE vs fee-paying private HE
High quality private secondary schooling vs low quality public secondary schooling
Wealthy white student enrolment tuition-free in federal universities vs poor black student enrolment in fee-paying private universities

6. Profile of BRICS HE systems: Brazil
Public-private divide:
Five biggest universities (by student enrolment) private
Inequality
48% of population white vs 68% of enrolments in top federal universities white
50% of places in federal universities set aside for students from public high schools
Black students still minority in every degree programme

7. Profile of BRICS HE systems: Russian Federation
Gross enrolment ratio:
Russia: 76% in 2012 (Brazil = 45%; India = 24%; China = 27%; South Africa = 19%)
Percentage of population with HE:
In 2003, more than half of adult population – double tOECD average

8. Profile of BRICS HE systems: Russian Federation
Education ministry decision in 2005 to group top 10 to 20 universities in category of “national universities”
Bulk of state funding allocated to these institutions to prepare students for Bachelor’s, Master’s and doctoral degrees
2012 overhaul of HE system: audit of ± 600 public HE institutions revealed 476 weak in terms of quality of students, research productivity, and teaching capacity (top 40 elite institutions excluded from audit)

9. Profile of BRICS HE systems: Russian Federation
In 2014/15, 548 state and 402 non-state HE institutions
Policy of institutional mergers and closing down of ineffective HEIs = steady decrease 
Growth of elite higher education therefore co-occurring with decline in mass higher education
Impact of strategy on reducing inequality unsure; greater higher education opportunities afforded to traditional elite of Russian (and indeed former Soviet) society may maintain status quo

10. Profile of BRICS HE systems: India
HE system in 2011/12 = 259 HE institutions – predominantly 44 Central Universities, 130 Deemed Universities, 16 Indian Institutes of Technology, 30 National Institutes of Technology, and 13 Indian Institutes of Management
Opinion on elite HE mixed:
Altbach (2013) argues for differentiation: elite sector at the top, mass-based and less selective institutions in the middle, and vocationally oriented postsecondary schools at the bottom

11. Profile of BRICS HE systems: India
Opinion on elite HE mixed:
Schwarzman, Pinheiro & Pillay (2015) argue against differentiation: current policy direction encourages growth of national elite institutions (e.g., replication of Indian Institutes of Management and Indian Institutes of Technology)
But such institutions can only ever serve very small percentage of Indian students

12. Profile of BRICS higher education (HE) systems: India
Solution: improve quality of the entire HE system – without which “higher education will not be effective in serving any of the goals set for it within the new knowledge economy” (Schwarzman, Pinheiro & Pillay, 2015: 328)
India’s elite universities receive four to five times the funding per student relative to mass-based institutions
India spends only 0.37% of GDP on HE – compared to US figure of 1.41% of GDP and UK’s 1.07% of GDP
Indian HE faced with serious policy direction challenge

13. Profile of BRICS HE systems: China
In 1998, China decision to build cadre of world-class HE institutions (‘China’s Ivy League’): 9 universities each allocated between 1bn and 1.5bn yuan ($162 million-$243 million) for infrastructure development, laboratories, & equipment in 1999
Seven of the 9 amongst highest ranked institutions within BRICS in major ranking systems of the world in 2015/16
But Chinese university representation in top 200 universities of the world? Peking and Tsinghua, while among top 50, outside top 40
Biggest fish in BRICS pond relatively small fish in world pond

14. Profile of BRICS HE systems: China
Nine elites juxtaposed with remaining 2,475 HE institutions on Chinese mainland
Key question:
What are the relative benefits for the country of the valorisation of nine institutions and their subsequent elevation to world-class status (three of them are among the top 100 universities in the world) against the relative neglect of two-and-a-half thousand institutions?

15. Profile of BRICS HE systems: South Africa
In face of Council on Higher Education advice in 2000 to create differentiated university system, South Africa instead chose model designed to reverse inequalities perpetuated by apartheid education system
Restructuring process (characterised by mergers and acquisitions to form “comprehensive universities”) nevertheless saw some elite former white universities (Witwatersrand, Cape Town, Rhodes, Pretoria, Stellenbosch) and some non-elite former black universities (Fort Hare, Venda, Zululand) left intact
16 years later, state continues to pursue non-differentiated approach, especially towards funding of HE institutions

16. Profile of BRICS HE systems: South Africa
Non-differentiated approach not had desired (inequality-reducing) effect
Equality in terms of access improved: black African students outnumber white students by 54 percentage points
But enrolments not representative of black Africans in general population: black Africans = 80% of the population, whites 8 per cent
In terms of cohort completion rates, white completion rate (2006 cohort) = 1.6 times (or 60%) higher than black African completion rate

17. Implications for inequality
How the BRICS balance elite and mass-based HE betrays their commitment to reducing inequality
4 of the 5 appear to favour elite over mass-based HE institutions, at least in terms of funding priorities
Mass-based HE in Brazil, Russia, India and China relatively weak – certainly much weaker than second-tier higher education provision in developed world
Reasons for elitist approach?

18. Implications for inequality
Key question:
Have these four BRICS countries focused their attention on a select group of institutions in the hope that greater competitiveness on the world stage will have positive spin-off effects both for their higher education systems as a whole, leading to trickle-down effects that will foster greater competitiveness amongst second-tier institutions, as well as for the growth of their knowledge economies?
South Africa’s second-tier HE system remains weak largely because of differentiation between white and ‘non-white’ HE institutions under apartheid

19. Implications for inequality
Funding a critical differentiator in determining whether HE systems advance or reduce inequality
In low- and middle-income countries (Brazil, India, South Africa) – countries already characterized by high levels of inequality – hard policy choices needed about which education sectors to fund, let alone about which institutions within higher education to favour
Strong higher education systems “absorb significant state resources and rest on a viable tax system” (Marginson, 2016: 20)
In Brazil and South Africa, more people recipients of social grants than pay tax: severely constrains state spending on all education, let alone higher education

20. Balancing competing national interests in higher education
Ideal: “diverse range of universities each with specialist world-class expertise … [enabling] countries to mobilise and leverage the potential of the whole system for the benefit of society at large (Hazelkorn, 2009: n.p.)
Balance between investment in first-tier universities and significant support for second-tier, mass-based institutions required to maintain quality of research and improve quality of teaching across national HE systems

21. Balancing competing national interests in higher education
… the common public good is maximised when value differentials between institutions and fields of study are moderate, the ‘floor’ of educational quality in mass institutions is high, and the material and cultural conditions governing access and completion are equalised as far as practicable, consistent with human freedoms (Marginson, 2016: 20; emphasis added)

22. Conclusions
Inequalities in HE largely mirror those in broader society. But HE should aim at least not to perpetuate them.
HE “does not trigger egalitarian societies on its own, though it can facilitate them. We should set aside the old hubris that higher education is the principal maker of society, whether we live in innovation societies, or knowledge economies, or somewhere else. In aggregate, what happens with incomes, wealth, labour markets, taxation, government spending, social programmes, and urban development, are overwhelmingly more important. This suggests that as researchers into higher education we take a closer interest in the larger intellectual and policy conversation on inequality, especially by focusing on the junctions between higher education and other social sectors (Marginson, 2015: 20)