Law schools in Japan face admissions retrenchments and calls for improvement. Two stories in English-language newspapers here explain:
Law schools in Japan face admissions retrenchments and calls for improvement. Two stories in English-language newspapers here explain:
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20090424TDY02302.htm
excerpt:
>>The number of students to be admitted to 74 law schools throughout the nation will be slashed by about 18 percent during the 2010 and 2011 academic years, it has been learned.
The widespread plans will see a cut in the current total intake of 5,765 students nationwide to between 4,700 and 4,800, sources said, although they added that six schools were not planning any cuts.
It has been pointed out that an excessive number of students at law schools has resulted in a lower percentage of students passing the national bar examination.
A special panel of the Central Council for Education has called for drastic cuts in the number of students allowed to enroll at law schools to improve the quality of education at them.
As the Japan Federation of Bar Associations also has proposed that the intake of students should be cut to around 4,000, it is expected there will be further calls for cuts in the number of law students accepted by schools, the sources said.<<
See full story at Yomiuri online.
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20090420a2.html
excerpt:
>>Raising the bar at law schools
In April 2004, 68 law schools were established in accordance with the nation's legal reform. Since then, the number has increased to 74. Earlier this month, about 5,800 people enrolled in these schools. Those who have not studied law at undergraduate level will have to complete a three-year course and those who did, a two-year course.
These schools were created to help satisfy a national demand for legal professionals who can provide high-quality services, in particular lawyers. But criticism persists that some of these schools fail to offer high-quality education.
The Japan Law Foundation, the National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation and the Japan University Accreditation Association have recently evaluated 68 of the law schools and determined that 22 of them have problems with their curricula and teaching methods.
Problems identified include a shortage of basic subjects, a lack of balance between theoretical studies and practical application, a lack of transparency in the evaluation of students' performances in tests and under-qualified teachers.<<
See full story/editorial at Japan Times online.
Showing posts with label external evaluation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label external evaluation. Show all posts
03 April 2009
OECD Questions HE Rankings
Global tables of universities are all the rage, and we have featured some of the more popular ones (such as THES, ARWU ) here at Japan HEO Blog, while noting how they seem to be slanted towards Anglophone countries, especially the US and UK. Recently the OECD has been critical of such rankings--criticizing their arbitrary and superficial aspects but especially warning against the weight given to and the use people put to the rankings.
What the OECD is really moving towards, though, is placing the organization as a leader in global evaluation and accreditation of higher education worldwide. In which case, as is so often the case with elite organizations run by and for elites, the issue will still be: who evaluates the evaluators and their methods?
The OECD's emphasis on 'learning outcomes' appeals strongly to common sense--to anyone who has experienced higher education as a student, a researcher, a teacher or an administrator. However, translating such concepts across so many individual country's and regional blocs and their higher education systems is going to be a lot easier to conceive than to achieve. So the OECD has set for itself a very ambitious learning outcome indeed.
Here is an OECD reading list, with links and some indicative excerpts.
http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/2768/Breaking_ranks.html
excerpt:
>>The OECD Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes (AHELO) study aims at determining whether it is possible to make meaningful statements about the education provided in universities in different countries, taking into account different “strands” of competence: skill in a chosen discipline, and generic skills such as critical thinking or the ability to apply knowledge practically. If successful, AHELO will provide institutions with analysis to help them improve their own performance, and will provide data that will help students assess the suitability of the institution for their own needs.<<
http://www.oecd.org/document/22/0,3343,en_2649_35961291_40624662_1_1_1_1,00.html
excerpt:
>>The OECD Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes (AHELO) is a ground-breaking initiative to assess learning outcomes on an international scale by creating measures that would be valid for all cultures and languages. Between ten and thirty-thousand higher education students in over ten different countries will take part in a feasibility study to determine the bounds of this ambitious project, with an eye to the possible creation of a full-scale AHELO upon its completion.<<
http://www.oecd.org/document/41/0,3343,en_2649_35961291_42295209_1_1_1_1,00.html
excerpt:
>>The factors affecting higher education are woven so tightly together that they must first be teased apart before an accurate assessment can be made. The AHELO feasibility study thus explores four complementary strands....Generic Skills Strand....Discipline-specific Strands in Engineering and Economics....Learning in context....The Value-Added Strand....<<
What the OECD is really moving towards, though, is placing the organization as a leader in global evaluation and accreditation of higher education worldwide. In which case, as is so often the case with elite organizations run by and for elites, the issue will still be: who evaluates the evaluators and their methods?
The OECD's emphasis on 'learning outcomes' appeals strongly to common sense--to anyone who has experienced higher education as a student, a researcher, a teacher or an administrator. However, translating such concepts across so many individual country's and regional blocs and their higher education systems is going to be a lot easier to conceive than to achieve. So the OECD has set for itself a very ambitious learning outcome indeed.
Here is an OECD reading list, with links and some indicative excerpts.
http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/2768/Breaking_ranks.html
excerpt:
>>The OECD Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes (AHELO) study aims at determining whether it is possible to make meaningful statements about the education provided in universities in different countries, taking into account different “strands” of competence: skill in a chosen discipline, and generic skills such as critical thinking or the ability to apply knowledge practically. If successful, AHELO will provide institutions with analysis to help them improve their own performance, and will provide data that will help students assess the suitability of the institution for their own needs.<<
http://www.oecd.org/document/22/0,3343,en_2649_35961291_40624662_1_1_1_1,00.html
excerpt:
>>The OECD Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes (AHELO) is a ground-breaking initiative to assess learning outcomes on an international scale by creating measures that would be valid for all cultures and languages. Between ten and thirty-thousand higher education students in over ten different countries will take part in a feasibility study to determine the bounds of this ambitious project, with an eye to the possible creation of a full-scale AHELO upon its completion.<<
http://www.oecd.org/document/41/0,3343,en_2649_35961291_42295209_1_1_1_1,00.html
excerpt:
>>The factors affecting higher education are woven so tightly together that they must first be teased apart before an accurate assessment can be made. The AHELO feasibility study thus explores four complementary strands....Generic Skills Strand....Discipline-specific Strands in Engineering and Economics....Learning in context....The Value-Added Strand....<<
13 February 2008
FACTOID #2: Are universities and colleges in Japan accredited?
This factoid dated quickly. It was published in early 2008 but mostly based on information from 2004-7. It would appear most are now accredited by one of the four accrediting agencies and we are well into cycles of re-accreditation. However, as to how meaningful it is and how the role of the national government has changed (or not), these are not so clear. JPNHEO blog still stands by its criticisms of generic , American-style accreditation.
See this exchange as an update to this piece:
http://japanheo.blogspot.com/2011/08/reply-to-taikibansei-on-factoid-2-are.html
http://japanheo.blogspot.com/2011/08/reply-to-taikibansei-on-reply-to.html
FACTOID #2: Are universities and colleges in Japan accredited?
Question: Are universities and colleges in Japan accredited?
Answer: They could be, but most are not--not yet, anyway.
In theory, certified tertiary institutions (universities, junior colleges, colleges of technology) could be accredited. But very few institutions or programs have actually undergone external evaluation and accreditation. Even this limited activity is a fairly recent phenomenon because accreditation was switched from voluntary to mandatory.
Japan's political economy is structured around a centralized national government, which attempts to exert control across the entire country from the top on down to the lowest level of government. The higher education sector is no exception. Institutions can run taught programs and issue degrees because they have gone through a time-consuming, laborious process of registering with the national government. The more government money an institution takes (such as the former national and public universities), the more direct the control of the government is.
The concept of accreditation in the way Americans think of it has little meaning in Japan. For example, Temple University of Japan (TUJ) has never bothered to register with the national government as a domestic institution, citing costs and interference with its autonomy over curriculum. Yet it asserts that the accreditation which Temple University in the US has also applies as a mark of quality over its programs and courses in Japan. That is a dubious proposition at best. But that has more to do with the problems of American-style accreditation than with Temple University or TUJ. Also, under the current era of reform, the Japanese government has conceded to TUJ the right to have its degrees recognized in Japan.
American-style accreditation has not yet been a major factor in standardization and quality assurance at universities and colleges in Japan. The national government and its ministry of education had required that universities and colleges conduct internal review of their programs and operations and report the results. The term 'external audit' in the case of a private university would most likely mean an accounting audit to satisfy the board of directors or the tax office.
Japan's School Education Act was amended in 2002, with a new mandatory accreditation scheme starting in 2004. The government certified a handful of accreditation organizations, and all public and private universities, junior colleges, and colleges of technology are now required to undergo the accreditation process every seven years. So accreditation of entire institutions or at least some of their programs could soon be a major factor in higher education.
Between 2004-2007 a small fraction of Japan's total certified higher education institutions underwent accreditation as sort of a pilot program. And now the national government is forcing the former national universities into an external review process administered by the four existing accrediting agencies.
Still, until the outcomes of the first external review process become clear in the next several years and until all institutions can join the accreditation process, the national government is the single source of 'legitimacy' for universities and colleges. Besides, confusingly enough, it now certifies the accrediting agencies. And tertiary institutions can issue degrees, certificates and diplomas only because the national government approves and certifies them. The government also sets enrollment quotas for all certified universities and colleges.
It is also uncertain whether or not American-style accreditation processes can validly and reliably assess Japanese institutions. Actually, it is not even certain if what the government here has in mind is American-style accreditation. It appears to be a mix of both top-down government roles of the sort American institutions would never abide combined with non-government accreditating agencies, the oldest of which goes back to the Occupation (namely, the Japan University Accreditation Association).
In 1947-8 the American Occupation attempted to establish American-style accreditation when it controlled the entire education system of Japan and pushed educational reform as a way of 'fixing' what Americans thought was wrong with the imperial Japan it had defeated. But the nationalist conservatives who run the Japanese government, once given the chance to rule, always asserted their right to control the university system as an integral part of national and territorial sovereignty.
It should also be pointed out that American-style accreditation is not understood well outside of Anglo-North America and is not inherently 'universal'. It would seem the concept confuses many Americans as well. An American institution does not have the legal right to issue a valid degree because of accreditation but rather its charter with its respective state government. Japan doesn't have state governments, and the prefectural governments are more on the scale of the county in the US.
But most importantly, it has to be asked: Has American-style accreditation even kept up with the US's hypertrophied higher education, let alone proven to be a model for other countries? Is it really an assurance of quality for highly technical programs or innovative ones in emergent fields? Can it assess new modes of delivery (such as modular study done through distance learning over the internet and WWW)?
At any rate, the four official accrediting agencies that are going to become busy in the next several years, as hundreds, if not thousands, of universities and colleges undergo the accreditation process are the following:
(1) National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation (NIAD-UE)
(2) Japan University Accreditation Association (JUAA)
(3) Japan Institution for Higher Education Evaluation (JIHEE)
(4) Japan Association for College Accreditation (JACA)
There is also the non-government Japan Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (JABEE). This organization bears mentioning because of the large number of engineering programs at universities in Japan, both national and private.
What Japan really needs is certification and accreditation standards that fit the needs of the 100,000 plus students from China, E. Asia and S.E. Asia now completing degrees and certificates in higher education. The educational authorities and policy makers in Japan ought to be discussing harmonization for credits, certificates and degrees with China, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines. For example, why not an all-Asian set of standards for degree-level qualifications in engineering? And what universities worldwide need are systems of accreditation that mesh with government policies in education, but are capable of assessing quality over diversifying modes of delivery and very specific specialities. .
See this exchange as an update to this piece:
http://japanheo.blogspot.com/2011/08/reply-to-taikibansei-on-factoid-2-are.html
http://japanheo.blogspot.com/2011/08/reply-to-taikibansei-on-reply-to.html
FACTOID #2: Are universities and colleges in Japan accredited?
Question: Are universities and colleges in Japan accredited?
Answer: They could be, but most are not--not yet, anyway.
In theory, certified tertiary institutions (universities, junior colleges, colleges of technology) could be accredited. But very few institutions or programs have actually undergone external evaluation and accreditation. Even this limited activity is a fairly recent phenomenon because accreditation was switched from voluntary to mandatory.
Japan's political economy is structured around a centralized national government, which attempts to exert control across the entire country from the top on down to the lowest level of government. The higher education sector is no exception. Institutions can run taught programs and issue degrees because they have gone through a time-consuming, laborious process of registering with the national government. The more government money an institution takes (such as the former national and public universities), the more direct the control of the government is.
The concept of accreditation in the way Americans think of it has little meaning in Japan. For example, Temple University of Japan (TUJ) has never bothered to register with the national government as a domestic institution, citing costs and interference with its autonomy over curriculum. Yet it asserts that the accreditation which Temple University in the US has also applies as a mark of quality over its programs and courses in Japan. That is a dubious proposition at best. But that has more to do with the problems of American-style accreditation than with Temple University or TUJ. Also, under the current era of reform, the Japanese government has conceded to TUJ the right to have its degrees recognized in Japan.
American-style accreditation has not yet been a major factor in standardization and quality assurance at universities and colleges in Japan. The national government and its ministry of education had required that universities and colleges conduct internal review of their programs and operations and report the results. The term 'external audit' in the case of a private university would most likely mean an accounting audit to satisfy the board of directors or the tax office.
Japan's School Education Act was amended in 2002, with a new mandatory accreditation scheme starting in 2004. The government certified a handful of accreditation organizations, and all public and private universities, junior colleges, and colleges of technology are now required to undergo the accreditation process every seven years. So accreditation of entire institutions or at least some of their programs could soon be a major factor in higher education.
Between 2004-2007 a small fraction of Japan's total certified higher education institutions underwent accreditation as sort of a pilot program. And now the national government is forcing the former national universities into an external review process administered by the four existing accrediting agencies.
Still, until the outcomes of the first external review process become clear in the next several years and until all institutions can join the accreditation process, the national government is the single source of 'legitimacy' for universities and colleges. Besides, confusingly enough, it now certifies the accrediting agencies. And tertiary institutions can issue degrees, certificates and diplomas only because the national government approves and certifies them. The government also sets enrollment quotas for all certified universities and colleges.
It is also uncertain whether or not American-style accreditation processes can validly and reliably assess Japanese institutions. Actually, it is not even certain if what the government here has in mind is American-style accreditation. It appears to be a mix of both top-down government roles of the sort American institutions would never abide combined with non-government accreditating agencies, the oldest of which goes back to the Occupation (namely, the Japan University Accreditation Association).
In 1947-8 the American Occupation attempted to establish American-style accreditation when it controlled the entire education system of Japan and pushed educational reform as a way of 'fixing' what Americans thought was wrong with the imperial Japan it had defeated. But the nationalist conservatives who run the Japanese government, once given the chance to rule, always asserted their right to control the university system as an integral part of national and territorial sovereignty.
It should also be pointed out that American-style accreditation is not understood well outside of Anglo-North America and is not inherently 'universal'. It would seem the concept confuses many Americans as well. An American institution does not have the legal right to issue a valid degree because of accreditation but rather its charter with its respective state government. Japan doesn't have state governments, and the prefectural governments are more on the scale of the county in the US.
But most importantly, it has to be asked: Has American-style accreditation even kept up with the US's hypertrophied higher education, let alone proven to be a model for other countries? Is it really an assurance of quality for highly technical programs or innovative ones in emergent fields? Can it assess new modes of delivery (such as modular study done through distance learning over the internet and WWW)?
At any rate, the four official accrediting agencies that are going to become busy in the next several years, as hundreds, if not thousands, of universities and colleges undergo the accreditation process are the following:
(1) National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation (NIAD-UE)
(2) Japan University Accreditation Association (JUAA)
(3) Japan Institution for Higher Education Evaluation (JIHEE)
(4) Japan Association for College Accreditation (JACA)
There is also the non-government Japan Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (JABEE). This organization bears mentioning because of the large number of engineering programs at universities in Japan, both national and private.
What Japan really needs is certification and accreditation standards that fit the needs of the 100,000 plus students from China, E. Asia and S.E. Asia now completing degrees and certificates in higher education. The educational authorities and policy makers in Japan ought to be discussing harmonization for credits, certificates and degrees with China, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines. For example, why not an all-Asian set of standards for degree-level qualifications in engineering? And what universities worldwide need are systems of accreditation that mesh with government policies in education, but are capable of assessing quality over diversifying modes of delivery and very specific specialities. .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Back to top
Click on logo to go back to top page.