|
|
|
The views expressed on this page are soley
those of the author and do not
necessarily represent the views of County
News Online
|
|
EducationDive
Report:
Higher ed corruption is a global problem
Ben Unglesbee
April 8, 2019
Dive Brief:
Corruption of some form — including unethical, inappropriate and even
illegal practices — touches higher education in every part of the
world, according to a new study from the Council for Higher Education
Accreditation's International Quality Group (CHEA/CIQG).
CHEA/CIQG surveyed nearly 70 accreditation and quality assurance bodies
(AQABs) about how they are responding to corruption (defined as
intentional misconduct) in the regulatory process, teaching, student
admissions and recruitment, assessment, credentials, and research and
publication. Topics ranged from bribery — for example, to affect
admissions, regulatory decisions or promotion — to political
interference in governance and misleading advertising.
CHEA/CIQG said AQABs are working with local, national and international
agencies to reduce corruption. The organization also noted the
importance of working with journalists and nongovernmental
organizations to bring issues to light while also acknowledging that it
can be difficult for those tasked with quality assurance to "swim
against the tide" when trying to eradicate corruption.
Dive Insight:
Issues with corruption varied around the world, but no geographical
area was immune to it, according to CHEA/CIQG's study. The recent
alleged admissions bribery scandal lighting up the higher ed world
should make clear, if it wasn't already, that the U.S. can be
vulnerable to even the boldest forms of corruption.
While corruption was widely present, quality assurance groups were more
aware of specific types of corruption in some countries — such as
Russia, Nigeria, India and those in the Western Balkans — than in more
developed countries, according to the report.
And some problems were more prevalent around the world than others. For
example, with regulation, 21 of surveyed AQABs cited at least minor
concerns around political or commercial interference with decisions.
That's compared to 13 that had at least minor concerns around bribery
to influence decisions. Twenty-four organizations, including in North
America, cited concerns around misleading recruitment advertising.
Issues with plagiarism and cheating were also frequently cited as
concerns.
In its literature review, the study pointed to the U.S. when examining
examples of political interference that could threaten the autonomy of
higher ed institutions. Specifically, it included a news story about
President Donald Trump threatening to defund the University of
California, Berkeley, after there were on-campus protests of a writer
for the far-right news website Breitbart. CHEA/CIQG also cited, as
examples of corruption in the U.S., reports of misused university
property, inappropriately changed grades and diploma mills.
Corruption carries with it systematic risks. In its study, CHEA/CIQG
noted, "Corruption in its many forms is a great threat to the integrity
of education and research, not least because it undermines the trust
placed in the educational process, devalues academic qualifications and
forces the outcomes of research to be questioned."
The recent bribery scandal in the U.S. helps to illuminate that
problem. While limited to a handful of elite colleges and a few dozen
families who allegedly were willing to buy admissions spots for their
children through a scheme that involved cheating on standardized tests
and faking athletic profiles to land spots on coaches' recruitment
lists, it exposed perennial inequities in the U.S. higher ed system and
its vulnerability to manipulation and misconduct.
Athletics recruitment, standardized testing and the influence of
donations have all been focal points in debates stirred by the scandal.
On the latter topic, admissions consultants say quid pro quo
donations-for-admissions arrangements are typically shunned by
universities, which is not to say donations play no role in
recruitment. A recent lawsuit against Harvard University exposed how
development cases are far more likely to land seats at the Ivy League
institution.
In the wake of the bribery scandal, crisis-management experts suggest
colleges review their internal controls for weaknesses in the
admissions process and potentially set up anonymous hotlines, along
with other measures to address inequity and reputational risks.
|
|
|
|
