We are all witnesses of mass demand for higher education. Contemporary knowledge society and knowledge economy need knowledge workers. Problem solving /critical thinking skills, oral and written communication skills, technological expertise, ability to work in team have become the rule and norm for person entering labor market today.
The majority of school graduates in developed countries enter colleges and universities today. Russia follows the case. In 2004 the number of students admitted to universities in Russia exceded the number of school graduates by 4%. In 2005 there were 1,3 million school graduates in Russia, while 1,64 millon students were admitted at universities. In 2006 according to Rosstat (Federal State Statistics Service) more that 64,7% of students in Russia were admitted to all types of universities (government-owned and private) on a paid base ( adapted, www.gks.ru/free_doc/2006/b06_01/12/3-5.htm).
At the global knowledge society education becomes a marketable product and students become demanding customers (Alyoshina. 2005). Following the massification of higher education students are not only more diverse, but probably also more consumer-minded (James, 2002). Students often regard education as investment in their future and current career. So we see consumerization of sphere of higher education. Mass demand for higher education generated the process of massification of higher education and of commodization of educational services.
Individualized, or customized, curriculum is the demand for the leading world universities. A "one-size fits all"
curriculum does not satisfy the requirements of global, diversified, highly competitive and dynamic professional labor market (Alyoshina, 2006). Massification of higher education means the need for mass customization of educational product. The move from producer-centric to customer-centric approach in curriculum development can be regarded as one of the most serious challenges for Russian universities at the global educational market. This move can have the same influence on higher education system in Russia as a shock therapy has had for former Russian centrally planned economy at the end of 1991.
Massification and internationalization of higher education, global informatization of learning create new challenges for contempotary university and for traditional education itself. The nature of work is changing (Fuller, Unwin, 2005), and becoming less predictive. The extension of working life means the demand for learning at work and situated learning, lifelong learning. What role university is supposed to play today? Is it an ivory tower, intellectual or business club, laboratory, church, guild, assembly line, workshop or supermarket? We do not teach elite only, or far not only elite at universities today. What the role of university professor is supposed to be today? Is it training, coaching, consulting, mentoring? There are too many sources of information and knowledge today ready for student, and time resources are constantly decreasing. Does the student know better his personal educational needs than the professor? What kind of knowledge the students need to receive today more – conceptual or instrumental, fundamental or applied? Is it possible for a student after graduation to be absolutely ready for specific job position? These questions are actual today, when business and society demand more from education, the lifecycle of operational knowledge is shortening and period of obsolescence and half-decay of knowledge is constantly decreasing. Knowledge half-decay period is equal now to the duration of basic university program in Russia or even less. For high-tech industries knowledge half-decay period is considered as 2 years ( Константинов, Филонович, 2006) or even less, and in average it is about 5 years.
Massification of higher education, commodization and customization of educational product means:
students need more freedom in their educational career building; they have less time to acquire new knowledge and skills. So the university needs to give basic professional knowledge and skills, plus knowledge and skills selected by student, plus the ability to create new knowledge.
CONCLUSION
Globalization, technologization and massification of higher education are supposed to become serious challenges for universities and for business education worldwide. Universities, programs and even courses themselves have become or have not become the links of global knowledge creation networks and global value-creation chains. These links and networks collaborate and compete with each other globally for different kinds of resources and assets – for information, facilities, human resources, investments, clients, and contributions. That’s why it is often reasonable and advantageous to stress and to enforce international dimension for the majority of program and courses taught. Business administration courses (marketing, management, information technologies) need to be taught today in international perspective not less than in national one. While educating future knowledge workers we have wide possibilities for internationalization of educational content thanks to the global Internet environment.
Global markets and global business demand for international-level professionals are the leading factors enforcing global reform for business education. We need to look forward in order to be more prepared for global educational reform.
REFERENCES
Adams, S. (2001). Transnational Education Project Report and Recommendations. 53 p. Available at (05.11.02).
Retrieved March,11, 2007, from :
http://www.esib.org/index.php?option=com_search&Itemid=99999999&searchword=Transnational+Educat&search phrase=any&ordering=newest&limit=30&limitstart=30
Ahlawat, S and Ahlawat,S.S. (2006) , Competing in the Global Knowledge Economy: Implications for Business Education. The Journal of American Academy of Business, V.8, N 1, March, pp 101-106.
Alyoshina I.V. (2006). English-Language Course Teaching At Russian University; Direct Professor’s Experience. In
“Management and Technology in the Global Economy; Nurturing Innovations and National Heritage”, GBATA Refereed Proceedings, June 27-July 1, pp. 5-9
Bennett R. (2006). Practitioner Sourcing And Use Of Marketing Knowledge: Antecedents And Consequences In
“Management and Technology in the Global Economy; Nurturing Innovations and National Heritage”, GBATA Refereed Proceedings, June 27-July 1, pp. 59-66.
Fuller A., Unwin A. (2005). Older and wiser?: workplace learning from the perspective of experienced employees.
International Journal of Lifelong Education, Vol. 24, No. 1 (January-February), pp.21–39.
James R. (2002). How student perspectives challenge conventional marketing theory. Article. Retrieved March 11, 2007, from http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/Marketing_Conf_Sydney_2002.pdf.
Julian S.D., Ofori-Dankwa J.C. (2006). Is Accreditation Good for the Strategic Decision Making of Traditional Business Schools? Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 225–233.
Papatsiba V. (2006). Making higher education more European through student mobility? Revisiting EU initiatives in the context of the Bologna Process. Comparative Education, Vol. 42, No. 1, February, pp. 93–111.
Porter, M.E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: The Free Press.
Rundle-Thiele S., Bennett R., Dann, S. (2005). The successful preparation and development of future marketing professionals: a recommended methodological framework. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education – Volume 7, Winter, pp. 27 –36.
Ryan, Y. (2002). Emerging Indicators of Success and Failure in Borderless Higher Education. Report, The Observatory on borderless higher education. London, UK. A transcript of the discussion. Retrieved March 11, 2007, from: http://www.obhe.ac.uk/products/reports/transcripts/discussion_february.html
Stewart, C. S. (2004). “Outsourcing joins the M. B. A. Curriculum,” New York Times, March 28, sec.3, p.11.
Thune T. and Welle-Strand A. (2005), ICT for and in internationalization processes: A business school case study.
Higher Education, 50, pp 593–611.
van der Wende, M. (2001). ‘Internationalization Policies: about New Trends and Contrasting Paradigms’, Higher Education Policy, 14 (3).
Windham, D.M. (1996). ‘Overview and main conclusions of the seminar’, Internationalisation of Higher Education. Paris: OECD.
Zijderveld, A. C. (2000). The institutional imperative: The interface of institutions and networks. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
Дипломный ширпотреб.// Коммерсантъ, 28.02.2006, с. 8, Article in Russian. Retrieved March 11, 2007, from http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.html?DocID=653354&IssueId=30029
Константинов Г.Н., Филонович С.Р. (2006). Университеты, общество знания и парадоксы образования.
Article in Russian. Retrieved March 11, 2007, from http://new.hse.ru/C2/kaf-oism/default.aspx?dID=6