An audit of private colleges in Malaysia has unearthed serious quality issues, with only one in three colleges evaluated doing well in a quality assurance process that could be used by the government to approve or deny them licenses to recruit international students.
A burning question for developing countries is whether low quality private higher education is better than none at all, in circumstances where public systems cannot meet soaring student demand. Brazil decided it was and set about rapidly expanding its higher education system, including by opening it to private institutions. Today the country has one of the largest private sectors in the world and it enrols a staggering 75% of all post-secondary students.
Rising demand for post-secondary education, lack of government investment in the sector and the deteriorating quality of many public universities has led to an increase in private players in Indian higher education. But the regulation of private institutions has failed to keep up with their rapid growth, leading to concerns about quality and social equity.
For-profit colleges and universities represent the fastest-growing but also most controversial sector of private higher education in the United States. Universities like Phoenix, DeVry and Kaplan have helped turn the for-profit sector into a massive revenue generator and the engine for higher education growth. From 1998 to 2008, for-profit enrolment grew by 225%.
Recent years have witnessed a boom in private education opportunities across the Central American isthmus. To some, it seems that private entities cannot open classrooms fast enough. Whereas 30 years ago there were virtually no private universities, today there are more than 151 and every year more emerge.
B. Walsh, M. Silles, und C. O'Neill. Health Policy, 101 (3):
269-276(2011)First published online: March 21, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2011.02.001. (Eurobarometer).
S. Koos. Journal of Consumer Policy, 34 (1):
127-151(2011)First published online: January 18, 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10603-010-9153-2. (Eurobarometer).
E. Bacchiocchi, M. Florio, und M. Gambaro. Telecommunications Policy, 35 (4):
382 - 396(2011)First published online: March 29, 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2011.03.001. (Eurobarometer).
P. Ferrari, L. Pagani, und C. Fiorio. Social Indicators Research, 104 (3):
545-554(2011)First published online: December 03, 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9761-x. (Eurobarometer).
Wilson, George, und Nielsen, Amie L.. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 634 (1):
174-189(2011)http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002716210388880. (ISSP).
A. Okulicz-Kozaryn. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12 (2):
225-243(2011)First published online: February 11, 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-010-9188-8. (Eurobarometer).
S. Schieder. Debating Europe: the 2009 European parliament elections and beyond, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, Baden-Baden, (Eurobarometer).(2011)
L. Ezrow, C. De Vries, M. Steenbergen, und E. Edwards. Party Politics, 17 (3):
275-301(2011)First published online: July 29,2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354068810372100. (Eurobarometer).
P. Dostal, E. Akcali, und M. Antonsich. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 52 (2):
196-216(2011)http://dx.doi.org/10.2747/1539-7216.52.2.196. (Eurobarometer).
J. Sprague-Jones. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34 (4):
535-555(2011)First published online: October 14, 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2010.512665. (Eurobarometer).
J. Gerhards, und S. Hans. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 49 (4):
741-766(2011)First published online: January 21, 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02155.x. (Eurobarometer).
J. Cullis, J. Hudson, und P. Jones. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12 (2):
323-341(2011)First published online: March 3, 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-010-9190-1. (Eurobarometer).