Renu Khator
President of University of Houston

EVENT REPORT - March 26, 2009
Renu Khator, President of the University of Houston, was invited to the Gülen Institute Luncheon Forum to discuss the future of higher education in America.  As a scholar of globalization and an experienced administrator, Khator emphasized the need to consider higher education in a global context.  Higher education has always constituted the primary line of class demarcation: between the “haves” and the “have nots.”  But in today’s world, Khator proposed that a further division has been introduced: the “global haves” and the “global have nots.”

Education no longer simply offers advantages within local economies; it is the primary gatekeeper of the global economy as well.  In addition to locally divided “haves” and “have nots,” Khator defined “global haves” as those who are internationally connected, who thrive in the fluidity of the global economy and float easily from city to city, country to country.  On the other hand, “global have nots” are those who find themselves exploited by the global economy, who have no agency within it and are at the mercy of massive, often foreign, flows of capital.  More than any other factors, Khator suggested that education constitutes this division: every single “global have” has a college degree.  For this reason, Khator insisted that it has never been more important to situate higher education in a global context.

Read in PDF format

One characteristic of globalization that Khator emphasized is its accompanying urbanization.  In the United States, 86% of the population now lives in urban areas, and Khator noted that 50% of all American jobs and 50% of American universities were located in just the 50 most populated urban centers.  Institutions of higher education must take this urban context into consideration.  Khator then briefly outlined the particular situation of the University of Houston: Houston is the fourth largest city in the US in terms of population, but it is 17th in terms of student enrollment and 33rd in terms of the number of degrees awarded.  Moreover, the city is 6th in terms of university expenditures, but 8th in terms of federal appropriations and contracts secured.  Khator acknowledged that this is a gap that must be filled if the city of Houston, particularly the University of Houston, is to be globally competitive in the field of education.

Khator described universities as America’s best product from the last 70 years.  Across the world, educational institutions aspire to the standard set by American universities, and the values of discipline, research, and freedom of thought that these institutions embody have inspired imitation in a variety of countries.  She then asked, “What is it that makes these universities great?”  Obviously, great universities are beautiful spaces, but this cannot be the whole value of an institution.  Khator described meetings with administrators from various countries who had built architecturally stunning structures, but were at a loss as to how they could replicate the environment of inquiry that defines American institutions.  Khator concluded that the physical space of an institution, its “brick and mortar,” is not what distinguishes it as a place of learning.

Great professors are one essential feature of a great university, and Khator reviewed the changing opportunities for professors in the globalized world.  In India, for example, the loss of qualified teachers and researchers to American institutions historically amounted to a “brain drain.”  But this is far from the case today.  Khator emphasized the potency of the sense of diaspora, of maintaining a local identity while navigating the global economy abroad.  And today, it is possible for nations to send their talent to America for research and then attract them back with easily matching pay scales.  Khator suggested that professors today have more viable, international options than ever before.  The US contribution to science and engineering publications has been steadily declining, and other countries are spending much more on research and development.  American universities may have established the model, but Khator cautioned against assuming that the best professors will seek out American universities as a matter of course.  The Indian Institute of Technology is more competitive than MIT and capable of attracting researchers and scholars who may have degrees from US institutions back to a career in India.

Outstanding students are also required for the building of a great university.  With this in mind, Khator proposed that universities must realize that they are competing for students internationally, for students also have more educational options today.  Tuition affordability cannot be judged simply against other American universities.  According to Khator, we have to look at the cost of tuition in terms of the global marketplace.  For instance, one semester of tuition costs $2000 in Germany, compared to $9000 in the United States.  Khator cautioned that American universities may price themselves out of dominance.  This also has implications for the global competitiveness of America.  Foreign students can afford their education more easily than American students, and the high school dropout rate in the US even further reduces the percentage of its citizens who will be able to engage modern society as “global haves.”  Khator cited that the US is 12th in terms of its degree holding population, and in the last 25 years, the graduation rate of scientists and engineers has not increased here but has doubled in China and India.

The final feature of a great university elaborated by Khator was the national learning environment: the accumulation of knowledge and talent, the expectation of disciplined work, and the freedom to explore ideas.  This environment is what cannot be duplicated simply with new building facilities, Khator suggested.  She argued that the need to nurture this sort of academic environment has been overshadowed in the policy debates regarding access and accountability.  Khator acknowledged that financial access to education is a significant issue, but the maintenance of a fertile academic environment in America is equally important for its future global competitiveness.

Regarding the value of this sort of environment, Khator noted a recent shift in the public paradigm.  A college graduate used to represent an intrinsic benefit to society; education was thought of as a common good.  From this perspective, it is acceptable for society to take up a large burden of the cost of education, for the work and involvement of graduates will benefit all.  But today, education is thought to make individuals more competitive; it is an essentially private good.  Within this paradigm, the cost of education has shifted to the individual who is assumed to be its sole beneficiary.  Khator observed that the total cost of education has not increased more than the cost of inflation.  What has increased is the portion of this cost that must be paid by the individual.

Khator continued by noting that this shift has been accompanied by a change in the perceived role of universities.  Rather than being institutions devoted to the creation and dissemination of knowledge, universities in America are expected more and more to function as community managers.  Meanwhile, drastic changes in the business environment have further altered the relationship between a university and its local community in Khator’s analysis.  Now that companies can easily move their entire operations to foreign countries, they have less incentive to invest in the creation and development of local talent.

Khator then related her ambitions for UH to become a Tier 1 institution.  She argued that with 11,000 graduates a year, 80% of whom stay in the Houston area, the future of the city is directly influenced by the quality of UH.  Her proposal to the state legislature asked for public funding to match research dollars raised from private sources.  To develop the University of Houston into a fully operational research institution will require significant, uninterrupted funding, but Khator was undaunted.  As a leader in healthcare, oil and gas technology, and arts programs, Houston deserves the sort of academic research environment that the UH can offer.  Khator urged anyone engaged with the life of the city of Houston to consider the value of developing UH into an internationally competitive research university.