In the reading, Governance reforms and university autonomy in Asia by Varghese, 5 varying Asian countries (Camodia, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Japan) were used for comparison in a research project.  Supposedly, they varied in terms of economic and educational development. I found it interesting that these countries had differing higher education systems than America, such as ministries of Education, yet they made moves to reform their governance systems (in its early stages) to compete with the progressive usage of market mechanisms that other institutions practice. One key concept from this reading focused on creating academic and administrative autonomy. Unfortunately Cambodia is the lowest income country amongst the five and experienced difficulties with this adoption.

Previously, the government/ministry of education shared governance with higher education institutions but held high responsibilities such as hiring college presidents, determining the tuition costs and determining which students to enroll. China, like other market based countries transitioned to allow central government to have limited power or more of a policy coordinating function.  Autonomy is supposed to encourage institutions to function better because they are in charge. With the shift to autonomy, faculty members were happier because they were given academic freedom and it allowed them the opportunity to change the curriculum and offer new and exciting courses. Departments within these institutions have the ability to offer incentives to high achieving employees and budget their own funds, which is better than the top down method previously enforced. There are some setbacks, the administrative staff feels like they do not have as much autonomy as expected and their workload has increased. The workload for faculty has increased as well, but with the addition of academic freedom, it seems bearable. Sound a lot like problems within higher education institutions in America. These Asian countries made quality assurance mechanisms to improve quality, facilitate evaluation, and enhance both autonomy and accountability. The reading Global trends in university governance by Fielden suggest that quality assurance systems should be renewed every 5 to ten years. However, I fear the evaluation is too far spread out (every six years for Japan) to remain competitive and adaptable and since quality is not defined, I am not sure they are successfully measuring quality. Therefore, they may encounter similar issues that American institutions have been struggling with assessment.