Finnish higher education in transition: Perspectives on massification and globalization.

Edited by Jussi Valimaa Jyvaskyla, Finland: University of Jyvaskyla, Institute for Educational Research, 2001.

People in the Australian higher education community probably seldom think of Finland. However the Finnish and Australian higher education systems have many similar characteristics. Both nations have a strong commitment to social equity shaping education policy, very much in the Scandinavian tradition for the Finns. As a result, the universities of both systems are predominantly public institutions. Both nations have relatively small systems in international terms, yet both provide education for rural and remote regions of low population density. Both nations are small and their economies are exposed to the potentially negative effects of globalization. The Finns are particularly alert to these forces, wedged as they are between Sweden and Russia and with a turbulent national history as a borderland and intermittent battleground for more powerful neighbors.

Finnish higher education in transition is edited by Jussi Valimaa of the Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyvaskyla, and is co-authored by his Institute colleagues. The book is written in English with the international community in mind. Valimaa contributes five (two co-authored) of the ten chapters, including a brief introductory history of Finland. The chapters are loosely linked around the themes massification and globalization, but the book is best described as an account of current domestic issues in Finnish higher education.

Education is highly valued in Finland. Attending university has high social status and there is excellent access and participation. Finland's massification began in the 1960s, supported by a welfare-state agenda with the objective of fostering social and geographical equality. Now, close to 70 per cent of school leavers are offered a tertiary place, one of the highest rates in the world. In 2001, Finland had twenty higher education institutions: ten multi-faculty institutions; three schools of economics; three technical universities; and four art academies. With 31 polytechnics as well, run by local municipalities, Finland has excellent tertiary provision for its population of only a little over five million people.

The trends in Finnish universities during the past decade resonate with the Australian experience. The quality and evaluation of teaching are major issues. Finnish academics are experiencing changing patterns in student involvement that are familiar to Australian academics. Students now talk of going to 'school' rather than 'university', a trend related to new patterns of part-time work and the reduced engagement with university life for many students.

Finnish universities are squeezed for resources. The recession of the early 1990s hit the Finnish economy hard (though Nokia, one suspects, may have given a boost to the Finnish GDP in recent years). Government funding for higher education has been in decline. In 1999, Finnish universities received 65 per cent of their revenue from government, down from 84 per cent in 1990. Despite this fall, they continue to do a little better on this score than their Australian counterparts. Massification in Finland has created a rising student--teacher ratio, which climbed to above 20 by 1999, with an associated escalation in the apparent stress levels of academic staff.

In parallel with the decline in public revenue, the Finnish government has given institutions greater autonomy. In the new public management tradition, however, universities are now steered by negotiated outcomes and 'management by results' (tulosjohtaminen). Institutional management has been modernized to be more strategic and responsive to change. In 1995, the Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) was established to monitor quality and quality assurance. Academics are divided on the value of these changes. None of these developments will surprise Australian readers, for the patterns are familiar ones.

Can Australian higher education learn from the Finnish experience? Finland has had some success in providing equitable access to higher education across its regions. The expansion of higher education in the 1960s was supported by a regional policy principal (aluepolitiikka). As Valimaa notes, 'the founding of a university was seen not only symbolically but also culturally and economically important to the development of the given region'. Open University teaching is now available in almost 200 municipalities. In total, 62 per cent of Finland's 448 municipalities have a higher education presence of some kind. The Open University provides a taste of higher education and a pathway into mainstream higher education for people who might not qualify through other routes.

One of the major policy initiatives in Finland during the past decade has been the reform of doctoral training. This reform was a response to a perceived lack of a systematic training during the 1980s, with problems that included a lack of research teams for PhD students to join, a lack of research funds, and poor quality--sometimes non-existent supervision arrangements. In the early 1990s, triggered by the need to climb out of economic recession, doctoral training was overhauled with the objectives of expansion, improved quality and the guiding of students into academic fields believed to be the most useful to the economy. National science policy established centres of excellence in 1995, boosting research funding. In addition, 93 graduate schools were created offering scholarships for PhD students that include a monthly salary. The reforms have largely achieved the intended objectives. The number of doctoral awards has risen dramatically. Women, notably, have been major beneficiaries, though they are still under-represented in PhD completions. Between 1998 and 2000, 43 per cent of doctorates were awarded to women, compared with 22 per cent in the comparable three-year period a decade earlier.

Higher education is viewed as part of Finland's national innovation strategy and is expected to enhance the competitiveness of Finland's enterprises in world markets. Higher education continues to be free. This has had the effect, it seems, of stifling the marketisation of the system. An emphasis remains on universities selecting students rather than vice versa. But there are tentative steps towards an educational marketplace. Recently, an American University, Preston University, began offering programs in business and computer sciences from two rural campuses. This initiative was not successful, with failure to secure ministry accreditation, sizeable student drop-out rates and a general disinclination on the part of the Finns to enrol in a rather more expensive setting. Similarly a Russian private university in the mid 1990s tried to establish a campus in a small Finnish town to teach Russian students. The problem, among other things, was that the university concerned was not accredited in its home country. In any event, students did not materialize.

That these failed steps towards a more competitive higher education arena are isolated instances might reflect the somewhat insular character of the Finnish system. Up to now, the Ministry of Education has seen no need to impose legal restrictions on the founding of private universities. And Finland has neither sought nor been in a position to be a major exporter of educational services. As the globalization of higher education proceeds, the Finns might benefit from examining the regulatory framework designed to protect the quality of Australian higher education. Australia has moved in this direction in the main part to protect confidence in the quality of its educational exports, but both nations are of course concerned to monitor their domestic higher education standards as well, particularly the offerings of private providers and the new on-line global institutions of the future.

The authors of Finnish higher education in transition make no claims to theoretical breakthroughs, but present a useful critical snapshot of a small higher education system that is experiencing much the same pressures as many larger ones and developing in quite similar directions. International readers will enjoy the book. It is a good concept and more national case studies of this kind would be welcome.

Richard James 

The University of Melbourne