Search

The expansion of opportunity in higher education and the recognition of the influence of academic research on economic development have motivated policy reforms in many national systems of higher education including Japan. Many of these national reforms involve facilitating market forces in higher education, which is a new context for many universities. What has been learned about the impacts of these policies on the university sector? This paper will review research on the three primary policy instruments for creating market competition in a sector: policies altering the basic conditions of a market -- the framework laws and values within which universities operate; policies affecting market structure -- the number of buyers and sellers, the pricing of goods and services, freeing and simulating markets; and policies directly affecting the conduct of buyers and sellers -- government regulation and the provision of information. Given the recent regulatory developments in Japanese higher education, the paper will particularly focus on the design of quality assurance policies in the university sector.

Loss of the von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) tumor suppressor is a hallmark feature of renal clear cell carcinoma. VHL inactivation results in the constitutive activation of the hypoxia-inducible factors (HIFs) HIF-1 and HIF-2 and their downstream targets, including the proangiogenic factors VEGF and PDGF. However, antiangiogenic agents and HIF-2 inhibitors have limited efficacy in cancer therapy due to the development of resistance. Here we employed an innovative computational platform, Mining of Synthetic Lethals (MiSL), to identify synthetic lethal interactions with the loss of VHL through analysis of primary tumor genomic and transcriptomic data. Using this approach, we identified a synthetic lethal interaction between VHL and the m6A RNA demethylase FTO in renal cell carcinoma. MiSL identified FTO as a synthetic lethal partner of VHL because deletions of FTO are mutually exclusive with VHL loss in pan cancer datasets. Moreover, FTO expression is increased in VHL-deficient ccRCC tumors compared to normal adjacent tissue. Genetic inactivation of FTO using multiple orthogonal approaches revealed that FTO inhibition selectively reduces the growth and survival of VHL-deficient cells in vitro and in vivo. Notably, FTO inhibition reduced the survival of both HIF wild type and HIF-deficient tumors, identifying FTO as an HIF-independent vulnerability of VHL-deficient cancers. Integrated analysis of transcriptome-wide m6A-seq and mRNA-seq analysis identified the glutamine transporter SLC1A5 as an FTO target that promotes metabolic reprogramming and survival of VHL-deficient ccRCC cells. These findings identify FTO as a potential HIF-independent therapeutic target for the treatment of VHL-deficient renal cell carcinoma.

Gene expression profiling using microarrays has been limited to comparisons of gene expression between small numbers of samples within individual experiments. However, the unknown and variable sensitivities of each probeset have rendered the absolute expression of any given gene nearly impossible to estimate. We have overcome this limitation by using a very large number (>10,000) of varied microarray data as a common reference, so that statistical attributes of each probeset, such as the dynamic range and threshold between low and high expression, can be reliably discovered through meta-analysis. This strategy is implemented in a web-based platform named "Gene Expression Commons" (https://gexc.stanford.edu/) which contains data of 39 distinct highly purified mouse hematopoietic stem/progenitor/differentiated cell populations covering almost the entire hematopoietic system. Since the Gene Expression Commons is designed as an open platform, investigators can explore the expression level of any gene, search by expression patterns of interest, submit their own microarray data, and design their own working models representing biological relationship among samples.

The most recent research on college-student learning in the US by respected scholars such as Richard Arum, Josipa Roksa, and Ernest Pascarella suggests that the nation's means of ensuring academic standards in US colleges and universities are not working effectively. Like US K-12 education and health care, the US higher education system is not only the most expensive per person in the world but appears to be declining in effectiveness. As in these other policy areas, the US is locked in to a national framework for ensuring academic standards that works less well than some of the policies adopted by competing developed nations. What reforms to US accreditation may be suggested by best practices in some other countries? The critical policy questions are: (1) what criteria should institutional accreditation focus on?; (2) how should institutional accreditation be designed?; and (3) who should make accreditation decisions? In this article, the author addresses each of these questions and proposes that the government look to the National Academies--private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating societies of distinguished scholars--for the creation of an agency that would replace the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) within the Department of Education. He suggests that the new agency be tasked with specifying what academic information would be required from each accredited college and university, defining criteria and standards to be applied by accrediting agencies in determining eligibility for federal financial support, and approving each accreditation agency that would carry out this function. The author concludes that US colleges and universities, as well as the public interest, would be better served if the proposed new agency were required to be publicly evaluated by an established, respected, and truly independent national agency such as the US Government Accountability Office. The public, policymakers, and the regulated colleges and universities would thereby be provided with more objective assessments of the extent to which the new national agency ensures academic standards, and the national agency would gain greater insight into means of improving its own core practices.

The new demands of mass systems of higher education and the emerging environment of global academic competition are altering the traditional institutions for assuring academic standards in universities. As a consequence many nations are experimenting with new instruments for academic quality assurance. Contemporary government control of academic quality assumes three primary forms: "oversight" or direct regulation; "competition" or steering of market forces; and "mutuality" or professional self-regulation structured by the state. The challenge confronting all nations is to design a policy framework that effectively balances the forces of the state, the market, and the academic profession to assure academic standards in universities. Based upon the strengths and weaknesses observed in 14 policy analyses of innovative national instruments of professional self-regulation, market-based regulation, and direct state regulation for assuring academic quality in universities, we outline the essential components of a national framework for assuring academic standards.

Asserts that designing public policies that effectively balance the competitive needs of the university sector with the public interest is a complex issue, and presents a general framework for analyzing these regulatory policy issues. Illustrates the framework with policies from Europe and the United States. (EV)

Suggests an economic perspective for defining and measuring academic diversity in terms of program innovation, not only in teaching, research, and public service activities, but also in the processes of production and markets served. Such a perspective would also provide valuable theoretical frameworks for exploring important questions of how markets or governments affect program innovation. (Author/DB)

Reviews lessons learned from early experiments with academic audits in the United Kingdom, Sweden, New Zealand, and Hong Kong in areas such as: focus of audits, selection and training of audit teams, nature of audit self-studies, conduct of audit visits, audit reports, and audit follow-up and enhancement activities. Suggests guidelines for design and implementation of effective audit processes. (EV)

Describes a new form of academic quality assurance, the academic audit. Reviews use of academic audits abroad and experimental use of such audits in the United States. Identifies issues in academic audits, including focus of audits, auditor selection and training, institutional preparation for an audit, interaction between institutional policies and academic units, and publication of audits. (DB)

Discussses various adaptations in organizational structure and governance of academic learning institutions, using case studies of universities that are attempting to improve the quality of teaching and the learning process. Identifies five characteristics typical of such organizations: (1) a culture of evidence; (2) improved coordination of teaching units; (3) learning from others; (4) university-wide coordination of learning; and (5) knowledge transfer. (DB)

Examines the "evaluative state" that is, public management-based evaluation systems--in the context of experiences in the United Kingdom and New Zealand, and suggests that further research is needed to examine problems in the evaluative state itself, in how market competition impacts upon it, and how academic oligarchies influence the process. (CH)

This paper explores the nature of markets in higher education, the policy mechanisms related to their implementation, and questions regarding their impact. Various forms of market-oriented policy instruments now employed in many countries are reviewed including taxes, subsidies, and regulations. Potential problems limiting the impact of educational markets include insufficient information received by consumers, and immature consumers. (DB)

Efforts to improve the quality of academic programs in the United Kingdom, United States, and Netherlands have followed three general approaches: the logic of competitive markets; application of incentives; and professional self-regulation. Strengths and weaknesses of these approaches for improving academic quality are examined through the lens of W. Edwards Deming, a leading thinker on quality management. (Author/MSE)

What have we learned from 25 years of experience with external academic quality assurance that can help design more effective framework conditions for assuring academic standards? The key elements appear to be the structure and means of evaluating national academic quality assurance agencies, the nature of academic quality information mandated by government, and the focus of external academic quality assurance reviews.