122 Book Reviews/Comptes Rendus outside the classroom setting is not necessarily restricted to office consultation time only. The book includes an essay entitled, "How to improve student's writing without reading any," by Kerry Walk on the effectiveness of out-of-class writing workshops, which serves as an instructional guide with examples and case studies. Work outside the classroom also includes the question of how to use marking as part of one's teaching. There are three chapters which deal with this issue: "Getting the most out of weekly assignments" by Sujay Rao; "Making grades mean more and less with y o u r students" by Judith Richardson; and " L e s s o n s f r o m Michelangelo and Freud on teaching quantitative courses" by Todd Bodner. These give useful tips and guidelines on how to make the best use of assignments, how to give effective feedback when marking, and how to balance criticism with encouragement in one's marking. Voices of Experience shares with other teachers valuable insights passed on by those w h o have derived these skills through their own experience. It serves as an informative reference and the informal character of the book gives the reader the feeling of a connection with these fellow teachers. Huisman, J., Maassen R, & Neave, G. (Eds.). (2001). Higher Education and the Nation State: The International Dimension of Higher Education. London: Pergamon for the International Association of Universities. Pages: 256. Price $89.50 USD (hardcover). Reviewed by Erin T. Payne, Fox Lake, Alberta. This slim volume, jointly edited by three prominent members of the Centre for Higher Education Studies at the University of Twente in the Netherlands, is a recent installment (pre-9/11) in the Issues in Higher Education series published by UNESCO's International Association of Universities (IAU). The book is almost entirely about European Union (E.U.) member states. While dull in outward appearance and badly in want of a book jacket, the title is accurate. Inside I discovered six chapters written by academics of professional distinction and all but the last The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXXII, No. 3. 2002 Book Reviews/Comptes Rendus 123 contribution faced peer scrutiny at academic conferences prior to publication. The research is of fairly recent date and each article offers helpful notes and a rich bibliography. This to me is a stage upon which academics are s p e a k i n g largely to other a c a d e m i c s , p o l i c y - m a k e r s and informed audiences. Nevertheless, all interested and diligent readers will certainly gain from digesting it, even if only to get a sense as to how social policy is getting along in the E.U. these days. In chapter one, Guy Neave traces the historical development of universities from their medieval beginnings in a universally Christian "European education space." Originally sharing super-ordinate power with the Papacy and the Holy Roman Emperor, universities were later "coordinated" by dynastic princes in the centuries after the Thirty Years War for their capacity to produce "useful knowledge" in the service of the growing territorial state. What emerged, in response to differing political and social conditions in succeeding states, were differing conceptions of the relationship between state, society and higher education. With the recent rise of the " m a r k e t , " t h e p r e s u m p t i o n of a n e w i d e o l o g i c a l n e o liberal universality, a new super-ordinate power above the nation-state (and the university) has been declared. But this power does not oversee a community of universal belief; and neither is this gospel message conducive to social control. The danger the E.U. now faces, Neave concludes, is not the failure to gel a new "higher education space," but the further division of the continent along the lines of region and class. Neave's article provides a useful historical backdrop for succeeding authors and his approach defines many key concepts that appear later in the book. In chapter two, David Dill elaborates on how economic and demographic forces have altered the mechanisms of state and federal coordination of higher education in the U.S. Beginning with something of an apologetic for market-oriented reforms, Dill describes and evaluates the U.S. system — "less market-driven than is popularly understood." He is guided by a rule of thumb put forth by the Brookings Institution: state governments should strive to maximize local "productivity," while the federal government should concentrate on expensive basic scientific research and help low income students. Yet, while the federal government d i s t r i b u t e s R & D f u n d s fairly e q u i t a b l y to all states through The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXXII, No. 3, 2002 Book Reviews/Comptes Rendus 124 Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) in an e f f o r t to t r a n s f o r m e v e n the p o o r e s t into ' " k n o w l e d g e b a s e d economies," even the poorest students are now routinely saddled with large student loans. They are increasingly caught in an updrafit as institutions strive to finance themselves through tuition increases — a problem with which policy maker claim to be aware. As for the old "triad" of federal government, state government, and regional accrediting agencies working together to ensure academic quality, the torch has clearly been passed to state governments, institutions, and academics themselves. International professional certification bodies and mega-universities that teach nothing but grant degrees, are other ways in which federal and state control is being sidestepped. Dill makes few normative suggestions and his conclusion contains more question marks than periods, but this is an excellent piece that enables one to better sense the winds of change in the U.S. and gives us something by comparison with the E.U. In chapter three, the late Antonio Ruberti is representative of the E.U. position in its quest to abolish all barriers to what might be considered a "common European space for science and technology" with the elimination of barriers to personnel mobility and the transference of qualifications. Because of the small size of E.U., economies compared to the U.S. cooperation in expensive, basic research programs in the hard sciences and technologies are essential in maintaining Europe's e c o n o m i c clout — j u s t as this p r a g m a t i c e m p h a s i s helped rebuild Europe's economies after World War II. While the autonomy of nations and institutions must be respected, a strong '"public policy" (read: E.U. policy) must be maintained in education, as with everything else in which there is a common interest. The chief problems, Ruberti believes, lie in striking the correct balance between cooperation and competition between institutions and m e m b e r states, and in coaxing some E.U. countries to invest a greater percentage of their G D P in R&D. Ruberti is the most avidly unionist author in the book and his perspective on higher education in the E.U. appears antiquated in that it is obsessed with the maximization of input units. His views are not highly creative, but his article is likely much shorter than a European C o m m i s s i o n report on the same topics. The Canadian Journal of Higher Volume XXXII, No. 3, 2002 Education Book Reviews/Comptes Rendus 125 In c h a p t e r four, A l b e r t o A m a r a l c o m p a r e s the role of the m e d i e v a l university in building a c o m m o n European cultural identity with opportunities for universities to help build a n e w c o m m o n identity in the E.U. To facilitate this, the mobility and transference of persons and qualifications will need to be ensured, but the problematic diversity and mixed quality of institutions in E u r o p e m u s t be addressed. T h e historic state control principle of "legal h o m o g e n e i t y " has m e a n t that the quality p r o b l e m is o f t e n national, and has only recently been replaced by the m a r k e t driven c o n c e p t of the evaluative state. A m a r a l e x a m i n e s national experiments with quality evaluation ( m o s t s u c c e s s f u l l y w h e r e a c a d e m i c s evaluate their o w n prog r a m s c o u p l e d with the report of external e x p e r t s ) , and s u p r a - n a t i o n a l evaluations based on international peer reviews that f o c u s upon one discipline. T h e E.U. C o m m i s s i o n , for its part, only studies m e m b e r n a t i o n ' s e v a l u a t i o n m e t h o d s . R e c o g n i z i n g that d i v e r s i t y o f t y p e s a n d styles in higher education is desirable, A m a r a l points out that maintaining diversity is difficult w h e n d e f e r e n c e to the market, or the h e g e m o n i c position of a f e w elite universities, leads to h o m o g e n e i t y a m o n g institutions. G i v e n its u n i q u e cultural m i x E u r o p e m a y avoid this fate, provided that the E.U. administration, recognizing the principle of "subsidiarity" in these matters, d o e s not attempt to levy it o w n kind of h o m o g e n e i t y f r o m Brussels. C h a p t e r f i v e , by F o n s Van W i e r i n g e n d e a l s e n t i r e l y w i t h the N e t h e r l a n d s and d e a l s w i t h issues s u r r o u n d i n g p r i v a t i z a t i o n . A f t e r parsing the d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n , d e r e g u l a t i o n a n d privatization, Van W i e r i n g e n ' s m a i n c o n t r i b u t i o n is t h e results of a q u e s t i o n n a i r e m a i l e d to " e x p e r t s " on p o s t - c o m p u l s o r y e d u c a t i o n . P a r t i c i p a n t s w e r e a s k e d to c o m m e n t on their d e g r e e of certainty or u n c e r t a i n t y r e g a r d i n g a n u m b e r of trends. A m o n g these were the continuation of market directed e d u c a t i o n policies, t h e state f u n d i n g of p a r t i c i p a n t s r a t h e r t h a n institutions, t h e t r e n d t o w a r d s n o n - g o v e r n m e n t f i n a n c i n g , and a n u m b e r of " p r o d u c t i v i t y " related trends including increasing competition b e t w e e n p u b l i c and p r i v a t e u n i v e r s i t i e s . Van W i e r i n g e n ' s c o n c l u s i o n s are in k e e p i n g w i t h m u c h o f t h e p r e v i o u s f i v e c h a p t e r s : p o s t - c o m p u l s o r y e d u c a t i o n is d i v e r s e a n d c o m p l e x a n d h a s b e e n f o r a v e r y l o n g time, so labeling s y s t e m s as either p u b l i c or p r i v a t e is " c r u d e . " C i t i z e n s n e e d n o t be f o r c e d t o c h o o s e b e t w e e n p u b l i c a n d p r i v a t e s y s t e m s of The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXXII, No. 3, 2002 126 Book Reviews/Comptes Rendus h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , as there are m a n y c o n c e p t u a l f r a m e w o r k s a v a i l a b l e to e v a l u a t e possibilities in t h e w i d e o p e n g r o u n d b e t w e e n the t w o e x t r e m e s . Van W i e r i n g e n ' s c o m m o n sense a p p r o a c h m a k e s this a w i s e and t i m e l y article f o r all s t u d e n t s of social policy, e v e n if o n e is inclined to think, as I did, that his presentation of data left s o m e t h i n g to be desired. T h e c o n c l u d i n g chapter is a jointly written project by Kurt D e Wit and J e f Verhoeven and is based on research f r o m a E.U. research p r o g r a m . T h e authors address higher education policy f r o m the perspective o f "national sovereignty versus Europeanization," and their historical a p p r o a c h to the investigation takes into account the uneven enthusiasm for the E.U. over the years. G i v e n that higher education w a s n o w h e r e explicitly m e n t i o n e d in the f o u n d i n g treaties of the E E C , the m e r e mention of a supra-national b o d y coordinating higher education often produced alarm in countries that desired little m o r e of the E E C than a c u s t o m s union. In fact, it w a s not until the m i d - 1 9 8 0 s w h e n the dust w a s b l o w n off the 1976 Program in the Field of Education Action that a E.U. h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n policy took shape. W h i l e o p p o s i t i o n to E E C c o o r d i n a t i o n of h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n began to c r u m b l e in the 1980s, the treaty of Maastricht (1992) nevertheless m a d e signatory nations sovereign in matters of higher education even as the E.U. c o n s o l i d a t e d its p r e v i o u s gains. A s it n o w stands, the E.U. chiefly underlines the importance of the mobility of students and staff, and the facilitation of institutional n e t w o r k i n g . W h i l e the p o w e r of t h e E.U. o v e r matters of higher education is on the increase, it is clear f r o m the treaty that the nation states maintain strategic control. In all o f t h e c h a p t e r s , r e a d e r s a r e o n e w a y o r a n o t h e r i n v i t e d to p o n d e r the changes which the realities and rhetoric of globalization a n d n e o - l i b e r a l i s m h a v e w r o u g h t u p o n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n in t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e n a t i o n state d u r i n g t h e p a s t f e w d e c a d e s . To w h a t e x t e n t , t h e y try t o a d d r e s s , is t h e s t a t e " w i t h e r i n g a w a y " in s i g n i f i c a n c e as n e w s u p e r - o r d i n a t e a u t h o r i t i e s in t h e m a r k e t a n d n e w i n t e r n a t i o n a l b o d i e s such as the E.U. and the N A F T A z o n e g r a d u a l l y m o v e into the d o m a i n o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n . T h e c o n s e n s u s s e e m s to be that all levels o f g o v e r n m e n t , a n d c e r t a i n l y t h a t o f t h e n a t i o n - s t a t e , still h a v e vital r o l e s to p l a y in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , a l t h o u g h t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l d i m e n s i o n h a s a d d e d g r e a t e r c o m p l e x i t y to t h e m a t t e r . T h u s , t h i s is n o t a b o o k o f The Canadian Journal of Higher Volume XXXII, No. 3. 2002 Education Book Reviews/Comptes Rendus 127 d o o m - a n d - g l o o m to those of us w h i c h , to p a r a p h r a s e G u y N e a v e ' s words, "still cling to the last vestiges of territorial d e m o c r a c y . " Gallagher, Michael. (2000). The Emergence Universities in Australia. of Entrepreneurial Public Canberra, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Higher Education Division, Occasional Paper Series. Pages: 58. Price: $14.60 A U D (paper). Reviewed by Robert Pike, Queen's University Australia's higher education institutions have probably been subjected during the past thirty years to more radical shifts in organisational forms and loci of control than the higher education sectors of any other western country. In 1973, the C o m m o n w e a l t h [federal] g o v e r n m e n t took over funding responsibilities for most of the institutions, including the universities, and, over time, wound up the various state and federal bodies which had previously acted as buffering agents between government and the academy. Since the late 1980s, when universities and certain other major institutions of postsecondary education were amalgamated in a "unified national system," major policy decisions emanating from federal jurisdiction have included a growing "privatization" of the country's 37 publiclyfunded universities in the sense that heavy reliance on block grant public funding has been replaced, in considerable measure, by reliance on private "self-earned" income, including student fees and contract research for the p r i v a t e sector. T h e p r e s e n t C o m m o n w e a l t h g o v e r n m e n t has greatly increased the pressures on this score. Michael Gallagher who is a public servant with the Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA), the federal organization to which the universities answer, took the opportunity of an O E C D Conference held in Paris in S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 0 to o v e r v i e w the policy settings and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l changes associated with this growth of self-earned income within an increasingly "entrepreneurial" public university sector. This relatively brief, but remarkably detailed, report is the outcome. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXX//, No. 3. 2002