大學管理體制에 관한 比較硏究

Abstract

The study was concerned with a limited comparative analysis of university and/or college governance in three countries, i. e., the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan. After briefly reviewing the university system and its present status in the respective countries, the university governance organization, financing of university education and major trends of reforms in university governance were analyzed, each topic being brought into focus through the process of description, juxtaposition and comparison, so far as feasible. In the United States the board of trustees or regents and the university president as well as the faculty are the most important organs for university governance. The president has to exert a particularly important leadership role in the context of "an organized anarchy." In the United Kingdom the role of the UGC and the NAB on the central level and the senate on the institutional level cannot be overestimated; on the level of the basic unit the faculty exercises a large degree of autonomy. In Japan the university has a large degree of autonomy; the faculty senate in a public institution, and the board of trustees in a private university, are both institutionalized. In the United States, the major sources of university financing are government subsidies, private support and student tuition, occupying varying proportions among the different types of institutions. In public institutions, for instance, government sources occupied 70%; student tuition, 27% in 1980. In the UK the UGC grant occupied 77% of the general income and 63% ,of the total income for the universities in 1980. In Japan, the revenue sources for national institutions as of 1982 were as follows: transfer from the general account, 70%; hospital income, 17%; tuitions, 6%, etc. For the private institutions, national/local subsidies, 16%; tuitions, 47%; business-based income, 20%, etc. Major reform movements in the US include, a) the establishment of a state"based coordinating body; b) the strengthening of faculty power; c) an increasing role for the federal government in terms of financial aid; d) the utilization of technology; and e) the practice of consortia activities. In the UK, a) the establishment of the NAB; b) the strengthening of central coordinating efforts; c) the importance of the role played by specific reports produced by academics; d) the involvement of the students as well as the faculty in decision-making .on the basic unit level; and e) the strengthening of evaluation work, etc., are to be included. In Japan the following reform trends are noted, a) the involvement of the students as well as the faculty in the governing process; b) the strengthening of central-level planning; c) the expansion of the evening and seasonal classes for working youths and adults; e) the increasing support given to private universities. It is particularly noteworthy that those 3 nations have in common extensive university autonomy, an increasing democratization of university management and governance, the utilization of high-technology in management, and extensive research into university management and/or governance.