Divs-poole

REFORM OF JAPANESE HIGHER EDUCATION 

Many have observed that part of the “HE problem” in Japan is 

overbureaucratization, most recently in a detailed OECD study (Newby et al. 2009) 

that was an embarrassment for MEXT (Aspinall 2009). One question that could be 

posed is whether or not this overbureaucratization is even more overbearing on an 

institutional rather than state level, especially for the majority of HEIs in Japan, 

which happen to be private. Nevertheless, in response to these critiques, the 2004 

reforms in the Japanese education system have created a more decentralized, 

“liberal” government policy whereby schools and universities have more autonomy 

in terms of courses and curriculum.

 

In line with neoliberal policies in other 

countries, the Ministry of Education is in turn centrally monitoring institutions 

through more indirect control as an alternative to direct control audits. Some 

anthropologists have pointed out that such a trend from central control to “audit 

culture” is a prevalent one in western societies and have argued that certainly in 

Britain, at least, it may not be the proper, or at least not the entire, remedy 

(Goodman 2001b; Shore & Wright 1999; Strathern 2000b). Jerry Eades (2000, 

2004b), an anthropologist with extensive crosscultural experience in HE, points out 

that European and North American scholars may do well to learn lessons from the 

relaxed and relatively prolific nature of academic enquiry in Japanese universities. 

John Clammer (personal communication), another British-trained anthropologist 

with extensive experience at a prestigious Japanese university, adds that Japanese 

professors are not necessarily operating with the same sort of model of 

professional performance as British or American professors. This is an observation 

I also support in Chapters 4, 5, and 6 below. 

Whatever the explanation and no matter the best remedy, there is general 

agreement among the public, academics, the government, and industry that 

something is amiss with the university system, and reform must be undertaken 

soon if universities are to thrive as viable educational institutions. This is the crisis 

described by Amano and others.  

INSTITUTIONAL REFORM: RECRUITMENT & RETAINMENT 

This section discusses the institutional response to outside pressure that I have 

observed during my fieldwork at EUC. Recruitment and retainment of students has 

been deemed by faculty members and administrative staff to be critical strategies 

for maintaining enrollment numbers.  

Within the Japanese higher education community, participants and observers 

alike have often focused their discussions of the declining birthrate problem on the 

important issue of recruitment of new students. As part of this new market model, 

recruitment strategies have received much attention by observers of Japanese HE 

(Imai 2001, Oe 2003, Oono 2000). These strategies are argued to be one indicator 

of this diversification of the Japanese HEI about which Amano speaks. For 

example, at many universities the number and flexibility in types and timing of 

entrance exams means that high school students can often choose between ten or 

more different admission paths. Nontraditional students, such as mature students 

49

 

---

CHAPTER 2 

50

 

and international students, are being catered to in an attempt to reach beyond that 

of graduating high school students, who, until recently, have been the only ones 

participating in HE. Developing new departments with fancy titles using catchy 

words deemed attractive to both high school students and these new nontraditional 

students—“international”  (kokusai), “environment”  (kankyō), “human”  (ningen), 

and “information” (jōhō)—is another strategy that many schools have adopted. 

In addition to recruitment, however, an equally crucial issue of retention is just 

now beginning to emerge (Masuda 2003; Yoshimoto 2003). Efforts to keep 

students involved in the higher educational process has, for the first time in 30 

years, led to theoretical debates about teaching and curriculum reform (Arimoto 

2003), and the configuration of the HE institution itself as two-year institutions 

become four-year, and four-year institutions add postgraduate schools.  

For example, the chair of the admissions committee at my field site told me, 

“We have a growing problem with the dropout rate. What will help the retention 

rate is getting students to feel better about our university by providing an 

educational environment where they feel that they have many friends and that 

classes are helping them reach their goals. There is no sense in putting tremendous 

effort into admissions if we are just going to lose students [to attrition]!” 

Talk about retaining students increased. Attrition rates have never been 

monitored with anywhere near the interest given recruitment rates. Nevertheless, 

demographic and market forces in 21st century Japan are forcing administrators 

and faculty to consider the academic wellbeing of the student body more seriously 

than in the past. In response, curriculum reform and faculty development, or, FD as 

it is usually called in Japan, is beginning to gain favor among a few private 

institutions that are feeling the heat (Inoshita 2003).  

Before the start of the general faculty meeting in the afternoon of January 20, 

2004, the President’s Office committee gave a detailed report on a survey it had 

undertaken, which asked first-year students about how they make their decision to 

enroll at EUC and their subsequent level of satisfaction with the university once 

enrolled. Although the report provided important data for improving recruitment 

strategies, which of course was the stated purpose of the report, it also provided 

revealing insights into how to meet the challenge of retaining students.  

Of the various reasons for applying to different universities, by far of greatest 

import to the EUC cohort was whether or not the school to which a student applied 

offered a subject of study in a department or faculty of interest to him/her. On the 

questionnaire, students also indicated that EUC fitted this criterion In other words, 

for incoming EUC students, the content of academic study is a much greater 

priority, by a factor of at least three, than either the image of the university or the 

hensachi grades (norm-referenced scoring system for secondary school leavers) 

required for entrance. This is hardly surprising, given the fact that it is largely a 

vocationally oriented university. 

As an anthropologist, even considering the methodology problems of 

administering surveys and the danger of getting exactly the answers anticipated, 

this information is still revealing and was confirmed by observing and interacting 

---