The aim of this paper is to explore the notion of the diversification of students in higher education in Japan compared with those of the U. K. focusing on the government council reports issued in the 1960s and in the 2000s. Both periods correspond to those of higher education expansion in Japan. In the 1960s in Japan, a brake was put on the expansion of students because the nature of higher education as the sector responsible for training the elite was being damaged due to the increase in the number of less able students. Specifically, students were regarded as those who were selected on the basis of meritocratic principles. In the 2000s, although it became difficult to stick to meritocratic principles as the basis of student selection, the meritocratic notion remained dominant in arguments put forward in the University Council and the Central Council for Education.

　 This situation is totally different from the arguments put forward in the U. K., where emphasis has been put since the 1960s on the expansion of opportunities for the underprivileged social class to access higher education, and policy implementation has reflected this trend.

　 The purpose of this paper is to clarify the role of the ambiguous term “diversification of students” in the context of university education reform. With that aim in mind, I distinguish contemporary student diversity theory from the traditional student culture theory which is depressed by the deterioration of the quality of students. Next, by investigating the reform discourse of policy documents such as the Ministry of Education White Paper and the report by the University Council, I trace the trends in the development of the concept “diversification of students”. Specifically, I identify the following characteristics: (1) Reference to “diversification of students” starts with the University Council’s report of May 1991, but it was still not firmly established in the first half of the 1990s. (2) It was repeatedly used as the basis of various organizational reforms that were sought from 1995 to 2000, and became established as a keyword in the context of reform discourse. (3) Since 2001, on “diversification of students”, the White Paper descriptions become simple, but on the other hand, the descriptions of the University Council’s report become emphatic and persistent. As a hypothesis explaining that, I point out that the outcomes of reform become visible and a reform-oriented group of researchers strengthens influence.

　 Over the past five years, integrated high school and university articulation reforms in secondary education, university entrance examinations, and university education have been implemented in Japan. However, no firm vision for the university entrance examination has been developed yet, with multiple views on identifying and addressing the diversification of university students causing confusion. The university entrance examinations have changed, significantly affected by their historical background; however, certain degrees of association in these permutations as indicators reflect the diversity of university students - factors such as the number of students (applicants), university enrollment rates, and the number of universities. For example, if the number of applicants increases beyond the capacity of the university, the examination becomes highly selective; if the number of universities increases an appropriate placement based on the diversity of the students presents a challenge in terms of selection. Presently, with the declining birth rate and an upward trend in the rate of advancement to university, university education has entered the universal stage. However, under the current entrance examination reform policy, will students be considered in an era of full enrollment with emphasis on aspects of globalization in the Common Test for University Admissions? It is crucial to share the vision of the role the Common Test for University Admissions in advancing the high school and university articulation reforms in a precise manner amid the current trend of universalization.

　 This article discusses the variety of problems encountered by college students from the perspective of student counseling and student support. Although student counseling is often seen as services for students who have worries or become maladjusted, this is far from the truth: Student counseling is situated as a core component of education in the broad sense of the term.

　 To begin with, I give an overview of the history of student counseling. Subsequently, I cover topics that have attracted a fair amount of attention in the context of student counseling, including: 1) student apathy; 2) students’ fear, tantamount to a phobia, of in-depth psychological communication; and 3) students’ developmental disability tendencies. I discuss whether or not changes have taken place in the adolescent mentality of college students, what student support trends can be identified, and what issues should be considered against the backdrop of such trends.

　 The less difficult the entrance examination to a university is, the more clearly diversification of students can be identified. This may be seen most notably in universities known as “border-free universities”, where the enrollment limit exceeds the number of applicants.

　 This paper discusses the actual conditions of the diversification of students belonging to border-free universities, and explores how border-free universities and their faculty cope or should cope with the actual conditions they face.

　 The paper examines the following actual conditions. These include universities that do not meet their quota, corresponding to border-free universities; students with learning problems from such viewpoints as students’ basic academic skills, learning habits and motivation to learn; and classrooms where the students with learning problems gather.

　 On the basis of these actual conditions, the paper argues that it is important for border-free universities to make conscious efforts to get their students to acquire learning habits and to actively conduct “interactive classes”, as premises for the organizational improvement of the learning environment with a view to encouraging their students with learning problems to learn.

　 On the basis of these arguments, it is concluded that the following issues are ones with which a border-free university should engage; how to encourage their faculty to actively engage in educational activities, how to think about the balance between teaching and research, and how to think about classification and functional differentiation of universities.

　 It has been seven years since I presented the concept of “a marginal university,” as a viewpoint on the basis of which to discuss a fundamental change in higher education. In the meantime, I have unexpectedly received various opinions from a diverse group of people. What left a strong impression on me is that there was a considerable gap in their ideas about “the basis of recognition frameworks.” This gap prevented productive discussions from developing. In this study, I will again present my own ideas on educational content which I would hope to see conveyed to a greater number of diversified “non-elite university students”, while keeping the above point in mind. Next, I will consider the difficulties involved in discussion and implementation of this theme among faculty members. Moreover, in consideration of the present situation and future development of higher education policy, I will describe my despair and faint hope regarding a discussion about universities which will never recognize that students are becoming diversified.

　 In 2017, human resource development became an important item on the political agenda and the government decided on a policy package for free child care and education at a total cost of about 2 trillion yen. Human resource development is now a common theme in discussions of welfare states around the world, however there has been little analysis and discussion in Japan of problems and solutions based on data and evidence. The objective of this paper is to discuss education financing and public support at the same time as providing an analysis of issues in the social security system such as pension provisions and health care. The key to overcoming the problem of a falling birthrate and aging population is the allocation of increased resources to human resource development including education by restructuring the existing social insurance schemes. In this regard, there is a need for careful design of a reform plan covering the overall education system, because more public support for education is likely to be regressive.

　 Recently, there is increasing tone that the diversification of higher education in Japan should be further promoted in the context of gender equality, low evaluation of internationalization in university rankings, and arguments on strengthening organization vitality and innovation. In discussing the diversification of higher education, there is a viewpoint of diversification at the system level and diversification at the institutional level. In Japan, however, as is represented by the discussion of “functional differentiation” in the past, there are more discussions on diversification at the system level than at the institutional level.

　 Therefore, in this paper, we will focus on the institutional level by focusing on the experience of the United States which is well ahead of us to diversify student body, and then, hopfully, we would like to draw out suggestions for how to respond to diversified students in Japan.

　 The purpose of this research is to consider the significance of university autonomy, taking the recent strife between the University of California and the state legislature as an example. The higher education system in California, outlined by the famous Master Plan, used to be prized for its success in realizing both the quality and quantity of public higher education. However, Master Plan’s missions in terms of both access and excellence have been hampered by the lingering financial deterioration.

　 Many previous researches have seen the Californian model of higher education as an example of functional differentiation policy. Other previous research, which focused on the relationship between UC and the state government, assumed the similarity of the regulatory function of the governing board of the university and the state government, because both of them are expected to represent the people of the state. Some other recent research that recommends a policy shift tends to convey an image of a university that is constitutionally independent but subordinate to political and economic circumstances. This research reinterprets the Californian model of higher education from the viewpoint of conflict between institutional autonomy and public control.

　 In order to keep its volume and quality as a world-class research university (system), California’s flagship state university, in the midst of a significant decline in state funding, has been driven to a strategy deceptively harmful to Californian’s public interests. There was a risk that proposed new legislation requiring UC to accept more Californian students with more restricted funding would limit the university’s management resources and strategy and cause an ironical situation in which well-intentioned public control would make it even more difficult for a public research university to carry out its public mission. Securing institutional autonomy backed by political independence was deemed to be the key that would enable a public research university with insufficient public support to keep pursuing its public mission in access and excellence.