Higher education systems of the world, including Japan, are now facing a period of major change and reform. Japan is not an exception. In explaining and analyzing the basic structure and direction of fluctuation in these systems, the most convincing theory is the "historical and structural theory" of the American sociologist, Martin Trow. This well-known theory of transition from "Elite to Mass, and Universal" higher education was generalized from an explanation based on the historical experiences of higher education in Europe and the US. The main aim of this paper is to take up the Japanese experience as a case to examine the suitability of Trow's theory as a theory of comparative higher education systems. Through the analysis of the Japanese case compared with Europe and the US in this paper the general suitability of this theory of change is supported. However, at the same time, the analysis of this transition process reveals that his supposition concerning the single route of transition "from Elite to Mass, and Universal" as a transition stage in higher education is questionable. The examination of transition processes in the US, Europe, and Japan suggests that his theory will be more fruitful and persuasive, if multiple, or at least three different routes of transition, i.e., US, European, and East Asian, as represented by Japan, are hypothesized.
Today, under the pressure of globalisation, massification and technological development, marketisation of higher education, which enhances universities' autonomy and promotes competition among them for resources, students and prestige, is a worldwide policy trend. Global market dynamics have substantially modified higher education systems and institutions, by deregulating the field and opening it up to market forces, both in the form of growth of the non-traditional institutions and the introduction of the market mechanism in the public sector. In Japan, traditionally known for its strict state control over the higher education system, marketisation of its higher education system got into full swing since the beginning of the 1990s, when the Standards for the Establishment of Universities (SEU)-ministerial ordinance governing university organisation and activities-were significantly simplified, allowing universities to organise their own curriculum. After the turn of the century, marketisation was accelerated by the Koizumi government which promoted structural reform of the entire administration, for which neoliberalism and new public management (NPM) offered a theoretical basis. During the Koizumi administration, in the area of higher education, a 21^<st> century COE programme-large-scale competitive funding programme-was launched in 2002. The SEU were further simplified and transformed into minimum standards in 2003. For-profit universities came to be allowed on a trial basis in the same year. Finally, in 2004, national universities were incorporated. At the same time, in addition to encouragement and then requirement of self-evaluation, ex-post measures, such as third-party evaluation and performance-based funding schemes, have been taken, complementing reduced ex ante control, to assure the quality of higher education as well as to hold institutions accountable for public funding. Ironically, these measures-introduced in the context of enhancement of university autonomy-have scrupulously restricted universities' activities to the extent of stifling creativity. Furthermore, because of the Matthew effect, competition tends to entrench the existing hierarchy in favour of large research universities, particularly former imperial universities, and to homogenise institutions' activities in the same layer due to imitation of good practices and avoidance of high-risk activities, thus reducing institutional diversity and the likelihood of 'scientific novelty'. In the face of globalisation and massification, marketisation of higher education, or enhancement of institutional autonomy, is ineluctable for any system, in which universities offer diversified education and research on their own initiatives. However, the present Japanese system seems too restrictive for universities to be innovative, at risk of lowering the quality of their education and research, in spite of numerous deregulatory measures, mainly because of quality control systems that put too much emphasis on the measurement of outcomes. For the Japanese system to be effective, it requires an entire revision in the direction of enhancing university autonomy. In particular, performance evaluation and performance-based funding schemes should be revised.
Teacher training in Japan is reaching a significant turning point. What society expects from universities now is to put the principle of "teacher training in universities" into practice. The major point of this principle, in its historical significance, is an active and conscious involvement of universities in teacher training. However, in practice, "universities" seems to have not played a sufficient role in "teacher training." This study aims to reconsider the previous findings of a study by this researcher on educational history from a perspective on the relation between "universities" and "teacher training." Yokosuka (2001) evaluated the advisory panel's report on national teacher-training universities and faculties highly describing, "what national teacher-training universities and faculties should be in the future." The reason is because his central proposals, which were ignored in the early 1970s, were inserted in this report. However, why were his opinions ignored for about 40 years? That is because the logic of "academism" has been so strong in respect to teacher training. When we "relativize" academism, we need to consider its drawbacks and limitations. This research considers Osada Arata's argument about teacher training before the war, discussions on whether or not to continue higher normal schools and discussions on upgrading higher normal school. The problem is that academism takes a negative attitude toward teacher training. It is necessary to sweep away this negative attitude toward specialized subjects and educational subjects in teacher training and to place them in teacher-training universities and faculties. Teacher-training universities and faculties are urged to be independent.
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the traditional idea of the university in Germany. It is said that the beginning of the modern university came with the establishment of the University of Berlin that Wilhelm von Humboldt planned. Humboldt's idea is found in the document entitled "Über die innere und äussere Organisation der höheren wissenschaftlichen Anstalten in Berlin". It is known that the idea of the university according to Humboldt is characterized by the unity of research and education. However, Sylvia Paletschek, who is professor at the University of Freiburg, pointed out that the phrase "Humboldt's idea" or "Berlin model" was not known to contemporaries in the 19th century. She argued that there was no evidence that the traditional idea of a university in Germany has its origin with Humboldt or the University of Berlin. She concluded after a thorough examination that the myths of Humboldt and the University of Berlin were created 100 years after its establishment. This paper examines the character of facilities that were called seminars or institutes, the idea the university according to Yoshito Takane, Tokuzo Fukuda, and Helmann Roesler, the History of the University of Berlin and the Prussian Academy of Sciences, and regulations that provided for universities in Prussia in the 19th century. Takane, who had studied law at the University of Berlin, referring to the German universities, proposed to introduce practicums and seminars into the law education at Kyoto University. Fukuda, who studied economics at the University of Munich, considered universitas literarum as an ideal, and explained the importance of seminars. Fukuda emphasized that a seminar was a new feature of universities in the 19th century. However, neither practicums nor seminars started with the establishment of the University of Berlin, because Friedrich Paulsen praised the seminars that existed at the University of Göttingen and the University of Halle in the 18th century. This paper received insight from "Social Administrative Law" written by Roesler. He classified the Übungen into three types. They are practicums that did not use facilities, practicums at seminars, and practicums at academic institutes. Medical clinics and museums of anatomy and physiology are included as academic institutes. Chapter 7 of the Statute of the University of Berlin provided for facilities. Max Lenz described in "History of the University of Berlin" that the University of Berlin acquired facilities from the Academy of Sciences as shown in the plan by Humboldt. Adolf Harnack expressed in "History of the Prussian Academy of Sciences" that it was the largest loss for the Academy. There were regulations similar to the Chapter 7 of the Statute of the University of Berlin in the Statutes of the Universities of Breslau, Bonn, Jena, and Königsberg. Humboldt planned new relationships among the university, academy and facilities. The plan spread from the University of Berlin to other universities in Prussia. In Munich, there was an academy of sciences before a university moved to the city. This paper suggests that there might have been a process similar to Berlin in Munich.
As a consequence of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, British higher education moved from a binary to unitary system. Nonetheless, many differences remain between the old universities that existed before 1992 and the higher education institutions that have become universities as a result of unification. Changes in self-governance may be considered to be one of the areas in which the contrast between new and old universities is most remarkable. This paper examines four distinct cases that differ in terms of university organization and the impact of public funding. Finally, I will identify some elements that are required of institutions of higher education in the UK with regard to university autonomy that are essential for universities to maintain their status as universities, as I believe that these elements are also essential for Japanese universities.