Proposed Outline of the
Global University System Structure

Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:41:27 -1000
From: George Robert Converse
To: Utsumi@columbia.edu

Tak - Mark and I met late last week and discussed various methods of approaching the Global University Project. One of the items we focused on is the administrative framework of the venture and, although you probably have these elements somewhere in your plans, thought we'd forward our suggestions as we feel the framework is a key to success.

Proposed Outline of Global University
System Structure at the Initial Stage

In considering the method of geographical separation used at the conference in Tampere, Finland in August [1999], "satellite hubs" as well as administrative centers would allow for more concentrated and efficient area efforts that would be overseen by the main administrative center of the Global University System Headquarters. The hubs and admin centers could *possibly* be as follows. This is a natural separation by languages, culture and geography.

I. Administrative Centers and Satellite Hubs in North America:

A. For Asia Pacific Region:

1. Administrative Center -- BTC/Montana State University (MSU)

2. Satellite hub -- Maui Research and Technology center (MRTC) / Maui Community College

3. Meetings

a. April or May, 2000 -- Foundation for the Support of the United Nations (FSUN) in Tokyo

b. Winter, 2001 -- MRTC (tentative)

c. Summer, 2001 -- BTC/MSU (tentative)

B. For North America Region:

1. Administrative Center -- BTC/Montana State University (MSU)

2. Satellite hub -- BTC/Montana State University (MSU)

3. Meetings

a. Fall, 2000 -- Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) in Washington, D.C.

b. Spring, 2001 -- BTC/MSU (tentative)

C. For South America / Central America / Caribbean Region:

1. Administrative Center -- University of Tennessee - Knoxville (UTK)

2. Satellite hub -- University of Tennessee - Knoxville (UTK)

3. Meetings

a. Fall, 2000 -- Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) in Washington, D.C.

D. For European Region:

1. Administrative Center -- University of Tampere

2. Satellite hub -- University of Tampere

3. Meetings

a. Spring, 2001 -- Technology Promotion Center in Lviv, Ukraine

E. For Africa Region:

1. Administrative Center -- in processing of deciding

2. Satellite hub -- to be decided in cooperation with the Leland Program of the US Agency of International Development (USAID) -- {maybe at the University of Tennessee - Knoxville (UTK)}

3. Meeting sites: -- in processing of deciding

II. Administrative Centers and Satellite Hubs in Each Region:

A. Asia Pacific Region:

1. Philippines in the first phase project:

a. Administrative Center -- the University of Philippines Open University in Manila

b. Satellite hub -- the University of Philippines Open University in Manila

B. North America Region:

1. Remote sites in Montana and elsewhere

C. South America / Central America / Caribbean Region:

1. Brazil in South America:

a. Administrative Center -- the University of Amazona in Manaus

b. Satellite hubs -- the University of Amazona in Manaus and the University of Rondonia in Porto Velho

2. Costa Rica in Centra America:

a. Administrative Center -- Universidad de Costa Rica in San Jose

b. Satellite hubs -- Universidad de Costa Rica in San Jose

D. European Region:

1. Ukraine:

a. Administrative Center -- Technology Promotion Center in Lviv

b. Satellite hub -- Technology Promotion Center in Lviv

E. Africa Region:

To be decided in cooperation with the Leland Program of the US Agency of International Development (USAID).

III. Regional Satellite Hubs and Infrastructures:

1. Initial Effort:

The basic web of interconnectivity would emerge from each regional satellite hub and would be more manageable than from a single source which covers the entire globe. Each region would, of course, have direct interconnectivity with other regions but would be able to concentrate the initial efforts of their region. The initial effort being the assessment of connectivity among the regional satellite hubs and all of the prospective subsidiary wireless (or not) stations of their constituent members.

Each regional satellite hub would be connected to microwave broadband (1.5 to 45 Mbps) Internet networks which connect with regional constituent member organizations (elementary and secondary schools, libraries, hospitals, local governmental agencies, etc.) in mid-range (50 to 200 miles) apart from each other, and also with wireless spread spectrum broadband (3 to 10 Mbps) Internet networks which connect with nearby (up to 25 to 50 miles) similar organizations.

This is not only to help local community development, but also assure close cooperation among higher, middle and lower levels of education, e.g., for teacher training, and courseware development, etc.

In a sense, the regional satellite hub is to be the major Internet Service Provider (ISP) of the global private (exclusive) virtual network for not-for-profit organizations in the region, and the gateway to the outside world.

2. Subsequent Effort:

Once the basic connectivity infrastructure is determined and resolved in each region, the connectivity among the home satellite hubs of regions would be all that remained to be done by the terrestrial broadband Internet lines. All of the regional infrastructures and groups would be coordinated and administered by the Global University System's Headquarters in Finland.

Since the regional satellite hubs are all interconnected and also connected to the Global University Administrative hub, separation is primarily needed so that one regional hub would not face an overwhelming amount of work and, additionally, the time and travel cost factors do come into play as well as the culture and language issues.

3. Requirements:

Each satellite hub would have a systems person assigned as an infrastructure specialist to oversee the connectivity.

IV. Administrative Centers:

1. Functions:

Each Administration Center would be able to perform functions such as course registration, tuition payments and other student services related paperwork. This would prevent any single entity from being overwhelmed.

Each regional Administrative Center would also perform an assessment of on-line programming (in their region) which could be accessed from the region's satellite hub.

2. Administrative Information:

The student information stored in each Administrative Center's database would of course be made available to the main administrative center of the Global University System Headquarters as well as to other administrative centers.

3. Community College Programming:

As for programming, we have a tendency to look first to community college programming as community colleges have significantly large multicultural enrollments and therefore significantly large developmental programming, especially on the area of ESL. System-wide placement is now available from a number of vendors such as ACT (COMPASS) and ETS (ACCUPLACER). Since CC's have significant experience in placement testing (most don't use SAT's), programming at this level would be a natural. One also must consider that many of the occupational programs are contained in community college curricula. Course concentration would then be expanded to the Liberal Arts freshman year etc.

G. Robert (Bob) Converse
Project Director and Principal Investigator
National Science Foundation
Advanced Technology Education Project
Maui Community College
Bob.Converse@mccada.mauicc.Hawaii.Edu
www.ecet.mauicc.hawaii.edu

Edited by Steve McCarty, updated on 17 January 2003
Kagawa Junior College, Japan
Return to the Global University System Asia-Pacific Framework