Within institutions of higher education, shared governance is an essential component to a healthy functionality. Among the many stakeholders at these institutions, students are the largest in number and hold primacy. Participation in student governance establishes a sense of shared ownership over their communities while also providing a unique avenue for students to gain wisdom and develop critical skill sets. Senior administrators at these institutions have many inherent challenges due to an organization that is largely decentralized and autonomous. The purpose for conducting this study was to analyze Student Government Associations (SGA) at 8 select land-grant institutions of higher education in order to establish the extent of administrative agenda alignment after reviewing policy priorities for SGAs and their respective presidents. The study ultimately found minimal agenda alignment between student body presidents and university presidents. Student body presidents indicated that they did not necessarily anticipate alignment given the differences in their constituencies and most indicated positive relationships. These findings emphasize the importance of shared governance within these institutions. Positive relationships between SGAs and their presidents emphasize constructive communication and reciprocity between the subjects which leads to more buy-in by stakeholders and innovative ideas.
The economic transition in China since the late 1970s has led to not only drastic social transformations but also rapid advancements in science and technology, as well as the revolution in information and communications technology. In order to enhance the global competence of the Chinese population in coping with the challenges of the knowledge-based economy, the higher education sector has been going through restructuring along the lines of marketization, privatization, and decentralization. Responding to the globalization challenges, the Chinese government has opened up the education market by allowing private/ minban higher education institutions and even overseas universities to offer academic programs in the mainland. Hence, we have witnessed the proliferation of education providers, the diversification of education financing, and the increase in private—public partnership in education provision since the policy of educational decentralization was introduced in the mid-1980s. After China’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Chinese government has allowed overseas universities in collaboration with local universities to co-launch higher education programs. In this policy context, we set out in this chapter to examine the current developments of transnational higher education in China. More specifically, we focus on how students in Zhejiang province enrolling in these overseas programs evaluate their learning experiences. We also identify and discuss major issues arising from the onset of transnational education in China. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
The very nature of the scientific enterprise is at stake in the multiverse debate. Its advocates propose weakening the nature of scientific proof in order to claim that the multiverse hypothesis provides a scientific explanation. This is a dangerous tactic. Two central scientific virtues are testability and explanatory power. In the cosmological context, these are often in conflict with each other and there has been an increasing tendency in theoretical physics and cosmology to say it does not matter whether a proposal is testable: if it fits into our other theories in a convincing way, with great explanatory power, then testing is superfluous. The extreme case is the multiverse proposal, where no direct observational test of the hypothesis is possible. Despite this, many articles and books dogmatically proclaim that the multiverse is an established scientific fact. In this context one must re-evaluate what the core of science is: can one maintain one has a genuine scientific theory when direct and indeed indirect tests of the theory are impossible? If one claims this, one is altering the meaning of science. One should be very careful before so doing. There are many other theories waiting in the wings, hoping for a weakening of what is meant by “science”. Those proposing this weakening in the case of cosmology should be aware of the flood of alternative scientific theories whose advocates will then state that they too can claim the mantle of scientific respectability. The key observational point is that the domains considered are beyond the visual horizon and are therefore unobservable. You cannot receive signals of any kind from beyond the horizon, as there has not been time for messages to reach us from there since the universe began. Hence no object out there is detectable by any kind of astronomical observation. To see this clearly one should look at the space-time diagrams of our past light cone (figure 5). The assumption made in justifying the multiverse is that we can extrapolate to 10100 times the horizon distance or even more (the word “infinity” is casually used in these writings). The extraordinary pretentiousness of this attempt should be clear. This shows the space-time diagrams of our past light cone in both the usual form (a) and conformal form (b), in which one expands the spatial distances in order to see the causal structure. The light cones are then at ±45°, making clear the observational and causal limits; any observation beyond the visual horizon is impossible. The Hubble distance is where galaxies recede at the speed of light (v=c). The redshift measures the expansion factor and goes to infinity at the horizon itself. (c) shows more clearly the vast extrapolation envisaged in justifications of the multiverse. Note that there is a distinction betweeen the visual horizon and the event horizon. The latter relates to causality in the far distant future and is irrelevant to present-day observations, but becomes relevant if the universe accelerates. (Mark Whittle, University of Virginia) The often claimed existence of physical infinities in the multiverse context — of either universes or spatial sections of universes (Vilenkin 2006) — is dubious. What has been forgotten here is that infinity is an unattainable state rather than a large number — its character is totally different from any finite number and it is a mathematical rather than physical entity. According to David Hilbert (1964): “The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality, no matter what experiences, observations, and knowledge are appealed to.” Even if there were an infinite number of galaxies, and we could see them all (which we could not), we could not count them in a finite time. So there is no way the existence of an infinity can ever be proven correct by observation or any other test. The concept of physical infinities is not a scientific one if science involves testability by either observation or experiment. The claim of infinites in the multiverse context emphasizes how tenuously scientific that idea is. It is a huge act of hubris to extrapolate from one small domain to infinity when infinity is never attainable. Seven different kinds of justification have been proposed for the existence of a multiverse and I will now consider these in turn. There are plausibly galaxies just beyond the visual horizon, where we cannot see them, so we can extend this argument, step by step, to way beyond the horizon and infer there are many different universes that we cannot see. This is the “slippery slope” argument and Rees (2001) uses it to defend both Level I and Level II multiverses. The argument is fine as regards extrapolation in the vicinity of the visual horizon, but the assumption that it can be continued to very distant domains or other universes is an untestable major extrapolation, which assumes a continuity that may or may not be true. If each link in a chain of evidence is well understood and tenable, then indirect evidence such as this carries nearly as much weight as direct evidence. But not all the links in the chain are tenable. If employed to its logical conclusion it seems a priori to lead to the old idea of spatial homogeneity extending forever (“The Cosmological Principle”) rather than the multiverse of chaotic cosmology with domain walls separating different phases. For if the universe within the horizon is almost exactly Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) — a statistically spatially homogenous and isotropic space-time — it is plausible that it is also FRW just outside the horizon, and a simple extrapolation suggests that it is spatially homogeneous without limit. But supporters of chaotic inflation claim that there are completely different domains out there with different values of the constants, so which is the case? You can say what you like and nobody can prove it right or wrong. The existence of a multiverse is implied by inflation, which is verified by the Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropy observations. In particular, known physics leads to chaotic inflation and this implies a multiverse. A multiverse is implied by some forms of inflation but not others. Inflation is not yet a well defined theory and chaotic inflation is just one variant of it. For example, inflation in a small closed universe fits all the observations, without requiring a multiverse. In any case, the key physics involved in chaotic inflation (Coleman-de Luccia tunnelling) is extrapolated from known and tested physics to quite different regimes; that extrapolation is unverified and indeed unverifiable. The physics is hypothetical rather than tested. We are being told that what we have is “known physics → multiverse”. But the real situation is “known physics → hypothetical physics → multiverse” and the first step involves a major extrapolation which may or may not be correct. The multiverse idea is testable, because it can be disproved if we determine there are closed spatial sections in the universe (for example, if the curvature is positive). The claim is that only negatively curved FRW models can exist in a multiverse based on chaotic inflation, either because Coleman-de Luccia tunnelling only gives negative curvature or because a closed spatial section necessarily implies a single universe. But the first argument is disputed (there are already papers suggesting that tunnelling to positively curved universes is possible) and the second argument would not apply if we lived in a high-density lump imbedded in a low-density universe (i.e. the extrapolation of positive curvature to very large scales may not be valid). Neither argument is conclusive. Certainly observational confirmation of negatively curved space sections would not constitute proof of a multiverse, for that can occur in a single universe. However, chaotic inflation versions of the multiverse can be disproved if we observationally prove that we live in a universe with closed spatial sections that are so small that we have already seen round the universe. We can test this possibility by searching for identical circles in the CMB, together with low anisotropy power at large angular scales (which is indeed observed). This is an important test as it would disprove the chaotic inflation variety of multiverse. But not seeing the circles would not prove a multiverse exists: their non-detection is a necessary but not sufficient condition for multiverses. The existence of a multiverse is the only physical explanation for the fine-tuning of parameters that leads to our existence. The multiverse is a reasonable theoretical explanation of the fine-tunings, but this does not help in observationally confirming the hypothesis. The issue here is, which is more important in cosmology: theory (explanation) or observations (tests against reality)? The essential proposal is that one should downgrade observational testing in favour of theory — a dangerous road to take. In any case, the major problem with this proposal is that it can explain anything at all, because in a multiverse with an infinite or extremely large variety of universe properties — for example, the 10500 possibilities allowed by the landscape of string theory — virtually anything can happen. In that case, the hypothesis does not predict any specific testable fact. The existence of universes with giraffes is certainly predicted by many multiverse proposals, but universes where giraffes do not exist are also predicted. Observing a giraffe neither confirms nor disproves the multiverse. The existence of a multiverse is implied by a probability argument: the universe is no more special than it need be to create life. In particular, the small value of the cosmological constant shows that other universes exist. But the statistical argument invoked here only applies if a multiverse exists; it is simply inapplicable (because the probability distribution has no meaning) if there is no multiverse, so it cannot prove a multiverse exists. It is a calculation that assumes the answer (that a multiverse exists) before it begins. If we only have one object to observe, we can make many observations of that object, but it is still only one object (one universe), and you cannot do statistical tests on its nature. This is a consistency test if there is indeed a multiverse, but it says nothing if there is not. It is not a sufficient condition for its existence. The argument that the actual value of Λ is extremely different from the “natural” one predicted by theoretical physics (120 orders of magnitude smaller!) makes very clear the nature of the multiverse project: it is an attempt to make the extremely improbable appear probable. Even if one does not accept inflation, multiverses are predicted by many theories of particle physics. One example of this is the string landscape of M-theory, but that is a hypothetical proposal with no solid evidence in its favour. Indeed, even many string theorists are sceptical about the landscape, despite the enthusiasm with which some propose it. A major problem arises when one has a theory where no verification is possible. It is not necessary to check all the predictions of a theory for it to be considered scientific — one can check some predictions to help the theory gain credence, but that does not prove the theory because it has to be the only one that makes the prediction for it to carry weight; it cannot be conclusive unless no other explanation is possible Let me illustrate with an example. I can propose that there are leopards hidden in the mountains of Scotland. They are very shy, so they hide away and no-one ever sees them. But you can tell they are there because sheep vanish without trace every year. I can put together an exciting research project that will look at statistics of lost sheep in Scotland for the past 50 years, and hence prove the existence of these rare mountain leopards. This seems to me to be analogous to the argument for proof of the existence of a multiverse through any specific property (e.g. the smallness of Λ) that might possibly exist somewhere in the landscape. This may be something that is predicted by some multiverse theory, but it hardly proves it true. I am all for the exercise of applying known physics in more extreme conditions: do it and see what happens. But admit that it is an untested extrapolation and that different extrapolations are possible. You can extrapolate different aspects of known physics to the unknown and different predictions will result. For example, if one extrapolates classical physics to the quantum domain, the answers will be wrong. But in that case you can show this is so by experimental tests. That is what is missing in the multiverse case: you can make the extrapolation but cannot then determine if it is right or not. The nature of science changes, so what is illegitimate science today may be legitimate tomorrow. This is true, but the foundations must be respected if one is to preserve the core features of science that have led to its phenomenal success: that is the feedback from reality to theory provided by experiment and observational testing. One abandons that at one's peril. For example, today's philosophical definition of science excludes astrology, despite all the claimed theory and data supporting it. But now astrologers can take hope from the arguments of string theorists and multiverse enthusiasts: with the weakened kinds of criteria proposed, astrology too will soon be a strong candidate for recognition as a genuine science. The Popperazi (a derogatory term used by Susskind for those who believe testing scientific theories is an indispensible aspect of science) will no longer be able to deny astrology its place as a proper scientific theory. Is that what we really want? At the very least, we must be given a clear statement as to what broader definition of the nature of science is being proposed, and in particular what criteria of testing will be taken to be adequate (Ellis 2006); this then needs to be assessed in relation to cases such as astrology and “intelligent design”, as well as multiverses and string theory, in order to see what its implications are. The multiverse idea is provable neither by observation, nor as an implication of well established physics. It may be true, but it cannot be shown to be true. It does have great explanatory power — it provides an empirically based rationalization for fine tuning, developed from known physical principles — but one must distinguish between explanation and prediction. Successful scientific theories make predictions that can be tested. The multiverse theory cannot make any testable predictions because it can explain anything at all. Even though multiverse proposals are good empirically based philosophical proposals for the nature of what exists, they are not strictly within the domain of science. There is nothing wrong with empirically based philosophical explanation — indeed it is of great value provided it is labelled for what it is — but I suggest that cosmologists should be very careful not to make methodological proposals that erode the essential nature of science in their enthusiasm to support specific theories. For if they do so, there will very likely be unintended consequences in other areas where the boundaries of science are in dispute. Let me state it more strongly: it is dangerous to weaken the grounds of scientific proof in order to include multiverses under the mantle of “tested science”. It is a retrograde step towards the claim that we can establish the nature of the universe by pure thought without having to confirm our theories by observational or experimental tests. This abandons the key principle that has led to the extraordinary success of science. The claim that multiverses exist is a belief rather than an established scientific fact. It is a reasonable belief with strong explanatory nature, but a belief nonetheless. The appropriate statement we can make is not “multiverses exist” or “multiverses have been proved to exist” or even “multiverses can be proved to exist”, but rather “multiverses are a useful explanatory hypothesis”. We should not state more. Martin Gardner (2003) puts it this way: “There is not the slightest shred of reliable evidence that there is any universe other than the one we are in. No multiverse theory has so far provided a prediction that can be tested. As far as we can tell, universes are not as plentiful as even two blackberries.”