This week’s reading was more structured and provided a better understanding of the internationalization process in higher education systems. The reading justified various reasons why internationalization is important. Four categories explained in the reading are the demands in academia, the economy, government policies, and the society. The reading also explained how internationalization in higher education can address global issues like employment and cultural awareness. Similar to last week’s readings the author acknowledges that “motivations vary substantially by country and context” (p.9). It is also explained that governmental demands shift over time. The reading was clear that internationalization is a demand in higher education because it is seen through the creation of study abroad programs which allows international exposure. Due to this exposure, internationalization targets development, advancement, and research for scholars and international relations.

The internationalization process can be influenced regionally and nationally. There are also sub-agencies and quasi- governmental agencies that influence the importance of internationalization. Regionally and nationally European countries seem to place a higher importance to internationalization because of their high interest in higher education. Internationalization in the U.S, however, is enforced by sub-activities providing mobility. The reading explained that the U.S. Department of State administers more than 50 programs to fund incoming- outbound mobility. Incoming mobility is short-term and outbound mobility for U.S citizens seems to provide more long-term goals depending on the work. I concluded that U.S citizen benefit the most of international education in terms of work force development because students can bring international relations back to the states. Could it be that international education in the U.S is seen to benefit more U.S natives (on a work-place stand point)? And do governmental officials see international education as a personal achievement where mobility is provided, but no promises are made for long-term goals?

In the U.S, institutions and sub-agencies enforce internationalization by working around current immigration laws. Sub-agencies can change the level of importance U.S governmental officials place on internationalization if institutions commit to working with sub-agencies recruiting more international students. This, however, can be very difficult due to the low graduation rates in where the U.S Department of Education has invested to improve the K-12 system and bridge the gap in completion rates based on race. Altbach stated in his article “Internationalize American Higher Education? Not Exactly” that “The lack of a national approach to international education may increasingly place the United States in an isolated position”, however, do governmental officials care about falling behind in international education (p. 17)?