For those of you who read my blog post from week one, you have come to realize that I am a bit of an idealist when it comes to the purpose of education. I am not naive enough to believe that there are no business components to it, but I would like to maintain the notion that money doesn’t solely drive policy. While the readings from last week saddened me, ACE’s piece has brought out in me a much more practical mindset. To be honest, I am mostly stuck on the Academic and Economic Policy Goals and Motivations.

When I read the first bullet points for academic goals, I immediately thought about developing nations. The compilers of this study note that international education can increase the capacity and improve the quality of education around the world. These benefits may be true to an extent, but I think they are deceptive. I say this due to an enlightening conversation I had with an international student. I told her my idea (which I was initially very proud of) to create sister schools, pairs of schools in developing countries as well as large metropolitan areas around the United States. People who want to come to the U.S. could attend the school in their home country first and learn English and other pragmatic things, such as cultural norms. They would also be taught and provided useful information about the city they wanted to live in (New York City, for example), like housing, work opportunities, and transportation. When they finally came to the American city, they would continue their schooling at the domestic location. I thought this idea was brilliant! If this country attracts so many immigrants, we might as well prepare them before they get here. Then, the international student burst my bubble. Who did I really expect to be able to do this? The poor? No, it would be the families with resources. She agreed it was an interesting concept, but it wouldn’t serve the demographics I intended to help. The same goes for a lot of the programs mentioned in these readings. Who can take advantage of these opportunities? Only the wealthy, really. I will always be an advocate for the underprivileged, and therefore skeptical of the supposed benefits.

The second notion that piqued my interest was that about economic goals, namely about developing a global workforce. The reading states that “In some countries, policies

to attract international students may also be seen as a way to build a skilled labor force when international graduates stay and gain employment” (pp. 7-8). That may be true, but I also believe the opposite is a reality- once international students study abroad, they can come back and help their home countries. They have new and valuable expertise and experience, and can use those qualities to improve the conditions of their home. Although contemporary literature is certainly not academic, after reading Americanah by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I realized that what I mentioned above is a real possibility. The protagonist, after an extended stay in the United States, goes back to her home country of Nigeria because she feels she can better serve the women there (not in any fiscal or medical way, but simply by promoting confidence and self-identity). This goal of hers was admirable, and is representative of what internationalization can do. Others, who study abroad in medicine or business or other influential careers, can have a significant impact on the development of a town, city, region, or country. Again, call me an idealist, but that is a type of internationalization I can get behind.