The American Council on Education’s report, “Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide”, provided a deep dive into the ways in which countries implement their internationalization efforts. Unsurprisingly, a main reason for internationalization is economic: for outgoing students, internationalization helps them gain language skills and cultural competency to prepare them for work in a global economy, whereas incoming students provide a large economic boost to the local community. Additionally, the report also discussed the academic, political, and social/cultural motivations for internationalization, which include increasing international academic rankings, building up “soft power”, and increasing mutual understanding, respectively.

What struck me as most interesting was the report’s assertion that there needs to be “…a fundamental need to shift the focus of internationalization toward the non-mobile majority of students” (Helms, Rumbley, Brajkovic, & Mihut, 2015, pp. 2). I couldn’t agree more. From my (admittedly anecdotal) experience as an undergraduate at UW-Madison, a large public research university, which ranks as one of the top 10 universities and colleges in the U.S. in the number of students who study abroad, the majority of students who studied abroad came from middle class or affluent families. I imagine the main reason for this was the financial burden study abroad can place on low-income (and even many middle class) students and their families. At Hunter College, where I work, there is not a large culture of study abroad, except for in the honors programs like the Macaulay Honors College, which I would speculate is also directly related to affordability issues, rather than a lack of interest.

This needs to be addressed on a national level through increased funding and other initiatives if the United States wants increase its internationalization efforts, which, as Green showed last week, lag behind other countries. I’d like to see the U.S. implement a program like Russia’s Global Education Program (GEP), which “…awards scholarships to graduate-level students for degree study outside Russia, and requires them to work for the Russian government immediately after completing the program” (Helms, Rumbley, Brajkovic, & Mihut, 2015, pp.27). Not only would this help students study abroad who otherwise might not have the option to do so, it would also provide them a job after graduation using the skills they learned while living abroad.

While I am definitely in support of increased government funding for internationalization efforts, I noticed that, at least as it relates to outgoing students, this funding is only reserved for citizens or those with a legal residency status. Given the global refugee crisis — which ballooned to 60 million people in 2014 and likely rose considerably more in 2015 — governments should make it a priority to help undocumented students also be recipients of internationalization efforts. In the U.S., this can be as easy is allowing DREAMers — many of whom have been in this country since they were young children — the ability to apply for federal financial aid to finance their education, both at home and abroad.

The last point I wanted to touch on was that, according to the ACE report, a good proportion of the funding for students (both incoming and outgoing) is dedicated to those pursuing STEM disciplines. While these fields are of course very important, it is also important to encourage students to develop skills in liberal arts disciplines as well. According to a report from the Association of American Colleges & Universities, “74 percent of business and nonprofit leaders say they would recommend a twenty-first century liberal education to a young person they know in order to prepare for long-term professional success in today’s global economy.” Skills like critical thinking, cross-cultural communication, the ability to solve complex problems, and the capacity for continual learning are seen as more important than a specific major. Internationalization efforts should be expanded to include more support for liberal arts disciplines.

It is encouraging to see how much is being done to promote internationalization around the world. I hope we continue to see internationalizations efforts despite Altbach and De Wit’s warning that nationalism and global conflicts might impede this growth.