The American Council on Education’s report, “Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide” describes that worldwide, nations are investing countless resources into international education. I think they easily make the case for why a study such as this is important. International education policies are often presented in the media independently while no comparison is made to how these policies are similar or different to national policies around the world. The ACE’s analysis seems very valuable to the international education community allowing policymakers and institutional leaders to learn and understand why certain policies are made, how they relate to the political and economic climate of the nation and ways perhaps in which nations can collaborate on policies.
Hans de Wit proposed four categories that drive countries towards higher education internalization, which are academic, political, economic, or cultural objectives. It seems that the economic and political scopes outweigh all others. Especially in the U.S, I have witnessed international students arrive to college campuses with very little to no support for them. The out of pocket costs for these students can be astronomical yet if a student needs assistance to find employment on campus to offset costs, they are often denied assistance. My colleague would often say, if we cannot support these students, why do we take their money?
The political implications for internationalization although not surprising, seem as though students are being used. An example is Russia’s, Global Education Program (GEP) in which graduates are required to attend a select number of schools and then work for the Russian government immediately after graduation. This would prevent students from having the ability to choose their own career path and forfeit vocational freedom which should be one of the rewards of international education.