The ACE report named Internationalizing U.S. Higher Education: Current Policies, Future Directions talked about various trends that were unique to the US. For example, because there is no Ministry of Education and the U.S. has a decentralized education system throughout all levels, federal policies regarding internationalization in higher education are rare. Instead, internationalization initiatives are created and supported by various departments within the national government. As one would imagine, the Departments of State, Education, and Defense all have very different motives for funding internationalization programs, but as the reading pointed, economic motives, national security, and public diplomacy are among the most popular.
In addition to the various players on the policy level, the US has a large higher education system made up of diverse institutions. As the reading notes, even if the federal government did get involved with internationalization policies nationwide, it would be nearly impossible, “to create a national policy that has enough specificity to be meaningful and go beyond generalities, but is still broad enough to be applicable across all institutions” (p 32). Although overarching policies are difficult in the US, the policies that are in place have some commonalities with global trends. For example, like most of the world, US programs focus on student mobility in order to prepare students for a more globalized world.
Although comprehensive cross-border internationalization strategies receive minimal regulation and support from the federal government, there are various initiatives at the institutional level such as direct institutional partnerships. The reading calls these internal initiatives “foreign relations” policies. Since incentives to internationalize are not tied to government initiatives, they often come from desires to keep up and compete with peer institutions. In fact, a report by the International Association of Universities notes, “At many institutions, internationalization is now part of a strategy to enhance prestige, global competitiveness and revenue” (p 3). It got me thinking: Could the resulting competition among US colleges and universities help internationalization in the absence of strong federal initiatives?
Although this article is not talking strictly about the United States, many of the arguments can still apply to a US context. Knight talks about the importance of defining the various rationales driving internationalization in higher education. Many of the emerging rationales are at the institutional level including “International Profile and Reputation,” “Income Generation,” and “Strategic Alliances” (Knight 2004 p 4). Although these motives could be spurred by national policies, they may not be. They show that, purely academically focused reasons (education for education’s sake), are not the only realistic motivations encouraging internationalization.
The challenge is to use this competition for good, to produce productive results. As the following quote notes, since a broad internationalization strategy is not feasible in the US, instead of starting from scratch and asking a decentralized system to unite for a goal that really does not fall under a particular department’s purview, perhaps they should use the existing system to their advantage. ACE writes, “As more institutions formalize their commitment to internationalization, federal agencies need to understand and articulate how their policies and programs fit into and reinforce institutional internationalization initiatives, and how the government and institutions can work together to advance their respective and collective goals” (p 35). The coordination and harmonization of national and institutional goals in the US is a good starting point for the federal government in the absence of a singular national policy. The government could also step in to prevent some negative consequences that come with widespread internationalization including homogenization of languages and systems (IAU 2012). As the IAU notes, promoting integrity, socially responsible behaviors, and cooperation over obsession with prestige are crucial to the success of higher education. US government policies can focus on regulation rather than straining resources to create a one-size-fits-all program model for the US.
References
International Association of Universities. (April 2012). Affirming academic values in internationalization of higher education: A call for action. Retrieved from: http://www.aieaworld.org/assets/docs/Additional_Resource_PDFs/iauaffirmingvalues.pdf.
Knight, J. (2004). New rationales driving internationalization. The Boston College Center for International Higher Education. (34). Retrieved from: https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cihe/pdf/IHEpdfs/ihe34.pdf.