February 2016 – Page 7 – International Higher Education @Baruch College

Posted on February 21, 2016February 23, 2016 by Ben Levine · 2 Comments

W3- Hub Initiatives

While the second half of Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide continues to discuss various models of internationalization, one model in particular grabbed my attention. Hubs, which have been sprouting up mostly in Eastern Asia and the Middle East, are relatively new forms of partnerships designed to promote international education. Jane Knight puts it succinctly, describing one as “a planned effort to build a critical mass of local and international actors – higher education institutions and providers, students, research and development centres and knowledge industries – who work collaboratively on education, training, and knowledge production and innovation.” The reading for this week cites three primary examples of hubs, which are located in Ecuador, Singapore, and United Arab Emirates (UAE), but there are also locations in Botswana, Qatar, and Malaysia.

The reason I have decided to comment on hubs is very simple- I had actually heard of them before this class, and quite possibly before I even became interested in higher education. I have little experience myself in international education, never having studied abroad or been exposed to it besides my sister living in Spain for a semester. Despite this distance from internationalization, I somehow got wind of hubs and thought they were fascinating. The extent of my exposure was looking up a few photographs of the hubs and maybe checking out a couple Wikipedia pages, but the concept was interesting and memorable. Of all the myriad models of internationalization, hubs seem to me the most complete and quintessential. Host countries and cities attract various educational institutions from around the world to build branches within a designated zone. This is the epitome of collaboration- countries, institutions, and students all create partnerships with one another, and with the region the hub is stationed.

While investment is not particularly my area of interest, it is an important topic to discuss because it ends up being a key factor of one of the very few criticisms of hubs that both myself and other scholars have (which I will mention in the next paragraph). Jane Knight, an international education researcher, sums up investment strategies quite nicely in her article “Investing in Education Hubs- Local Investment is Key.” As indicated in the title, public funding is essential in order for hubs to survive. For most, if not all hubs, public funding accounts for no less than 50% of funding, and in some cases, covers 100% of funding. In Qatar, the federal government covers all costs, while in other countries and cities, the regional or city government covers costs. In a few hubs, both foreign investment (from the branch institutions themselves) or private investment can sometimes offset costs, but this is never more than 10-20%. It is easy to see that the public is responsible for the maintenance of hubs, which I actually initially found (and still find, to some extent) somewhat surprising. I assumed that the foreign institutions would pay a heftier sum in order to ‘rent’ space in these educational zones because the marketing and exposure seem to be worth investing in. Apparently it is the other way around, and the local governments have to find ways to attract these institutions. Covering most to all costs seems to be a successful way of doing that!

Now to the criticism. I claim that hubs are the embodiment of internationalization, but in one respect, they totally miss the point. Despite excessive local investment, very few students from the region will attend school at the hubs. In Dubai, only approximately 8% of the student population in Knowledge Village and Dubai International Academic City are UAE citizens. This opposes another concept that Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide espouses- internationalization at home. Students who are ‘immobile’ should still have the opportunity to learn how to be global citizens. That being said, it seems unfair that so few locals are able to study at these educational centers. Peter Waring echoes this notion, stating “There appears to be a prevailing sense of frustration with the government’s perceived efforts to attract international students while not providing sufficient places for local students.” That is just a shame. Obsess over international students and forget your own (see the correlation with NYU? Apparently there is a trend in international higher education)! It would certainly be uplifting to see these hubs place more of an emphasis on educating the people of their own regions, but that is probably a tall order.

Links

Jane Knight Article

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20150128085234959

Peter Waring Article

Couldn’t find it for free, but it is cited directly in the reading on page 58.

Posted on February 20, 2016February 20, 2016 by RChoudaha · 1 Comment

W2- Technology and Branch Campuses

I wanted to share couple of my articles related to Oxford report on Trends in International Higher Education. The report highlighted that “International branch campuses are expanding to include non-traditional countries.” It added that

While branch campuses remain a popular facet of institutional international strategies, there have been a number of high profile closures.

In my previous article “International branch campuses get too much attention“, I have argued that branch campuses are infrastructure-intensive efforts that come with high financial and reputational risks and higher education institutions interested in global engagement may also experiment with emerging online learning efforts. These are low-cost, flexible alternative for ‘glocal’ students to potentially earn a foreign credential – ‘glocal’ students aspire to earn an international education or experience without having to leave their home or region.

This directly connects with another trends identified by the Oxford report on technology. While the Oxford report takes a critical view of MOOCs, it does recognizes that “Technology is becoming central to the process of learning and teaching in higher education and, in some countries, is driving wider access to education and training.”

The landscape of internationalization is still shifting with no one size fit all approach, but experimentation with technology is emerging as a new strategy for global engagement.

Feel free to critique/comment on this theme in your future posts.

W3 – Internationalization: Scholar Vs. Student Exchanges

This reading starts out continuing the themes of the first half of the document and defining different types of internationalization policies. It describes comprehensive internationalization strategies including internationalization at home which widens the outputs and impact of international education. These strategies go beyond a singular focus on exchange and embrace a multi-faceted approach including creating partnerships and being prepared to welcome international students on many different levels.

The reading goes on to explain the difficulties in measuring the effectiveness of internationalization policies and concludes by examining factors that affect a policy’s success. One part that I thought was really interesting was the fact that most policies focus on student mobility rather than scholar mobility. The article made a good argument for the investment in and promotion of scholar exchanges. For example, scholars usually stay at an institution for a longer time than students. They also have the ability to impact hundreds or thousands of students through introducing new course material, sharing their firsthand cultural experiences, and promoting international study and travel. Whereas students have a profound personal experience, professors can produce long-term direct and indirect impacts leading by example.

I am sure that policymakers are aware of the multiplier effect of scholar exchanges, so it got me thinking why so many programs focus on students. As the article mentioned, funding is one of the main determinants of success of an exchange program. Students may have a greater need for funding than established scholars. Researchers could receive funding for a project they are working on abroad. Professors may have the option to do a sabbatical abroad and still receive their full or partial salary. In other words, scholars have more funding options for international exchanges that are outside of policies created by national governments, regional entities, and nongovernmental organizations. Additionally, there are more students than scholars, so it makes sense that there are more programs aimed at them. It would be interesting to see the percentage of students compared with the percentage of scholars that benefit from these internationalization policies.

There are numerous benefits to investing in student exchanges. Traditionally aged students are at an age when they are often open to learning about different ways of life. World Education Program, Australia states such individual benefits to students as increased acceptance and understanding, language skills, problem solving skills, personal growth and development, and interest in global issues (WEP 2016). Although these can be personal gains, they are also attributes that create globally minded citizens that will go on to help society as a whole.

Focusing mostly on public diplomacy, the Fact Sheet released by the American Security Project, “Academic Exchange: A Pillar of American Public Diplomacy,” (2013) notes that government funded student changes are a crucial aspect of the US’s long-term, strategic relations with other countries. It notes, “50 percent of the world’s population is younger than 30, constituting a significant potential audience. Building relationships with youth through exchange may pay dividends for the U.S. decades down the line as they assume leadership roles in their countries” (Trost and Wallin p 6). The authors note that alumni of international exchange programs go on to hold leadership positions in their home governments and win Nobel Peace Prizes. Although scholars can reach a wide audience, student exchange represents an investment in human capital for long-term benefits. Both student and scholar exchanges are crucial to comprehensive, multi-faceted internationalization policies.

Sources:

Trost, K. and Wallin, M. (2013). Academic exchange: A pillar of American public diplomacy. American Security Project. Retrieved from: https://americansecurityproject.org/ASP%20Reports/Ref%200135%20-%20Academic%20Exchange%20-%20A%20Pillar%20of%20American%20Public%20Diplomacy.pdf.

WEP. (2016). Benefits of student exchange. World Education Program, Australia. Retrieved from: https://wep.org.au/student-exchange/benefits-of-student-exchange/.

Posted on February 20, 2016February 20, 2016 by Zeline Santana · 2 Comments

W3- U.S and Internationalization in the Middle East

This week’s reading explained the definition of cross-border education and internationalization at home. Cross-border education referenced to the movement of people, programs and research development across borders and how this process aids internationalization through the use of online course work and hybrids-internationally (p.38). The reading explained that cross border education can foster partnerships in the internationalization process and create educational hubs where a “planned effort” and strategic internationalization initiative of engagement in internationalization can be found (p.38). This section also engaged the reader by explaining how cross-border education is meant to encourage the implementation of study abroad programs and regulate its activities. What I found most interesting in this section was United States hopes of starting cross-border education in the Middle East. We can dispute that this won’t be a great idea, however, I have faith that the majority of the Middle Eastern population and those part of the higher education system wish to have peace in their country.

In Jordan, this is the case. Jordan’s universities are in need of joint programs with overseas countries. Personally, I believe the implementation of programs and partnership (with the U.S) may not have an effect on radicalistic activities. Currently, there are 14 European countries who participate in providing partnerships and cross border education in Jordan. Jordan, however, is reluctant to give accreditation for other systems to operate in their country which can be caused by religious tensions and hopes to not increase terror. I believe there are ways that partnership can be created with U.S and Middle Eastern estates. This can be done by assessing policy effectiveness and ensuring the possible outcomes of establishing partnerships with Middle Eastern countries. First U.S must establish what their goals are and make sure those also align with their partners. In addition, the courses and curriculum offered must also align. What I do argue is that there is no motivation in the U.S- politically to make the above happen. This is caused by several differences that have stopped and/or discontinued and challenged their interest.

Lastly, the reading explained that the purpose of internationalization at home is to integrate culture in their curriculum at home. In the reading the policies examples explained that the implementation of linguistics and foreign languages in the U.S were part of internationalization. Even though this is part of internationalization in education (K-12 and higher education) we can argue that it is more so for students to become “global citizens” in their own country rather than expanding their horizons in other countries. The purpose of internationalization at home in the U.S (in my opinion) is for students to understand the U.S diversity and be marketable in the U.S workforce.

Jordan: http://www.mei.edu/content/internationalization-higher-education-jordan
Middle East and U.S challenges: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/going-the-extra-mile-for-a-strategic-us-india-relationship

Posted on February 18, 2016February 18, 2016 by m.parsowith · 2 Comments

W3, Blog 3: Melissa Parsowith (Article Response)

The assigned reading for this week was a thoughtful continuation of “Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide: National Policies and Programs.” The second part of this work discusses additional types of policy types, including: Cross-border Education, IaH (Internationalization at Home) and Comprehensive Internationalization Strategies. Ultimately, the piece closes by revisiting the notion of policy assessment and effectiveness, and then draws final conclusions about the current and future promise of the Internationalization of Higher Education.

The third type of policy, Cross-border education, is introduced as “the movement of people, programs, providers, curricula, projects, research and services across national or regional jurisdictional borders” (p.38). Although cross-border education is sometimes referred to as a offshore, transnational or borderless education, the author stresses that cross-border education is the preferred term because it pays homage to the importance of jurisdictional boundaries regarding policy. The reading also mentions that cross-border education may be motivated by cultivating one’s “soft power”. I wasn’t exactly sure what this meant, but with a little digging, I found out that soft power refers to a persuasive approach to international relations, typically involving the use of economic or cultural influence. Instead of “hard power” which is usually attraction through coercion, soft power refers to the ability to shape others preferences through appeal. Of these efforts, initiatives of cross-border education includes creating educational hubs, fostering cooperation for development, encouraging campuses & programs abroad, and regulating educational activity abroad. I found it very interesting that the U.S has awarded grants to fund institutions with partnering universities in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Personally, the Middle East is the last place I would consider to expand U.S education, considering all of the current world tensions!

The fourth type of policy was IaH, or internationalization at home. While we spend a lot of time reading about implementing internationalization abroad, I found it very interesting to turn the tables and consider IaH for once. The reading mentions that this type remains “a much less deeply or systematically developed aspect of internationalization in many higher education contexts around the world” (p.43). As a student of the United States, I can completely understand this. As we discussed in class, the amount of students we send abroad are in the single digit percentiles. Conversely, the U.S is a huge hub for international learners, specifically in New York City.

The last policy type discussed was comprehensive internationalization strategies. The reading explains these strategies try to consider a more holistic orientation toward internationalization, and determine 2 sub-categories: global strategies and specific geographic strategies. These strategies in general seem to overlap several of the themes we previously read about, including student mobility and strategic partnerships. I liked that in the examples, they included the United Kingdom as an example both of a global and a specific strategy. As the reader, this really helped me identify the differences of these policies and how they can affect the same region differently.

In conclusion, the author reaffirms many things that we learned about the internationalization of Higher education. The piece mentions the central role of government, the importance of mobility, the difficulties of assessment, the importance of influencers, and the dynamic nature of globalization efforts. While effectiveness is namely determined by quantitative factors, something I am most interested in hearing about would be reports where internationalization of higher education is viewed through a qualitative scope. I think it would be very interesting to see research about students who are or have studied abroad, and what they feel the experience has given them that cannot be counted on paper.