The first article named An analytical framework for the cross-country comparison of higher education governance aims to categorize the different types of higher education governance, mostly in Europe, in order to better track changes in organizational structures and policy trends.  The authors describe three major organizational types including state-centered, the Humboldt method, which is an academic focused “community of scholars,” and marketization.  In the state-based model, the state has much of the power, leaving the institution with low autonomy on issues such as curriculum, funding, and staffing.   In the self-governing community of scholars model, institutions are often referred to as Ivory Towers, professors have most of the power, and there is a strong emphasis on academic freedom and self-regulation.   The market-oriented model relies on market forces and views higher education as a commodity and competition ensures quality and innovation.  In this model, university management makes a majority of the decisions, yet the students, who are viewed as customers, also play a role.

The next reading, Approaches to Internationalisation and Their Implications for Strategic Management and Institutional Practice talks about different types of internationalization, the benefits and challenges of each type, and provides suggestions for successful institutions.  Some of these internationalization initiatives include strategies that we have talked about before such as off-shore campuses, networks, and information and computing technology (ICT).  However, this reading looks at internationalization from an institutional perspective and provides suggestions for institutions, rather than strictly taking a governmental policy point of view.  Some of the overarching themes include the importance of having a balance between cultural sensitivity and maintaining quality, and aligning government motives, goals, and objectives with those at the institutional level.  For example, off-shore campuses, also referred to as branch campuses, can be risky, so they need a well-thought out business plan.  Suggestions for institutions include starting small and making sure sufficient funding is available.

Another topic that I think is crucial for attracting international students to your campus is to have sufficient infrastructure, support systems, and culturally sensitive staff to address the unique needs of international students.  Henard, Diamond, and Roseveare write, “Mismatches and misunderstandings in their respective expectations and needs/requirements can create a fundamental gap between students and academic staff” (p 25).  This is why it is important for colleges and universities to provide students with as much information as possible before they start classes. Many international students socialize only with other international students, but wish they had better methods of meeting Americans.  It is often the responsibility of the staff to facilitate programs that aid students with their integration into campus life.

Many universities have started programs that help international students and American students get to know each other.  One example is at Juniata College in Pennsylvania where they have an option for students to participate in a program before orientation where students form groups based on shared interests such as outdoor activities.  The dean of international students writes, “Our idea is that when international students come to campus, they should be thrust into interaction with domestic students as quickly as possible, so they don’t bond and form their own cohorts within [their cultures].”  Institutions should be prepared to address both the academic needs, including language barriers, preparedness, and different approaches to teaching as well as social needs of international students, including engagement and cultural adjustment assistance.