Reflecting back on this week’s reading material, it was quite insightful and refreshing. The first two semesters of this program I took public and Non-profit management and Leadership in Higher Education. Both of these courses touched on the practice of developing S. M. A. R. T. goals. Which means goals should be Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely. As a class, we had to set our own individualized goals and illustrate similar goals for a particular business for one of our exams. I thought it was reinforcing to see that S. M. A. R. T. goals was mentioned in the reading pertaining to internationalization strategic planning at institutions. It was quite informative to learn that strategic plans were created in the military, but not necessarily surprising. After reviewing the strategic plan for Baruch College, Rutgers University, The University of Kentucky, and Beloit College, I realize they are not successfully following the action plan of S. M. A. R. T. Although they have a 5 year time frame in which to complete their goals, I feel as though the details are broad and not specific enough. The Strategic Planning for Internationalization in Higher Education article noted the importance of establishing a tight deadline. For example, one of the priorities in Baruch’s global strategic plan is to increase study abroad. Yet, there isn’t a detailed outline explaining how the college anticipates achieving this goal. Although there are bullet points addressing the areas of focus, the plan doesn’t delve into the logistics of the action plan.
In one of the articles, it was stated that higher education institutions typically develop a strategic planning over a 5-7 year span but businesses tend to create new strategic plans either every year or every two years to stay competitive and adaptable to changes in society. I understand that higher education tends to refrain from taking on a business model in certain aspects, but I think this is the major reason why post-secondary education as a whole is not as current as other organizations. Internationalization strategic plans should be updated or re-structured every year or two. I respect Rutgers University for making an effort to revisit their model on a yearly basis to make sure it’s still relevant to their mission and is adapting to outside sources. Maybe all institutions should incorporate that into their strategic planning as well.
Assuming that the principles are listed in order of importance in the Strategic Planning for Internationalization in Higher Education article, principle 6: Focus on the curriculum and student learning should be the first principle. The reading by Jiang and Carpenter explained internationalization has to be integrated into faculty workloads. Before implementing new programs and curriculums that may affect a faculty members personal and holiday days, including them in the beginning stages of the process is essential. I understand faculty may be reluctant to change, but if they were treated as an asset instead of a tool in planning, they would greatly improve international applications and increase students applying to international programs.