Posted on by Victoria Tsang

W5 – Yes, We Know Quality Assurance is Important

This week’s reading continues to touch upon the importance of having a shared strategic plan between the national government and the institutions and also includes an analysis on various governance models that exist in higher education governance around the world. As mentioned in the OECD report, ensuring the quality of the outcomes of internationalization efforts for all parties involved (students, faculties/staff, institutions, governments, local communities, etc.) should be a priority of the decision-makers. The report focuses on what institutions should consider in various issues and aspects of internationalization of higher education, and for the most part, ensuring that any decision made towards internationalization efforts should be analyzed to see what the benefits and risks are. Even though that seems obvious, I think there is definitely a possibility that in efforts to catch up to institutions that are in the lead, some institutions may fall prey to all the various trends that may or may not be a good fit for that particular institution.

In particular, when it comes to recruiting more international students (which, in the US, definitely seems to be one of the go-to methods of internationalization, but probably more for financial reasons), the OECD pushes for a global effort to ensure quality education and the need for institutions and governments to evaluate the education offered to international students (which would subsequently lead to benefitting their local students I hope). With the continual chase to turn students into global citizens ready to tackle global issues in collaboration with other around the world through internationalization of higher education, it makes sense why the OECD report (class reading) highlights in multiple cases that working with the government and also finding the best fit institutions in other countries to form networks and collaboration relationships to generate new knowledge is ever more important for institutions looking to provide more in terms of helping their students and the institution become more globally competent and viable.

Specifically in regards to international students, the UK compiled a study on international student satisfaction to better inform the UK institutions on areas to improve and what strengths to continue to hone. In a majority of the measures of the study, UK institutions ranks number one and has seen an increase in satisfaction when compared to previous years. But despite the high level of satisfaction, there’s a stagnation in international student enrollment at UK institutions as compared to the US and Canada, which have seen a increase in international student enrollment. But it’s not entirely surprising because the study also found that the UK does not seem to utilize education agents as much to recruit students. And as mentioned in class discussions, the US, in particular, has increasingly utilized education agents (even providing commission fees) to continually increase its international student population, which might allude to why there’s been an increase in international student enrollment at US institutions. While the article goes on to suggest that maybe the UK should make more use of education agents to recruit more international students, I think the UK’s focus on ensuring its students get a quality education and experience is a better focus.

Posted on by Zeline Santana · 3 Comments

W6, Course Equivalencies & Joint Programs

International Higher Education Partnerships: a global review of standards &, Practices & Process for Screening and Authorizing Joint and Double Degree program presented many ways institutions can establish program administration, good management, and transparency that will allow internationalization to thrive in their schools. I think the section “Ongoing Support and Engagement” is very important in internationalization because both are needed for acceptance in the local and campus community. I believe through this example it establishes the promotion of international higher education as well as other factors that surrounds it, like budgeting and finance. In A Process for Screening and Authorizing Joint and Double Degree Programs, Rice University’s associate vice provost for academic affairs talked on concerns of dual and joint programs. I think overall this is why faculty members may not agree with internationalization and its quality because it is said that these programs are poor in content.

ACE report in Mapping International Joint and Dual Degrees: U.S. Program Profiles and Perspectives that “Program enrollment is notably skewed toward non-U.S. students. Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of programs enroll only students from the partner country, while about one third enroll a mix of U.S. and foreign students. Just 4 percent of programs included in the survey enroll only U.S. students.” If you think of this in a mobility prospective non-American students would be the customers of dual or joint programs. What might be missing is inter-campus mobility within the U.S, however, the true issues with joint and dual degrees is the money spent on U.S dual- joint programs that at least in internationalization non-American students are using. In addition, academic issues for dual and joint programs arise with course equivalencies and teaching methodologies are challenge. Students who do participate in these programs need approved course equivalencies to obtain transfer credits and/or to start an academic career in the U.S. This particular report states that “In nearly all areas, joint degree programs are perceived as more challenging to implement and sustain than are dual degree programs.” Joint programs are challenged, however, with funding, legal or regulatory issues, as well as, safety abroad. Course equivalencies are the number one academic challenge student’s face at 66%.

ACE report in Mapping International Joint and Dual Degrees: U.S. Program Profiles and Perspectives: http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Mapping-International-Joint-and-Dual-Degrees.aspx

International Joint and Dual Degree Programs: Issues and Challenges

Posted on by m.parsowith · 1 Comment

W6, Blog 6: Melissa Parsowith (Article Response)

I enjoyed reading this weeks article, titled International Higher Education Partnerships: a global review of standards and practices. In this piece, the American Council on Education tackles the broad subject of how institutions can become engaged on a global level, specifically through key partnerships. Although it is widely acknowledged that schools in the 21st century must join the global higher education community in order to remain competitive, the very real challenge still remains of how this can be successfully accomplished. Although institutions make strides through outlets such as exchange programs, study abroad programs and offering international joint/collaborative degrees, there are still many hurdles to overcome in this field. In an effort to address best practices for international practices and programs, the ACE determined that there are a few common themes which collectively address practical strategies and good practices for program administration and the promotion of international higher education. These include, but are not limited to: an emphasis on transparency and accountability, commitment and engagement from faculty and staff, the promise of quality assurance and continuous improvement, as well as strategic planning and strong institutional leadership. Each of these attributes contribute towards the goal of a more stable and secure future for international programs. Additionally, the ACE reflects upon the cultural, ethical and assessment challenges involved in determining best practices. Although there is not one solution to all of these concerns, the ACE does a great job of pinpointing potential issues and suggesting ways in which the field can overcome/address them.

In A Process for Screening and Authorizing Joint and Double Degree Programs, Rice University’s associate vice provost for academic affairs, Arnaud Chevallier, delves deeper into institutional partnerships. In his article, he asserts that while joint and double degree programs are attractive to colleges, they are also difficult to implement and poorly understood by the masses. A double (or dual) degree program is one which “students receive a separate diploma from each of the participating institutions” (p.35). A joint degree program is one which “students receive a single diploma representing work completed at two or more institutions” (p.35). At Rice U, they have begun to use a formal screening and authorization process for these types of degrees in hopes of alleviating some of the issues and concerns attached with joint and double degree programs.

In both of the readings from this week, there has been an emphasis on strategic relationship-building techniques. Whether a school is looking to initiate new practices and policies for promoting internationalization, or is looking to streamline the process in which they accept joint/double degrees, it all comes down to mutual collaboration and communication in order to achieve the desired outcome. In another article I read by a Professor at Bentley University, she discussed the many benefits and challenges associated with international dual degree programs. Although there will always be difficulties in these types of processes, I think it is inevitable that they are going to continue to exist, so it is extremely important that we read these types of pieces in order to gain a better understanding.

Posted on by m.fernandez

W-5 Melissa Fernandez

In this weeks reading, sustainability and quality issues  for off shore campuses mentioned the huge financial responsibility campuses must undergo when deciding to create an off shore campus. An institution must have a lengthy time period that they wish to have an off shore campus as the initial financial burden is not seen to become of value until years later. Things that must be taken into consideration is funding for the campus and if the home campus is responsible or if they will be self sufficient, even though when starting this is not the case. In regards to the quality, most host and home institutions would like the accreditation of the home institution but the issue is being able to ensure the off shore campus can reach that same quality. It is mentioned that home campuses have little trust in programs that are offered at the off shore campus if the same programs are not offered at the home campus. I think this says a lot about the institution if they are unable to trust their off shore campus with their own programs. If this is the case in the strategic plan for the off shore campus they should be confined to only teach programs that are offered at the home country so their is not lack of trust. Language also comes into play if the host campus has another primary language than the home campus. This could provide a barrier for students who are coming from the home country to study abroad or if the home campus requires the off shore campus to teach their campuses in their native language. Lastly, faculty is a concern because there is a fear the faculty may not have the same educational background as those of the home country. I am willing to assume that this means they fear the educational background is less than those of the home country. This reading reminds me of our Altbach and Green articles we read the first week of class. I find this article very one sided as there could be faculty who have just a good background or better than those from American universities. Also, other readings have mentioned that not many countries feel that America has a top ranked education so though we feel out of shore campuses may lack in faculty with a strong educational background, that is just an opinion and not a fact. There are many countries and faculty who have studied outside of the U.S. that could qualify to teach at an off shore campus.

Posted on by Zeline Santana

In Class, Make Up Week-10

Last night we met Lynne Patterson who serves as a Pro Mujer Ambassador throughout the United States. My comments on her speech regarding her journey of being Pro Mujer is very important to internationalization. I think her job in increasing women self-confidence in Bolivia aides’ international higher education. After her speech, I wanted to look deeper into the role of the U.S. and women in international higher education; I found that Empowering Women Worldwide by the Institute of International Education is committed to increasing opportunities for women like Lynne Patterson. In class we have spoken a lot on how the U.S is far behind in “internationalization” but it looks like the U.S looks to build partnership that will grant access worldwide (whether it is in the U.S or in their home countries). The Institute of International Education has offices through the states, but also in Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Similar to Lynne’s focus they provide women with assistance in obtaining higher learning in their society. The Higher Education Readiness Program, in Ethiopia is one example. This program provides young women in secondary school from undeserved communities with a pathway to university. A new three-year pilot project and the exposure they need to prevail as women in their society.

Link: http://www.iie.org/en/What-We-Do/Global-Leadership-Development/Empowering-Women-Worldwide