The OECD report discusses strategic policies that should be both initiated as well as kept up by the government and the institutions. The most up to date policies are focused on student mobility, international research and education as an import industry. The report also discusses how issues may arise when trying to implement and upkeep  these policies  things to do to be prepared for challenges. An eye-catching part of the report is the mentioning of the ICT implementation due to the rapid growth of the internet and web-based sharing. It is displayed as a positive as well as a negative aspect of international higher education model. It ties in very closely to ethics and values of information sharing as well as regulating ownership of ideas. Hence further displaying that it is important to have governments all over the world to come together on certain issues to make a global policy. Furthermore, the report also shines a light on how important it is to sustain the right professors with changing rules being moving the schools to another country and or ICT learning because they are the ones that will be providing knowledge for the new class of graduates.

Another reading suggests changes in higher education governance in Europe. This allows seeing changes that European higher education policies are facing. Discussing how higher education has shifted to a more buissness like managerial structure. There have been three identified models. The “market-oriented” model, “state-centered model” and “academic self-rule model”. Each model displays their own self intrests. All this just seems to show that higher education, as well as internationalization, is skewing to a more business perspective. At the end of the day the OECD report as well as cross- country comparison of higher education is showing that the higher education system is becoming more business-like. According to Times magazine, this is not a new phenomenon. Dating back to the 1970s policy’s makers began to view higher education as a private good than a public good that will help the nation as a whole. Hence, the report for education showing a more managerial structure is not new because the education system is being treated as well as run technically like a corporation.

The theme I was most interested about from this week’s readings was the increasing marketization of global higher education governance.  While this trend makes sense within the broader trend of globalization, I am curious as to how a more market approach to higher education will work in countries that historically have much different governance structures.

In the article An analytical framework for the cross-country comparison of higher education governance, the authors Dobbins, Knill, and Vogtle’s discuss the historical governance structures of higher education in Europe. The three main types of governance in European higher education institutions include:

• the state-centered model, which originated in countries like France, Spain, Portugal, Turkey, and many formerly-communist Eastern European countries, which “conceives universities as state-operated institutions” (670). Under this model, “universities are understood as rational instruments employed to meet national priorities” (670). Admission requirements, curriculum, exams, and hiring of academic personnel and administrative staff are directly coordinated by the state.
• the university as a self-governing community of scholars (the Humboldt model), which was established in Germany, Austria, and other post-communist countries. This type of governance is modeled off of Humboldt’s principe of Lern and Lehrfreigeit, which translates to “freedom of teaching and learning” (671). Under this model, the governance structure is centered around a strong faculty self-regulation model with weak university management. However, the university is almost entirely dependent on state funding, so there is a significant level of collective bargaining between the two.
• the market-orientated model contends that “universities function more effectively when operating as economic enterprises within and for regional or global markets” (672). Governance-wise, most of the power is concentrated among the university management/administration, who see themselves as “the role of a producer and entrepreneur” who provide a service or commodity to students (672). This structure revolves around competition, entrepreneurship, and accountability, and it is most commonly associated with Anglo-American colleges and universities.

While Dobbins, Knill, and Vogtle point out that it is virtually impossible for a HE institution to follow one model purely, most countries do skew towards one over the others. However, in an era of higher education internationalization and the subsequent breakdown of geographical, political, and economic barriers, the authors point out that the market approach is becoming increasingly common, and countries who countries who have historically adopted alternative governance structures will have to adapt if they want to remain competitive and continue to attract students from their home countries and abroad.

However, that is easier said than done. This article made me think about my experience as a student in Paris in 2009. The program I did through CIEE (in theory) partnered with Parisian universities, so the majority of my coursework should have taken place there. Almost immediately when I arrived, however, it was quickly clear that would not be the case. Thousands of French students and faculty went on strike, protesting then-President Sarkozy’s market-based reforms to the French university system, which included tuition hikes, job cuts, and a change in governance structures that would give university presidents much more power. The French higher education and research minister Valérie Pécresse told The Guardian, “‘The reforms are necessary to improve the way French universities work.” The article continued, “She has previously argued that reforms are necessary to improve the competitiveness of French universities, which are lagging behind internationally.” With no end in sight to the strikes, my program had to take quick action, so they arranged a new curriculum for us that was based entirely at the CIEE campus. As I’m sure you can imagine, this was incredibly frustrating since the whole reason I chose this program was because of its emphasis on immersing students in French university life.

This example demonstrates the tension many historically state-centered and Humboldt modeled universities will face as the market approach to higher education continues to increase globally. As an American student, I couldn’t help but think that the protesters were being a bit unreasonable. Of course, I was used to a market-based model, where education is a commodity. I was used to paying incredible sums for my education. However, for countries who have traditionally had a much more egalitarian approach to higher education, these kinds of reforms are quite the shock to the system. As one French student explained, “They are trying to make the university into a place for the elite, the American way.”

This article only applied to European countries, but I expect many other non-Western countries will face similar challenges as France as the market approach to higher education continues to become more prevalent.

Will the United States ever have a national policy on Internationalization? It appears the benefits of such a policy would benefit citizens and employers in the United States to a great extent where all would benefit from becoming more globally aware. Employers want more globally educated people and students seem to want to be more global, but many students lack the finances to make that dream a reality. If there is a need in our economy, and a want in our students, then why is more not being done to bring this dimension of education to a reality? The reading this week clearly states that the desire to get internationalization off the ground in a more profound way is important for many and would benefit many. So what are the road blocks and how do we overcome them? Will we ever be able to overcome them? The answer does not seem to be an easy one. Many initiatives need funding and that in itself is as complicated as the higher education system in the United States is. This is not a negative remark, but rather a compliment to the US Higher Ed system, because it shows that it is not controlled by the government. With that said, initiatives still need funding in order to be successful. A simple solution would appear to be to have a collaboration between government and institutions as well as businesses to produce this funding in a way that all would benefit, which usually comes in the forms of tax cuts. If the government wants the businesses to pay, tax cuts may work, but if the businesses want the institutions to pay, tax cuts may not work. And if the institutions want the government to pay, then taxes will go up for someone.
Another side to the U.S.” in bound” internationalization is the issue with visa’s and job placements for international students studying here. If the idea of internationalization is to find the best of the best worldwide and educate them here, it would make sense that we would want to employ them here or somewhere within American companies. But it seems that many students are unable to stay in the U.S. and that the competition and price for American companies to try and sponsor our scholars is a difficult one. So where is the benefit of internationalization within our own borders if it is not benefiting our own economy? It is coming clear to me, why the U.S. does not have internationalization as a priority.