Posted on by Ben Levine

W5- Governance Models

As I read the Dobbins piece, I initially had a little difficulty relating governance and internationalization. I wasn’t sure why the professor would choose this as a reading since it seems like something that would be assigned in the history of higher education class. As I kept reading, though, I started to understand the importance of institutional governance and how it connects to internationalization. The three governance models that Dobbins discusses can have significant influences on how a college promotes both internationalization and ‘internationalization at home.’

The ‘state-centered model’ places the majority, if all, authority in the hands of state government. The members of the board, who are usually appointed and not elected, plus the president, ultimately make all the major decisions that affect an individual institution or a system of institutions. The priorities of the colleges are determined by the state, and so are operations and quality assessment. This model removes a lot of the autonomy institutions would normally have, which, as one can imagine, creates a lot of friction between college and government. An approach like this exists in Connecticut, where all public higher education institutions are under the jurisdiction of the state. Called Transform CSCU (Connecticut State Colleges & Universities) 2020, this model aims to standardize almost everything, much to the chagrin of the college presidents, the boards, and especially the faculty.

I have a feeling that internationalization would be overlooked in a model like this. Budgeting and academic services are probably way higher on the list of priorities than study abroad programs and concepts that do not directly impact the stability of the institutions, such as internationalization at home. If budgeting is in the hands of the state, it is even possible that internationalization could be negatively impacted. I could easily imagine the state moving money around and dismantling or severely reducing the funding of  the existing programs.

The second model is ‘academic self-rule.’ This provides much more freedom to the faculty, but it also decentralizes authority and can potentially result in mismanagement and inaction. Allowing faculty to make their own decisions seems beneficial enough, especially since they are at the ‘center of the college,’ but they are not professional administrators. Faculty are known for being slow-moving, and that can be quite detrimental to the running of an institution. Still, there is a better chance that internationalization will be advocated for, since there are undeniable benefits to becoming global citizens and learning about other cultures. The only problem would be to determine whether or not a program would be efficiently managed; however, the research we looked at in class indicates that most SIOs previously held or currently hold faculty positions. If that’s the case, then internationalization would thrive much more with this model.

According to Dobbins, the last model is ‘market-oriented.’ This is the approach that we always debate about- should institutions of higher education be run like businesses. This means that students are the clients or customers, which is a potentially dangerous way of thinking because it could compromise the quality of education the students would receive. Usually competition encourages progress and higher quality because the colleges need to attract new students. Better housing, sports facilities, dining services, and other amenities are always thrown in the faces of prospective students as they walk around campuses (you rarely hear about the hiring of great professors). Internationalization may thrive in this environment, too, because study abroad programs are one more way to make a college more appealing. Great. But it almost seems dirty. Does the institution actually care about internationalization or does it just want to collect more tuition money? That may be a skeptical way of looking at things, but internationalization should exist for genuine reasons, not just as a recruitment ploy.

As one can see, depending on the model a college adopts, internationalization can fare differently. Unfortunately, there are so many factors to consider when running a school that  both internationalization and internationalization at home fall to the wayside. As we have learned, sometimes it is up to a charismatic individual to change an institution’s view of the worth of internationalization. Let’s find those people!

 

Links

Transform CSCU 2020

http://www.ct.edu/transform

Posted on by e.truong

W4- Private Funding of International Higher Ed.

International higher education re-emerged on the national policy platform during the Obama administration. As noted in the ACE report on national policies and initiatives, President Obama announced an initiative in 2009 that will encourage 100,000 US students to study abroad in China and to learn Mandarin by 2014. In 2013, the 100K Strong Foundation was created as an independent non-profit by the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to oversee this initiative. Not only has the initiative achieved its goal of sending 100,000 students to study in China in the Summer of 2014, but President Obama has announced a new goal of sending 1 million students to study abroad in China by 2020 during a state visit with President Xi this past September. Travis Tanner, the senior vice president and chief operating officer of the 100K Strong Foundation comments “create a pipeline of China-savvy employees in a range of fields…ensure our trade relationship with China continues to benefit the American economy and that the future generation of American entrepreneurs, business owners, journalists, engineers, scientists, doctors, as well as government officials at both the national and state levels, understand China”. The focal motivation of this initiative is train the next generation in helping to build better trade relations with China in the future. This motivation is even more clear when looking at the Foundation’s supporters. Wal-Mart, Ford, Coca Cola, WanXiang Group(US-based company specializing in auto parts) and Caterpillar(specializing in construction vehicles) are all major trading partners with China, and would hope to benefit the most if the next generation of workers are equipped with Mandarin proficiency and chinese cultural appreciation.

 

There is no doubt that financing international higher education initiatives are expensive. Policies and programs that especially support students mobility require massive amounts of funding to subsidize the scholarships and financial incentives that attract students to these programs. As the report identifies, many of these efforts have been stalled due to the lack of federal funding and congressional support. As the ACE reports mentions, even long-standing programs such as the Fulbright Fellowship has been threatened with federal funding cuts, which could determine the viability of the program.Therefore, initiatives and non-profit organizations are finding other sources of funding for their programs and are not depending of the federal government for funding. As the 100K Strong Foundation did, corporations became private supporters of the foundation. Sources like Foreign Policy question the intentions of China and its supporting companies in subsidizing these initiatives because China might be receiving political favors in return. However, I hope that private international corporations continue to support international higher education because ultimately, these students will help to make their workforce and company better in the future where both the US and China will mutually benefit.