In the reading, ACE Mapping Internationalization on U. S. Campuses, it introduced comprehensive internationalization and dissected six target areas for initiatives, policies, and programs. The six items in the model included: Articulated institutional commitment, administrative structure and staffing, curriculum and co-curriculum and learning outcomes, faculty policies and practices, student mobility, and collaboration and partnerships. I didn’t find it surprising that there has been a steady decline in associate and specialized institutions in administrative structure and staffing. While doctoral and baccalaureate institutions are likely to have an office, with adequate staffing, dedicated to internationalization, associate institutions do not have the same resources. I am taking a fundraising course this semester and lack of staff generates the same issues within that department. Fundraising and Alumni relations is a rarity in associate institutions because students typically use them as a transition method. Donors have the misconception that institutions like Kingsborough are well funded through the city and state and alumni choose to give donations to the school they end up receiving their bachelor’s degree from. Respectively, I believe small private institutions may have difficulty designating an office or influx of staff to focus on implementing internationalization programs.
Although the reading addresses the significance of building co-curriculum programs and activities on campus and restructuring the professional development of faculty to incorporate internationalization, therein lies a funding discrepancy. For programs and events on campus, would the funding come from the original budget or would a separate budget be developed for international purposes. I predict restrictions and employee pushback for both pathways. Using money from current programming will of course reduce the resources being utilized to fulfill successful events. Fundraising for an international program may work for the first few years of its inception, since donors love giving for innovation, but after a grant runs out, where will the money come from? It would be up to the school to make a budget cut to ensure the program continues. But wouldn’t that mean it wouldn’t have the potential to flourish? We have previously discussed how influential onboard and knowledgeable faculty can be to the success of study abroad programs. However, the reading mentioned workshops on internationalizing the curriculum and funding for travel to conferences declined. How can we expect faculty to make a commitment to internationalization and incorporate it into tenure decisions when financially U. S. institutions cannot provide awards for achievement and necessary professional development to continue learning, teaching and researching abroad.
I did notice a slight disparity between the two readings. The ACE report mentioned foreign language requirement is not enforced for associate and specialized students, which was odd to me because I thought it would be a basic fundamental. Spanish and French are the main languages U. S. students choose to study. However, the IAU Global Survey found that English, Spanish, and Chinese are the fastest growing foreign language courses students are enrolled in globally. If that’s the case, U. S. higher education institutions should remove French and make Chinese and Spanish the main languages available for study. It would make us better candidates for overseas Asian and Latin partnerships. Internationalization is currently used as a revenue source, but the main objective should be on nurturing student learning and develop international competencies that allow students to blend, function, and succeed in a globalized world.
I really enjoyed reading your article this week and I enjoyed how you compared both articles and found something that is quite controversial. If in fact the IAU Global Survey has found that English, Spanish, and Chinese are the fastest growing foreign languages that global students are enrolled in, why are higher education institutions not reacting to this information? I am not saying that French should not be offered (I personally love the language) however, higher education institutions should promote the other languages as those that help to build the global competency that helps students to become internationally aware and equipped with the right languages that will allow them to compete with the best and brightest from around the world. I read an article that is a bit old (2012) where the writer has the same argument I tell myself to console myself when I worry about not being completely proficient in other languages. She says, “English will maintain and grow its dominance, moving from “a marker of the elite” in years past to “a basic skill needed for the entire workforce, in the same way that literacy has been transformed in the last two centuries from an elite privilege into a basic requirement for informed citizenship.” In that same vein, native English speakers should not slack off and should try to learn other languages so that we can better understand each other- language can unite and simultaneously divide.
Article:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorieclark/2012/10/26/english-the-language-of-global-business/#7abeecff2164
I think the discrepancy in terms of most popular languages taken globally, is just that, because it’s a global survey and includes other countries and where their interests lie. But it is also important to note that while it doesn’t seem like Chinese is offered as much as it should be, the U.S. Department of State and Dept. of Commerce has scholarships available to U.S. students to learn a language abroad and a good number of them focus on critical need languages, which include Chinese. Even for more general ones like the Benjamin A. Gilman, there is preference given to students who are studying a critical need language while abroad. And I think there are also increasing numbers of institutions that offer Chinese, but it’s also important to keep in mind that Chinese is a difficult language to master, so finding the right candidates to teach the courses is important too and potentially difficult, unless HEIs look abroad potentially for talent.
It is great to have your perspective on the surveys viewed through the lens of funding/fundraising. The cost of implementing internationalization of an institution is unlikely to have a direct, measureable return on investment. As I stated in a previous comment, additional revenue gained from the tuition of international students is more likely to be used more directly for their support services, rather than it being a funding source for curriculum changes. I liked the connection you made between the lower levels of internationalization at associate level institutions and fundraising challenges. This was a topic discussed in my Higher Ed Finance course. Successful alumni most likely transferred to four year institutions and are more likely to donate to them. I believe that community colleges also lack the name recognition and prestige wealthy donors seek. However, CUNY’s LaGuardia Community College was successful in attracting the attention of donors, as reported in this NY Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/nyregion/at-college-where-alumni-pockets-are-shallow-a-struggle-to-raise-money.html They also received $2 million from Goldman Sachs http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/business/goldman-sachs-contributes-dollar2-million-to-laguardia-community-college.html However, successful fundraising may not result in money for internationalization efforts, as donated funds usually come with restrictions. Funds would either need to be unrestricted (not likely) or be donated specifically for international initiatives. But, as Ms. Johnson stated, any of these potential funds are short term and likely to dry up when interest in new programs wanes. I would be interested in reading the LaGuardia version of the Baruch international strategic plan that we read, to see if the additional funds are eligible for internationalization efforts, and if so, how they are being used.
Hello Adia,
In your post you discuss how funding for internationalization programs can be difficult. HEIs continuously have to come up with ways to fund successful programs as well as look for ways to start up programs. Budget cuts are always necessary but it shouldn’t be at the expense of another program that is serving the students. Administrators will have to continue to look for outside funding i.e. government grants, donors,etc. However my concern is that with outside funding it may determine how the money can be spent, for example money from the government maybe be spent only on foreign language education, since that is an area that the State Dept. focuses on when it comes to internationalization. As we know internationalization of higher education is so much more then foreign language education.