The IAU 4th Global Survey does a wonderful job at the purpose of the survey: the method of conducting it and where the information is sourced from. This survey laid everything out on the table with background information and all. But as with many surveys, depending on the purpose for why it was made can lead to biases. The main one that comes to mind is the participation in the survey and how the results would have been different had more or different types of institutions had participated. As we’ve learned thus far internationalization and the educational state reforms and varies country to country, so it’s not uncommon that the results would in fact be different, on the other hand is it possible that there might not be a large difference, but a difference is a difference. The survey did give us an opportunity to see things at a different outlook.

I have noticed that within higher education is that there is usually a gap in surveys. I don’t like this because a number of things changes in between the years, but one positive thing that does happen (but could also happen is reserve) is that more institutions choose to participate, and with the advancement of technology is this even more possible. This last survey had participants from the usual suspects North America and Europe, but countries like Africa, Asia, counties in the Pacific, Latin American and countries from the Caribbean, and the Middle East were also able to participate.

We would love to think we have made great advances in the way of internationalization as the push for it increases, but the IAU as shed some light on this. Thanks to the survey we see that there have been no real changes in the risk of turning to internationalization, and institutions are still lacking funding to further themselves in the area. It is saddening that money is among the things holding back this movement from potentially reaching the optimal peak of possibilities. Hopefully the small advances we have made can be enough to convince those who are in control to take a second third or fourth look and find the necessary funding in the future.

What I found most interesting in reading the AU Global Survey on internationalization of higher education, was the section on page 10 that detailed the aggregate and regional results from the survey question which asked what countries considered risks of internationalization to institutions and society.

As a whole, respondents perceived that the most significant risk of internationalization for institutions was that international experiences would only be available to students that have the financial means to support international education. A whopping 31% of respondents cited this as a major risk. I dug up a couple articles that speak to the actual cost of study abroad and the perceptions amongst many students that believe spending a semester in another country is only for rich people. There are a number of costs associated with studying abroad however the trend towards diversifying the student body populations that study abroad and creating interest in non-traditional study abroad locations is occurring.

What does it really cost to study abroad? College itself is expensive, and after factoring in plane tickets, visas, room and board, meals, new city transportation the upfront cost may seem hard for a student who doesn’t have monetary support from their families. For the 2012-2013 academic year, the average cost of a semester abroad for a student based in the US was $17,785, according to the Institute of International Education. From what I’ve read it seems that this price tag although very expensive, is not necessarily in addition to what you are already paying for college and it could actually turn out to be the same cost that you would spend ordinarily for college, depending on individual college costs.

Regionally, respondents in Africa and the Middle East cited brain drain as the second most important risk for institutions. I had not heard the term brain drain prior to reading the survey but was familiar with the concept under a different name, human capital flight. I thought it was quite interesting that these two countries regarded brain drain as such a huge risk. According to a World Bank Report, there is a growing move of North African migrant to the Middle East and Europe and of these migrants, 2.9 million people where educated and now live in more developed countries.

It is a frightening situation to lose your doctors, engineers, professors and other skilled professionals to other countries; this can cripple a country. The factors for brain drain are wide-ranging and complex and also depend upon the African country itself. One may be forced to leave a country because of war, political, instability, attraction to better pay, or even an appreciation for a different/western way of life. This movement for African countries is most prevalent in the medical field, and the recent Ebola outbreaks highlighted the doctor shortages. “In 1973, there were 7.76 doctors per 100,000 people in Liberia. This dropped to 1.37 doctors in 2008. In East Africa, Uganda has less than 5,000 doctors and 30,000 nurses for a population topping 35 million people, according to World Health Organization data. Societal risks of internationalization differ region to region but resources as seen in the majority of our readings is always a top concern.

References:

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/16810/WPS6739.pdf?sequence=1

http://qz.com/599140/how-severe-is-africas-brain-drain/

http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.A1444

This week’s reading provided deeper insight into the world of internationalization of Higher Education. In the survey piece by the IAU, they review the highlights of their findings from a global survey which included 1,336 institutions from 131 countries. Something that I initially found interesting was that this is the 4th edition of the survey, conducted almost four years since the previous one, and it garnered almost double the responses since the last edition! Because assessment is something we so regularly discuss in our class, I would be very curious to find out why their participation rates increased so dramatically. They mentioned that over 6,800 institutions were solicited to participate, using an electronic link. I wonder if in the past these surveys were also sent electronically. While the respondents included the most replies on average from regions such as North America and Europe, they also included participation from Africa, Asia & Pacific, Latin American & the Caribbean, as well as the Middle East. Overall, the findings here seemed to be optimistic and congruent to our class discussions. As expected, globalization of higher education continues to grow in importance among institutions across the globe, and targeted academic goals and student mobility remain specific priorities of this broad mission. I was a bit surprised to learn that risks regarding internationalization have remained fairly consistent between this and previous IAU surveys, seeing as the state of international affairs is somewhat rocky. I wasn’t as surprised to learn that there still remains difficulty in assessing foreign programs.

In the “Mapping Internationalization on U.S Campuses” by the Center for Internationalization and Global Engagement, they review their findings after surveying U.S colleges and universities regarding internationalization activities from 2011. This survey was a bit different than those conducted in 2001 and 2006 because they decided to include “special focus” institutions this time, or institutions who “award baccalaureate or higher-level degrees where a high concentration (more than 75%) is a single field or set of related fields.” Similar to the IAU, the overall results from this survey were positive. Once again, it was discovered through the survey that internationalization is advancing. For these institutions, they saw movement in iAh (internationalization at the home campus), strategic partnerships, and an expansion in international student recruitment and staff. I also find it important to mention that while overall the outlook for internationalization is promising, there still lies certain challenges in assessment and student learning outcomes as a whole.

Overall, I was very pleased to read that the internationalization of higher education is headed in a good direction. In this article by Inside Higher Ed, researchers confirm that internationalization is more and more becoming a priority for institutions across the globe. I am very interested to see how this movement plays out over the years to come, especially with the upcoming advances in technology.