One thing I’ve noticed this semester is that in order to be successful in the international higher education market, a country needs to have (relatively) open boarders, liberal immigration policies, and a market economy (or, at least be moving in that direction). Thus, successful internationalization requires countries to roughly follow a typically Western model of governance in the higher education realm and also in the broader organization of their political institutions. Other models of education or governance are seen as outdated, backward, or, at the very least, incompatible with being suitable for internationalization.

This week’s reading — especially the ACE reading, reinforced this. An example can even be found in the way internationalization is implemented “at home” through the curriculum:

“While it is encouraging that many institutions report that they are engaged in initiatives to internationalize the undergraduate curriculum, the data raise some concerns about depth versus breadth. Certainly courses that address global issues are important, and their increasing prevalence in general education requirements is a positive development. However, foreign language instruction and other courses that primarily feature non-U.S. perspectives provide important background and cultural knowledge to contextualize the broader content covered in global issues courses” (ACE, 2012, pp. 12).

While American students are learning about global issues, they are primarily learning about them through a U.S. lens. This is important because it means students aren’t really learning about other cultures — rather, they learn about how those cultures fit into a wider world order dominated by American/western values and political systems. To me, an easy analogy is a political scientist trying to explain global affairs having only focused on international relations at the expense of comparative politics. You can’t understand the broader picture until you’ve done a more specific deep dive into other countries and cultures.

I would speculate that this is a big reason why American students have a hard time integrating into the local cultures when they study abroad. A big part of this is the language issue; very few Americans are proficient in a language other than English. According to an article in Forbes, “18% of Americans report speaking a language other than English, while 53% of Europeans (and increasing numbers in other parts of the world) can converse in a second language.” Thus, the challenge in internationalization for American universities is to make sure American students are up to speed about the culture and history of the place they’re going, as well as have a working understanding of how to communicate in a language other than English. Unfortunately, as the ACE reading showed, this preparation is still sorely lacking in U.S. undergraduate curriculums.

This U.S./western-dominated approach to internationalization is also a big concern for non-western countries, as discussed in the IAU reading. “For African respondents, the dominance of a ‘western’ epistemological approach is seen as the second most important societal risks [with internationalization], while in the Middle East, respondents view the loss of cultural identity as the second most important societal risk” (IAU, 2014, pp. 10). In order to integrate into other cultures, students who come from non-western countries must adopt so-called “international” values (which are very rooted in western thought). Likewise, in order to attract international students to their countries, their universities must also reflect this “international” mindset, which often may differ from their own cultural and national traditions.

While I am optimistic about internationalization in higher education in the long run, there are still many challenges that need to be addressed before internationalization efforts can become truly international. In a U.S. context, more attention needs to be paid to creating a truly international and diverse curriculum that looks at different cultures in their own terms, rather than through just a U.S. lens, as well as also places more emphasis on mastering another language.

An interesting aspect to internationalization that is controlled by the U.S. government is H1-B Visa’s. The import of international students to many U.S. universities at the undergraduate level, the graduate level and the post graduate level brings much positive financial income to a school. Students across the globe come to school in America for one primary reason. To secure a job. This is the reason why most students anywhere go to school, but for international students studying in America, the promise of a job in America is a big drive factor for them. For international students to be able to stay in America to work beyond their years of CPT – Curricular Practical Training – which they are only allowed to participate in if they are enrolled in school and then OPT – Optional Practical Training, which they are allowed to do for one year after their studies are complete, the next step is to be sponsored by a company in the hopes of obtaining a H-1B visa that will allow them to work for longer in the U.S.

The process of obtaining an H-1B visa for U.S. companies is getting more difficult. This year employers filed approximately 236,000 petitions for H-1B’s for the 2017 fiscal year. This is 3000 more than FY2016. Only about one-third of the petitions get selected through a lottery process. Some feel this outdated process hurts the U.S. workforce by missing out on highly talented individuals.

Companies themselves are giving up on applying for the visas because of the low chance of being selected, being turned down in the past so many times and the cost that comes with the application. Companies that have 50 or more staff in the U.S,  with 50% or more employees on H-1B visa’s, are required to pay an additional $4,000 on top of the standard application fee.

If change is to come to this program, it will not be until after the next presidential election. In the meantime, this process is hurting internationalization in the United States. If international students are not able to find companies to sponsor them, they will go elsewhere.

Maure, Roy April 13, 2016. 2017 H-1B Cap Filing Set New Record: One third of Petitions chosen for visas. https://www.shrm.org

In the Internationalization of Higher Education: Growing expectations, fundamental values paper, the top aggregate result for prioritizing internationalization activities was ‘outgoing mobility opportunities”.  North America is cited as one of the areas, along with Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean as having student mobility as the most important internationalization activity. But the results show us that in America less than 5% of students actually participate in short term mobility programs. If you factor in non-traditional students who represent about half of the student population in Higher Ed today, most who never participate at all in short term mobility programs, the number drops to less than 3%. Why is the number so low if the push is so strong?

I recently saw on the Baruch website that Ambassador to Japan, Caroline Kennedy, and Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs Evan Ryan were on campus to discuss the importance of study abroad programs at an event hosted by the U.S. Department of State for “Study Abroad: An Investment in Your Future”. The event was geared toward increasing study abroad and the diversity within study abroad programs to reach those students who want to study abroad but do not have the resources to do so. The Director of Study Abroad at Baruch College, Richard Mitten was quoted with saying “In the 21st century world of deeply intertwined global relationships, students need to be able to move easily both within and between cultures”. .

So the want and need is there, but it is still not happening. One of the major reasons indicated in the paper was lack of funding and yet increased funding was mentioned as a positive for most areas. In the 2012 edition of Mapping Internationalization on US Campuses, it is noted that institutional scholarships for studying abroad has increased, and although funding for faculty to go abroad has decreased, funding for faculty to take students abroad has increased. This is a case of win-win for the student and the faculty as well as increasing student mobility.

The need for funding is important and schools need to continuously come up with ideas for funding. In the Mapping Internationalization on US Campuses, it is stressed that strategic programs that focus on how student learning is achieved through study abroad is what will achieve the funding that is needed.