In this week’s reading, Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide: National Policies and Programs, one of the policies that caught my attention was cross-border education which seemed to be one of the more important policies discussed in the reading. Cross-border education may take a number of forms, including branch campuses and other kinds of physical outposts or the phenomenon may present in virtual (or hybrid) forms, such as via various distance learning modes and MOOCS” (Kinser and Lane 2012; retrieved from IHEW P.39). NYU has a well-established cross-border education system that includes a physical branch campus in Florence, Italy. This partnership avails Florence’s extraordinary cultural resources and its strategic position within Italy and Europe for students to enjoy. As the reading mentioned, there are different motivations for cross-border partnerships that can range from cultivating “soft power”, simplifying cooperation for development, strengthening exchange programs, and providing sources of revenue. Through this partnership a revenue stream has been established, and a intellectual exchange has also been created -lectures and seminars on various campuses, and cyber classes that connect students at various sites by web video for shared lectures. Free entrance into cultural events and exhibits – everyone wins.
As the reading concludes, higher education worldwide has a vested interest in identifying the challenges and opportunities that globalization presents. Some countries have taken more time and invested more money, energy and resources to strategize how they approach their version of internationalization than others. I learned from our first group of readings that in the United States, a private, not-for-profit organization, the IIE, is responsible for our country’s goal of doubling the number of students obtaining international experiences during their degree. This is a phenomenal goal and I hope that this organization will be successful in doing so. I think that individual institutions should aspire to similar outputs for their students and fold study abroad (for more students) into their strategic plans. Although our government does not create policy to enforce and monitor international education, it would be wise as the reading suggests, that institutional leaders everywhere pay attention to experiments being undertaken by colleagues across the globe (P. 63).
Every institution, large or small are constantly looking to create more sustainable and innovative approaches to improve higher education. In seeking to improve internationalization countries will try to be as cutting edge as possible. Approaches to strategy must be customized based on individual countries specific institutional and domestic purposes. I disagree with the reading a bit because it offers a subtle ideological, “kumbaya” rationale in that it urges more national conversations about internationalization and warns nations not work within a vacuum (P. 63). I agree that this would be ideal, however, the counterproductive ways in which each country may or may not follow good practices based on awareness does not matter because we are all in competition with one another. Why share best practices, if you are only concerned that your country is successful? If the U.S. even bothers to expand its insular practices, I think it would only be because they fully recognize that they cannot compete with nations like China.
http://www.nyu.edu/global/global-academic-centers/florence.html
Your post got me thinking about Baruch, actually. You talk a little bit about American institutions promoting globalization and study abroad programs, but I have heard that Baruch does not do much of that. According to classmates who work at the college, the study abroad program is almost nonexistent, and very few students show any interest in it. Sure, it would be great if it could be expanded and given more funding and resources, but does Baruch really need that? Partnerships with other countries and branch campuses are wonderful, but does Baruch and all other colleges need them? According to the Baruch admissions fact page, 55% of students here were born in another country. That means the majority of students have some type of international experience, whether directly or indirectly (many of these students probably came to the U.S. at a young age and experienced the culture of their country of birth through their family interactions). That being said, does a highly diverse institution need a study abroad program to promote internationalization? Walking in the vertical campus of Baruch is like walking in an international airport, so providing more funds for international programs almost seems redundant or superfluous.
Baruch Admissions Fact Sheet
http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/undergrad/ataglance.html
The end of your post I found really interesting. It is true that all the schools are in competition with each other so sharing best practices may level the playing field but you can never duplicate an institution no matter if you know what their best practices are. The faculty, administrators and employees play a huge factor into how those best practices are played out. Many universities share their strategic plans and analysis on best practices and rarely do they find someone who has outdone them with their own plan. In Baruch’s case we are very much an international school but the experience we are giving the students who come from abroad are nothing like the experiences we can give students who are from the U.S. by interacting with those students opposed to actually going to their country and experiencing it first hand. My family is from the Dominican Republic but I was born and raised here in New York. No matter how many Dominicans I am associated with I still could not predict what my study abroad experience was going to be like in the Dominican Republic. There are so many things you miss when you are not fully immersed in the environment.