This week I have decided to take on a position of devil’s advocacy to see if we can get a real discussion going. In the Executive Summary: The State of Higher Education 2014, the authors declare that the financial health of HEIs (higher education institutions) has a significant impact on international education. How an institution places value on its various missions will affect how funding is allocated. Many HEIs must reassess their financial status and possibly modify and reform their models in order to sustain operations. These reforms might be the transition to private funding instead of the reliance of public funding, as well as a shift towards REIs (research excellence initiatives), in order to boost research. As the finance class learned from a personal anecdote of the professor, the latter can leave potential scars on the financial conditions of an institution. Oftentimes, if there is a significant amount of research being conducted, the exact expenditures and revenue of these projects are hard to measure, and can lead to budgetary problems.
What I really want to talk about is the usefulness of international education. In the executive summary, there is a push towards fiscal responsibility in the hopes that international education thrive under new and better policies. However, I am arguing (remember, as a devil’s advocate) that international education programs themselves may not be fiscally responsible to the HEI. Basically, this particular stance relies on the quantitative and qualitative evidence that international education actually benefits its participants, the institutions, and even the nations involved. To gather this type of data would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, because of the types of things measured, such as career trajectories and affect on institutional reputations and enrollment.
Again, the authors discuss ‘value propositions,’ which I believe hurt the case for international education, rather than help it. Institutions need to evaluate what makes them money, and it is hard to believe that international education programs are anywhere near the top of that list (of course, I could be wrong). That being said, it is almost suicidal for international education organizations to cry for value propositions, especially in a country where trends show that international education is not as popular or common as in other countries.
I wasn’t sure if I would be the only one who took this position, but there are others out there (whether they truly believe it or not, I don’t know). Mark Salisbury, in his piece “We’re Muddying the Message on Study Abroad,” discusses how international education might want to step off of its high horse, because it may not be as great as it purports to be. There is the impression that he believes that international education is fairly elitist, and only serves certain types of students. He provides a funny analogy, comparing international education programs (namely study abroad) to late night info-mercials- they act as if they are the best thing in the world, but only a certain type of person is going to be interested in the product.
Salisbury, nor myself, is calling for the abolishment of international education- far from it, in fact. What we are arguing is that the current state of it, especially in this country, doesn’t really know its place- in other words, it has an identity crisis. It certainly serves a purpose, but it doesn’t seem to know how that purpose fits into the greater mission, or value, of the HEI and nation. Again, I am just trying to stoke the fires a little. What are your thoughts?
Hi Ben,
Thanks for your post and bringing up a controversial viewpoint to stimulate the conversation. I wanted to comment on the financial role that international students play when they come study in the US. This website: http://graphics.wsj.com/international-students/ talks about the growth of international student enrollment in recent history. It also includes a map that shows the financial contribution that international students bring to each state, color coordinated by the percentage of total GDP for each state.
Last semester I actually wrote a paper about how public institutions are increasingly recruiting out-of-state students because they pay a higher, non-resident tuition rate, and international students are included in that group, as they can pay even higher tuition and fee rates than their domestic counterparts. In fact, I believe that is one of the reasons US institutions recruit international students so enthusiastically. Of course, the cultural exchange component is an added bonus, but it often comes down to revenue generation. This article sums it up well: http://diverseeducation.com/article/49466/. As the article points out, there are often increased costs to a growing international student population such as English language programs and international student advisors, but I imagine institutions are still receiving a net gain from international student tuition.
This comment only refers to exchanges and does not cover the plethora of comprehensive internationalization strategies talked about in this class. As you point out, it is hard to know how much revenue research brings to the institution or how to measure soft skills gained in international educational exchanges, but I wanted to point out that inbound student mobility, which is admittedly only one facet of internationalization, is quite profitable.
Kristen
An interesting view to take, particularly in this class! I will approach this by suggesting that the answer lies somewhere in the middle and actually ties in to the readings this week, and previous ones as well. I don’t think the operative question is whether international educational has a relevant purpose or whether it makes for sound financial policies for higher education institutions. I think, instead, the correct level of analysis is to focus on the pros of internationalization (which we have discussed at length in earlier weeks) and try to understand how they can be implemented to best maximize financial gains for higher ed institutions as well as be the subject of meaningful education policy reform to yield the positive results people believe global education to possess.
Hello Ben,
Thank you for your thoughtful post this week and attempting to play a devil’s advocate. Very Brave! Correct, although higher education’s main focus should be on student learning and growth, at the end of the day there is a business aspect necessary for sustainability and progression. Although we have addressed all of the positive attributes associated with internationalization in HEI’s, financial pressures still pose as a huge negative. Institutions seek international students knowing they will have to pay full tuition prices, but like Kristen mentioned above, more funds would have to be dished out to adequately acclimate foreign students. I agree that international programs are most attractive to select participants with the means to cover all expenses. I do believe, based on the discussions and readings from previous weeks, international education does know how it fits into the grand scheme of higher education. The main goal is to restructure policies to ensure a seamless transition for ALL students to reap the benefits at lower costs and generate revenue for the institution.
Adia