This week we were assigned to read two readings, IHE at Twenty and Bridges to the Future. Both readings expressed many topics that we have all discussed in class including last weeks panel. In the panel a brief discussion regarding soft power was stated and in IHE at Two moving from Soft Power to Knowledge Diplomacy is stated to be important in IHE and its future.
The reading states that “International higher education, in its role as a political actor, is strongly attracted to the concept of soft power. Developed by Joseph Nye about a decade ago, soft power is popularly understood as the ability to influence others and achieve national self-interest(s) through attraction and persuasion rather, than through coercion, military force, or economic sanctions—commonly known as hard power” This section concludes with stating that IHE can move forward if an increase of soft power is achieved, soft powers such as the Fulbright Program have made contributions in IHE. In order for IHE to prevail additional programs as well as a smother process for international students is needed. Being around international students in the HEA program and engaging with them regarding IHE there major concern was job placement and the intensive application and recertification processes they are two do per year in making sure their legal status is up to par. I think overall these have been major contributions that need to be addressed and revamped as well.
Bridges to the Future to the future definitely tackled all topics we have addressed. For example, Changing Rules of Institutional Engagement. Active engagement in IHE is very important for colleges and university to gain support from their community and local government. I believe that overall in the U.S for example should change the rules of IHE and engagement. The active engagement process should be something the U.S government should enforce since they also benefit from the global power IHE brings to the country.
The study conducted by IAU provided data analysis of developments in internationalization. This study is of a greater magnitude in where 1,366 institutions located in 131 countries participated. In this study it was found that internationalization is growing and important to most higher education institutions around the globe. In this particular reading the “Internationalization policy/strategy and infrastructural supports” and “Importance of internationalization and expected benefits” explain that most institutions due want to expand internationally. For example, aggregate results in both criteria state “66% of the respondents report having explicit targets and benchmarks to assess their internationalization policy implementation”, “61% of the institutions report having a dedicated budget for internationalization, compared to 73% reporting one in the previous survey.” Lastly, “69% of the respondents report that internationalization is of high importance for the leadership of their institution.” This data shows that more than half of the responded feel that internationalization is important. In the “Faculty members’ international experience and mobility”, it is also reported that near half of the Faculty population has been exposed to aboard mobility. In comparing prior readings overall, I believe the importance is there for most if not all universities around the globe but it will be interesting to know the motivating factors for Internationalization in governmental agencies.
National Motivators are said to be important in the process of international higher education. The reading I found states national security interests emerge when the government’s role in international education is to provide:
– Security (National Defense)
– Through the education act of 1958 (the creation of the Student and Exchange Visitor Information)
– System like (SEVIS) following the attacks on September 11, 2001 and
– Cultural Affairs as a national motivator which sponsors educational projects to advance the federal foreign policy and soft power.
The second reading explains the important of Collaboration and Partnerships. It is explained that 70% of doctoral institutions indicate they have substantially expanded the number of partnerships. Overall the percentage of institutions with campus-wide policies or guidelines for partnerships seems accurate in terms of degree level. Nearly half of intuitions in the U.S have established partnerships for internationalization.
The reading Global Trends in University Governance discussed the various ways university systems go about implementing a framework which can also apply to global strategy. The reading lays out the importance of the higher education vision, governance, and funding. It is explained that the demand for higher education in terms of funding has increased over the years and support has decreased. From the reading it is very obvious that most university systems receive funds from income generated within. These funds are then used for research and other operational cost as well as salary. I am very much intrigued with funding and internationalization in community colleges. On the web, it seems like community colleges are trying to turn to international student recruitment because it will help international students in terms of cost. The question is what will be the quality of this education compared to 4-year institution. Are international students look for the prestige or the cost? (1)
Governance reforms and university autonomy in Asia focused on research that examined reforms, policies and governance structures. It looked at their impact management, but most importantly, the level of autonomy the institutions have. In Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan and Vietnam autonomous management structures are very high where institutions are self-governed to an extent. In the U.S this is not usually seen due to high levels of over site/control (centralized) from the state and other governing bodies. In this particular article it was interesting to see that Asian educational systems are autonomous, however, as mentioned in the article “the case studies also shows that autonomy policies need certain conditions to become successful.” This means the proper over site and control is needed to ensure accountability of the end goal or outcome. Vietnam for example experienced a lack of coordination between national and regional centers. In the U.S a decentralized form of education can be hard to accomplish due to the concern of “Who Controls What”. Overall, the U.S higher education system is so complex that for decentralization to work effectively it will needed to be more open for input from staff members, harmonization , and collaboration.
I found the reading Global Strategy & Internationalization at Ohio University interesting because it is the first time in this class that we look more in depth to one particular U.S University. The Global Strategy & Internationalization at Ohio seems very well planned and thoughtful. This piece is of course better written and more well planned then Baruch’s global strategy/ strategic plan. The Ohio piece has more thoughtful insights for its framework, which I think, is important for the reader.
Baruch’s global strategy also lacked future direction. Ohio, however, presents future goals and data. Ohio’s global plan starts by explaining what the college has done thus far to become more involved in internationalization which in any well planned strategic plan is important for the reader and campus community. They also make a list of their three strategic partners, which are Germany, Japan and Malaysia, which shows their potential to reach a global community. The Middlesex reading on global education & planning was as lengthy as Ohio’s which to my surprise was also very well planned. In higher ed, we normally fall under the assumption that community colleges lack funding and/or lack quality but this piece shows that not all community colleges fall under that description. I also believe that because Middlesex is located in Boston there is this sense of competition in education and for Middlesex globalization of education will allow their campus to become unforgettable in their local community.
When I think if internationalization you usually think the goal of internationalization can only be achieved in wealthy and prestige universities. Ohio University endowment is approximately 3 billion. It is very important to look at all universities and colleges in this aspect because internationalization is very much influenced by the need of funding. This however is not a fact internationalization can also be achieved by planning out reach that can aide philanthropic actions similar to Middlesex mission. Middlesex, however, is a very wealthy community college with an endowment of 993 million per FTE Enrollment. (http://community-colleges.startclass.com/l/2601/Middlesex-County-College)
In conclusion, comparing Baruch’s global strategy to Middlesex and Ohio direction is very important. Carnoy’s reading emphasizes that in internationalization the level of autonomy is important when dealing with policies and the directions universities choose to take is very much dictated by governmental and state policies. This is primarily why the word “strategy” is used in internationalization.
The AIEA reading for this week clearly explains the importance of strategic planning in higher education. In the course of this program, we learn that many families are interested in knowing and understanding the strategic plan of a college and/or university. For the most part they [the family] wish to understand the course of direction the institution is going, but my question is how will a college and/ or university know when international involvement in the university matters?
The AIEA reading presented 12 principles of internationalization. There is really nothing (in my opinion) that seems out of the ordinary when it comes to planning and IHE vs. higher education in general. Some principles that were said to be important are obtaining knowledge on internationalization, campus input, the time-line of success, transparency, and quality of the curriculum. This very much adds importance to the readings we have had thus far in where we have discussed the importance of campus wide initiatives that includes the faculty. In my opinion, faculty input, knowledge, and support can result in great outcomes in the quality of IHE in the nation or at that institution. Also, input of the local community can be great to include in planning initiatives because it can aide to understand what international involvement local families wish to see in the educational system. Overall, I think opportunity mapping in the U.S. explains why IHE has not prevailed like in many other countries. The AIEA reading states that priorities in the region are also important and having the data to support what priorities align with potential sources of external support is vital for IEH success.
To conclude, cooperation and coordination in strategic planning provides cohesion within an organization as explained in the AIEA reading. Like in Baruch understanding how the college fits within global cities in the world is important, which allows the college to consider a global strategic plan for the future. I really liked how the Baruch global strategic plan emphasis the needed of more faculty involvement, which should aide IHE in the college and hopefully impact other CUNY schools, the State of NY, and the nation.