Posted on by Zeline Santana · 3 Comments

W7, systems, operation, data

OECD Education Policy Outlook 2015 explained the importance of reform and the evaluation process in higher education. I find evaluation fascinating and I like how this reading in particular spoke about evaluation and assessment in terms of policy. In order to explore and reform higher education through policy the reading states building systems are important. In this reading systems are explained as needed for governance and funding. I think this is very important for integration and tracking institutional data. Similar to the implantation of CUNYfirst for all CUNY schools it provides structure and objectives through data.

The State of Higher Education 2014 published by OECD states changes experienced by systems brings forth broader access, greater diversity of study, and students with a “broader spread of institutions’ social missions”. In terms of policy it is explained that the federal government should support states and school districts in developing systems. Form what I read online states lack support from the government. Governmental support or an educational system centralized to the institution type and sectors established by the government can be a little difficult to achieve. I understand that the creation of educational systems need support from the government, however, wouldn’t this mean that the government will take charge of the operations and managing of the system?

Building Capacity for Systems Change: A Federal Policy Framework for Competency Education: http://www.knowledgeworks.org/building-capacity-systems-change-federal-policy-framework-competency-education

Posted on by Zeline Santana · 3 Comments

W6, Course Equivalencies & Joint Programs

International Higher Education Partnerships: a global review of standards &, Practices & Process for Screening and Authorizing Joint and Double Degree program presented many ways institutions can establish program administration, good management, and transparency that will allow internationalization to thrive in their schools. I think the section “Ongoing Support and Engagement” is very important in internationalization because both are needed for acceptance in the local and campus community. I believe through this example it establishes the promotion of international higher education as well as other factors that surrounds it, like budgeting and finance. In A Process for Screening and Authorizing Joint and Double Degree Programs, Rice University’s associate vice provost for academic affairs talked on concerns of dual and joint programs. I think overall this is why faculty members may not agree with internationalization and its quality because it is said that these programs are poor in content.

ACE report in Mapping International Joint and Dual Degrees: U.S. Program Profiles and Perspectives that “Program enrollment is notably skewed toward non-U.S. students. Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of programs enroll only students from the partner country, while about one third enroll a mix of U.S. and foreign students. Just 4 percent of programs included in the survey enroll only U.S. students.” If you think of this in a mobility prospective non-American students would be the customers of dual or joint programs. What might be missing is inter-campus mobility within the U.S, however, the true issues with joint and dual degrees is the money spent on U.S dual- joint programs that at least in internationalization non-American students are using. In addition, academic issues for dual and joint programs arise with course equivalencies and teaching methodologies are challenge. Students who do participate in these programs need approved course equivalencies to obtain transfer credits and/or to start an academic career in the U.S. This particular report states that “In nearly all areas, joint degree programs are perceived as more challenging to implement and sustain than are dual degree programs.” Joint programs are challenged, however, with funding, legal or regulatory issues, as well as, safety abroad. Course equivalencies are the number one academic challenge student’s face at 66%.

ACE report in Mapping International Joint and Dual Degrees: U.S. Program Profiles and Perspectives: http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Mapping-International-Joint-and-Dual-Degrees.aspx

International Joint and Dual Degree Programs: Issues and Challenges

Posted on by Zeline Santana

In Class, Make Up Week-10

Last night we met Lynne Patterson who serves as a Pro Mujer Ambassador throughout the United States. My comments on her speech regarding her journey of being Pro Mujer is very important to internationalization. I think her job in increasing women self-confidence in Bolivia aides’ international higher education. After her speech, I wanted to look deeper into the role of the U.S. and women in international higher education; I found that Empowering Women Worldwide by the Institute of International Education is committed to increasing opportunities for women like Lynne Patterson. In class we have spoken a lot on how the U.S is far behind in “internationalization” but it looks like the U.S looks to build partnership that will grant access worldwide (whether it is in the U.S or in their home countries). The Institute of International Education has offices through the states, but also in Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Similar to Lynne’s focus they provide women with assistance in obtaining higher learning in their society. The Higher Education Readiness Program, in Ethiopia is one example. This program provides young women in secondary school from undeserved communities with a pathway to university. A new three-year pilot project and the exposure they need to prevail as women in their society.

Link: http://www.iie.org/en/What-We-Do/Global-Leadership-Development/Empowering-Women-Worldwide

Posted on by Zeline Santana

W5, Faculty governance and internationalization

The reading Why Focus on Internalization validates many of our comments and discussions regarding the importance of internalization in higher education. I agree that internalization is far more complex then providing mobility. In reviewing all the readings thus far, it seems like the U.S takes pride that mobility is an option through study abroad and internalization at home, however, internalization works when unique forms of joint, dual programs and school partnerships exists. Overall, I think this reading was very informative as to why higher education institutions and systems need to focus on internalization. It is very rare for internalization to prevail in the United States. According to this reading internalization matters because it adds mobilization and internal intellectual resources. In addition, it enlarges the academic community and leverage institutional strength. The U.S is very far from internalization because there are a lot of issues legally that may affect the mission of internalization. When I think of internalization I think of global change that first need to happen at home, for example, providing more access to undocumented students in the U.S. The reading also states that government systems must implement “national universities systems” which is nearly impossible for the U.S due to its complex system and different sectors. In the U.S the analytical framework and governance structure is too complex to run as a “self-governing” community.

In Dobbins, reading three governance models were discussed. The three models where the sate-centered model, the academic self- rule, and the market-oriented model. If I understand correctly all three governing models needs to be in communication with universities strategies to correlate socio-economic and academic needs. In order for internalization to work in a state-centered model, then internalization needs to be in the forefront and within the budgeting plans of the state. In an academic- rule model, the faculty needs to also place a high importance to internationalization. Unfortunately, in the U.S the majority of faculty questions the quality of education through internationalization, so this model might not work in the U.S. I believe internationalization might work in a market-oriented model, however, the concerns of quality also exits. One example is GoAborad.com. Even though GoAbroad is not an affiliated to an institution it works as a market-oriented model, which provides study aboard programs that can be approved by intuitions (as course work), volunteer opportunities, internships and teaching programs. The concern with this model will always be quality since it not tied into faculty governance.

Posted on by Zeline Santana

W4, Who is The Most Influential Actor in Internationalization Related Policies and Programs?

This week’s reading discussed current policies and the future of international higher education. The article spoke about many aspects we have already discussed in class regarding student mobility and policy actors. In particular, what I found most interesting was the image chart on page eleven. The image chart shows outside influences towards U.S Higher Education Internationalization- Related Policies and Programs. I liked this description because it triggered to think which of these were most influential. I also thought about institutional finance and how this can bridge a gap between student mobility (inbound-outbound) and funding (scholarships). In the midst of trying to find a purpose or reflection to this reading, I concluded that institutions are/should be the most influential actors. I am not sure if anyone agrees, however, my train of throughout comes from noticing how the arrows in this image chart do not interconnect with each actor.

The Influence of Campus Internationalization on Local Communities by William P. Kiehl is a great example to determine how internationalization efforts on campus can affect communities. Kiehl (2007) found influences from campus internationalization among small colleges in small communities, which have a large socio-political importance (Kiehl, 2007). Kiehl (2007) states that “too little attention has been paid to how internationalization plays out in the local community” and that “there is too little visibility for international students in the community”. Kiehl (2007) follows this statement by stated, “If colleges make the extra effort to engage the community in campus internationalization there are real rewards for both the campus and the community”. Because of this statement, I assume Kiehl will agree that the most influential actors can be the institution and their community. As Kiehl (2007) mentioned in his dissertation, colleges need to make the extra effort to engage the community in campus internationalization. My thoughts on readings and visa programs also relate to this because immigration laws. Colleges and university should see themselves as social advocates. It is important to look at all students’ especially non-native students. In order for internationalization to work institutions are to influence the community, the community must influence the state and states must come together to influence the government and policy. (http://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI3255869/)