I found this reading helpful in outlining the motivations and goals surrounding international education as well as providing some key terms that are crucial when speaking about internationalization.  It starts out by providing four major categories of motivations for internationalization.  They are academic, economic, political, and social/cultural.  As the reading notes, they are all interconnected, and I found that they all have an underlying goal of improving an aspect of the home country through collaboration and the exchange of ideas.

Student mobility involves sending residents of one country to study in a different country and also includes attracting international students to study in a country or region.  This is differentiated into two categories: “degree mobility” and “credit mobility.”  I have also heard these referred to as “degree seeking” and “non-degree” students.  I feel like those terms are a bit more intuitive, but maybe they are more closely tied to visa regulations than scholarly discussions of internationalization.

Within the student mobility category are two types of mobility – inbound and outbound.  Policies designed to encourage “inbound mobility” include scholarships, immigration regulations, and “study-in” informational marketing campaigns.  Outbound mobility is when countries send students to study in another country with the hopes that those students will gain skills abroad and contribute to an aspect of development in that student’s home country.  Some incentives are similar to those related to inbound mobility including scholarships or other economic incentives.

I was glad to see the Brazil Scientific Mobility Program (BSMP) as one of the examples for outbound mobility scholarships.  I used to work on this program, as the US portion of the program was administered by IIE.  This program had a short-term and long-term intensive English component for students whose English was not ready for academic study in their field, which is what I worked on.  This is a great way to increase diversity and reach students that had not travelled internationally before or did not have the means to study English in Brazil.  Although this program sent students to various countries, the US was the largest hosting country for the program.  At one point there were 20,000 BSMP students in the US!  As noted in the history reading from last week, these programs and policies are subject to external influences.  In recent months the Brazilian economy has not been doing so well and the president is under scrutiny for various reasons.  Therefore, the Brazilian government has had to dramatically scale back the program.

I really enjoyed the sections on what I consider to be lesser known internationalization initiatives including regional mobility and scholar mobility.  It makes sense that regional mobility would be an area of focus for many countries, especially smaller countries that have a lot to gain from cooperating with their neighbors.  One example is the recognition of exams and qualifications by the Nordic Council to increase mobility in that region.  In the scholar mobility category, I thought the repatriation efforts, mostly through financial benefits for scholars living abroad was an effective way to fight against brain drain in many countries.

Hi Everyone,
I’m Kristen. I’m in my 2nd year (4th semester) in Baruch’s HEA program. I majored in International Studies at Fairfield University, and I currently work at the Institute of International Education (IIE) as a Program Officer for the Fulbright Foreign Student Program. I am the main contact for a caseload of about 250 Masters and PhD students from over 70 countries. My responsibilities include corresponding with the students to ensure a successful exchange program and addressing any problems related to their academic performance, cultural adjustment, visa status, and overall personal well-being. Since I work on the program side of international education, I am excited to learn both about overall trends and institutional policies.
I often fall into the trap of thinking of higher education as an independent entity that takes place in a bubble. It is easy to forget that programs and policies in US higher education are affected by various outside influences, including politics, the economy, and general public opinion. These influences are magnified when you look at them on a regional or even global scale, as is necessary for international educational exchange. The article by Altbach and De Wit which focused on the historical influences on higher education since World War I was a really interesting piece about the evolution of international education and the role that higher education plays worldwide.
As the article notes, historical influences affect how international education works today. I work at IIE, so I knew it was founded in 1919, in response to World War I, but I had never considered that efforts such as IIE, DAAD, and the British Council, in addition to many others within and outside the education sector, were unsuccessful in preventing a second world war. It is important to be cognizant of these historical factors to be more aware of current realities and future trends. I was recently at a meeting at work where I learned that Iran was one of the leading senders of international students in the 1970s. I was surprised to hear this as US relations with Iran have not been good for most of my life. This made me realize that looking at the entire picture, not just the recent past, is important.
In her article, “Is the United States the Best in the World? Not in Internationalization,” Green takes the stance that the US could improve on such aspects of internationalization in higher education including emphasis on international initiatives by institutional leaders and increasing infrastructure to support internationalization on US campuses. She also uses the relative lack of promotion of internationalization in strategic plans as evidence that, when compared to other countries and regions, the US is not a leader in internationalization. However, it is crucial to note that in terms of sheer numbers in educational international exchange, the United States is still the number one destination for all international students.
According to the Oxford publication and IIE’s Open Doors data from 2015, the US was the top destination for international students, with over 970,000 international students during the 2014/15 academic year. There was a ten percent growth in numbers of international students compared to the previous school year, which was the largest percentage growth in international students in the past 35 years. The second most popular destination for international students, the UK, hosts just a bit over half of the number of international students that the US does (Open Doors 2016). Although I realize this could be a function of size of the US (and, as a result, size of higher education sector), rather than institutional emphasis on internationalization, I still think this is an important point to bring up. For example, perhaps one reason most regions did not focus on North America as a region of interest is that they are already sending a large number of students there.
Looking at the various initiatives worldwide outlined in the Oxford publication, it does seem like the US could be doing more, both on a policy and institutional level, especially when it comes to sending US students abroad. For example, DAAD, the German Academic and Exchange Service, has an initiative to send half of all degree-seeking students abroad, up from the 30% that currently study abroad. IIE’s initiative named Generation Study Abroad aims to double the approximately 10% of US students that currently study abroad. Even if the US does fulfill this ambitious goal and Germany sees no improvements, Germany will still send a much larger percentage of students abroad than the US.
I believe in what I do, so I am a big proponent of the benefits of educational international exchange both on a personal and policy level. As Altbach and De Wit note, educational exchanges have been used as a “soft power” in international relations for some countries. They note that although, “international cooperation and exchange are not guarantees for peace and mutual understanding, they continue to be essential mechanisms for keeping communication open and dialogue active” (p 4). The Oxford publication notes that international experiences are also beneficial for individuals that can gain important life skills that are increasingly valued by employers, such as decision making and problem solving skills.

Additional References:
Institute of International Education. (2016). Open Doors: 2015. Retrieved from: http://www.iie.org/Who-We-Are/News-and-Events/Press-Center/Press-Releases/2015/2015-11-16-Open-Doors-Data