Posted on by m.fernandez

w-8 Case Study HE Internationalization

This weeks case study allows us to see the struggles that institutions face when they choose to internationalize. In this specific case study there were three major groups; marketing, corporate and faculty. I feel I relate more to the faculty concerns as they are the ones who deal with the programs and students directly. It seemed that marketing and corporate were able to relate more in terms of what concerns they had. The difference in the amount of group specific points that faculty had compared to the none corporate proves the idea that is brought up later in the study that corporate gives the plans to the faculty but expect faculty to implement it flawlessly, in reality that is not the case. As mentioned, many faculty may not be familiar with HE internationalization. Faculty asking for more professional development is not wrong but the question is why did corporate assume that this was something they would be able to execute? Corporate and marketing argue that faculty already have international responsibility in their workload so this is not extra or different than what they agreed to do in the first place. This idea is left unanswered by the faculty, or may answered and not included in the case study, but it seems that what international work means should be clarified now that this institution wishes to move towards He internationalization without having a campus off shore.

The marketing group brought up a point that they have a hard time marketing programs that they are unfamiliar with. The marketing group should be able to work with the faculty closely so that when the marking group does need to promote these programs they do not feel that they cannot do them justice. This is something that when hiring for this position they need to entail characteristics that allow them to know that working with faculty and students in the program will be the best way for them to learn and market for it. In marketing you are not going to be familiar with everything that you are marketing but need to have skills in order to learn more about the prospective students you are targeting.

Lastly, I think corporate needs to work more with faculty and understand that these issues are not solely theirs but each groups issues together. Faculty do have much more work than what is written on their contracts and added an HE internationalization portion to their workload I believe is extra than what they originally bargained for especially if the idea came after they already signed their contracts. It is important that the faculty is not overwhelmed when a decision like this is made.

Posted on by m.fernandez · 1 Comment

W-6 Melissa Fernandez

This weeks ACE reading touches on partnerships. One of the common themes is transparency and quality assurance. When establishing an off shore partnership, the host campus, faculty and students must have transparency of what is expected of them. There also needs to be clarification on how similarly the partnership will run compared to the host campus. To ensure they are equivalent the faculty hired should be of the same caliber as one that would be hired in the home country. They also mention ways on making the faculty feel important such as helping them start new programs at a successful off shore campus. They also mention allowing faculty to engage in study abroad without having to commit to being at the off shore campus for long term. Though these ideas may attract faculty, from a students perspective this may be negative because I would want the interaction with a professor teaching the course for more than the first 3 weeks. The idea is similar to an online class but not every student learns in this manner and students could be inclined to look at other institutions that have the faculty there for a longer portion of the semester. Along with transparency, language is an important factor as making sure all partners understand what is expected of them and the mission and goals that are in place. Informing students of what language courses will be taught in and what requirements they will need to enter the program are crucial when high enrollment is the goal.

Institutional strategy plays a large role in deciding weather a partnership is of value. When deciding on expanding the campus, financial factors come in to play. There has to be a plan of action to create revenue from the partnership or supporting the partnership will be costly for the home campus. Not just financially, the partnership must also be in line with the mission and goals of the home institution. When starting partnerships the establishing of programs could be difficult and institutional leaders are key roles in the process. A successful establishment of a partnership will set precedent for more to come which is why institutional leaders are needed to ensure the process is smooth and successful. Institutional leaders should be aware of the cultural context that the partnership will be entering and the faculty and home institution should be supportive of this. Accepting the cultural differences will have an effect on weather the partnership is successful.

 

Posted on by m.fernandez

W-5 Melissa Fernandez

In this weeks reading, sustainability and quality issues  for off shore campuses mentioned the huge financial responsibility campuses must undergo when deciding to create an off shore campus. An institution must have a lengthy time period that they wish to have an off shore campus as the initial financial burden is not seen to become of value until years later. Things that must be taken into consideration is funding for the campus and if the home campus is responsible or if they will be self sufficient, even though when starting this is not the case. In regards to the quality, most host and home institutions would like the accreditation of the home institution but the issue is being able to ensure the off shore campus can reach that same quality. It is mentioned that home campuses have little trust in programs that are offered at the off shore campus if the same programs are not offered at the home campus. I think this says a lot about the institution if they are unable to trust their off shore campus with their own programs. If this is the case in the strategic plan for the off shore campus they should be confined to only teach programs that are offered at the home country so their is not lack of trust. Language also comes into play if the host campus has another primary language than the home campus. This could provide a barrier for students who are coming from the home country to study abroad or if the home campus requires the off shore campus to teach their campuses in their native language. Lastly, faculty is a concern because there is a fear the faculty may not have the same educational background as those of the home country. I am willing to assume that this means they fear the educational background is less than those of the home country. This reading reminds me of our Altbach and Green articles we read the first week of class. I find this article very one sided as there could be faculty who have just a good background or better than those from American universities. Also, other readings have mentioned that not many countries feel that America has a top ranked education so though we feel out of shore campuses may lack in faculty with a strong educational background, that is just an opinion and not a fact. There are many countries and faculty who have studied outside of the U.S. that could qualify to teach at an off shore campus.

Posted on by m.fernandez · 1 Comment

W-4 Melissa Fernandez

In contrast to last weeks reading this weeks reading is about internationalizing U.S. higher education. I found it interesting that our discussion about incentives to ensure students go back to their home country was a hot topic last week but the U.S. does not really push those ideas. Instead programs like extending optional practical training to students who come study abroad here to 29 months instead of 12. For example, the David L. Boren scholarship and fellowship only require U.S. students to work for 1 year or the U.S. government. With the hefty monetary amount that they are given as well, more years should be required.

Another program that was really surprising and I did not know about was the 2013 U.S. Mexico Bilateral Forum on Higher Education, Innovation and Research. Currently we are fighting a huge battle political about making our borders stronger but opening up a program like this could make or break those policies. These agreements were made with President Obama and the Mexican president where they plan on sending over 100,000 Mexican students by 2018 and 50,000 U.S. students to Mexico. I can see this policy being broken when a new presidential candidate is elected. Right now millions of people are fleeing Mexico due to unsafe conditions, why would we want to send our students into that kind of predicament. Can the Mexican government ensure our students safety? In an article I read it states that the Mexican government does need to try harder than the Americans convince students to study abroad in their country.

https://usmex.ucsd.edu/_files/MMF2014_Reading_Factsheet-FOBESII.pdf

There have also been many goals set in place by the U.S. government without any actual plan on how to achieve these goals. The reading mentions that there are several reasons why there is not a comprehensive national policy for the internationalization of higher education in the U.S. but the largest is that we have no central ministry of education. Since I work with international admissions at CUNY I see that many other countries have centralized ministries of education. I never understood why students could not receive transcripts directly from their university as many of them insisted they had to reach out to the ministry of education. As much as this may be difficult at times it centralizes the higher education system. If the U.S. had something similar to this we may not have to worry about non accredited institutions giving students degrees that are not accepted in the work place or by other accredited institutions.

Posted on by m.fernandez · 6 Comments

W-3 Melissa Fernandez

There were a few topics that sparked my interest in this weeks reading. The first was harmonization. As we spoke in class and in the blog, countries are currently having problems uniting themselves to in fact wish for a national harmonization is very difficult. The harmonization they spoke about was in regards to international academic calendars and degree/credit transfers. With my position as an admissions counselor I constantly see students with international credits and degrees and many times we do not accept all credits or the degrees they received do not allow them to continue a masters or doctorate here. There are even times where the high school diploma is not sufficient and we will ask them to take a GED. I do believe the education hubs play a role in this. Some mentioned there education hubs were cities like in Ecuador with the Yachay City of Knowledge and others were schoolhouses within institutions like Singapore. With an eventual minimum qualification for what is considered high school equivalent and bachelors equivalent the harmonization could be a possibility for students to not loose years in university when transferring between countries. On the policy side, many students who come to New York with a degree are not able to receive the PELL or TAP grants because it is for those students seeking degree for the first time. This information is available to international students but is not well known and normally these students find out at the bursars office after they have been accepted and registered for classes.

It has always been know that the United States is a “melting pot” for different cultures but when it comes to higher education we are the only one’s with HBCU’s and Hispanic-serving institutions. When speaking about policy the U.S. really emphasizes that the wish to bring internationalization to these institutions but all the other countries mention policies they wish to implement across the board. I wonder how HBCU;s and Hispanic-serving institutions will play a role in the internationalizing of education and if it will thrive in institutions like this where the majority of the students have roots that are international already. Are we really the only country that has certain institutions that are under served? Or are we the only ones who care?

Lastly, policy effectiveness relies heavily on institutional research. With the correct collection of data and analysis policy can be most effective, but funding as mentioned in the article is a problem for some countries. In order to collect the correct data and have the tools to analyze and asses within the years to come if the policy is effective will take large amounts of monetary funds. Being in compliance with state and government regulations too can hinder policy, so even if the institution wishes to move towards internationalization they are unable to. This brings up the point of safety with internationalization, are we brining in danger with opening our doors to institutions around the world?