The AIEA report on strategic planning reminds the reader of the importance and logic behind using a deliberate approach to higher education internationalization. I enjoyed getting a quick overview of how strategic planning came about according to the report. It was initially used to guide military actions and then it was incorporated into business which makes total sense. Within the context of higher education a strategic plan works best when it is developed through an inclusive, collective process through which all parties develop a mission and prioritize ways to move the institution towards an attainable future, five or more years down the line (P. 4). The idea of shared governance is key.

In reading the twelve principles of successful strategic planning, I put a few in my piggy bank. Principle 4, establishing a timeline- although not completely surprising, strategic timelines are necessary to the back and forth that generally occurs when deliberating on any topic. Principle 7 discussed looking for cost-neutral change mechanisms – tenure incentives are HUGE! I think that aligning a tenure and promotion system where the underlying success will be measured by international curriculum, is a technique that should be sold at higher education institutions everywhere.

It was interesting to read the global strategic plan for Baruch College. As a Baruch student, although these are public documents, I felt like I was getting a sneak peek into the global studies future of Baruch. It seems as though Baruch’s plan aligns well with the principles that the AIEA report and has many of the same lofty ideals and target as the three case studies listed in the report. It is interesting that Baruch plans to hire a full-time staff member to support the Provost in global strategy. In the wake of unsettling financial strain at all of the CUNY senior colleges and the budget cut that is waning; hiring a full-time staff member seems like just another financial burden.  I would argue that this is a necessary one. Most global studies programs have about one staff member and if lucky a college assistant or work study. In order to fulfill the ambitious goal of increasing and creating global academic programs, you need the manpower to sustain relationships with host countries and other departments at home that are involved in the process like registrar and student services. Guiding a student from oblivion to the inquiry stage, to getting them in the door, to completing an application, to approving all necessary documentations (Passport, Visa, etc.), getting course permissions, processing applications, creating accounts, and managing experiences, is a extremely tall task.

The OECD Reports; Making Reforms Happen (2015) and The State of Higher Education (2014) were both interesting reads and although they did not revolve around international education per se, they made a case for the alignment, partnership and shifting of services to accommodate students everywhere. Making Reforms Happen (2015) gave an overview of educational policies applied in several countries around the world. What interested me was this readings focus on secondary education, vocational education and there implementations on higher education and the workforce. While reading, I affirmatively nodded the entire time because from my career services lens and background, they were speaking my language. As the reading discussed, employers, policy makers and education institutions can strengthen the employability of individuals by cooperating and aligning services in an intentional way. As countries around the world face continuous unemployment among young and older workers, employers are reporting that they cannot find adequately skilled talent. In a report I read by The Global Agenda Council on Employment, it says that “in the short term, a key driver of skills mismatch is the limited job opportunities available in many (especially advanced) economies, which are pushing many individuals to accept mismatched and lower-quality jobs. With weak demand, employers may become more particular when recruiting, as they can afford to wait for the perfect candidate or hire over-skilled workers “(P. 22). So in other words, through education individuals develop skills and are capable, however due to the lack of demand in hiring, employers can hold off for the greatest candidates. In doing so, these capable individuals eventually take on jobs that are a mismatch to their skills, further exasperating their shrinkage of on-the-job skills. If you don’t use it, you lose it! Individuals that find themselves in organizations that are a mismatch of their skills, are usually underutilized and the effects on their futures can be deeply affected if this depreciation of unused skills continues.
The State of Higher Education (2014) focuses on the remarkably similar issues faced by higher education institutions everywhere. For us who work in higher education the fundamental challenges addressed are all too familiar. The concern for quality, the struggle to balance modern practices with traditional academic values and college mission, and the push for academic excellence in the wake of shrinkages in resources via governmental and public aid. What I found interesting is that in both articles, unlike the majority of our readings, they did not reference international education. It was nice to abandon our general focus for a week. I also noticed that the OCED has created frameworks to analyze evaluation and assessment in school systems (P. 4). Like the Making Reforms Happen report, they focus first on agendas in primary and secondary education and then categorically apply them as relevant to higher education. I think that this thinking is the strategy to follow when looking to create quality assurance frameworks for higher education. Primary and secondary education should align (seamlessly) with higher education. Each should prepare students for the other, if that is in fact what we want for all students. While it might not seem like it (and this is the major problem with under-served U.S. schools) the classes student take and the activities they are involved in high school play a role in shaping them both a member of society and as a college applicant. Whether they plan to attend a community college or less-selective college, they need to successfully achieve basic requirements to progress to a level of education that can help them to achieve their career goals. This however, is only scratching the surface.

Davos-Klosters, Global Agenda Council on Employment, Matching Skills and Labour Market Needs Building Social Partnerships for Better Skills and Better Jobs, January 2014. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GAC/2014/WEF_GAC_Employment_MatchingSkillsLabourMarket_Report_2014.pdf

The two readings, ACE, International HigherEd Partnerships and IE, A Process for Screening and Authorizing Joint names, where very interesting reads. I was especially drawn to the cultural and contextual issues section (p. 21) that describes the cultural contexts that all parties should consider for successful interactions with multiple cultures. Managing and recognizing cultural differences, and I would argue similarities, are paramount through all phases of program development: initial negotiation, design, implementation, and preservation. In an institution where I have worked, we worked a bit backwards at times. The regressive process was accepted by faculty and staff because it included a mandatory scout trip that did not require those involved to return with affirmative results. For example, a faculty member decided that Martinique, a small French Caribbean island between Barbados and Dominica, would be an ideal place for a study abroad excursion due to its small American tourism focus. Indeed the country is rich in history, as it served as a port and export center during slavery and has an expansive forest terrain. The college began detailed talks about a credit program with a university in Martinique that would blossom to a joint credit bearing exchange program with the students of this university. Faculty wrote a proposal. The college sent three paid representatives to Martinique to scour the area and identify an itinerary – two faculty perspectives were gained and one from a college relations perspective. As stated in the reading, language consideration is very crucial in designing a program. I think that the language of operations in Martinique was somehow overlooked. Two of the three representatives spoke fluent French and the other used their “high school” French and Patois to navigate the city that seemed disinterested in English translation. It was later discovered that language made Martinique a non-contender for our student needs as only a small number of students where proficient in French. The college was not at the point where language immersions classes were an option for our students.
In IE, A Process for Screening and Authorizing Joint, I was in awe of the system that Rice University has designed for joint and degree programs. I especially liked the pre-approval assessment in which a program proposal is reviewed by several constituents and voted on. Coming from a new institution where innovative ideas can be run amuck, structure is important. Since the piloting of our international education program, there have been great accomplishments and some hiccups along the way. I will bring this model to my colleague that designs the study abroad program to see if we can incorporate some of Rice’s practices into our strategy. To date, I think that we get stuck in the philosophical realm; too much time is spent in this area by faculty. Also as suggested in the lessons learned section (P. 9), all major stakeholders should be at the table! This will allow for a diverse pool of opinions. Leaders of a project can get so immersed in getting their ideas off the ground they may ignore details and unknowingly sabotage their own project. In my work currently, I am helping a faculty member to create a certificate program with another island. So far, everything is complete on our end, we have even begun the student search process. The only potential problem is… the Provost has not officially approved it. Go figure!

This week’s readings have helped to further my understanding of the internationalization of higher education. I was drawn more to the reading, Approaches to Internationalization and Their Implications for Strategic Management and Institutional Practice, by authors Henard, Diamond and Roseveare, where I was particularly interested in the Internationalization and international network section (P. 24). This piece describes the way in which higher education has become increasingly internationalized through dense networking among key constituents – institutions, scholars, students and industry – to meld best practices, create name based sought after partnerships and create added value networks that trigger competition.
Institutions seem to be eager to participate in international networks because they provide institutions the ability to weigh in on different perspectives on issues, expose them to interactions with countries and institutions they may not otherwise have access to. They also allow for student exchange and research collaborations with institutions and experts around the world. Equally important through networking, trust is established and the sending and receiving of international students can increase. Through trust building a mutual recognition of degrees, collaborative learning and burgeoning research partnerships can be the long-term impacts of successful international networking. Some of the problems that have occurred in international networking partnerships are outgrowths of poor follow through among institutions. In the beginning, as with most new projects, there is great enthusiasm and as time progresses, interest can decline and fewer participants remain involved. The best way to ensure that a network is a two-way process that is equally beneficial, is for institutions to contribute and expect returns. There should be a written contract among institutions that outlines the ground level benefits of partnership and ways in which continuity, innovation and commitment will be integrated into the partnership. In my experience, I have seen partnerships developed that have produced stellar outcomes, however this can be unhinged if the founding partners move on. An agreement/contract with the fine details, expectations and long term quantitative goals can remedy that.
In the research, An analytical framework for the cross-country comparison of higher education governance, three governance models where discussed – state-centered model, the academic self- rule, and the market-oriented model. Of these three it seems that it is important for all three model needs to be strategically aligned with the economic and academic needs of each institution. I do not see this as a viable plan for internationalization. I look forward to discussing this reading in class as, it honestly did not interest me and perhaps a group discussion will influence that.

In this week’s reading, Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide: National Policies and Programs, one of the policies that caught my attention was cross-border education which seemed to be one of the more important policies discussed in the reading. Cross-border education may take a number of forms, including branch campuses and other kinds of physical outposts or the phenomenon may present in virtual (or hybrid) forms, such as via various distance learning modes and MOOCS” (Kinser and Lane 2012; retrieved from IHEW P.39). NYU has a well-established cross-border education system that includes a physical branch campus in Florence, Italy. This partnership avails Florence’s extraordinary cultural resources and its strategic position within Italy and Europe for students to enjoy. As the reading mentioned, there are different motivations for cross-border partnerships that can range from cultivating “soft power”, simplifying cooperation for development, strengthening exchange programs, and providing sources of revenue. Through this partnership a revenue stream has been established, and a intellectual exchange has also been created -lectures and seminars on various campuses, and cyber classes that connect students at various sites by web video for shared lectures. Free entrance into cultural events and exhibits – everyone wins.
As the reading concludes, higher education worldwide has a vested interest in identifying the challenges and opportunities that globalization presents. Some countries have taken more time and invested more money, energy and resources to strategize how they approach their version of internationalization than others. I learned from our first group of readings that in the United States, a private, not-for-profit organization, the IIE, is responsible for our country’s goal of doubling the number of students obtaining international experiences during their degree. This is a phenomenal goal and I hope that this organization will be successful in doing so. I think that individual institutions should aspire to similar outputs for their students and fold study abroad (for more students) into their strategic plans. Although our government does not create policy to enforce and monitor international education, it would be wise as the reading suggests, that institutional leaders everywhere pay attention to experiments being undertaken by colleagues across the globe (P. 63).
Every institution, large or small are constantly looking to create more sustainable and innovative approaches to improve higher education. In seeking to improve internationalization countries will try to be as cutting edge as possible. Approaches to strategy must be customized based on individual countries specific institutional and domestic purposes. I disagree with the reading a bit because it offers a subtle ideological, “kumbaya” rationale in that it urges more national conversations about internationalization and warns nations not work within a vacuum (P. 63). I agree that this would be ideal, however, the counterproductive ways in which each country may or may not follow good practices based on awareness does not matter because we are all in competition with one another. Why share best practices, if you are only concerned that your country is successful? If the U.S. even bothers to expand its insular practices, I think it would only be because they fully recognize that they cannot compete with nations like China.

http://www.nyu.edu/global/global-academic-centers/florence.html