I found this week’s reading, ACE- Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide: National Policies and Programs, very informative and eye opening. Although some of us did write about the role of politics in Higher Education based on the last week’s readings, this report made me realize how big of a role politics and government really plays in the efforts of the internationalization in comparison to the role of individual institutions.

I am a great supporter of any international education initiatives, including study abroad (which I had a chance to experience myself), scholars exchange, collective research, etc. However, I find the initiatives included in this report to be highly selective toward one main purpose – political/government focus and interests. The ACE report does bring up diplomacy, international development, and national security as part of the political motivation for internationalization. In an ideal world, national security and establishment of peace should be the main motivation of internationalization in higher education. Yet, public diplomacy seems to be the main factor. In fact, the report states that national government agencies, such as those “that deal with foreign affairs, immigration, and trade” initiate and fund internationalization policies (p.11). Doesn’t it sound more like lobbyist might be running and creating those policies that benefits politicians, rather than students and the nation overall?  Another example of pure political interest in the policy, is Russian’s GEP program, which allows students to study in only handpicked institutions (by Russian government itself) and have to immediately return to work for Russian government upon completion of the program, without giving students a chance to pick their own place of employment and career direction.

I do not work in Higher Education and somewhat new to many aspects of policies and programs in higher education, which might explain my surprised realization that the major internationalization initiatives come from the national government and not individual institutions, as I was led to believe based on the last week’s reading, where the according to the study performed by the International Association of Universities, analyzed strategies and goals were based on individual institutions, rather than national, regional, and quasi-governmental organizations that focus on internationalization.

Another topic, aside from the political involvement, that interested me in the report was the topic of Harmonization. To my knowledge, not many international degrees are being recognized in other countries, especially for special programs like medicine. Only a few programs in the East Africa, Europe and Nordiac countries were provided as an example of harmonization in the report (none of which are in the US). However, it would be interesting to know if Caribbean Medical School Degrees that are being recognized here in the use are considered part of Harmonization process or a different internationalization initiative.

Hello everyone, my name is Natallia Kolbun. I received my bachelor’s degree in Finance and currently still work in the industry. I started HEA program as a result of my personal interests. In 2015 I co-founded a non-profit organization that provides scholarships, mentoring and eventually educational and support services to college students whose families have been affected by cancer. I believe that this program can help me understand higher education and the needs of the students in more depth. I’m five classes into the program, yet I am already considering leaving finance to pursue a career in Higher Education.

I really enjoyed the readings for today’s class, as they touched upon several important topics of international higher education, which I am sure will come up throughout the semester. The two topics that I personally was intrigued and simultaneously concerned about were Green’s article on US and internationalization and the role of politics in higher education.

I find Green’s article somewhat controversial. It could partially be due to the lack of details on the IAU Study that Green uses to make his point. According to the study, US provided lower indicators in the interest and implementation of internationalization within participated US colleges and universities versus all participated institutions around the world. Yet, there are no details in regards to the size, mission and location of those institutions. The United States has over 5,000 colleges and universities throughout the country, some of which are small, specialized, or have a unique mission to accomplish, which is not a representation of the majority of the large US Higher Ed Institutions. The United States is also a number one country that takes/welcomes the largest number of immigrants every year. Both of the above facts, in my opinion, are very important when discussing internationalization of higher education, yet it does not seem to be considered in the study. It is also important to keep in mind that the United States is the most diverse country in the world and has already a great base of internationalization within the institutions without study aboard programs or other international relations. In addition, the location of the institutions in the survey is also very important. Colleges and Universities located in New York and California, for example, would be more interested in international relations than institutions in the Midwest, simply because New York and California are the states with most diversity and international relations in general. Therefore, it seems as if politics still play a large role in the choice of the geographical areas institutions pick as their top priority. Asia is the top choice for the US, since the US has a tremendous portion of their trade, manufacturing, and outsourcing relationship with Asia, which seems to benefit both areas over the last decade. On the other hand, the US relationships with Russia and Europe have become more competitive (it feels like the Cold War between Russia and the US has never ended), rather than collaborative, which might be directing European interests to Latin America and Middle East instead.

I am interested to see what others think about this topic, as well as to see the actual implementation of internationalization strategies within institutions here in the US and abroad in the next couple of decades.