This week’s reading delved more into the complications associated with the growing importance of internationalization and the competition amongst nations. As we learned last week, instead of every country developing their own policies and programs, there should be a form of equity, quality, and accountability. Currently, each nation is fixated on quantity, instead of quality, regardless of the financial burden they may be encountering. I don’t find this surprising since higher education institutions have been striving toward this goal internally. State contributions for American Colleges and institutions are slowly dwindling and these institutions feel the need to get as many students enrolled to generate money from their tution. Hence, student success takes the backburner and it becomes more about filling seats. According to Reisberg (2016), institutions are more attracted to international students because they cannot qualify for federal or state aid and usually pay majority of the costs of tuition, housing, and other expenses. Plus they can charge them more fees for being out-of-country students. But, what about the international students who cannot afford it? Is it fair that they would be robbed of an opportunity to study abroad in an anticipated country because money trumps a students’ chance to address global problems?
American institutions are now considering methods to increase retention and develop assessment tools to help them determine if a student learned. But how can students be assessed if there isn’t a common goal. Even K-12 has been struggling for years, tinkering with policies to measure a student’s growth, but has encountered failure. The reading mentioned failure is expected when trying new policies, but how long should these policies be in force before we realize it isn’t working? Should they be long term or short term? How can we measure the success of study abroad programs if every country doesn’t agree on its key factors? In what way should the following be prioritized across the board: workforce development, mutual understanding, global citizenship, national security, and improving higher education quality?
One aspect that stood out to me during the reading was that the U. S. A. is one of two countries that practices internationalization at home, meaning it is infused within its curriculum. Since Junior High School we have all been expected/required to take a foreign language. Although I have taken Spanish classes since the 6th grade, I am nowhere close to carrying on a conversation with an individual fluent in the language. Therein lies the oversight that a country cannot provide such a small portion of one culture and except proficiency. At the same time, you cannot place an international student with a difference experience, value system, and background in a class, without the proper resources and support, and expect them to acclimate abruptly without conflict. In order to achieve unity and harmony, support is necessary. Support not only from faculty and staff, but the country housing foreign students need to align policies and laws such as immigration and citizenship with the strategic plans of internationalization. If not, study abroad because a lose-lose situation for foreign students.

Adia Johnson

This week’s reading was great at addressing the weaknesses within our current system of internationalization. Each nation has developed their own methods for internationalization and their goal seems to be a competitive edge on accumulating more international students. I believe the concept presented by this article to develop a more global approach would be beneficial. Instead of each country utilizing a plethora of programs that differ at the institution, state, and regional level, there should be shared goals and values. I respect the article for mentioning creating national and international policies and practices should make a commitment to quality, equity and accountability. I learned in the Student Services courses that institutions should work towards a common goal, with a holistic approach of servicing the education needs of students to produce a higher rate of success. Replicating that on a global level would work.

Last week we discovered that the conception of internationalization was a result of war and aimed to ensure peace and understanding. However, when each country and nation competes for international students, the primary focus seems to revolve around the quantity of students, regardless or not if they can financially support the increase of students. Converting to a global initiative for internationalization would enable higher education institutions to assess their programs on outcomes and impact instead of output.
I guess the main question should be, what do we want students to take away from study abroad that can be measured after graduation? Do we want to know if they are choosing to stay in the foreign country of choice? Are we more interested in learning what fields of they end up working in five to ten years post-graduation and how it can be aligned to being culturally aware? Are we interested in their accomplishments outside of their current careers, such as potential to create non-profit organizations that strive to continue building relationships with other nations?
Ultimately, the key phrase is building relationships. In higher education, typically a strong support system for students, partnerships amongst departments and faculty, and working within an institution with a mission associated to your own, can breed a better learning environment for college students. Instead of each country making their own programs and changing them to entice more students, maybe the focus should be cultivating research committees to determine select programs that enable international students to grow more as individuals. In doing so, we could follow students on a year to year basis and see where they flourish, compared students that do not choose to study abroad.

Hello Everyone, My name is Adia Johnson and I am in my last semester in the MS-Ed HEA program. I went to Daemen College for my undergraduate degree where I majored in Psychology and minored in Theatre. I currently work for an investment company. I am interested in working in Student Life working with student groups and organizations.
I was really excited about enrolling for this course for my last semester here at Baruch. Throughout my undergraduate college experience, study abroad was appealing but I didn’t have the resources to travel out of the country for a semester. I always knew students that were fortunate enough to partake in the opportunity would return with an open mind and an advantage. The reading for this week happened to be a good introduction for internationalization and presented a broad overview of its history, purpose, and growth/setbacks. The adoption of Internationalization, unsurprisingly, occurred after war. Typically after wars or conflict, people attempt to find a peaceful attempt at co-existing to avoid future confrontation. The United Nations is an organization that strives to stimulate peace and mutual understanding, and serve as a beacon for global security and development.
Although keeping open communication is beneficial, Albatch and De Wit (2015) suggest recent and future global conflicts revolving around religion and nationalism can hinder the advances of internationalization within higher education. However, I do not believe the advancements will falter. Students with international experience develop soft-skills that employers desire, such as openness to new challenges, adaptability, problem-solving, and the ability to communicate in another language. Based on the readings, an increasing number of students are expected to study abroad. In turn, colleges and universities are making solid decisions to incorporate internationalization into their strategic plans and are restructuring their infrastructure to include necessary tools to successfully accommodate foreign students. In keeping with the University of Oxford (2015), Russian universities require foreign students to complete Russian language and literature before enrolling in a degree program. Students are also given the opportunity to win a scholarship and would be expected to stay and work for an organization for 3 years after graduation. This plan seems really rewarding for students since the main purpose for obtaining a degree is to get a job and the scholarship guarantees free tuition and a future job.
It was mentioned that higher education institutions in The U.S.A. lack the internationalization in their strategic plans. I suppose this is part of the reason why there has been a decline in the number of international students applying to American colleges and universities. However there is another factor that may explain why there has been a decrease: lack of incentives. Other countries are offering international students more resources during their education and employment within their chosen career paths, USA simply cannot compete with that. Sure, we can offer students the same scholarship plan, but we are not economically stable enough to provide those resources. Our unemployment rate, for postsecondary degree holders, is still fairly high and if we cannot provide our current citizens with jobs, how can we offer jobs to an influx of international students. Redden (2015) touched on using tenured faculty to aid in reaching internalization goals. In my student services course, I learned that faculty need to demonstrate a level of competency in teaching, research, and service. It would be fairly easy to incorporate the international -focused criteria within the service spectrum. I understand that some institutions do not have the financial means of supporting faculty to travel internationally and make this requirement part of the tenure path. However, if an institution decides it wants to have international students studying at their school, they need put it into their strategic plan and provide incentives to both faculty and students.

References
Albatch, P. & De Wit, H. (2015, Summer). Internationalization and global tensions: Lessons from history.
International Higher Education; Number 81
University of Oxford (2015)
Redden, E. (2015, November 10). Internationalization and Tenure. Inside Higher Ed
Retrieved from: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/11/10/should-universities-include-internationally-focused-criteria-tenure-and-promotion