Posted on by e.truong · 2 Comments

W7: Financial Reform in Higher Education

This week’s reading spoke about the types of educational reform in general and for higher education specifically.  As the OECD Education Policy Outlook 2015 discussed there are three different categories policy levers for reform: students, institutions and systems.  The student category included reforms that aimed to extend equity and quality. Institutions category focuses on improving the school and developing better assessment techniques. The reforms centered on governance and funding are placed in the systems category. The literature we have been reading seems to point higher education towards the students or institutions category. However in the executive summary on the state of higher education, there was a lot of focus on financial or business model reform for higher education.

The state of higher education report of 2015 done by the OECD summarized three main challenges that the OECD has observed and presents approaches and solutions to address those challenges. The chapter that discusses business models of higher education is the most extensive. It was interesting to find out that higher education institutions all over the world are experiencing the same issues, not just the Unites States. Challenges such as the lack of public support for higher education exist in places such as Latin America, Eastern Europe and Asia as well. One of the main suggestions that OECD made for institutions was to self-assess to find a working business model for them. The suggestion to self-assess rather than imposing a certain model onto all higher education systems is more effective because each institution is different and institutions need to be aware of that. For example, an institution that does not have the technology capacity or the buy-in to scale up technology on their campus should not implement a performance-based revenue model because this model involves complex tracking and monitoring mechanisms that require technology.

After reading these reports, my reaction was what do these reforms have to do with the internationalizing of higher education? Well the report says that implementing a business model that will best maximize their effectiveness and efficiency can improve student mobility and student outcomes. Having a more efficient operating model would allow students, international or domestic to more easily navigate through the institution without the administrative barriers to hinder them. In addition, I also believe if institutions are in a more sustainable and better financial state themselves, they might be more inclined to develop external programs and partnerships that will benefit the students overall.

Posted on by e.truong · 4 Comments

W6- Best Practices in International Higher Ed.

In this week’s ACE report, it states in the beginning that a one-size fits all type of policy or solution to internationalizing higher education in the United States is not possible. The report says that this kinds of unitary over-arching solution will not “adequately address the nuances and realities of international partnership development in the US”( p.3).Partnerships in many cases are very unique to the institution, so having a one-size fits all solution in maintaining a partnership would not be very effective. However, the ACE’s survey and report on best practices is very helpful for administrators and institutions that are looking to establish a partnership with an institution abroad. These suggestions should not be limited to just international partnerships, but to all international higher education programs.

As a higher education administrator, I found what they said about transparency and accountability very important because having transparency and a common understanding will help with the buy-in from staff and faculty. The report suggests that the institution should make a strong effort to inform everyone at the institution about the partnership program, even during the beginning planning stages. Having everyone informed and educated about the program will allow everyone to have common understanding about it which will make them feel included and more likely to buy-in. Memorandums regarding the “nuts and bolts” of the program to how this will affect governance in the institution should be well communicated. Senior administrators who are heading these initiatives should be sure to include the entire institution when communicating with them because everyone has a stake in sustaining the program. If no one but the staff and faculty who are directly involved only know the details, then how will the word about these amazing opportunities spread among students. As an academic advisor, I would be less inclined to suggest or promote a program to a student if I did not know all the promises and details about the program. As a result, low participation rate becomes an issue for sustainability. Not only is inclusion of staff and faculty important after implementation, but it should be an essential from the beginning.

At a large institution like Baruch College could be difficult, however, it can and should be done. Of course communicating the details to students is the most important thing; but, those leading these initiatives should not forget about the administrators who can help to guide students towards these opportunities. Staff and faculty participation and buy-in is hard to achieve, and that might be the reason why many programs and partnership initiatives lose its momentum. However, transparency and accountability throughout the development of these partnerships is a good practice that all should utilize.

Posted on by e.truong

W5- NYU Academic Freedom in China

Branch campuses have always been an area of interest to me because it is a clear and physical indication of globalization and how our world is becoming more “flat”, as Friedman would say. I thought it was amazing that students could receive a higher education at an American institution without coming to the United States. Of course, there are financial issues when opening anything in another country; however, one aspect I did not really think about was the academic freedom differences. As the OECD report on internationalization policies suggests, institutions that pan on establishing branch campuses should consider the “political, legal and cultural environment of the offshore campus” and how it may or may not match the institution’s own environment. A case, like NYU’s Shanghai campus, really highlights this point.

Last fall, I read an article about NYU’s Shanghai campus and how the institution is an island of academic freedom and expression in the midst of China’s long-standing national censorship policies and how this impacts students. As critics note in the article “how can universities that prize open inquiry as a fundamental tenet find a home in an authoritarian country without compromising its views?”. The Chinese government has had a long-standing tradition in censorship and denying the freedom of speech to its people for many years.  Websites like YouTube and Facebook are blocked; and terms that allude to the June 4th,1989 Tiananmen Square protests are censored from the public eye.  But, students who attend the NYU Shanghai Campus are able to freely browse the web, as if they were in United States. So, Chinese students, who grew up in a censored society, are being exposed to this information now and are encouraged to be critical about the Chinese government in a public setting.Students that were being interviewed in this article talked about the cultural and political conflicts and isolation they faced when they left the campus and went home. One student said he felt like he lived in “two worlds”: one where he can express his critical political views and one where he must hold his tongue. In relating back to the Dobbins et al. reading we also had, China must have had a market-oriented approach to higher education because it invited NYU to Shanghai and hopes that the school will create graduates that can stimulate the economy. It is clear that these intentions are market-based and economic rather than political.

It is really interesting how the authoritarian chinese government allowed NYU to make its home in Shanghai. It will be even more interesting to see how this campus and most likely many other American campuses can change the political and cultural environment of China in the future. Recently, China has made its internet censorship policies stricter rather than loosen its grip. So it is interesting to see how this dynamic will play out in the future.

Posted on by e.truong

W4- Private Funding of International Higher Ed.

International higher education re-emerged on the national policy platform during the Obama administration. As noted in the ACE report on national policies and initiatives, President Obama announced an initiative in 2009 that will encourage 100,000 US students to study abroad in China and to learn Mandarin by 2014. In 2013, the 100K Strong Foundation was created as an independent non-profit by the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to oversee this initiative. Not only has the initiative achieved its goal of sending 100,000 students to study in China in the Summer of 2014, but President Obama has announced a new goal of sending 1 million students to study abroad in China by 2020 during a state visit with President Xi this past September. Travis Tanner, the senior vice president and chief operating officer of the 100K Strong Foundation comments “create a pipeline of China-savvy employees in a range of fields…ensure our trade relationship with China continues to benefit the American economy and that the future generation of American entrepreneurs, business owners, journalists, engineers, scientists, doctors, as well as government officials at both the national and state levels, understand China”. The focal motivation of this initiative is train the next generation in helping to build better trade relations with China in the future. This motivation is even more clear when looking at the Foundation’s supporters. Wal-Mart, Ford, Coca Cola, WanXiang Group(US-based company specializing in auto parts) and Caterpillar(specializing in construction vehicles) are all major trading partners with China, and would hope to benefit the most if the next generation of workers are equipped with Mandarin proficiency and chinese cultural appreciation.

 

There is no doubt that financing international higher education initiatives are expensive. Policies and programs that especially support students mobility require massive amounts of funding to subsidize the scholarships and financial incentives that attract students to these programs. As the report identifies, many of these efforts have been stalled due to the lack of federal funding and congressional support. As the ACE reports mentions, even long-standing programs such as the Fulbright Fellowship has been threatened with federal funding cuts, which could determine the viability of the program.Therefore, initiatives and non-profit organizations are finding other sources of funding for their programs and are not depending of the federal government for funding. As the 100K Strong Foundation did, corporations became private supporters of the foundation. Sources like Foreign Policy question the intentions of China and its supporting companies in subsidizing these initiatives because China might be receiving political favors in return. However, I hope that private international corporations continue to support international higher education because ultimately, these students will help to make their workforce and company better in the future where both the US and China will mutually benefit.  

Posted on by e.truong · 4 Comments

W3- Assessment of International Higher Ed.

This week’s portion of the ACE Report touched on a topic that has been the “hot button” topic in higher education in recent years and how it is certainly relevant to the success of international higher education programs around the world. This topic is assessment: how do countries or institutions show that international higher education programs and policies are actually achieving the outcomes and objectives they claim to achieve. Organizations such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has recent made it clear that assessing learning and outcomes should be a global effort. As higher education expands beyond national boarders, it is important to identify what we want students to get from studying or living abroad and what quality of education they are receiving. As the director for education and skills of OECD states “Unless we measure learning outcomes, judgements about the quality of teaching and learning at higher education institutions will continue to be made on the basis of flawed international rankings, derived not from outcomes, not even outputs—but from idiosyncratic inputs and reputation surveys”.

The assessment of international higher education learning objectives should require more than just simply counting the number of students in international programs or leaving the country. Assessment should involve assessing the promises of having an international education, such as cultural understanding and job marketability. As we discussed in class, education abroad constantly promises that these experiences help the student develop their soft-skills, which would make them more desirable in a competitive and globalized job market. Like the report states, measuring the effectiveness of the long-term goals of international higher education is more difficult because these goals involve intangible variables that are difficult to measure and they require more studies that expand over time and countries. However, it can be done and it is necessary that institutions and countries to do these assessments.

I believe that conducting these assessments and having the information to back up what international higher education promises will allow it to expand and to grow as an essential part of education, especially in the US. Without assessment and its findings all those promises about how great international higher education is for students are just empty claims to potential students and their parents. As skepticism about US higher education and it value increases along with its price, parents and students need to be won over with solid data from assessment in order to be sold on international higher education. Students and their parents need to be able to see the end results and outcomes for programs and how it benefits the student before investing in it.