An analytical framework for the cross-country comparison of higher education governance asserts that there is a need to classify the indicators of governance within higher education. To do so, authors Dobbins, Knill and Vogtle take a critical look at three different European governance models: academic self-governance, the state-centered model and the market-oriented model. They believe that due to increased competition and struggling economies worldwide, higher education institutions are now under more scrutiny than ever before. This increased attention subsequently drives the need for institutions to address how they are governed, in order to determine and sustain best practices. In European universities, the European Commission has worked to reform governance through “the diversification of funding sources, an intensification of ties between universities and industries and a match between the supply of qualifications and labour market demands” (European Commission 2003, 2006). Although the authors recognize these efforts, they propose ideal-type models, calling specific attention to the categories of institutional balance of power, financial governance, and system autonomy. They find it most important to identify empirically observable indicators to observe the direction policy change is headed for European systems.

In the OECD article Approaches to Internationalization and Their Implications for Strategic Management and Institutional Practice, authors Henard, Diamond and Roseveare focus again on internationalization and the key role of governments. They offer suggestions for this partnership, citing that the following attributes will positively effect outcomes: “consistency is needed between policies and educational objectives, activities should be diversified, strategies should be linked to national policies and the framework should be explicit” (p.10-11). The article offers broad suggestions for how government can align with institutional strategies and further reflects on the ethics and values involved in this process.

Both articles from this week highlight the overarching relationship between government and higher education institutions. Although one article focused more on European systems, I found myself constantly comparing each of the 2 readings to our U.S system of government. They prompted me to think deeply about how we govern our own institutions, and what policies we have in place. As I read, I was reminded of the current presidential campaigns and how the topic of higher education is now of greater interest to Americans than ever before. As the Analytical Framework article mentions, there is more emphasis placed on the relationship of government through this economic downturn. Therefore, pressing issues such as government policies, support and financial aid have risen to the top of the discussion. On NASFAA’s website (the National Association of Student Financial Aide Administrators) they provide a concise list of the current presidential candidates and their plans for financing the future of higher education. As more candidates develop their own higher education proposals, this page will be updated accordingly. I enjoyed taking a look at their ideas and comparing them to the proposals from this weeks readings.

This week’s reading highlights the current policies and future directions of internationalization in higher education. It outlines prominent policy actors and discusses current policies (using the 4 typology subcategories previously discussed: student mobility, scholar mobility & research collaboration, cross-border education, and IaH.) The reading begins by defining key policy players in the United States, such as the U.S Department of State, Education, Defense, as well as the National Science Foundation. Together, these agencies (and others) can be analyzed using the 4 typologies listed above to help develop comparisons on a global scale. In the Executive Summary, it is highlighted that while the U.S does many things well, what we lack as a nation is a comprehensive national policy which links multiple initiatives together in order to further promote the internationalization of higher education in our country. The reading suggests that in order to address this issue, the U.S must promote higher levels of engagement between the world of Higher Education and these agencies. It also suggests that we coordinate more well-funded initiatives which support global internationalization.

Something that I found very interesting was the nod towards the United States’ decentralized structure of government. Because of this, as well as the current state of Higher Education in our country, the author states that they do not foresee one national policy proving to be effective on a global scale. Instead, they believe that the U.S would need to target federal policies and programs individually, in order to best support the internationalization effort as a whole. I agree with this train of thought and also find it very interesting to see how different our country is from others discussed later on in the article. Speaking from personal experience, I have traveled abroad to many Caribbean countries where I have been lucky enough to tour their Ministry of Education building. The United States is so different because we lack an educational structure defined by a single governing agency. In an article titled, “The Three Great Strengths of U.S Higher Education,” the author explains “This is the defining feature of U.S. higher education. It is why we have the best universities in the world (by pretty much any measure), and it is also why applying to U.S. colleges and universities can be so confusing. We do have a Department of Education, but it is by far the smallest federal department. It doesn’t run schools or universities. It doesn’t issue diplomas. It doesn’t write or choose curricula. So each college or university decides for itself how best to teach its students. This leads to the first great strength of U.S. higher education—diversity” (Gorski, p.1).

It is an undeniable fact that while the U.S has work to do regarding Internationalization at Home, among pursuing other global policy initiatives, we have already succeeded in promoting a vastly diverse realm of education for our citizens as well as visiting scholars. As the article concludes, I agree that it will be of the utmost importance to support policies which promote “preparedness for a global era” because that is absolutely the direction which our world is headed.

Reference: http://www.internationalstudentguidetotheusa.com/articles/three-great-strengths-of-us-higher-education.htm

The assigned reading for this week was a thoughtful continuation of “Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide: National Policies and Programs.” The second part of this work discusses additional types of policy types, including: Cross-border Education, IaH (Internationalization at Home) and Comprehensive Internationalization Strategies. Ultimately, the piece closes by revisiting the notion of policy assessment and effectiveness, and then draws final conclusions about the current and future promise of the Internationalization of Higher Education.

The third type of policy, Cross-border education, is introduced as “the movement of people, programs, providers, curricula, projects, research and services across national or regional jurisdictional borders” (p.38). Although cross-border education is sometimes referred to as a offshore, transnational or borderless education, the author stresses that cross-border education is the preferred term because it pays homage to the importance of jurisdictional boundaries regarding policy. The reading also mentions that cross-border education may be motivated by cultivating one’s “soft power”. I wasn’t exactly sure what this meant, but with a little digging, I found out that soft power refers to a persuasive approach to international relations, typically involving the use of economic or cultural influence. Instead of “hard power” which is usually attraction through coercion, soft power refers to the ability to shape others preferences through appeal. Of these efforts, initiatives of cross-border education includes creating educational hubs, fostering cooperation for development, encouraging campuses & programs abroad, and regulating educational activity abroad. I found it very interesting that the U.S has awarded grants to fund institutions with partnering universities in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Personally, the Middle East is the last place I would consider to expand U.S education, considering all of the current world tensions!

The fourth type of policy was IaH, or internationalization at home. While we spend a lot of time reading about implementing internationalization abroad, I found it very interesting to turn the tables and consider IaH for once. The reading mentions that this type remains “a much less deeply or systematically developed aspect of internationalization in many higher education contexts around the world” (p.43). As a student of the United States, I can completely understand this. As we discussed in class, the amount of students we send abroad are in the single digit percentiles. Conversely, the U.S is a huge hub for international learners, specifically in New York City.

The last policy type discussed was comprehensive internationalization strategies. The reading explains these strategies try to consider a more holistic orientation toward internationalization, and determine 2 sub-categories: global strategies and specific geographic strategies. These strategies in general seem to overlap several of the themes we previously read about, including student mobility and strategic partnerships. I liked that in the examples, they included the United Kingdom as an example both of a global and a specific strategy. As the reader, this really helped me identify the differences of these policies and how they can affect the same region differently.

In conclusion, the author reaffirms many things that we learned about the internationalization of Higher education. The piece mentions the central role of government, the importance of mobility, the difficulties of assessment, the importance of influencers, and the dynamic nature of globalization efforts. While effectiveness is namely determined by quantitative factors, something I am most interested in hearing about would be reports where internationalization of higher education is viewed through a qualitative scope. I think it would be very interesting to see research about students who are or have studied abroad, and what they feel the experience has given them that cannot be counted on paper.

I found this week’s assigned reading, “Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide,” to provide a clear and concise approach to an in-depth overview of national policies and programs. The introductory Executive Summary lays the foundation for what the reader can expect to dissect in the coming pages. The piece begins by identifying the general purpose of the study, which is an effort to “better understand public policies and programs for internationalization of  higher education in a comparative context” (p.1). The introduction also reintroduces an idea from W1; the difficulty of assessing the effectiveness of these policies and programs. As someone who knows very little about the internationalization of higher education, I really appreciated that the author used the executive summary to consider key questions: Who enforces internationalization? (mainly the ministry of education, as well as other government offices) What do they enforce? (5 broad categories of focus), What concepts make an effective internationalization policy? and What suggestions can we offer to increase effectiveness?

The study then continues to showcase a comparative analysis of the policies and programs currently in place around the world. The reader is encouraged to question the effectiveness of these programs, and consider what future implications they may have on the direction that internationalization is going. In Hans de Wit’s 2002 book Internationalization of Higher Education in the United States and Europe, he outlines four categories of rationales driving effort towards internationalization of higher ed: academic, economic, political, and social/cultural. While these 4 may seem obvious, the article continues with an explanation of why each category further drives countries to continue with internationalization efforts.

Something that I found particularly interesting about this piece was the section about Policy Typology and Examples. Here, the conversation moves towards internationalization regarding student/scholar mobility. These types of policies “focus on attracting international students and promoting and incentivizing outward credit & degree mobility” (p.20). In my current job, I am participating in enforcing a new international partnership! I work at Pace University’s Accounting Department, and we are collaborating with ACCA (the US arm of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants). This landmark partnership will link ACCA’s globally recognized qualification program to both graduate and undergraduate coursework at our New York City campus. Starting this fall, both graduate and undergraduate students in Pace University’s Lubin School of Business’s Department of Accounting will be able to complete coursework that will qualify them for specific exemptions from ACCA’s 14 exams; the exemptions will initially include four for graduate courses and five for undergraduate courses.  A student who successfully graduates from Pace’s rigorous program will automatically receive exemptions for those specific exams and be able to use them towards the completion of the ACCA qualification. In reading this article, I was very excited to be able to relate to this concept, and especially acknowledge the ways in which my own University is participating in the global stride towards international higher education.

1. Hi, All! My name is Melissa Parsowith and this is my last full semester in the Higher Education Administration program at Baruch College. I graduated in 2012 from Pace University’s Pforzheimer Honors College and returned to my alma-mater in 2014 to work as a Program Coordinator in the Lubin School of Business, aiding and advising Accounting students. I absolutely love what I do and look forward to earning my Master’s so I can move up in the Higher Education field. Although I am originally from Central NJ, I work and live in New York City now and feel very lucky to call the best city in the world my home. Looking forward to a productive Spring semester ahead!
2. I greatly enjoyed this week’s introductory articles to International Higher Education. When first selecting this course, I was not sure if there would be a lot of information on how Higher Education has been studied on an international level. After reading these articles, I was pleasantly surprised to see how much research has been done on the topic. Altbach’s “Internationalization and Global Tension” piece highlights the aspect of International Higher Education that I feel myself and many of my peers are concerned with: the global scale. The article begins by acknowledging the 2015 Paris attacks and the current global turmoil our world is facing. It goes on to review the history of International Higher Education, from the wars of the 18^th and 19^th centuries, all the way to todays global climate. Personally, I found this article intriguing because there are great concerns with the danger and/or safety associated with international relations. Although international business can broaden one’s world views and scope of knowledge, this article drives home the important fact that the world is not always without political tension, and it is important to acknowledge this before choosing to leap outside of your comfort zone. In Madeleine Green’s “Is The U.S the Best In the World?” I was not surprised to read that the United States is not the #1 nation in support of institutional internationalization. As explained in the Oxford article about International trends, the U.S “remains the most popular country for international students” (Oxford, 2015, p.5). With this in mind, I find it highly probable that the worlds most desirable destination for international students should be less occupied with promoting internalization of their own students. In short, if the U.S is a wonderful place to learn, it is understandable that many of our own students are happy to stay here for their education, rather than pursue it internationally. I also found it extremely interesting when the Oxford article discussed the value of study abroad among international employers. Assessment is something Higher Education professionals constantly aim to achieve. The European Commission found that the skills and employability of international students yielded a positive outcome. I wonder what variables were considered when making this determination? Lastly, I found the “International Trends” article to highlight the extremely important notion of technology, and the many ways in which it is changing our world. As they mention, open access to information, online classrooms and MOOC’s are just a few of the many ways which technology has allowed education to grow accessibility of information across the world. It is delightful to see the many ways which technology helps our nations succeed, and something which I believe will remain a trend for many years to come.