This week’s reading comprised of the ACE report on Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide –National Policies and Programs builds on last week’s foundational introduction to the key concepts in internationalization and offers instructive insights and detail regarding national policies and programs to build international higher education throughout the world.

For me, a comparative analysis of national policies and programs was revealing for a few reasons.  First, it helped to give color to some of the readings from last week, in particular Green’s assertions of where the US lies in relation to other country policies and programs.  Second, it also cogently highlighted the categories in which such policies and programs fall into such as student mobility and scholar mobility and research collaboration (this week’s focus).

The ACE report’s strength is in laying out what different regions and countries around the world are doing to stay competitive in the global market from an academic, economic, political and social/cultural perspective.  To me, what resonated in the ACE report was that while there are a myriad of ways in which nations address their differing needs with respect to international higher education, the underlying goals and mechanisms are essentially the same.  Student mobility (degree and credit) is key as is the overall concept of strengthening competition, particularly in the areas of skilled labor and work readiness.

I also find the trends of regionalization and harmonization highly relevant in understanding where internationalization is headed and what models will yield targeted success.  Strides in the European Union and coalitions such as ASEAN suggest that nations see value in focusing their efforts in specific areas and with targeted goals to increased student and scholar mobility through collaborative and innovative processes for mutually beneficial results.  While successful models such as Fulbright programs in the US have had broad reach and significant contribution to internationalization efforts, harmonization addresses some of the impediments to Fulbright like scalability by addressing critical factors such standardizing academic calendars, degree structures and common quality assurance procedures.

Certainly, there may be concerns raised here that such standardization may compromise unique features of a particular country’s academic traditions and structures.  What makes international education coveted is the diversity and national nuance and differences in a student or scholar’s academic experience.  I posit that tampering with national models too much may yield its own list of setbacks for internationalization efforts.  On the other hand, a global economy and interconnected world is the reality we live in.  Regional higher education ought to reflect that reality and harmonization could thus help to make even greater significant strides in internationalizing higher education worldwide.

Hello!  I am Sima Saran Ahuja and this is my fourth session in the MSED Higher Administration program.  I am General Counsel of the Metropolitan College of New York.   Coming from an immigrant family that came to this country to pursue higher education, I am interested in the history and current trends of international higher education.  More importantly, as a member of a college that is increasing international enrollment and very focused on growing these numbers, there are several aspects of the trends that impact my role.  Previously, I was in CUNY’s office of General Counsel and both my parents are long-time CUNY professors.  I am a graduate of Barnard College and the B.N. Cardozo School of Law.

As an introduction, the readings this week did a good job laying out the past, present and future of international higher education in terms of the international political and academic landscape.  It was also useful to get an understanding of the concept of internationalization which rooted the readings and I am sure will be a guiding principle in the weeks to come.  The readings seem to break down into three categories:  (i) Altbach who provides a brief history of higher education and explains the concept of internationalization; (ii) Green who addresses the US’s explicit role in the history and future trajectory; and (iii) Oxford University Press’s detailed and fascinating look at current trends in international higher education.  I am excited to explore these trends in-depth in this class.

In Altbach’s article, I was intrigued to review the history of international higher education prior to the 1970’s – a watershed moment for Asian students venturing abroad to pursue education and to note that the history and trends date back to WWI and carry real relevance to goals of international peace and solidarity signaled by the establishment of institutions such as the UN.  The final question posed by Altbach is an unsettling one – whether current global conflicts involving religious fundamentalism and nationalism will harm international higher education strides.  Statistics cited in Green’s article suggest that current conflicts in troubled regions are in fact where the largest segments of international students hail from – South Asia, China and Nigeria.  I look forward to exploring what Green’s statistics  reveal about the pessimism underlying Altbach’s premise that global conflict may curtail higher education international pursuits.  I agree that the internationalization of higher education may be at a critical crossroad.

The Oxford University Press review of international trends in higher education was instructive.  While the review was undertaken with Oxford in mind, I think the trends are relevant to other markets and institutions looking to break into the international higher education market or sustain growth in that area.  Given Green’s assertion that the US is lagging behind in internationalization, the Oxford discussion of trends seem particularly relevant and informative in understanding why and how to reverse the US trends.  I am curious to learn more about international branch campuses in non-traditional countries, particularly with respect to current viability and success rates, e.g. Johns Hopkins in Malaysia.  I am also eager to learn more about the concept and trends of widening access through innovations such as MOOCs (their apparent rise and decline) as well as internationalizing access to research and the potential impacts on quality of research and intellectual property rights.