International Higher Education @Baruch College – Page 37 – Spring 2016

Posted on February 21, 2016February 21, 2016 by j.kalaidis · 3 Comments

W3: China, China, and more China

We’ve spent the last few weeks discussing the different motivations behind why countries pursue internationalization in higher education. These motivations range from economic to diplomatic concerns — and everything else in between. Because I live and work in the United States and have a particular interest in U.S. history and politics, I have found myself always relating internationalization back to the U.S. — what are we doing well, versus the (many) things we need to work on. This week, in both the reading and in my professional life, I have been particularly interested in China’s strategies for internationalization in higher education. I will first discuss what I found interesting in this week’s readings and then I will explain what piqued my interest about China this week at work.

In this week’s reading, I was particularly interested in learning about China’s Confucius Institute in Africa, which began in 2000 and has “resulted in an increased number of Chinese government grants for African students in 2012, the establishment of 100 joint research and development projects, and the strengthening of the teaching of the Chinese language in Africa” (American Council on Education, 2015 pp. 47). Reading this, I immediately wondered if this huge investment in higher education in Africa is a way to increase the ROI of China’s economic investment in African countries; according to The Economist, “China has become by far Africa’s biggest trading partner, exchanging about $160 billion-worth of goods a year; more than 1m Chinese, most of them labourers and traders, have moved to the continent in the past decade.”

A report from Peter Kragelund, a Professor of Sociology at Roskilde University in Denmark seems to back up my initial inkling. Kragelund’s paper “sets out to explore the extent to which this collaboration resembles a new type of South- South collaboration in higher education or rather resembles soft power initiatives of the Africa’s ‘traditional’ partners” (Kragelund, 2014, pp. 2). By South-South collaboration, he is referring to political, economic, social, cultural, and environmental collaboration between what are often referred to as “developing countries”, whereas “traditional partners” refers to relationships between developing countries and Western countries, which have historically had colonial or neocolonial undertones. Kragelund states that the history of higher education in Africa “is also the history of external support, academic partnerships and adherence to Western standards that either directly or indirectly have shaped the particular outcome of the present‐day universities in Africa” (Kragelund, 2014, pp. 3).

Kragelund ultimately concludes that the Confucius Institute more closely resembles the “traditional” Western types of partnerships, “i.e. partnerships dictated by the external partner exhibiting highly uneven power relations, and not necessarily in line with the vision and strategy of UNZA [University of Zambia, which he specifically studied]”. (Kragelund, 2014, pp. 15). Like all other countries who are internationalizing in higher education, China is mainly concerned with promoting its own interests. Given its economic investment in Africa, it makes sense that it would also seek to increase its cultural investment through the Confucius Institute.

On the professional front, this week I learned about Schwarzman Scholars, a scholarship program “created to respond to the geopolitical landscape of the 21st Century”, which funds a 1-year Master’s program in Public Policy, Economics and Business, or International Studies at Tsinghua University in Beijing. This program is brand new — its inaugural class was just selected and will begin classes in August of 2016. According to a recruiter for the program who spoke at Roosevelt House last week, around half of the inaugural class is American, a quarter are Chinese, and a quarter come from other countries. Classes will be held at Schwarzman College, which is a residential college within Tsinghua University.

I am particularly interested in the structure of the program — a new college solely dedicated to this particular program within an established university. Going off of this week’s readings, “to offer formal degree programs in China, a foreign university must establish a joint legal entity with a Chinese partner institution. Such programs must be approved by the Ministry of Education and subsequently operate under the ministry’s supervision” (American Council on Education, 2015 pp. 41). As it stands, independent foreign institutions cannot have nonprofit status and cannot grant degrees, which, I imagine, is why the program is hosted at a U.S.-built residential college within Tsinghua University.

With China playing an increasingly important role in global affairs, it makes sense that the scope and ambition of its higher education internationalization efforts will continue to increase.

Posted on February 21, 2016February 23, 2016 by Ben Levine · 2 Comments

W3- Hub Initiatives

While the second half of Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide continues to discuss various models of internationalization, one model in particular grabbed my attention. Hubs, which have been sprouting up mostly in Eastern Asia and the Middle East, are relatively new forms of partnerships designed to promote international education. Jane Knight puts it succinctly, describing one as “a planned effort to build a critical mass of local and international actors – higher education institutions and providers, students, research and development centres and knowledge industries – who work collaboratively on education, training, and knowledge production and innovation.” The reading for this week cites three primary examples of hubs, which are located in Ecuador, Singapore, and United Arab Emirates (UAE), but there are also locations in Botswana, Qatar, and Malaysia.

The reason I have decided to comment on hubs is very simple- I had actually heard of them before this class, and quite possibly before I even became interested in higher education. I have little experience myself in international education, never having studied abroad or been exposed to it besides my sister living in Spain for a semester. Despite this distance from internationalization, I somehow got wind of hubs and thought they were fascinating. The extent of my exposure was looking up a few photographs of the hubs and maybe checking out a couple Wikipedia pages, but the concept was interesting and memorable. Of all the myriad models of internationalization, hubs seem to me the most complete and quintessential. Host countries and cities attract various educational institutions from around the world to build branches within a designated zone. This is the epitome of collaboration- countries, institutions, and students all create partnerships with one another, and with the region the hub is stationed.

While investment is not particularly my area of interest, it is an important topic to discuss because it ends up being a key factor of one of the very few criticisms of hubs that both myself and other scholars have (which I will mention in the next paragraph). Jane Knight, an international education researcher, sums up investment strategies quite nicely in her article “Investing in Education Hubs- Local Investment is Key.” As indicated in the title, public funding is essential in order for hubs to survive. For most, if not all hubs, public funding accounts for no less than 50% of funding, and in some cases, covers 100% of funding. In Qatar, the federal government covers all costs, while in other countries and cities, the regional or city government covers costs. In a few hubs, both foreign investment (from the branch institutions themselves) or private investment can sometimes offset costs, but this is never more than 10-20%. It is easy to see that the public is responsible for the maintenance of hubs, which I actually initially found (and still find, to some extent) somewhat surprising. I assumed that the foreign institutions would pay a heftier sum in order to ‘rent’ space in these educational zones because the marketing and exposure seem to be worth investing in. Apparently it is the other way around, and the local governments have to find ways to attract these institutions. Covering most to all costs seems to be a successful way of doing that!

Now to the criticism. I claim that hubs are the embodiment of internationalization, but in one respect, they totally miss the point. Despite excessive local investment, very few students from the region will attend school at the hubs. In Dubai, only approximately 8% of the student population in Knowledge Village and Dubai International Academic City are UAE citizens. This opposes another concept that Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide espouses- internationalization at home. Students who are ‘immobile’ should still have the opportunity to learn how to be global citizens. That being said, it seems unfair that so few locals are able to study at these educational centers. Peter Waring echoes this notion, stating “There appears to be a prevailing sense of frustration with the government’s perceived efforts to attract international students while not providing sufficient places for local students.” That is just a shame. Obsess over international students and forget your own (see the correlation with NYU? Apparently there is a trend in international higher education)! It would certainly be uplifting to see these hubs place more of an emphasis on educating the people of their own regions, but that is probably a tall order.

Links

Jane Knight Article

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20150128085234959

Peter Waring Article

Couldn’t find it for free, but it is cited directly in the reading on page 58.

Posted on February 20, 2016February 20, 2016 by RChoudaha · 1 Comment

W2- Technology and Branch Campuses

I wanted to share couple of my articles related to Oxford report on Trends in International Higher Education. The report highlighted that “International branch campuses are expanding to include non-traditional countries.” It added that

While branch campuses remain a popular facet of institutional international strategies, there have been a number of high profile closures.

In my previous article “International branch campuses get too much attention“, I have argued that branch campuses are infrastructure-intensive efforts that come with high financial and reputational risks and higher education institutions interested in global engagement may also experiment with emerging online learning efforts. These are low-cost, flexible alternative for ‘glocal’ students to potentially earn a foreign credential – ‘glocal’ students aspire to earn an international education or experience without having to leave their home or region.

This directly connects with another trends identified by the Oxford report on technology. While the Oxford report takes a critical view of MOOCs, it does recognizes that “Technology is becoming central to the process of learning and teaching in higher education and, in some countries, is driving wider access to education and training.”

The landscape of internationalization is still shifting with no one size fit all approach, but experimentation with technology is emerging as a new strategy for global engagement.

Feel free to critique/comment on this theme in your future posts.

W3 – Internationalization: Scholar Vs. Student Exchanges

This reading starts out continuing the themes of the first half of the document and defining different types of internationalization policies. It describes comprehensive internationalization strategies including internationalization at home which widens the outputs and impact of international education. These strategies go beyond a singular focus on exchange and embrace a multi-faceted approach including creating partnerships and being prepared to welcome international students on many different levels.

The reading goes on to explain the difficulties in measuring the effectiveness of internationalization policies and concludes by examining factors that affect a policy’s success. One part that I thought was really interesting was the fact that most policies focus on student mobility rather than scholar mobility. The article made a good argument for the investment in and promotion of scholar exchanges. For example, scholars usually stay at an institution for a longer time than students. They also have the ability to impact hundreds or thousands of students through introducing new course material, sharing their firsthand cultural experiences, and promoting international study and travel. Whereas students have a profound personal experience, professors can produce long-term direct and indirect impacts leading by example.

I am sure that policymakers are aware of the multiplier effect of scholar exchanges, so it got me thinking why so many programs focus on students. As the article mentioned, funding is one of the main determinants of success of an exchange program. Students may have a greater need for funding than established scholars. Researchers could receive funding for a project they are working on abroad. Professors may have the option to do a sabbatical abroad and still receive their full or partial salary. In other words, scholars have more funding options for international exchanges that are outside of policies created by national governments, regional entities, and nongovernmental organizations. Additionally, there are more students than scholars, so it makes sense that there are more programs aimed at them. It would be interesting to see the percentage of students compared with the percentage of scholars that benefit from these internationalization policies.

There are numerous benefits to investing in student exchanges. Traditionally aged students are at an age when they are often open to learning about different ways of life. World Education Program, Australia states such individual benefits to students as increased acceptance and understanding, language skills, problem solving skills, personal growth and development, and interest in global issues (WEP 2016). Although these can be personal gains, they are also attributes that create globally minded citizens that will go on to help society as a whole.

Focusing mostly on public diplomacy, the Fact Sheet released by the American Security Project, “Academic Exchange: A Pillar of American Public Diplomacy,” (2013) notes that government funded student changes are a crucial aspect of the US’s long-term, strategic relations with other countries. It notes, “50 percent of the world’s population is younger than 30, constituting a significant potential audience. Building relationships with youth through exchange may pay dividends for the U.S. decades down the line as they assume leadership roles in their countries” (Trost and Wallin p 6). The authors note that alumni of international exchange programs go on to hold leadership positions in their home governments and win Nobel Peace Prizes. Although scholars can reach a wide audience, student exchange represents an investment in human capital for long-term benefits. Both student and scholar exchanges are crucial to comprehensive, multi-faceted internationalization policies.

Sources:

Trost, K. and Wallin, M. (2013). Academic exchange: A pillar of American public diplomacy. American Security Project. Retrieved from: https://americansecurityproject.org/ASP%20Reports/Ref%200135%20-%20Academic%20Exchange%20-%20A%20Pillar%20of%20American%20Public%20Diplomacy.pdf.

WEP. (2016). Benefits of student exchange. World Education Program, Australia. Retrieved from: https://wep.org.au/student-exchange/benefits-of-student-exchange/.

Posted on February 20, 2016February 20, 2016 by Zeline Santana · 2 Comments

W3- U.S and Internationalization in the Middle East

This week’s reading explained the definition of cross-border education and internationalization at home. Cross-border education referenced to the movement of people, programs and research development across borders and how this process aids internationalization through the use of online course work and hybrids-internationally (p.38). The reading explained that cross border education can foster partnerships in the internationalization process and create educational hubs where a “planned effort” and strategic internationalization initiative of engagement in internationalization can be found (p.38). This section also engaged the reader by explaining how cross-border education is meant to encourage the implementation of study abroad programs and regulate its activities. What I found most interesting in this section was United States hopes of starting cross-border education in the Middle East. We can dispute that this won’t be a great idea, however, I have faith that the majority of the Middle Eastern population and those part of the higher education system wish to have peace in their country.

In Jordan, this is the case. Jordan’s universities are in need of joint programs with overseas countries. Personally, I believe the implementation of programs and partnership (with the U.S) may not have an effect on radicalistic activities. Currently, there are 14 European countries who participate in providing partnerships and cross border education in Jordan. Jordan, however, is reluctant to give accreditation for other systems to operate in their country which can be caused by religious tensions and hopes to not increase terror. I believe there are ways that partnership can be created with U.S and Middle Eastern estates. This can be done by assessing policy effectiveness and ensuring the possible outcomes of establishing partnerships with Middle Eastern countries. First U.S must establish what their goals are and make sure those also align with their partners. In addition, the courses and curriculum offered must also align. What I do argue is that there is no motivation in the U.S- politically to make the above happen. This is caused by several differences that have stopped and/or discontinued and challenged their interest.

Lastly, the reading explained that the purpose of internationalization at home is to integrate culture in their curriculum at home. In the reading the policies examples explained that the implementation of linguistics and foreign languages in the U.S were part of internationalization. Even though this is part of internationalization in education (K-12 and higher education) we can argue that it is more so for students to become “global citizens” in their own country rather than expanding their horizons in other countries. The purpose of internationalization at home in the U.S (in my opinion) is for students to understand the U.S diversity and be marketable in the U.S workforce.

Jordan: http://www.mei.edu/content/internationalization-higher-education-jordan
Middle East and U.S challenges: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/going-the-extra-mile-for-a-strategic-us-india-relationship