Posted on by Victoria Tsang

W2 – Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide

From the reading, it was interesting to learn more about questions that were raised from last week’s readings about how the programs compare to each. I did not realize the vast number of focuses policies and programs could have for promoting internalization of higher education. This is probably because of some goals being discrete as mentioned by the readings, or not intended. The section that mentioned the “study in” initiatives was very interesting to read and compare to how U.S. post-secondary education institutions attract local students to apply in general in the United States. There’s also heavy use of websites and the internet to try to attract more international applicants.

Since I intern with the Baruch Fellowship Advisor this semester, I’ve gotten a lot more exposure to all the internationalization efforts done by not just the U.S. but other countries as well who have partnerships from the U.S. or want to attract inbound students from all over the world in general. It was eye-opening to read more in-depth about the opportunities the Office promotes to Baruch students, and the motives behind each initiative.

And I know that degree mobility and credit mobility were two things that caused my friends to hesitate from studying abroad, it was fascinating to read about how some countries are trying to make it easier for students, while others are tightening the reins on it. Personally, I know that at Baruch certain departments are not very welcoming of courses taken outside of the U.S. due to a number of reasons. At the time, I found it frustrating, but I can see how some departments may worry about the quality of the course taken abroad and the effects it may have.

In addition to the section on student mobility, it was nice to read more about how knowledge and research exchange between countries are also a motive of internationalization. I’ve had friends who’ve gone abroad to research in other countries either through initiatives set forth by the U.S. (i.e. the Fulbright program) or by initiatives implemented by the host country to foster more knowledge exchange. I, myself, it very interested in going abroad again to expand my own knowledge of the world and just to have more experiences in other places.

Again, this week’s reading was very informative, and I’m looking forward to reading about the comparison analysis of the programs in next week’s reading.

Posted on by d.grant1

W2 – Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide: National Policies and Programs

This week’s reading focused on the four main goals that would push a country towards higher education internalization, these four main rationales are: academically, politically, economically and culturally. Globally, institutes of higher education are investing a multitude of resource outside of finances into this venture. For just about every country in the world, politics is a major part of their day to day lives. Whether we realize it or not, politics have a major effect on how we go about our day to day lives, and how we live our lives in general. With this in mind, it seems plausible that the academic, economic, and cultural stand points for towards higher education internalization are simply branches of a political tree. All nations, not matter what they preach wants what’s best for the nation, so no, it’s not the needs of the people first, it’s the needs of the nation as a whole. When the nation is “good” and all needs are met, this goodness can trickle down and affect the people, when all the needs of the nation aren’t met, this too affects the people.
This for the good of the nation is shown in this week’s reading. Hans de Wit outlined the possible benefits of internalization, there is little to no mention of how the students would be affected, instead, the larger focus is on the nation or rather the government. Academically, policies are geared toward “raising the visibility and stature of the national higher education system” (pg. 7), thus by improving the nation’s institutions global ranking, economically, nations have found that improving their educational quality will have an effect on their national economic development, politically, nations feel that having students develop linguistic and cultural competence could be molding future government leaders that could detect national threats, lastly, culturally, nations believe that having “multi-cultural” view point of the world could help in finding solutions that are “also global in scope”(pg. 8).
It is possible that nations have seen the shift that is occurring in education and are finding ways that it will benefit them in the long run, while the nations might not be explicitly looking for the betterment of its people, a nation funding and paving the way for higher education internalization does just that. The people rely on the nation, and the nation relies on its people. It’s a giving and taking partnership, the foundation of which is different, as with all relationships, you know what you have to offer, but you also want to know and be assured that entering this partnership will make you both better in the long run.

Posted on by s.ahuja1

W2-ACE Report (Part I)

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.

Posted on by t.bailey

W2 – ACE Report

The American Council on Education’s report, “Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide” describes that worldwide, nations are investing countless resources into international education. I think they easily make the case for why a study such as this is important. International education policies are often presented in the media independently while no comparison is made to how these policies are similar or different to national policies around the world. The ACE’s analysis seems very valuable to the international education community allowing policymakers and institutional leaders to learn and understand why certain policies are made, how they relate to the political and economic climate of the nation and ways perhaps in which nations can collaborate on policies.
Hans de Wit proposed four categories that drive countries towards higher education internalization, which are academic, political, economic, or cultural objectives. It seems that the economic and political scopes outweigh all others. Especially in the U.S, I have witnessed international students arrive to college campuses with very little to no support for them. The out of pocket costs for these students can be astronomical yet if a student needs assistance to find employment on campus to offset costs, they are often denied assistance. My colleague would often say, if we cannot support these students, why do we take their money?
The political implications for internationalization although not surprising, seem as though students are being used. An example is Russia’s, Global Education Program (GEP) in which graduates are required to attend a select number of schools and then work for the Russian government immediately after graduation. This would prevent students from having the ability to choose their own career path and forfeit vocational freedom which should be one of the rewards of international education.

Posted on by m.parsowith

W2, Blog 2: Melissa Parsowith (Article Response)

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.