International Higher Education @Baruch College

This week’s reading was great at addressing the weaknesses within our current system of internationalization. Each nation has developed their own methods for internationalization and their goal seems to be a competitive edge on accumulating more international students. I believe the concept presented by this article to develop a more global approach would be beneficial. Instead of each country utilizing a plethora of programs that differ at the institution, state, and regional level, there should be shared goals and values. I respect the article for mentioning creating national and international policies and practices should make a commitment to quality, equity and accountability. I learned in the Student Services courses that institutions should work towards a common goal, with a holistic approach of servicing the education needs of students to produce a higher rate of success. Replicating that on a global level would work.

Last week we discovered that the conception of internationalization was a result of war and aimed to ensure peace and understanding. However, when each country and nation competes for international students, the primary focus seems to revolve around the quantity of students, regardless or not if they can financially support the increase of students. Converting to a global initiative for internationalization would enable higher education institutions to assess their programs on outcomes and impact instead of output.
I guess the main question should be, what do we want students to take away from study abroad that can be measured after graduation? Do we want to know if they are choosing to stay in the foreign country of choice? Are we more interested in learning what fields of they end up working in five to ten years post-graduation and how it can be aligned to being culturally aware? Are we interested in their accomplishments outside of their current careers, such as potential to create non-profit organizations that strive to continue building relationships with other nations?
Ultimately, the key phrase is building relationships. In higher education, typically a strong support system for students, partnerships amongst departments and faculty, and working within an institution with a mission associated to your own, can breed a better learning environment for college students. Instead of each country making their own programs and changing them to entice more students, maybe the focus should be cultivating research committees to determine select programs that enable international students to grow more as individuals. In doing so, we could follow students on a year to year basis and see where they flourish, compared students that do not choose to study abroad.

Policies and programs that are mentioned in this reading show much more success in internationalization of higher education than I thought. The five broad categories encompass many of the main points that should be touched upon but I also felt that security was a missing factor. The reading does state that there are policies that may have not been mentioned as the main idea was not higher education but a different matter and this could be covered in those policies, but think it would of been worthwhile to include that in this reading. One of the main issues most parents have with study abroad is safety, which could then lead to a bias in which countries work together. I can relate much to the questions posed in the beginning of the reading, such as “does scope matter?” and “how do we deal with failure?” because those were my main concerns in reading this. Also, what is considered to be failure? Is failure that some universities are unable to collaborate, or that one country/institution is seen with more “prestige” than others. The examples or organizations and policies from different countries shows an example of bias that hopefully is broken in the years to come with internationalization of higher education. The Nordic Council influences a group of students from several bordering countries meaning students will be more inclined to study in one of these countries opposed to one that scholarships and tuition is not covered. Will this also pose a problem for the countries who cover tuition for students through taxes and countries who do not, how will the exchange of tuition take place? If students have to pay out of pocket for tuition when normally they do not, I do not believe they will be interested in attending that institution. Internationalization at home covered a concern for me of the institutions and students who may be unable to participate in this by studying abroad or hosting students. It is brilliant to think about changing curriculum to allow students who stay at home to have international exposure and not just in the courses that normally are responsible for this like language but courses like science and psychology. Technology is now allowing for this possibility of students to be apart of this from home which is important to see this effort succeed. Even though the idea is to include everyone, the students who physically go to a different institution in a different country will have a much different experience than the student who stayed home.

This week’s reading “Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide” provided a thorough examination of the policies and programs that are currently in place in relation to the internationalization of higher education. By analyzing the programs and policies in a comparative nature it allowed the reader a better understanding of the systems that are in place. By providing real world examples of what is being discussed the reader can 1) conduct his/her own research into the areas discussed and 2) you can see how different countries handle similar policies and programs.

The “four categories of rationales driving country-level efforts toward higher education internationalization…” each have a level of importance. However, I think economic and academic motivations and goals have a stronger influence on why countries decide to pursue internationalization of higher education. Academic motivations or goals target different areas of importance especially for higher education institutions. Economic motivations and goals provide a realistic view as to why higher education internationalizing is important. Political motivations should not be discounted but I think they would be better applied to specific countries and/or regions; countries or regions that view internationalization as tool to strengthen its national security.

As the report moved to the different policy typologies, something that I questioned was how countries with multiple programs ran by the national government or other organizations were able to keep all of their programs funded. The programs and policies that target student mobility inbound and outbound seem to be costly with grant and scholarships available as well as in some cases favorable financial aid policies. These programs can cost specific higher education institutions or countries a lot of money (see Turkey Scholarship program). Is the money funded through private donations, government appropriation, etc. Understanding the funding would have given me more insight to see if these programs or policies are long-lasting.

With all the policies and programs that are in place to increase student and scholar mobility it is important that the opportunities are shared with students who would be considered non-mobile. One is to assume this would be 1^st generation minority students who come from economic disadvantaged households. Ensuring that these students know that there are scholarships available to allow them to travel internationally would greatly increase the number of students who are abroad which is the goals of many of the policies and programs we read about.  Making sure that scholars (professors) that teach abroad include minorities and women allow the visiting institutions a new perspective on teaching.

I found this week’s reading, ACE- Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide: National Policies and Programs, very informative and eye opening. Although some of us did write about the role of politics in Higher Education based on the last week’s readings, this report made me realize how big of a role politics and government really plays in the efforts of the internationalization in comparison to the role of individual institutions.

I am a great supporter of any international education initiatives, including study abroad (which I had a chance to experience myself), scholars exchange, collective research, etc. However, I find the initiatives included in this report to be highly selective toward one main purpose – political/government focus and interests. The ACE report does bring up diplomacy, international development, and national security as part of the political motivation for internationalization. In an ideal world, national security and establishment of peace should be the main motivation of internationalization in higher education. Yet, public diplomacy seems to be the main factor. In fact, the report states that national government agencies, such as those “that deal with foreign affairs, immigration, and trade” initiate and fund internationalization policies (p.11). Doesn’t it sound more like lobbyist might be running and creating those policies that benefits politicians, rather than students and the nation overall?  Another example of pure political interest in the policy, is Russian’s GEP program, which allows students to study in only handpicked institutions (by Russian government itself) and have to immediately return to work for Russian government upon completion of the program, without giving students a chance to pick their own place of employment and career direction.

I do not work in Higher Education and somewhat new to many aspects of policies and programs in higher education, which might explain my surprised realization that the major internationalization initiatives come from the national government and not individual institutions, as I was led to believe based on the last week’s reading, where the according to the study performed by the International Association of Universities, analyzed strategies and goals were based on individual institutions, rather than national, regional, and quasi-governmental organizations that focus on internationalization.

Another topic, aside from the political involvement, that interested me in the report was the topic of Harmonization. To my knowledge, not many international degrees are being recognized in other countries, especially for special programs like medicine. Only a few programs in the East Africa, Europe and Nordiac countries were provided as an example of harmonization in the report (none of which are in the US). However, it would be interesting to know if Caribbean Medical School Degrees that are being recognized here in the use are considered part of Harmonization process or a different internationalization initiative.

The reading illustrates that nations around the globe are investing various resources to international higher education. It discusses four main goals that drive countries towards higher education internalization are academic, political, economic, or cultural objectives. It became apparent to me that under the political sphere international development incorporated all the other three goals. Political objectives drive the rest of the nations decision-making processes and incentives. The article also goes on to describe agencies that overlook the process of internationalization in different countries. Some of these agencies are not-for-profit others are privately operated.

Student mobility carries excessive importance for international studies. From my encounters with people that have gone to study abroad, it was an experience that made them want to permanently move to the country where they studied in. A noteworthy example of the French visa policies shows a great political objective at play. France and Sweden are in the process trying to allow visa policies to extend the post-education work opportunities for qualified students (p23). This step will not only permit students to learn in a different nation but also give them an opportunity, to be able to use their knowledge in that country. This may just become an appealing way to help intensify the idea of globalization, as well as, expand internationalization of higher education. The immigration regulations in the United States display a much less accommodating view regarding student visas. According to the Institute of Higher education, most public higher education institutions only allow students year of study (Farrugia, 2014).

An example of scholar and research mobility was included in this article. With sharing and different funds of research ideas, there can be define breakthrough that can be very helpful to today’s society. ACE finally illustrates that internationalization is still very in a primitive stage. The general idea of higher education has just recently gained substantial significance. Nations with different economical and educational status view abroad programs differently. With this type of shift, the internationalization will also continue to shift and change due to the needs of the nations and its people.

Farrugia, C (2014). Charting New Pathways to Higher Education: International Secondary Students in the United States. Institute of International Education.Retrieved from: file:///Users/alina/Downloads/IIE-International-Secondary-Students-In-The-US.pdf