International Higher Education @Baruch College

The more I read, the more I realize how much of our lives are controlled by policies that are for the interest of others. It appears to me that every policy has an underlining mission to look as if it benefits society, but in reality, the mission of the policy is something completely different. In the reading for this week, Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide: National Policies and Programs, by ACE, American Council for Education, the author tells us in the introduction that the findings in the report are “just the beginning of the story” (p.3) and that much more is yet to be known on “how and why national policies for internationalization are developed, what they focus on , how they are implemented, and what they yield in terms of impact in the short term and long term “ (pp.3-4). I found this line interesting in regards to the title of the report.
As I read through Hans de Wit four categories of rationale, many of the rationales did not mention the idea that internationalization would benefit students learning outcomes, thus giving them greater success in mobility in their own lives. Although many of the policies do benefit students, the reason the policies were implemented in the first place does not appear to come from the need of the student but rather it comes from the need of the government. For example, within the academic rationale, many countries reported not enough space within their universities for their own students, or they were in need of world class research universities in their country. On the economic front, international tuition was a big driver, both for the university itself and for the community within the student lived. Public diplomacy was a driver in the political arena and global problems were mentioned as the reason on the social/cultural perspective.
I was not surprised to see there were not many programs mentioned for the United States after reading last weeks article, but I was surprised at how many recent programs there are within other countries, both inbound and outbound, when it comes to internationalization. Other countries are leading the way. Even if the programs are all a political move, which addresses a whole other area outside Higher Ed, these countries are doing something that is either directly or indirectly benefitting their students. Why the U.S. is not in the game, is another question that we all should be asking ourselves. Or are they, and we just don’t know about it?

The American Council on Education’s report, “Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide”, provided a deep dive into the ways in which countries implement their internationalization efforts. Unsurprisingly, a main reason for internationalization is economic: for outgoing students, internationalization helps them gain language skills and cultural competency to prepare them for work in a global economy, whereas incoming students provide a large economic boost to the local community. Additionally, the report also discussed the academic, political, and social/cultural motivations for internationalization, which include increasing international academic rankings, building up “soft power”, and increasing mutual understanding, respectively.

What struck me as most interesting was the report’s assertion that there needs to be “…a fundamental need to shift the focus of internationalization toward the non-mobile majority of students” (Helms, Rumbley, Brajkovic, & Mihut, 2015, pp. 2). I couldn’t agree more. From my (admittedly anecdotal) experience as an undergraduate at UW-Madison, a large public research university, which ranks as one of the top 10 universities and colleges in the U.S. in the number of students who study abroad, the majority of students who studied abroad came from middle class or affluent families. I imagine the main reason for this was the financial burden study abroad can place on low-income (and even many middle class) students and their families. At Hunter College, where I work, there is not a large culture of study abroad, except for in the honors programs like the Macaulay Honors College, which I would speculate is also directly related to affordability issues, rather than a lack of interest.

This needs to be addressed on a national level through increased funding and other initiatives if the United States wants increase its internationalization efforts, which, as Green showed last week, lag behind other countries. I’d like to see the U.S. implement a program like Russia’s Global Education Program (GEP), which “…awards scholarships to graduate-level students for degree study outside Russia, and requires them to work for the Russian government immediately after completing the program” (Helms, Rumbley, Brajkovic, & Mihut, 2015, pp.27). Not only would this help students study abroad who otherwise might not have the option to do so, it would also provide them a job after graduation using the skills they learned while living abroad.

While I am definitely in support of increased government funding for internationalization efforts, I noticed that, at least as it relates to outgoing students, this funding is only reserved for citizens or those with a legal residency status. Given the global refugee crisis — which ballooned to 60 million people in 2014 and likely rose considerably more in 2015 — governments should make it a priority to help undocumented students also be recipients of internationalization efforts. In the U.S., this can be as easy is allowing DREAMers — many of whom have been in this country since they were young children — the ability to apply for federal financial aid to finance their education, both at home and abroad.

The last point I wanted to touch on was that, according to the ACE report, a good proportion of the funding for students (both incoming and outgoing) is dedicated to those pursuing STEM disciplines. While these fields are of course very important, it is also important to encourage students to develop skills in liberal arts disciplines as well. According to a report from the Association of American Colleges & Universities, “74 percent of business and nonprofit leaders say they would recommend a twenty-first century liberal education to a young person they know in order to prepare for long-term professional success in today’s global economy.” Skills like critical thinking, cross-cultural communication, the ability to solve complex problems, and the capacity for continual learning are seen as more important than a specific major. Internationalization efforts should be expanded to include more support for liberal arts disciplines.

It is encouraging to see how much is being done to promote internationalization around the world. I hope we continue to see internationalizations efforts despite Altbach and De Wit’s warning that nationalism and global conflicts might impede this growth.

I found this reading helpful in outlining the motivations and goals surrounding international education as well as providing some key terms that are crucial when speaking about internationalization.  It starts out by providing four major categories of motivations for internationalization.  They are academic, economic, political, and social/cultural.  As the reading notes, they are all interconnected, and I found that they all have an underlying goal of improving an aspect of the home country through collaboration and the exchange of ideas.

Student mobility involves sending residents of one country to study in a different country and also includes attracting international students to study in a country or region.  This is differentiated into two categories: “degree mobility” and “credit mobility.”  I have also heard these referred to as “degree seeking” and “non-degree” students.  I feel like those terms are a bit more intuitive, but maybe they are more closely tied to visa regulations than scholarly discussions of internationalization.

Within the student mobility category are two types of mobility – inbound and outbound.  Policies designed to encourage “inbound mobility” include scholarships, immigration regulations, and “study-in” informational marketing campaigns.  Outbound mobility is when countries send students to study in another country with the hopes that those students will gain skills abroad and contribute to an aspect of development in that student’s home country.  Some incentives are similar to those related to inbound mobility including scholarships or other economic incentives.

I was glad to see the Brazil Scientific Mobility Program (BSMP) as one of the examples for outbound mobility scholarships.  I used to work on this program, as the US portion of the program was administered by IIE.  This program had a short-term and long-term intensive English component for students whose English was not ready for academic study in their field, which is what I worked on.  This is a great way to increase diversity and reach students that had not travelled internationally before or did not have the means to study English in Brazil.  Although this program sent students to various countries, the US was the largest hosting country for the program.  At one point there were 20,000 BSMP students in the US!  As noted in the history reading from last week, these programs and policies are subject to external influences.  In recent months the Brazilian economy has not been doing so well and the president is under scrutiny for various reasons.  Therefore, the Brazilian government has had to dramatically scale back the program.

I really enjoyed the sections on what I consider to be lesser known internationalization initiatives including regional mobility and scholar mobility.  It makes sense that regional mobility would be an area of focus for many countries, especially smaller countries that have a lot to gain from cooperating with their neighbors.  One example is the recognition of exams and qualifications by the Nordic Council to increase mobility in that region.  In the scholar mobility category, I thought the repatriation efforts, mostly through financial benefits for scholars living abroad was an effective way to fight against brain drain in many countries.

For those of you who read my blog post from week one, you have come to realize that I am a bit of an idealist when it comes to the purpose of education. I am not naive enough to believe that there are no business components to it, but I would like to maintain the notion that money doesn’t solely drive policy. While the readings from last week saddened me, ACE’s piece has brought out in me a much more practical mindset. To be honest, I am mostly stuck on the Academic and Economic Policy Goals and Motivations.

When I read the first bullet points for academic goals, I immediately thought about developing nations. The compilers of this study note that international education can increase the capacity and improve the quality of education around the world. These benefits may be true to an extent, but I think they are deceptive. I say this due to an enlightening conversation I had with an international student. I told her my idea (which I was initially very proud of) to create sister schools, pairs of schools in developing countries as well as large metropolitan areas around the United States. People who want to come to the U.S. could attend the school in their home country first and learn English and other pragmatic things, such as cultural norms. They would also be taught and provided useful information about the city they wanted to live in (New York City, for example), like housing, work opportunities, and transportation. When they finally came to the American city, they would continue their schooling at the domestic location. I thought this idea was brilliant! If this country attracts so many immigrants, we might as well prepare them before they get here. Then, the international student burst my bubble. Who did I really expect to be able to do this? The poor? No, it would be the families with resources. She agreed it was an interesting concept, but it wouldn’t serve the demographics I intended to help. The same goes for a lot of the programs mentioned in these readings. Who can take advantage of these opportunities? Only the wealthy, really. I will always be an advocate for the underprivileged, and therefore skeptical of the supposed benefits.

The second notion that piqued my interest was that about economic goals, namely about developing a global workforce. The reading states that “In some countries, policies

to attract international students may also be seen as a way to build a skilled labor force when international graduates stay and gain employment” (pp. 7-8). That may be true, but I also believe the opposite is a reality- once international students study abroad, they can come back and help their home countries. They have new and valuable expertise and experience, and can use those qualities to improve the conditions of their home. Although contemporary literature is certainly not academic, after reading Americanah by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, I realized that what I mentioned above is a real possibility. The protagonist, after an extended stay in the United States, goes back to her home country of Nigeria because she feels she can better serve the women there (not in any fiscal or medical way, but simply by promoting confidence and self-identity). This goal of hers was admirable, and is representative of what internationalization can do. Others, who study abroad in medicine or business or other influential careers, can have a significant impact on the development of a town, city, region, or country. Again, call me an idealist, but that is a type of internationalization I can get behind.

This week’s reading was more structured and provided a better understanding of the internationalization process in higher education systems. The reading justified various reasons why internationalization is important. Four categories explained in the reading are the demands in academia, the economy, government policies, and the society. The reading also explained how internationalization in higher education can address global issues like employment and cultural awareness. Similar to last week’s readings the author acknowledges that “motivations vary substantially by country and context” (p.9). It is also explained that governmental demands shift over time. The reading was clear that internationalization is a demand in higher education because it is seen through the creation of study abroad programs which allows international exposure. Due to this exposure, internationalization targets development, advancement, and research for scholars and international relations.

The internationalization process can be influenced regionally and nationally. There are also sub-agencies and quasi- governmental agencies that influence the importance of internationalization. Regionally and nationally European countries seem to place a higher importance to internationalization because of their high interest in higher education. Internationalization in the U.S, however, is enforced by sub-activities providing mobility. The reading explained that the U.S. Department of State administers more than 50 programs to fund incoming- outbound mobility. Incoming mobility is short-term and outbound mobility for U.S citizens seems to provide more long-term goals depending on the work. I concluded that U.S citizen benefit the most of international education in terms of work force development because students can bring international relations back to the states. Could it be that international education in the U.S is seen to benefit more U.S natives (on a work-place stand point)? And do governmental officials see international education as a personal achievement where mobility is provided, but no promises are made for long-term goals?

In the U.S, institutions and sub-agencies enforce internationalization by working around current immigration laws. Sub-agencies can change the level of importance U.S governmental officials place on internationalization if institutions commit to working with sub-agencies recruiting more international students. This, however, can be very difficult due to the low graduation rates in where the U.S Department of Education has invested to improve the K-12 system and bridge the gap in completion rates based on race. Altbach stated in his article “Internationalize American Higher Education? Not Exactly” that “The lack of a national approach to international education may increasingly place the United States in an isolated position”, however, do governmental officials care about falling behind in international education (p. 17)?