Posted on by s.ahuja1

W5-OECD Guide

This week’s readings, particularly the OECD Higher Education Programme:  Approaches to Internationalisation and Their Implications for Strategic Management and Institutional Practice, A Guide to Higher Education Institutions, brought some practical guidance and insight on the challenges of implementing internationalization whereas, to date, we have focused more on the evolution and theory of the concept.  I personally appreciated the guidance aspect of the readings, because tangible implementation strategies that have been tested and well formulated are key to internationalization initiatives succeeding.  While the European models of higher education reviewed in An analytical framework for the cross-country comparison of higher education governance (academic self-governance, state-centered model and the market-oriented model) were interesting and their intersections are instructive for non-European regions as well, I am not focusing on them for this blog post.

Instead, I take a closer look at the international branch campus (IBC) phenomenon as I thought the OECD paper had more concrete details on how to actually implement a successful IBC in an off-shore setting.  OECD suggests five actions for institutions to consider when contemplating off-shore campuses (see pp. 14-18).  First, the “genuine interests” of stakeholders in the higher education institution as well as the host country must be considered.  Not focusing on the host country can lead to gaps in understanding between the institution and host country and unsuccessful implementation.  Second, the host country’s legal and regulatory environment must be thoroughly vetted and the compliance costs must be analyzed.  Without this component, the very survival of an off-shore campus can be threatened.  Third, sustainable business models must be applied taking into account main divers.  Fourth, have a viable plan for quality faculty recruitment and retention.  Fifth, regularly monitor quality.

The above mentioned actions to consider may help mitigate some of the pause and caution with which off-shore campuses are progressing due to some high-profile failures and an earlier desire to be first to market without careful consideration of the OECD guide’s review of strategic management and institutional practice.  For example, see http://monitor.icef.com/2015/10/a-more-cautious-outlook-for-international-branch-campuses/ which discusses a recent survey of European universities which found that IBCs were the lowest priority among 15 prominent internationalization strategies but despite that figure, the number of branch campuses worldwide is rising although perhaps with greater awareness of the financial and quality assurance issues discussed in the OECD guide.  To me, a highlight of the OECD guidance was the observation that “in starting up and operating an off-shore campus, experience has shown that it is better to start small and expand incrementally.” (p. 14).  Interestingly, while India may not be fully willing to let IBCs infiltrate its own shores, I was surprised to learn that it seems to be taking the OECD guide’s advice to start small and expand one by one in bringing Indian branch campuses to other countries.  (see http://www.obhe.ac.uk/what_we_do/news_articles_reports/news_analysis/na_2015/news_analysis_3_22jan15).  Perhaps, India will be well served to learn lessons from its own regional off-shore expansion to allow for other countries to being IBCs to India with the above mentioned actions underpinning implementation.

Posted on by Zeline Santana

W5, Faculty governance and internationalization

The reading Why Focus on Internalization validates many of our comments and discussions regarding the importance of internalization in higher education. I agree that internalization is far more complex then providing mobility. In reviewing all the readings thus far, it seems like the U.S takes pride that mobility is an option through study abroad and internalization at home, however, internalization works when unique forms of joint, dual programs and school partnerships exists. Overall, I think this reading was very informative as to why higher education institutions and systems need to focus on internalization. It is very rare for internalization to prevail in the United States. According to this reading internalization matters because it adds mobilization and internal intellectual resources. In addition, it enlarges the academic community and leverage institutional strength. The U.S is very far from internalization because there are a lot of issues legally that may affect the mission of internalization. When I think of internalization I think of global change that first need to happen at home, for example, providing more access to undocumented students in the U.S. The reading also states that government systems must implement “national universities systems” which is nearly impossible for the U.S due to its complex system and different sectors. In the U.S the analytical framework and governance structure is too complex to run as a “self-governing” community.

In Dobbins, reading three governance models were discussed. The three models where the sate-centered model, the academic self- rule, and the market-oriented model. If I understand correctly all three governing models needs to be in communication with universities strategies to correlate socio-economic and academic needs. In order for internalization to work in a state-centered model, then internalization needs to be in the forefront and within the budgeting plans of the state. In an academic- rule model, the faculty needs to also place a high importance to internationalization. Unfortunately, in the U.S the majority of faculty questions the quality of education through internationalization, so this model might not work in the U.S. I believe internationalization might work in a market-oriented model, however, the concerns of quality also exits. One example is GoAborad.com. Even though GoAbroad is not an affiliated to an institution it works as a market-oriented model, which provides study aboard programs that can be approved by intuitions (as course work), volunteer opportunities, internships and teaching programs. The concern with this model will always be quality since it not tied into faculty governance.

Posted on by s.ahuja1

W4 – ACE Report (U.S.)

Focusing this week on internationalization of US higher education in the ACE companion piece to the global perspective from earlier weeks was revealing and highlighted certain key differences in the US approach to internationalization versus other global regions and players.  While mobility is a constant in internationalization policies, the US differs in not focusing on cross-border education and not having a comprehensive national policy due its decentralized government and highly diverse and large higher education structure.  Rooted in values of public diplomacy, national security, foreign language competency, scientific advancement, and global economic competiveness, the US has robust programs such as the Fulbright scholars but is generally individual focused rather than institutional as is more common in European countries.  With the likelihood of a comprehensive US national policy low, and government funding not high, the future of internationalizing US higher education will require advocacy and institutional attention to build on some of the current momentum.

For me, an interesting aspect of this week’s readings was again related to India and its internationalization relationship with the US.  As we read about last week, and I focused my blog on, Indian regulation at the national government level does not make for easy cross-border relationships and there is perhaps a need to loosen some of the regulations without compromising the integrity and quality of internationalization programs in higher education.  Perhaps not due to high regulation, but an overall lack of focus on it, the US too does not do much in the area of cross-border education and instead focuses on individual student and scholar mobility.  It struck me then that one of the countries the US does seem to partner with, particularly in cross-border efforts, is India.

Our reading this week gave two such examples.  The first is the one that is jointly funded by the US and the Indian government:  the United States-India Educational Foundation (USIEF) which serves to “promote mutual understanding between the nationals of India and the U.S. through educational exchange of outstanding scholars, professional and students” (see http://www.usief.org.in/About-USIEF.aspx).  The second is the Indo-U.S. 21st Century Knowledge Initiative which is supported by USIEF but supported by the US State Department.  This initiative is somewhat remarkable in that the US has chosen to focus any attention it does on cross-border education to India, a country that has its own regulatory hurdles toward building strong cross-border relationships.  It can also be viewed as a milestone initiative in the US shifting its internationalization focus from individual mobility support to institutional partnerships and collaboration.  According to ACE, the initiative “provides institution-level grants to U.S. colleges and universities for the purpose of developing partnerships with Indian counterparts” and has invested approximately $250,000 since 2011 (see ACE Report, p. 22).  With a public health focus, the initiative encourages collaborations in the area of curriculum design, research collaboration, and team teaching to “develop expertise, advance scholarship and teaching, and promote long-term ties between partner institutions.”  (see http://www.usief.org.in/Institutional-Collaboration/Obama-Singh-21st-Century-Knowledge-Initiative-Awards.aspx)

The above examples shed light on perhaps the changing posture of US policies toward a more collaborative and institutional approach to internationalization with State Department support and funding as well as an opening of Indian regulatory postures toward internationalization.  These examples perhaps bring together themes of the two ACE companion pieces we have focused on in the last several weeks and articulate some reason for optimism in higher education internationalization for two countries that have productive programs in place but still work to do in this space.

Posted on by s.ahuja1 · 3 Comments

W3-Ace Report (Part II)

This week’s reading in the ACE Report focused on a myriad of issues concerning Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide and highlighted additional key elements to build upon our previous readings.  For example, in the context of cross-border education, the concept of mobility as a cornerstone of international higher education policies was discussed as well as the crucial role of “other influencers” and the central role of national governments.  Cross-border education has been defined as “the movement of people, programmes, providers, curricula, projects, research and services, across national or regional jurisdictional borders” (ACE Report, p. 38).  This week’s reading highlighted the “importance of jurisdictional boundaries when it comes to policy frameworks and regulations” (ACE Report, p. 38).

While in previous readings, I had focused on the role of regional governments, particularly in Asia, this week emphasized the key role national governments play in regulating cross-border educational activity.  I was particularly intrigued by the regulatory policy example of India.  As the reading details, while India is one of the largest exporters of students seeking higher educational opportunities outside of India, the country has a definitive international higher education policy regulating cross-border activity within its own boundaries. This fact was somewhat surprising to me and I wonder if it fosters notions of reciprocal benefits and common values in the internationalization arena or stymies those goals.

For example, the ACE Report explains that India’s policy toward international higher education is not static, but instead “debated intensely” such that it does not allow independent branch campuses on Indian soil.  India requires that international higher education programs be carried out through partnering with Indian higher education institutions.  And these partnerships are themselves highly regulated such that there are “specific parameters” to govern them.  Most interesting to me was the requirement that Indian law requires foreign educational institutions to be accredited and been offering educational services for at least twenty years.  In addition, there are specific ranking requirements that must be met to for an international higher education institution to operate in India. (See generally, ACE Report, p. 41-42).

These various requirements seem like smart ones and would appear to mitigate against sham operations and ensure quality of educational services in the cross-border context that may be otherwise difficult to monitor.  However, do such specific requirements thwart flexibility in internationalization efforts and a lack of agility to develop robust and innovative partnerships?  An interesting question that has been framed for me in the ACE Reports analysis of India’s regulation in the cross-border context is how does a country’s national government ensure quality and standards in educational services against flexibility and reciprocal benefits in the cross-border context.

The ACE Report suggests that India may be moving toward more lax rules to make way for independent branch campuses and allow for foreign curricula and teachers.  But current criticism remains regarding stringent rules and the politicization of higher education in India (see https://www.timeshighereducation.com/comment/philip-altbach-indias-passage-might-not-be-simple-but-it-can-climb-to-elite-tier).  And there are no definitive calls for change to policy among the Association of Indian Universities’ International webpage (see http://www.aiu.ac.in/International/International.asp).

With respect to the role of national governments in cross-border issues and internationalization, India appears to be an interesting case study as a nation that heavily regulates in this space but may be at the cusp of certain, more open policy reform to make entering the Indian higher education market easier and more dynamic.  If such changes take place, it will be interesting to see how the internationalization trajectory in India develops and whether it can balance quality against collaboration and flexible regulatory requirements.

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.