Posted on by Zeline Santana · 1 Comment

Week 11- National Motivators – International Higher Education is Important.

The study conducted by IAU provided data analysis of developments in internationalization. This study is of a greater magnitude in where 1,366 institutions located in 131 countries participated. In this study it was found that internationalization is growing and important to most higher education institutions around the globe. In this particular reading the “Internationalization policy/strategy and infrastructural supports” and “Importance of internationalization and expected benefits” explain that most institutions due want to expand internationally. For example, aggregate results in both criteria state “66% of the respondents report having explicit targets and benchmarks to assess their internationalization policy implementation”, “61% of the institutions report having a dedicated budget for internationalization, compared to 73% reporting one in the previous survey.” Lastly, “69% of the respondents report that internationalization is of high importance for the leadership of their institution.” This data shows that more than half of the responded feel that internationalization is important. In the “Faculty members’ international experience and mobility”, it is also reported that near half of the Faculty population has been exposed to aboard mobility. In comparing prior readings overall, I believe the importance is there for most if not all universities around the globe but it will be interesting to know the motivating factors for Internationalization in governmental agencies.

National Motivators are said to be important in the process of international higher education. The reading I found states national security interests emerge when the government’s role in international education is to provide:

– Security (National Defense)
– Through the education act of 1958 (the creation of the Student and Exchange Visitor Information)
– System like (SEVIS) following the attacks on September 11, 2001 and
– Cultural Affairs as a national motivator which sponsors educational projects to advance the federal foreign policy and soft power.

The second reading explains the important of Collaboration and Partnerships. It is explained that 70% of doctoral institutions indicate they have substantially expanded the number of partnerships. Overall the percentage of institutions with campus-wide policies or guidelines for partnerships seems accurate in terms of degree level. Nearly half of intuitions in the U.S have established partnerships for internationalization.

Links:
http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/education/2014-05-28-States_Go_Global.pdf

Posted on by Kristen.VanVleck · 4 Comments

W6 – Partnership between Fairfield University and UCA

This week’s readings looked at policies surrounding institutional collaborations across borders. “A Process for Screening and Authorizing Joint and Double Degree Programs” is a document by IIE that explores Rice University’s policies and processes for evaluating proposals for dual and joint degree programs.  A dual degree program is when each institution involved awards a diploma, resulting in two degrees.  A joint degree program is when one degree is recognized by two institutions.  The reading titled “International Higher Education Partnerships” looks at common themes in the existing partnership standards of conduct for various organizations and analyzes their best practices.  Some of these themes include transparency or clearly articulating and publishing a description of the goals, rules, and policies of the partnership, and quality assurance, which entails risk assessment of potential institutional and personal risks.

My alma mater, Fairfield University, has a partnership with Universidad Centroamericana (UCA) in Managua, Nicaragua.  I took advantage of this partnership when I was an undergrad and studied abroad in Managua for a semester.  According to an article in NAFSA, the relationship goes back to the 1990s, starting with research ties between faculty at Fairfield and UCA.  The two universities signed a collaborative partnership agreement in 2004, which has evolved during more than a decade of collaboration.  Fairfield’s website notes that the partnership “provides opportunities for scholarly collaborations, service learning opportunities, faculty/student exchanges, and curricular projects.”

Although both Fairfield and UCA are Jesuit universities, the two institutions are quite different.  UCA is located in the second poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, and Fairfield is located in an affluent suburb of NYC.  Therefore, many of the challenges listed in the reading are relevant to this partnership.   The first theme that was highlighted by ACE was cultural awareness, which applies not only to national and regional cultures but also the difference in academic cultures across institutions.  Within that category falls the dilemma of deciding which language to use for instruction and administration purposes.  UCA had a very small international student population, so all of my courses except one were taught in Spanish.  I think this is a great way for students to increase their language skills and engage in the local culture.  Of course, this does limit the number of possible participants.

The second theme highlighted in ACE was the problem of access and equity.  According to a survey cited in the reading, limitations due to financial barriers were big concerns surrounding the feasibility and accessibility of international opportunities.  Although internationalization at home is a potential benefit for both Fairfield and UCA, financial disparities could pose challenges for the partnership, especially since Fairfield provides a scholarship for one Nicaraguan student to study at Fairfield each semester.  I really like the fact that it is a true exchange and that students that may not otherwise be able to study abroad have the opportunity to do so, but the administration will have to keep communication open with UCA leadership to not cause any imbalances of power due to uneven financial resources.  Although Fairfield and UCA have many differences that could potentially cause administrative and logistical challenges, I think students have the most to learn by experiencing cultures that are quite different from their own.