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.