Posted on by Natallia Kolbun

W4 – Internationalization of U.S. Higher Education – Key Players and Funding

The ACE report Internationalizing U.S. Higher Education is a follow up on the ACE report Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide, which discusses key players, current initiatives, potential of the internationalization of higher education in the US and the most sensitive topic: funding.

One of the main points brought up throughout the report is the lack of centralized national government agency that oversees and funds the activities of internationalization throughout the whole country. Although the report does mention that having a centralized agency might not be as effective in the US due to the size of the industry at home, it still seems to be the main and biggest difference that separates the US efforts of internationalization of higher education to the rest of the world.

I do believe that creating a single entity initiating and overseeing all internationalization efforts will not be as effective in the United States as it is in the rest of the world. Here in the United States, each individual state values their independence and choices they make, and internationalization might not be at the same priority level for each state. I also don’t think having centralized agency would be to the best interest of the people. Having several agencies, individual  states and institutions involved in creating/initiating these policies will create variety of unique programs and policies, as each of them look at internationalization from the own perspective that serves different purposes, instead of just focusing on one, when only one agency makes the decisions.

On the other hand, what needs to be centralized and prioritized on the national level here in the United States, is the funding for such initiatives. The US government needs to be more involved and needs to capitalize on the future outcomes of investing into internationalization in higher education and the level of its importance for the future economy. According to the 2014 Rockefeller Report States go global: State government engagement in higher education internationalization, “The U.S Government Accountability Office reported that international student have been important sources of innovation and productivity in our increasingly knowledge-based economy, brought needed research and workforce skills, and strengthened our labor force” (P. 5-6). So the government understands the importance of internationalization, however funding is still scarce. Could the limited funding for internationalization in higher education be a part of the overall problem of increasing tuition and debt we have in this country? The funding for the global education initiatives could be a matter of priorities the government needs to make in their overall budget, but it might also be a matter of a much bigger national underlying problem that needs to be addressed first.

 

Natallia Kolbun

Posted on by J.Gulston

W4- Internationalization of U.S. Higher Education and Government Involvement

As we continue getting familiar with the topic of internationalization, this week’s reading “Internationalizing U.S. Higher Education” focused on the current policies and possible future direction of internationalization of higher education in the United States. I will be focusing on government involvement in the internationalization of US higher education but before that I want to point out key ideas/facts that I took notice to in the report:

  • 1) Cross-border Education is a program/policy type that is growing abroad but is not seeing any significant growth in program or polices in the United States
  • 2) Institutional autonomy and the country’s decentralized government can be seen as a hindrance to higher education internationalization
  • 3) National security, public diplomacy and the economy are the key motivators of programs and polices related to internationalization; academic and capacity building are the rationales used abroad when implementing policies and programs
  • 4) The internationalization of U.S. higher education is not necessarily the goal or expected outcome of some of the programs and policies in place.

These points stood out to me because they illustrate that internationalizing in the U.S. is different from the programs and policies that are in place across the world.

The lack of a cohesive and comprehensive plan for the internationalization of U.S. higher education demonstrates the lack of cohesive direction of higher education in America. As the authors note, unlike other countries the United States does not have a government agency that is dedicated to higher education. Within the U.S. Department of Education, is the Office of Post-Secondary Education (OPE) that “works to strengthen the capacity of colleges and universities to promote reform, innovation and improvement in postsecondary education, promote and expand access to postsecondary education and increase college completion rates for America’s students, and broaden global competencies that drive the economic success and competitiveness of our Nation.” I was unable to locate information on the government appropriations for the OPE, but I believe it is safe to assume that the funding is minimally when compared to their global counterparts.

Government discussion on higher education is usually in the context of federal aid (grants and loans). Legislation that is passed that would promote internationalization of U.S. higher education focuses on programs and policies that are believed to support national security and the economy. The Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation Act of 2007 was sponsored by Senator Richard Durbin and Representative Tom Lantos, the stated intentions of the bill don’t seem to align with the rational/motivations of legislative mandates of programs and policies that have gotten congressional support and approval. This maybe one of the reasons as to why the bill as not been enacted or is not a focus for Congress.

The report suggests that a comprehensive national policy on internationalizing U.S. higher education is not possible due to the systems and structures of the government and higher education institutions. Instead of a national policy “a broad, well-coordinated set of well-funded initiatives that support comprehensive internationalization” should be implemented. Any initiative that is put into place should come from a policy that lays out the expected goals, outcomes a rationales of internationalization U.S. higher education. Having an overreaching policy provides guidance. Instead of working with the federal government, state governments could be used as a vehicle to put into place policies to internationalize higher education that can be implemented by colleges and universities that meet certain criteria. Most states have some sort of standalone agency/department that focuses on the governing of higher education, these departments could be charged with implanting policies that are passed by the state legislatures.

It is important to point out that for any government state or federal to take an interest in the importance of internationalization of higher education, the officials have to understand how and why this topic is important to them and their constituents. Making higher education institutions global competitive is a good basis’s for providing an explanation, as we already know as Mr. Trump has said we need to make America great again.

Posted on by j.kalaidis

W4: Internationalizing U.S. higher education: Is it possible in the era of Donald Trump?

In my first week’s blog post, I posed a series of questions that I hoped we would answer this semester. This week’s reading, which focused on internationalizing U.S. higher education, answered one of them: What role does an increasingly isolationist Republican Party play in shaping international higher education?

The United States is a country profoundly distrusting of centralized power, which goes all the way back to its founding following the American Revolution. This distrust of centralized power includes how the U.S. creates and implements higher education policy. Whereas most other countries have a central Ministry of Education type of office, the United States lacks a federal office that focuses exclusively on higher education. Instead, the main offices that handle higher education internationalization in the U.S. are the Department of State, Department of Education, and the Department of Defense (p. 4). Additionally, the National Science Foundation, state governments, and individual higher education institutions themselves are also major players when it comes to higher education internationalization in the United States.

Thus, while the U.S. does not have a centralized office that is solely responsible for handling higher education initiatives like most other countries, the federal government still has tremendous influence on higher education internationalization initiatives — both directly (congressional funding, visa policies, etc) and indirectly (foreign policy initiatives and setting the general political atmosphere). “In the absence of a broad federal policy, institutional internationalization and ‘foreign relations’ policies — and the resulting programs and initiatives — collectively constitute a substantial part of the United States’ de facto higher education internationalization policy landscape.” (p. 34).

This is where Donald Trump comes in.

Many polls are predicting he will become the Republican nominee in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. While I still think it’s highly unlikely that he has any chance of winning a general election, this campaign season has repeatedly defied traditional norms and expectations. So, what would a hypothetical President Trump mean for international higher education initiatives in the U.S.?

For starters, in his efforts to “make America great again”, he probably won’t put a high priority on realizing President Obama’s 100,000 Strong Initiative, “a national effort designed to increase dramatically the number and diversity of composition of American students studying in China (p. 16-17)”, or the 100,000 Strong in the Americas presidential initiative, “the stated goal of which is to double student mobility (both inbound and outbound) between the U.S. and the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean by 2020” (p. 17). Regarding incoming international students, his not-so-subtle racism and immigrant-bashing would likely turn off many prospective international students, who, as we saw in Madeline Green’s article from week 1, already prefer to study abroad in other countries besides the U.S. When it comes to international research and scholarly initiatives, his isolationist rhetoric seems to suggest that Americans need to be looking inward, rather than outward, to solve pressing 21st century challenges.

In the absence of an official national policy towards higher education internationalization in the United States, our national leaders have a tremendous direct and indirect impact in shaping and implementing U.S. higher education initiatives and policies. I went abroad in 2007 and again in 2009 and the reaction when I told people I was American couldn’t have been more different. In 2007, the minute I mentioned I was American I often got an eye roll and lecture about our foreign policy mishaps. In 2009, by contrast, people seemed genuinely happy about President Obama being in the White House and in general had a more positive outlook towards the United States. A report from PEW backs this up, finding that overall ” President Obama’s global popularity is much higher than his predecessor, George W. Bush.” This isn’t necessarily a Democrat vs. Republican thing, though Republicans should take note that policies favored by Democrats are more generally aligned with international sentiments.

Here’s to hoping that our next president–whoever he or she may be–continues to follow President Obama’s lead in promoting and expanding U.S. higher education internationalization.

The ACE report named Internationalizing U.S. Higher Education: Current Policies, Future Directions talked about various trends that were unique to the US.  For example, because there is no Ministry of Education and the U.S. has a decentralized education system throughout all levels, federal policies regarding internationalization in higher education are rare.  Instead, internationalization initiatives are created and supported by various departments within the national government.  As one would imagine, the Departments of State, Education, and Defense all have very different motives for funding internationalization programs, but as the reading pointed, economic motives, national security, and public diplomacy are among the most popular.

In addition to the various players on the policy level, the US has a large higher education system made up of diverse institutions.  As the reading notes, even if the federal government did get involved with internationalization policies nationwide, it would be nearly impossible, “to create a national policy that has enough specificity to be meaningful and go beyond generalities, but is still broad enough to be applicable across all institutions” (p 32).  Although overarching policies are difficult in the US, the policies that are in place have some commonalities with global trends.  For example, like most of the world, US programs focus on student mobility in order to prepare students for a more globalized world.

Although comprehensive cross-border internationalization strategies receive minimal regulation and support from the federal government, there are various initiatives at the institutional level such as direct institutional partnerships.  The reading calls these internal initiatives “foreign relations” policies.  Since incentives to internationalize are not tied to government initiatives, they often come from desires to keep up and compete with peer institutions.  In fact, a report by the International Association of Universities notes, “At many institutions, internationalization is now part of a strategy to enhance prestige, global competitiveness and revenue” (p 3).  It got me thinking: Could the resulting competition among US colleges and universities help internationalization in the absence of strong federal initiatives?

Although this article is not talking strictly about the United States, many of the arguments can still apply to a US context.   Knight talks about the importance of defining the various rationales driving internationalization in higher education.  Many of the emerging rationales are at the institutional level including “International Profile and Reputation,” “Income Generation,” and “Strategic Alliances” (Knight 2004 p 4).  Although these motives could be spurred by national policies, they may not be.  They show that, purely academically focused reasons (education for education’s sake), are not the only realistic motivations encouraging internationalization.

The challenge is to use this competition for good, to produce productive results.  As the following quote notes, since a broad internationalization strategy is not feasible in the US, instead of starting from scratch and asking a decentralized system to unite for a goal that really does not fall under a particular department’s purview, perhaps they should use the existing system to their advantage.  ACE writes, “As more institutions formalize their commitment to internationalization, federal agencies need to understand and articulate how their policies and programs fit into and reinforce institutional internationalization initiatives, and how the government and institutions can work together to advance their respective and collective goals” (p 35).  The coordination and harmonization of national and institutional goals in the US is a good starting point for the federal government in the absence of a singular national policy.   The government could also step in to prevent some negative consequences that come with widespread internationalization including homogenization of languages and systems (IAU 2012).  As the IAU notes, promoting integrity, socially responsible behaviors, and cooperation over obsession with prestige are crucial to the success of higher education.  US government policies can focus on regulation rather than straining resources to create a one-size-fits-all program model for the US.

References

International Association of Universities.  (April 2012). Affirming academic values in internationalization of higher education: A call for action.  Retrieved from: http://www.aieaworld.org/assets/docs/Additional_Resource_PDFs/iauaffirmingvalues.pdf.

Knight, J.  (2004).  New rationales driving internationalization.  The Boston College Center for International Higher Education. (34).  Retrieved from: https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cihe/pdf/IHEpdfs/ihe34.pdf.

Posted on by Ben Levine

W4- International Students and Scholar Mobility

For this week’s reading, there are two subjects I would like to discuss. While the professor suggests that we use outside sources, such as articles or journals, to supplement our perspectives, I don’t think we should overlook word of mouth as a source. Sure, it may not be as formal, but not everyone involved with the topic writes his or her ideas or experiences so they can be read by the public.

The first subject is international students. Students from other countries come here to study, and while they are in school they must remain full-time students, have limited work opportunities, and almost always pay way more than the average student. Some of the information I am about to convey comes directly from an interview I conducted with the DSO (designated school official) for international students at my college of employment. While it is easy to criticize the model for international study because of the strict limitations the students experience, the conversation I had with the DSO gradually veered to something more abstract. The international student office at my college is essentially just this one man (who primarily works in the Registrar’s Office); the total number of international students enrolled doesn’t even exceed one hundred, so the college hasn’t spent much time, energy, or resources into providing a permanent office. That being said, the DSO doesn’t have a strenuous responsibilities for these students, but he has been doing it for a long time and has worked extensively with the demographic. The thing that struck me most during our interview was his perspective on the attitude of international students, which I will discuss briefly in the next paragraph.

From the DSO’s point of view, international students have a lot of adversity to face, not including the restrictions listed above. There seems to be, according to the DSO, an inequality between native and international students that the former don’t realize, but of which the latter are quite aware. Over time, international students may experience a form of alienation; native students complain about financial aid and their jobs, while those from abroad pay an exorbitant amount of money for school and cannot work many hours. While this alienation may not cause them to fail academically, it could potentially create a feeling of disdain towards education, the institution, as well as the American people and country as a whole. This may be an extreme example, but it goes to show that internationalization isn’t always rainbows and lollipops.

Another subject I would like to quickly cover is that of scholar mobility. Again, my source for my developing opinion on this matter is word of mouth. My cousin’s friend is teaching in China for an indefinite amount of time, and so my cousin has decided to go visit her (come on Ben, take a deep breath, be happy for him, wash away the jealousy). After finding this all out, I asked him a bunch of questions about his friend and her experiences, since you know, we’re in an international higher education class. Apparently this is all my cousin could glean from his friend: the college at which she taught asked her to teach abroad, and who could say no to China? Yup, that was it. Based on this brief exchange, I found it all a little sketchy. Why did her college ask her to go? Do colleges ask their best or worst professors to teach abroad? How long do they expect her to be there? Who pays for her expenses? What kind of research opportunities does she have in a different country?

I can totally relate to her friend wanting to go to China. Many people would love to have an opportunity like that. The only traveling I do for my job is walking to the campus cafeteria during my lunch break. In any case, hearing a story like hers just makes me very curious, and this skepticism quickly takes over the envy I feel (not quickly enough though, I’m still pretty jealous).