Posted on by Ben Levine · 3 Comments

W7- The Contradictions of Fiscal Responsibility in International Higher Education

This week I have decided to take on a position of devil’s advocacy to see if we can get a real discussion going. In the Executive Summary: The State of Higher Education 2014, the authors declare that the financial health of HEIs (higher education institutions) has a significant impact on international education. How an institution places value on its various missions will affect how funding is allocated. Many HEIs must reassess their financial status and possibly modify and reform their models in order to sustain operations. These reforms might be the transition to private funding instead of the reliance of public funding, as well as a shift towards REIs (research excellence initiatives), in order to boost research. As the finance class learned from a personal anecdote of the professor, the latter can leave potential scars on the financial conditions of an institution. Oftentimes, if there is a significant amount of research being conducted, the exact expenditures and revenue of these projects are hard to measure, and can lead to budgetary problems.

What I really want to talk about is the usefulness of international education. In the executive summary, there is a push towards fiscal responsibility in the hopes that international education thrive under new and better policies. However, I am arguing (remember, as a devil’s advocate) that international education programs themselves may not be fiscally responsible to the HEI. Basically, this particular stance relies on the quantitative and qualitative evidence that international education actually benefits its participants, the institutions, and even the nations involved. To gather this type of data would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, because of the types of things measured, such as career trajectories and affect on institutional reputations and enrollment.

Again, the authors discuss ‘value propositions,’ which I believe hurt the case for international education, rather than help it. Institutions need to evaluate what makes them money, and it is hard to believe that international education programs are anywhere near the top of that list (of course, I could be wrong). That being said, it is almost suicidal for international education organizations to cry for value propositions, especially in a country where trends show that international education is not as popular or common as in other countries.

I wasn’t sure if I would be the only one who took this position, but there are others out there (whether they truly believe it or not, I don’t know). Mark Salisbury, in his piece “We’re Muddying the Message on Study Abroad,” discusses how international education might want to step off of its high horse, because it may not be as great as it purports to be. There is the impression that he believes that international education is fairly elitist, and only serves certain types of students. He provides a funny analogy, comparing international education programs (namely study abroad) to late night info-mercials- they act as if they are the best thing in the world, but only a certain type of person is going to be interested in the product.

Salisbury, nor myself, is calling for the abolishment of international education- far from it, in fact. What we are arguing is that the current state of it, especially in this country, doesn’t really know its place- in other words, it has an identity crisis. It certainly serves a purpose, but it doesn’t seem to know how that purpose fits into the greater mission, or value, of the HEI and nation. Again, I am just trying to stoke the fires a little. What are your thoughts?

Posted on by m.parsowith · 3 Comments

W7, Blog 7: Melissa Parsowith (Article Response)

For this week’s readings, we were asked to look at two articles by the OECD, titled “Education Policy Outlook 2015: Making Reforms Happen” and “The State of Higher Education: The 2014 Executive Summary.” In the first article about making reforms a reality, I was surprised to learn that this one report worked to summarize the findings of over 450 educational reforms from OECD countries between the years of 2008-2014. In this analysis, they review trends in education policies, including broad topics such as: funding, assessment, school improvements and governance. The report goes on to assess several different areas of education policy reforms and the many ways which they can reach specific audiences effectively. For instance, I found it very interesting to read about the ideas offered for students who come from disadvantaged or diverse backgrounds. In this day and age, diversity is an initiative that many universities across the world strive to accomplish. Yet, it becomes the responsibility of institutions to ensure the academic success of these students which can be challenging for some. The article states, “These (disadvantaged) students are at a greater risk of lower performance and attainment.” (p.8). It is clear that in all aspects of higher education, even internationally, striving to even the playing field for all students is ta broad practice, hoping to be achieved by many constituents. Although diversity is encouraged, universities must find ways to best accommodate diverse parties. This reminded me of a program offered by our home institution, CUNY, called SEEK (Search for Education, Elevation and Knowledge.) SEEK aims to provide academic support to educationally or financially disadvantaged student populations. I felt that this was a great example of  way in which our local institution tackles diversity head on by ensuring that these students receive the services they need to be successful.

In the other summary piece about the state of higher education, the OECD stresses more ways to monitor and enhance the global quality of education. I really liked that they bring up the important point that higher education has and is currently changing “in order to meet the need of new student populations and higher education institutions” (p. 4). Just as I mentioned in the SEEK program, private and public institutions alike are learning to make it a priority to tailor their offerings based on student needs at a city, local, and even global level. Just as in higher education institutions in America, the OECD article stresses the importance of sound budgeting, strong business models and the promotion of research excellence across boundaries worldwide. The article concludes with a note from Jane Knight on what a true international University is. I completely agree with her thoughts that “there is no standardized model, nor should there be.” Instead, there are multiple variations which will help institutions succeed internationally. Instead of hoping to “weather the storms of change”, Knight urges institutions to be flexible and adapt themselves and their programs and policies to the ever-changing environment which universities must learn to flourish in.

Posted on by e.truong · 2 Comments

W7: Financial Reform in Higher Education

This week’s reading spoke about the types of educational reform in general and for higher education specifically.  As the OECD Education Policy Outlook 2015 discussed there are three different categories policy levers for reform: students, institutions and systems.  The student category included reforms that aimed to extend equity and quality. Institutions category focuses on improving the school and developing better assessment techniques. The reforms centered on governance and funding are placed in the systems category. The literature we have been reading seems to point higher education towards the students or institutions category. However in the executive summary on the state of higher education, there was a lot of focus on financial or business model reform for higher education.

The state of higher education report of 2015 done by the OECD summarized three main challenges that the OECD has observed and presents approaches and solutions to address those challenges. The chapter that discusses business models of higher education is the most extensive. It was interesting to find out that higher education institutions all over the world are experiencing the same issues, not just the Unites States. Challenges such as the lack of public support for higher education exist in places such as Latin America, Eastern Europe and Asia as well. One of the main suggestions that OECD made for institutions was to self-assess to find a working business model for them. The suggestion to self-assess rather than imposing a certain model onto all higher education systems is more effective because each institution is different and institutions need to be aware of that. For example, an institution that does not have the technology capacity or the buy-in to scale up technology on their campus should not implement a performance-based revenue model because this model involves complex tracking and monitoring mechanisms that require technology.

After reading these reports, my reaction was what do these reforms have to do with the internationalizing of higher education? Well the report says that implementing a business model that will best maximize their effectiveness and efficiency can improve student mobility and student outcomes. Having a more efficient operating model would allow students, international or domestic to more easily navigate through the institution without the administrative barriers to hinder them. In addition, I also believe if institutions are in a more sustainable and better financial state themselves, they might be more inclined to develop external programs and partnerships that will benefit the students overall.