Month: October 2019

Considering France

On October 30, 2019

In International Education, Uncategorized

The United States is not the only country questioning its higher education system, or even the admissions practices its higher education institutions follow. Times Higher Education reports that France has been taking a look at their own structure, particularly in response to the gilets jaunes (the yellow vests) protests that occurred almost one year ago in response to a tax levied on diesel fuel. The conversation around the protests here in the States, as I recall, was primarily focused on the violence caused by some protestors and the debate over whether the protestors were against climate action. The Atlantic reported that protestors were upset because the taxes were particularly difficult for lower income households, and that grievances were not related to opinions regarding climate change.

In the summer of 2013, I spent six weeks studying abroad in Paris, where I took two courses in French and spent most of my time with American students (while I don’t regret any study abroad experiences, there are times I wonder where my language skills and connections would be today if I had had more immersive experiences). In one of these classes, the professor showed us the rates for attending university in France – a jaw-dropping €283 a semester, or something like that. Or maybe that was the proposed number, up from €279 the previous academic year… and the French students, raised in a country where the public is much better at exercising a right to protest, were in an uproar over the raise in costs.

I can’t remember the numbers exactly of course – we are talking 6 years ago – but I do remember pointing out that the costs seemed to correlate with inflation rates.

In THE’s article, professors commented on “invisible channels” often barring students from higher education opportunities that have more to do with choice than with funding. Even in countries with significant investment in education and higher education, there are barriers. Costs are still associated with living, loan systems still exist to support students through their studies, as we see in Germany. No system that I have studied is perfect.

Last week, I discussed a number of topics, and among them I pointed out that while there is much the United States might benefit in learning from other countries, there are practices we should not adopt which we can simultaneously learn from practices overseas. France does not track its students as early as Germany, where students are tracked at age 10. In France, the year of determination is at approximately 15 years old (OECD, 2013). In THE’s article, an associate professor of sociology notes that the government will need to make “wider reforms” than merely rewarding the grandes écoles that increase the percentages of scholarship students they admit, and additionally alludes to the “choice of vocational tracks.”

Education is often seen as a means of increasing social mobility for the educated individual. With educated populations, the aspiration is that society as a whole will lift up. I personally believe that this is the case in theory, but with the cost of higher ed in the US and the general conversation around innovation, skills and technology happening globally, our educational systems at the higher ed level are being thrown into serious question.

I am not as familiar with the French system of education as I am with the US or even German systems, but as nations grapple with how to increase social mobility through education, the role of “choice” will have to be considered from a number of angles. Choice is something typically valued in the United States. Notions of freedom in opportunity is often the freedom in having options. Will the US reform in a way that preserves these values? Will other countries?

Liberal Arts & ROI: Tackling Challenges & Change in US Higher Ed

By Kelly Davis

On October 23, 2019

In Higher Education Policy, Uncategorized

As a Career Services advisor, the debate about the direction of US higher education looms over my work: student success is determined not just by whether or not students are employed in some capacity after graduation, but how soon they are employed after graduation, how closely their first job aligns with their degree, and how much they begin earning annually.

Skills make students employable in the first place. Hard skills, soft skills, technical skills, super skills – whatever you want to call them. And many of these skills are acquired through participation in student clubs, student athletics, internships, coops, and part-time jobs.

The whole debate focuses on whether or not attending class actually contributes to students’ skill development. In an era where grade inflation has made it easier to get an “A” and the price of higher ed is all too high, it makes sense to be asking these questions.

Here’s what I don’t understand: Why is there a crusade against the liberal arts?

The story of ROI…

One reason is for return of investment. The conversation among those working on higher ed policy or within the system seems to evade the idea of changing the system we currently have, as if we can’t challenge the free market model that higher ed has been pushed into. “It’s just the way it is,” seems to be the mindset. Meanwhile, the US public is stuck in this other mindset that higher education institutions are all at fault for the price of higher ed – most people aren’t aware of the nuances. Really, our state and federal funding of higher education has decreased since the Recession recovering only slightly and, in some cases like Alaska, worsening.

Instead of tackling the problem of costs, the conversation is shifting towards something like this quote from a Business Insider article ranking the “25 Most Valuable College Majors”: “The cost of college is higher than ever, making it important to pick a major that will be valuable in the long run, with a high likelihood of post-graduation employment and a decent expected salary.”

From the perspective of a student who needs to make these decisions now, this line of thinking makes sense. But it concerns me that some of our thought leaders are encouraging this direction rather than digging deeper and looking hard at the systemic problems in place.

Forgetting to analyze systemic issues, long-term. This is what I fear happens when we devalue the humanities and social sciences.

Degrees in history, sociology, literature, etc., are not statistically likely to pay you as much as a degree in computer science or engineering (comparable to the mean for general “business”, according to the National Association for Colleges and Employers [NACE] Winter 2019 Salary Survey). The idea is that because college is so expensive, you should put your money towards an education that will properly prepare you for a job with a starting salary higher than $55 or 60k – that way, you might actually be able to pay off your student loans by the time you’re ready to start paying for your kid’s higher education.

When this argument is made in the context of ROI, I wonder who is paying attention to the cost to provide resources for teaching these highly desirable subjects: the price of tuition is partially based on what resources you provide students at your institution. It is not as expensive for institutions to teach courses in the humanities or many of the social sciences. Major-specific, academic-related expenses can be found in the physical arts and sciences (this Polish finances site found a few pretty expensive programs that sit in these categories).

Physical arts aren’t the problem, either. Because they are costly, they are generally pricier programs and are more selective to form smaller cohorts. You can compare the number of music majors in the US to the number of engineering majors in the US, and see the rate at which those numbers are declining or increasing. We don’t see a push for musicians and filmmakers in the US like we see the push for primary care physicians and engineers.

It’s not to say that we don’t need engineers or primary care physicians, because we obviously do. It’s for the higher demand that institutions such as NYU are making movements to offer medical degrees for free.

I understand the push to make med school more affordable for people, and I fully agree with it. But this model is not going to push into the liberal arts, which means that the high cost of a Bachelor’s degree in history won’t decline, causing the number of history majors to continue to decline, for example.

Meanwhile, the push for higher education to prove its delivery of skills-competent graduates is becoming muddled. There are companies seeking hard, practical skills, but these skills need to be constantly updated every 6 years, according to an article published in NACE (2018). Higher education can offer methods for students to learn some of these skills, but the focus should be the “soft skills,” competencies such as critical thinking and problem-solving. These skills are improved every day with more and more practice. They take time and reflection to develop, making 3-4 year obtaining a Bachelor degree a great time to enhance these skills, preparing students for the future workplace where AI is likely to take over more repetitive tasks.

These “soft skills” are at the core of the liberal arts, but students often get lost in the concepts of developing the ability to code or using advanced tools in an excel spreadsheet (certainly necessary, but not the only necessary thing to learn while at college!).

What else do we need to consider as we look at higher education from a systemic point of view?

Not everyone needs to, or should, go to college. Furthermore, we push college on some all too soon.

Not everyone thrives from studying all the time, or from research. But flip that around – some people do. One is not better than the other, yet we continue to think otherwise in the US. There are still plenty of parents who think that their children should only aspire to Ivy League schools (which makes our Admissions processes chaotic), and college is still seen as the most promising means of moving up in class.

Here are the challenges that face us in the US from this line of thinking:

First and foremost, this is a class issue. If we could fundamentally change our culture to recognize the value in “blue-collar” as much as we do in “white-collar,” and get rid of those definitions, we wouldn’t push college on kids at all, or at least as early.

Second, we push college on people too soon. Some students are not ready to commit to a major at the age of 19. Just last night, a friend of mine said if she could go back and do her Bachelor’s degree again, she would take a completely different path. I have met plenty of brilliant people who were not ready to continue sitting in a classroom after high school. They needed to have some work experience and travel – see other aspects of life and the world outside of school – before recognizing what their passion was.

(And this is why I am increasingly inspired and enthralled by the concept of gap years… which I hope will be a topic I write about soon enough.)

Third, this all culminates into a horrible college admissions process where we see parents cheating the system, small liberal arts colleges that can often be cheaper options for lower-income students start falling behind in enrollments, and students struggle at all class levels to afford college.

What are ways we can be more innovative when approaching these challenges?

Look internationally to learn both what to implement, and what not to implement.

Recently I have seen Brandon Busteed, President of Kaplan University Partners, publishing posts comparing the UK higher education system to ours in the US. This is a step in the right direction, this international comparison. There is a lot we can learn from systems in other countries – both what to do and what not to do.

1: The one thing I do like about the United States is the flexibility we have to make connections between our degrees and work experience. Unless you want to be an engineer, doctor, work in any lab, or be an accountant, there are millions of jobs out there that don’t require a specific kind of degree. Job descriptions might request certain qualifications, but if you can find a way to get your foot in the door through some skill you have, article you’ve written, or connection you’ve made, there are many ways to forge your own pathway in your career.

I believe this allows students the ability to explore learning while they obtain their Bachelor’s degree. Explore subjects, learn to be critical and think deeply, which is what the whole practice was supposed to be about. This is probably one of the best ways to develop those highly desirable skills, problem solving and critical thinking.

While Germany has a great system for students to be trained in vocational areas and receive employment afterwards – which I think would be a phenomenal system to replicate here in the US – this isn’t for everyone. Some people, maybe less than 50% of our population, want the time to research and explore, want the flexibility in what they end up doing right after they receive their degree. They want more time to figure it out.

And while I praise this system that Germany uses, I am not praising the education system as a whole. The students who end up pursuing the dual system often have little choice in the matter, because Germany tests their students into tracks at the age of 10 (OECD “Education Policy Outlook: Germany”, April 2014, pg. 4). In the US, tracking typically occurs in specific subjects, but it depends on the school district (OECD, “Viewing Education in the United States Through the Prism of PISA”, 2010, pg. 48).

2: Critical thinking and problem solving skills need constant reflection and teaching. It’s important to teach continuous learning, fueled by personal motivation and initiative. It’s important to have citizens who are willing to both question and collaborate. (So make sure you keep that in mind, NCAA.)

Karin Fischer wrote a great article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed about the Asian University for Women and why the President of the university chose to focus on liberal arts rather than vocational practices. Reflecting on the historical context of British colonialism in India and Bangladesh and its influences on valuing a degree in medicine over something like sociology, the founder of AUW, Kamal Ahmad, is quoted in Fischer’s article: “It’s nothing but prejudice to think that poor people can’t aspire to higher education.” According to Fischer, Ahmad argues that “The Liberal Art’s impact can be more far-reaching… because it nurtures broader aptitudes.” She quotes him again: “We’re saying, Yes, you have dexterity in your hands, but you also have the capacity to imagine.”

Powerful words. Something for the US to keep in mind as we reimagine higher education: critical thinking, problem solving, and creativity in fields such as history, sociology, literature, politics, languages, the arts… these are all invaluable. And we need at least some bright minds to focus on these theories, practices, and this research now more than ever – this path, too, must be accessible.

What is “Systems Cartography”?

By Kelly Davis

On October 16, 2019

In My Writing Journey, Uncategorized

About a year ago, I was told to read a book about Systems Thinking: Systems Thinking for Social Change: A Practical Guide to Solving Complex Problems, Avoiding Unintended Consequences, and Achieving Lasting Results, by David Peter Stroh. Systems Thinking is all about looking at a problem from the perspective in which the problem exists – sometimes, there are multiple systems forming into one larger system. As you can imagine, the “system” can balloon, and systems mapping is what we do to visualize what that balloon looks like.

“Systems Cartography” is basically a fancy way of saying “Systems Mapping.” It’s figuring out how all the pieces are connected, and visualizing it in a way that helps you understand the greater context and find the connections between various elements of the problem. Systems Thinking is one way of tackling problems in order to find wholistic, sustainable solutions because this kind of thinking targets a framework or cycle in which a problem exists.

Whenever I am driving alone or spend some time organizing my desk and room, I listen to higher education podcasts that are typically geared towards people at the leadership level. Understanding the bigger system of higher education, and the challenges it faces today, is not only enthralling to me, but it helps inform the end goals of the work that I do.

After I read Stroh’s work, I started drawing my own systems maps. Some included imagery, others were more straightforward, like in the Medium article linked above. It is exactly why I have a whiteboard in my office now: to brainstorm and consider the bigger systems in place when I have time to strategize for my work.

I am a Systems Cartographer – still in training, still in development, but that is another goal for this blog: to share my systems cartography and provide a visual means of conveying what I am thinking, to supplement my writing.

Reaction to, “How International Education’s Global Era Lost its Sheen”

By Kelly Davis

On October 9, 2019

In International Education, Uncategorized

I wrote this on April 12th, 2019. Its message is still relevant.

On March 28^th, the Chronicle of Higher Education published Karin Fischer’s article titled: “How International Education’s Global Era Lost its Sheen.” As someone just dipping her toes into the field, this news felt disappointing. I work at a small college where it will already take some time to develop an understanding of the benefits a study abroad experience amongst the student population, but I am hoping I could get the support of our leadership team to drive these efforts. While the evidence that studying abroad has not disappeared – the benefits of internalization are certainly not what’s in dispute – I fear for the influence these perceived “market” trends might have on our study abroad programming. This comes at a time when I feel particularly worn by the amount of work that lies before me.

At first, the article put a momentary damper on my ambitious goals for students’ study abroad opportunities at Menlo College. Fischer does suggest in the article that there will now be a “decline” after all, and our society doesn’t particularly like or favor “declines” in things we desire for our world.

But the descent from the “peak” in a global era certainly is not a fault of the research behind the benefits of internationalization, it is all political.

First, as the article mentions, the current Administration directing policy in the United States is absolutely contributing to a decline in international student enrollment in US universities. There are plenty of articles about this. Of course, after two years of Trump’s immigration policies we are seeing this decline. Fischer mentions it all the time in her weekly newsletter, Latitudes.

The second factor is far more interesting to me: the “internal critique” of internationalization coming from higher education. The Chronicle’s article highlights NYU in particular, and as NYU is my alma mater, I have quite a number of thoughts on the issue, all related to the “internal critique”.

The most impactful course I took at NYU was “Sociology of the Internationalization of Higher Education” at NYU Berlin. This course was taught by Professor Reinhard Isensee, a professor for NYU Berlin and Humboldt Universität. The course was also offered at Humboldt, allowing NYU and Humboldt students to engage in class discussion together for a part of the course (US and German academic calendars do not align perfectly for the full course to be combined). To make things more interesting, about half of the NYU students in the class studied full-time at NYU Abu Dhabi. Essentially, we had students accustomed to the German system, the US system, and students with what is still a rather unique experience – completing a degree at an American university in a foreign country.

We all began to question the system of higher education in that class, particularly the US system, and NYU’s global model within that system. At that time, the students who completed their degrees in Abu Dhabi did not have to take Arabic. They stuck primarily to the campus. NYU Abu Dhabi was not integrated into Abu Dhabi itself. I do not know if this has changed much in the last five years. I was at NYU when there was a vote of no confidence for former President John Sexton, and I was there when the labor issues in creating NYU Abu Dhabi’s new campus emerged, as well as to hear about the professor who was banned from entering the country after he had been conducting research on this issue.

I myself was, and still am, a critic of the programming at NYU Berlin. A number of administrators there I consider my friends, and I visit the academic center whenever I return to Berlin. But I spoke out about the fact that students were living with their NYU classmates rather than with host families or other German students. I advocated against making the process to live off-campus so difficult, which was not the fault of NYU Berlin administration, but rather at the demands of “the Mothership” (as one of my friends jokingly called NYU administration in New York).

If the fast development of this kind of study abroad is slowing down, I see it as a good thing. I think that we all in higher education need to take a step back and evaluate what study abroad is. Is the drastic slash in Language programs truly beneficial to our goals as a society? While the administration may seem to be leaning in that direction, we in higher education have some choices to make. (Or have we already, if over 600 language programs are gone?)

I hope to sit down with the leadership at Menlo College and promote the importance of learning languages and studying abroad. Even if our country becomes more “isolationist” in economic policy, that may mean that it is up to our future diplomats, business leaders, and international educators to cultivate relationships with other countries. But I don’t think the plans of our administration are going to last very long. When countries don’t work together, they do the opposite: they fight. And someone conquers.

Education Abroad and Fighting Climate Change

By Kelly Davis

On October 2, 2019

In International Education, Uncategorized

This piece was inspired by a recent article in University World News, “International students want universities to be greener,” and Karin Fischer’s most recent edition of Latitudes, “Existential crisis edition.”

It’s been a busy few weeks in the Career Services Office at Menlo College as we prepare our internship cohort for their mock interviews. The start of the school year and my adjustment to the oddball schedule I set up for myself during this crazy time left me sick for three weekends in a row (not the weekdays, just the weekends) and I am finally back on my feet!

One thing has not changed during this time, nor in the last several years: The noise of leaf blowers, or even seeing leaf blowers, makes me very angry.

You see, I can’t really get mad at cars for polluting the planet in the same way as I fume at leaf blowers. We need to transport ourselves, and gas use comes to a more systemic issue regarding where we put our money when it comes to innovative technology in eliminating CO2 emissions. But leaf blowers are not necessary, and it’s horrifying to see them used in such a prosperous area as Silicon Valley.*

There are people out there who refuse to travel via plane because of the carbon emissions, and there are many more of us who struggle with that internal battle, myself included. My personal guilt has been raised to a whole new level now that I manage study abroad programming and I am trying to increase the number of students who study abroad.

How do I justify it? It’s not so much about justifying my actions – we can all find a million excuses to ease our guilt. Education abroad is something you have to really, truly believe in if you want to stand strong and tall on your two feet and say, “It is worth it to send people abroad to learn about other places, peoples, cultures, and environments.”

Here are my main reasons:

Studying abroad strengthens an individual’s curiosity. I spoke to one student who recently studied abroad, and she noted that she acquired an “openness,” a desire to ask more questions, a stronger sense of curiosity, that continues to propel her. The more we are curious enough to ask the hard questions and take risks, the more we will do so of the climate crisis. Questions promise uncovered truths, and curiosity promises innovative solutions to the problems we face.

Other countries do some things better. Maybe not everything, and it all varies on your points of contrast, but in comparing the experience you know in one country to a new experience in another country, you realize that there are multiple pathways. I am a huge fan of international research because we have so much to learn from each other in this kind of assessment.

Every culture has its own philosophy which presents a new way of approaching problem-solving. The best way to understand and learn how to use a new philosophy is to understand the people who already use it. Hear about their experiences, the systems they are accustomed to, their family structures and relationships, in order to be able to approach problem-solving with this new philosophy in stride with your own. This can only occur when a person travels to a new place. Even if students in the US were to stay put, international students would need to come to the US in order for this kind of learning to occur.

I don’t think this means that there shouldn’t be some responsibility within study abroad programming regarding environmental practices. I think there are ways for every curriculum to incorporate some component that observes environmental practices in the destination country, for one. We can then incorporate learning outcomes into our assessment that focus on how students perceive the natural world after studying abroad and use the trends to create methods of bringing that knowledge and perspective back to our campuses.

Furthermore, we as study abroad program developers and advisors should advocate for more sustainable energy sources. Once we determine how to fly planes without burning fossil fuels, we won’t have to worry about carbon offsets of flying, therefore it is our responsibility to support these alternative energy sources in any ways that we can. One of these ways comes back to encouraging or contributing to the conversation regarding climate change on our home campuses.

We should continue to support intercultural exchange and sending students abroad when we can, as well as traveling ourselves when we can. It’s a “Yes, and…” kind of situation, not “either or.” We should continue to promote education abroad, and we should do everything in our power to advocate for and educate on energy sources and ways of living that will leave us with a healthy planet.

I was excited to see an email in my inbox a mere few minutes after I finished writing this piece on the subject of organizing a session at NAFSA around the topic of incorporating sustainability goals into education abroad programs. I am excited to see this topic grow in volume, and I look forward to participating in the conversation!

*Note: Some towns in the Silicon Valley area do not permit gas leaf blowers, however there are many that do.