Kelly Davis

International Higher Education Researcher & Educator

Charging International Students Tuition in Norway: An unwise, seemingly uninformed decision

By

On October 9, 2022

In Higher Education Policy, International Education, Uncategorized

The hot topic for higher education in Norway today is that for the first time, charging international students from outside of the European Union and European Economic Areas for higher education is actually on the line. Up until the introduction of these fees, Norway has been one of the few countries in the world (Germany another, apart from some specific German states) which has not charged higher fees or tuition to students coming from outside of the EU/EEA. This is namely a draw for students seeking master degrees, as Norwegian universities also offer a number of master degrees in English (the Bachelor level is by large and most taught in Norwegian). 

These changes will not affect me, as I am in the last year of my program (assuming I finish my thesis on time). I can’t say I’m fully against charging these students something (a very small something), as it is precedented in many other countries and as non-Norwegian, non-EU/EEA citizens, we do not fully participate in the economic activities that generate the tax funds and other funding sources of higher education in Norway. However, I’ve always liked what has felt like the recognition and value of both educating students to a higher degree and bringing in globally diverse set of students for exchanging knowledge with the local population. And, importantly for the Norwegian government to consider, any tuition fee, no matter how small, may deter international students.

I won’t go into my guesstimate of what seems reasonable because that’s not the point here, but it’s important to understand that the consideration of cost at all is coming from the demand-side perspective (the perspective of the student consumer, myself), and for good reasons. In an article in Aftenposten, one of Norway’s newspapers, the Minister of Research and Higher Education, Ola Borten Moe, said two things that I think he should strongly reconsider: 

First, he was quoted saying: “Det er ikke grunn til å tro at de som kommer hit er verdens fattigste,” which translates to, “There is no reason to believe that those who come here are the world’s poorest.” He cites the fact that this group of students needs to have 130,000 NOK, currently about USD$13,000 (in the article they actually say 120,000 NOK, but the number is much closer to 130,000 NOK), in their bank accounts, which roughly covers the costs to live in Norway for one year. He makes the assumption that this means these students can afford to pay more tuition. 

Second, he believes that the quality of education is a reason to charge tuition. Having experienced both US and Norwegian higher education now, I would agree that the quality of the education is high. But, I certainly hope that in the Minister’s mind, this does not suddenly mean that one year at a Norwegian university is the equivalent of one year at a US university. I will explain why, but first I’ll dig into my rationing behind reasonable tuition costs, and the Minister’s first comment. 

Weighing the Costs of Studying in Norway 

Discussing rates for international students starts with why I came to Norway to pursue a second masters degree. Getting a second masters was not on my radar after finishing the first. I thought the natural progression would be to pursue a PhD if I wanted to add to my education, but when I was made aware of Erasmus Mundus joint-masters programs in the Fall of 2020, I started to consider what other options might be out there. I was only interested in the Erasmus Mundus Master of Arts in Research and Innovation in Higher Education (MARIHE) if I could be awarded one of the full-ride scholarships, although even the price of the full degree was significantly less for two years than it would be to pursue the same degree in a one or one and a half year program in the US. That fall, the MARIHE program was not taking scholarship applicants, so decided to apply the following year. 

Then Norway got on my radar. I had several friends here already, so that was why I was snooping around the internet in the first place for masters in the field of higher education. When I learned there was one in Oslo taught in English, and the cost was around USD$90 a semester, I decided to apply. I also looked at programs at German universities, however they required a certain number of statistics credits, which I did not have at the time. 

If there had been a higher cost to pursuing a masters degree in another country apart from living costs, I likely would not have pursued the degree. It is my second masters, I am here to learn more about higher education because I felt it was a gap missing in my knowledge. As the Minister said, I am not among the world’s poorest, coming from the US and having the means to save on rent while living with my mom and working for a few years before I came to Norway. But I would not have paid more money for this degree, and I don’t think I am alone in the bucket of “not the world’s poorest” pursuing masters in Norway who would have reconsidered if additional costs were associated with the degree – in fact, there are recent studies which surveyed international students in Norway and demonstrate that the absence of tuition fees is the most significant factor drawing students to Norway who are pursuing full degrees (Weirs-Jennsen, 2019). 

This is from a US perspective of course, and some of the other places where this group of international students come from have higher education systems that grapple with expansion, quality, or issues of academic freedom, among other struggles. So perhaps for these students, the quality is a draw for a Norwegian education. But it’s a big assumption to then believe that all of these students are supporting themselves with 130,000 NOK in the bank. Some may be supported by scholarships from their home countries, others are actually relying on a Norwegian partner (which is a whole other issue – the family visas for partners situation here is such that sometimes the non-Norwegian pursuing a masters is the best way for partners to actually be reunified in Norway before they can obtain the family visa, which requires even more money saved in the bank). 

The bottom line is that it’s very silly to assume that just because students prove they have a certain amount of money upfront – which is both to represent and be used for living costs – they will willingly pay more in addition to attend Norwegian higher education. Many students when they arrive look everywhere for work. I did, as did several of my classmates. I have fellow students who were able to negotiate their jobs prior to being a student in Norway to half-time, remote positions. Surviving off of demonstrated funds is reasonable in concept, difficult in practice in a country as expensive as Norway, especially when you need to prove you have the same amount of money in your bank account to renew your residence permit a year later (in fact, the required amount of fees usually increases). 

Quality of Norwegian Higher Education: More than just the academics

I’ve touched on the issue of quality a bit already, but now I would really like to dig in. High costs associated with US higher education institutions have all sorts of associations, but one actual cost that goes into those often high prices are the personnel fees for student support services. Sometimes this gets lumped into the concept of “administrative bloat” for people who don’t study or work in higher education, but it’s quite different. There’s the unnecessarily high salaries of a small portion of employees at the university, then there’s the modest salaries of the people actually providing these often necessary student support services (there’s also really high salaries for some tenured professors, which isn’t factored into either of these other two elements). 

I’ve worked as an international student advisor before and have been trained in the fundamentals of internationalization from a practitioner’s perspective, and one of the biggest conversations around costs for international students in the US is the question of whether or not any of those costs goes towards assisting those students. Now, there’s a lot more university involvement when it comes to the relationship between the US Department of Homeland Security and the international student than there is between the Norwegian immigration office and local police (who handle residency appointments) and the international student, but let me give you the starting point for the few advisors serving international students at the University of Oslo: 

Every time I have emailed them a specific, direct question, they have literally copied and pasted the most relevant part of the website that relates to the question. It does not answer the question, it just relates to it. That’s it. I know immediately that’s what has happened because I recognize the text because believe it or not, I have actually already scoured the website for answers. 

If tuition is introduced to international students in Norway, then part of those costs should go towards providing more assistance to those students, and only those students. The introduction of tuition now makes the international student your customer, Norway. You are introducing market forces to this specific part of the system, and it will behave as such. If students pay a large amount of money to attend your universities, they will expect not just quality in academics, but quality in terms of service. 

Why, if the cost estimated for a Norwegian student is the same for an international student and this is a transfer cost to the international student, should international students receive this “special” treatment? Because the bottom line is, by introducing tuition, Norway becomes far less attractive for education. According to the Aftenposten article, the Minister seems to assume that maybe even more students will come, bringing in more money, but doesn’t seem to consider that less students will probably come to Norway. 

Sure, the nature is beautiful, people are happy, and there are many reasons to enjoy Norway as a country (I certainly have – I am very grateful to be here and for this experience, and am very happy, and lucky, to spend so much time with Norwegians myself). But this is also based on the assumption that you can essentially easily become Norwegian in your mindset, and just because it’s an amazing place doesn’t mean there aren’t deterrents to living here: It is cold here. The cost of living is expensive. Oslo is actually not very well connected to the rest of Europe in comparison to other parts of Europe. It’s hard to get to know people (Another study demonstrates that most international students form relationships with other international students in Norway. Norwegians are also known for being difficult to get close to – even Germans think so. Germans!). The career prospects are only good if you learn Norwegian, which is yet another stress and barrier. 

This decision, coming from Norway’s Senterparti, doesn’t seem very well-thought through. Based on his biography, Ola Borten Moe himself doesn’t seem to have ever lived abroad and can’t connect the various risks and stresses levied on that experience, such as leaving your family and networks, moving your belongings, and landing somewhere where not only do you not know the language, but you don’t know how the system operates, nor do you fully understand the underlying philosophies, mindsets and tricks necessary for operating within the system. Moe is a businessman yet he seems to be missing the demand-side of the equation for bringing in international students. 

Norwegian students have been reacting negatively to this decision, concerned that the diversity of Norwegian higher education will be lost. Another rebuttal to this from Norwegians will be the threat this change imposes on Norway’s values of free higher education. I think this is valuable, certainly something worth protecting, particularly in a country that is very well-off due to oil. I’ll end this piece with a springboard comment: If you’re going to make money off of a huge pollutant, you should probably aim to give back to the world in the best ways possible, and maybe higher education is one of them. 

1. The Local.de: “EXPLAINED: Bavaria’s plans to introduce tuition fees for non-EU students” 

2. Traedell, T. J. (6 Oct. 2022). “Utlandske studenter i Norge må betale.” Aftenposten. 

3. Udi.no – see “view explanation” next to “documentation that you have sufficient funds for living expenses” under “Documentation you must hand in when applying for the first time” 

4. MaRIHE – Erasmus Mundus Program 

5. Weirs-Jennsen, J. (2019). Paradoxal Attraction? Why an Increasing Number of International Students Choose Norway. Journal of Studies in International Education, 23(2), 281-298. 

6. Udi.no – under “Person who is getting married” —> “Requirements for reference person” 

7. Weirs-Jennsen, J. (2022). International Students in Norway: Satisfaction, Coping and Social Networks. Journal of Studies in International Education. 

8. Stortinget, “Moe, Ola Borten”

9. Hvitmyhr, B. L. (7 October 2022). “Vil at studenter som Ecem (24) skal betale.” Vg.no.

Entry to Oslo

By

On August 17, 2021

In Kelly in Oslo

Normally when you land after a 16+ hour journey to another country, relief sweeps over you when you step off your last plane – the only thing standing between you and a couch or a decent meal is receiving your luggage from baggage claim and/or the journey from the airport to your abode. Even if that journey might be long, you can usually roll down a window, or your body feels overjoyed at some sort of movement. Anything different than that stuffy airplane.

Not the case this time.

Leaving SFO, California reminding me that it’s sunny all the time.

I don’t sleep well on planes, if at all, so I’d been awake for about 23 hours when I stepped off my second flight on my journey to Oslo, Norway, where I will be attending a masters program for the next two years. Abnormally, I had begun to feel nauseous about 7 or 8 hours into my first flight to Copenhagen. It was a grueling 3 hours before landing at my layover destination, and perhaps an even more uncomfortable 5 hour layover ahead of me. Luckily, after dosing for about 40 minutes at a nearly vacant gate, I began to eat crackers little by little, and started to feel like my usual self. I knew that if I didn’t feel better by the second flight, it was going to be a rough afternoon.

I had read on a Facebook group that for those sent to quarantine hotels, the process from landing to collapsing into your hotel room can take anywhere from 4 to 6 hours. The rumors are true.

But before I discuss that experience, let me back up, because by this point unless I’ve spoken to you in the last few weeks, you’re confused: didn’t Europe open up to US tourists?

Most of Europe did, yes, but not Norway. The only reason I could get into Norway in the first place is because I am a student, and there is a very short window when we can enter – 1 month, between August 1st and September 1st. The other factor here is that you can’t freely enter the country unless you are vaccinated, and by “vaccinated” the Norwegian government means you must have proof of vaccination with either the Norwegian or EU QR code.

Oslo is also gorgeous – and sometimes there is a little sunshine.

So yes, I am fully vaccinated as of April 2021, but because I only have my CDC card and California state QR code to show it, I had to quarantine for the full 10 days (there are caveats to the number 10 here). You might think that’s outrageous, and yes, I think that the Norwegian government is going to have to rethink only allowing those two specific QR codes, but let’s be real, there have been plenty of cases of college students faking their CDC vaccination cards.

The next 5.5 hours consisted of a lot of waiting in lines that snaked in different areas of the airport. A waiting area to be walked to the next line, which was a line where you waited to be called by an airport staff member who took you to pick up your baggage and walked you to another line. This line was for the rapid COVID test. They took groups of 5 or so from this line every 15-20 minutes outside to a tent for the COVID test. Once confirmed negative, you waited on the other side of the tent for testing to be picked up and taken to a hotel. At the hotel you waited in line to be checked in. Then, at last, no more lines! For me this was perfect timing. It was 7 pm in Norway, and I only needed to be awake for a couple more hours before I could feel good about falling asleep and attempting to avoid too much jet lag.

Pro-Tip: When in a long series of lines, make yourself some friends. Major thanks to my new buds from Dubai and Wales, who not only helped me with my baggage (I’ve got a strained Achilles tendon), but who also made 4 hours of this cue-complete adventure far more enjoyable than it would have been!

In quarantine itself, life isn’t too bad – I can’t complain about the accommodations! The food, however… that’s been interesting. For breakfast, we get a small yogurt and two slices of bread with cheese and ham for a sandwich, along with orange juice. For lunch, a salad or pasta salad comes with a small white roll. Dinner is a hot meal served at 4:15 pm, with a bag including a piece of fruit (apple or pear), four slices of bread for two sandwiches, salami and a slice of cheese.

Five visible packets of bread slices.
Would you like some bread??

On my fourth full day of quarantine, I was so disenchanted by the pasta salad for lunch (and I had slept in until noon…) I decided to try out intermittent fasting. The approach I’ve taken is eating between the hours of 4:30 pm and 9:00 pm or so, plus drinking the orange juice served in the morning. Forget my original goals of learning how to meditate and studying Norwegian for 2-3 hours a day – this would be a challenge, right?!

Plastic trey with white roll, some faux-butter, and a couscous dish.
The *most* disappointing meal – dry couscous with slices of… candied fruit? Served on day 3, when I started contemplating intermittent fasting.

Yes. Yes it is a challenge. BUT! I’m much less disappointed by the hot dinner served because anything tastes pretty good after you’ve been waiting 19 hours or so.

Worried about my eating habits? Don’t be. This is definitely a temporary strategy to get through the food situation here.

A visually unappetizing beef stew...
A beef stew for dinner that happened to be served the same day a friend posted about this steak he grilled. *sigh* Not quite the same…

Let me tell ya, I cannot wait to have some bananas or blueberries or whatever kind of fruit I can find – and chocolate. Or cookies. Or chocolate cake. Or PIZZA.

Quarantine, apart from the food, isn’t so bad. We do live in the age of the internet (the wifi at the hotel is A+), I brought several books with me, and we are allowed outside for up to 4 hours each day. Since I strained my Achilles tendon back in March and it still hasn’t healed (and won’t for another 5+ months) I get a good hour in outside either walking or sitting by this pretty pond not too far away from the hotel. Inside, I’ve been reading, writing, 30 minutes of language learning (not quite 2-3 hours), indoor exercise, and watch a movie a day.

Today I got tested for COVID, a PCR test, and I find out the results tomorrow or on Thursday. As long as I test negative (Which I’d be really surprised if I test positive – I haven’t been around anyone this last week!) I will be able to get outta here, and the real journey begins!

The pond I have visited each day, rain or shine. There is a family of swans and tons of other birds – gotta watch your step – that never cease to entertain!

Kelly in Oslo

By

On August 17, 2021

In Kelly in Oslo

In late October/early November 2020, tensions and anxiety were high in the US. I was engaging in an intense learning curve at work to advise international students on Optional Practical Training (OPT), and was quickly approaching the anniversary of when my fears of being layoff officially started. I’d heard about some European masters programs that offered significant scholarships over the summer, and the seeds had been planted. Finding a 2-year masters in higher education program at the University of Oslo – taught in English and tuition-less even international students – felt like it deserved some of my attention. The program elements were compelling, taking a broader view of higher education systems from an international perspective, which is right up my ally.

Fast forward to August, 2021, several months after receiving an offer of acceptance and slowly, patiently, working through the residence permit application process and waiting to hear whether or not I could enter the country… and I’m here at last!

This blog will still focus on higher education musings. I will be in the thick of it here, studying and researching my many, many questions about higher education systems, and practicing my writing skills. The blog serves as a perfect outlet for this.

But there is much more that will be happening while I’m here: Learning a new language, exploring the area, and being an international student (The international advisor becomes the international student!). I will be posting about these experiences as well, and they can all be found in this category of the blog: “Kelly in Oslo.” Velkommen.

San Francisco International Airport – August 9th, 2021

It’s Time for International Educators to Get Political About Climate Change

By

On April 22, 2021

In International Education

The original renditions of this article were written for a class taught by Karin Fischer at the University at Albany, SUNY, International Educational Management and Leadership program. Many, many thanks to Karin and to my classmates for their support in writing this article.

Like many international educators, I encounter an inner struggle each time I fly on a plane or encourage others to pursue opportunities that require air travel. In college I both studied abroad and actively protest fossil fuel divestment. Often, my work to help others find transformative experiences overseas and my passion for international travel contend with my desperation to save our planet.

The US Bureau of Transportation Statistics reports 126.1 million (non-unique) passengers on foreign airlines flying to and from the US in 2019, in addition to a total of 926.7 million passengers on US airlines flying domestically and internationally. That’s over a BILLION passengers reported flying domestically within the US and internationally to and from the US in one year, totaling to 125.35 million flights annually.

Even though it is difficult to calculate the number of flights that are attributed to international education, we can estimate: 1.1 million international students studying in the US in the 2018/2019 academic year; nearly 350,000 US students studying abroad that same year; let’s set a high average of 5 flights a year per student;  international education is contributing to approximately 5% of international flights to and from the United States.

This is overwhelming data. It demonstrates that we need to continue the good work of trying to mitigate flying in our sphere of influence, international education, but it also demonstrates that even if we stop student mobility entirely, we are still left with mitigating business and leisure travel.

I am not pointing this out to make you feel hopeless. I am pointing this out to say, “Hey, this issue is bigger than international education, and we need to do what we can at every level we have access to.” Yes, as international educators, we are trying to act on our personal responsibilities to support efforts within our field. But we are lacking on supporting collective efforts in higher education and beyond. We are focusing too much on our individual impact at the micro level. We need to do that and more, collectively, to address the scope of this crisis.

The myth of individual responsibility

International educators emphasize that our solution is to cap the amount we and our students fly. As Richard Slimbach addresses, our ability to fly is a privilege that we can live without. Our focus in international education is limited by this idea that we just shouldn’t fly – it’s like we can’t dream or be creative beyond the idea that less flying as the end-all solution. Part of the problem is that in the United States, the responsibility for climate change is put on the individual. And that doesn’t work.  

“The Carbon Footprint Sham” is an article in Mashable written by Mark Kaufman that breaks down how British Petroleum (BP) promoted the idea of everyone figuring out what their “carbon footprint” in order to determine how to lower that footprint. Kaufman references several studious folks who pull back the curtain in Oz: A gas and oil company didn’t do this because they are “climate conscious” – it was a propaganda scheme to put the onus on the individual. Why? Well, after Kaufman breaks down the impact COVID-19 has had on carbon emissions and notes that it’s not the individual carbon use that’s a problem, its big businesses, it’s clear that BP’s genius marketing scheme worked. Kaufman quotes Benjamin Franta, a J.D.-Ph.D. student: “The strategy is to put as much blame on the consumer as possible, knowing the consumer is not in a good place to control the situation…It basically ensures that nothing changes.”

We need to focus more energy on shifting policy, which takes collective action

When we consider collective impact, the most influence we can have is through political activism. Activists take their individual rights and power to the next level. Activists work to educate people, to encourage and help people to vote, and to show the government what lies in collective power and action.

Activism can also be used to drive grassroots consumer choices, but we live in an age where the power of convenience is overwhelming. Our time is better spent focusing on policy because if the convenience of plastic bags, for example, is taken away, we are forced to adapt and won’t fall back on the allure of convenience. Take California as an example – a follow-up study after the enactment of a no-plastic-bag law in 2016 demonstrated a significant decrease in the amount of plastic bags used by customers. This isn’t possible without policy because we fall back on convenience, or we can’t afford to partake. Inclusive policy can address financial hardship and enable everyone to participate.

If you have to pick where you direct your activism efforts, aim them towards shifting policy: this way, the responsibility does not rest on the individual to make the choice between a better planet and convenience.

There are two places we need to shift policy: in our government, and in our institutions. To achieve the vision we have of our planet in the future, we need to vote for climate reform, which includes the little things (plastic bags) and the big things: We need to divest our own funds from a dark future, and reinvest in a sustainable future – and we need to take our decisions to our university and college leaders, demanding they do the same.

What I’m saying is… it’s time for international educators to get political.

How to advocate for sustainable climate policy as an international educator

Advocacy, a piece of activism, is already in our toolkit. NAFSA has defined advocacy as one of the key cross-cutting professional competencies in international education. We do it all the time – even if you are not signing every petition, you are reminding your colleagues to keep international students in mind, working with faculty and the Registrar to get courses approved, etc. There are little ways to be an advocate, and there are big ways in IE. The same goes for climate policy.

Here are 3 tacks all international educators – and any educators – can take to expand our commitment beyond educational impact and make an effective political impact:

1) Support voices: University divestment has been historically effective at stigmatizing investments, the movement to divest from Apartheid in South Africa in the 1980’s as the strongest example, and since we work at universities, we can support the students, faculty and staff advocating for divestment. This doesn’t have to mean we join the physical protest (big kudos if you do), but it can mean contributing our ideas, mentoring, and other forms of standing in solidarity.

2) Use your voice: In the realm of strategy during COVID-19, all of our institutions are trying to redraw the landscape. When higher education is disrupted, that is the best time to make necessary change. Jim Cramer sounded the death knell on fossil fuel stocks in early January of 2020, meaning he thinks they will continue to decrease in value over time, similar to a change in tobacco stocks decades ago. Why does he think this? Because young people are alarmed, and that will drive away interest in the market. . In his research on the environmental impact of students moving in between countries, Robin Shields draws on several studies to make the point that university structure itself needs to change to become more sustainable. Endowments are in flux – let’s push for more movement here, and now, and pull in our colleagues across campus for support. We are all here to serve our students – this is for those students.

3) Use your voice even more: Don’t feel like it’s the right time or place at your institution? Look to the broader community. Feel like you’re making strides at your institution? Still look to the broader community! Local actions impact local, state actions impact state. And both are effective. Here are three pieces of research that can help us direct our time, voices, and money to make the biggest impact:

a) Dietz et. Al. (2015): Electing representatives who propose strong climate policy correlates with lower emissions. Your vote matters – especially at the state level.

b) Muõz, Olzak, and Soule (2018): Protest is an impactful tool leading to policies that ultimately reduce state carbon emissions, particularly at the state level. So those protests held in big cities – especially your state capital – are very important.

c) Grant and Bogden (2017): At the local level, environmental nongovernmental organizations have the most influence over local politicians. This gives us something to think about when it comes to volunteering our time our making donations. Are there local organizations focused on promoting environmentally conscious policies or practices where we can volunteer our time? If we are active donors, are these also organizations where we can contribute money? Can we encourage our students to volunteer at these organizations?

What do we push for? Reinvestment in better, cleaner technology within and outside our institutions. This means investing in science just as much as we think about flying and not flying and being more open and educated on the research about all types of alternative energy sources. The more research and experimentation we fund not just as individuals, but at the government and even global levels, the more we discover, and the more safe and sustainable our solutions will be.

What does the future look like?

Whenever I am faced with a bit of existential crisis – “What is my purpose in this world, and am I doing everything I can to pursue it?” – I think back to my vision of the world in the future. In twenty years, I will be in my mid-40’s. Maybe, depending on how the next decade goes, I’ll decide to have kids. What do I want that world to look like for me and for them?

I’d like for us all to live on a healthy planet, care for healthy animals, and engage with healthy people – I see coexistence.

Travel is not absent from my vision. Flying isn’t even absent from my vision of the future. In fact, it’s integral – and I think you’ll agree – to the coexistence I want to see.

What we truly want is not for people to stop getting on planes – we want planes to run on clean energy. Getting political with our voices, time, and sometimes money, is how we get there.

It’s been a year! Getting back into writing

By

On March 26, 2021

In My Writing Journey, Uncategorized

It has been just over a year since I last posted any writing. When things first shut down, I knew it would last more than a few weeks, but I wanted to ignore my gut instinct that I might be working from home for a few months. At that time, I definitely did not consider that it would last more than a year, but here we are.

In those first weeks I thought I would use the extra time I thought I’d have on my hands to write and post more. The writing ebbed and flowed, but the posts clearly never happened.

To state the obvious, much has changed in the last year, at every level – including work. In September of 2020 I began working with international students on Optional Practical Training (OPT, work authorization usually used for post-graduation employment) which can, at times, take up a chunk of my day. I have found with the addition of this work in combination with “Zoom fatigue” that I have limited time and energy to expend on reading as much higher education news as I used to, or even giving it the proper time in my mind to digest. This has a big impact on my writing.

I did turn attention to a new endeavor, something that had been an interest of mine for a while: My colleague and friend Erin Morris and I began Generation Travel Radio, a podcast focusing on the value of travel and intercultural experiences. We are gearing up to launch our second season at the beginning of May, and I have to say that I am very excited for our plans for the podcast moving forward.

Check it out on Anchor, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts and other platforms.

I’ve been writing in the morning consistently for about two weeks now. At first it was hard, slow – I had no clue what to write about. It’s coming more easily to me now as I both broaden and narrow in on what I want to discuss:

International Higher Education

I plan to continue digging into and writing about higher education at the global level. Comparative international education, study abroad, and other aspects of international education are my professional passions, a field I want to contribute my thoughts to.

Higher Education Policy – generally speaking

I will continue to write about general higher education policy when a topic sparks my interest. The past year has shaken higher education at its core and there is much to consider and discuss, but it has felt overwhelming to keep up with and my writing on various topics has been a bit long-winded and all over the place. For this reason, only a percentage of this writing will likely make it to the blog.

Career Services & the World of Work

Like higher education, I will likely write about this on occasion, hopefully also through an international comparative lens.

Travel & the World

While travel is still limited, there is a lot to say and think about travel. Many of my thoughts have focused on the vaccine rollout and the implications of the resurgence of travel, how pursuing “meaningful travel” is more important than ever before.

Reviews

Somehow, reviews take the longest for me to write. I go back through books and select quotes, try to reframe the overall thesis or message to a news topic… but I have read many books in the last year that I have consistently referred to in conversation, and many of them are even in conversation with one another. They deserve a spotlight here!

I am not going to promise any consistency on posting my writing at this time, but I do intend to be better about sharing when I do write. I hope that you will engage with me on these topics, and if you or anyone you know is interested in collaborating on research or writing, please reach out!

A Little Bit of Kindness

By

On March 21, 2020

In Uncategorized

I am seeing people respond to the number of higher education institutions that are mandating their students leave their residences and head home in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. The decisions that our higher education institutions make have been impacts on their students, members of our communities; but in some cases, the decisions are not always up to the institutions themselves, and in all cases, there are many people and external forces to consider.

My response on March 11th to the idea of forcing students off campus was deep concern: What about international students (as a study abroad advisor managing incoming exchange students, this was my first thought)? What about students who are otherwise homeless, who don’t have family they can turn to?

That was March 11th. Fast forward about four or five days (it was fast, felt like a lifetime in between), and my opinion changed significantly.

It’s not that I don’t care about these groups of students. I’m the kind of person who would open up my own home to as many students as allowed/was healthy/would fit, if I were in charge of my home and didn’t live five minutes away from my grandparents. (Goes without saying, I want to be healthy if they need help from me – and it’s my mom’s house.) We almost hosted one of my sister’s friends who fell into this situation, but she needed to be in the same area as her school due to health insurance restrictions.

As individuals, we are all faced with an unprecedented situation, and the same applies to the leaders who run higher education institutions. This is not the time for judging some of these decisions, as they are so complex and at times there are bigger bodies making decisions that will impact an HEI’s set of decisions. This is the time to react and gather in support for those who need the help: the students.

Here is a breakdown of what needs to be considered when we assess the decisions made right now by HEIs in response to COVID-19:

First, it’s going to be different for every institution. Every institution will respond differently depending on who their students are and where they are located. Based on this article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, some institutions have dismissed students and are now deciding to offer up the space for sick patients overcrowding hospitals – it is entirely possible that this was an ask from local governments of these institutions (the article names Tufts University, NYU, and Middlebury College). If NYU, Tufts, or Middlebury – or any institution – chose to ask its students to leave, it was a hard decision. In some cases, institutions will give refunds. At others, to do so could mean the institution will go under. That’s not a small decision to grapple with in these cases, especially. 

Second, the government has a role to play. The federal government was slow to respond at the get-go, and now it is trying to figure out where to put its emergency funding. An article published yesterday morning in Inside Higher Ed points directly at one of the areas where the federal government was slow to make moves at first (re: institutional eligibility to receive federal aid when suddenly moving all classes online), in a rapidly changing situation, to provide flexibility. It mentions briefly another issue, which one body of the government (the Student Exchange and Visitor Program) was quick to respond to, while another body of government, the USCIS, was not – the visa allowances for international students.

I think that all institutional leadership is considering the ramifications of its choices for its students who don’t have a home to return to, or who cannot easily get home. But they have other people to consider as well – such as faculty and all staff – and many logistical concerns. Students who remain on campus have to be fed, which means dining halls need to remain open, which means that (as long as shelter in place is in effect), meals need to be delivered in to-go boxes, and what happens if they start running out of the supplies to hold the food? That’s one element. In dorms, there may be three students living in one room with the whole hall sharing a bathroom. 

What I appreciate in those situations – from what I’ve seen – is the community coming together to help those students, and most universities doing their best to help their students as best as they can in what has been a whirlwind couple of weeks. For us in California, March 9th – 16th was awful. I’m saying that and I wasn’t making any of the big decisions. For some institutions, that’s this week. 

If there’d been more time, I think more measures would have been taken, such as surveying to find out who would struggle in displacement so as to determine which dorm might serve as a place where those students could stay. But there was not time. What made sense the morning of March 11th no longer made sense in the evening after the travel ban on Europe was called. What seemed like a good idea on a Friday for international students changed on Monday. It’s difficult to think holistically and strategically during a whirlwind like that – your daily routine turns into triage and your decisions become reactionary.

I’m writing all of this because there is already a negative perception of higher education in the United States, which is difficult enough to battle when the problem is that our government has not invested enough in it for several decades. Higher ed institutions are really roughing it, it is going to be a rough time ahead, and that’s only going to make it more difficult for the students. Students’ voices are extremely important – I have always, always been a proponent of that – and there are people in higher ed who are listening and doing the best they can do. It’s the system – wrapped up in governmental policy and procedure, law, and a corporate-driven, business-run society – that leaves us all in a bind.

These are unprecedented, trying times, even for higher ed leaders. 

Below is a comment I made on a Facebook post recently (A few days ago? A week ago? Who knows anymore?):  

“As someone who works for a higher ed institution (HEI) as a staff member, I think it’s too difficult and early to tell the “right way” for HEIs to handle this, it has spiraled extremely quickly. (I actually don’t think there is a single right way.) HEIs are responsible not only to their students, but their faculty and staff as well. I don’t know what the right answer is, every institution is handling it differently, but there is SO much to consider, especially the legality of everything and the way higher ed is caught up in that legality (some decisions are difficult to make because the government has been slow to respond, and even private institutions need to adhere to various federal laws), international students, students who will otherwise be homeless – it’s a mess, it’s true, but in some ways – health concerns of large populations of young people living together in closer quarters, two to a room, sometimes three – I see why NYU and other HEIs are sending their students home or otherwise trying to find accommodations for them. In some cases, maybe that doesn’t make any sense. In other cases, what made sense 5 days ago no longer makes sense today. We have to approach these things with kindness.”

I know there are people struggling significantly through all of this, and in some cases even a little kindness may need to wait for those with bigger concerns right now. But where we can, when we can, a little bit of kindness is extremely, extremely important.

Higher Education is not a Basic Need – It’s a Worthwhile, Collective Investment

By

On February 12, 2020

In Higher Education Policy

Definitions:

For the purposes of this article, I use the terms “postsecondary education” and “higher education” to differentiate between referring to all types of education after secondary education. “Higher education” is a kind of “postsecondary education.” When I use “higher education,” I am referring to education that leads individuals to academic-leaning degrees, including at universities and colleges.

On January 23rd, the Chronicle of Higher Education came out with an article titled, “Look Who’s Talking About Canceling Debt: How a fringe idea went mainstream.” It begins by looking back at the Occupy movement, where grads gathered protesting the piles of debt that they owe for their degrees. Vimal Patel, author of the article, writes:

“[The protestors’] end goal [was] not total cancellation of student-loan debt. It’s widespread acceptance of the idea that education in the 21st century is a basic need, and that it’s immoral to force people to go into debt to attain it.”

What is a “basic need”? Air. Water. Being taken care of when you fall ill. One could argue, a basic education starting before primary school that sets us all on an even playing field in this capitalist society. Think about it – we’ve created a world where simple basic needs are now just a few cornerstones of what we need to have a shot in this world.

But is higher education a basic need?

Hot take: I don’t think so.

Implying that higher education is a “basic need” keeps it to the individual. It signals to policy makers and politicians that everyone needs some sort of basic higher education.

Not everyone needs to go to university, nor wants to go to university. Postsecondary education comes in many forms and does not need to be pursued immediately after someone graduates from high school.

Postsecondary education is not a “basic need” that comes in sequence. It is a high value need that should be accessible at any point in time of a person’s life.

I don’t want to see policies that devalue the postsecondary education that is being served, which is what will happen if we continue to advocate that higher ed is a basic need. The adjective “basic” signals exactly what we could expect from government support when we frame it this way: delivering the minimum for the minimum cost. Just like at any other level of education, people learn differently as adults, which means a successful system of postsecondary education would offer a range of options for students 18+ (which encompasses 25+, and 40+, 60+…)

But I’m not saying, either, that the cost of higher education is an individual responsibility.

Let’s use the term “invest” because let’s face it, it’s a business-run world and the word “invest” sends more positive signals to the right people than does the term “basic need.”

I want to see the US government, people, and businesses invest heavily in postsecondary education. Let’s be innovative and increase postsecondary options, but let’s invest in our future by making these options affordable or costless for those who take advantage of the opportunities available.

I would like to reframe postsecondary education in the US. It’s not a basic need, but the positive impact of an educated, well-trained population should be invested in to make these opportunities accessible and affordable to everyone.

It is no secret that the question we think after deciding we like the idea of investing in postsecondary education is “How?” The answer is likely in several more blog articles citing podcasts and articles and economic statistics, but for the purpose of one small post, let’s be upfront that there are several pieces of restructuring that will need to occur:

  1. Corporations, as benefactors of this system, will need to be the primary investors via taxes that are directly redistributed to various postsecondary institutions.
  2. Higher education will still need to undergo an overhaul. Over the last few decades, the price has increased in part to conceptualizing higher education as a high-value, highly-desired product that needs to be marketed, which has increased competition amongst both applicants and the institutions themselves. Institutions, to remain competitive, have put money towards amenities that are not crucial to an educational experience (one classic example is a rock wall).
  3. We, as adults, need to stop ranking schools and passing along our bias to young people. This is part of the reason for such an intense, competitive admissions process – not everyone needs or should go to Harvard, where acceptance rates are low, and some of those students would be much better off at small private colleges, where acceptance rates and financial aid can be very high (depending on the institution).
  4. The US government might want to consider realigning the budget a bit to bring more money and tax investment into education in general.

What I have written here barely glazes the surface of what is a huge issue, but I hope that the main takeaway is that we need to start changing our language around postsecondary education, because it is worth a collectively investment. 

Study Abroad Providers – Examples of Innovative Additions to Higher Ed?

By

On February 6, 2020

In Higher Education Policy, International Education

Last week I was fortunate enough to travel to Phoenix, Arizona, to attend an Advisor’s Workshop organized by CEA, one of the study abroad provider partners Menlo College works with. The workshop content focused on developing custom programs. Short-term faculty-led programs are something I am extremely interested in developing at Menlo, and this workshop was very helpful in understanding general best practices and procedures for launching these types of programs.

The biggest takeaway from the workshop: custom programs are a lot of work. There is the pressure of hitting enrollment numbers (and at some universities, “enrollment” is delegated to another employee, I learned – this is what happens when your first job in higher ed is at a very small college, apparently), setting expectations for both faculty members and students, monitoring the political and health climates of the destination country… Once I take the time to review my notes, I’m sure the list will be longer.

It suddenly made me realize that I’m not entirely sure how I do my job. I’m certainly falling short on doing study abroad programming justice, but at least it’s progressing, little by little.

While I took in bucket loads of information among my colleagues who took turns grumbling or either vocally or silently panicking over an approaching deadline or something they forgot to do (I think I did all three at least once throughout the three days), I observed the CEA staff. They seemed so collected. So happy. It was a contrast to my very tired advising colleagues.

It turns out that for many institutions, study abroad is either already underfunded or will be facing cuts due to the defunding of higher ed in some states – my example here is Missouri, where my roommate was from. We were gathered in sunny Phoenix, which looks really nice in late January, by our CEA colleagues who organized a wonderful workshop for us advisors. And it was the first time I ever considered that quality of life at a for-profit organization could actually surpass that of a not-for-profit or public institution.

It’s crazy how something as underfunded and nerve-wracking for students as study abroad has encouraged the number of provider programs to exist in the field. I think it has to be that way. Even though there is all of this money leaving higher education institutions and going to provider programs because more students want to study abroad, I have a hunch it started out that way due to lack of funding towards study abroad offices at higher ed institutions. That, or the providers offered something different from the classic exchange program; something easier to chew on, where students can take classes in English and pay a little extra for help with the visa process. The founders of study abroad provider programs saw the niches that needed filling.

It’s a history that I don’t know too much about. But while I love making things work in an institutionalized format – because with many options can come different rules to follow at times, especially at an institution still building up study abroad programming – I do think that providers are a good thing for study abroad.

I think that students can learn a lot more when they submerse themselves in the language, sure. But there are providers that do offer that kind of experience, and all providers are adhering to demand.

Studying abroad at NYU meant that I attended an “island” program. This term can have a negative connotation because it indicates that the students live and take classes with other study abroad students, and they don’t really get out to meet people from the destination. NYU Berlin staff (and likely most staff at global NYU locations) were great about creating and promoting opportunities for NYU students to meet Germans, but the requirement to live on campus certainly added to the “island” feel.

At that point in time, I thought that these kinds of programs were still good to have. Would I have preferred an exchange program? Probably, but I knew plenty of people who would not have studied abroad if they needed a certain level of German or didn’t feel comfort in knowing they’d be with other American students.

Is that ideal? No. But does it at least get those students abroad and help them open their world view in a way that feels safe to them? Yes.

I stand by the same logic today working in education abroad. If I have students who want to learn more of the language prior to going abroad, I think that is awesome (unfortunately I have to make sure they monitor the number of elective credits they have an use up, which stinks). But most students these days don’t want to do that. They also never really needed to because the value of language is dying in the US. That’s not their fault, and I’m not going to hold them back from understanding the world more just because they won’t be taking every class in Italian, Chinese or Czech.

I’ve gone a bit off course here from my original thoughts, though this conversation is important, too. An additional thought that passed through my mind: study abroad is a prime example of something leaving the higher education institution to be contracted out. Too bad, perhaps, for the higher education institutions that didn’t invest further in the lucrative situations. (Again – I’m not sure. Time for me to take a “history in study abroad” course, or at least buy the textbook.)

But is the innovation and entrepreneurship demonstrated by study abroad providers something to worry about in all of higher ed?

As limits are placed and as funding is cut, students, staff and faculty will need to look outside of the higher ed institution to make their projects and ideas work. What will be made of colleges as entrepreneurs are being encouraged to think outside the box to fix the problems we are seeing in education? Is the case of study abroad one example, and what should be learned from this example?

Predictions for International Higher Ed in the 2020’s

By

On January 23, 2020

In International Education

Today I will be teaching a class for the Career Management course taught at Menlo College, and after gauging the students’ reactions to the required reading (the first two chapters of The Start-Up of You by LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman), we will review three big categories in our world that disrupt the workforce: technology, globalization, and politics.

In reviewing for the class, I laughed at my own personal example for the final of the three, politics. I thought of how education as a field benefits significantly from globalization, but how dependent those positive impacts are on the political games played by world leaders. Within just the past couple of months, there has been significant tension around offering OPT (extended visa status for students graduating who want to work in the US), debates on whether to limit the number of Chinese intellectuals who come to the US (listen to episode “Freshman Orientation” of the podcast “Heartland, Mainland”), and, on the flipside, study abroad programs altering course after political protests in Hong Kong and Chile (I don’t have web references for these two, I just know that a program I work with canceled a trip to Hong Kong and a friend of my sister’s was due to study in Chile this spring, but the program was cancelled and she chose an alternative destination). Working in international education means your work is highly influenced by politics at every level, on a regular basis.

It’s difficult, therefore, to make a lot of confident predictions in the trends of international higher ed because your ability to predict these trends relies on your ability to predict political trends locally, nationally, and internationally. The ability for a group of people from Oregon can manage to bring OPT to court demonstrates how the local can connect to the global. It’s a fluid exchange, one does not solely rely on action from the other.

I think part of the goal for those of us working in international education is to take the positive attributes of globalization and propel them forward. I do feel confident in making a general statement that people who work in this field believe that intercultural exchange – global exchange – ultimately will lead us to understanding and, hopefully, more peace. Which is why we push to bring international students into the US to study as well as push people from the US to study in another country, too.

I mentioned in my last post that I am not looking forward to the day when I may need to choose whether I keep walking the path of study abroad or career services. The two are not mutually exclusive, but as I wrote last week, it’s the career services offices that are going to be more heavily invested in, at least for the near future. That’s not to say that study abroad won’t be – at many institutions, internationalization is a priority, and study abroad is a part of that. When it comes down to the wire, however, I do think career services prevails.

This means that, as I will echo to my students later today, I will need to keep an eye on the trends. And here is what I think we might start to see happen in the 2020’s as it pertains to international higher education:

Gap years.

I’ve mentioned it before, but I am slowly learning more. Many people think a “gap year” happens between high school and college, and that it entails a vacation in Europe of sorts. Yes – this does happen – but the definition of “gap year” seems to be expanding.

The Gap Year Association is the primary organization trying to promote and explore the benefits of gap years. The GYA accredits gap year programs in an effort to set up a standard to value these programs.

What would be ideal is to find ways to incorporate gap years into college degree plans, which is not a new idea. In 2018, Abigail Falik and Linda Frey argued for a gap year to equate as Freshman year; a year ago, Goldie Blumenstyk reflected on Falik’s work with Global Citizen Year; and earlier this month, Jonathan Zimmerman wrote an opinion piece that a gap year should be required by colleges – that is to say, a year of public service, not travel.

A gap year can be a year of work. A year of public service, as Zimmerman argues, where you meet people from all over the US. It can be a year of both. You can spend the first 9 months of your gap year earning money and using some of your savings to get yourself to another country where you volunteer in exchange for room and board. There are so many options.

Looking at the larger landscape, I think there’s more: A gap year can happen at any time. Who’s to say it’s not something we should encourage at any age? Ready for a career switch? Take some time off to explore through volunteer work.

Here is where these pieces – career exploration, international exploration, international and domestic intercultural exploration – can collide, along with one other key piece of the puzzle: life-long learning.

I will reiterate Hoffman’s idea to the students today, it’s important to be adaptable (pg. 24 of The Start-Up of You). The three big change factors – technology, globalization, and politics – are always at work, which means change is happening at a quickening pace. Technology, for example, is growing exponentially fast, and we humans can’t really keep up. But the scary thing is that we’re trying to.

This means we will always be learning, and it only makes sense as higher education is questioned, the world becomes more interconnected, and everything keeps moving faster than we can keep up, that we learn how to take an appropriate step back to reassess, reflect, and keep learning.

My 2020’s prediction for international higher ed: More people will start to realize the value in expanding their learning beyond the confines of “four years after high school,” age, and place. The term “gap year” will expand, and more people will be creating and pursuing their own version.

Predictions in Higher Ed for the 2020’s: Career Services

By

On January 16, 2020

In Education-to-Career, Higher Education Policy

Predictions not just for the upcoming year, but for the upcoming decade, are rolling out like no one’s business in Forbes and other news outlets (maybe it’s my Career Services obliged addiction to LinkedIn, but I feel like every writer for Forbes has spat out their predictions). I am no futurist (yet), particularly with the complexities that shape around making long-term predictions, and maybe part of that is because I’m currently not fully sold on some of the predictions that are being made around higher education.

When it comes to a topic like climate change, sure – I am pretty confident that change is going to suddenly take off and grow exponentially. I think that’s starting to happen now, thanks to the hype around Greta Thunberg, and it’s now a conversation that no Democratic candidate can ignore.

When it comes to higher education, work after college and the value of college have always been linked, but now it is becoming more important in the minds of the public because of rising college costs. When I look back at why I started studying the value of higher education and advocating against student debt, I realize that it wasn’t just because I don’t want people to end up unable to pay back extortionate loans: the rising price of college is at the crux of why the public feels resentful towards higher education.

The problem is that part of the rising cost has to do with expansion. Expansion is not in itself the problem – the people who are now attending college and contributing to its expansion more and more represent students from low-income and minority backgrounds, and that’s a very good thing. Unfortunately, expansion was not handled well from the angle arguing for low-cost higher education. Market forces were introduced, and that is part of the reason why Admissions is a very hard game to play.

In the next decade, we are likely to see colleges continue to expand into new formats of providing learning. More certificate programs, partnering with bootcamps, online or hybrid classes… But I think we will also see the one-on-one aspect of areas such as advising increase in value as well.

College is becoming more accessible for students low-income and minority backgrounds thanks to a number of reasons, including initiatives such as eliminating the requirement to submit SAT and ACT scores with your college applications. But merely making college admissions more accessible does not equate to coming to college with the same kind of understanding of the nuances of how college works or how to succeed in an office-bound workplace. Students of more affluent backgrounds typically have at least one parent who earned at least a Bachelor’s Degree and continued on to work in an office-job. Most importantly, there was time for these kids to learn from their parents; hidden social cues such as the right questions to ask a guest lecturer or the leader of an organization to indicate your knowledge and interest in what they do, for example. Learning how to network is all about culture and communication, and if the focus for the day is making sure there’s a warm meal on the table that most of the family can share, when do you have time to learn how to “properly” shake someone’s hand?

This is why Career Services is likely to grow at colleges (and why I am not looking forward to the day sometime in the future when I might need to decide between Career Services and Study Abroad – I know which one is more secure). But Academic Advising is just as important, and isn’t just about which class a student takes next. In less lenient degree paths, academic advisors are key for making sure that students graduate on time, because the order of classes can get really messy. Academic Advising is additionally the stop for getting advice on what other resources might be available on a college’s campus and how to take advantage of some of those resources, such as mentors or research opportunities.  

I recently listened to Paul Tough’s latest book, The Years that Matter Most: Why College Makes or Breaks Us, and in one of the last chapters he discusses the push in higher ed to establish Student Success centers because they appeared to improve student outcomes. At Menlo College (where I work), Academic Advising and Career Services fall under this umbrella called the Center for Academic and Professional Success, along with tutoring, disability services and study abroad. Individualized attention will lead to the success of the student.

And some students do need extra attention. It could be for any number of reasons, but the purpose is to look at a student’s circumstances, and help that student navigate their situation to learn and overcome challenges.

Unfortunately, providing one-on-one attention is expensive. I certainly hope that in the 2020’s we find a better financial path to meeting the following goals:

  • Making college accessible to everyone;
  • Providing one-on-one attention to those who need it;
  • Making a comfortable life accessible to everyone.

Page 1 of 4

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén