Kelly Davis

International Higher Education Researcher & Educator

Category: Higher Education Policy Page 1 of 2

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.

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 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.

What does “leadership” mean?

By

On November 20, 2019

In Higher Education Policy, Uncategorized

In the Spring of 2014 in Berlin, Germany, I had the opportunity to attend a small conference where Nicolas Sarkozy (former president of France), among other speakers, discussed contemporary politics.

When Sarkozy gave his speech, he broke from French into English for one word: Leadership. This struck me as odd. There are a number of ways to refer to the person in charge in French: “la direction” (“sous la direction,” or “under the direction/leadership”); “le chef” (the one in charge); “l’aptitude á diriger” (the ability to lead). Or, “le leadership.”

Why did Sarkozy use the English term to describe “leadership?” Typically, when we use the foreign word rather than a translation, the word itself encompasses more than can be adequately translated. It’s a bit different than words melding into another language – take the French word “coup” – although a linguistics expert may be able to tell us whether or not there was a similar process of language assimilation hundreds of years ago.

The real shocker for me was months later, towards the end of my stay in Berlin, when a fellow American classmate mentioned something to do with my “being a leader” (or something of that nature). I had heard this at times growing up and held a very US-centric idea of what a leader was. My own ideas about leadership have changed over the years, and my year abroad was a big turning point in this process.

When my classmate made this remark, my German professor Reinhard Isensee reacted, “Kelly doesn’t want to be a leader!” I was surprised by this, and asked, “Well, what do you think I want to be?”

I wish I could remember what Herr Isensee said – it was something along the lines of “bringing people together to cultivate collaborative engagement.” It made more sense, in part because it actually described the action rather than merely leave it at “leadership.”  

In Germany, “leadership” is shied away from because it is associated with hypermasculinity and with Hitler. As part of the long recovery process after the Holocaust, most of the Germans I have met do not aspire to what we might consider excellent leadership in the United States, because where it led their country was disastrous for the world.

I taught a section of a Career Management course last week, and I asked my students what defines “leadership” here in the US. One student mentioned “charisma.” He is absolutely right: citizens of the US are particularly drawn to potential leaders who are “charismatic.”

I took a class the final semester of my undergraduate degree about Leadership Theory. Our professor questioned whether or not charisma is even exits – what is charisma, anyway? In the Spring of 2016, here is what I wrote in response to reading Max Weber’s idea of Charisma in “The Theory of Social and Economic Organization,” and Robert Solomon’s “The Myth of Charisma”:

“Solomon points out a couple of issues with charisma. The first is that it cannot be analyzed because there are so many emotions involved in the relationship between the charismatic leader and the follower.[1] The second is that by acknowledging charisma as a powerful leadership trait, we ignore analyzing the emotional relationships between leaders and followers, particularly that of trust.[2] I agree that charisma is a term that encompasses larger networks of emotions and relationships that should be observed on their own. Furthermore, I think charisma of an individual is the ability of that individual to connect with peoples’ passions and generate both trust in the charismatic leader and action according to the goals the leader puts forward. This idea of trust comes from Solomon’s definition of charisma and the idea of action is inspired by both the concept that charismatic leaders can hone in on how their followers are motivated and Weber’s point that followers are obedient to authority.”

After breaking down what charisma actually is, I later discussed in my essay how “leaders” and “followers” should consider charisma as a trait:

“The goal of leaders should not be to “be charismatic” because that doesn’t really mean anything. Important aspects of being an effective leader, rather, are the relationships between leaders and their followers that are clouded by the concept of charisma: emotional and trust based relationships. As followers, we have a more important role. It is our responsibility to question authority and to question our emotional connections with those in power. It is often rational to feel certain emotions – the problem is when we act irrationally based on those emotions. For this reason it is important to reflect on our emotional connections with people, especially those in charge, and be sure that we agree with both what those people in power are saying and with how those people are acting.”

Shampa Biswas, a professor at Whitman College, wrote an opinion article for The Chronicle of Higher Education titled “Stop Trying to Cultivate Student Leaders.” I find many points of her argument compelling as she ultimately is addressing the need to stop encouraging young people to develop the same characteristics that Germans shy away from: “assertiveness, aggressiveness, hypermasculinity.”

I too question the idea of “teaching leadership” – I questioned it in high school, finding it odd that there would be a “leadership course,” although upon reflection I’m not sure I fully understood why it seemed odd. It may also be a reflection of my own upbringing, likely on raised on the “you are a special” diet that Biswas refers to.

Perhaps a leadership theory course, however, could be useful, or modeling “leadership programs” based on a curriculum designed to demonstrate the different forms of organizational structure could be compelling. In such a curriculum, analysis of leadership structures with strict hierarchy could be compared with more lateral structures. Combined with negotiation skills training and theory, and perhaps a bit of political and historical background thrown in the mix, perhaps this would be a way to mentor young people to think critically and question the systems around them – which is ultimately what I think Biswas is pushing educators to do.

Biswas is right – we need people to be compassionate and to think about the impact of their actions on the world around them. And encouraging them to reach for more power rather than to question larger systems and those already with power is detrimental to societal progress.

But let’s remember that there are other leadership structures out there. We are not confined to one leadership or organizational system, nor are we confined to one type of leader. Encouraging questioning, as Biswas encourages, is the first step towards redefining our future “leaders” and reimagining what this world might look like.

[1] Robert C. Solomon, “The Myth of Charisma,” 203.

[2] Ibid, 203 and 206.

Some Higher Ed Administrators are Priced Out of Conferences, too

By

On November 13, 2019

In Higher Education Policy, Uncategorized

Today in Higher Ed reading, Times Higher Education (THE) reports a researcher from Tokyo’s claim that conferences have become so expensive, academics are being priced out.

It is nearly the halfway point between NAFSA national conferences. At the last one, the first (hopefully) NAFSA conference I have attended, I learned a lot. I am lucky for the experience. I attended three extra workshops through which I earned certificates and I stayed for a total of 6 days.

In order to justify the length and time, I found ways to cut costs. I kept my budget low and managed to stick to it by renting an Airbnb with a mini fridge located a walkable distance from the conference, and spent a total of $40 on groceries that would constitute my breakfast and lunches for all 6 days.

The evening before the official conference begins, there are a number of networking cocktail hour events. They were all hosted in the Marriott hotel connected to the conference facility, with small bars along the sides of large rooms where people mingled. A beer cost $10, a glass of wine of course more. One of my colleagues did not see where we could serve ourselves water in plastic cups and subsequently paid $6 for a glass of water.

The NAFSA conference is among many conferences focusing on higher education, the specific realm being international education. That means that perhaps half of the conference’s 10,000+ attendees hail from higher education institutions (HEIs) around the world, most of which are not-for-profit. Many of the organizations that HEIs partner with are not-for-profit, too.

Regardless, the money originates from two places most of the time: student tuition or the government. In some cases you may have foundations, or even a few for-profit companies, funding research and educational projects related to international education. But even for-profit study abroad providers get their money from somewhere: students or the HEIs themselves, which brings us back to money from the students and the government.

Why, Marriott, are you charging education professionals $10 for a beer? Sure, we don’t have to drink during these mingling events (but for those of us who are shy, we sure would appreciate a boost of confidence from somewhere), but when we consider the costs to stay in hotels, to fly – it all adds up really quickly. And it’s all coming back to the same sources of income: the students or the government.

Christopher Pokarier (the researcher in Tokyo) makes a great point about academics being priced out of conferences, and he points to NAFSA specifically. I would argue that it’s even difficult for some of us from small, tuition-based institutions to get ourselves to networking events. NAFSA can feel inaccessible, but as my work is also in Career Services, I have the National Association for Colleges and Employers (NACE) to compare NAFSA to.

NACE is constantly hosting webinars, but they are typically $99 per hour-long webinar. Once in a long while they are free. Moreover, their national conferences are always somewhere fancy; they really seem to glam it up.

Employers, please look at the state of higher education. We are all concerned about the amount of student debt. High prices for important networking opportunities do not help. This means that conference sites may need to be humbled, and the hosts of these sites should really consider if they can cut educational institutions a break.

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

By

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.

Complicated feelings about the DHS in this little pocket of higher ed

By

On September 4, 2019

In Higher Education Policy, Uncategorized

As tax paying citizens, we all have a right to know where our taxes are being spent, and we all have varying opinions regarding what is an acceptable allocation of tax money towards one thing or the other. I get it – some people like an abundance of money to go towards the Department of Homeland Security, because by virtue of its mission, the DHS is supposed to protect the USA and its citizens from “the many threats we face.”

It isn’t uncommon for some US policy to be scoffed at by people in other countries (such as taking off one’s shoes at the airport) because these tactics are likely implemented to make common citizens feel safer. (Note – I am sure in many instances, national intelligence is on to something and is working very hard to protect the people of the USA. I’m just skeptical that the actual action they take has something to do with a child’s sneakers.)

Where it gets weird is when the DHS decides that they are going to create a fake university to lure in foreign students whom they later arrest and deport.

I was shocked to find out that this happened early in 2019, and I dug around different news sources to figure out the whole game plan of the DHS. A law professor at Wayne State University, Peter Henning, was quoted in multiple articles on the story stating that the situation was not a case of “entrapment” because “the government can put out the bait, but it’s up to the defendants to fall for it.” This is not the first time the DHS created a fake university, and these “stings” last a couple to a few years. And while you won’t find any articles on the first page of Google hits that question the operation, an article from The Guardian did quote Faiza Patel from NYU’s Brennan Center for Justice: “It’s an open question as to whether this is the best use of Ice’s resources.”

The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, Matthew Schneider, was quoted in the Washington Post arguing that the scam demonstrates that the international student visa system “can also be exploited and abused.” Yes, it can Mr. Schneider – but I guess only if the government is the one to set up the circumstances, because I’ve heard of more of these scam schools run by the DHS. Scam schools run by non-governmental bodies amounts to: 0.

Here’s where this leaves me: really, really skeptical of the DHS when it comes to international students. And as an administrative staff member who has a responsibility to serve the students who attend the institution where I work – a very small institution at that, so I get to know some of these students – I feel a need to protect as well. I am not the only person working in higher education who feels this way. In an article in Times Higher Education, higher education professionals shared their concerns, and a lawyer assisting some of the accused students was brought into the conversation. According to the lawyer, some students did sign up expecting classes, and were continuously informed of delayed start times.

The impact of this sting has left its mark. Just last week, an employer account in the job posting site Handshake has been thrown into question posting as a contingent of FEMA, an agency of the DHS. Other institutions have been doing their research into the website and the contact listed. The contact listed posted a threatening message, as it has been denied by colleges and universities since 2018, threatening to “report” schools that decline the employer. This is sketchy in and of itself (and is likely a fraud account not associated at all with FEMA, keep in mind), but it’s interesting to observe that I can’t help the alarm bells going off in my brain just because of the DHS association: anything to do with the DHS gets a little extra TLC in the screening-for-fraudulent process.

How ironic is that? How absurd? The DHS is supposed to be protecting me and other US citizens, and yet I feel the need to protect others against these intricate schemes that are supposed to protect “my country.”

It stems from the notion that “protection” is not something to be granted based on one’s nationality. What I would like to swear “allegiance” to is the protection of this planet and everything on it. And I’m pretty sure that doesn’t involve spending taxpayer dollars on predatory scams.

Celebrating Year 1 Working in Higher Ed

By

On August 14, 2019

In Higher Education Policy, Uncategorized

Last Wednesday was my one year anniversary at Menlo College, and in working in higher education. I’ve come a super long way, people! I started out part-time, and I kid you not, only a few hours into the job I took a deep breath and wondered if I was going to do horribly. It seems laughable now, but then again, when the Director overviewed the process for advising students on seeking out internships today, I definitely had a few moments where I thought “How am I going to do this??”

(This is why I have to be reminded to breathe sometimes…)

So. What are some things that I’ve learned about higher ed in the last year? Here are a few reflections:  

Higher education is a beast. Granted, this is my first job where I’ve been able to attend conferences and really get the full scoop on what’s happening behind the curtain. So maybe every industry is a beast.

Here’s the beast of higher ed: You’ve got a public service that needs to market itself like a for-profit industry because the public investment isn’t meeting the public demand, which means that the prices are rising even higher and the public can’t, or doesn’t want to, invest that much, but with any public support comes public auditing, so it’s this weird mix of regulations being set by the government while it tries to balance the independence of the institution, but institutions need to be held more accountable…*

Ok, breathe again.

Basically, it’s a whole system, my friends. It doesn’t exist alone. Higher education has flaws in the way it’s built, but it would be incorrect to blame just the higher education institutions themselves. There are many more pieces of the system that fit into their place to make the US system of higher education as complicated as it is. There’s never enough money. I have a hunch this applies anywhere, in all (or at least most) industries.

There’s never enough money. I have a hunch this applies anywhere, in all (or at least most) industries.

Administrators (definitely most) want to help students. I don’t think I’ve met a single colleague in Study Abroad or Career Services, or in any other part of the beast, who didn’t want to help students, or at least people. We’re not in it to make money, trust me.

Understanding the complexity brings light to what I did not know as a student; but that doesn’t mean I would take back speaking out, critically, about my university when I was a student. I was a student activist, and I would never take back any of the sit-ins I participated in, the protests I shouted out, the couple of rules I broke. Even with the curtain drawn back, I still don’t rescind anything I did or said as a student activist. Now, I’ll ask myself this again once I’ve worked at an institution with high levels of student activism, but I’ll be surprised if my opinion changes much. College is the best time to try out activism, the best time to exercise one’s right to protest. And I think students should be able to understand that the power of voice belongs to them as people.**

There you have it, folks. My brain is muddled with tasks I did not need to tackle a year ago this time around – I’ve been doing some marketing work for study abroad. It is… something else.

In signing off, a shout-out to my boss, who also remembered it was my work anniversary, and who got me my first globe, pictured below.

*Disclaimer: These are my observations based on talking with many colleagues from many institutions, and reading many articles. To take this as an image of Menlo College would be very wrong.

**Not to mention, I think it actually helps you develop great career skills.

My *new globe! (*It’s antique – pre-1991!)

Student tuition pays my salary. How should that impact how I spend or save it?

By

On July 2, 2019

In Higher Education Policy, Uncategorized

In the first few days of the first vacation I took during my new job, I read a recently published book that has received wide acclaim: Normal People, by Sally Rooney, speaks to the complexities of relationships between folks in their early adult years quite effectively. The two main characters completed secondary school in 2011 in Sligo, Ireland, a year before I completed high school in California. The story between the two characters, Connell and Marianne, reveals the many varying natures of these relationships, university life, and explores issues of class and abusive relationships. It’s relatable, and asks similar questions we are asking ourselves in the United States.

I’ve recalled the book frequently in the last week since I’ve finished it, but for only one of the book’s topics: social class. Connell’s mother works as a housekeeper and serves Marianne’s family. Marianne and Connell attend secondary school together, and towards the end, their relationship begins, which leads them both to Trinity College. The “status” of their relationship fluctuates throughout the novel, so I am not giving anything away by referring to one point earlier in the book when Connell notes that the cycle of money in their lives goes something like this: His mother works for Marianne’s family, who then pays her. Connell’s mother gives him spending money, which he then often ends up spending on Marianne when they spend time together. Their class differences bothers Connell at many points in the novel.  

The other morning, I sat at a local coffee shop that serves a great espresso. The day before, I’d flown in from Italy where I was visiting my sister (who is studying abroad there) and I needed two shots. Halfway through the espresso, I was already certain I would be accompanying these two shots with a cup of green tea when I arrived at my office later. I also ordered a small breakfast dish – it happens to be the cheapest one, but really I was just trying to avoid more bread after 8 days in what I dub as “the land of bread” (Europe, not just Italy. Whenever you travel to Europe, you are effectively traveling to THE Land of Bread).

I was served my oatmeal by a Menlo student. I have never spoken to her before, and while I did recognize her it took my brain far too long to place her. But I think she recognized me. I suddenly felt ashamed while eating at this café. I could have eaten at the other café nearby and would have spent the same amount of money on this breakfast, but if I had ordered anything else, the prices of this place would have climbed to a obnoxiously high.  

If this student thinks anything like I did as a student, then she may feel upset that I am spending my salary, aka students’ tuition money, on this fancy little breakfast I’m having. And if she doesn’t think quite like I used to, she could just feel weird and uncomfortable about the whole thing, similar to how Connell felt weird about the cycle of money between his family and Marianne’s family.

I thought about this quite a bit at NAFSA. I was extremely stringent with my spending, making sure I kept under the budget I was allotted. I looked around at colleagues from other institutions who didn’t have to do that, who instead felt obliged to make sure they spent their entire budget (which was probably a lot bigger than mine). It feels odd, because there are a lot of young adults who go into debt attending all of our institutions, and the amount of money that goes into sending staff to conferences and providing decent benefits is not insignificant.

But in any other job, that’s often a precedent, and becoming more and more an expectation. There are articles upon articles about how Millenials – and soon Gen Z – are picky about what they are offered in a job opportunity. We want more vacation days because we see the value in rest. We want flexible hours for the same reason. We demand assistance in professional development. Without necessarily articulating it, we believe in the saying “Work smarter, not harder.”

So as I sit here reaping the benefits of my work – a double espresso, and some oatmeal with… goji berries? – is this what I should be spending my money on? Is this a responsible way to be spending this money, which may be the money that the student who served me pays Menlo in order to complete her degree? I suppose in some ways it’s ending up back in her pocket. But do we say that to make ourselves feel better?

Working in higher education as an administrator harbors weird conundrums in financial responsibility that I’m not sure any other sector has to deal with in quite the same way. It’s both political and quite personal, it involves customer service. Word on the street has been for a while now that HEIs are spending too much on administration, which is definitely true in some cases. But does working in this sector where students are struggling to pay for their degrees mean that we who sit in these positions need to suffer in the same way? Maybe. But then, no one would work in this sector long, and that would be a problem.

Many people believe that cutting back on administration will help keep costs down at universities. (Here is my young millennial response to this: LOL.) This may be true in some cases, perhaps at large universities (even this can be disputed – I haven’t worked at a large university, nor have I looked at any stats). But it’s not like those administrators aren’t doing good work. Today’s economy makes demands for more than a deep knowledge of one’s subject. And the financial beast of it all is such a big beast, I think even the higher education auditors are afraid to tackle it. So some of that “bureaucracy” may be there for a reason.

As I typically do, I come back around pointing fingers at the system we’ve set up for ourselves here. And as we consider how best to change that system, I ask that we don’t act rashly when it comes to cutting back administration. Like with everything else, let’s attempt to do this effectively in a way that serves the interests of the people who matter most here: the students.

Page 1 of 2

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén