Kelly Davis

International Higher Education Researcher & Educator

Category: International Education

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.

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.

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.

Considering France

By

On October 30, 2019

In International Education, Uncategorized

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By

On October 9, 2019

In International Education, Uncategorized

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Education Abroad and Fighting Climate Change

By

On October 2, 2019

In International Education, Uncategorized

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are my main reasons:

  1. Studying abroad strengthens an individual’s curiosity. I spoke to one student who recently studied abroad, and she noted that she acquired an “openness,” a desire to ask more questions, a stronger sense of curiosity, that continues to propel her. The more we are curious enough to ask the hard questions and take risks, the more we will do so of the climate crisis. Questions promise uncovered truths, and curiosity promises innovative solutions to the problems we face.
  • Other countries do some things better. Maybe not everything, and it all varies on your points of contrast, but in comparing the experience you know in one country to a new experience in another country, you realize that there are multiple pathways. I am a huge fan of international research because we have so much to learn from each other in this kind of assessment.
  • Every culture has its own philosophy which presents a new way of approaching problem-solving. The best way to understand and learn how to use a new philosophy is to understand the people who already use it. Hear about their experiences, the systems they are accustomed to, their family structures and relationships, in order to be able to approach problem-solving with this new philosophy in stride with your own. This can only occur when a person travels to a new place. Even if students in the US were to stay put, international students would need to come to the US in order for this kind of learning to occur.   

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

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

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

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

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

Big, Vivid Dreams – Study Abroad in Estonia

By

On August 28, 2019

In International Education, Uncategorized

Back in February, I had an extremely vivid dream that the college I work for opened a branch campus in Tartu, Estonia, the country’s main “university town.” It was so clear, as not many dreams typically are, that the next day I brought an image of Estonia on a map along with some interesting facts to my team’s weekly meeting. Study Abroad Strategic Goals 2029.

Fast forward six months, and no, I am not in communications with any universities in Estonia, but I did have a “brain blast” of sorts as I walked down the long hallway between the bathroom and my office.

It was inspired, in part, by Greta Thunberg’s journey via solar-paneled boat over the Atlantic Ocean to attend a climate conference in New York City this month. In general, I only have one personal qualm with travel and with sending students of to study in far-away places, and it’s the carbon emissions tied in with every plane’s take-off and travel. I am a huge advocate for figuring out that problem, fast.

Working at a school where 90% of students study business, I often think long and hard about how to incorporate messages about consciously considering the world that we live in into programming. That’s exactly what this brain blast entailed:

On the way to the branch campus in Tartu, Estonia, students will travel across the US via train, and across the Atlantic Ocean via solar-paneled boat (or something that is carbon-neutral – hopefully). This journey would likely take 2 to 3 weeks, so on the way, students would take a course in sustainable or environmental management.

Now, the end-destination of Estonia is TBD. I think Estonia is a great match for Menlo College. MC has a strong entrepreneurial contingent, and while Estonia isn’t necessarily the first country on everyone’s mind when they think “entrepreneurial,” other countries invest in Estonia’s telecommunications and high technology sectors, and some Estonians boast Estonia as one of the “best countries in the world for start-ups.” You can read more about Estonia, its history, and its trajectory to becoming a “digital society” in this article by CNBC.

So Estonia is a great match, but when it comes to hosting a study abroad program that attempts to be environmentally conscious, Estonia isn’t optimally located. It’s far to the North, with Russia to the East, which requires a whole other visa situation, so your two closest visiting options are Finland across the Baltic Sea to the North, and Latvia to the South.

Latvia and Lithuania are great visits, as is Helsinki, Finland. But they’re also very, very cold in the winter. And students love traveling when they’re abroad. A more central location such as Prague, Budapest, Berlin or Vienna would likely suit these desires a bit better.

And then, of course, we can’t fly the students back. They would spend at minimum a full semester in Estonia (or whichever location), before traveling back via train and boat. Another course would be taught along the way. I would keep this a secret, but I fear I might forget myself…

What better way to incorporate reflection on your experience and consider how to utilize your new skills moving forward than to process everything through a Career Management course?

If you like this idea and have the power or connections to make it happen, I will recruit you to my team. Let’s get in touch.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén