International Higher Education Researcher & Educator

Category: Uncategorized Page 1 of 3

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

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 been a year! Getting back into writing

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

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

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

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

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

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

International Higher Education

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

Higher Education Policy – generally speaking

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

Career Services & the World of Work

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

Travel & the World

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

Reviews

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

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

A Little Bit of Kindness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Year – 2020

As I launch back into work today, I will take a moment to say just how immediately grateful I am to work at an organization where we do not work between Christmas and New Years. I have spent the last 9 days with family, friends, and a little time for myself. I am launching into the new year with a very elaborate Excel spreadsheet for my finances that I am embarrassingly excited about, seeing as there are likely several apps that could put the data together for me. I am extremely excited for some of the domestic traveling I will get to do this year for both business and leisure, and am carefully plotting my vacation days so that 2021 might see some international travel to new places.

For this blog, I will continue to write, posting consistently on Thursday mornings. In the last month I have listened and read a couple of books focused on the bridge between high school and college that I am excited to write about. Naturally, these reads have provided me with ideas on what else I can read to inform my thoughts on the education-to-career pipeline (Anyone have feedback on Pedigree: How Elite Students Get Elite Jobs by Lauren A. Rivera?).

Last year was a particularly strenuous year for higher ed, especially in the Admissions game. Let’s see how the rest plays out in this next decade.

Company Roles in Post-Secondary Ed, Part 2: “Guided Pathways”

We don’t place enough value on jobs that aren’t finance or tech related. We don’t value them, we don’t pay them well, because these positions (teachers, other educators, people running the day-to-day of our social welfare systems, artists, etc.) are not inherent money-makers. Then, we don’t advise that young people go into these positions because they aren’t paid well.

When we talk about companies providing higher education, what do we envision that to look like? Do they serve options that allow for some exploration in the liberal arts realm, or do students need to know exactly what they want to “be” and who they want to work for as they select their “undergraduate” programs? (Based on prediction number 7 of Busteed’s “Ten Predictions for the Very Near Future of Higher Education” in Forbes, “undergraduate degree” may not be the name anymore…)

In Future U’s podcast on November 18th, 2019 (Episode 44: Community College Innovation), Michael Horn spoke to offering both guided pathways, as well as alternatives to guided pathways. “Guided pathways” better serve students who know what industry they want to jump in after completing their degree, but Horn makes a great point: not every student is like that. A lot of them have no idea what they even enjoy studying, much less what they want to do after college. Not allowing flexibility for students in this bucket is a primary criticism of European education systems, in fact. 

Leaders and influencers in the United States are pushing post-secondary education in the direction of “guided pathways” and employer-approved educational systems because our higher education has become incredibly expensive. The way we value higher education is tied directly to immediate payoffs, which is difficult as we continue to expand our resources and opportunities to more and more students.

Ultimately, “guided pathways” exist in the money-maker industries. I participated in a small NACE event on Monday, and one of my colleagues from UC Berkeley mentioned that as Career Services professionals, her team was not concerned about their business students or their engineering students. It is their liberal arts students who “meander” more as they look for work after college. The straightforward pathways exist in fields such as accounting, finance, and engineering, and all of these majors are always in demand. But not everyone can be, or wants to be, an accountant or engineer, as much money as they might make, as straightforward of a path as it may be. The skeptic in me wonders who the structure of “guided pathways” really benefits, particularly with corporations at the helm. If corporations are deemed the “accreditors” of higher education and begin taking educationally-related parts of the “guided path” into their own hands, who does this system serve? The students and the people of this world – or the corporations?

Company Roles in Post-Secondary Ed, Part 1: Weariness of “Siloed Thinking”

What do we mean by “siloed” thinking, and what kinds of environments encourage this kind of thinking?

The Oxford Learner’s Dictionary’s fourth definition of “silo” reads: “a system, process, department, etc. that operates separately or is thought of as separate from others.” The concept of “siloed mentality” in a business setting is considered one of the traps for any business controlled primarily by senior leadership. If departments don’t share information with one another, it is considered faltered communication and results in inefficient practices, such as duplicating actions and responsibilities.  

Ryan Craig and Troy Markowitz wrote for Forbes in 2017 that one of the key values of providing a liberal arts education is to teach the future workforce how to “creatively synthesize information,” ultimately arguing that silos in both the academic and organizational structure of college campuses “must die in order for students to thrive.” Siloed information does not teach critical thinking, it does not exist as creative thinking, and it does not lead to thinking outside of the box. If a person falls into siloed thinking, the blame falls on a lack of information.  

In a Forbes article listing ten predictions for the near future of higher ed (by Brandon Busteed – I’m noticing I need to follow more article writers in this vein to diversify my references!), I nodded along with most of them. I think all of the predictions are correct, at least in the US, but I stopped nodding when I read “Employers will become the accreditors of higher education.” Upon further reflection, I’m not too crazy about students getting the job to get a college degree – when I first read this point, I shrugged it off, assuming it meant that the company would pay for the college degree. But I think it may mean that the company provides the degree.

I would be more open to the idea of employers becoming the accreditors or even the providers of education if this country wasn’t run by Corporate America. Our social safety nets are lacking in the United States, and I can’t say I feel too crazy about for-profit entities that are required by law not to make any moves that would forgo any measure of the company’s profit controlling any piece our education system.

What is at the base of this fear? Siloed thinking – broadly speaking.

It’s not to say that certificates and programs offered by companies such as Google and Amazon aren’t valuable. They likely are, and it’s great that these companies are investing in their own employees. But I don’t think these programs can ultimately replace the liberal arts components of education that ask people to consider ethics and social systems. It’s tricky, because these courses shouldn’t be all-consuming either; I get that not everyone is drawn to the humanities, I personally am one who will begrudgingly try out some online coding course at some point in my life, I’m sure. But we can’t leave out the civics and social pieces as we consider expanding vocational education and these in-company training programs (both of which I support).

I don’t think the answer to this will be in-company ethics courses, either. This is where corporate law and siloed thinking come into play: the culture of the company classroom will be the same as the company culture. And that’s where this gets dangerous.

Companies need to do right by their employees, and they need to retain their employees, but every company goes through layoffs, and not every company (or really any company) lives forever. It will benefit people to obtain their critical thinking and problem solving skills in a different setting, with problems that expand beyond (or even completely adjacent to) their company’s work. Learning and working in different settings helps defray siloed thinking and encourages thinking outside the box, bolstering those critical thinking, creativity and problem solving skills that employers say are so often lacking these days (SHRM, 2019, p. 4).

I hope that we keep this in mind as we explore methods of changing up our post-secondary education offerings. The diversity in thought that is offered through educational institutions is not something all companies can replicate, and diversity in thought is the most important component of creative and innovative thinking.

What does “leadership” mean?

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

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.

Why 2 Things: Education, and “His Dark Materials” theme on repeat

I listen to a lot of instrumental soundtracks to movies and tv shows while I work. My favorites are typically the accompaniments to stories that take place in fantasy settings, and I think it’s because they emphasize a sense of adventure and determination to solve a problem or accomplish a goal. The concept of overcoming obstacles to see the success of something you believe in, or in order to survive, is something that powers my drive and work.

The planet is one thing I have always been passionate about: I was that girl in school who would make you recycle your empty Gatorade bottle, and if you didn’t do it, I’d transfer it for you. In college this manifested in my participation in environmental activism, and in 2015 I remember talking to a friend about how this topic seemed the most urgent to me because the state of our planet impacts everyone. A year later, “intersectionality” became the key word in NYU’s activist circles, which encouraged student groups to collaborate even further – we were looking at things through a systems point of view.

This line of thinking is actually what propelled me into my Masters degree. I kept thinking about climate change being the most urgent issue, the most pressing. In my opinion at that time, social change happened at a slow pace. Saving the planet needed to happen a lot faster.

But focusing on activism didn’t satisfy something I was looking for. It’s a necessary piece of the solution, certainly, but I knew looking forward that it wasn’t something I would feel satisfied with if it were my literal job to organize.

In January of 2016, I looked back a couple of years. I had a friend who left NYU in December 2013, and we kept in touch, but certainly I didn’t see him as often as I had. While he was at NYU we talked about education, which was his passion. He wanted to design new classroom settings, new ways of learning that would better suit those students that so often are left behind early in school. I was passionate about it, too, I just had a million other things zooming around my head.

After reflecting on these conversations, I realized that was what was missing: making changes in law and financial practice were important pieces of the puzzle, but it wasn’t the root of the problem. The root of the problem, I realized, impacts every issue we have today including climate change, health care, and poverty: it’s education.

Education can be an equalizer in terms of access to building critical thinking skills. The purpose of education is not only to distribute information or to help people discern between fact and fiction: it is to teach people to question. Question your sources. Question the material. Be critical in order to come to an understanding of what is subjective, and what is truth. Be brave enough to ask what truth even means.

His Dark Materials has now started airing on HBO, and though I did not read the trilogy as a child, I am reading it now and am excited to delve into another world where there is adventure and a complicated purpose. Based on some loosely reading a few articles (I’m trying not to spoil too much of the plot for myself), the themes of the book teach us to question authority. The song I am listening to on repeat this morning is the opening credit song of the new TV show, and based on Philip Pullman’s feelings on education and this theme on questioning, perhaps this song is exactly what I should be listening to.

Education Related Podcasts

The first three months of my current full-time position at Menlo were intense: It was my first time being truly full-time at any position where my schedule was consistent and I had to sit at a desk; I launched into planning the largest event that my office hosts annually to occur at the end of those first three months; and I had to learn everything I could about education abroad really fast, because my job labeled me the designated campus expert. It was a lot of pressure and I landed face-first more than once after tripping up here and there.

At some point, I stumbled across the podcast Inside Study Abroad while looking for free ways to learn more. I had never been quite the podcast listener yet, but I couldn’t get enough of Brooke Roberts’s interviews of education abroad experts. I savored every episode – which unfortunately left me in a sad position where I have seven episodes left, but they were taken down a few months ago as Brooke launched her latest business efforts, Remote Life Labs. (Which promises to be just as compelling, with a different focus!).

I have since accumulated more podcasts to my library, focused on education – primarily higher education, but I want to mix it up. I am still on the hunt for early childhood education and K-12 podcasts!

Future U Podacst: With Jeff Selingo and Michael Horn

After listening to the first episode of Future U, I blasted through half of the backlog of episodes. The introductory episode for me covered Michael Horn’s recently published book, “Choosing College: How to Make Better Learning Decisions Throughout Your Life,” and I promptly purchased it (review to come once I’ve read it). The first half of each episode typically starts with an interview between either Jeff or Michael and their guest, and guests range from university and college presidents to professors and other experts. My favorite so far is episode 26, an interview with Oregon Governor Kate Brown released on January 8th, 2019. Podcasts are released approximately every other week.

The Buzz: by Capture Higher Ed

Originally, this podcast covered college Admissions, but it has branched out this year to include all topics in Higher Ed. It’s hosts all work for Capture Higher Ed, a company that develops marketing and behavioral analysis automation software, most of whom (all?) work remotely. They produce a podcast episode about once a month – not nearly often enough, in my opinion, as I have found their conversations to be fascinating and engaging!

The Edtech Podacast

With a backlog of 150 podcasts on the Edtech industry, this podcast covers topics at all levels of education and is hosted by Sophie Bailey, based out of England. The podcast has recently become the “Voctech” podcast, focusing on technology in postsecondary education and continuing education. Sophie posts episodes weekly during the academic year with an occasional bonus episode.

Higher Ground: with John Graff

I think the most confirming moment of my passion for higher education – so far – came when I listened to a podcast episode about higher education law and felt engaged at every moment. John Graff has an extensive background in higher ed law and brings on expert guests. Unfortunately this podcast airs once every couple of months – as with most of these podcasts I am listing, I wish there was more content to listen to!

The EdSurge Podcast

EdSurge will often cover technology-related topics in education in brief, 20-25 minute episodes published on a weekly basis. “Technology” covers a broad spectrum, which make its topics and guests extremely diverse.

School Colors: by Brooklyn Deep

School Colors is a series of about 8 podcasts (the last few yet to be published as of Nov. 1st 2019) covering how race and class have influenced education in US American history. The series, at least this first round, covers communities in Brooklyn specifically. It is very well orchestrated as a podcast, and draws the connections between history and present, never hesitating to ask the hard questions.

Teaching in Higher Ed

Though specific to teaching, I find these podcast episodes can be just as useful to administrators. I am also still exploring my teaching style, and my ability to teach, and enjoy listening to the perspectives of the many guests brought to the podcast.

Have education podcast recommendations? Send them my way! I don’t have enough on the lineup and am always eager to learn more!

Page 1 of 3

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén