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?
