The number of international students studying in the U.S.A. has increased dramatically over the last two decades, although there are now fears of decline. Campuses are encouraging domestic students to study abroad. And some campuses are engaged in drafting internationalization strategies that go beyond student mobility to integration of international perspectives in courses and cocurricular experiences as well as the research and scholarship of faculty.
Some educators are beginning to wonder if the golden age is coming to a close. This includes noted authors such as Kevin Kinser of Pennsylvania State University and Philip Altbach and Hans de Wit of Boston College. The warnings range from the implications of the Trump era, with its resurgence of national isolation and growing restrictions/costs, to questions about the depth of real internationalization available on campus. The latter point is that some campuses have let student mobility be their international focus when there is so much more that should be included if true internationalization is the goal. The result is a skin deep approach that marginalizes international issues to "an add-on, an extra, a thing to be handled by the office with 'international' on the door. Commitment, on campus and off, could be shallow. It was a nice thing to do, yes, but rarely fundamental."
Robin Helms responded to Fischer's article in ways very similar to what I advocate. Fischer's article, echoed by others and with likely more to come, is a call to attention. There are shallow approaches that discredit the work done in much greater depth at other campuses. The bottom line is that institutions should not over-promise by lauding their deep commitment if, in fact, there is little substance. For campuses just beginning to pay attention or that have suffered from neglect, honesty is the best approach and then a commitment to go deeper.
Some educators are beginning to wonder if the golden age is coming to a close. This includes noted authors such as Kevin Kinser of Pennsylvania State University and Philip Altbach and Hans de Wit of Boston College. The warnings range from the implications of the Trump era, with its resurgence of national isolation and growing restrictions/costs, to questions about the depth of real internationalization available on campus. The latter point is that some campuses have let student mobility be their international focus when there is so much more that should be included if true internationalization is the goal. The result is a skin deep approach that marginalizes international issues to "an add-on, an extra, a thing to be handled by the office with 'international' on the door. Commitment, on campus and off, could be shallow. It was a nice thing to do, yes, but rarely fundamental."
Robin Helms responded to Fischer's article in ways very similar to what I advocate. Fischer's article, echoed by others and with likely more to come, is a call to attention. There are shallow approaches that discredit the work done in much greater depth at other campuses. The bottom line is that institutions should not over-promise by lauding their deep commitment if, in fact, there is little substance. For campuses just beginning to pay attention or that have suffered from neglect, honesty is the best approach and then a commitment to go deeper.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.