Study abroad exploitation and enhancement

Study abroad opportunity is touted as one of the most powerful and coveted of educational experiences, yet who is able to participate, how it is marketed, and the content of learning when in a distant location can turn the experience into one of perpetuating ignorance and exploitation. While Liz Bucar's commentary on the popular study abroad experience she offered (Camino del Santiago in Spain) doesn't raise questions unfamiliar to discerning internationalists, it provides a very real example of how faculty can naively participate in cultural appropriation and perpetuate cultural myth. Bucar addressed how she would redesign the experience with the insights she has gained saying, "I plan to redesign my Camino program in a way that puts acknowledging exploitation at the center of the experience..." and "would be clear about its social justice objectives, insist on taking diversity seriously as a source of values and be willing to make students uncomfortable."

Having designed and taught in an undergraduate study abroad program, hosted graduate study abroad while working in Qatar (including Harvard University's School of Law), and created a joint "inquiry learning" initiative that involved participants from Qatar and three U.S. institutions, I offer a hearty "AMEN" to Bucar's essay. Eighteen years and many attempts later, the journey to truly transformative and respectful study abroad has included resistance, sad failures, and spectacular success.

Bucar's final comment is that she finally adopted a commitment to something that includes "much more ambitious goals than cultural competence." This last statement is particularly interesting since cultural competence is often referenced as one of the core outcomes of good study abroad. AMEN again! Cultural competence is important but study abroad that does not exploit has to accept the fact that a group of visitors are showing up in a foreign location, often ostentatiously displaying their privilege, and viewing their experience through the lens of superiority. Humility and curiosity have to be the starting place for any study abroad experience and both are central to fostering intercultural competence. Core to infusing humility is learning how student and faculty life experiences are part of systems and narratives that perpetuate myth and judgment.

The University of Delaware's World Scholars program is an example of placing expectations on study abroad that include the commitment to do it, preparation by complementing international students' experiences, and by being purposeful when the student is abroad. The program includes 100-150 students who are "open-minded to other cultures and experiences, resilient, independent and mature, plus has shown commitment to other activities, present and past, and wants to contribute as a member of the World Scholars community." Since the program began in 2015, over 1,000 students have participated and the last cohort includes 33% minority students!

A central point related to exploitation in study abroad is who gets to participate. Students who study abroad are disproportionately female, white, and privileged. If the experience is one of the best higher education has to offer, then why would institutions and programs not strive to make it equally available to all? When it comes to faculty opportunity, the Fulbright program has been around since the 1940s and funded by taxpayers, yet it has an elite reputation and has excluded faculty at community colleges throughout the decades. Another twist on the Fulbright award is where scholars go. For example, the Trump administration pulled China from the list of approved countries, which Biden did not reverse. Sanctioning study in China and other countries with which the U.S. disagrees seems in the spirit of promoting positive academic diplomacy. The elite brand of Fulbright is both a perceptual and real barrier to access, not unlike the "European tour" of the children of 19th century "Gilded Age" children. That privilege is a control of how students think about study abroad is a type of exploitation in itself.

2023-24 enrollment predictions

Unless higher education can somehow convince the public to insist on more state allocations to help stem the rise in tuition, enrollment uncertainty will continue into next year and probably beyond. A survey of admissions directors indicated that over half missed their enrollment targets for 2023. Other trends reflected in the survey are that overturning affirmative action will lead to less diversity, recruitment strategies are moving toward attracting transfers, and the number of test optional institutions is increasing.

There was some recovery from the pandemic dip but Doug Shapiro of the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center indicates that enrollment numbers stabilized at a level 1.2 million lower than in 2019. Some thought that the class that should have entered in 2020 would bolster post-pandemic numbers were very low. A study by EAB of 20,000 high school graduates in 2023 complicating projections when it found that 20% potentially planned to opt out of college attendance for a variety of reasons.

Early reports were that the 2023 undergraduate enrollment would be 2.1 percent higher, the first increase since 2020. Later reports indicated that 2023 enrollment was up only 1.2 percent with community colleges experiencing the largest increases and Spring 2024 enrollment confirmed a 2.5 percent increase. The bad news about the numbers is that, although total enrollment increased, first-year enrollment declined and the drop was most pronounced among white students at four-year institutions with more selective admissions standards. Might the Common App have helped? Fourteen institutions tried direct admission in 2023-24, admitting approximately 30,000 students who were from more diverse backgrounds. With this success, the Common App is further expanding in 2024.

Although early indications of 2024-25 applications show stronger resurgence recruitment strategies will have to address a number of complicating factors. Application numbers are up and acceptance rates are declining. Applications for Black and Latino students increased by 12% and 13%, confirming the speculation that numbers would increase if the process is simplified. The unfortunate flip side of recruitment is that Black and Latino students are more likely to drop out during their studies, with emotional stress and financial challenges the most frequently cited reasons. Early applications coupled with early decisions are likely to yield the best enrollment figures so institutions will be scrambling to make sure they are at the party. Some campuses are reaching far beyond their former geographic boundaries to secure their numbers. While increases are possible for some institutions, Harvard reported a drop of 17% in the number of early applications, reflecting a number of challenges to its elite reputation.

My summary of enrollment trends in 2022-23 provided the roadmap that brought higher education to this point. The path was strewn with issues of declining confidence in higher education, pushback on tuition expenses, emergence of alternative credentialing, diversification of prospective students, and economic recovery that includes abundant employment opportunity.

College rankings are frequently factored into prospective students' decisions and they are viewed with glee or disdain by college/university PR departments. The 2023 rankings reordered some institutions based on a new measure of graduates' social mobility. Vanderbilt University, one of the elites that dropped in ranking, criticized the new methodology and encouraged other universities to consider whether or not they would continue to participate in the U.S. News process. Jim Jump, past-president of the National Association of College Admission Counseling, suggested that Vandy over-reacted and said that ranking of institutions should be about treatment effect rather than selection effect (attributed to Malcom Blackwell). The 2023 World University reputation rankings reflected significant improvement in international presence, a change perhaps attributable to internationalization partnerships.

While students no longer place as much value in college rankings they are still a factor about which institutions worry. Selective colleges able to increase numbers by playing to the rankings and reputation are not backing off. For example, Middlebury College's excess enrollment led to $10,000 payments to students if they wait a year to come to campus and regional colleges are targeting students across state lines to bolster shrinking enrollment.

Beyond college rankings, institutions are targeting prospects in increasingly focused niches. Examples include small colleges targeting athletes by creating new sports programs and "merit" scholarships that are competitive pricing strategies by another name. If there is increased revenue, the key will be if the costs of new programs will be covered and result in a net gain. New programs and competitive pricing is likely a contributing factor to the Fitch Ratings Outlook for Higher Education predicting that less selective colleges and regional universities may have rough water ahead. The S&P Global ratings reinforced similar mixed projections.

Steve Mintz' "what if" list offers questions to ponder as campuses strive to reinvent themselves to be competitive now and in the future. My view is that higher education in the U.S.A. will thrive only if it addresses the following trends:

• Higher education institutions begin to consider the unique niches, shared welfare, and purpose of all higher education as an ecosystem instead of more elite institutions poaching prospects from those with lesser reputations.
• Diverse motivations of prospective students, especially first-generation students from diverse backgrounds, are not only recognized but affirmed.
• The pushback of those who criticize higher education is acknowledged and addressed in constructive ways.
• Governmental support returns as an outcome of recognizing numerous other positive gains for college graduates, reinforcing both a private benefit and a public good.

The cost of higher education rose over the last 50+ years, resulting in many families not having the funds required for their children to pursue higher education. The real cost of attending university is sometimes difficult to determine and legislation is emerging to require greater truth/transparency related to expenses. The College Transparency Initiative, joined by 500+ institutions, launched to help prospective students understand real costs of attendance. Tuition discounting has contributed to the confusion about cost, resulting in a new trend in private colleges (Bridgewater College) rolling back tuition to reflect more accurately the cost of attendance. Rolling back tuition is a risky deal when only a few institutions do it, but the trend has accelerated. The impact of tuition roll-backs may have an immediate positive impact but then dissipate. One study found that regional institutions benefitted from tuition resets while more nationally visible ones did not. The reality of tuition discounting and scholarships is that aid isn't getting to the students with the greatest financial need. Intentionality is key and is demonstrated by the NYTimes analysis of which universities have increased or decreased in proportion of Pell Grant students. Fortunately, while cost is important, prospective students still focus much of their attention on the actual collegiate experience.

The early drafts of the Education Department's "gainful employment" model worried some educational leaders. When the guidelines were published, they included warnings to students who enroll in programs that incur debt that they will have difficulty repaying. Ryan Craig in "What's wrong with college" identifies a number of factors, including misalignment of academic programs with workforce preparation, that he recommends for disruption. While employers of graduates are broadly satisfied with graduates' capabilities, including exposure to a broad spectrum of ideas and viewpoints, more than half of recent 4-year college graduates report being underemployed. Securing an internship reduces underemployment as well as students' choosing academic areas where employment opportunity is readily available. Over the long haul, institutions are likely to need to commit to re-engage with graduates to link them to constant changes in high-demand and new occupations.

With the average cost of instruction calculated at $23/hour, instruction might become one metric students will consider. Students' perception and concerns are confirmed in surveys, one indicating that 71% of current students either agree or strongly agree that attending college is worth it, but 80% perceive the benefit to be only minimal. Another survey indicated that while 85% say that a higher education is important, only 62% of Gen Z prospects plan to pursue it. Sixty-three percent of current high school students express openness to another path to work opportunity, one of which is microcredentialing offered most often by third-party providers outside higher education. Those who have direct experience in higher education generally have greater confidence in its benefit. Justifying the cost students incur changes based on the perception of different outcomes, expanding beyond job prospects and potential earnings to health and satisfaction with the communities where graduates live. However, the general public's confidence in higher education has dropped by an alarming 20% over the last 8 years, with 36% presently having "a great deal" or "quite a lot of confidence in it."

The Biden administration's SAVE initiative responded to the Supreme Court decision that provided college debt relit for lower income students. With putting the plan into action possibly taking up to a year to implement, 175 advocacy groups are demanding that the plan be implemented as quickly as possible. Negotiation for rules on debt relief progressed by using the Higher Education Act of 1965. Countering the Biden administration efforts, Republicans are planning to slash the Education Department's budget by 15% and intend to block the income-based debt relief strategy. Higher education groups condemned the proposed cuts of funding for work study and child care subsidies for parents in college.

Reports about Latino student admission and retention are mixed and they are missing at elite selective institutions. Although common application and direct admission have increased the number of applicants, evidence indicates that enrollment of minoritized, low-income, and first-generation students has not. Census Bureau data showed positive trends in Hispanic students entering and completing higher education but Excelensia in Education found that completion rates remain low. The degree to which a particular institution reflects the demographics of its immediate geographic area is not only a positive indicator of service to the community but has allowed some institutions to buck enrollment trends during tough times. Increasing Latinx student success likely includes multiple factors, including everything from language proficiency programs to lowering the financial burden of attendance and increasing employability outcomes. California state systems universities' commitment to serving Latino students paid off in increasing enrollment. With community colleges disproportionately attracting less served populations, including those of Hispanic heritage, the fact that workforce development programs are offered there is an important attractor. University - employer partnerships can offer an even more direct link between student success and employment. The economic pay off for low-income students favors those with degrees in health and technology and graduates of minority-serving institutions. Modest increases in enrollment at community colleges may reflect the recent moderation of job growth that the U.S. has experienced as well as improved retention strategies.

"Comebackers" are a population that may help bolster enrollment. Research in California determined that those who dropped out could return to complete their degrees if certain enticements were offered. Things like waiving application and enrollment fees, credit for prior learning, flexibility in learning methods, and expanded advising for adult learners would be welcomed.

Graduate student applications and enrollment grew in 2022, but employability and earning potential are key to their satisfaction. Questions remain about the future of both graduate and undergraduate trends for international students. Popular among many international students, the Optional Practical Training stands after the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge by unions that opposed it. A strategy used during declining domestic enrollment has been to fill the gap with international students through aggressive recruitment initiatives. One such model, the INTO Pathway partnership was popular as institutions sought to tap the international student market but is now faltering in numerous institutions. Policies in other countries can help or hinder the efforts to maintain or grow international student enrollment. Britain's ban of trailing dependents is an example that could hurt British institutions and help the U.S.A. But highly skilled graduates of U.S. institutions are being lured away by offers of special visa status and countries such as Japan may try to attract international students as domestic enrollment plumets.

Because of the perceived discriminatory impact of standardized testing, over 1,900 colleges no longer require SAT and ACT scores. Dartmouth College's returned to recommending submission of test scores based on analysis of the impact on prospective applicants. Brown University followed Dartmouth's lead, with the University of Texas and Cornell following, based on evidence that test scores are better predictors of future academic performance. Harvard and Cal Tech returned to mandatory testing as well. Dartmouth officials indicated that their decision may be unique as Vanderbilt and Missouri chose to extend their test optional decisions. Yale chose a "test-flexible" option. The variability in approaches calls the SAT and ACT monopoly in testing into question, including the prospect of needing an alternative that serves the diversity of prospective students taking that tests.

The question of testing as well as state university systems moving to direct applications is if these strategies actually disadvantage applicants from minoritized backgrounds. The Dartmouth change as well as evidence on early decisions is that they both may advantage more privileged students. Even the high school transcript is being called into question, with some recommending a move to a "next gen competency credential." The move to "wholistic" decision making about prospective students is helpful but some educators caution that extracurricular lists are also biased in favor of those who are privileged by time and access. In the scramble for enrollment, the variability in approach raises multiple questions about what institutions are attempting to accomplish.

Join me in this unfolding question and planning for the preservation, and possible enhancement, of higher education's role in a progressive culture.

Leadership = an argument with tradition?

The Inside Higher Education essay by Matt Reed, Leadership and Social Defense, triggered a number of memories about attempts to lead during my higher education career. Reflecting on the dilemma of "stuck" organizations that seem to not be able to adapt to challenging circumstances, Reed drew from Gianpiero Petriglieri's Harvard Business Review article which described the struggle a change agent faces as "an argument with tradition." Having attempted to bring about change in numerous situations, the idea that a leader is literally challenging tradition and breaking up the family is particularly compelling. The point is that the root of familiar (the way we've always done it) is 'family' and in order for leadership to be successful, one has to convince the family that you're one of them.

The challenges faced by leaders and managers in U.S. higher education are numerous, perhaps no greater than in other eras, but substantial. Declining public confidence in higher education is part of the complex picture of enrollment projections. Add to that evidence that standards have been declining and a general malaise among the faculty. The exploitation of workers by not compensating for overtime and challenging conditions has been present in U.S. institutions for a very long time, a condition that could change if a Biden administration proposal is enacted. Challenges higher education is facing, coupled with the loss of employment or redirection of careers, involves a grieving process that is often unrecognized.

Leadership is a complicated by the need to bolster confidence in education and the institutions that advance it while simultaneously confronting the hard truths that result in vulnerabilities for the same institutions. As the "face" of the campus to all types of constituents, presidents are under a magnifying glass, with the balance between asserting direction and bullying being particularly difficult line to manage. The decline of public confidence in leadership of U.S. higher education is pronounced and includes a belief that protection of reputation eclipses the focus on student learning. Macalester College's former President questioned if colleges can effectively adapt to the challenges they face. He asserted that maintaining institutional reputations was one of the primary things standing in the path of change and included disciplinary loyalty, majors centered around the interests of faculty, shared governance, and prioritizing faculty as the #1 stakeholder as accompanying impediments.

Considered de facto leaders, the abrupt resignations of university presidents indicates the vulnerability of the modern college presidency. Controversy was the impetus for resignation in some cases but others were a mystery. The unexplained non-renewal of the Rutgers Chancellor resulted in wide-spread shock and condemnation and a loss of confidence in the President while the La Siera President's resignation came after months of faculty concern. The President of Nichols College resigned after reports surfaced about being involved in a sexual assault scandal in previous employment. For other presidents such as UCLA's Gene Block, 17 years was a long time but his resignation will leave a gap that will be difficulty to fill. The case of Texas A&M is particularly interesting as an example of arguing with tradition because it involves two years of growing dissatisfaction capped off by a more public controversy. The controversy that ended Kathy Banks' Texas A&M presidency involved a Black scholar who the university hoped would head its renewed journalism department during a period when state lawmakers launched a crack down on DEI practices. Banks claimed to be uninvolved but records later revealed her full knowledge and participation and a $1 million payout to the scholar, Kathleen McElroy. As Texas A&M strives to recover from Banks' Presidency, input from over 100 meetings across campus set the stage for reversal of many of her "Path Forward" initiatives.

After serving as president of Ohio State University and twice at West Virginia University, protestors called for the salary of Gordon Gee to be reduced or for him to resign as a result of enrollment declines that have led to a 10% reduction in programs and faculty. Gee's WVU debacle is perhaps a harbinger of what higher education has become - a commodity rather than a pathway to improve the human condition. Perhaps as an example, the "no-confidence" petition alleging that Gee mismanaged WVU's finances was overwhelming approved by faculty. The mismanagement accusation has stuck in contrast to previous circumstances that reflected "institutional awe" of administrative decision making. Gee was noted for flamboyant bowties and outspoken assertions, some of which contradict his more recent actions. Protests over Gee's presidency, and support from the WVU Board, continued until the last moment before cuts were enacted. Now that termination notices are out to professors sacrificed in the WVU cuts, the provost offered to hear them out but few have much hope that anything will change.

Gee is one of the most obvious examples of what a British research study found is problematic about some higher education leaders - narcissism. Even though the methodology of the study might suggest caution in generalizing it, it isn't difficult to discern the impact when a narcissist is hired. In a hyper-competitive university environment, the constant need to claim excellence and superiority may end up causing leaders to advance themselves as much as their institution. Humility is a core value that leaders should cultivate and demonstrate by expressing curiosity and asking lots of questions. Scott Green, former President of the University of Idaho, published a book on handling crises on campus that included urging institutional leaders to demonstrate empathy in their responses, which is a type of humility that may be particularly important in times of crisis.

The estimated exodus of 25% within one to two years and 55% of presidents at U.S. colleges and universities within 5 years is sobering. The lack of clarity regarding the role of Boards of trustees is clearly a precipitating factor. Boards at small colleges can be particularly dysfunctional as a result of hubris and over-confidence, the "bright shiny object" syndrome, fond memories of an institution that didn't exist, misplaced accountability, and inadequate data to support decision making. There are some pretty no-nonsense guidelines to cultivate a good relationship with a Board demonstrating that who's in charge and distrust can be avoided. The bottom line is that Presidents and their Boards need to have candid conversations about what they expect each other with a focus on achieving clarity and trust.

Whether championing change based on exigency or innovation, leadership challenges the status quo, or the stability of the 'family.' When coming from someone from the margin, leading may become more challenging but it may also present opportunity. One of the clearest examples of the family bond in a complex organization that I faced was when I moved to Miami University in 1994. I was quickly introduced to the term "The Miami Way," which had no specifics but allowed those who used the term to define for themselves what they presumed the customs of the institution to be. The strategy for anyone who conceived of new possibilities was to convince others that you were family and that you cared as much (or more) about the institution than they did.

Miami University isn't the only place where leadership required an argument with tradition and a struggle to be part of the family. Especially when it comes to faculty who often see themselves as guardians of institutional culture, resolving to engage as lifelong learners with diverse interests might serve their institutions more effectively. Most of the organizations I've served had the "family" tension to greater or lesser degrees. The only places where an argument with tradition is not part of the leadership dilemma is in new organizations but it is fascinating how quickly even new organizations bond and create their own family and traditions as a way of resisting subsequent change.

The problem with family tradition in any organization is the  potential to recognize fundamental changes that could threaten its future. Steve Mintz sorts the various issues down to a two path dichotomy - 1. cheaper paths to marketable credentials or 2. tweak the current 4-year degree model with more focus on career-conscious degree pathways, general education more aligned with majors, integrated and interdisciplinary linkages, and high impact practices. There are numerous educators who offer lists of challenges that must be faced in the years ahead. Three authors including Arthur Levine, Scott Van Pelt, and Denny Meadow offer five Cs to help institutions navigate their way to a reconstructed future. The Cs begin by centering the Customer and the other Cs reflect issues which are of greatest importance to prospective students; cost, convenience, content, and connections. Ryan Craig's "What's Wrong with college" raises a host of issues that higher education needs to address. Lack of workforce alignment, poor completion rates, demographic shifts, threat to non-flagship institutions, and uncertain proof of benefit are on the list.

The idea of leadership arguing with tradition is exacerbated by the fact that higher education can be influenced by trendy educational ideas. When an institution tries something and believes they are successful, there is a rush to tell the story and other institutions can be caught up with the enthusiasm for a new idea. The only problem - some "solutions" were not well formulated and there may not have been an effort to evaluate the innovation.

Leadership can make or break an institution's ability to attract and retain employees, especially when many are looking for opportunities to move. Creating a good campus climate is central and reinforces that leadership isn't a solo act. For those who presume to lead, engaging with others in mutually constructing the future is a tried and true idea advocated in "Servant Leadership." Authenticity in leadership is a transcending factor that requires balancing personal values, positional role, and institutional rules. The generational shifts in leadership understanding, effective pedagogues, and salient issues are all part of the current higher education balancing act.

New presidents and other leaders on campus could benefit from deep listening as they begin their assignments. Using a strategy of a "teach-in" to provide background and context is a way of understanding the traditions and status of an institution on various topics. Whether new or experienced, institutional leaders can benefit from a strategy that has been used for decades, the "town hall." In order to be effective these gatherings should be carefully planned with clear expectations of the meeting and anticipated outcomes. These strategies complement presidential on-boarding advice of completing a diagnostic of the campus environment and identifying the most important influencers.

If leadership is an argument with tradition, starting by understanding your objective is essential. On the flip side, anyone who has been around higher education for a nano-second has probably realized that faculty are uncommonly uninformed about the nature of the institutions they serve and especially to not realize the breadth and uniqueness of American higher education. If faculty understood more about the history, values, and uniqueness of their institutions, they could become much more effective advocates for both sustaining and changing where they work.