Study Abroad Classifications and Georgia Tech

Engle and Engle’s Five Level of Study Abroad Projects

     Engle and Engle (2003) describe the different classifications of program types for institutions providing study abroad programs.  Engle and Engle (2003) raise the concerns regarding the quality of the programs and whether or not the students enrolled in these programs are learning any useful and meaningful cultural knowledge. Engle and Engle (2003) then describe a useful five level classification system to distinguish the differences in the many study abroad programs.
In the first level, known as the “Study Tour”, are very small limited durations abroad in another country. This would include field trips or small site visits. These are very short visits and have minimal exposure to the country’s culture. An example of this would at the D’Amore-McKim’s school of business at Northern University. The students in the MBA program can do a trip to Greece and Turkey. The visit is a one-week field studies trip to Greece and Turkey. The trip visits four companies in certain cities, and According to their website, the students get a chance to explore the cultural and historical sites of these two ancient cities.
    The second level is “Short Term Study”. This level is mostly just a few weeks long and provides more exposure to cultural interactions than the “study tour” level. An example of this would be at Brooklyn College, in which there is a summer study abroad program in locations like China. The program is only a few weeks during the summer in China in which, the program is supposed to provide “an extensive cultural and historical exploration of China, allowing students an opportunity to experience this unique country and culture through observation and interaction with local people and places.”
    The third level is “Cross-cultural contact Program”. In this level, the students usually spend a semester abroad but mostly taking courses in English. An example of this would be the Uganda Studies Program at Wheaton University. According to their website, this program is in English and while abroad they aim to “Encourage students to participate in Ugandan life and explore the intricacy of cross-cultural relationships...these relationships encourage deeper thought about your own cultural identity and how you engage with the world around you”.
The Fourth level is the “Cross-cultural Encounter Program”. This level is similar to level four except that the students are more exposed to courses in another language other than English. An example of this is the Paris Exchange program at Queens College. The students are required to have passed three college level courses in French before approval.
The fifth level is the “Cross-cultural Immersion Program”. In this level, the course is in the host language and can include internships or professional projects abroad. An example of this is The Lang Global Immersion Program in the New School. In the program, the students live with a host family in Costa Rica and study at the Institute for Central American Development Studies. According to their website, while studying abroad students are to “carry out brief social and ecological research projects while living and traveling together primarily in rural communities”.

Level	Example	Description
“Study Tour”	D'Amore-McKim’s school of business at Northern University	One week trip to Greece and Turkey
“Short Term Study”	Brooklyn College- Study Abroad in China	A few weeks in the Summer studying in China.
“Cross-cultural contact Program”	Uganda Studies Program at Wheaton University	A Full Semester in Uganda studying in English while experience Ugandan Culture.
“Cross-cultural Encounter Program”	Paris Exchange program at Queens College	A full semester in France. Must have passed 3 college level courses in French.
“Cross-cultural Immersion Program”	The Lang Global Immersion Program in the New School	Living with host family and working in  ecological research projects

 The International Plan at Georgia Tech

      The International Plan at Georgia Tech had several study abroad programs when it was first initiated; however, many individuals began to question whether the program was generating student to be “global competent”. As the program was intended to prepare graduates to become “global citizens”, it was argued that the program structure at the time was not meeting this goal. The International Plan originally offered courses abroad which were mostly summer programs that lasted 6 - 11 weeks. While abroad, the students lived together, had limited contact with local cultures, and they were taught by faculty members from Georgia Tech. According to Rollins (2009), “We came to the conclusion that simply sending student to spend a period of time studying in another country, especially as it is typically done, is not sufficient, in and of itself, to produce graduates who are globally competent” (p. 425).  

The International Plan at Georgia Tech see’s “global competence” as having an understanding of globalization, awareness and adaptability to diverse cultures, and ultimately carry the ability to “collaborate across cultures and to effectively participate in social and business settings in other countries” (Rollins, 2009, p. 426).

In order to meet these goals Georgia Tech developed a new approach to the International Plan program. The revised program requires students to be proficient in a second language, take a capstone class, and meet the international experience requirement. The capstone class evaluates students whether or not they are able to shift cultural frames to solve problems in their disciple, function in multicultural work environments, and have knowledge of global systems. In order for students to meet the international experience requirement, students are to spend at least 26 weeks overseas and participate in a research project or work overseas. 

Engle and Engle would classify The International Plan at Georgia Tech as shifting from a “Short Term Study” program to a “Cross-cultural Immersion Program”. In my opinion, although the program is now more intense, it is in the best interest of the students because they will truly be closer to being “globally competent”.

Engle, L., & Engle, J. (2003). Study abroad levels: Toward a classification of program types. Frontiers: The interdisciplinary journal of study abroad, 9(1), 1-20.

Rollins, H. (2009). Georgia Tech’s Comprehensive and Integrated Approach to Developing Global Competence’. The Handbook of Practice & Research in Study Abroad: Higher Education and the Quest for Global Citizenship, Routledge, New York.

Money is The Root of All Evil: How The World Bank Is The Most Influential Organization In International Higher Education

      

      As economic globalization intensifies in today’s world, it is no surprise that education systems across the globe are becoming directly affected. As a result of globalization, there have been many international organizations that emerged who play a significant role in influencing higher education policies in many countries. The more significant organizations that have most influence in higher education are: the World Bank, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OEDC), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). All these organizations play a great influence on how education is valued as a way to improve both social and economic development. These organizations may claim to help improve education, and economic development; however, they are not all the same. Some organizations carry specific and unique roles and some organizations have a greater influence than others do. The OEDC, UNESCO, and WTO are all respectable organizations with a great influence in policy change; however, when there is money being flashing around, the World Bank will always outshine the others.
    With the rapid expansion of globalization and higher education becoming more market driven, countries across the globe are focusing on their human capital and comparing their own stance in the competitive race against the others. All these International organizations have influenced some countries at some point with policy reforms and/or instruments of assessments. The OEDC, UNESCO, WTO, and the World Bank all recognize these “global realities” and can all be seen as promoting “neoliberalism”.
      The OEDC stands out from the other international organizations as it views higher education as “both a public and a private good: public because it contributes to the economic development of a community; and private because it serves individual interests within a competitive labour market” (Rizvi & Lingard, 2009, p. 451). It is also important to note that unlike the World Bank, the OEDC does not have any “legally binding mandates over it’s members; nor does it have the financial resources at its disposal to encourage policy adaptation” (Rizvi & Lingard, 2009, p.439). In other words, the OEDC can only suggest policy reforms and implementations to a certain extent. Countries have no obligations to make any higher education policy reform. This limitation for policy implementation is the same for UNSECO and the WTO. One of the most talked about and most influential achievement from the OEDC is the Programme for International Student Assessment (also known as PISA). PISA is used as a comparative instrument of student success under their international standard. PISA has become a common instrumental tool and standard to compare the educational levels of countries across the globe.
     UNSECO also has somewhat of differential stance on internationalized higher education. According to Verger (2010), UNSECO has claimed that the WTO and its General Agreement on Trade Services treaty (GATS), promotes “the trade liberalization of higher education for purposes of economic profit whereas UNSECO promotes a non-profit internalization concerned with full respect for cultural diversity and with the right to education for all” (p.127).  As higher education becomes a competitive market internationally, unlike the WTO, UNSECO raises concerns of education access, quality, linguistics, and cultural diversity (Verger, 2010). UNSECO may have its moral campaign to back up its influence; however, it is no match to the beast of the World Bank. According to Edwards et al. (2017), UNSECO is constantly challenged by its peers on its legitimacy within its field of global education policy ideas. “The most prominent example was the World Bank’s creation of the FTI (Fast Track Initiative) in 2002, which attracted the attention and resources of donors, and which arguably outshone UNESCO’s efforts to make progress on EFA (Education For All)” (p. 412). This amplifying the case that Money (the World Bank) has more influence than human morale (UNSECO).
     The WTO stands out from the other organizations mostly for its GATS treaty. The GATS treaty is distinctive in the sense that it favors the idea of a neoliberal education with the main focus of “deregulation and the opening up of national markets to trade and competition…” (p. 59). The WTO wishes to remove barriers in the trade system and with the GATS treaty, its reinforces higher education towards commercialization and privatization.
      Like all the other international organizations, The World Bank is often accused of being “the satanic tool of “neoliberalism” while others complain that it is plainly ineffective” (Castro, 2009,  p. 459). Although the World Bank is not technically a bank, The World Bank primarily provides credit to participating countries; however, the interest for loans in some countries are higher than the others. The bigger and richer countries (such as the United States, Germany, Japan, and the UK) have the lower interest rates compared to the other smaller or poorer countries (Castro, 2009). The loans are intended to promote and stimulate social and economic growth within a country. For example, the loans can be taken out for implementing a program to improve infrastructures in the schools or to hire more teachers that are qualified. The loans may be taken out in the intention to improve the country, but in most cases, as the American saying goes, “the devil is in the detail”.  This of course refers to the “fine print” or in this case the banks conditionalities. In my opinion, the reason why the World Bank has the most influence in international higher education policy reform is mainly that some of the loans carry conditionalities to them. This would mean that if a country were to take out a loan, the country must fulfill a certain number of requirements in order to get the loan (Castro, 2009). The conditionalities would then give the World Bank the upper hand in a say for any policy reform implementation, especially to the smaller countries. Smaller countries are more likely to take out loans and tend to take the advice from then banks because of the conditions on them (Castro, 2009).
     Overall, all these international organizations are similar in which they all have a great influences in the neoliberal idealized views of an internationalized higher education system. Some may carry more unique influences than the others may; such as OEDC creating the PISA tool for Assessment, The WTO and its GATS treaty, or the UNSECO promoting a moral concern. All of these influences at the end of the day are minor compared to the World Bank’s loan conditionalities. According to Castro (2009), “The World Bank is currently the leading agent on education and development issues. As a result of the loans it grants and the related loan conditions, it has become the most influential external actor in the educational policies of Southern countries” (p. 128). In other words, The World Bank has a better chance of imposing countries to follow their agenda since there is money, terms of agreement, and many risks involved.

References

Castro, M. (2009). Can multilateral banks educate the world?. International handbook of
comparative education. Springer Science & Business Media. 455-477.

Edwards, D. B., Okitsu, T., Da Costa, R., & Kitamura, Y. (2017). Regaining Legitimacy in the
Context of Global Governance? UNESCO, Education for All Coordination and the
Global Monitoring Report. International Review of Education, 63(3), 403-416.

Rizvi, f., & Lingard, B. (2009). The OECD and global shifts in education policy. International
handbook of comparative education. Springer Science & Business Media. 437-453.

Verger, A. (2010). GATS, markets and higher education. WTO/GATS and the global politics of
higher education. Taylor & Francis group. 42-62.

Verger, A. (2010). For or against education liberalization. WTO/GATS and the global politics of
higher education. Taylor & Francis group. 126-148.

Globalization and "World Culture"

Higher education is rapidly expanding and growing in many countries around the world. Some countries are expanding more rapidly than others. Evan Schofer and John Meyer explore and theorize the similarities of expansion in some countries as well as the global trends as a whole. The authors seem to be more optimistic to the idea of a global integrated education system, or the idea of one day unifying “world culture”. In contrast to this idea, Gita Steiner-Khamsi, also explores globalization, but seems to argues the idea of a common international model to be more “Imaginary” rather than it becoming a reality. Both of these authors make compelling arguments and I find myself wondering whether an international common model can be created and most importantly will it work? 

Schofer & Meyer Main Views of Globalization

Before one can explore the Idea of globalization and higher education, Schofer & Meyer first describe the original power dynamics related to higher education in society. According to Schofer & Meyer (2005), Before World War II, higher education was generally seen and used to generate a limited set of elites to fulfil a set number of elite national society and occupational systems positions. There was a point in time in which there was a fear of “over education” and too many unemployed graduates. This idea weakened once there was a worldwide hegemonic view that higher education would generate human capital that benefits not only the individuals but more importantly the country. Schofer & Meyer then make their argument that after World War II,  the rise of democratization and human rights movements worldwide sparked the expansion of higher education. Higher education began to open their doors to minorities and other demographics that could not have enter before. Along with the new developments and technology systems across the world,  countries then began to want to “race to the top” and encourage research and more educated civilians to better the country. 

Schofer & Meyer Findings in Global Trends 

When it comes to global trends, Schofer & Meyer ‘s (2005) study find some interesting results. According to Schofer & Meyer (2005), “Higher education expansion expands faster in countries with expanded secondary education systems” (p.916). This would make sense in the fact that there are more people attending high school or high school equivalent education, that the population of qualified individuals entering into higher education would increase as well. Another interesting finding to note, according to Schofer & Meyer (2005), higher education in countries with more diverse ethnicities and languages are slower in expansion. Schofer & Meyer (2005) suggest this is because competing groups generate more exclusions and that governments have to capacity to limit their growths. 

The Elite fear of Expansion in Comparison to Germany

From reading the Schofer & Meyer article, I found interesting how countries were originally worried about expanding higher education not in the sense of the economy but more so concerns associated in protecting the elite class. Schofer & Meyer (2005) mention how in the United States of America, the East coast tried to block Western universities from expanding at first, which as we all know it was a failed attempt. According to Schofer & Meyer (2005), There were strong states in Britain and France that were able to delay the  higher education expansion for a great extent to keep the elite programs as they were. According to Schofer & Meyer (2005), after the 1970’s communist countries sharply restricted  further higher education expansion. This reminded me of my previous case study of the massification of the German Higher education. According to Mayer et. al (2002) German professors were at first opposed to open access of universities as they saw it as a an “intellectual downfall” and therefore wanted to limit access to higher education.  According to Mayer et. al (2002), In 1993 the German Science Council  recommended the influx of students be redirected away from universities and towards the vocational (blue collar) institutions. 

Stiener-Khamsi’s Argument

 I found Stiener-Khamsi’s argument of the common international higher education model to be unrealistic a fascinating one. Stiener-Khamsi’s main argument that the idea of a common model of education is imaginary is mostly due to the growth of new patriotism in some countries and the effects of the lower developed country not having the resources to keep up with the new demand. In  my opinion, what I believe Stiener-Khamsi is trying to say is that there will always be  competitive countries trying be more elite than others when it comes to education. This would mean that as long as countries try to be more advanced than the others, there will be a few countries who would rather exclude commonality and “preserve” their eliteness. I also believe that Stiener-Khamsi is trying to argue that if this common international model were to become a reality, it would only become a burden to under developed countries who do not have the sources to facilitate such new higher standards of educations. 

Conclusion

Overall, in my opinion, I would love to see a common international education model happen. This would hopefully tackle a lot of inequalities throughout the world and make things more level. In all honesty, I would have to side with Stiener-Khams and say that this idea is more “imaginary”. As my international higher education class has shown me so far, higher education and its meaning and values are not consistent globally. There is no perfect education system model and there are too many conflicting views on what needs to be taught, what should be taught, and more importantly who needs to has access this education. In the current political climate, we see some numerous political figures battling both nationally and international on many ideas and none of them seem to be a remedy to local inequalities. A perfect example of the countries not cooperating with each other is the recent “brexit” the United Kingdom had with the European Union. The European Union was created to unify the nations together yet the United Kingdom is in the process of breaking its ties with the EU. If the UK breaks away from the EU, which has been in place for years, then how are we as a worldwide identity to all to come to a common international education and all be in favor for it?

References

Mayer, K., U., Walter, M., Pollak, R. (2002).  Institutional Change and Inequalities of Access

in German Higher Education. Institutional Forms and Equality of Opportunity, Prague.

Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. (2005). The Worldwide Expansion of Higher Education in the              Twentieth Century. American Sociological Review, 70(6), 898-920.

Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2004). The global politics of educational borrowing and lending. New  York:  Teachers College Press.