Talk Back to the NY Times
The New York Times an article today, entitled "In Study Abroad, Gifts and Money for Universities," raising questions about marketing practices in the field of study abroad.
What is your response to this story? Share it here!
To comment, click the text link indicating the number of comments below the post. A new window will open. You don't need a Blogger account to comment. If you select Other, you can include your name -- or you can choose to comment using Anonymous.
What is your response to this story? Share it here!
To comment, click the text link indicating the number of comments below the post. A new window will open. You don't need a Blogger account to comment. If you select Other, you can include your name -- or you can choose to comment using Anonymous.
Labels: Standards
21 Comments:
Although the shocking payoffs of the student financial aid industry has caused some to look more closely at other vendor relationships with universities, the study abroad industry is small peanuts compared to other vendor relationships with most colleges and universities.
I guess the folks questioning study abroad affiliatons do not use frequent flyer miles, hotel points or credit card cash backs either. I think the average person does not believe that they can only fly one airline once they become a frequent flyer member of a certain airline.
I do not believe the issue is study abroad program providers offering financial incentives for relevant administrative cooperation. At issue is the study abroad director who abuses a provider relationship for personal and/or professional perks.
I am disapointed that anyone discussing study abroad programs would have a preference for one type of program or another, or suggest that study abroad options should be based on cost.
Just like any academic experience, there are pros and cons to different types of experiences and there are different types of experiences appropriate for different types of students.
Although the NY Times article includes a brief statement about the advantages of students using a program provider. The most relevant issues, being pedagogical, were not mentioned. Although some colleges and universities promote direct enrollment and exchanges programs as the best option for students (because it is percieved as less expensive), it is not always the best option pedagogically for student success.
It is ridiculous to think it is most appropriate to choose the LEAST EXPENSIVE option!!! If this is the case, no one would attend Harvard, no one would go to medical school, universities would not offer a chemistry major, and no one would study abroad in London.
Making study abroad affordable, especially for students enrolled in minority-serving public institutions, is critical. As a professional representing such an institution, which has limited resources, we have focused first on the academic purpose of the study abroad activity. What is to be accomplished academically (and personally) by the study abroad experience? The second question is what program will best fit the academic needs of the student? Most of our students are choosing to enroll long-term in our various exchange programs, because they are designed to keep the cost at what they would pay to our university for tuition which is usually lower than many places abroad where students want to study. An exchange is attractive to the institution, since we receive quality international students as incoming exchange students who enrich our campus. (In fact, we have been able to help needy students from abroad who can only afford to study in the U.S. on an exchange agreement that waives the cost of tuition, that they are paying at their home institution's rates instead of the high non-resident U.S. rates.) If the cost of living in the community of the host exchange institution is high, we negotiate room and meal benefits pegged to our home institution's costs. If the cost of living in the community of the host institution is lower, we have the students arrange this with the host institution at the lower rates. We also arrange for low cost intensive language options for students (and arrange for scholarships from our host partners to help the neediest of students). We have helped over 100 needy students pay half their cost of 4-week summer study this way during the past five years.
We also have some affiliated programs, such as those mentioned in the article, but these are not pushed on to students, since again we emphasize the best academic match first, then try to find a program that the student can afford based on their expected financial aid and personal resources. We also try to get scholarship benefits for students from these affiliates, since we know these programs tend to be more expensive. Students usually enroll in these only because we don't have an alternative (such as an exchange) with the institution the student wants to attend, or in the country the student wants, such as in Ireland, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand).
If the student finds his/her own cost effective option for study abroad, and the academic match is reviewed and found acceptable for transfer credit, then we allow them to go while maintaining institutional status, let them use all their financial aid to help cover the costs, and help them transfer in credit.
While we have been offered site visit opportunities through affiliates, we don't pursue these. Instead we concentrate our visits on those exchange sites where we are trying to build a strong curricular partnership which would benefit our students' academic options and allow us to build institutional relationships that would further our internationalization efforts.
As study abroad professionals, we need to keep academic purpose and affordability at the forefront so that students motivated to study abroad, regardless of their financial standing, have quality academic programs open to them (and not open to just the elite few).
Our emphasis on academic suitability and afforability has resulted in half our study abroad enrollment (250-300 annually) being represented by minority students.
This article should not be shocking to anyone in the international education field. The reality is that internationalization is a common buzz word on every campus and yet, too often, schools do not put the required funding toward the development of quality programs. This leaves directors of international offices with the task of having to work creatively to accomplish goals. One way to do this is through 3rd party vendors. The vendors (even the "non-profit" ones) do not operate for free...they need warm bodies in their programs. The schools supply the bodies but they also help to monitor the programs so that the vendors are offering quality academic options for their students. If the vendor is able to cover the cost of the trip for the director or one of the staff to visit the program site to insure that the program is safe, set up correctly, and worth academic credit, then that relieves the university from having to cover this cost.
If universities would step up their efforts to adequately fund their international offices, then vendors would not feel obliged to offer these types of incentives. One way to do this would be an across the board "study abroad fee" that is assesed to all students at the university each year. It could be built into the other fees (technology, career services, athletics, recreation, etc.) that a student pays. This could also be seen as an incentive for more students to study abroad since they would be assessed this fee whether they go anywhere or not. While this may not seem fair, students currently pay fees to support other things that are "optional" so why not this. If it is built into the fees of the university, then financial aid packages would cover it.
Bottom line- students should be able to select the best study abroad program for their area of study and not be limited to a few that are offered by vendor partnerships that exist because the vendor is providing the necessary funding for the school to monitor the program.
I'm wondering if the three 'anonymous' contributors to this discussion really prefer not to reveal who they are (and who they work for)-- possible, given the conflicting emotions. ethics, allegiances, etc. this topic elicits-- or if, like, me, they do not understand how or why this Forum discussion venue seems to be linked with 'Google/Blogger'? Sorry to be so dense, but.... How about an explanation, Kay or someone, for those of us interested in signing our own name?
Bill Hoffa
To include your identifying information, choose Other then enter your name. Or include your name at the bottom of you comment, as Bill and I have.
Kay Glass
Director, Forum on Education Abroad
I find the anonymity afforded in this discussion forum comforting, not because I have anything to hide, but because I hesitate to share my thoughts or experiences regarding this topic in writing, lest I find my self being sued. It has been known to happen.
The reality is that my institution, does not fund or suppport study abroad . We have to charge student fees to support our one person officer and then we get funds from providers to help us actually have a study abroad office.
The university has made it clear that study abroad is a fee for use service. Our provost signs all the agreements, so I don't think we are keeping anything from anyone. The amount we receive from vendors pays my salary and gives us scholarships, something that the university does not do.
Bill, people want to be anonymous because if they say this sort of thing on Secuss-L, they'll get kicked off, just as Mike Redding!
Thanks, Kay. I didn't know it was that simple. Now I do.
I fully understand why some people prefer to remain anonymous, given the litigiousness of the times and the complexity of the economics of almost all aspects of higher education today. We fool ourselves if we think that study abroad programming and advising are only an academic issues. On the other hand, I think what this article asks us to think about is whether and economic realities are beginning to outbalance academic values.
I am choosing to remain anonymous because I would still like to find a job in the field and would rather my personal views remain personal. There are many factors one must consider in the capacity to provide students with a valuable experience abroad. (I like to put the student first, because after all, it's their education that matters, not this or that University's or Program's notoriety). I believe more attention should be paid to the lack of Federal support for international education. Around 450 billion dollars this year for 'defense' spending (i.e. WMD) How much for international education programs? I doubt .1% of that. Perhaps you should all stop bickering about who gets what, and pay more attention to the policies that allow the system to perpetuate an economic stranglehold on study abroad. International education exists to help students think 'outside the box' and 'critically'. It seems the 'box' (see U.S.) is extremely hesitant to encourage this self exploration and freedom of thought, and by ensuring only the well-off citizens can afford the experience, thereby preventing the rest of the populace from escaping American brain-washing media, such as the New York Times.
As as founding Forum Board member, I have to note that one of the several reasons why the Forum came into existence, and why it is growing, was to raise and try to resolve qualitative questions about education abroad advising and programming, at a time when most other prominent organizations (and many campuses) seemed bent on measuring 'progress' in the field using primarily quantitative measures, such as the growth of student numbers. This is not to deny the economic realities which characterize American higher education today (and thus include study abroad) but rather to balance an acknowlegment of these realities with serious attention to the pedagogical, academic and cross-cultural challenges that come about when students live and learn in a country not their own. The work of the Forum, as it pursues its five primary goals, is far from done. The NYTimes piece is just one of the many indications that what we are about is important and therefore will fall under more general scrutiny than has ever been the case. Let us continue this work, so that we can demonstrate more clearly what we are doing and why it matters.
Nothing like telling half the story. Like how hard it can be to convince students to go abroad without a safety net. Or the fact that faculty accompanying students are frequently on-call 24/7 and often unrecognized by their universities since they're not doing research or publishing. Or the fact that if the faculty member does get his trip paid for if he takes 15 students, that it leaves more money to assist students who need help paying for the program. And let's not mention that many colleges and universities, especially small ones, may not have the manpower or the funding to hire someone to handle study abroad programs.
If you're going to write a story on study abroad, how about trying to tell the whole story.
If this is what qualifies as skilled reporting, maybe we should be looking at journalism programs instead. All kidding aside, this article and the appalling follow-up in the Chronicle missed several key points, some of which were covered by the subsequent Inside Higher Ed piece.
1.) The costs institutions must incur to fund study abroad. This article portrays home school tuition policies as a money grab, when in reality most institutions have steep tuition discounts. Many students, parents and apparently this NYT journalist don't seem grasp that the average student pays 30-50% less than published tuition rates (according to studies by NACUBO and Noel Levtiz). These discounts, increasingly under the guise of merit aid, are not hard money on campus. But when the aid leaves campus, it becomes very real dollars. Nowhere in this article does it mention that such policies are to offset lost revenue due to GENEROUS policies that allow students to carry their aid to programs abroad. Any overhead from those students who are studying on a program that is less expensive than their bill to their college helps offset the lost revenue that need-based students use to when studying abroad.
2. The support for study abroad does not happen in a vacuum. To read this article, it would seem that somebody should process the student's financial aid (an actual task requiring work), analyze the credit and translate it into the US system (an actual task requiring work), assist the student in finding overseas housing as many universities don't provide this (an actual task requiring work), advise on visas & immigration (an actual task requiring work), etc… without the student experiencing any cost. These costs can be absorbed via provider subsidies to the university that are often negotiated to keep fees down and increase opportunity, or via DIRECT STUDY ABROAD FEES to the students. There's no simple free ride. Should students be able to enroll directly abroad and avoid home school fees? Sure, if they also plan to avoid using all services the home campus provides.
3. This article also seems to cater to the increasing commoditization of American tertiary education. The notion that students should be able to pick-and-choose the educational components of their degree is highly implied. Not to diminish the students' perspective, but what qualifies for the academic component of a students' degree should be left strictly up to administration and faculty. It is they who have to answer to regional and departmental accreditation bodies, national and local government agencies and the community at large. Students have the right to review these programs before enrolling at an institution, and opt not to do so if they do not like the academic requirements.
4. This brings us to the notion of site visits as perks. Colleges and universities have an inherent obligation to ensure that programs abroad meet the academic standards that they must uphold on their domestic campuses. A key format to doing so is via overseas visits to programs. In lieu of relaxing on a sunny beach in Spain, study abroad administrators, many times accompanied by faculty, are in classrooms listening to lectures, meeting with faculty to match curriculum, viewing library, computer and other research facilities, talking with students on the programs and reviewing extra-curricular components. Far from relaxing, these 'trips' often encompass long days of work for persons who return home with photos not of the Eiffel Tower or Mt Fuji, but of campus libraries, dorms and recreation facilities. The fact that programs subsidize these visits is a plus. If under-funded study abroad offices had to foot the entire bill, they would have to either RAISE tuition to fund them or CHARGE higher study abroad fees to offset the cost on campus. Anyway you look at it, students will pay and in the model being critiqued, the monies are spread the widest and thinnest.
A simple survey of salaries in the field would show that the average study abroad professional (who usually has at least an MA, but often a PhD) makes less than an average BA graduate (according to NACE data) that they help educate. Insinuating that the dedicated professionals who staff this field is profiting at large, as a small minority of Financial Aid Directors who owned stock in lenders, is yellow journalism at its finest and both the NY Times and Chronicle of Higher Education should be ashamed that such stories went to print without concrete evidence of individual profiteering.
Dear Colleagues
Like you, I find the issues of standards in education abroad have not been a small part of life for many years, but that has been especially true since the inception of The Forum. The farsighted Founders promoted the very development of this organization out of realization that the field would one day need stronger professional foundations for challenges such as those we face today. Congratulations to the Board, to Brian, Kay and others for the work they are doing here.
A parallel has been drawn between the financial aid scandals and education abroad, so let’s look at the parallel and see where it holds up, where it does not, and if there is something we can learn from the process.
First, the financial aid scandal(s) arose from a concern (Cuomo investigation) that:
• University officials operating in the public trust should not hold stock in the companies they chose as preferred vendors, especially not within a $90 billion a year federal aid program;
• Universities should not be profiting at student expense;
• Travel expenses for professionals may imply at least an apparent conflict of interest; and
• Excessive entertaining hardly looks conducive to good educational practice.
As to the first, no specific allegations of this sort have surfaced, and I very much doubt that they will.
While we can agree that universities should not profit at student expense, that is not the same thing as saying that universities should not be supported by their partner organizations in educational program delivery. To the contrary, there is every reason that providers should support cash-strapped and overworked education abroad offices. Study abroad is a national priority because it’s a public good. Let’s support it in every fair way we can.
To take issue with reimbursing professionals for reasonable travel expenses for reviewing programs on-site is to make two fundamental errors. The first is to fail to realize that good advising requires knowledge of the program in situ. The second is to misunderstand the fundamental role that peer review plays in U.S. higher education quality control. This is peer review at work. No, it does not look like corporate practice – Chrysler does not visit Toyota to help it do better, or vice-versa. However, that’s not the way higher education works in this country. Would we argue that institutional accreditation team members should pay their hotel bills? Of course not.
On a couple of points, however, we have some lessons to consider. It’s a good idea to clarify that site visits are part of the peer review and professional development system. So, let’s make sure that, profession-wide, expense reimbursements are carefully differentiated from per-student payments. Several providers tie trips to enrollments, and CEA has been one of these. We can clarify that this process has ended at CEA and our funds have been realigned to provide for even greater development support for professionals in the field, including properly conducted research site visits.
How about the big parties? Likewise, there’s a lesson here. At CEA, the funds previously budgeted for such activities have been reassigned to our professional development support funds. We encourage others to do the same.
Are there more lessons? We might be to be a tad less defensive, although that’s hard to manage when years of self-sacrifice appear not to be fully appreciated. The other is that there is always more we can do to make education abroad even better. Do we still have some standards issues to address? Unfortunately, I think we do. However, let’s use the collegial peer system and the high doses of transparency it requires to identify and effect these changes. That way, media and public concerns can be used as a way to even further strengthen an already noble profession as it develops into its full and mature format.
How about, "Talk Back to the New York Attorney General'?
See NYTimes today, page A-13, for the latest. I don't have the URL, but I'm sure this is on-line, if you don't have access to a hard copy.
While I appreciate the efforts of NAFSA and leaders in the study abroad field to respond to the issues raised in the NYT article, I do not believe the formation of a task force was the appropriate response. It is reactionary. Dare I suggest that the formation of a task force ahead of a more proactive statement from NAFSA almost gives the illusion of an admission of guilt.
The field should stand up and publicize the efforts--which have been on-going--already undertaken to monitor the field. I have been to countless NAFSA conferences at which there have been discussions on ethics. Those of us in study abroad know that this is not a "new issue"; we also know that the article published was seriously un-balanced in its presentation.
As the Forum on Education Abroad has done with its 'Standards', I would hope that organizations and representatives in the field handle responses to this issue by espousing what actions have already been used to monitor the ethical marketing of programs and create transparency in the field. Rushing to set up task forces puts the field in a defensive posture while not educating the public about what we have already been doing to with respect to this issue.
Dear Forum on Education Abroad Leadership:
I would like to urge you to think long and hard on the constitution of some of your committees, as you set yourselves the task of establishing business ethics standards. While I do not doubt the integrity of each and every one of you, I wonder a) whether some committee members, and some senior officers in the Forum, should recuse themselves for now, if they have been or may be issued subpoenas: b) whether more than one representative from any single organization should hold any leadership or committee position on the Forum; c) whether an independent body should be established to examine our business practices and set recommendations.
I share the views of many of the previous bloggers, whole heartedly. However, we are not dealing just with facts but also with perceptions, and we need to act in a way that avoids any future suspicion. If we do this, we have a real opportunity to become the true exemplars of ethics in universities, which is clearly our goal, and to help get more funding within universities for Study Abroad offices, so that the honorable and tireless staff working in them do not feel remotely compelled to compromise themselves.
Dear (Most Recent) Anonymous:
Thank you for writing, and for raising these points. I can assure you that the Forum will proceed by being transparent, inclusive, balanced, and open. The work of the Standards Committee will continue to involve the input of hundreds of colleagues as well as outside experts who can provide needed perspectives. The strength of the Standards of Good Practice is the involvement of so many colleagues and professionals who contributed to their development. This, too, will be the strength of the project to develop a code of ethics.
In regard to subpoenas, it is important to note that subpoenas are requests for information, and that potentially everyone in the field could be called to provide information. At this stage no one has been found responsible for actions or charged with any wrongdoing. Rather than exclude people from participation in the Forum’s work, we welcome participation from anyone who would like to contribute.
I encourage all Forum members as well as any education abroad professionals to please inform me if you are interested in assisting with the work to develop a code of ethics. I will pass your name on to the Forum Council and the Standards Committee and I am certain that they will welcome your input.
Thank you again for participating in this discussion and for being involved.
Sincerely,
Brian Whalen, President and CEO
Forum on Education Abroad
The limited evidence from the NY Times, demonstrating a lack of integrity and professional ethics among a few, has engendered more than suspicion and perceptions of all study abroad professionals as greedy agents exploiting students; it has adopted a reality of its own that now must be accepted and operated upon in a proactive manner. It would appear, as well, that many of the "professional" entities establishing standards and practices have not yet reached the level that would allow them to truly meet the definition of a "profession,"and in some instances they have only encouraged loose standards and unethical behavior.
When I worked in study abroad, public institutions of Higher Education were thought to be accountable to the public. I believe this is still the working assumption of anyone employed by a public institution. To restore public confidence every public institution needs to adopt a public document that all deans, chancellors and staff support, pledging ethical professional behavior in the interst of serving the public.
Similar statements are required of most professions: bankers, lawyers, doctors, insurnace agents, etc. We know it will not assure us better practices and behavior, but it is a step in the right direction. A definition of a profession includes the ability to enforce ethical standards, and again, most true professions have a means of enforcing ethics. If study abroad wants to claim it is a profession, it needs to adopt the full complement of professional conduct, it can not pick and choose what elements of "professionalism" suit their fancy.
To this end, it is clear that at this moment, all public institutions with relationships to private providers need to suspend those relationships until they have been audited, disclosed fully, and reviewed. Any agent of any public institution who has accepted any payment or favor -- evem something as minor as a plane ticket abroad is taxable income -- from a private provider needs to be suspended until an audit of their taxes returns are completed. Most should resign from their positions, if for no other reason than from a sense of shame.
The last author makes two false assumptions. "Most true (sic) professions" are not answerable to national bodies. SA professionals, like virtually all professionals at universities, are answerable to their institution's policies and code of ethics. Second, SA professionals are not the real. problem. The way SA offices are (not) funded is, as it requires some offices to depend on providers' assistance. Stop scapegoating the worker. Let's fix the system.
Strange. I posted a comment 3 hours ago, but it must have hurt someone's feelings as it was never published. So, let me attempt to adapt my "opinion". I asked specifically why "kick backs" "back office support" and free trips abroad were threatening such havoc to the industry, when no one seemed to care when an "accredited US university" agreed to a third party, for- profit organisation, to register the credits earned abroad, FOR A FEE on an official transcript from the University?
I asked why no one seemed to cringe under the stated "lofty goals" of studyabroad, yet proudly affirmed thier use of a provider who hired unemployed professionals in the Host country to teach classes in English, in one of the third party provider's own buildings, with only students from that specific program in the classroom (so much for international exposure!); and hired these people only after they were made aware of the "most requested" (most popular) classes.
If studyabroad is to encourage students to view their world from as many angles as possible, then it is obvious that they must bend when confronted with other teaching methods and other study habits.
To sell credits on University transcripts, without requesting a Professor's resume, syllabus or lesson plan, is not studyabroad, it is pure and simùple money grabbing.
If this letter is not published, then i will go onto the SECUSSA site and say the same thing.
Dear (Most Recent) Anonymous,
I think there was just a lag in approval. All comments here are moderated and must be approved before they appear. You should be able to see your comment now at the post on "New Developments.
Kay Glass
Director, Forum on Education Abroad
Post a Comment
<< Home