Follow-up Coverage
Today, the Chronicle of Higher Education published follow-up articles:
- "Study Abroad Blossoms Into Big Business" and "Study-Abroad Investigation Raises Alarms" by Elizabeth Farrell
- "Ethics and Study Abroad," an editorial by William Hoffa, one of the founders of the Forum
The first article quotes Forum President Brian Whalen:
Emerging Benchmarks
In response to concerns about the difficulties of evaluating and monitoring study-abroad programs, professionals in the field formed an independent organization, the Forum on Education Abroad, to act as an arbiter of standards.
Since it was founded six years ago, the Forum has focused on identifying reputable programs. Using surveys and research, the group devised a set of standards for judging programs, and it just completed a pilot project reviewing the foreign-study offerings of 19 institutions. One of the first things peer reviewers discovered was that many colleges lacked clear goals and rationales for their stated commitment to provide overseas study.
Furthermore, aside from anecdotes, the industry has little proof that its programs are accomplishing the lofty goals of global understanding, language proficiency, and good will.
"We tend to think of study abroad as a silver bullet — that it's going to make students more academically engaged, better citizens, and help our country in globalization," says Brian Whalen, the Forum's president. "And in some ways, it's very powerful. But we lack precision to our programs, let alone a way to measure what we're accomplishing."
In July the Forum released a 14-page list of standards for study-abroad programs. It is a start, according to Mr. Whalen. But these guidelines lack any information on how an institution can evaluate programs run by outsiders. Though the Forum plans to create standards for that soon, the time-intensive process of evaluating other providers will still most likely be done on a case-by-base basis, and will not get much easier.
Labels: Standards
1 Comments:
Study Abroad Ethics
The New York Times study abroad article last August caused quite a stir in the academic community, and the fact that the NY attorney general followed up with subpoenas intensified our interest. If you’re like me, back when the student loan people got into a similar jam, your reaction was sadness that something like this could happen in the academic community, and perhaps a bit of a temptation to think that it made sense that it would be “the money people” that would get into this sort of trouble.
Now we’re in the hot seat and it doesn’t feel good at all.
My own take is that, in spite of Schemo’s attempts to make our industry sound like a den of thieves, most of the practices described in her article are ethical. There was one line, though, that caught my attention and I’ll focus some attention on that one practice in this entry.
According to Schemo, some colleges sign restrictive agreements and receive money from a provider for restricting students to that provider’s programs in a particular region. I was surprised by this one. If it’s true it is clearly a violation of study abroad ethics by both the provider and the academic institutions signing such an agreement.
Like pornography, unethical marketing practices are hard to define, but we know them when we see them. Having spent a good number of years in study abroad, both at a major university and at a provider, I have a clear sense of the obligations that bind academic institutions and their subcontractors when it comes to student choices.
Let’s be clear though—academic institutions certainly have every right to make rules about what students can get credit for—education is not just a commodity; for education to be effective, the educators must impose their own judgment in some instances rather than allowing the “customers” complete freedom of choice.
But with that right to make rules—in this instance the right to restrict students to certain study abroad programs—comes an attendant obligation. Academic institutions have the absolute obligation to make those decisions—allowing some programs and ruling out others—on the basis of academic considerations. Academic quality and integrity, adherence to a philosophy of study abroad that is consistent with the institution’s perspectives, a good or bad fit with academic programs offered at the institution—all of these are legitimate reasons for an institution to approve some study experiences and refuse to give credit for others.
But let’s be clear, restricting student access in exchange for a kickback is unethical. No provider should ever ask an academic institution to do this and no college or university should ever accept such an arrangement.
Probably things work out best when the study abroad office itself does not have the right to grant or withhold approved status from specific programs. Many institutions have committees to do this—faculty and administrators with no vested interest in the financial aspects of study abroad. This is a good way to avoid falling into the “kickback” trap.
This is the first of a series posts dealing with study abroad ethics. Stay tuned.
Post a Comment
<< Home