Beware the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
This is the tenth in a series of “food for thought” pieces from CIEE. The themes vary but all deal with study abroad for U.S. undergraduates. We present our ideas not as the only viable ones but rather to stimulate discourse in furtherance of the study abroad enterprise. Previous topics include:
– How Are We Doing?
– Standards
– A CIEE Eye for the Study Abroad Guy...or Girl
– Parents, Pills, & Pandering
– A Research Agenda for Study Abroad
– What’s It All About?
– Numbers
– Mirror, Mirror on the Wall
– Down With America: Anti-Americanism and Study Abroad
We welcome your comments and requests for additional copies at any time to editor@ciee.org.
Those who participate in higher education can take satisfaction from knowing that the work they do benefits society in a variety of ways. We recognize that someone has to sell household goods and toothpaste, food and clothing, and the many other goods and services that both satisfy societal needs and contribute to our social and economic well-being. But, there is a lot to be said about spending one’s working life contributing to the knowledge base of mankind and helping generations of young people develop into educated leaders and citizens. Even those whose duties at the academy are more administrative than academic should take pride that they are very much a part of the higher calling and mission of education.
Last May, over Memorial Day (whose idea is that anyway?), NAFSA once again held its conference. It is, as Ed Sullivan used to say, “A Really Big Show”. We’re told that there were about 7,500 people in attendance. We have a large contingent of our staff on hand and it is a very convenient environment in which to see a lot of people quickly. Many of the name badges said Ph.D. and some of the sessions certainly focus on the academic side of the international education enterprise. But, in general, this event is more about the business of internalization than its content. NAFSA does a great job of making it happen.
National pavilions and independent institutions alike are there seeking partnerships, alliances, students, exchange agreements, and more. They want to send more students, receive more students, and arrange exchanges for more students. There is also a wide variety of vendors or supporters of this enterprise; insurance brokers and underwriters; testing companies; software vendors; publishers; travel organizations; and many, many more.
We are one of a number of providers of overseas study programs who support this conference. Every year the number of folks like us, or seemingly like us, grows. Universities and colleges that operate their own programs to add a few needed students are also very much in attendance. In all, it is a very large marketplace and there are more and more choices for people to make as to who they work with in sending their students, and the basis for those decisions.
Over the last dozen or so years CIEE has grown its international program offerings and greatly expanded the number of students we serve. However, we’ve not done this to maximize numbers. Our goal has been to provide a broad portfolio of programs with which to serve our partners and supporting institutions; programs distinguished by their design, quality of execution, and consistency of delivery at every level. We believe in competition and we believe that in the long run the marketplace is the best place to adjudicate issues of program quality and delivery. There are, however, some very disturbing trends that should be watched carefully by all of us who are interested in, concerned with, and supportive of study abroad.
First, there is a kind of commercialization going on that we consider destructive. We all know full well that we could open a program in Florence and fill it with 200 students a semester. The value of this for those counting is about $4.5 million annually. Call it whatever you will, there is absolutely no need for another study abroad program in Florence. To open one there is nothing more than a commercial venture.
No one is going to bring anything to that city that doesn’t already exist, or it’s highly unlikely. Jokingly we’ve suggested that there are so many Americans in places like Florence, to run a real study abroad effort there would require that one hires some Italians to visit the program from time to time.
We’re not picking on this destination or anyone that operates a program there. The point we’re making is that there are a number of cities in the world where there is simply too much programming, too many American students, and where the purposes of study abroad — cultural integration, language acquisition, and personal exploration of another society — are increasingly difficult to achieve. We have programs in some of those cities but they are not the basis of our growth. We consciously avoid these cities and will continue to do so. We believe that more remote, smaller, and focused programs in places uncluttered with American students are truly what students need and institutions that care support. But, we know that there are places that continue to send to these enclaves in large numbers or support the growth and development of them. We believe that unless this practice changes, in time, the experience we deliver will be diminished, for everyone.
Second, the obsession with numbers that we wrote about in this series last year continues. “Are you bigger than brand X? Why does X have more students in X than you?” As we pointed out then, and remind everyone now, numbers are wonderful ways to keep track of things; good and bad. Big is not better and small is not necessarily beautiful. There needs to be a great deal more focus not on where and how many but on “what” and “with what outcome?” Study abroad as an enterprise got where it is by promoting its many positive outcomes. Pullman Cars also grew by touting its many positive outcomes; chance to rest while traveling, comfort, luxury, and so forth. Of course, Pullman is long gone, replaced by airplanes, automobiles, and the lack of interest in luxury train travel.
We’re not suggesting that study abroad is analogous with Pullman. Study abroad as a field is a macroeconomic venture and adventure. Pullman is but one company that’s part of the litter of micro-economic history. The important point is that what brings you success at one stage of development doesn’t assure success at later stages. If study abroad is going to continue to grow and prosper as an integral part of the educational experience of undergraduates, it is going to have to continue to change. In our view, the key to this change is less focus on input and more focus on outcomes and delivery of a quality experience. Yes, you can run a program in X because it’s a great place and people want to go there, but there is no assurance that the program is any good. Yes, you can open in place X where others are operating, but is doubling students in the same location anything but self-serving? Good programming means that the program delivers clear educational outcomes to those who attend. Too much destination marketing and not nearly enough outcome discussion is invading the field.
Next, there is a good deal of discussion about evaluation in study abroad. The Forum on Education Abroad is doing a great deal of good work in this area for both programs and study abroad offices. At CIEE, we’re in our 13th year of conducting independent third party evaluations on all our program sites; reports that are available to all interested parties along with student evaluations on our website. We truly believe that only fully transparent, third party evaluations lead to high quality. All programs have issues and challenges at various points of time. Quality management is an ongoing process. But, suggesting evaluations exist but should be private is in our view a bit ingenuous. We believe public and transparent is the standard for the field and those that influence choices should demand this from any and all providers before they spend hard earned university and student funds on programs. We will continue to do this and hope that others follow suit, after all, what’s to hide?
Finally, we see a small number of very smart business people in the field who are less concerned with the long-term viability of our collective enterprise and the impact on education and student learning than with how much money they can make. This is not a socialist indictment of behavior that differs from our own. For years, we’ve championed in the exchange business the right of well-operated, privately-owned organizations to be program sponsors, for example, on government regulated J-visa programs. There are good not-for-profits and bad not-for-profits and there are good for-profits and not-so-good ones. But, when we see the wolf dressed up like Grandma, lying in wait for the student who will gain little by studying abroad other than the lightening up of their parent’s purse, we wonder. We can’t police the industry of study abroad, nor should we. Open markets and open access for all is the American way of doing business. But, we can in the interest of consumer protection suggest that sometimes looking beyond the glitter to the substance is very worthwhile for all concerned.
If Paul Simon’s dream of a million students studying abroad is to be realized, we’re sure that the late Senator would agree that a few less students with a much higher quality threshold is really the core of that dream. We share that vision. High participation, more opportunity, greater diversity, more equality of access, and most of all programs that truly make a difference in the lives of those we reach…not programs that grow participation but are simply another place to make a buck.
We hope you share that vision!