White Paper for AASCU
Initial Thoughts on a 21st Century Global Agenda 1
Herman Saatkamp, President, The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey 2
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.
(H.G. Wells, The Outline of History)
Summary of Recommendations: To expand our global agenda we should (1) look to the
resources closest to home, (2) use technological innovations to enhance local resources and reach
beyond our communities, (3) meet global competition with quality education, (4) enhance our
standard ways of building a global agenda, and (5) reexamine our general education
requirements.
INTRODUCTION
Our students are promises we make to a future we will not see. How do we prepare students to
be global citizens in that future?
Higher education transfers knowledge, skills and wisdom to a new generation, and that
generation adapts them to new circumstances. This model has served humankind well. Even so,
this model is most challenged when circumstances are rapidly changing. Today, some believe
that our rapidly changing global environment calls into question the basic core and traditional
approach of higher education. Business and civic leaders wonder if colleges and universities can
meet both the high demand for specialization as well as the need for adaptability to changing
conditions.
Educating future global citizens is our challenge. How we will meet the challenge is not clear.
Five principal issues are addressed in this essay: (1) advancing campus global agendas, (2) the
role of technological advances, (3) global competition and quality education, (4) standard
approaches to global education, and (5) a possible model for general education.
1
I am grateful to several people who read rough drafts of this white paper including David Carr (Stockton College),
Dan Hurley (AASCU), Peter Eckel (ACE), and Richard Skinner (AGB), and Dorothy Saatkamp. I also benefited
from Peter Eckel’s inviting me to participate in ACE Presidential Roundtable "American Higher Education's Global
Future: Preparing for the Increasingly Smaller World" (September 25, 2008), and I participated in the TIAA-CREF
Institute 2008 Higher Education Leadership Conference: Higher Education in a Global Society (November 5-7,
2008)
2
I am grateful to the Board of Trustees of The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey for providing me a
development leave for renewal and to prepare for the next years of my presidency. During the leave I was able to
write these initial thoughts for AASCU.
Initial Thoughts on a Global Agenda
Herman Saatkamp
2
22 October 2008
BACKGROUND
Intentionally connecting global education to our educational programs is a principal challenge
and responsibility for AASCU institutions.
AASCU colleges and universities are the hinge point for global education in the U.S. This
central role stems from (1) our graduating the largest number of students with baccalaureate
degrees in the U.S.; (2) our providing educational opportunities for students from diverse
backgrounds; (3) our commitment to economic development in our communities, states, nation,
and globally; (4) our responsibility for conveying, developing, and assuring the reliability of
knowledge and skills; and (5) our awareness that U.S. higher education must now take its place
as only one opportunity among rapidly expanding international opportunities.
These central responsibilities are intensified as knowledge accelerates. The need for innovation
and flexibility in the global educational, economic, and civic structures require not only the
assurance of requisite skills and information but also the know-how to update one’s skills and
knowledge base. When necessary, we may need not only to march to a different drummer but
also to march in a different direction.
The importance of educating students as global citizens is paramount for the future of our
communities, region, and nation. However, the 2006 ACE survey of U.S. colleges and
universities contains some puzzling and worrisome data. 3 The Executive Summary notes:
Overall, internationalization does not permeate the fabric of most institutions; it is not yet
sufficiently deep, nor as widespread as it should be to prepare students to meet the
challenges that they will face once they graduate. 4
A number of findings buttress this conclusion. Only 39 % of institutions make specific reference
to international or global education in their mission statements and 34 % listed it as among their
top five strategic priorities. In 2006 fewer institutions required a course with an international or
global focus as a part of their general education curriculum (37 % as compared to 41 % in 2001).
For those that had such a requirement, the proportion with a “non-western” requirement dropped
from 62 % in 2001 to 50 % in 2006. Institutions were less likely to have undergraduate foreign
language requirements for all or some students (45 % in 2006 compared to 53 % in 2001).
Fewer than one in five (16 %) had a foreign language requirement for all undergraduates.
The “rise of the rest” 5 is also significantly affecting the U.S. standing. For example, between
1990 and 2005, enrollment in higher education doubled worldwide and the U.S. share of
enrollments fell from 20% to 13%. Other countries also have higher graduation rates, and our
3
A survey of 2,746 institutions and an overall response rate of 39%.
Green, M.F., Luu, D., and Burris, B. Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses: 2008 Edition, Washington,
D.C., American Council on Education. See www.acenet.edu/programs/international /mapping2008.
5
Fareed Zakaria’s phrase from The Post-American World, New York and London, W. W. Norton & Company,
2008.
4
Initial Thoughts on a Global Agenda
Herman Saatkamp
3
22 October 2008
share of science and engineering degrees has fallen from second in 1992 to 14th by 2002 of the
23 OECD 6 countries. Even our share of international students has fallen from 38 % in 1985 to
22 % in 2005. With this, the foreign-born share of U.S. Ph.D.s awarded in the sciences and
engineering has increased from 22 % (1985) to 38 % (2002), and foreign-born postdocs
increased from 40 % (1985) to 58 % (2002). 7
Our present circumstances are complex and include challenges and opportunities: the rise of
higher education in other nations, funding needs, decline in state and federal support, the shifting
view of higher education from being a public good to a personal gain, public/private
partnerships, efficient and appropriate use of part-time faculty, increasing need for full-time
faculty and staff, technological advances in pedagogy and other areas of college work
(communication, finances, development, energy efficiencies, research opportunities, community
relationships, etc.).
Most recently, the economic crisis affecting the U.S. and the world is likely to have a significant
impact on higher education. Even before the worse financial crisis since the 1930s depression,
we knew that many of our students and their families were growing more debt averse. Some of
this is cultural with new immigrant families historically being less willing to assume debt, even
for higher education. Being debt averse may be one reason for a decrease in graduation rates as
more students work part or full-time, extending their higher education over more years.
With the current financial crisis, anticipating all the impacts on higher education is difficult, but
it is easy to conclude that few institutions will be left untouched.
In the face of increasing challenges and opportunities, what are our options?
One is certain: having a global agenda is increasingly important, even requisite, for AASCU
institutions.
I.
CAMPUS GLOBAL AGENDAS: LOOK CLOSE TO HOME
Wallace Stevens noted “we live in a description of a place and not in the place itself.” 8 The
description of our campuses is being written and rewritten each minute. Not only with pens and
computers but also with the increasing speed of mouse clicks, eye blinks, instant communication
(electronic, visual and voice), economic and cultural exchanges, collaborations, and an
interdependence that no human has ever experienced before. And the speed and impact of these
developments are accelerating.
6
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development
(http://www.oecd.org/home/0,3305,en_2649_201185_1_1_1_1_1,00.html)
7
Richard Freeman, “Educating Americans Today for Tomorrow’s Global Labor Market,” Forum for the Future of
Higher Education 2008, p. 8.
8
Wallace Stevens, “Description without Place” (Letters of Wallace Stevens (L) 494). He also notes that “what we
say of the future must portend” (CP 346). See Angus J. Cleghorn, Wallace Stevens' Poetics, 23-24.
Initial Thoughts on a Global Agenda
Herman Saatkamp
4
22 October 2008
Traditionally higher education largely utilizes educational resources within a college or
university: faculty, staff, libraries, research and resource centers, etc. Interestingly, local
resources may also be one of our best approaches for global campus agendas.
Justification for first looking at local resources may be found in Michael Porter’s “cluster
development.” 9 Porter is the head of the Harvard Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness
(http://www.isc.hbs.edu/econ-clusters.htm). Simply stated, cluster development is a way of
being globally competitive by utilizing interconnected resources clustered in one’s community or
region.
In most of our communities there are individuals, businesses, and organizations that have global
interests and experience. A college/university may be the neutral ground for building
interconnections between these individuals and organizations. If successful, this cluster
development will highlight the uniqueness of one’s community and region. It also will enhance
the place of higher education as central to the economic and cultural development of one’s
community and region. In short, cluster development may be an approach that enables us to
educate our students to become global citizens, even if our students are not able to step off our
campuses or out of our regions.
How might this work? Here are a few examples, although each campus will have its own unique
set of regional global relationships.
A.
Alumni
Many of our alumni are located in international businesses; some are even employed in their
company’s international divisions or hold an executive position relating to global enterprises.
One may utilize alumni by bringing them to campus, making them a part of symposia, advisory
boards, foundation boards, scholarship committees, or making them a part of orientations for
students, faculty and staff. On my campus, we have an alumnus who is the vice president of a
U.S. pharmaceutical company and is in charge of their international programs. He regularly
9
Clusters are geographic concentrations of interconnected companies, specialized suppliers, service providers, and
associated institutions in a particular field that are present in a nation or region. Clusters arise because they increase
the productivity with which companies can compete. The development and upgrading of clusters is an important
agenda for governments, companies, and other institutions. Cluster development initiatives are an important new
direction in economic policy, building on earlier efforts in macroeconomic stabilization, privatization, market
opening, and reducing the costs of doing business.
Two cluster-related projects are currently underway at the Institute: the Cluster Mapping Project and the Cluster
Meta-Study. The Cluster Mapping Project has assembled a detailed picture of the location and performance of
industries in the United States, with a special focus on the linkages or externalities across industries that give rise to
clusters. Extensive data from the project is now available. The Cluster Meta-Study aggregates data from existing
cluster publications to learn more about the locational, economic, and competitive characteristics of industry
clusters, the reasons behind their competitiveness or uncompetitiveness, and their patterns of evolution over time as
well as the reasons behind these patterns. [taken from the website: (http://www.isc.hbs.edu/econ-clusters.htm)]
Initial Thoughts on a Global Agenda
Herman Saatkamp
5
22 October 2008
speaks at our new student orientation retreat (a three-day camp permitting students to meet other
students as well as staff and faculty, preparing them for the transition from high school to
college). This alumnus’s participation has been one of the most influential parts of that
orientation. Each campus will have its own alumni resources and will find ways of developing
them for its global agenda.
B.
International Businesses in Our Community
Many campuses have regional businesses with global components in their organization. This
may be in manufacturing, distribution, knowledge-based systems, tourism, hospitality, or many
other possible areas. The local chamber of commerce is likely to be a good source of
information regarding business interests.
One president regularly invites the leaders of local businesses to a symposium on higher
education. Basically, the president listens as the leaders address the questions of new challenges
to higher education and the business needs for highly qualified graduates and employees.
One may wish to do this with local or regional international businesses, making them more a part
of the campus global agenda.
In my community, there are several business and civic organizations that often host meetings on
globalization. We sometimes host such meetings on our campus. We also invite local leaders to
international conferences that are being held on the campus and sponsored by faculty and
professional academic organizations. We also make an effort to approach local issues (e.g.,
sustainability, economic interdependence, immigration) with a global focus that both informs
and provides focus for the local and regional issues.
C.
Trustees, Boards of Directors, and Advisory Boards
Intentionally internationalizing our trustees, foundation board of directors, and advisory boards
provides other resources. In my college, several of our trustees are foreign-born, several speak
more than one language, and many have business associations that have global interests. These
individuals provide significant funding and focus for a campus global agenda.
D.
On-campus International Groups and Personnel
Most of our campuses have faculty and student international organizations. These are
remarkably valuable resources. Fully incorporating them into a campus global agenda is
important. My sense is that most of us do this well.
There may also be untapped resources in students, faculty, and staff that have international
experience and backgrounds. Most of us know the students and faculty who have global
experience. But I wonder if we have made the staff aware of the importance of their
international experiences. Senior staff, managers, administrative assistants, secretaries,
Initial Thoughts on a Global Agenda
Herman Saatkamp
6
22 October 2008
maintenance and grounds personnel may all have international experiences that may be a part of
globalizing a campus.
Perhaps hosting a reception for foreign-born faculty, students, and staff would be a beginning.
Including personnel from maintenance and grounds keeping would certainly enlarge their sense
of being a part of an education community and it may highlight issues regarding their needs on
our campuses. I am confident there are many other options for accomplishing this. The central
purpose is to engage those on our campus and to encompass as many persons as possible. Larger
collective insights are often far better than individual or small group insights.
E.
Military Experience
Many faculty, staff and students with military backgrounds have international experience. This
experience may contribute to a campus global agenda in significant ways: languages, cultural
and intercultural issues, and accounts of friendships and relationships. Involving those with
military backgrounds may also help acculturate new comers to the campus.
F.
Service Learning
Many service learning projects may also offer opportunities for a global agenda. Students may
work in communities of international populations, shadow a professional immigrant and assist in
providing services, assist in developing community responses to international issues, etc.
G.
Research Parks
On or near some of our campuses are research parks and/or research institutes. Research with
international import, individual researchers, and research facilities may enhance the global
agendas of our campuses. There may be joint appointments with faculty, use of our wet labs,
international consortia, or many other arrangements that enhance our global agendas.
H.
Partnerships with P-12
A global agenda presents good opportunities for collaboration with the P-12 sector where global
education must begin. Many of us already have collaborative programs that relate to the STEM
initiatives, working with at-risk students, enhancing honors programs, and much more. Having
global issues as one of our central collaborative efforts with P-12 enlarges these programs to
include issues such as intercultural communication, sustainability, economic interdependence,
political and military alliances and conflicts, and much more.
I.
Partnerships with Other Universities
Many campuses have established partnerships with other universities throughout the world. This
may include the usual faculty and student exchanges as well as joint research and teaching
projects. Some are establishing joint degree programs with other universities. For example, one
Initial Thoughts on a Global Agenda
Herman Saatkamp
7
22 October 2008
university established a joint master’s degree program in Spanish with the University of
Salamanca in order to recruit and train highly qualified Spanish teachers for the regional public
schools in the university’s community. This joint degree began with a dean visiting the Spanish
Ambassador to the U.S. and conveying from the state department of education the pressing need
for Spanish teachers. Through several faculty connections the process moved along quickly.
Other colleges/universities are nicely located along the northern and southern U.S. borders and
may easily establish local and regional international connections with other higher education
facilities within a few hundred miles of the campus.
Establishing joint research projects between faculty is a long-standing and positive approach.
Today there is also greater emphasis on teaching and the use of pedagogical technology. This
opens the doors to more joint projects refocusing our education on student learning.
In building these international partnerships there are issues relating to transferability of credits
and of degrees. Although often seen as difficulties, these issues can raise important
considerations for American universities. For example, how will we compete with European
universities now moving forward with a three-year baccalaureate degree?
J.
Meeting Community and Regional Needs
Many of our campuses are located in areas where there are clear needs for global education.
Some responses to these needs may be relatively simple, such as providing second language
training in Spanish or Chinese to professionals in hospitals, tourism centers, research areas,
construction sites, social workers, and many more. Some of this language training will be
specialized. A physician needs to be able to communicate complicated results in the language of
the patient and family. Hospitality hosts need to clearly communicate directions, opportunities,
special fares and tickets, immigration issues, etc. Research specialists may have additional
language needs not associated with a general approach to conversational usage.
Along with language skills there is a need for intercultural skills. A physician may not
understand the role of a grandmother in providing a diagnosis to a Latino patient and family.
The normal presentation of potential treatment after effects may have a significantly different
meaning to someone whose background is non-western or to a native-American patient. These
and many other intercultural issues may present the opportunities to provide needed services in
the community, build positive relationships with businesses and labor unions, as well as state and
regional hospitality and tourism businesses and organizations.
Each of our AASCU institutions will have its own scope and focus when looking at opportunities
close to home for developing a global agenda. Technological developments may greatly help us
develop those opportunities as well as expand our global agendas beyond our own regions.
Initial Thoughts on a Global Agenda
Herman Saatkamp
II.
8
22 October 2008
TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES: LOOK CLOSE TO HOME AND BEYOND
Where’s the wisdom we have lost in knowledge,
Where’s the knowledge we have lost in information?
T.S. Eliot, The Rock
A.
Background
Technological advances now make it possible to expand our educational resources far beyond
our campus and communities. Thomas Friedman noted that we are now “one click away” from
many people throughout the world, from global competition, from collaborative national and
international research. Friedman highlights the positive and unexpected lagniappes of the
technological revolution: more collaboration, better understanding of cultures and diversity,
instant resolution of factual differences, global sharing of data, knowledge and information. 10
Others are less sanguine than Friedman regarding the outcomes of our technological revolution.
Recognizing the social benefits, they also note the same technology may be used for purposes
that do not promote social goods. False information is equally available as well as erroneous
facts, slander, propaganda, partisan approaches to issues of science, sex, race, and more. Having
more information and data does not necessarily lead to knowledge and wisdom (as Aristotle was
among the first to point out).
Whether one takes a more positive or negative view of technological developments, it is clear
that these developments lead to an educational environment not anticipated even ten years ago.
Instant communication, electronic social networks, on-line encyclopedias, on-line educational
opportunities independent of accredited institutions, collaborative research and teaching
opportunities with faculty and students who have never met face-to-face, and much more now
shape our quotidian lives.
B.
Learning Environments
Gone are the days when a question raised in a classroom could be delayed until the students (and
faculty) went to the library. Now when most questions are raised, they can be addressed through
the Internet and perhaps resolved almost instantaneously whether in a classroom or not.
Gone are the days when faculty standing in the front of the classroom played the single, central
role in teaching. For example, some classrooms are now arranged with desks in front of students
and the computers at their back. Once an assignment is given or a discussion engaged, students
turn to their computers (turning their backs on the front of the classroom and to the professor).
The students then search and research, and sometimes invite other students and the professor to
join them to explicate critical issues and to evaluate the reliability of the information.
10
Thomas Friedman, The World is Flat, New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2005.
Initial Thoughts on a Global Agenda
Herman Saatkamp
C.
9
22 October 2008
Faculty Model as Coach
The faculty member is more of a coach or director in such environments. Interestingly, these
environments may better utilize the specialized knowledge of a faculty member although they
may limit a faculty member’s ability to shape the questions and the outcomes within these
learning settings.
D.
AASCU Questions
Large questions have been raised regarding the future of higher education. Do we need physical
spaces for higher education? Do we need libraries? Do we need faculty, administrators, or staff?
Do we need locations in communities, regions, states, or even nations?
Leaving the large questions for visionaries, the more practical questions will occupy most of the
time of AASCU institutions. Are faculty prepared for the new technology? How do we assure
the reliability and credibility of accelerating knowledge and information? What are new models
for teaching/learning? What are the requisite knowledge and skills needed in the 21st century
and how do we structure our colleges and universities to provide them? Who has principal
responsibility for assuring curricular development? In unionized environments, how does one
negotiate for changes, particularly if there is a need for dramatic and timely changes?
Technological advances raise some issues that will affect AASCU institutions more than others:
How will technological advances assist in improving and advancing remedial education? Will
new pedagogical technology promote P-16 educational collaborations and what will be the role
of university faculty? Will faculty workloads be more flexible, perhaps promoting more
interdisciplinary approaches that may meet market demands better than restricted disciplinary
approaches? Is it possible to arrange faculty offices and working space beyond the usual
disciplinary departments so that faculty will benefit from a wider range of faculty expertise and
collaborations? Is it possible to create more virtual programs, departments, meetings,
communication, without losing the interconnectivity of personal and professional development?
How will technological advances alter the competition from for-profit higher education
institutions and not-for-profit ones? What changes in governance structures can we anticipate?
What will be the role of the president, of the provost?
E.
Openness to the Near and the Far
One of our great challenges is to be open to elements for change that are already in place, like the
cluster model discussed earlier. As a result, identifying resources on our campuses and in our
community is the first step. Perhaps the greatest challenge is to be best prepared for changes that
one cannot anticipate. 11 Expecting the unexpected is a paradox. Even so, it is our task to
prepare students for a future we will not see nor can fully anticipate. And it is likely that the
events that will cause the greatest changes in higher education are not ones we are able to
11
Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable , Random House, 2007.
Initial Thoughts on a Global Agenda
Herman Saatkamp
10
22 October 2008
predict. Our task is to place our students and our institutions in the best place possible so that
when the unexpected occurs, the best results are possible. Cluster development and quality
education may enable us to compete well in the global educational competition.
III.
GLOBAL EDUCATION COMPETITION: FOCUS ON CLUSTER
DEVELOPMENT AND QUALITY EDUCATION
A.
Background
Fareed Zakaria in The Post-American World made popular the phrase, “the rise of the rest.”
Simply stated, he maintains not so much that the U.S. is in decline but that much of the rest of
the world is on the rise. As a result, the relative position of the U.S. as being the best in higher
education is in question because of increased competition. In fact, in some areas we already
have lost our standing.
How are we to manage global competition in higher education? In the simplest response, one
may say we will need to focus on quality and cluster development.
Some developing countries are now significantly increasing their funding and support for higher
education. They see higher education as an economic driving force as well as a strong element
for social stability, increased wealth, a healthier population, and greater contributions to society
as a whole. They are aware that higher education is a renewable resource. That is, once a person
has a university degree, their children are highly likely to earn a university degree. Each
generation will renew and enlarge the impact of that first degree.
The U.S.’s share of the worldwide population earning university degrees is declining and is
likely to decline more in the next decades. Even our share of international students is on the
decline. Our principal hope is that the quality of our education will remain high and increase,
thereby providing a competitive edge in a growing international market.
B.
Quality Education
Maintaining and increasing our quality will not be simple. Our local, state and federal
appropriations are down and not likely to turn around. U.S. high school retention and graduation
rates are declining, as are our college and university retention and graduation rates. And
culturally there is a growing perception of U.S. higher education as being a personal and not a
social or public good. This perception supports the view that there should be less public funds
for higher education and more personal (family and student) funds. Along with this are new
standards of accountability relating to expenditures not only of state and tuition funds but also of
supporting 501(C)(3)s and of contractual relationships. Less funding and more oversight seem to
be the motto of our future.
Initial Thoughts on a Global Agenda
Herman Saatkamp
11
22 October 2008
Globally it appears that several other nations are catching up with the U.S. Many have better
retention and graduation rates. There are strong societal commitments to higher education, less
oversight and interference in the administration of universities and colleges. Many U.S.
universities work in bureaucratic and union environments where changes are slow and deliberate.
This is less true of developing nations.
The introduction of a three-year baccalaureate degree will provide attractive opportunities for
international as well as American students. The traditional four-year baccalaureate U.S. degree
will have to compete with the new European model at a time when several of our technical fields
have in reality moved closer to a five-year degree.
Already, some of our students are looking abroad for their undergraduate education and there are
a significant number of graduate students in the sciences and engineering that are applying for
graduate work in non-American universities or research centers.
In the U.S., for-profit higher education opportunities are increasing and some large corporations
are seeing these as more direct avenues for personnel development within their organizations.
C.
Opportunities
Such challenges also provide opportunities. Such opportunities include the high quality of our
education and its attractiveness to international students, our increased development of distance
education opportunities for traditional and non-traditional students, our ability to tailor our
programs to meet community and business needs, and the adaptability of the American higher
educational system to change while maintaining the quality of our programs.
The long-standing quality of U.S. higher education includes three features: (1) public higher
education is a public good, (2) there are core skills and knowledge students receive at almost
every institution regardless of their major, and (3) all graduates have a specialized knowledge in
specific disciplines.
In terms of public higher education as a public good, we may not be able to hold our own. Other
countries are catching up and surpassing the U.S. regarding the percentage of the population with
university degrees. Even so, the continuing advancement of our communities, regions and nation
depend on a well-educated population and citizenry. And colleges and universities have the
principal responsibility for maintaining higher education as accessible and affordable.
Even if the U.S. commitment to higher education is diminishing and continues to do so, we may
be able to maintain a significant position in global higher education through our focus on core
skills and knowledge and on specialized knowledge. Specialized knowledge in specific
disciplines depends on the quality of faculty, curricula, and students in particular programs such
as the natural sciences, mathematics, engineering, education, social sciences, humanities and the
arts. Graduate programs, and the recruiting and retention of faculty will play a significant role in
maintaining and increasing these areas.
Initial Thoughts on a Global Agenda
Herman Saatkamp
12
22 October 2008
General education requirements have gone through significant changes in the past century as
faculty studied skills and knowledge requisite for students in an increasingly complex and
interdependent world. Although the content and place of a core curriculum is almost always in
question, there remain at most institutions a strong commitment to general education and a
growing commitment to interdisciplinary work.
What general education requirements and other learning settings match the challenges of a global
education? Below is a discussion of some traditional approaches as well as an account of general
education requirements that began in the U.S. and is having an effect on developing countries.
IV.
STANDARD APPROACHES TO GLOBAL EDUCATION
Here are a few elements to standard approaches to global education.
A.
Study Abroad
Study abroad may involve establishing campuses abroad where our students and faculty study.
Some institutions have international campuses as a regular part of their curriculum, and staffing
and managing these campuses is an integral part of their overall operating budgets. Other
campuses rely on international programs located at other universities or organizations to help
students and faculty plan study abroad programs.
The range and variety of these programs are great. The time required might extend from a short
trip of a few days to programs that may require a year of more. Topics, approach, residential
requirements, etc., also vary significantly from program to program.
B.
Curricular Requirements
Traditionally, colleges and universities enhance global education by requiring or encouraging
courses in another language and in non-western cultures. Many also provide and support
international experiences on campus or in our communities through clubs, organizations,
symposia, and informal gatherings.
C.
Faculty
Faculty are central to global education. Many have international educational and research
backgrounds. Tapping into that resource and supporting its development has proven to be a step
toward success in most ventures in global education. Students benefit from studying and
traveling abroad under the leadership of highly qualified faculty, and international contacts the
faculty cultivate normally result in lasting relationships that lead to student and faculty
exchanges.
Initial Thoughts on a Global Agenda
Herman Saatkamp
D.
13
22 October 2008
Facilities
College libraries are now resource centers fulfilling the traditional role of archiving and
distributing hard-copy material but also vastly expanding the resource available in a wireless,
interconnected environment. Indeed, library faculty and staff are often the teacher/scholars who
enable students to make judgments about the quality and reliability of the electronic research
material. Libraries may be on our campuses, but they reach to every domain of the globe where
electronic connections and satellite perspectives are possible.
Living Learning Communities are established with international themes, e.g., global issues
(economy, sustainability, public health, etc.). Sometimes there are international communities on
campus that organize students, faculty and staff to address issues throughout the academic year.
Language and cultural centers have long played a role on our campuses. Now as the need for
intercultural communication and understanding is paramount, these centers play an even more
essential role in global education.
Central to any discussion of higher education in the U.S. is the focus on general education.
Some now see this as being replaced by the European high school curriculum, permitting
European and Asian higher education to have a more specialized focus without an emphasis on a
set of core skills and knowledge. Obviously, one cannot determine the outcome of this
competition, but one consideration in favor of a general education requirement is that it provides
a foundational element in widespread, public higher education. Public higher education is
central to U.S. higher education, and it is something other countries are now beginning to
consider.
What are the central considerations for general education in the U.S.? Below is a brief
discussion of one U.S. approach that is now also being considered as a model for developing
nations.
V.
GENERAL EDUCATION
A.
Background
Put simply, the U.S. higher education is modeled after the highly selective English undergraduate
colleges and the German graduate/research programs. Our unique contributions are making
higher education accessible to a larger public and structuring it to serve public needs. In most
instances, state colleges and universities serve these purposes better than private institutions or
large research institutions. Since the Morrill Act (1862), much of American higher education has
been dedicated to serving public needs. Following WWII, the role of higher education in
meeting national needs was not only enhanced but also made central to our mission. Today, that
central role is in question as many see higher education more of an individual good rather than a
Initial Thoughts on a Global Agenda
Herman Saatkamp
14
22 October 2008
public one. This perspective is part of the fabric interwoven with the reduction of higher
education funding from the states and federal government.
When it comes to curricular issues, state colleges and universities have often followed the lead of
the larger, research-oriented institutions. Although there is a long history regarding core
curriculum issues, I will concentrate only on one that is specifically American and is being
recommended and utilized in developing countries. Appendix I provides another approach that
some may also find of interest.
B.
Rosovsky Model
Henry Rosovsky was Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University from 197387, and twice served as Acting President (1984, 1987). His book, The University: An Owner’s
Manual (1990) provides an approach to general education requirements that was recommended
by a 2000 World Bank and UNESCO Task Force on Higher Education and Society. 12
Rosovsky’s model is largely traditional. However, when his proposals were offered, they were
set in the context of a “cafeteria” approach to core studies and were seen as going against the
general trend.
Central to Rosovsky’s approach are five characteristics of an educated person. These
characteristics were viewed as central to any curricular considerations and importantly were
repeated in the report of the Task Force on Higher Education and Society convened by the World
Bank and UNESCO. An educated person is described as someone who:
•
•
•
•
•
can think and write clearly, effectively, and critically, and who can communicate with
precision, cogency, and force;
has a critical appreciation of the ways in which we gain knowledge and understanding of
the universe, of society, and of ourselves;
has a broad knowledge of other cultures and other times, and is able to make decisions
based on reference to the wider world and to the historical forces that have shaped it;
has some understanding of and experience in thinking systematically about moral and
ethical problems; 13 and
has achieved depth in some field of knowledge.
These five characteristics are offered as central to any consideration of higher education’s core
curriculum, even in developing countries as discussed in the task force report.
12
(http://www.tfhe.net/) Welcome to the website of the Task Force on Higher Education and Society. The Task
Force was convened by the World Bank and UNESCO and spent 18 months exploring the state of higher education
in developing countries. The Task Force's report, Higher Education and Developing Countries: Peril and Promise
was launched on March 1st 2000 at the World Bank in Washington. On this site, you can read and download the full
report, and access news on the report's launch. (French and Spanish summaries are available in the download area)
13
I believe Rosovsky included aesthetics as well in his book .
Initial Thoughts on a Global Agenda
Herman Saatkamp
15
22 October 2008
Of course, Harvard’s standing and circumstances are different from that of state colleges and
universities. Nevertheless, it may be informative to reflect on the Harvard Core.
For Harvard, there were six central features to a core curriculum formed on an interdisciplinary
(non-departmental) basis: (1) Literature and the Arts, (2) Science, (3) Historical Study, (4) Social
Analysis, (5) Foreign Cultures, (6) Moral Reasoning. This core was considered distinctive
because of its interdisciplinary approach and the specificity of the areas in contrast to a more
elective system.
Three additional Harvard requirements were not considered strictly a part of the Core but were
required of all students: (1) taking a course to develop students as clear and effective writers, (2)
achieving competence in a second language, (3) achieving competence in quantitative reasoning
(computer science, numerical data, basic statistical techniques). 14
Rosovsky notes that the “curriculum is a skeleton. The flesh, blood, and heart has [sic] to come
from the rather unpredictable interactions between teachers and students.” 15
Since Rosovsky’s days as Dean, the Harvard Core has undergone significant changes, but
perhaps the five central characteristics of an educated person may still inform discussions of the
requisite educational knowledge and skills needed in the 21st century.
C.
Two Developments
Two significant developments impact on these discussions in a manner not fully delineated in
Rosovsky’s works: the rapidly changing global environment and the accelerating technological
developments that bring much of humankind closer while further isolating those without the
technology. However, these two issues are raised within the task force report along with
significant international issues relating, for example, to knowledge acceleration, educational
expansion of developing nations, and the diminishing role of U.S. higher education.
Within the Rosovsky model, university leaders play a central role in cultivating the need for a
more specific set of core requirements and provide support for the development of the core. The
faculty propose particular courses (both disciplinary and interdisciplinary) and the students select
from each of the six core areas while meeting the other three, non-core requirements.
D.
The Loss of the Americas
South America, Latin America, and Canada rarely are a part of U.S. higher education discussions
about global education or even global competition. Yet, they are geographically our closest
international neighbors. Our knowledge of their history, cultures, and their economic and
political structures is remarkably limited.
14
Rosovsky, Henry. The University: An Owner’s Manual. New York and London: W.W. Norton and Company, ,
1990, 112-12
15
Rosovsky, 130.
Initial Thoughts on a Global Agenda
Herman Saatkamp
16
22 October 2008
Here is a lost opportunity. Many circumstances call for a better understanding of the Americas
including the growing Latino immigrant population in the U.S., the historic Hispanic population
in many of our states, the growing economic competition from the Americas, the growing
criticism of U.S. culture and practices as they affect our neighbors, and the remarkably rich and
well-developed cultures and traditions of our neighboring countries.
The loss of the Americas in our curricular considerations could become haunting if not corrected.
Correcting this loss is likely to present us with remarkable opportunities to increase our critical
appreciation for the rest of the Americas, and it may provide us with significant recruiting
opportunities for faculty and students as well as create opportunities for many collaborative
efforts.
E.
A Small Suggestion
An increasingly important issue is the difference between how we view ourselves and how the
rest of the world sees us. It may be worth considering how a thematic approach to this difference
could be interwoven in our global agendas and general education requirements. What courses or
activities will best serve students studying abroad? Should we require courses in the intellectual
foundations of American democracy? Would this strengthen the understanding of democratic
processes on our campuses and communities?
VI.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A.
Develop Resources Closest to Home
The issues of global competition and global agendas are not simple, but our best response simply
may be to enhance and develop the resources closest to home. Some obvious resources include
individuals and groups with international experience and backgrounds that include faculty, staff,
students, trustees, advisory groups, foundation directors, and business and community leaders.
Utilizing these resources may have a significant global impact on our students and community.
Including staff and maintenance personnel, who are often overlooked in such matters, may also
enhance the sense of community on our campus.
B.
Use Technology to Enhance Local Resources and Beyond
Technology is bringing us closer together. Our campuses are hubs of interpersonal and
international connections. Almost limitless, these connections provide links within links that
bring our communities and the world closer together, more interdependent, more aware of our
differences and similarities. Utilizing technological advances for educational goals is one of our
principal opportunities.
Initial Thoughts on a Global Agenda
Herman Saatkamp
C.
17
22 October 2008
Compete with Quality Education
In terms of global competition, the U.S. may lose the competition for increasing national and
state support for higher education. Other countries appear to be placing greater focus and
funding on an educated citizenry. The “rise of the rest” is occurring just as a cultural shift is
occurring in the U.S. Simply put, this is a shift from higher education being viewed as a social
and public good to its being seen as a personal good. If this perception continues, we are likely
to see diminishing state and federal support for higher education continue.
Our global higher education standing is at risk. But we may be able to maintain and enhance
the role of U.S. higher education by increasing the quality of our educational programs. Each
campus will need to determine areas where quality can be sustained and enhanced even while
state and federal support is declining.
D.
Enhance our Standard Approaches to a Global Agenda
Each of our campuses has programs in place that are pieces of a global agenda. These programs
may include study abroad, curricular requirements, international faculty and programs, dedicated
international facilities and international groups. Enhancing these and making them a part of an
intentional, coherent approach to global education is the goal. Part of our strength is that the
number and nature of these elements will vary from campus to campus, and therefore each
campus will have strengths and niches that help to make each of us unique and competitive.
E.
Reexamine Our General Education Requirements
General education requirements, although reconsidered regularly, are a central part of U.S.
higher education. Globally the U.S. approach is being considered by a number of developing
countries even while some European universities are moving toward a 3-year baccalaureate
degree with general education requirements being completed in high school.
Global competition, rapidly accelerating knowledge and the need for specialized knowledge
make it critical to reexamine our general education programs in order to advance global
education. One model worth exploring is developed by Henry Rosovsky, but each institution
must develop its own requirements consistent with it mission, shared governance, and fiduciary
relationships with the state and community.
F.
Final Comment
This white paper is consists of somewhat more than random thoughts of one person. Some
friends and colleagues have been kind enough to review these initial thoughts and to make
excellent suggestions for improving them. Even so, the inadequacies and inaccuracies of this
paper are mine.
i
APPENDIX I
HARRY LEWIS’S ZERO-SUM APPROACH TO GENERAL EDUCATION 16
In addition to Rosovsky’s model discussed within this white paper, another former Harvard Dean
recently presented a suggestion for general education that one may call the “zero-sum approach.”
Harry Lewis was Dean of Harvard College 1995-2003. Perhaps because of the conflicts
associated with President Summers, Harry Lewis suggests an approach to the Core that appears
to be more political in nature and addresses the issue of how both to limit and to develop a Core.
This approach may seem less likely to succeed than others, but it may have merits worth
considering.
Principally addressing the central role of the faculty in determining the Core, Lewis is concerned
about the expansion of courses, interdepartmental conflicts, and the lack of vision as to what is
requisite knowledge for the 21st century.
Basically, Lewis suggests some “great university” (Kindle, 3502ff)
Cloister a broadly based faculty committee to design ten general education courses, of
which all students would have to take five. The courses could obey the old disciplinary
divisions, but they would not have to. There would be no point in a turf battle about how
many of the courses should be science courses, because if students did not want to take
any of the science courses, they could avoid them. Allow the courses to compete for
students, but make sure they did not compete on grades or workload. In case of an angry
response from students or faculty that some important subject had been left out of the
general education curriculum, a new course could be created, but only if an old course
were eliminated. Over time, curricula would shift by an evolutionary process so that the
most important subjects were guaranteed always to be available to all students, taught at
a level appropriate for the unspecialized undergraduate. (Kindle, 3502ff)
The specifics of this proposal are unimportant. What is important is that it presents a
college education as a zero-sum game. The faculty would be forced to select and to
prioritize among books, theories, and ideas. If evolutionary theory is more important than
gender theory, then the one might be in and the other out, and vice versa. The limited
number of courses would force the faculty to make choices rather than pawn the choices
off on individual students, while not wholly depriving students of choices. Given the
way professors at Harvard and at other research universities are selected, not every
professor’s research specialty is equally worthwhile for the education of the citizens and
the leaders of industry and government that these universities will graduate. (Kindle,
3529ff)
16
Harry Lewis Excellence Without a Soul: How a Great University Forgot Education, 2006, Kindle Edition). Lewis
was Dean of Harvard College 1995-2003.
Appendix I: Zero-Sum Approach
Herman Saatkamp
ii
15 October 2008
Simply stated, the role of university leaders in this zero-sum core would be to form the
committee and to let the faculty then determine ten courses and the students determine the five
courses they will take.
Lewis sets a high standard for university leadership:
To this end, the leaders must themselves embody the values of self-understanding, of
maturity, of strength of character, and of compassion and empathy for others, as well as
scholarly excellence. To lead a university that will turn promising freshmen into
graduates who will represent the best of humanity, the leaders themselves must be wise
and mature and good people, not merely smart and accomplished and skillful and expert.
Everyone in the university family -- parents and students and professors and members of
the governing boards-should have a say in judging whether that standard is met. (Kindle,
3430ff)