The U.S. Education Department did not misuse taxpayer dollars to lobby for legislation that last year ended the bank-based student-loan program, a report issued on Monday by the department’s inspector general concludes. The investigation, which was requested by the top Republican on the House education committee, focused on correspondence between the department and outside groups, including college lobbyists.
RSS
Follow The Ticker through your favorite RSS reader.
4 Responses to Education Dept. Cleared of Wrongdoing in Dispute Over Student-Loan Bill
burger1376 - May 2, 2012 at 11:37 pm
I think it would be interesting to see what an international system would look like. For example, if a US, British, Chinese, Japanese, French, South African, Indian, Australian, etc University were to get together and create a system based on similar values and goals, how would that work? I do think this is the future of the international education system, however it is going to take a long, long time to come to this point. You can see the beginnings of it already, but the steady progress of internationalization will only go as fast as globalization itself.
sallycv - May 3, 2012 at 2:01 pm
This is a topic that some of us working on internationalization from the system perspective spend a lot of time
contemplating, but about which little has been written or presented
publically. I applaud our colleagues for launching the discussion in this
forum. For system level actors, the balance between
facilitating the engagement of the individual campus with overseas partners and
impeding the one-on-one bilateral collaboration is one we struggle with
regularly. It is essential that all of us who are charged with a system
level international role regularly examine our efforts through the lens of this
challenge.
At the State University of New York, Office of Global
Affairs, we discuss among ourselves and with our colleagues who represent the
international offices of the 64 constituent institutions that comprise SUNY, what contributions are most effectively made to internationalization at
the system level that are unique in nature or bring value not found in
single-institution efforts – and what activities are best left to individual
institutions to explore independently. We very much share the concern
conveyed by Professors Kinser and Lane, our SUNY colleagues, that each
institution be able to participate in the international sphere in the ways that
are most meaningful and beneficial to its unique mission.
Without a doubt, in order for a system international office
to be effective, a delicate balance needs to be struck between responsible
quality assurance and respect for unique institutional mission, between
facilitating program development and replacing or superseding individual campus
program development efforts. We certainly don’t see this as a
mission accomplished in our institution, but rather as a daily challenge. Here
are some of the ways that we think a system effort can add value without
diminishing individual campus efforts:
·
Provide structures and services that facilitate
individual campus internationalization
·
Provide quality assurance mechanisms to protect
the interests of students and safeguard the reputation of the university in its
activities outside the U.S.
·
Offer professional development and networking
opportunities to campus personnel in the various professions related to
internationalization (ISSS, study abroad, recruitment, admissions, among
others)
·
Management of consortia of campuses for specific
international activities
·
Management of overseas offices for support of campus
engagement in specific regions
raymond_j_ritchie - May 12, 2012 at 2:16 am
Some realities. A branch campus is subject to the local laws including student admissions and local hiring. Are you prepared to accept that reality? Are the faculty and admins and university governors and activists prepared to accept that things will be done on the branch campus that are unacceptable or not even legal in the USA? It appears that many phantasise that they have some control over what goes on at the branch campus. Is a university even capable of handling the reality that its by-laws run on one campus but not another because it is in another country?
There are several countries that have race, sex, religious and political activity laws that would be illegal under US law but nevertheless are usually considerd liberal democrcies. Some even have imprisonment without trial for indefinite periods. Singapore and Malaysia are examples. If that is too exotic what if someone got the bright idea of setting up a branch campus in Northern Ireland or Basque Spain? How is the University President or Chancellor supposed to react if a student, staff member or faculty member runs foul of such laws on a branch campus in a foreign country?
Most people think about overseas branch campuses in a franky colonial model. It goes both ways. “Extraterritoriality” is a favourite topic of rabble-rousing “Nationalists” and other radicals against european and american institutions abroad through much of modern history. They also think about them in terms of the interests of faculty holding american passports sent off to them on secondment. There are plenty of other sources of trouble because of their perception as a foreign implant..
* The home university has no control over standards at a foreign campus short of refusing to recognise the qualifications gained on their “own” branch campus. It seems that Yale is trying to have the temerity to try and get away with not crediting courses done at its branch campus in Singapore. I doubt if any other university (maybe Harvard?) would even dream of trying to get away with such a scam.
* If an american on secondment runs foul of local laws they will most likely get bundled up and thrown out of the host country, rather than face legal action. That is OK for the US citizen but what about the fate of their locally-hired accomplices and any local students involved? Consistent reaction by University President?
* There is also a severe local political fallout. Such instances mentioned above provide ammunition for all the local political nutters that the nasty US Impirialists are exercising “Extraterritorial Rights”. Most radicals are paranoid delusional. It goes without saying that the local universities resent the presence of foreign branch campuses and are full of people that would love to see the foreign branch campus fail.
* There are lots of countries where western universities have set up hare-brained branch campuses where an Israeli stamp in their passport is enough for them to be refused admission into the country – reaction by University President?
* I have brought this up in other criticisms of branch campuses but I will again. What about the case of staff on the branch campus who hold dual citizenship? Consider not only US/Israeli passport holders but also US/host country passport holders which one would expect to be common on a foreign branch campus. Nothing but trouble, trouble and trouble whether they are staff there on secondment and for locally appointed staff.
* Americans often have a bad case of GOD. As an atheist I have no sympathy for them but I do know that the poor deluded fools have an evangelical urge that is bound to get them in trouble in some countries. Trying to tell an evangelical to keep quiet is futile. They also often take official statements about religious tolerance at face value and ignore the realities on the ground. What is understood as “tolerance” is vastly different in different societies. Reaction by the University President to someone caught with a bible or accused of evangelical or missionary activity in the wrong country? Evangelical activity (define?) by foreigners is banned in many countries eg Malaysia. Do not forget that an American Shiite can get themselves into severe trouble in a Sunni moslem country (There is a recent Australian Shiite example, who had dual citizenship into the bargain). It just goes on and on.
* If branch campuses set up by Australian Universities are any guide if you look at their staff lists you find that nearly all their faculty were appointed by the branch campus. There are a few Australians but they were appointed by the branch campus and are not there on secondment from the home campus in Australia. I happen to know that an Australian employed by a branch campus overseas cannot even apply for a transfer to a campus of the same university in Australia. How can that be fair? Are they an “internal candidate” if they apply for a job on the Australian campus? Apparently not. Notice I have not even mentioned the case of someone appointed as faculty on a branch campus in a foreign country but holding citizenship in a third country who applies for a job at the Australian campus of the university.
heidi_marshall - May 18, 2012 at 1:41 pm
As a member of one of these international university systems, I can attest to the benefits of grassroots collaboration. Although I recognize the necessity of my organization to central systems such as hiring practices, codes of ethics, and so forth, for the most part any academic collaboration between my university and our sister schools is done at our own behest. Complicating the issue is that our flagship university is online and attracts a large international population, so we must look to internationalization within our own university as well as across universities.