IIE Networker - Spring 2007 - (Page 24)

Feature In-Country Consortia Rethinking Collaboration in Education Abroad By Joseph L. Brockington THE LINCOLN COMMISSION’S goal of one million U.S. students studying abroad within a decade is ambitious. It will require an almost fivefold increase in the 205,893 study abroad students reported by IIE in Open Doors 2006. In addition to the massive amount of funding, reaching this goal will require unprecedented collaboration among colleges, universities, programs, and providers in the U.S. and abroad, as well as new models for such collaboration. For tunately U.S. colleges and universities have learned to work together in any number of different arenas and that collaborative spirit is particularly evident within education abroad. We are familiar with the three basic types of consortia in Education Abroad as described in NAFSA’s Guide to Education Abroad for Advisers and Administrators (2005). In a “Partnership Consortium,” collaborating institutions share “equally in the obligations (both financial and administrative) and benefits of the program” (3612). With an “Agency Consortium,” the responsibility for the logistical and academic details of operating the programs abroad is transferred to an independent agency, often a notfor-profit or NGO (364). Finally, many “Providers” operate on a quasi-consortial model. They differ from agency consortia in that the provider retains autonomy and final authority for all decision-making, although there is often a path for advisory input from participating colleges. In each of these consortial models, programs are typically known by the name of the consortium, agency, or provider, not by the name of the sending institution(s). Working against the collaborative spirit of international educators at home, particularly in the area of education abroad, is often the very goal that should bring us together. As “Internationalization” has gained credence as an institutional and curricular goal, it has also found its way into university brochures, admissions websites, grant applications, and the general marketing strategy of the institution. Thus, while it seems readily apparent that, at least with regard to education abroad, institutions would want to collaborate in order to ensure that more students can study abroad at financially sustainable rate; it is equally understandable that institutions may choose to go it alone, in order to be able to use the results of their efforts in a marketing campaign and for “branding.” The desire of colleges and universities to choose a more autonomous path with regard to their education abroad programs can be seen in the results of an unpublished

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IIE Networker - Spring 2007

IIE Networker - Spring 2007
Message from Allan E. Goodman
Up Front: The International Education Diary
Best Practices in International Education: Andrew Heiskell Awards 2007
In-Country Consortia: Rethinking Collaboration in Education Abroad
IIENetworker University Presidents Interview Series: A Conversation with President John B. Simpson, State University of New York at Buffalo
Higher Education in Pakistan: A Silent Revolution
Opening Minds to the World: Toyota and IIE
Dual Degree Programs
South Africa–USA Partnership
Faculty View
The Browser: Index of Advertisers

IIE Networker - Spring 2007