International Programs dialogue notes

International Programs dialogue notes 3.18.19

Assumptions

• Continued tightening on immigration regulations (“invisible wall” is working)
• Demos shifting internationally. More middle/upper class in other countries esp China, India
  • Great potential for recruitment and impact
  • They can afford education
• More interconnectedness among young people around the world (bc of social media)
• Opposite of U.S. trends – domestic will decline 5% to 2025 but international will increase 9%
  • India to be net exporter of people
• Can’t rely on state $ to grow
• Availability of English training in other countries on the increase and demand dropping in U.S.
  • Means more readiness and more need to have a presence abroad
• Higher ed institutions that don’t shift will be left behind—top US institutions are on top of this
• Strategic presence overseas will be expected and necessary
• More linkages with research etc. overseas
• Internal culture will not change on its own to meet these needs – is not keeping up—resistance hurts our ability to recruit and retain international students (and faculty)
• Increasingly problems are transnational, e.g. climate

Mission

• Most students will not study abroad, and connections are important
• Strong connections needed internationally
• Too much of a “checkbox” list of mission elements
• Where land-grant applies keeps expanding
• Increase student engagement in solving world problems through whole university—curriculum and co-curricular
• Connecting students to solving transnational problems
• More teaching-learning – needs to be stated explicitly
• Should be more “crisp” – too many words, too general
• What is “advance” v “extend”?
• Seems like “add global and stir” – not meaningful
• Is teaching and learning integral to faculty performance review?

Values

• Domestic and global not separate
  • This keeps us from being welcoming. This needs to be actively addressed.
• Old-school teaching is boxing us in
  • This gets reflected in U Core
• Reflection of concern that lack of diversity of individuals who are harmed in our own country must be treated separately from those who are international. A false difference.
  • There are some slow gains
• Most of the values are “fine” – but which are distinctive?
  • Maybe 2: freedom of expression
• We don’t promote what we’re good at enough; we’re not true leaders. It’s as if we don’t want to call attention to ourselves for risk of a downside
• Accountability is nonexistent –a few examples noted
• Environmental stewardship is not here—stewardship of university resources is very small thinking
• Mediocrity seems to be where we are comfortable—we are risk averse

Drive to 25

• Need to tie to student experience
  • More course offerings
  • Smaller classes
  • Pre-eminent faculty
  • Undergrad research opportunities
• Anyone who leaves the U is truly ready to navigate the world successfully
• We will be considered in the top Universities if really addressing transnational issues
• A lot more faculty
• Per capital performance of faculty is already on par—so key is more faculty
• More resources
• The research-teaching-outreach mission will be more integrated
• Grad-UG more involved in pushing boundaries
• BC of hands-on experience our students will be in demand
• Student engagement, open-door faculty makes us special
• Even VPs engage with students bc of dedication to personal connection
• Feeling of community is genuine
• We will know what impact our students are having
• External focus of metrics
  • What about top 25 from a student perspective?
• Top faculty will teach UGs
• Cougs will have more impact on the world

Short-term outcomes

• We will know where our alums are going
• Ability to solve cultural competency issues – assessment
• Olympia and industry will think differently about WSU – word association assessment
• Staff, administrators, faculty and students will demonstrate better cultural literacy
• The wrong approach is to Balkanize research and teaching—other universities are ahead of us, and we won’t make progress without staff invested in the mission. Have to acknowledge we have a problem.
  • Measure student perceptions of support services—a more positive experience
  • Measure time spent on fairness problems (less wasted time would be an objective)
  • More faculty-led programs
  • Better student persistence
  • Happier students when leaving
• We will know where our alums have gone
• Measure student success in multiple ways
• Greater external awareness of progress we are making

Other