I agree with the author's basic point, but the statistics seem misleading. For example, I'd say that Chinese students come to study in the US mainly because US universities are widely viewed as the best, not because they aim to broaden their cultural background.
As an American who spent more than a year in Italy and two and a half years in Papua New Guinea with the Peace Corps, and whose life has been incalculably enriched and improved and broadened by those experiences, I endorse the spirit of this piece. But the issues at play here are much too complicated to address adequately in a piece this short. First of all, our kids don't learn other languages, and part of the reason for that is they also don't learn where China is on a map. Or Massachusetts for that matter. Also, there are very real dangers with travel-- especially for women-- to many parts of the world the author presumably thinks would be more worthwhile to experience than the Mediterranean. The Peace Corps had to pull out of Papua New Guinea 20 years ago becuase of the volatile political situation. (I would also argue that the Mediterranean, if you volunteer at a refugee shelter there for a year, would be quite an education.) I'd like to see us get serious about a national service program whereby every young adult spends one year in the US. I bet that would spark the sort of curiosity that's required for the next step.
Interesting article on a great topic. My father was a farm kid from Michigan who became fluent in Mandarin courtesy of the US Army and the Korean War. He went on to use the GI Bill to study Oriental Languages and Culture at several excellent US universities before embarking on a long career with the USG that took him, and, eventually, me, throughout the Far East on multiple tours. He had a non linear educational career (this was the 40s-50s) but eventually arrived at a place where his military service and cultural exposure made him a significant asset to the USG. I don't like to argue from personal anecdote, but his story put me in mind that too much of our educational system is based on rigid insistence on following a certain path. We need not incentive young people who wander the earth like Kane looking to recreate Eat, Pray, Love, but sometimes wandering in a culture is an effective means of deepening one's understanding of that country and your own. Unfortunately today's high achieving college students are primarily, although not exclusively, focused on the kind of resume building activities that will make them attractive to employers. I doubt many of them will ever be asked by a prospective employer to spend 20 minutes sharing what cultural insights they gleaned from 6 months in Jakarta; they want the bullet point on the resume to stand out and nothing more.
I think the USG could better spend it's money by heavily incentivizing students to undertake long term study abroad in areas of interest to the US with good wages, tuition support, and at least an inside track to a position upon completion. It could be akin to a West point for budding diplomats. Two years at a US university followed by 2 abroad all funded by USG and then you owe Uncle Sam 5-7 years after graduation.
Many thanks for your comment, Ted. Support for those programs that do offer material support for study abroad and require a service commitment in return—like the Boren, for example—would be an excellent first step toward a broader government commitment to diversifying and expanding access to the types of cultural engagements from which your father, you, and I have been able to benefit.
In addition to what is written above, it would be great if there were international programs for high school or even middle school students. I would love to be able to take my kids to say Peru for a year and have them really learn the Spanish deeply, with accent and all. Or a summer program during high school years. Especially with many people working from home now, these opportunities are much more available but few (any?) places to accommodate.
Mr. Hamburger has written a utopian piece, when he could have more usefully written a practical piece.
1) If U.S. primary and secondary education fails to teach basic geography and history, not to mention languages, what hope is there for American college students to want to travel?
2) This article confuses incoming students, which includes a large graduate study element, with outbound students. On the outbound side, evidently there is a mixture between the majority of American students who want vocational qualifications, and can't afford much more than that, and the relatively few who are in traditional four year, residential education programs.
3) There are good options short of a year or semester abroad, notably summer programs. These are cheaper and interfere less with an American student's four year progression.
4) Above all: you need not travel to learn more about another culture. My sense, and I would be happy to be corrected, is that American schools and colleges are dropping the ball on deploying the internet for (among other things) better language instruction, virtual tours, and creating links to offshore equivalent students.
5) Finally: many if not most American college students are living in a bubble of their own culture. There is plenty they could see and do in America to widen their perspective, without crossing a national border.
Many thanks for your comment on the piece. I think it is worth disentangling two questions: (1) how do we improve cultural competence and awareness of the world among US students? and (2) how do we ensure that those students already willing and able to study abroad are incentivized to diversify their destinations? Like you, I’d be keen to see an evaluation of how making the most of remote engagement—particularly now—can move the needle on (1). This is true for the vocational students you describe as much as it is for the college educated. Perhaps a good answer here is to balance, as you indicate, technological means of overseas engagement with increased opportunities for encountering different backgrounds and worldviews closer to home.
But, as the piece aims to suggest, the narrower question of (2) must be answered, too. How can we ensure that the many US students who want to travel (as indicated by the demand for places like the UK and Italy) are encouraged to seek more diverse and immersive experiences while doing so? This is where, I think, a reconsideration of study abroad would do well to focus. The trend of shortening programs may aid in seamlessly integrating into the US four-year track, as you indicate, but perhaps an answer here is a greater flexibility at home in allowing longer and more in-depth study abroad programs. When the majority of students don’t even stay abroad for two months (with a good number abroad in pre-packaged programs of and for US students limiting deep engagement with locals, etc.), my sense is that the value of the experience is curtailed.
I agree with the author's basic point, but the statistics seem misleading. For example, I'd say that Chinese students come to study in the US mainly because US universities are widely viewed as the best, not because they aim to broaden their cultural background.
As an American who spent more than a year in Italy and two and a half years in Papua New Guinea with the Peace Corps, and whose life has been incalculably enriched and improved and broadened by those experiences, I endorse the spirit of this piece. But the issues at play here are much too complicated to address adequately in a piece this short. First of all, our kids don't learn other languages, and part of the reason for that is they also don't learn where China is on a map. Or Massachusetts for that matter. Also, there are very real dangers with travel-- especially for women-- to many parts of the world the author presumably thinks would be more worthwhile to experience than the Mediterranean. The Peace Corps had to pull out of Papua New Guinea 20 years ago becuase of the volatile political situation. (I would also argue that the Mediterranean, if you volunteer at a refugee shelter there for a year, would be quite an education.) I'd like to see us get serious about a national service program whereby every young adult spends one year in the US. I bet that would spark the sort of curiosity that's required for the next step.
Interesting article on a great topic. My father was a farm kid from Michigan who became fluent in Mandarin courtesy of the US Army and the Korean War. He went on to use the GI Bill to study Oriental Languages and Culture at several excellent US universities before embarking on a long career with the USG that took him, and, eventually, me, throughout the Far East on multiple tours. He had a non linear educational career (this was the 40s-50s) but eventually arrived at a place where his military service and cultural exposure made him a significant asset to the USG. I don't like to argue from personal anecdote, but his story put me in mind that too much of our educational system is based on rigid insistence on following a certain path. We need not incentive young people who wander the earth like Kane looking to recreate Eat, Pray, Love, but sometimes wandering in a culture is an effective means of deepening one's understanding of that country and your own. Unfortunately today's high achieving college students are primarily, although not exclusively, focused on the kind of resume building activities that will make them attractive to employers. I doubt many of them will ever be asked by a prospective employer to spend 20 minutes sharing what cultural insights they gleaned from 6 months in Jakarta; they want the bullet point on the resume to stand out and nothing more.
I think the USG could better spend it's money by heavily incentivizing students to undertake long term study abroad in areas of interest to the US with good wages, tuition support, and at least an inside track to a position upon completion. It could be akin to a West point for budding diplomats. Two years at a US university followed by 2 abroad all funded by USG and then you owe Uncle Sam 5-7 years after graduation.
Many thanks for your comment, Ted. Support for those programs that do offer material support for study abroad and require a service commitment in return—like the Boren, for example—would be an excellent first step toward a broader government commitment to diversifying and expanding access to the types of cultural engagements from which your father, you, and I have been able to benefit.
In addition to what is written above, it would be great if there were international programs for high school or even middle school students. I would love to be able to take my kids to say Peru for a year and have them really learn the Spanish deeply, with accent and all. Or a summer program during high school years. Especially with many people working from home now, these opportunities are much more available but few (any?) places to accommodate.
Mr. Hamburger has written a utopian piece, when he could have more usefully written a practical piece.
1) If U.S. primary and secondary education fails to teach basic geography and history, not to mention languages, what hope is there for American college students to want to travel?
2) This article confuses incoming students, which includes a large graduate study element, with outbound students. On the outbound side, evidently there is a mixture between the majority of American students who want vocational qualifications, and can't afford much more than that, and the relatively few who are in traditional four year, residential education programs.
3) There are good options short of a year or semester abroad, notably summer programs. These are cheaper and interfere less with an American student's four year progression.
4) Above all: you need not travel to learn more about another culture. My sense, and I would be happy to be corrected, is that American schools and colleges are dropping the ball on deploying the internet for (among other things) better language instruction, virtual tours, and creating links to offshore equivalent students.
5) Finally: many if not most American college students are living in a bubble of their own culture. There is plenty they could see and do in America to widen their perspective, without crossing a national border.
Many thanks for your comment on the piece. I think it is worth disentangling two questions: (1) how do we improve cultural competence and awareness of the world among US students? and (2) how do we ensure that those students already willing and able to study abroad are incentivized to diversify their destinations? Like you, I’d be keen to see an evaluation of how making the most of remote engagement—particularly now—can move the needle on (1). This is true for the vocational students you describe as much as it is for the college educated. Perhaps a good answer here is to balance, as you indicate, technological means of overseas engagement with increased opportunities for encountering different backgrounds and worldviews closer to home.
But, as the piece aims to suggest, the narrower question of (2) must be answered, too. How can we ensure that the many US students who want to travel (as indicated by the demand for places like the UK and Italy) are encouraged to seek more diverse and immersive experiences while doing so? This is where, I think, a reconsideration of study abroad would do well to focus. The trend of shortening programs may aid in seamlessly integrating into the US four-year track, as you indicate, but perhaps an answer here is a greater flexibility at home in allowing longer and more in-depth study abroad programs. When the majority of students don’t even stay abroad for two months (with a good number abroad in pre-packaged programs of and for US students limiting deep engagement with locals, etc.), my sense is that the value of the experience is curtailed.