StudyAbroad.com’s The Globe

Are universities cheating their own students out of study abroad options?

Richard C. Sutton, the University System of Georgia Board of Regents, recently wrote a thought-provoking opinion piece for Inside Higher Ed which suggests just that. Sutton, vice chancellor for international programs at the Board, had some biting criticism of the ways in which some universities are limiting their students’ study abroad program options, all in the name of making a buck.

Sutton makes some interesting points in his piece, not the least of which being the assertion that some universities only make available those study abroad programs and opportunities from which the schools will profit. Sutton cites recent news of questionable policies and practices on the part of university study abroad departments, as well as rumors of kick-backs, as indications of a disturbing trend that could be counterintuitive to national interests.

During a period of time in which the United States is striving to increase study abroad numbers each year, it seems that in some cases, as study abroad has grown a great deal (to more than 200,000 students each year), ethics have sometimes been lost in the shuffle. Sutton also raises the issue of students being denied credit transfer by universities as a device to force students into the study abroad programs that schools can benefit from fiscally.

If universities deny credit transfer and limit students’ ability to enroll in outside programs, the nation is unlikely to reach its goal of one million students studying abroad in the next decade. These limitations not only force students into “university-approved” study abroad programs, but they can potentially discourage students from participating in studying abroad.

If students can’t afford the approved study abroad program options, or if the approved options don’t allow them to study what and where they want, why would students want to study abroad at all?

While universities may argue that they don’t want study abroad to become a buyer’s market for students, that argument is most likely based on universities being reluctant to give students credits if the study abroad tuition doesn’t end up in the university’s bank accounts. This paints the picture of universities making students buy their credits—and schools want students to “buy” from them. Sutton compares this to universities mandating that students buy their textbooks from the school bookstore, even though the students could pay much less at Amazon.com.

If study abroad is in the nation’s best interest, why shouldn’t students be seen as consumers of study abroad, just as in any market? The real question is where the control of study abroad options should lie. With students? With universities? And if the United States really needs students to study abroad for a secure national future, why set any limits at all? Now that the Senate is too tied up with energy issues to deal with the Simon Study Abroad foundation Act, it is not likely that these questions will be answered anytime soon. But what are your thoughts on the subject?

Sutton’s entire opinion piece in Inside Higher Ed can be accessed here.