I am amazed that the points made in this article are not discussed more in public. Setting aside a similar article in “The Onion” most people I encounter seem to deny that “low road” programs exist (and likely make up the majority.)

Larry, at 6:50 am EDT on May 8, 2007

“How can we can ensure greater access? This is an extremely important issue partly driven by price. We need to find creative methods to keep programs affordable.”

I find it interesting that the article talks about minority access and economic access. But how about access to students with disabilities?

Greg, at 11:35 am EDT on May 8, 2007

English-Speaking is Okay

Weinberg writes that “many of the study abroad destinations known as ‘fun’ don’t even require language study.” This isn’t necessarily a problem. Some research studies indicate that students’ affective and cognitive outcomes from studying abroad are in fact *higher* in English-speaking countries than elsewhere. Although it is unclear why this occurs, it is likely because students studying in places where they are comfortable with the host country’s language may experience a greater depth of experience, albeit they may sacrifice some breadth.

Thomas Wortman, at 3:25 pm EDT on May 8, 2007

Tom, I realize that schools want to make money off these program, but what is to be gained by running a youth hostel under the guise of “education”?

Many schools have given up even the pretense of having their students learn or do research that can’t be done at home. In fact, if I had to guess, most schools are taking the “low road.” For this reason I tell everyone I meet to never put a semester abroad on a resume unless it was actual research or actual integration into a foreign university. Everyone knows that these are excuses to party.

Yes, some students that won’t study abroad without “low-road” party options. So what? These people have major problems with discipline and learning that won’t be cured by a series of benders in Spain.

In fact, taking the high road doesn’t need to be expensive. In fact, I suspect that the US institution won’t make much (or any) money off the venture is the reason for resistance of “high road” programs.

In the short term, I think we need to make it clear which programs are “high road” and which are “low road.” This way, serious students can avoid “low road” programs, and employers and graduates schools can reject people that list such dalliances on their resumes.

Larry, at 5:50 pm EDT on May 8, 2007

Institutional/Operational Change is the Key

I have been working in the field of study abroad for almost 10 years. Many study abroad office do not have the power or authority to control the type of programming that the historically an institution has supported, but it is my understanding that most ardent professionals in the field recognize longer is better. However, we must work with what we have, and if it’s short-term, that’s partnering with program leaders to help make the experience as meaningful as possible by discouraging the 10 countries in 10 days model and incorporating activities that offer both cultural integration (albeit brief) and reflection. It’s also better publicizing the longer-term options that do indeed exist. While I myself have, from time to time, been skeptical of the short-term experience, I have seen its value to students who would otherwise not have an opportunity to go abroad. What’s most crucial of the outcome is they come away with a sense that the wider world is much more complex than they had imagined, and many are often more motivated to seek more integrated, longer term experiences often requiring intensive language study. In January, I myself participated in a 2-week study abroad program in Israel (as a working professional, that’s all I can manage) in though Hamline University College of Law. It was an amazing learning experience to which I feel I gained a tremendous benefit, thereby reaffirming for me that a properly planned short-term program can have many benefits. Naturally, as a 38-year old participant, I was more in a learning moment that my 22-year old colleagues, but a most of them impressed me with their serious commitment to the learning objectives. A real issue an institution faces is the societal and even parental pressure to “do study abroad” as part of the check-off list of things to do in college (and in order to appear on a resume), which is not proper motivation for a meaningful learning experience (on campus or abroad).

Julie Friend, J.D., Travel Security Analyst at Michigan State University, at 8:00 am EDT on May 9, 2007

Quality & Individual Responsibility

Interesting article and reactions but that focus more heavily on programs than on participants and the crucial role of individual responsibility and personal motivation. Students who mainly want to travel or “take a break” from their lives in the U.S. will do so on a long- or short-term program regardless of stated program objectives or institutional goals. Similarly, students with strong intrinsic motivation who possess maturity and the “right attitude” (e.g., curiosity, flexibility and open-mindedness, risk-taking, tolerance for ambiguity, sense of humor) can thrive in either a long- or short-term program, sometimes with minimal guidance. In sum, the quality of their experience is largely up to the participants themselves and is linked to their expectations and real reasons for going abroad in the first place and, more important, to their willingness to take full advantage of opportunities offered by both the program and the host culture.

M, On-site director, at 5:50 pm EDT on May 9, 2007

The big, bad, ABA is a model

I wonder if it would surprise anyone to know that the big, bad, ABA actually reviews accredits study-abroad programs for law schools.

http://www.abanet.org/legaled/studyabroad/abroad.html

Many of the criteria resemble the aspirations of those that seek a “high road” program.

Larry, at 9:30 am EDT on May 10, 2007

I find the “high-road” and “low road” distinctions only serve to create biases and compartmentalization that lacks utility. Plus, I really resent some of the comments as I think they are a disservice. I studied on CIEE for a semester in Spain, when Jerry Johnson (who posted) was director. I was in classes for foreigners but was taught in Spanish. I had good language skills when I studied abroad so I was in an advanced program and you could say I was partially immersed. I’m not sure the program fits the full immersion or “high road” qualification. While I was abroad I partied a bit and I traveled a fair bit. Ultimately I learned a heck of a lot. Would I have gained more on a longer term program? Possibly. I certainly would have gained something different. And maybe that’s what we need to start realizing — too often study abroad professionals seem to confuse more with different. Additionally, more isn’t always what is good, right, or necessary for a student’s personal growth or academic career.

Prior to my semester in Spain I participated in a month-long language program in Mexico. After the semester abroad I participated in another month-long program studying art history in Mexico. Then I taught English abroad. The point is that the shorter program helped guide me to the semester program. I don’t feel badly or disappointed that I didn’t study for a full academic year. Further, I confidently list each program on my resume and I can guarantee you that each one has helped me get a job. I’ve been in the field for seven years and I possess some of the characteristics for which you decry in your statements. I’ve since designed and led short-term programs. Often times I took students abroad who had never been out of their home state or had never been on a plane. Full immersion really wasn’t necessary. Nor was a full year program. It is so silly to assume the only value is in immersed, academic year programs.

Overall, I resent comments and views that discredit the value of short-term programs and programs that don’t require full immersion. There can be value in most types of programs. I strongly believe in the variety of program design and how that can aide a broad array of students in their student development. To lump ‘low road’ programs together and blatantly bash their utility is irresponsible and unproductive.

My final thought is this — why do we denounce partying abroad as though it prohibits learning and growth when that very same partying exists on our home campuses? We promote our institutions as the crucial backbone to a person’s life, education, earning potential, growth, knowledge, etc. The hypocrisy is stunning.

J, Former study abroad advisor, current Grad Studies Coord. at Stanford, at 3:10 pm EDT on May 10, 2007

Different Strokes for Different Folks

I have read this discussion with some trepidation as I am just now entering a position wherein I’ll be planning study-abroad for my students. Since my area of focus is Japan, I have to look at costs and the language barrier quite thoroughly. Would it be practical for me to put requirements of 3rd year Japanese and the financial burdens of an extended stay in Japan on students? If no students were able to meet those requirements does that mean they are not motivated? Or, could it be that as educators we are given the task of providing each student with opportunities that best allow growth. For some, this may mean an extended stay, while for others, it may mean a chance to see a much wider world, even if it is through the windows of a tour bus. To label one opportunity as ‘high road’ and the other as ‘low road’ seems to be discriminatory towards those students who only have the means, either in time, finances, or linguistic ability, to pursue study abroad in a short-term setting. Maybe we should just substitute ‘high brow’ and ‘low brow’ for what is obviously an attempt at discouraging meaningful short-term study abroad.

David, at 12:40 pm EDT on May 14, 2007