INTO is a British based company that sets up study abroad partnerships with institutions in the UK, US, and China. In the last 6 years, they have helped over 20,000 students study abroad in the UK and now have partnerships with Oregon State University and University of South Florida. Colorado State University is considering a partnership with INTO.
The University of South Florida describes INTO as a “portal” for receiving International Students to USF. 511 students at USF and 643 students at Oregon State University. This information is surprisingly limited on each institution’s website, though INTO’s website and press release both praise the programs’ effectiveness. If this program is so beneficial, why do these institution’s websites say so little? In these two contracts, INTO is responsible for marketing. INTO’s very complete websites offer few if any links to OSU or FSU’s websites. INTO’s press release is very self-congratulatory about their success. It reads,
“OSU and USF partnered with INTO in 2008 and 2010 respectively to grow and diversify their international student populations, raise their global profiles and drive a steady revenue stream from non-resident tuition to propel their internationalization agendas, and support investment in new and existing university resources.”
International students are a financial plus – they bring in significant money to the institution, while also diversifying the student population. Interestingly enough, INTO doesn’t make money from tuition dollars but from building new facilities. They make contracts with institutions to build new facilities for student services, classrooms, and possibly living space.
CSU’s provost described this partnership in an email to all faculty as, “a healthy and thriving program.” With these partnerships, the host institution is responsible for academics while INTO provides finance, marketing, and administrative support.
How could such a program affect unions and their role? In the UK, the University and College Union organization has been outspoken against INTO claiming it takes away jobs and charges higher fees from students. How else might a partnership with a private company affect institutions? The contact could include a requirement for students to live in INTO residential spaces, which impacts college and university housing. Our provost took a team of leaders to USF and OSU in the last year and said the trips helped and they, “started to come to grips with some of the pitfalls and challenges” that this program may offer.
As CSU moves in this direction, you can see the ongoing committee work that includes discussion about academics, admissions, facilities, familiarization, finance, legal issues, HR, marketing, recruitment, and student services. With an increasing number of international students, how will the institution provide support to them? Will it be expected that these additional expenses (health fees, counseling fees, involvement expenses) come from INTO’s budget or the universities?
I’m curious to see how this develops. I’m pretty sure we will move towards a partnership with INTO. Like any partnership with a private company, this will require increased communication, collaboration, and investigation into how to best support this unique group of students.
I have never heard of INTO before reading your post/articles. I found it very interesting that INTO doesn't make its money from tuition but from building new facilities. Are these facilities on the university campus and is INTO responsible for funding the construction?
ReplyDeleteI think there is value in study abroad and housing international students on our campuses. It not only benefits the students who are studying abroad and gaining an international education and experience but also the university community who work with the students during their time at the school. One of the most difficult aspects about studying abroad aside from legal issues is funding and financial constraints. It's not easy to study abroad and most programs require additional expenses other than just tuition. Before CSU commits, I'm sure they're going to have to do a lot of research into how it will affect students as well as the university financially.
It will be interesting to watch how non INTO CSU international students are perceived and the services they are provided versus INTO students. My biggest concern at this point are the long term impacts on current positions for International Education Programs Office and others on campus that support international students. Will they go away? Will they have to partner with INTO and how? On the other hand, I can foresee possible new positions being created that merge Student Affairs, international education, and INTO together. It was a controversial time at OSU when INTO was being discussed. I am hesitant on a long term contract with something so shiny and new. Nothing is perfect and I want us to be mindful in proceeding too far into a contract without a test drive.
ReplyDeleteNow, after the international economic crisis, all people want to compensate the loss which they have suffered from. There are companies give you solutions to recover the economic crisis. The universities are one of those institutions that were affected by the economic crisis and their financial aids were cut by the government, so they found themselves searching for a solution to cover the decreasing in the fund. Therefore, they started making studies and researches to solve the lack of finance to meet its requirements.
ReplyDeleteInternational students are a good source of new revenue. Also, new statistics for 2011 indicate that the increasing of the international students have reached 11% in previous years and will be increased in coming years. Moreover, the admissions of US universities become easier than ever before, especially for students whose countries pay their expenses, so the issue becomes a commercial rather than educational, especially that the international student pays high health insurance and high housing expense. Also, International students’ expenses add $ 20 billion to the U.S. economy; so what about the rest of the world? Again, I think that the issue is more likely to be commercial than educational.