Champagne toasts recently sounded from the Office of International Programs (OIP) in University Hall. More than twice as many undergraduates are now studying abroad this fall compared to just two years ago, when the OIP was founded. The success of OIP Director Jane Edwards and her team in ensuring Harvard students’ “global competence”—an unhappy expression coined during the Harvard College Curricular Review (HCCR)—has been bolstered these past years by the central administration’s new-found emphasis on international experience. While the new numbers are cause for celebration, the College still remains a ways away from its stated destination.

When examined in more detail, the numbers themselves—while undoubtedly positive—are less astounding. In truth, the percentage increase is a better indication of the extent to which Harvard trailed behind its rivals in this area. This fall 115 of Harvard’s roughly 6,600 undergraduates are studying abroad; in fall 2002, a pathetic 55 did so. To be sure, this increase in just two years is notable, but before Harvard reaches its stated goal—which the HCCR set at 25 percent of students having a “significant” international experience during their undergraduate careers—many broader changes are needed.

Some of these changes have been explicated in detail in the HCCR report. Departments have begun to accommodate the new priority with reductions in requirements, as well as modifications to traditional advising practices. The Core Curriculum, too, thankfully, loosened up its requirements. Other changes are also hopefully in the works, such as the HCCR report’s call for increased financial support to make international experiences possible for students on financial aid. At present, such students rely on a handful of competitive scholarships and fellowships. This critical money ought to materialize as soon as possible.

But the most complex changes needed are those related to the culture of the College, which must adapt to accommodate an increased international focus. To begin, residential Houses should be more involved in their residents’ international experiences. Houses could host gatherings of students heading abroad before the experience, better support the move in and out of dormitories in a more efficient manner and help reintegrate students into their communities upon their return. Concentrations likewise must work hard to create meaningful programs which coexist with a term-time experience away from Harvard. Also language acquisition must receive increased emphasis as many first-years enter college without proficiency in a modern foreign language. For these undergraduates to gain a meaningful experience abroad by their junior year, language classes must be strengthened. The College can demonstrate the value it places on them by perhaps offering scholarships to the best students to spend the summer after freshman year abroad.

Nonetheless, the responsibility for changing the culture at Harvard also falls on students. The “global competency” the HCCR advocates for must be sought out; it cannot be sidelined as the administration’s pet project. Already, the vast majority of students appear interested. According to Harvard College data, 80 percent or more students consider an international experience in the course of their college careers. However, before those numbers can be translated into increased exposure, student organizations must become more flexible and amenable to study abroad. Leadership offices in most organizations are commonly held during the junior year—precisely the suggested year for study abroad. The hierarchy of clubs of all stripes, including this publication itself, should be rethought—perhaps with semi-annual leadership positions or with the possibility of deferring a position for the time one is abroad. Change would be a break with tradition, but only insofar as the contemporary world as a whole is a break with tradition.

Apart from these well-publicized hurdles facing the College, there are more widespread structural ones which still need to be addressed. For one, although the OIP centralizes many of the aspects of study abroad experiences and serves as a valuable resource for students, there is no comparable office at Harvard to help students learn about the other international programs, jobs and internships explored by their fellow students. The Office of Career Services provides some valuable information in this area, but often individuals set up fantastic opportunities on their own or through contacts with individual professors, and information about these experiences is never collected by any one office. As a result, there is poor institutional memory. In fact, the College lacks any accurate way of gauging how many students go abroad during the summer. In turn, Harvard cannot determine with any accuracy how many students are actually attaining a “significant international experience” during their four years. Centralizing this information in one place could help solve that problem, and it could also enable students to more easily tap into Harvard’s impressive and vast international alumni network. Surely this diverse and talented group—through the efforts of a centralized international jobs and internships office—could be better harnessed to offer experiences to students interested in exploring anywhere from Mumbai to Buenos Aires.

As for study, Harvard has yet to truly reconcile how to promote study abroad without sacrificing its own autonomy in terms of academic standards. With the exception of a handful of Harvard summer schools abroad, there are no Harvard-sponsored undergraduate programs outside of Cambridge. As a result, the desire to make study abroad more feasible has found many departments struggling with granting concentration credit for courses taught at other institutions. And the hesitation is sometimes warranted; many schools abroad are undeniably less rigorous. If Harvard is to be the truly global institution it aspires to be, it must make the effort to set up its own programs worldwide. In the future, no art history student should be contented with visits to the Fogg museum and the Museum of Fine Arts—and with limited study abroad options at less challenging schools. Instead, a semester in Florence, Paris or Istanbul alongside a Harvard professor should be a requisite—and central—component of the curriculum.

The ivory tower risks becoming provincial if it does not seek out the rest of the world. Recent changes should be welcomed with open arms, but before international experience becomes central to the Harvard curriculum, many more fundamental changes—cultural and structural—must still be implemented. Harvard’s future status in the world is reliant on these reforms; perhaps bringing out the champagne is a bit premature.