In a bunker-like office in University Hall, a well-trained, tenacious team is devising plans for an international takeover. Armed with flashy pamphlets, milk-chocolate globes, and undergraduate peer advisors, active efforts by the Office of International Programs (OIP) are underway to spread the study abroad mantra.
While Harvard is known for attracting international students and faculty, the “CRIMSON CRAZIES” aren’t known for studying abroad. In fact, few even seem to venture across the Charles. In recent years, the school has tried to counter this homebody disposition, and as a result of these efforts, the number of students studying abroad has virtually doubled since the 2000-2001 academic year.
While many people view this as a positive trend, not everyone has been excited by the growth of and focus on study-abroad efforts, especially when compared with their counterparts at comparable American colleges. Despite the increasing ease with which Harvard students can get credit for mornings on Australian beaches, afternoons at the Louvre, or late nights in Rio, a surprising majority of students still opt out in favor of a full four years in Cambridge, Mass.
ON THE UP AND UP
Although the numbers have been growing, Harvard still sends a comparatively small number of students abroad. At Stanford, 384 students (out of about 6,700 total) applied to study abroad next fall through its Bing Overseas Studies Program. Nearly 400 students (out of about 10,300 total) studied abroad last fall at George Washington University. With 122 undergrads out of about 6,700 that experienced an international education this past fall, Harvard’s figures seem small in comparison.
Despite the relatively low numbers, Young Professor of Korean History and Chair of the Faculty Committee on Education Abroad (CEA) Carter J. Eckert is encouraged by the figures. Although Eckert believes that the “Harvard culture of being part of your class” has traditionally kept students at Harvard, he believes that “the culture is going to change,” in no small part due to the increased funding and resources of the OIP. But theirs is an uphill battle.
ACCESS DENIED
Despite recent trends, changes have historically been slow regarding international education at Harvard. The first efforts at incorporating international education came in the 1949-1950 academic year, when students concentrating in certain languages obtained the right to earn credit for work done abroad in their concentration, according to a 2001 Crimson article. It wasn’t until nearly fifty years later—2002—that that the OIP actually opened its doors.
Previously, if a student was interested in learning beyond the Ivy-clad walls, he or she had to clear approval with Office of Career Services (OCS), the Standing Committee on Study Out of Residence, and the student’s department of concentration. According to OIP Director Catherine H. Winnie, students also had to prove that their program offered a special opportunity that was not available at Harvard.
The bureaucracy deterred many from taking the jump. In 1994, for instance, only 142 undergraduates—or just 2.2 percent of Harvard undergrads—went abroad. These low figures didn’t please the new president, globalization expert Lawrence H. Summers. Big plans and the global push were soon underway, but would academic quality be sacrificed for numbers?
PASSPORTS: THE NEW ADMISSIONS REQUIREMENT?
Amidst criticism that the University lagged behind its peers in promoting global education, the Summers’ administration began a drive to increase study abroad.
Requirements for program approval were eased. As of the spring of 2002, for example, students no longer had to prove that their semesters abroad would provide a “special opportunity not available at Harvard”; all study abroad would be treated as a “special opportunity.”
The 2004 Report on the Harvard College Curricular Review even recommended making a “significant international experience” a graduation requirement, the completion of which would be “noted on the transcript.” Lewis says that the University eventually recognized that this would have “some practical difficulties.” The proposed expectation never became a rule.
As emphasis on study abroad increased, Harvard was filled with burgeoning anticipation.
Not everyone, however, was excited by the rapidly increasing importance being placed on study abroad.
HOME IS WHERE THE ACADEMIC HEART IS
“It always struck me as an odd message to ‘get a passport,’” Lewis says. “People accepted coming here because they were eager to be here.” An outspoken skeptic of the recent emphasis on study abroad, Lewis believes that there is a risk in approving programs that may not meet Harvard’s rigorous academic standards.
Christopher H. Van Buren ’08, who studied in Florence this past fall, agrees. “To me, it seems understandable that Harvard would be reluctant, even stingy to dole out equivalent credit, even though the final result is that it is much harder for students to study abroad,” he wrote an in e-mail. Among students, Van Buren’s opinion is the definite minority.
SOMETHING LOST, SOMETHING GAINED
One program that Lewis does consider equivalent to a Harvard education is Budapest Semesters in Mathematics, where Adam P. Lesnikowski ’08, a joint philosophy and math concentrator, spent his fall. Lesnikowski says that the worry over academic standards abroad (or lack thereof) is “definitely a valid concern.”
Despite these concerns, however, Lesnikowski disagrees that you “need eight semesters of hard work. Seven semesters is okay.” He admits that after two years, he wanted a break from the Harvard grind. Despite the unusually heavy workload Lesnikowski experienced for a semester abroad, he still found time to visit Croatia, Poland, Turkey and Vienna (twice).
Lesnikowski has a theory aboout why so few Harvard students choose to study abroad. “People in my eyes have a focus of working towards a future that may never come.” He adds that “a lot of people don’t really know how to have fun.”
Susan Lieu ’07-’08, who spent her fall in Geneva at the School for International Training, thinks there is something “specific to Harvard” that may keep students on campus. “We are high-achieving people,” she says. At Harvard, we “get more exposure to people who may help us in the future. People like to gain networking ability within student groups and don’t want to miss out on it.”
Despite whatever sacrifices going abroad may entail—and Lesnikowski say it’s “definitely a sacrifice”—students who have studied abroad usually praise their experiences. Stefan A. Zebrowski-Rubin ’08 credits his experience in Italy as instrumental in helping him develop a senior thesis topic. More importantly, however, he wrote in an e—mail that “study abroad gave me an education I could never have received at Harvard. I grew as a person, struggling through cultural transitions, linguistic difficulties and plain old bureaucratic idiosyncrasies. Coming back to Harvard,” he writes, “I feel more confident, older, stronger.”
AND THE DEBATE GOES ON
The debate over the merits of undergradate study abroad continues. While students and faculty such as Eckert and Zebrowski-Rubin see education abroad as a transformative and invaluable experience, others such as Lewis believe that study abroad is best undertaken after graduation, so that students can fully take advantage of their short time at Harvard.
Both sides agree that currently, Harvard students may see study abroad as something of a sacrifice. While advocates like Eckert are working towards a culture change that will eliminate this attitude, Lewis is not suprised that Harvard students are reluctant to leave.
“It’s not irrational if they [students] decide they love it here. They might be right,” he says.
Still, numbers are rising, albeit slowly, and the glowing accolades of returning students may begin to convince others that international experience is a sacrifice worth making.
