There’s no need to shed tears over the closure of the independent Office of International Programs. After eight years of operating separately, the OIP and the Office of Career Services recently merged into the Office of Career, Research, and International Opportunities, to be headed by the interim director of OCS, Robin Mount. The move signifies a vote of confidence for the now self-evident merits of experiences abroad during a student’s college years. As such, the merger was an overall good decision that will hopefully continue to make the option of going abroad more appealing for undergraduates.

The OIP and OCS’s recombination will streamline the overlapping bureaucracy that used to exist. As of now, although study abroad and select summer programs were facilitated through the OIP, some international experience resources—such as international internships and grants that qualify as “fellowships”—were managed by OCS. (OCS even included an option to search “ignore national jobs” in its Crimson Careers internships database.) This created an unnecessarily complicated search and application process for overseas-bound students. Students interested in diverse sources for funding or work often had to duplicate paperwork for each office.

In addition to being a logistical improvement, the merger could also be helpful for students who know they want to go abroad, but are unsure whether they wish to study or work. With only one office to consult to resolve this issue, such students will be able to compare their options side-by-side and receive holistic recommendations from staff members.

However, students, staff, and faculty should still acknowledge that students’ desire to study abroad need not line up with their career interests or plans for the future. Students often go to OCS with a narrow conception of the results—the job—they want, and approaching international experiences with this fixed attitude would be a mistake. Much of the value of studying abroad is that it introduces students to new life perspectives and opportunities; viewing the time strictly as a step toward a particular profession may, in fact, detract from the experience.

The new OCRIO must ensure that it continues to offer the quality and breadth of international experiences previously available through the OIP. It would be counterproductive not to do so, as the excellence of the international programs under recent management is a significant reason why this merger was able to happen—the number of students going abroad has skyrocketed due to the extraordinary nature of many international opportunities available for Harvard students.

We are happy to see that the virtues of going abroad are now so commonly understood that the option does not need its own administrative advocate. The Harvard experience need not be confined to the Cambridge campus, and the creation of the OCRIO is yet another welcome acknowledgement of this notion.