A new bill facing approval in the Senate offers 120 million in increased funding for study abroad programs.
The Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation Act has passed in the House of Representatives and is currently moving on to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. If passed, the act would provide 40 million dollars in 2010 and 80 million in 2011 to colleges, universities, individual students, and nongovernmental organizations that provide study abroad opportunities.
The stated goal of the act is to broaden American students’ understanding of other cultures, to increase the number of minority and low-income students who study abroad, and to encourage students to study in developing countries (more than two thirds of American study abroad students study in Western Europe).
At first, it sounds great. Studying abroad is a jarring, lingering lesson in increased awareness for many American students. It can arguably create a paradigm shift in the way they see and understand the world, and the way they see and think about the United States and its government and media, and I certainly think this is a good thing.
It can, of course, also be a great way to have a hot fling with a French girl and get wasted every night for a year, but we’ll try to be optimistic here and assume that for every ten kids hanging out with the other Americans getting blasted on cheap wine in the plaza there are one or two who are going to come back changed, and perhaps slightly more compassionate and curious about, other people and cultures.
Photo: rachfog
But is that what this plan is really all about? The description of the bill on the website of Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) quotes Marlene Johnson, Executive Director and CEO of NAFSA: Association of International Educators, as saying:
“[Senators Durbin and Wicker] understand that the global education of our college students is absolutely essential to strengthening America’s position as a responsible leader on the world stage and ensuring its competitiveness in the global economy. Now more than ever, we need to invest wisely to meet these national needs.”
It goes on to mention the importance of study abroad programs to our “economic competitiveness, future diplomacy, and security.”
Sounds an awful lot to me like sending kids abroad to…discover new markets? Convince everyone of just how compassionate and warm and big-hearted America is, and how it’d be just fine if the U.S came to dominate their country and say, their economy a bit more?
Call me cynical here, but this sounds a bit less like “perhaps we should understand other countries more instead of invading them” and a bit more like “this is a good and effective way to spread U.S dominance!” After all, what exactly does study abroad have to do with economic competitiveness?
I can understand security, perhaps; there’s the vaguely naive, long-shot hope that well-meaning study abroad students might do something to alleviate resentment against Americans, or that through a combined effort to create mutually respectful study abroad exchanges and not to alienate the rest of the world politically and diplomatically we might change some of the more negative views of the U.S – but the thought of study abroad for the purposes of increasing competitiveness in the global economy I find plainly disturbing.
Plus, if we follow that competitiveness to a logical end, well, wouldn’t we be shopping at Nike in Sub-Saharan Africa, eating McDonald’s, watching the latest Hollywood flick at a mega-plex in an air conditioned mall in Dakar? Meeting friendly people in Laos and Angola and the Ukraine who work for massive American corporations, wearing American clothes, driving American cars, eating American food? Here in Mexico you can already see this global competitiveness taking place – in Sam’s Club, whole avenues of American chain restaurants, mega-malls, and enormous superstores superseding local markets. In ten more years of study abroad, imagine the cultural exchange that awaits American students!
What do you think, Matador readers? I’d be curious to know your take on this bill, and whether you slant towards hope or cynicism, or hover somewhere between the two.
About the Author
More By This Author
- Pies, Puddings, And Pints: A Foodie Guide To London (14 comments)
- Why NOT To Study Abroad In Western Europe (27 comments)
- Call for Submissions: Tales From The Frontier of Expat Life (5 comments)
Related Posts
19 Comments... join the discussion!
-
-
How can you suggest that it’s a bad thing for people (especially students) to go abroad?
Economics is not a zero-sum game. Greater economic competition makes goods and services cheaper for the consumer, which makes everyone richer.
It’s not an “America Wins / Rest of World Loses” situation, global trade in the free world is a “win-win-win” situation, America wins, our trading partners win, and the global economy is strengthened, so everyone who engages the global economy wins.
↵ -
Hi Bob,
I’m not suggesting it’s a bad thing for students to go abroad. I’m suggesting that perhaps this act promoting study abroad really isn’t about cultural exchange as much as it’s about cultural domination (namely, U.S cultural domination). The wording of the act seems strange to me – do you think study abroad is about maintaining American economic competitiveness? It simply seems odd – and suspicious – to me to collate the two things.
As far as America wins/rest of the world loses situation, actually, that’s pretty much exactly what global trade is at the moment. Countries like Mexico are forced to import corn as American corporations continue to ruthlessly sell subsidized American corn at incredibly low prices, putting Mexican growers out of business, replacing local corn with genetically grown American corn, impoverishing farmers, and leaving whole villages abandoned by migration. At the same time the U.S buys Mexican coffee and bananas at a pittance, charging infinitely more for them in the U.S than what workers make to produce them (hence the rise of fair trade, a response to this gaping inequality). That, and the U.S uses cheap (criminally cheap) Mexican labor to produce expensive U.S goods (i.e., Nike shoes) which are then sold at two or three times the price in Mexico, far out of the range of what any Mexican worker can afford.
So yes, the U.S gets richer. Mexico gets poorer. It is like this in most developing countries with which the U.S “trades.”
↵ -
Two things came to my mind as I read your piece, Sarah. When I studied abroad in Florence (ah yes, Western Europe
and lived in a building with almost all Americans, I still was able to develop a cultural awareness about Italy. I think it’s almost impossible to live in a place and not be affected by it, more than I ever could have effected Italy. Now, put all those Americans in Florence (and there were plenty of us), and I have no doubts that we effected it, probably not in a great way.The second thought was, wow, this kinda sounds like the idea behind the Peace Corps. Once again, I think that most of the Peace Corps volunteers that go around the world are doing it for altruistic reasons (I know I couldn’t have survived in the bush of Zambia for three years like my friend from high school willingly did), and are forever changed (usually in the positive sense) by what they see and the people they meet. The government? I think it’s so they can keep their greedy little hands in everything and can “get in” at a moment’s notice to these places if needed (and force them to buy our GMO crops, among other things). The projects are often what America thinks developing societies need, not actually what the societies believe they need, and the timeline is often way too short to implement anything sustainable.
Good for us and not good for them? I don’t know. I think there are probably both positives and negatives at play here for both sides, but ultimately, it’s time to think if the positive outweighs the negative for the people who live there, not for us.
And to add to your comment above, there are even issues with fair trade (coffee in particular) actually garnering the people who grow the plants a fair wage. Sometimes, I feel like this is just another attempt to pat ourselves on the back without really knowing the true outcome.
↵ -
Sarah,
Interesting, increased competition produces what is desired by the masses.If the masses desire cheap goods, then the producers will produce cheap goods.
However, when people desire more than simply a price point, producers produce something more than a price point. You make this case with your example. Fair Trade Coffee. When people desire a coffee that’s not only good but also helps others in the process, they buy that coffee. That’s competition right there.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with America being spending money to protect it’s interests (to an extent). I.e. As an analogy, I think it’s okay to spend money building your own house and making sure you have a nice house, but I’m not sure you should go shoot your neighbor because he does a better job at work than you do.
I think our individual interests as a nation: Do we want to buy a lot of really cheap crap or do we want to be the leaders in creating opportunities that result in the strengthening of our country as well as others? Whichever choice we choose, there will be producers that will be there to give us what we want.
↵ -
Hi Joel,
I think when you’re referring to “the masses” you’re referring to Americans, right? Because I’m sure Mexicans would also like cheap goods, but what they’re forced to import under NAFTA is literally about ten (or often much more) times the price what it is in the states. The Nike shoes they make for pennies? Those are so far out of their price range it’s absurd. Their cheap labor = cheap goods for Americans, who actually aren’t “the masses.” The masses are everyone that produces cheap goods for the United States so that we can continue to get richer and richer. That is not competition – it is unequal and unfair trade in which we buy, say, coffee, for pennies (farmers are often paid as little as three pesos per kilo), and sell it for 10 or 12 dollars a pound. That is exploitation for the benefit of Americans making a profit. Claiming that it’s simply a question of “competition” assumes that the world is governed by what Americans want and how they feel, regardless of how this affects the daily life of people in other countries. Oh, now some Americans (a very small percentage of them) buy fair trade because they like the thought of farmers earning a fair wage! Well, great! Congratulations, a few lucky Mexican farmers! Now you can feed your families and not live in shacks without running water. Good thing that’s a hot selling point right now. Too bad it’s a tiny, tiny corner of the overall coffee market. I guess the Mexican farmers should just sit around waiting until more Americans decide fair trade is an enticing concept.
It really has nothing to do with what is ethically just and everything to do with the competition in the American marketplace. We expect the developing world to sit back in squalor and wait until a few Americans decide they’re into fair trade instead of universally saying wait, actually, this is deeply unethical.
And Bob, as far as jobs and NAFTA’s growing economy, the massive waves of Mexican immigration to the U.S began right after NAFTA and have only grown and grown. Is that because Mexico’s economy is growing so exponentially and healthily? No, it’s because Mexico is forced to export a ton of cheap raw goods and import American-manufactured industrial goods at inflated prices. So farmers get poorer, people work for a handful of pesos on which they can barely survive in American factories to produce goods that are cheap for Americans (NOT for Mexicans) and American corporations get richer and richer.
↵ -
Sarah-
I agree with you, but how can you change it? Let’s talk about the nature of business.Most companies are in business to make a profit. They’re are technically responsible to one group of people – their shareholders. 3 things can happen to allow farmers better treatment.
1) All Coffee is Produced by Fair Trade. Customers outraged at the idea of mexican farmers getting pennies for their work refuse to buy coffee produced the traditional way and fair trade is produced.
2) Shareholders decide that they want to treat others that their company affects with more dignity and be accountable for their actions. This means that they’ll pay more for the workers wages but also results in higher prices for the consumer unless the company decides it doesn’t care about profits – an unlikely scenario when we noted at the beginning that “most companies are in business to make a profit.” The only other option is the next one.
3) The company decides it doesn’t care about profits. Unlikely scenario in any account. The people founding the business didn’t want to start a charity, they founded a business to make money. The stockholders don’t want their investments to tank, after all their 401k and other future investments for retirement are partially allocated to them. So this isn’t going to happen anytime soon.
Out of those 3 options, which one do you have control over? You’re not a coffee executive (if you were, your rant would be a little bit ironic), and I’m going to guess you’re not holding any major stock in Starbucks. BUT you still can choose who you buy your coffee from. My point is, that until the market shifts (and I would argue that it is) to a more conscientious buyer instead of a price point buyer, how are living conditions going to improve? If the people buying the product don’t demand a different type of product (or else) the company doesn’t have anyone else in the chain of command that will say “Hey, maybe we should do this to cut profits.” The reality is that the consumer has the smallest voice, but is also the one, if they decide to stop buying, the one that has ultimate power.
This seems like a subject you’re passionate about and I’m not really disagreeing with you. I’m just saying that there are a limited number of options on how to approach it and fix the issue.
↵ -
Hi Joel,
I appreciate your taking the time for a thoughtful response. I disagree with you, however, about these available options. Basically, all of these options take a very American, business-oriented standpoint, as if everything naturally depends on the (American) business and the (American) consumer. I think what is missing here is the government regulation factor – NAFTA was a government-negotiated, government-sanctioned agreement, and the rules governing free trade are ultimately legislated by the governments involved. It is not simply ‘a business is created, makes profits, develops shareholders, and then whoops, faces a moral dilemma it resolves or doesn’t with regards to consumers.’ Rather, a business – most likely now, a corporation – is created, spends hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying and campaign donations, and through manipulations of government policy comes to make an enormous profit. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the American agricultural corporations who have managed to become enormously wealthy off of unhealthy, unsustainable subsidies for cheap corn.
Of course businesses are not “charities,” and I’m not proposing they should be. However, they should not be unethical, exploitative mechanisms which make enormous profits out of impoverishing vast numbers of people in the developing world. There needs to be government regulation which prevents American corporations from selling cheap subsidized corn to the developing world, putting farmers out of work, and allowing corporations like Monsanto to develop a whole bunch of genetically engineered crops.
I think what is missing from a lot of these discussions of “natural” economics is the fact that they are very much engineered by governments – particularly, the American government. NAFTA, for example, is not some inherent natural law of competition that emerged organically – it is a policy drawn up by politicians paid by massive corporations. This policy can be changed using the same legislative channels that made it.
↵ -
When you talk about the wording of the bill you need to remember what is trying to be accomplished: using American tax dollars to fund study abroad for students.
To get a bill passed, the author of it needs to convince the American taxpayer that what they are proposing is beneficial to American interests, so naturally they’re going to include wording that showcases both the cultural and economic benefits of their plan.
Economically, I think your point of view is selectively narrow. Mexico’s economy benefits greatly from the massive amount of trade between our two countries and has grown at an amazing pace since NAFTA was introduced. Yes, developing countries are the manufacturers of many goods consumed in the industrialized world. That consumption provides millions of jobs and foreign investment dollars to developing countries (like China, Mexico, India, Brazil, Indonesia, etc.) which improves the quality of life for those people by making their dollar/peso/yuan/rupee/etc. go further.
↵ -
Sarah,
I think Bob is on to something here… The Senators are trying to “sell” their bill, and I’m all for it, so I don’t care what justifications they have to use to get it passed. Anyone who has studied abroad – whether you’re among the ones “changed” by the experience or not (and I would argue that everyone who studies abroad is changed by it) – you know the experience has great value for all involved.Thanks for highlighting this important legislation – let’s hope it becomes reality.
Best,
Andrew↵ -
We were very interested to read your comments on the Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation Act. As a major supporter of the bill from the beginning, we wanted to weigh in with our view. NAFSA is an association of individuals worldwide inspired by the conviction that international education – connecting students, scholars, educators, and citizens across borders – is a critical tool in achieving a new era of peace. By bringing together people from differing cultures, religions, and life experiences, we believe that international education builds the foundation necessary for the dialogue and partnership that are fundamental to fostering peace, security, and well-being – for America and for the world.
It is out of a similar conviction that the Simon bill was born. The legislation was inspired by and named after the late Senator Paul Simon from Illinois, who believed that a more globally educated American citizenry would lift our vision and responsiveness to the world. The Simon Act creates a program to ensure that many more of our college graduates have the opportunity to live and learn internationally, and are better able, through those global experiences, to understand and engage the world they are graduating into.
Today only about one percent of American college students ever study abroad. We need many more college graduates who understand global issues, possess strong cross-cultural skills, speak foreign languages, and have the ability to listen to and learn from their counterparts in other countries. This is what we believe the Simon bill is all about, and is why we support it. We hope many of you will join us in this effort.
↵ -
I like this response much better than the quote from the article:
““[Senators Durbin and Wicker] understand that the global education of our college students is absolutely essential to strengthening America’s position as a responsible leader on the world stage and ensuring its competitiveness in the global economy.”
From that quote it’s very easy to be cynical…I question, who is the bill really benefiting? The students/citizens? Or America the brand?
↵ -
Study abroad is enormously popular but it also encompasses a wide range of program models. The so-called “island” program is comparable to the guided tour: a group of young Americans staying together and studying in classes especially designed for them (and in English). This obviously limits the potential for these students to experience the host culture directly and may lead to groups of Americans being seen behaving badly in foreign capitals, even though their activities are not so different from the ones on their home campuses.
Programs that involve learning and communicating with people in the host country provide much more challenge and potential for students to really expand their horizons. I suppose that would also make them better able to market US goods and services in other countries, but I agree that’s an odd priority to emphasize. It’s similar to the idea that the purpose of a university education is to prepare you for a job. Very few jobs require you to write term papers, for example, and very few university courses teach you how to supervise others on the job. There is a connection, of course, and there is enormous value to a good university education, but the value is more about setting a pattern for learning than about getting a job.
Similarly, the value of study abroad is more about stretching beyond and “unlearning” some of your own culture’s assumptions than it is about economic competitiveness. But you neatly ignored the goal of “future diplomacy.” Though most study abroad students will not become diplomats, this is very much the type of experience that future diplomats need and it makes good sense for the government to fund it.
↵ -
I agree with the bill if there is a way to make sure that American students take classes not only with other Americans, but more with students of the country where they are studying. Then I think this will help to remedy the issues that Sarah had listed. Mainly because by not isolating themselves with their own countrymen American students can come to realize the disparity that is created by the current situation. They would be more chance of those same American students trying to create a better balance in the world. I also agree with Joel that this shift is happening, even if only at a snails pace.
↵ -
Although I think Sarah brings up a good point, I am definitely more hopeful about the intentions of the bill.
I studied abroad in Poland, England, and Italy (yes, all European countries!) and I definitely returned a more open-minded, culturally aware individual.
Sure there were people in my programs that just wanted to party, but to balance them out, there were also people who took their experiences seriously and attempted to really get a feel for the country and its culture.
Party animals or not, I think everyone came back a changed person (for the better).
If it was up to me, studying abroad should be mandatory for all college-bound students. Even if it is to Western Europe.
↵ -
I studied abroad in Paris, where (thanks to the canadian government + my university), i received some grants which were greatly helpful for my time there. However, I stayed solely on my own, no host family, no other canadians met during my time there, and i went to class at the sorbonne dutifully every day. It was tough as i was almost left completely alone, but as Aleks said it made me much more aware of myself than any other experience would have. Great for personal and professional development, surely. I don’t think Canada has a bill like that, but I have seen (sorry!) my share of foreign students (and yes, especially americans) while in Paris who went through exchange programs where classes were exclusive for them and as sweet as they were, their french did not improve much. your call. Living with a host family or mingling with local uni crowd definitely has their upsides. Thats how erasmus work, too.
↵ -
As a freshman college student at the University of Iowa I completely support this bill. I’m currently studying Arabic and International Studies. I have plans to study abroad hopefully 3 times over the next three years; I would even go more, if possible.
I think the important fact is being missed here. It does not matter why Congress passes the bill, so long as it is passed, or not, depending on your position. I’m for it being passed. That being said- It’s not possible for Congressman to control every student who studies abroad, it’s not possible for them to use them as a tool for American dominance throughout the rest of the world. The person that matters is the student who does the traveling.
Also, I think we are all being a bit too cynical towards the actions students take while studying abroad. Anyone who has experienced the culture of another country should be able to tell you that it was visiting Tate Modern or Buckingham Palace that gave them their love for England. It was the little things that they did. For me it was the late night runs to curry restaurants or kebab shops. It was Borough Market every morning to get food and getting to know the vendors there. It was talking with people on the tube and in the pub.
If a student chooses to party, they are still experiencing the culture. It’s the culture they want to experience. To say that the only way to experience culture is to sit in a coffee shop and drink coffee and have long discussions over national topics with locals, or to visit all the important heritage sites, or to live in a more local place, in my opinion, is so open minded that it has become narrow minded.
There is culture everywhere. In everything you do, while abroad, you experience culture.So, as someone who is planning on taking advantage of this bill if it is passed, and still planning to study abroad if it is not passed, it’s the action that matters. I travel for the sake of travel, not for some higher purpose. I travel to experience. I’ll party, I’ll sit in coffee shops and speak with locals about national and world topics, I’ll visit heritage sites, I’ll go to the Louvre, I’ll take a ride in the gondola. We should all take care to not be cynical towards the way someone experiences culture, because it does not fit our standard view.
I hope I didn’t insult anyone, but that’s your choice to be insulted.
Thanks,
Jared↵ -
What poor, stereotype ridden writing:
“It can, of course, also be a great way to have a hot fling with a French girl and get wasted every night for a year, but we’ll try to be optimistic here and assume that for every ten kids hanging out with the other Americans getting blasted on cheap wine in the plaza there are one or two who are going to come back changed, and perhaps slightly more compassionate and curious about, other people and cultures.”
and
“Plus, if we follow that competitiveness to a logical end, well, wouldn’t we be shopping at Nike in Sub-Saharan Africa, eating McDonald’s, watching the latest Hollywood flick at a mega-plex in an air conditioned mall in Dakar? Meeting friendly people in Laos and Angola and the Ukraine who work for massive American corporations, wearing American clothes, driving American cars, eating American food?”
I don’t know how you could come up with this reference, or why you assume this is how nine out of ten Americans would spend their times abroad, but you sound downright hateful. I don’t get blasted on cheap wine in plazas of the nations I visit, and I work very hard to travel while there are many European kids who’s parents foot the bill of their trips, and all I see them doing is drinking a load, taking drugs, and sleeping with whomever shows a slight interest.
Your reasoning that this must be some attempt at economic exploitation is basically, first and foremost, that American students could never earn anything from their experiences, as they are obviously going to be too drunk (especially kids from low-income families like mine, right?) to pay attention or care. Hell, they’re American, right? This must all exclusively stink of aspirations of world dominance. It’s got nothing to do with broadening the minds of America’s youth.
Even if the wording is a bit off. Even if it seems like there could be underlying reasons why this bill was passed, I would appreciate it if you would reconsider how you talk about my people. Our government may be really screwed up, but MY generation is not happy about it.
My wonder is where were you sitting, and what were you thinking when you spewed this rhetoric? I assume you are the same sort who blames Bush when your car breaks down or someone steals from you. Believe it or not, the United States isn’t really out to get you, and wherever you’re from, I’m certain there are crooked businessmen sleeping in the same bed with the crooks that run our government. Don’t be so holy.
↵ -
Hi Jess,
You seem to be awfully defensive here about being an American and my supposed anti-Americanness. You say:
“Your reasoning that this must be some attempt at economic exploitation is basically, first and foremost, that American students could never earn anything from their experiences, as they are obviously going to be too drunk (especially kids from low-income families like mine, right?) to pay attention or care.”
Actually, this isn’t my “reasoning” at all. You’re reading some broad, deterministic generalizations into my writing here. You take my statement out of context and attribute determiners (”never”) to it that I specifically avoided. I said study abroad “can be” a great excuse to party, and in my experience (having studied abroad for a year in France and lived abroad for the past five years) it often is. However, before I made that assertion I also said:
“Studying abroad is a jarring, lingering lesson in increased awareness for many American students. It can arguably create a paradigm shift in the way they see and understand the world, and the way they see and think about the United States and its government and media, and I certainly think this is a good thing.”
So nowhere am I saying that Americans can never learn anything from study abroad. As far as the stereotype of American study abroad students hanging out together and partying, well, if you have ever studied abroad then you’d know that this is a reality. Not ALL American students do this, of course. SOME do it. That’s why I very specifically made the point that study abroad is an eye-opening and insightful experience for some students, and an excuse to party for others; a distinction you obviously ignored or missed completely.
As for my “stereotypes,” it seems mightily condescending and naive of you to assume that people working for massive American corporations, and landscapes dominated by American chain stores and corporate interests, are “stereotypes.” If you’ve ever traveled through Guatemala or China or a host of other countries (too many to name) you’ll see exactly how American economic “interests” shape the landscape. Calling this a stereotype is just flat wrong. It is the economic and political reality in many countries, and certainly the economic and political reality behind the wealth in the United States.
And as far as being holy, I don’t go claiming Americans or any other people are “my people.” I am an American, which you obviously did not realize, and I am certainly not yours, nor are any of my American friends your people. It is awfully holy to go speaking for an entire nation and an entire generation. You even go so far as to put “MY” in all caps – since when do you speak for and possess your generation? Be careful to distinguish your point of view from that of your fellow Americans.
You seem to have missed the point of this article entirely. You only concede for one sentence that “the wording is a bit off” – actually, that was the point of my whole article. You seem to have interpreted it somehow as a tirade against Americans, when actually it is meant to question the language of a study abroad bill which, instead of being about global understanding, seems to be about economic dominance.
↵
