Katie Lorge, Global Education Advisor | Columbia College Chicago
David Comp, Assistant Provost for Global Education | Columbia College Chicago
ABSTRACT:
As the education abroad field continues to rebuild post-pandemic, it is an interesting time to analyze our latest efforts in diversity and inclusion with regard to participation rates by race and ethnicity. This comparative data table is an update to the one that was last published for the Diversity in International Education Hands-On Workshop held in Washington, DC in September 2010 that was a collaboration between Diversity Abroad and AIFS (American Institute for Foreign Study) (Comp, 2010). Both data tables utilize the most recent available data from the sources listed in the references at the time of publication.
While there are many factors that impact students’ plans to go abroad, funding in the form of scholarships may be one important element in their decision-making. A new column for recipients of Fund for Education Abroad (FEA) scholarships has been added to this 2024 update. Coupled with data on Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship recipients, the updated data table provides a reference point on the impact that scholarships may have on student participation rates and their ability to level the playing field for more students to capitalize on an education abroad experience.
[2024] Comparative Data Table on Race & Ethnicity in Education Abroad by Percentage of Students
Race/Ethnicity
U.S. Population [2020]
U.S. Higher Ed. Enrollment [Fall 2021]
Open Doors Report – U.S. Students Abroad [2021-22]
U.S. Community College Enrollment [Fall 2021]
U.S. Community College Students Abroad [2021-22]
Fund for Education Abroad (FEA) Scholarship Award Recipients [2021-22]
Gilman Scholarship Recipients [20 Year Annual Report, 2021]
White/Caucasian
57.8%
52.0%
68.6%
45.0%
61.5%
13.5%
34.0%
Black/African American
12.1%
13.0%
5.3%
12.0%
5.8%
21.0%
18.0%
Hispanic/Latino American
18.7%
22.0%
11.9%
27.0%
22.3%
33.0%
21.0%
Asian American & Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
6.1%
8.0%
8.6%
6.0%
4.8%
16.5%
17.0%
Native American
0.7%
1.0%
0.4%
1.0%
1.1%
0.5%
1.0%
Multiracial
4.6%
4.0%
5.3%>
4.0%
4.5%
15.5%>
9.0%>
No Response / Unknown
X
X
X
4.0%
X
X
X
[2010] Comparative Data Table on Race & Ethnicity in Education Abroad by Percentage of Students
Race/Ethnicity
U.S. Population [2008]
U.S. Higher Ed. Enrollment [2008]
Open Doors Report – U.S. Students Abroad [2007-08]
U.S. Community College Enrollment [2009]
U.S. Community College Students Abroad [2007-08]
Gilman Scholarship Fall Recipients [2007-08]
White/Caucasian
79.8%
63.3%
81.8%
61.0%
68.8%
44.0%
Black/African American
12.8%
13.5%
4.0%
14.0%
6.4%
15.0%
Hispanic/Latino American
15.4%
11.9%
5.9%
15.0%
15.1%
14.0%
Asian American & Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
4.7%
6.8%
6.6%
7.0%
4.7%
11.0%
Native American
1.0%
1.0%
0.5%
1.0%
0.4%
1.0%
Multiracial
1.7%
Not Available
1.2%
2.0%
4.7%
9.0%
No Response / Unknown
X
X
X
X
X
6.0%
The updated comparative data table not only provides a simple and easy-to-digest snapshot of the current state of affairs of our study abroad programming race and ethnicity participation rates; it also highlights the value that the most basic data provides when assessing our diversity and inclusion education abroad practices as we continue to work towards access and inclusion in global programming. In reviewing the two tables, we gain insight into the field’s efforts over the past 14 years. Some of the takeaways as well as questions that arise are as follows:
The way identity is defined shifts for individuals and groups across time and depends on many social/political/economic factors, as well as personal growth/development/ sense of self.
Since the multiracial population category option first became available as an identifier in the 2000 Census, it has steadily increased as a way that people identify themselves. (Parker et al., 2015; Jones et al., 2021). This is seen both in the change in the U.S. population identifying as multiracial from 2008 to 2020, as well as across almost all of the other enrollment categories listed on the table.
There has been a significant jump in the percentage of students who identify as Hispanic/Latino American in U.S. higher ed enrollment, and the percentage of Hispanic/Latino American students studying abroad has increased accordingly: both essentially doubling from 2010 to 2024. This correlation shows that the participation rate for Hispanic/Latino American students in study abroad programs has actually remained stagnant relative to their representation in the student body.
Similarly, the percentage of Black/African American identifying students studying abroad is not reflective of Black/African Americans’ overall enrollment in U.S. higher education. In the community college data in particular, Black/African American enrollment in study abroad significantly lags behind as compared to Black/African American community college enrollment as a whole.
Scholarships are touted as an important means to potentially address disparity in participation rates in racial and ethnically minoritized students. More analysis is needed to show their impact in relation to the numerous other factors that influence student decisions. They could arguably be said to assist in maintaining the current enrollment of underrepresented students in study abroad; however, they alone are certainly not enough to level the playing field. While this table includes scholarship data from Gilman and FEA, it does not account for the numerous smaller scholarships that have been created over the last decade, nor does it quantify the efforts made towards additional factors that impact underrepresented students’ decisions to study abroad. For additional analysis, it would be interesting to compare applicant data versus recipient data from Gilman and FEA, as well as to their relevant eligible population subsets. This data table can be used for these purposes.
Colleagues are encouraged to repurpose this comparative data table to meet their needs and interests when assessing race and ethnicity with simple data. Additional enrollment categories or variables that may be of interest include: students abroad on your institution’s/organization’s internal education abroad scholarships, students abroad on semester/year-long programs, students abroad on faculty-led programs, students abroad by destination, scholarship eligible students, scholarship applicants, etc.
Awareness has grown and the field has certainly made attempts to level the playing field for underrepresented students in our education abroad programming since these efforts were first documented starting in the 1980s and early 1990s (Gliozzo, 1980; Stallman et al., 2010). However, as noted above, there is still more work to be done to ensure that study abroad is accessible to students across all identities and that participation rates more closely reflect the student body as a whole. The field may be uniquely posed at this time of rebuilding to more deeply consider our current participation rates of racially and ethnically minoritized students and take that into account when (re-)developing education abroad programming. Regularly producing these comparative data tables on race and ethnicity abroad will assist us in monitoring our efforts as we continue this important work.
The authors would like to acknowledge that they identify as White.
Comp, D. (2010). Comparative data on race and ethnicity in education abroad. In Diversity in International Education Hands-On Workshop: Summary Report and Data from the Workshop held on September 21, 2010, National Press Club, Washington, DC (pp. 19-21). American Institute for Foreign Study. https://www.aifsabroad.com/publications/
Comp, D. (2019). Effective utilization of data for strategic planning and reporting with case study: My failed advocacy strategy. In. A. C. Ogden, L. M. Alexander, & E. Mackintosh (Eds.), Education abroad operational management: Strategies, opportunities, and innovations, A report on ISA ThinkDen, 72-75. Austin, TX: International Studies Abroad. http://bit.ly/ISAThinkDenReport2018
Fund for Education Abroad (FEA). (2023, December). Comparative data on race & ethnicity of FEA Awards 2021-2022 by percentage of students. Data obtained from Angela Schaffer, Executive Director of the Fund for Education Abroad. https://fundforeducationabroad.org/
Gliozzo, C. (1980, December). The international education of minority students. Minority Education, 2(5), 6-7.
Institute for International Education. (2021, October). A legacy of supporting excellence and opportunity in study abroad: 20-Year impact study, abridged report.https://www.gilmanscholarship.org/20thanniversary/
Stallman, E., Woodruff, G., Kasravi, J., & Comp, D. (2010). The diversification of the student profile. In W. W. Hoffa & S. DePaul (Eds.), A history of US study abroad: 1965 to present (pp. 115-160). The Forum on Education Abroad/Frontiers: The interdisciplinary journal of study abroad.
Angela Schaffer, Executive Director | Fund for Education Abroad
Kate Bohan, Manager of Scholarships & Finance | CET Academic Programs
Establishing a scholarship fund is a step in the direction of educational justice and equity, but it is just that: A Step. For a scholarship program to truly do “the most good it can do,” we opine that scholarship administrators should utilize data in an annual audit to analyze the outputs and outcomes of their programs—and change policy, process, and practice to continue to move the scholarship further on the equity spectrum to do the most good it can do. Program audits show humility, professional self-awareness and help keep our innate biases in check. Leveraging data leads to ethical engagement with all scholarship stakeholders, including donors and scholarship recipients, and can be a catalyst for positive change, ultimately leading to more just scholarship practices.
Data regarding applicants and selected scholarship recipients provides invaluable insights regarding the scholarship program. “Data” is a generic and all-encompassing term when it comes to scholarship programs. We’ve found our fellow scholarship administrators grapple with some of the same questions when considering the “good” they can do given the data they have: Is it better to give a larger amount of funding to ONE student, or spread the love through smaller scholarships that allow you to impact MORE students? What types of scholarships—cash, fee waivers, deposit refunds—go the furthest in supporting a student? We’ll provide a few examples of the types of data our two organizations, The Fund for Education Abroad (FEA) and CET Academic Programs (CET), have used and the changes we have made as a result.
FEA approaches our annual audit from a place of ensuring our award practices and processes stay true to our mission. FEA aims to provide scholarships to students with financial need who are from groups that have been historically marginalized in education abroad, with priority given to first-generation college students, people of color, and community college students.
Definitions deserve attention in any audit that takes place. “Financial need” is a prime example of a term that an administrator may be able to specifically define, within the context of their scholarship, if they look at the information being collected and consider what else could be gathered to give a more holistic sense of a student’s financial situation. FEA previously used the Expected Family Contribution (EFC) and a student’s receipt of a Pell grant to determine their financial need. But, an interesting thing happened when FEA began asking applicants to supply their study abroad program budget to determine unmet need: Many students with high financial need—using EFC and Pell Grant reception as indicators—DIDN’T have the highest amounts of unmet need. Rather, students who received a lesser Pell grant amount—or whose EFCs were just outside of the range to qualify them for the Pell grant—were taking substantial amounts of higher education loans and would need to take loans to pursue study abroad as well. The data indicated moving in the direction of including loans in assessing need would create access to study abroad for students relying heavily on loans. FEA began taking loans into account as an indicator of financial need.
While FEA operates from a place of ensuring scholarship funds are awarded to students most in alignment with FEA’s mission, CET takes a different approach. As a study abroad provider with a growing in-house scholarships program, CET has used the results of annual audits to modify our rubric ensuring we are awarding funds to the ‘neediest’ identities. For example, for years we were prioritizing Black, Brown, Asian, and LGBTQ+ students—students who are considered a minority in mainstream society. However, after a few years of working with a rubric that prioritized those students, we noticed that we had in fact done what we had set out to do. In other words, a few of those identities were no longer minoritized within our study abroad population. In our most recent audit, we decided to open the identity question completely. We took it from a multiple-choice question to an open-ended question, asking students to tell us how they identify. The results have been amazing! We have expanded our understanding of our students’ nuanced identities and are now privy to new identities to consider when awarding funds.
As you begin to take stock of your own organization and conduct your own audit, keep the questions above in mind and be open to questions that your data catalyzes. These questions aren’t to be ignored! They play important roles in how you can design your scholarship program audit.
Kimberly Van Cleave Michaels, Au Pair In America, Western Field Representative
Cultural exchange provides its participants with a glimpse into seeing the world in a different light. Perhaps even more importantly, however, it gives that person the ability to see themselves in a clearer light so that they enter their chosen career with their authentic voice defined and ready to be heard. A self-realized participant can not only enjoy these rich global diversities, but with active, empathetic guidance and intentional support from the global educators, they can add their own voice to the world’s choir, exploring their unconscious bias, values, and truths, making the journey as deep within themselves as it is far.
As practitioners in the field, best practices for getting a participant career ready to speak their truth can be boiled down into three foci. Being curious ourselves, passing the mic often, and locating the opportunities within your organization:
Being Curious Ourselves
First, practitioners must go on our own journey of discovery and learn how our approach to the work affects others. As a white, female, cisgender person I continue to do my own work on my unconscious bias, understanding perspectives that differ from my own. Learn, study, and then learn and study more. There is a wealth of information we can absorb on diverse perspectives and it is imperative we do. From those in leadership positions to those in support divisions to those working directly with participants, everyone must practice humility to ensure they are properly representing what every participant needs for success. The practitioner must listen through nonverbal cues—eye gazes and body language—in order to gently draw out those participants unaccustomed to taking the space in a conversation. Be brave enough to not talk, but just listen.
Passing the Mic Often
As a global educator, when you actively listen to participants, you give them the courage to continue. Repeat what is heard, highlight its importance back to that participant and group. We as practitioners carry power through what we highlight. It is said that public speaking only gets easier with practice, so passing the microphone will allow that participant the practice to use their voice, to understand how to successfully cross-culturally communicate with the confidence to speak in a crowd, and to tell their story, influencing those around them toward more empathy. Design meetings throughout the global journey in which the participants share what they have learned and how they have grown. Create a safe space for sharing by starting off with something simple but meaningful. For example, suggest they bring an object from home and discuss how that object represents them. Maintain an open agenda that can go where participants’ minds and passions flow.
As a waitress in Japan, I recall when my chef instructed me to make green tea every day with slight variations. It helped to teach me patience, effort, and grit. We as practitioners can also prepare a young adult to enter into the workforce with these skills behind them. Micro-adjustments can be made in the telling of one’s own story, choosing diction, recognizing the differences in communication styles across the cultures—more or less direct—and selecting non-verbal cues that will resonate with one’s audience. Practitioners can coach participants on these important global workforce skills. Working within the au pair population for the last decade (au pair translates to “on par” from the French), the (perhaps reluctant) au pair must meet in the middle, knowing and understanding their own truth first and then having the confidence (and support) to share it.
Locating the Opportunities Within Your Institution
When participants are ready to tell their story to larger audiences in your institution, and your institution is ready to get messy, having discussions around diversity, find allies within leadership to give them the platforms.
Allow the participant to write a blog post.
Let them take over your social media accounts to share.
Invite them to speak at your conferences.
Create a podcast that highlights voices preparing for the workforce.
Passing that mic to those who are ready to speak and then moving out of the way becomes our role and will also aid in their career readiness.
In summary, preparing a cross-cultural exchange participant to be career ready in this global world starts from understanding how to communicate the core of who they are. From many reports soft skills such as interpersonal and cross-cultural communication skills, and team building when coming together on projects, will be what the workforce most needs now. Our world will only be made better when all can live and share authentic lives, when participants can identify their unique gifts and have the courage to share them.
Reflecting again on my own global adventure, I learned that in flower arranging in Japan, it is not the flowers themselves, but the positioning that matters—the space created between them. The unseen holds the beauty. The same is true for cross-cultural exchanges. It is the space between people where the magic happens on an exchange. When practitioners nurture these confident new voices to speak in a quickly evolving world, the world too will discover an unrevealed beauty.
Linda D. Smith, PhD, American University in Dubai, Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Relations
Karen E. Clay, PhD, Spelman College, Director for Semester Study Abroad and Cultural Orientation
The focus on access to higher education is part of a larger struggle for achieving racial equality for Black Americans. As universities attempt to be on the forefront of the growing diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ) movements, often absent from national discussions is the role of international education. This further highlights the elitist and exclusionary nature of university education. Without drastic measures to improve current disparities in access to higher education and education abroad, racial inequality which has been perpetuated throughout the history of higher education in the United States will be exacerbated.
W.E.B. DuBois modeled over a century ago that access to higher education and learning abroad are the impetus to solutions for racial inequality. “[B]etween the time that I graduated from college [PhD, Harvard, 1895] and the day of my first experience at earning a living, there was arising in this land, and more especially within the Negro group, a controversy.”1 The controversy dealt with what type of education Blacks and the formerly enslaved should receive in a country that prioritized the standing of White men. DuBois underscored an approach to Black liberation which requires education. According to Beck, DuBois’ three years abroad in Germany were crucial to DuBois’ development of inquiries on racial inequality, expansion of social citizenship, and the role of educated elites and government interventions in framing solutions to the Negro Problem.2 Higher education and more specifically education abroad has historically played an instrumental role in shaping the country’s leadership which created persistent institutionalized exclusion of Blacks from higher ranks in politics, government, and industry.
From the mid- to late 1800s, the greatest beneficiaries of higher education and education abroad were the sons of White wealthy elites.3 This cadre of Americans incorporated and completed education abroad through “grand tours” as a mark of sophistication, eruditeness, and access to international circles with social and political reach.4 Progressive Era politics and its ethos of social citizenship rights led to government reforms expanding access to higher education for middle- and working class Whites while often excluding Blacks. The Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 (Land Grant Acts) resulted in a proliferation of public flagship universities while requiring states that practice segregation to create separate institutions for Blacks. Additionally, the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, or GI Bill, proved instrumental to the expansion of access to higher education by equipping White veterans and simultaneously denying Black veterans funding to support educational opportunities.5 The relationship between expansion of access for Whites and exclusion of Blacks in higher education and its link to education abroad are illustrated in the case of University of Delaware (UD).
Founded in 1743, UD is credited with establishing the country’s first wide-scale study abroad program in 1923 by World War I veteran Raymond W. Kirkbride.6 As Black students were denied admissions to UD, to comply with the second Morrill Act 1890, the Delaware Legislature opened Delaware State University in 1891 as the state’s college for Blacks. Because historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) quickly became overcrowded and under-resourced, this inequity served as the basis of several civil rights court cases that targeted segregation in public schools, especially institutions of higher education. In Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma (1948), the court held that colleges offering coursework and degrees not available at Black colleges must permit Blacks to apply and enroll into those programs at the segregated White institutions. It was only then that UD and other land-grant universities admitted Black students into programs not offered at HBCUs.
These universities continued to exclude Black people from admissions and subsequently opportunities and resources these institutions provide, such as education abroad. During the Lyndon B. Johnson administration, several land-grant universities in the South were placed under federal court order to demonstrate action plans to address Black exclusion. However, these plans which came to be termed affirmative action were not enforced and were swiftly challenged in federal courts starting in the 1970s, a battle which continues presently.78 In fact, research clearly illustrates that Black enrollment rates, particularly at public elite universities, continue to decline as Supreme Court decisions, state ballot initiatives, and legislative acts restrict the use of race-conscious admission strategies.9 Further, these larger trends of declining Black enrollment must be central to discussions on low participation rates of Black students in education abroad.
As of 2021 Black participation in study abroad is at its lowest in years. According to the Institute for International Education (IIE) Open Doors Report 2022 Fast Facts, Black represented 4.1% of students who studied abroad compared to 68% White in 2020-2021.10 Whereas participation increased by other ethnic groups including Asian/Pacific Islander 10%, and Hispanic/Latino(a) 12%.11 Only Blacks’ (4.1%) and Native Americans’ (0.4%) rates decreased during the pandemic years of 2020-2021.12 These participation figures in isolation provide an incomplete illustration. Participation rates must be considered in the larger context of declining Black enrollment rates at more resourced land-grant universities under affirmative action bans.13
As the world becomes more interconnected, preparing Black graduates for the globalized workforce and opportunities that maximize their earning potential is clearly an issue of equity and access. However, those concerned with racial equity in higher education must not only recognize the material and monetary impact Blacks suffer when denied opportunities for access to higher education and education abroad, but importantly they also should recognize the loss of intangible and intellectual opportunities. Consider DuBois. Recall that it was during his education abroad when he formulated liberation theories and action plans that had an incalculable impact on Blacks throughout the world.
DuBois, W. E. B. 1932. “Education and Work”. Journal of Negro Education 1 (1): 60–74. ↩︎
Hoffa, W., and Forum on Education Abroad. 2007. A History of US Study Abroad: Beginnings to 1965. Carlisle, Pa: Forum on Education Abroad. ↩︎
Cleveland, H., Mangone, G., & Adams, J. 1960. The Overseas Americans. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Hibbert, C. 1969. The Grand Tour. Weidenfeld and Nicolson; Hoffa and Forum on Education Abroad. 2007. ↩︎
Katznelson, I. 2006. When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America. New York: W.W. Norton. ↩︎
Smith, Linda. 2021. “Discourse, Threats, and Affirmative Action: A Comparative Analysis of Race-based University Admissions Programs in Brazil and the United States.” PhD diss. (Florida International University, 2021). ↩︎
Bista, Krishna and Anthony L. Pinder. 2022. Reimagining Internationalization and International Initiatives at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Springer Nature.
Cole, J. B. 1991. “Black Students and Overseas Programs: Broadening the Base of Participation.” Proceedings of CIEE 43rd International Conference on Educational Exchange: International Education: Broadening the Base of Participation. Charleston, South Carolina: Council on International Educational Exchange.
Cleveland, Harlan, Gerard J. Mangone, and John C. Adams. 1960. The Overseas American. McGraw-Hill Book Company.
DuBois, W. E. B. 1932. “Education and Work”. Journal of Negro Education 1 (1): 60–74.
Hibbert, Christopher. 1969. The Grand Tour. Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Hoffa, William W. 2007. A History of U.S. Study Abroad: Beginnings to 1965 (Volume 1). The Forum on Education Abroad.
Katznelson, Ira. 2006. When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America. W.W. Norton and Company.
Smith, L. 2021. “Discourse, Threats, and Affirmative Action: A Comparative Analysis of Race-based University Admissions Programs in Brazil and the United States.” PhD diss. (Florida International University, 2021).
Trooboff, Stevan, Michael Vande Berg, and Jack Rayman. (2007). “Employer Attitudes toward Study Abroad.” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 15 (1): 17–34. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v15i1.214.
Tammy Rosner, University System of Georgia, Director of International Education
According to the Job Outlook 2022 survey, which is a “forecast of hiring intentions of employers as they relate to new college graduates” collected by the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE), we see that employers are looking for evidence of problem-solving, analytical, and written communication skills in new employees (NACE, 2022). Beyond providing information from the Job Outlook survey, NACE also provides eight career readiness competencies (NACE, 2021) that “provide a framework for addressing career-related goals and outcomes of curricular and extracurricular activities [and] offers employers a framework for developing talent through internship and other experiential education programs” (NACE, 2022). The NACE career readiness competencies are career & self-development, communication, critical thinking, equity & inclusion, leadership, professionalism, teamwork, and technology. These NACE competencies and corresponding survey results are closely watched by higher education institutions and have become a guidepost for experiential activities as colleges and universities focus more on career readiness and workforce development.
While the main focus and connection to NACE skills and workforce development in higher education has long been realized through incubators and creative partnerships with businesses, the core development of these needed skills has been crafted through numerous classes, internships, and practicums. Despite this, an unaccounted-for hub, the international education department, has been honing these skills in students for years. In a study conducted by IIE (Farrugia & Sanger, 2017), it was shown “that study abroad has a positive effect on the development of many employment-related skills [and students] who intentionally sought to develop work-related skills through study abroad … reported more positive employment outcomes” (p. 19).
In 2020 NACE created additional competencies that “embrace diversity, equity and inclusion … and outcomes for diverse student populations” (NACE, 2022). Unfortunately, it is well documented (Martel et al., 2021) that underserved populations participate in international activities at far lower rates than well-served populations. Further, through the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen how fragile some international programs can be due to uncontrollable factors. So, if we assume that international-based experiential experiences help develop the key skills as identified by NACE, how do we obtain higher participation from underserved students to take advantage of and capitalize on these experiences?
First, more attention should be placed within higher education on not just workforce development but on how to develop the needed skills in students in an accessible and equitable way. Higher education can easily adapt curriculums to focus more on “T-shaped” student development, rather than the current focus on I-shaped development. Colleges and universities are very good at creating I-shaped professionals—those with deep discipline knowledge. But, to create T-shaped professionals, we need to add another dimension to our students’ learning. A T-shaped professional is someone who possesses “deep disciplinary specialization and breadth across several areas that equip them to engage in deep problem-solving in their discipline, culture, and/or system … and communicate and collaborate using skills that cross many areas” (Bierema, 2019, p. 4). Students with these traits are the types of graduates that employers are looking to hire. So, beyond creating graduates with the deep discipline knowledge that higher education is already very good at, they need to also concentrate on teamwork, resilience, global thinking, and curiosity (the horizontal part of the “T”). The traits that make up the horizontal part of the “T” align well with the NACE career competencies. Some, such as communication, critical thinking, and teamwork, are a few that are naturally obtained through international experiences. As an international educator, I see the path to creating these types of graduates easily attainable through internationalization. Through internationalization our students can gain many of the personal benefits that international student mobility and an internationalized curriculum can provide, as well as professional.
Creating T-shaped graduates that can “take on real-world challenges, including any combination of economic challenges, personal issues, and political transitions” (Eady et al., 2021, p. 263) is now an essential driver of undergraduate education as workforce development becomes a major focus of higher education (Holzer, 2021) and a logical connection to developing the NACE competencies. Efforts to create a curriculum in higher education that focuses on T-shaped learning are emerging (Eady, 2021), but one could argue that studying abroad, international virtual exchange, and other international experiences already provide a venue within our curriculums to help create T-shaped professionals, and institutions of higher education should make this connection more visible.
Further, while much more work needs to be done to diversify study abroad participants, a recruitment base for more diverse students to participate in study abroad and other globalized experiences should focus on the fast-track attainment of skills living in the cross-section of the “T” such as flexibility, cultural adeptness, and problem solving, which mirror the NACE competency skills. With fewer than 300,000 students in the United States participating in study abroad each year (Martel et al., 2021), viewing the outcomes of other internationalized experiences through the lens of creating highly desirable T-shaped graduates through international experiences could generate interest in higher administration as well as underserved student groups.
Lee et al. (2021) present a study that shows that students who participated in international virtual exchange were twice as likely to study abroad than those who didn’t participate. While this study was unable to show an effect across demographics, more research in this area should be pursued. While the purpose of the study was to show a direct connection between international virtual exchange and building capacity for study abroad, what if the lens focused solely on students participating in international virtual exchange and the development of T-shaped attributes and career outcomes? Applying the same logic to international virtual exchange as it applied to study abroad could propel the field of international education to consider enhanced internationalized experiences that allow for more participation from underserved populations to develop the same skills “at home” that can be developed abroad, thus opening up an accessible link to career competencies.
Finally, since the majority of higher education students are not engaging in international student mobility, then internationalization at home efforts that are directly tied to the NACE career competencies, such as international virtual exchange, could be a route that not only attracts underserved students due to accessibility and costs but also generates interest in global education careers. As indicated in the IIE study regarding study abroad’s impact on careers, it was noted that study abroad participation opened up “unanticipated career pathways” (Farrugia & Sanger, 2017) for returning students. Since this study in 2017, much has changed in the world of international education, but if these same outcomes apply to international virtual exchange and other internationalization at-home ventures, then not only is international education contributing to the creation of T-shaped professionals, but also the diversification of career options. Students can have transformative experiences regarding global interest from any location, as long as the experience provides a personalized global connection and develops key skills.
References:
Bierema, L. L. (2019). Enhancing employability through developing T-shaped professionals. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 163, 67–81.
Eady, M., Earle, A, Green, C., Mayi, A., Hatfield, L. & Namaste, N. (2021). Repositioning SoTL toward the T-shaped community. Teaching & Learning Inquiry 9(1), 262–78.
Farrugia, C. & Sanger, J. (2017). Gaining an employment edge: The impact of study abroad on 21st century skills & career prospects in the United States. Institute of International Education Center for Academic Mobility Research and Impact. https://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv%3A78209
Holzer, H. (2021). After COVID-19: Building a more coherent and effective workforce development system in the U.S. (IZA Policy Paper No. 174). Institute of Labor Economics [IZA].
Lee, J., Leibowitz, J., & Rezek, J. (2021). The impact of international virtual exchange on participation in education abroad. Journal of Studies in International Education, 26(2), 202–221.
Title: Sustainability in Action: Integrating SDGs into International Education
Presenters:
Sean Reilly, AFS
Saskia Kaya, AFS
Description:
Integrating Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into international education programs enhances their global impact. This session explores how SDG-focused curricula prepare students and educators for responsible and informed global citizenship..
Discuss how SDGs can be seamlessly integrated into curriculum and program design.
Highlight the value of aligning international education goals with global sustainability objectives.
Share examples of collaborative projects or community engagement initiatives tied to SDGs.
Explore the benefits of preparing students with sustainability-focused learning outcomes.
Title: Identity & Inclusion at the Crossroads: Involving Students in the Development of Practical Support Strategies in the European Context
Leadra Reeves, CASA Granada Spring ’24 Alum & Travel Grant Awardee
Dani Kaufman-Sedano, CASA Granada Spring ’23 Alum & Travel Grant Awardee
Description:
Join a seasoned study abroad director and two program alums as they share their stories, effective strategies, easy-to-implement practices, and the measurable outcomes that result from incorporating student voices in the development of inclusive support services onsite. In this deep-dive session, we invite you to engage in the exercise of validating the lived experiences of recent graduates whose identities span a range of both visible and invisible identities that we often encounter among our student cohorts, and of translating those experiences into concrete strategies. More specifically, based on both research findings and direct personal experiences, we will:
Come to a comprehensive understanding of inclusion, drawing from the different approaches utilized in Europe and the U.S., and the lived experiences of our students at this crossroads, and use it as the foundation for building inclusive programs and practices.
Explore the importance and the impact of inclusive approaches in academic and cultural adjustment support on students’ overall wellbeing and personal growth.
Identify specific challenges that students of varying identities face while studying abroad in Europe, with a particular focus on students of low-income backgrounds, Black students, LGBTQ+ students, and students of different religious backgrounds.
Discuss intentional support services/resources that study abroad programs can provide for diverse student populations in close collaboration with their host partners – institutions, host families, faculty, community organizations – and how to approach potential obstacles that may surface.
Engage with the process of developing, implementing and evaluating the success of inclusive initiatives, and measuring the direct impact on your students and the future of your program!
Title: From Abroad to Beyond: Turning European Experiences into Career Success
Presenters:
Nicola Sullivan, AIFS
Maya Edwards, AIFS
Description:
Global education experiences in Europe equip students with unique skills for careers in public and private sectors. This session highlights how these experiences translate into employability and career preparedness.
Explore how global education in Europe impacts students’ employability and career preparedness.
Identify transferable skills developed through international education and their alignment with workforce demands.
Discuss reverse culture shock and strategies to leverage the abroad experience professionally.
Showcase alumni success stories to inspire future students.
Concurrent Session Block 3
The Role of the Global University in Navigating Conflict, Dialogue, Transformation — How campuses cultivate dialogue, resilience, and civic readiness amid geopolitical tension while keeping learning and community at the center.
Partnerships that Drive Real Collaboration & Innovation — Models that move beyond finance-only deals to co-created programs, research, and talent pathways linking MENA and global institutions.
Concurrent Session Block 2
Making the Student Success Case for International Education to Campus Leadership — How to build deeper support for global learning among campus leadership by framing international education as a key driver to improving student success.
Inclusion in MENA: Narratives, Demographics & Opportunity — Public narratives about MENA are often formed at a distance. This session examines inclusion through societal trends and the policy frameworks that enable openness and stability.
The Value of International & Experiential Study Through the Lens of Global Employers — What employers say global and experiential learning uniquely delivers, from teamwork across cultures to problem-solving on real projects.
Concurrent Session Block 1
Preparing Today’s International Students for Tomorrow’s Workforce — How institutions align global and experiential learning along with employer partnerships so international students translate global study into career readiness and impact.
Unique Mental Health & Wellbeing Considerations for Study to & from MENA — Culturally grounded approaches that support student wellbeing across languages, faith, family expectations, and cross-border transitions.
Tech for Global Education: What’s Actually Working? — Practical, people-first uses of digital tools that expand reach, improve student support, and strengthen collaboration without turning staff into technologists.
