iag_minutes_2005_2006 by welcomegong

VIEWS: 13 PAGES: 18

									                             International Advisory Group
                                        Minutes
                                    March 30, 2006

The Provost was in attendance for items 1-3 of the meeting.

1.     Discussion centered around remuneration for leaders of study tours. Some of the
       factors that could be taken into account when remunerating the group leader
       beyond the $2000 for teaching are the following:
        Whether the leader acts as a travel agent and arranges tickets, hotels, etc or
           farms this task out to a travel agent (who will take a fee for services) or to
           some other entity
        The extent to which there is in-country support (e.g. a sister institution that is
           handling travel in-country)
        The additional duties that such a trip entails, including communicating with
           parents and answering their questions, holding pre-departure logistics
           meetings
        Number of students on the trip: the more students, the greater the logistical
           complexity
        Functions that the group leader must perform beyond teaching (e.g. residence
           life duties, etc.)

       Perhaps there should be a set amount above the $2000 teaching (e.g. $1000 or
       $2000) that could be increased for an extraordinary reason. Sue DeWine will
       consider this further and discuss it with Dan Bryant.

2.     For the second responsible adult, the Provost feels that this person should have
       their travel expenses covered. The group leader should select the person (and
       should not have to choose a faculty member who has volunteered to go along for
       their own reasons). The group leader could (but does not have to) appeal for
       shared teaching as well. The question of how this second person would be paid
       for also was discussed and whether their travel expenses should come out of the
       travel part of the budget or the tuition part of the budget.

3.     Sue DeWine reiterated that there were some new ideas for the China Program.
       The thinking now is that MC wants to start with summer programs.

4.     The IAG then took up the applications for travel grants, and decided to
       recommend awards as follows:
       Eric Fitch    $1000 to attend an IES Study Abroad Seminar in Australia
       Mark Miller $820 to travel to Russia in preparation for the proposed 2007 study
                     tour to the Black Sea
       Jeremy Wang $1000 to guest lecture in SWUFE in China
                          International Advisory Group
                              Minutes Mar. 8, 2006

1.   Sue DeWine has circulated a policy concerning the number of exchange students
     MC can accept from each sister institution per year (a maximum of 5 FTE for a
     year).

2.   Janie Rees-Miller will not be going to Hungary during spring break but later in
     the year.

3.   Xiaoxiong Yi presented an update on the China Program, as follows:
     A.     The agreement with UIR is continuing.
            The visiting professor from UIR will be paid $3000 per semester; the
            $2000 saved by this new arrangement may be used for the visiting
            scholar’s travel and other entertainment activities related to our UIR
            relationship.
     B.     Sue DeWine signed a draft agreement with Beijing International Studies
            University (BISU).
            BISU is interested initially in sending graduate students to the US for the
            second year of a 3-year MA program, especially for their English majors.
            They would be interested in taking courses in linguistics, the MALL
            program, History, and Political Science.
            A second phase would be a 2+1+1 junior year abroad program for their
            undergraduate students. This was discussed in general during Sue’s
            meeting at BISU, but there were no details agreed upon.
     C.     Dr. Zhang, a Chinese doctor specializing in massage therapy will be
            visiting MC March 26-29 to give demonstrations for the SPTM and PA
            programs as well as public demonstrations.
     D.     Xiaoxiong is looking at ways of expanding the China Program to 12
            months with a summer program for 50-100 Chinese students coming to
            MC; however, this will not be for the upcoming summer of 2006.
     E.     Thirty new Chinese students (graduates and undergraduates) have been
            accepted for Fall 2006.
     F.     Xiaoxiong is working on cementing our relationships with high schools in
            China that could provide freshmen students for us. The high schools,
            however, want to be able to send their teachers here, yet MC has not had
            unqualified success with this. One possibility might be the Education
            Department’s summer institute.
     G.     The Beijing office is the backbone of our operations in China. Currently,
            the office is working on a reception or dinner to be held when the MC
            choir tours China this summer and sings with a Chinese choir. Jean Scott
            will attend, and we hope to invite Chinese VIPs and the press; this should
            generate interest in MC among more Chinese students.
4.   We briefly discussed the need for preparing a mission statement for International
     Programs and making this available to Lori Lewis as we prepare for the upcoming
     capital campaign.

5.   News on the Brazilian front:
     A.    Prof. De Silva and Andre Satler, now of Izabela Hendrix in Belo
           Horizonte are preparing to visit the US, and an agreement between our
           institutions could be signed while they are here.
     B.    Kimberly Hoff is interested in teaching in Piracicaba this summer at the
           Colegio. Marcelo Leite will be contacted.
     C.    Eula in Juiz de For a is keen to participate in hosting a J term. Richard
           will be investigating the possibilities.
                              International Advisory Group
                                         Minutes
                                      Feb. 19, 2006

1.       Minutes of the Dec. 5 meeting were approved.

2.       Information arising from Sue DeWine’s recent Asia trip was shared:
        Thailand, Bangkok University is keen to follow up on Dan Huck’s idea of a J-
         term in which MC students would go to Thailand, and Thai students would come
         to MC for a short study tour.
        Beijing, UIR: Sue DeWine signed a renewal of our agreement, which will
         continue until January 2011. The stipend for the visiting scholar from UIR will
         be reduced from $5000 per semester to $3000. (The visiting scholars from UIR
         for the past few semesters have not had primary responsibility for teaching a
         course.)
        Beijing, Beijing International Studies University (BISU): Sue DeWine signed a
         very general agreement to explore avenues of cooperation.

3.       The accounting for exchange students who do not pay tuition has been a matter of
         concern. Representatives from the IAG, Sue DeWine, and Dan Bryant have
         agreed on a new policy by which MC limits the number of exchange students
         from institutions with which we have agreements to 5 FTE per year. This would
         include students from our existing agreements as well as students from Belo
         Horizonte and Seoul Women’s University when and if the agreements are signed
         with these institutions.

4.       A brief discussion was held in the meeting concerning the proposed agreement
         with Seoul Women’s University; concern was expressed that MC students going
         for the summer program at SWU might not be culturally prepared for dealing with
         different teaching styles and ideas about appropriate student behavior. It was
         suggested that MC have some sort of contact person to deal with these issues.
         This suggestion might be discussed further at a later date when the agreement has
         been signed.

5.       The issue of pay for the group leader of a study tour was discussed.
        At the present time, there have been different rates of pay ranging from $1000-
         $3000 for various responsibilities beyond the $2000 for teaching the class. The
         amount of remuneration depends on what the tour leader does in terms of course
         preparation, administration, etc. and has an impact on what students pay for the
         tour.
        Discussion was also held concerning how this should be accounted for, whether
         from tuition or from travel expenses. Some members felt that it should come
         from tuition.

6.       Questions were also discussed relating to the additional responsible adult on study
         tours:
        Should travel expenses be covered? There was not a consensus on this question.
        Who is this person?
             o The leader should be the one to choose the person; it should not be just a
                faculty member who wants to go.
             o Ideally, there should be a person in the host country who could take over
                in an emergency.
             o The faculty member in this position should be willing to step in if
                necessary, even without recompense.
        Must there be a gender balance? Members felt that it would be desirable to have
         one male and one female, but experiences indicate that female students these days
         are comfortable discussing ―female‖ health issues with male faculty members.

7.       The International Advisory Group should be thinking about preparing a statement
         for Lori Lewis for the upcoming capital campaign, re things like the desirability
         of scholarships for study abroad and financial aid help with short study tours.
                              International Advisory Group
                                   Minutes Dec. 5, 2005

Present: Ena Vulor, Luding Tong, Jamie Kendrioski, Gary Craig (recorder), David
Brown, Janie Rees-Miller

1.       Janie Rees-Miller presented a questionnaire draft to guide consideration of future
         proposed agreements with sister colleges and universities. Much of the meeting
         was taken up with the organization and wording of the questionnaire, including:
        how the number of students and faculty participants should be divided up
        separating time spent by a visiting scholar on MC campus from any
         responsibilities (e.g. instructional or faculty development)
        the importance of individuals with whom we would be working in a sister
         institution (some individuals would be more likely than others to push active
         engagement of their institution).

A revised version of the benefits and costs questionnaire is attached.

2.       Likely student interest at MC was discussed in terms of how we might gauge that
         interest ahead of time, such as surveying students via various methods.
         The challenge is how to get students interested in going somewhere other than
         well-known European destinations.

3.       It was pointed out that we need a means to assess costs and benefits at about the
         halfway point of an agreement’s term.

4.       We also need to consider the impact (both positive and negative) such agreements
         may have on existing programs and to work with existing programs that have an
         international component (e.g. International Leadership, International Business).

5.       After applying the revised benefit/cost questionnaire to proposed agreements with
         Izabela Hendrix in Belo Horizonte, Brazil and Seoul Women’s University in
         Korea, the group recommends that MC pursue agreements with both institutions:

        This is assuming that the current problem with how tuition from exchange
         students is accounted for is resolved so that it does not appear to be a loss of
         revenue.
        If we send 4-5 MC students to the Seoul Women’s University summer program
         and charge them MC tuition for 3 credit hours, then we should be able to accept a
         SWU student here for one semester.
      Benefits/Costs of Proposed Agreements with Sister Colleges/Universities
                                   (updated Feb. 6, 2006)


Benefits:

1.     For academic programs:
       a.      What academic program(s) at Marietta College does this agreement enhance?
       b.      What opportunities does the agreement provide for hosting study tours?

2.     For MC students:
       a.      What opportunities does it provide for MC students to study abroad for a
               semester or year program?
               i.     How many MC students are likely to take part in this option in a five-year
                      period?
                      0               1-2                      3-5                      6+

3.     For increasing international students on MC campus:
       a.      Does the agreement provide for international students to come to MC?
               i.     If so, are they:
                               ______ semester/year study abroad
                               ______ degree seeking
               ii.    How many international students are likely to come here in a five-year
                      period?
                      0                 1-2                     3-5                    6+
               iii.   Will the international students be paying tuition to MC? yes     no
               iv.    Will the international students be paying room and board to MC? yes no

4.     For MC faculty:
       a.      What opportunities does it provide for MC faculty development?
               i.     How many MC faculty members are likely to take advantage of this
                      opportunity in a five-year period?
                      0                1-2                      3-5                 6+

5.     For increasing international faculty at MC:
       a.      Are there provisions for visiting faculty to come to MC? yes                 no
               i.      If so, what contribution would the faculty member make to the MC
                       campus?
               ii.     Would the faculty member be:
                       ______ short-term                   ______ long-term (semester/year)
               iii.    Would the faculty member have:
                       ______ no responsibilities          ______ instructional responsibilities
               iv.     How many visiting faculty would we expect in a five-year period?
                       0                1-2                       3-5                       6+

6.     Coordinating with colleagues at the institution:
       a.      Is the individual with whom MC would coordinate at the sister institution
               committed to active pursuit of the agreement?
Costs (numbers correspond to benefits listed above):

1.     Academic programs
       Is there any negative impact the agreement would have on existing MC programs?

2.     MC Students
       a.      Would we lose revenue from MC students participating in a study abroad
               program at this sister institution?
       b.      How much tuition revenue would we lose from MC students studying abroad
               there? (See 2a under benefits.)

3.     International students at MC
       Will international students from there pay tuition to MC?       yes    no
       a.       If not, how much tuition revenue would be foregone? (See 3aii under benefits.)
       b.       Would international students be paying room and board?        yes     no
       c.       How many rooms would be needed to house international students under this
                agreement?

4.     MC Faculty
       How much financial support would MC have to provide MC faculty going there? (See 4a
       under benefits)

5.     International visiting scholars at MC
       What duties if any will need to be assigned to visiting scholars?
       a.     Who must oversee this responsibility?
       b.     What housing arrangements will the visiting scholars need?
       c.     Will housing the visiting scholars represent a loss of revenue for room?
       d.     Will the visiting scholars be paid for their duties?
                          International Advisory Group
                              Minutes Nov. 21, 2005

1.   The group discussed applications for international travel grants and recommended
     the following awards be made:

     Richard Danford        $900 for airfare to visit sites for study abroad programs in
            Chile and Ecuador (program is run by IES, and IES are paying all
            expenses on arrival in South America)
     Jackie Khorrassani $1000 to defray expenses (airfare and travel within Brazil)
            for teaching at UNIMEP during her upcoming sabbatical
     David Mead             $1000 for airfare and travel within Europe to go with the
            trip to Hungary in the spring. David has never been abroad before and is
            going to use the trip to visit financial institutions in preparation for
            teaching Mngt 325, International Financial Management.

2.   We also discussed two potential agreements: one with the Brazilian university in
     Belo Horizonte, which Fraser MacHaffie presented to us early in the semester; the
     other a potential agreement with Seoul Women's University, summarized by
     Janie Rees-Miller.
                               International Advisory Group
                                   Oct. 24, 2005 Minutes

Present: Richard Danford, Fraser MacHaffie, David Brown, Janie Rees-Miller, Eva
Horvati (from Kodolanyi Janos University College [KJUC] in Hungary)

Discussion and information concerning KJUC in Hungary
Because of the visit of a small group of students and the Director of International
Programs from KJUC, the International Advisory Group invited Eva Horvati, Director of
International Programs at KJUC to attend the meeting.

1.       KJUC offers a number of BA, BSc, and MA programs, which were briefly
         described. The university is also planning an MA in international/intercultural
         communication.
2.       KJUC has a partnership network with institutions both inside and outside Europe.
         A sample draft of the agreement with institutions outside Europe was distributed.
         This agreement is a basis for negotiation. Existing agreements are in force with
         institutions in Egypt, Japan, China, Russia, and Ukraine.
3.       KJUC also has an agreement with Birmingham Southern University. The
         agreement allows for faculty exchange and for 2 to 3 graduates of Birmingham
         Southern to teach conversational English in Szekesfehervar.
4.       With institutions outside Europe, student exchanges are generally short-term (2-3
         weeks) because students cannot afford the fees, and the credit system within the
         European Union cannot accept transfer grades from outside the system.
5.       Exceptions to short-term programs are joint degree programs with accreditation
         by both accrediting boards. In these binary programs, students receive a degree
         from both institutions.
6.       The exchanges between KJUC and MC have so far worked well without a written
         agreement, including a small group of students visiting each others’ campuses
         every other year. The merits and feasibility of expanding the cooperation were
         discussed:
        The exchanges do not have to be semester-long but could continue on the model
         of a short study tour in which students are working on individual projects. For
         example, the Hungarian students during this visit will make a presentation about
         Hungary to Leadership students on MC campus and are also working on projects
         related to the US while they are here as well.
        Accommodation for MC students at KJUC will be in the international students’
         hostel; short-term as well as longer-term students can be accommodated there.
        KJUC is interested in expanding the cooperation to faculty exchanges for research
         projects as well as student exchanges.
        KJUC are also interested in practica and internships for their students in the fields
         of mass media, tourism, and hotel management. Similarly, international students
         can come to Hungary for internships e.g. in tourism and hotel management, where
         English is the common language of communication.
        KJUC offers a summer program in basic Hungarian language and civilization and
         history. The language lessons are given in Hungarian, and the lectures on culture
    and civilization are conducted in English. Since summer programs must be
    approved nationally, the only ones allowed now are those in Hungarian studies.
   A question was raised concerning the relative sizes of MC and KJUC: MC has
    only 1200 students whereas KJUC has 10,000; this makes a true exchange
    difficult. KJUC would not view the size difference as a problem since only a
    small number of students would be expected to participate (5-6 students every
    year or every other year). Because KJUC is a private institution, students and
    parents are aware that they must pay for quality education and are willing to do
    so.
                            International Advisory Group
                                Oct. 3, 2005 Minutes

Present: Richard Danford, Luding Tong, David Brown, Fraser MacHaffie, Gary Craig,
Dan Huck, Janie Rees-Miller

Discussion of MC agreements with Brazilian institutions
1.     A question was raised concerning the agreements with UNIMEP and with
       Granbery: The agreement with UNIMEP seems to be less detailed than that with
       Granbery. The UNIMEP agreement was the first to be made, and we are still
       working our way through these agreements.
2.     A discussion concerning the history of these agreements and what has been done
       so far included the following information:
        The pattern has been for short-term faculty visits followed by student
           exchanges.
        The students from Brazil spend one semester at MC and pay no tuition to MC,
           although they do pay room and board.
        The first MC student is now at UNIMEP, and questions were raised
           concerning what (if anything) MC is charging her.
3.     We have had various short-term study programs:
        MC students in the TEFL Certificate Program have gone to the Colegio
           (associated with UNIMEP) to teach English language. Although no students
           went in the summer of 2005, the Colegio is eager to continue the arrangement.
           Granbery Institute would like to participate in this kind of arrangement as
           well.
        Richard Danford led a study tour to Brazil for intensive Portuguese in summer
           2004; the course used classroom facilities and a teaching partner at Granbery.
        In summer 2004, Leadership sponsored an MBA module on the MC campus
           for students from UNIMEP. Although there was an insufficient number of
           students to repeat the program in 2005, by accessing the Methodist network of
           universities in Brazil, we could probably make the numbers. This is a
           potential source of revenue for the college.
4.     We have agreements with two campuses, and a third is under consideration:
        Our initial agreement was with UNIMEP, but the main contact person with
           whom we dealt has now been posted to Belo Horizonte. We will therefore
           have to work harder to maintain relations with UNIMEP.
        Our agreement with Granbery is the result of the former principal of the
           Colegio (UNIMEP’s ―feeder‖ K-12 school) in Piracicaba being posted to
           Granbery.
5.     In terms of the future, Fraser MacHaffie stated that he would like to see more
       departments involved in the exchange, especially the English Department faculty.
       UNIMEP has 80 new students per semester studying English, and we should be
       able to tap into that program. One problem, though, is to identify the responsible
       person at UNIMEP, and the most likely candidate is a part-timer, as are a great
       many faculty members there.
6.   Some of potential problems and questions were raised concerning visiting
     scholars from Brazil:
      Do we pay a visiting faculty member? Generally the faculty from Brazil
         would be expected to be here on a short-term visit in which they would not
         teach a course but perhaps meet with special classes or clubs. Since the
         Brazilian institutions do not have sabbaticals, we would not expect them to be
         here for a semester.
      Thus, we would not necessarily pay them a salary but would provide room
         and board.
      However, we need to consider the number of international visitors that we can
         accommodate at one time.
7.   In receiving students from Brazil, we need to consider their level of English. We
     do not offer ESL 102 (the lower level) in the spring semester and thus need to
     assure that exchange students from Brazil have an appropriate amount of English
     for MC.
8.   Discussion concerning revenues from exchange students and study abroad
     generally raised a number of issues:
      The Brazilian students here pay room and board; should this be considered
         revenue or not?
      The Brazilian students pay no tuition here, but that should not be listed in the
         accounts as expenses or scholarships.
      MC students do not pay tuition to MC (or to the Brazilian sister institution) if
         they study there for a semester. Should this be counted as a loss of revenue?
         In one sense, a study abroad program should be considered part of the price of
         doing business for a US institution. If students study abroad through other
         programs such as IES, SIT, etc., MC simply budgets for a loss of tuition
         revenue for 20 students per year.
                            International Advisory Group
                               Sept. 15, 2005 Minutes
Present: J. Rees-Miller, D. Brown, R. Danford, F. Machaffie, E. Vulor, G. Craig, S.
DeWine, D. Huck, G. Johnson

1.     Grace Johnson presented information about MC’s relationship with Southwest
University of Finance and Economics (SWUFE)in Sichuan Province, China:
There are 3 campuses: the Chengdu main campus; the new Wenjiang campus; the new
(2003) Mianyang campus. Degrees offered are BA, MA, and PhD, with emphasis on
business, economics, finance, tourism, and law. The main campus will be reserved for
graduate students only in a couple of years and the Wenjiang campus for undergraduates.

The Mianyang campus has greatest possibilities for collaboration with business faculty.
Languages of instruction are English and Chinese.
    MC faculty could give guest lectures in May to mid-June for freshmen,
      sophomores, and seniors.
    For juniors, a faculty member could teach a condensed course in their summer
      session in June-July; the course could be one of their required courses or an
      elective. Scheduling is flexible as long as there are 42-45 contact hours. Visiting
      faculty receive good accommodation, approximately $600 per month, and airfare
      if they are teaching a complete course.

Our formal agreement with SWUFE has expired, and we could either continue the
present informal contacts or renew the formal agreement. Some possibilities include:
     Mianyiang is possibly interested in a 2+2 plan. This might be difficult in terms of
       SWUFE students fulfilling their gen.ed. requirements.
     We might also consider a 2+1+1 plan, i.e. a junior year abroad for their students.
       However, the development of foreign universities in China might militate against
       this.
     It’s important to note that Chinese students would be most interested in taking
       courses within their major in the US, not necessarily general liberal arts types of
       courses.
     We might also consider the model of a special summer program and separate
       tuition charges from charges for trips (e.g. to Chicago, DC…).

2.      Gary Craig presented information on the formal agreement MC has with the
University of International Relations (UIR) in Beijing, China. The only way we as a
foreign institution can recruit students in China is through a Chinese institution; UIR is
that institution. For every student they recruit for us, they receive $1000 from the
student’s family, and they have been quite active in recruitment efforts (specifically Prof.
Song) and in helping us with the Chinese Education Commission.

The agreement with UIR is up for renewal this year. As part of the agreement, UIR sends
a visiting scholar for a semester or a year. We have been paying the scholar $5000 for a
semester of teaching; however, this amount may be reduced to $3000 since the visiting
scholars are not going to be assigned classes to teach on their own but rather asked to
offer some assistance with existing classes and/or to give special lectures.

3.       The benefits of these arrangements with Chinese institutions were discussed:
        The faculty seminar in summer 2000 and travel to China in summer 2001 filtered
         down into the way people teach. It was a good model for faculty development.
        International Leadership students were able to do an internship in Huhhot in
         summer 2005.
        UIR provides a base for MC student trips (e.g. the student study tour of China in
         summer 2005).
        Chinese students on MC campus provide value for East Asian studies, especially
         as partners for students enrolled in Chinese language classes.
        International students are generally interesting and have high academic
         competence; they raise the bar for the classes they are in.

4.       Having international students also poses challenges:
        Faculty are forced to be more careful in the way they present material.
        There are cultural differences in the way in which plagiarism is viewed.
        In terms of the residential experience, the social integration of international
         students is a concern.

5.       What would we lose if there were no international students on MC campus?
        It would be difficult to attract and retain faculty members who want and expect
         diversity.
        It is a mark of a quality education to have international students; their presence to
         some extent offsets our location in a homogeneous environment far away from
         urban centers.
        The world of the future will not be the same as the environment of the mid-Ohio
         valley now. MC should be a base for student to launch outwards, and
         international students are one way of introducing the wider world to our home-
         grown students.
                            International Advisory Group
                               Sept. 15, 2005 Minutes
Present: J. Rees-Miller, D. Brown, R. Danford, F. Machaffie, L. Tong, E. Vulor, G.
Craig, S. DeWine, K. Lamb

The first meeting considered information and talking points for the business of the year
concerned with relationships with sister institutions:

1.     Existing agreements: People with knowledge and/or experience with the
programs will be invited to share their information with the group.

China:         UIR (agreement up for renewal 2005)
                      —Gary Craig will present this.
               Hong Kong Baptist (agreement does not have an end date)
                      —Jamie Kendrioski will present this.
               FAC (we have done nothing about it recently, but Janie Rees-Miller’s
                      copy of an agreement says it's in effect 2000-2005)
                      -- Gary Craig will present what he knows of this.

Brazil:        UNIMEP (Piracicaba; agreement until 2007)
               Instituto Granbery (Juiz de For a; agreement until 2009)
                       --Richard Danford and Fraser MacHaffie will present these
               There is some urgency to consider these as there is the possibility of
               another agreement with a Brazilian institution in the Methodist network,
               the Instituto Methodista Izabela Hendrix in Belo Horizonte. Fraser
               MacHaffie circulated a memorandum concerning this potential agreement.

Thailand:      Bangkok University (agreement until 2008)
                     --We will ask Dan Huck to present this.

Former agreements: SWUFE in Chengdu, China: An agreement was signed in 1996,
and we still have some active connections. Ed Osborne may have a copy of the
agreement. Grace Johnson has recently collaborated with SWUFE faculty, and Jeremy
Wang is working on a joint class on e-commerce.

Potential agreements: We will invite Gama Perruci to talk about both of these.

Hungary:       Janie Rees-Miller had discussions with Kodolanyi University in Hungary
               this past summer, but questions whether their agreement will be helpful
               for us as it is; we need to clarify what we want from these agreements
               before seeing if it's worth negotiating.

Korea:         We have the possibility of an agreement with Seoul Women's University
               in Korea, but it needs to be negotiated.
2.       International Objectives and Strategies in the Extended Strategic Plan 2004-
         2010, related to sister institutions: The following are copied from the extended
         strategic plan.

         Goal 3, Objective C: Strengthen those programs that are most likely to
         attract outstanding students through their quality and distinctiveness.

                Leadership

         Strategy 3: Enhance the international aspect of the McDonough Center by
         developing firm academic relationships with at least five foreign universities by
         2010. These universities will provide study abroad and exchange opportunities
         for students and faculty—Dean of the McDonough Center, Director of
         International Programs—2007

         Goal 3, Objective E: Strengthen the College’s emphasis on international
         study and diversity.

         Strategy 1: Strengthen area studies programs—especially Asian Studies and
         Latin American Studies—Provost, Faculty—2005 and ongoing

3.       Questions raised in May 2005 in the International Advisory Committee
         (from minutes of 2004-2005):

        MC decided to wait to sign any agreement with Seoul Women’s University
        Discussion is needed about sister institutions and relationships: What are the
         benefits to MC? How many of these relationships and visiting scholars can we
         handle?
        Visiting Faculty: Discussion is needed about issues relating to visiting scholars:
            o Who is responsible for mentoring family and departmental contacts?
                 (Also need some sort of information on what is reasonable to expect from
                 the mentor family)
            o Teaching regular courses has not been successful for visiting scholars
            o What services are provided? Perhaps there can be a handbook for
                 scholars.
            o Scholars should be matched with department according to interests
            o Need to have copy of VITA as soon as possible, but this is not always
                 possible

        Some relationships need to be nurtured, but do not necessarily need an agreement
         such as Hungary – others need signed agreements such as with China.

4.       Some focused questions for consideration this year:
         a.    What are the benefits of having an agreement with a sister institution?
               Specifically:
                benefits to MC as an institution
                 academic benefits
                      o e.g. How can sister relationships be linked with academic
                         programs such as Leadership and area studies (Asian Studies,
                         Latin American Studies, European Studies)
               benefits to MC faculty
               benefits to MC students
       b.     What are the acceptable costs in order to achieve these benefits?
       c.     How does each existing agreement fit into the benefits and acceptable
              costs?
       d.     Based on benefits and acceptable costs, what are the general principles
              that should govern any subsequent agreements?
       e.     Given that some universities have their own templates for agreements,
              what should be in our agreement template?
               What must be in the template?
               What is negotiable?
       f.     What are the appropriate guidelines for the academic and residential
              treatment of international visiting scholars, and how is this funded?
       g.     What are the guidelines for students studying via one of the exchange
              agreements in terms of their tuition and other costs?

5.     Next meeting: There are very few times when all members are available; we will
try Monday at 5:00 for our next meeting on Sept. 26. We will discuss our agreements
with Chinese institutions.

								
To top