A lawsuit filed by a former Wheaton College graduate, Jennifer Bombasaro-Brady, is drawing much-needed attention to colleges’ billing and other practices concerning their international programs, notes John.

This legal action challenges, as the New York Times reports, the campus’s “policy of pocketing the difference between the cost of a [cheaper] study-abroad program and the full Wheaton tuition.” The case is also casting light on whether campuses are awarding credit for low-quality programs; whether program administrators receive junkets, cash bonuses, or other perks for guiding students into specific programs; and, more broadly, the glaring need for higher-education boards to review their study-abroad policies and to ensure transparency regarding pricing, financial arrangements, and quality control.

It is not only Wheaton’s study-abroad program that is under investigation. Earlier this year, the New York attorney general, Andrew M. Cuomo, issued subpoenas to 15 universities seeking information about how they run such programs.

During my service as a trustee of the State University of New York, I repeatedly questioned the SUNY administration on this very matter, as indicated in a 2003 memorandum, which I directed to then-Chancellor Robert L. King (as well as other top administrators and my fellow trustees), and which included a number of my other queries about SUNY academic and financial affairs. Below I reproduce the relevant section of that memorandum, which I hope will provide more insight into the emerging study-abroad morass. My call, at the end of this document, “for consistent System policies and oversight” in the area of international education, seems more pertinent than ever today.

Note of clarification: In what follows the underlined headings consist of questions I had formerly raised on this issue. The material in a normal font is the administration’s responses to those earlier inquiries. My further comments and questions – to the administration’s responses – are bolded. Thus:

Re: What are the costs of the staff, system and International Education. The term “international programs” (IP) comprises overseas study, various research and ancillary activities as well as foreign students attending SUNY. SUNY defines a foreign student as: A student who is neither a citizen of the United States nor holds Permanent Residence Status. We use the term “international student,” which should be considered equivalent (but may not be a 100 percent match since there is a wide range of nuance in usage within SUNY and in general). For the purposes of responding to your request for information, we will assume that your questions relate to issues germane to incoming students from abroad.
Re: Whether international students pay out of state tuition, what subsidies are provided, do the international programs and students cover their own costs or even make money for SUNY—or do they absorb badly needed funds. International students do pay out of state tuition. While prior to the ‘70s there was significant subvention of foreign students at SUNY, that practice has been discontinued and we are not aware of any plans to implement subsidies to attract foreign students.
It is likely that it is somewhat more expensive to educate a foreign student than an equivalent domestic student as foreign students require additional support: special (cultural, social, academic, legal) advising, federal and state mandates requiring greater administrative attention, and somewhat different recruitment and preparatory processes (including language and related support). Universities have for generations decided that the benefits of having foreign students far outweigh these additional costs. In the case of exchange programs, our agreements allow for both a mutual waiver of tuition and normal fees and for the assessment of program cost-related fees. Thus, a SUNY student pays the normal costs for SUNY (plus the special fee) and the foreign student pays the same to his/her institution. Neither is charged a second time. While we don’t have numbers, our sense is that balanced exchange programs (i.e., approaching 1:1) are well tuned by campuses and there is no revenue shortfall.
It is startling that System administration does “not have numbers” about the costs of educating international students and about the costs of the exchange programs. International Education functions as a part of the SUNY System, grants SUNY credit, collects tuition for SUNY courses (regardless of the actual cost of tuition in the host country where tuition may be nominal), yet you do not seem to have detailed knowledge of these costs and revenues.Re: What are the costs of the staff, system and campus, now administering IPs? This detailed breakdown of campus costs is not monitored by System Administration. This would be, we believe, a very complex task, due to the huge variety in organizational structures and funding mechanisms. The Office of the Provost has a de minimis expenditure in this area, limited to a very small amount of time spent in overseeing exchange program agreements and overseas budgets. Unusual events, such as the recent conference on international students are, of course, a special case in terms of time spent over short periods.
If System administration is not monitoring these costs, then who is? How are these accounts managed and audited? Are they regular state accounts, Auxiliary Services accounts, and/or off-shore accounts? Might not these operations, which benefit from the tax-exempt status of SUNY and involve public funds, appear to be in actuality entrepreneurial operations managed by the campuses and out of the public eye? A full accounting of these matters must be included as a regular part of the Administration’s oversight activities and a full report thereon provided to the Trustees.
Re: The need for a thorough and clear cost-benefit analysis and report, in the context of SUNY’s overall fiscal picture. This would be very difficult to undertake, since there has traditionally been very little central oversight of this field and there would need to be an amalgamation and coordination of campus programs before the analysis could be started. Since the additional costs are likely at the margins, the cost of this analysis and report could easily be greater than any potential monies saved. Further, there is a strong case to be made that higher education is one of America’s most powerful forces for good throughout the world and that the expenditures in this area have an extraordinarily high cost: benefit ratio.
Again, we have a fiduciary obligation to the public to provide transparency in these operations. Your reply implies that System administration has essentially ignored these matters such that you have no idea what is going on in International Education in SUNY. Given that the whole area of International Education is under federal scrutiny as a potential security risk is alone enough of a reason for System administration to have a thorough understanding of its operation, precisely to ensure that the benefits of such educational endeavors will be secured for the public while ensuring safety.
Re: The source of the funds raised for the IPs. This is overseen by the Office of International Programs and the campuses.
Your response indicates that System administration does not oversee the Office of International Programs and that it and the campuses do not report on these matters. If this is accurate, we are failing in our basic obligations in this regard and must immediately rectify the situation. The possibilities for abuse in this area must not be ignored, and I ask that you advise the Board of what actions you will undertake to bring these activities under the full control of System Administration.Re: The quality of programs and notably anything in the liberal arts that we “export.” In most cases, there is no distinction between a SUNY program undertaken by domestic students and one undertaken by foreign students. The latter are not segregated, are not offered special, exclusive programs of study, and are not tested differently. There are two exceptions: i) The first relates to special ancillary programs available to foreign students, like English language remediation, cultural and social support and legal or administrative services. While each of these needs to be judged on its own merits, they are generally strong. A campus that keeps its foreign student population needs to do a good job and a campus that does not wish to devote resources to this typically does not have many foreign students enrolled. ii) The second might relate to special programs that are designed to attract cohorts of foreign students, e.g., intensive English institutes. These are invariably of high quality, since the marketplace is active and consistent quality assurance is required. In short, the academic quality assurance processes of System Administration and the campuses are the same ones used for all programs of study and research. If, however, the question relates to the quality of the work of a specific office or team on a campus (i.e., something called, for instance, the “Office of International Students and Scholars”), our sense is that each campus maintains an ongoing review of these within the normal processes of campus operations. A number of SUNY’s international offices have well-earned reputations for excellence.
Re: An account of what programs the campuses are sponsoring and of their academic quality. SUNY programs in which foreign students study comprise the range of all SUNY programs.
There are, it seems, two major types of academic courses and programs “exported” (metaphorically and literally speaking): (1) courses and programs devised for foreign students to be taken at the SUNY campuses and (2) courses and programs devised for SUNY students to be taken in foreign countries. You have partially addressed only the first type of courses/programs. ESL (English as a Second Language) programs, for example, have been viewed as important income-generating operations which attract foreign students to American courses on American shores. Does SUNY enforce the Policies of the Board of Trustees in the hiring, evaluation, and promotion of employees in these programs? Do the instructors in such programs have credentials in TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) or do we in some cases rely on just “any speaker of English”? You indicate that you have faith that SUNY programs are of high quality but leave it up to the campuses. I strongly believe, as you know, that System administration must involve itself in assessing the quality of all of our program offerings. Faith alone, alas, is insufficient in these matters. With respect to both types of courses/programs, those at home and those engaged abroad and to which SUNY credit is attached, what oversight for those programs is provided? Do all SUNY International Programs at home and abroad undergo the same process of System program review and approval which applies to “regular” programs at the campus? These programs, too, should be regularly reviewed for quality on an established cycle.
Re: UB liberal arts program. We are happy to get additional information on this if you can specify which program you are referring to.
In the spring a publication either by SUNY-Buffalo or SUNY-Binghamton reported on a planned humanities program with Istanbul. (I regret I no longer have the specific report in my files.) In any case, on June 2, at a briefing session of the Academic Standards Committee (as well, I believe, at an earlier meeting of the Committee), I inquired about what this or similar initiatives on campuses will entail (that is, what courses, quality review, etc.). Dr. John Ryder responded that this program is not being coordinated through his office but offered to obtain additional information about the program from the campus. The quality of such humanities “partnerships,” and for that matter similar arrangements in the social sciences and the sciences, with foreign institutions, is a matter of great importance, and I would appreciate more information about all of SUNY’s activities in this regard. In short, there is a need for consistent System policies and oversight. Please forward to me and the other Trustees a copy of those general operating policies that already exist systemwide and, where they do not exist, what you recommend that they should be for appropriate oversight.