Study Abroad Office.com
March 15, 2007
Study Abroad Ethics
The New York Times study abroad article last
August caused quite a stir in the academic
community, and the fact that the NY attorney
general followed up with subpoenas intensified
our interest. If you’re like me, back when the
student loan people got into a similar jam, your
reaction was sadness that something like this
could happen in the academic community, and
perhaps a bit of a temptation to think that it
made sense that it would be “the money people”
that would get into this sort of trouble.
Now we’re in the hot seat and it doesn’t feel
good at all.
My own take is that, in spite of Schemo’s
attempts to make our industry sound like a den
of thieves, most of the practices described in her
article are ethical. There was one line, though,
that caught my attention and I’ll focus some
attention on that one practice in this entry.
According to Schemo, some colleges sign
restrictive agreements and receive money from
a provider for restricting students to that
provider’s programs in a particular region. I was
surprised by this one. If it’s true it is clearly a
violation of study abroad ethics by both the
provider and the academic institutions signing
such an agreement.
Like pornography, unethical marketing practices
are hard to define, but we know them when we
see them. Having spent a good number of
years in study abroad, both at a major university
and at a provider, I have a clear sense of the
obligations that bind academic institutions and
their subcontractors when it comes to student
choices.
Let’s be clear though—academic institutions
certainly have every right to make rules about
what students can get credit for—education is
not just a commodity; for education to be
effective, the educators must impose their own
judgment in some instances rather than allowing
the “customers” complete freedom of choice.
But with that right to make rules—in this
instance the right to restrict students to certain
study abroad programs—comes an attendant
obligation. Academic institutions have the
absolute obligation to make those decisions—
allowing some programs and ruling out others—
on the basis of academic considerations.
Academic quality and integrity, adherence to a
philosophy of study abroad that is consistent
with the institution’s perspectives, a good or bad
fit with academic programs offered at the
institution—all of these are legitimate reasons
for an institution to approve some study
experiences and refuse to give credit for others.
But let’s be clear, restricting student access in
exchange for a kickback is unethical. No
provider should ever ask an academic institution
to do this and no college or university should
ever accept such an arrangement.
Probably things work out best when the study
abroad office itself does not have the right to
grant or withhold approved status from specific
programs. Many institutions have committees to
do this—faculty and administrators with no
vested interest in the financial aspects of study
abroad. This is a good way to avoid falling into
the “kickback” trap.
The New York Times study abroad article last
August caused quite a stir in the academic
community, and the fact that the NY attorney
general followed up with subpoenas intensified
our interest. If you’re like me, back when the
student loan people got into a similar jam, your
reaction was sadness that something like this
could happen in the academic community, and
perhaps a bit of a temptation to think that it
made sense that it would be “the money people”
that would get into this sort of trouble.
Now we’re in the hot seat and it doesn’t feel
good at all.
My own take is that, in spite of Schemo’s
attempts to make our industry sound like a den
of thieves, most of the practices described in her
article are ethical. There was one line, though,
that caught my attention and I’ll focus some
attention on that one practice in this entry.
According to Schemo, some colleges sign
restrictive agreements and receive money from
a provider for restricting students to that
provider’s programs in a particular region. I was
surprised by this one. If it’s true it is clearly a
violation of study abroad ethics by both the
provider and the academic institutions signing
such an agreement.
Like pornography, unethical marketing practices
are hard to define, but we know them when we
see them. Having spent a good number of
years in study abroad, both at a major university
and at a provider, I have a clear sense of the
obligations that bind academic institutions and
their subcontractors when it comes to student
choices.
Let’s be clear though—academic institutions
certainly have every right to make rules about
what students can get credit for—education is
not just a commodity; for education to be
effective, the educators must impose their own
judgment in some instances rather than allowing
the “customers” complete freedom of choice.
But with that right to make rules—in this
instance the right to restrict students to certain
study abroad programs—comes an attendant
obligation. Academic institutions have the
absolute obligation to make those decisions—
allowing some programs and ruling out others—
on the basis of academic considerations.
Academic quality and integrity, adherence to a
philosophy of study abroad that is consistent
with the institution’s perspectives, a good or bad
fit with academic programs offered at the
institution—all of these are legitimate reasons
for an institution to approve some study
experiences and refuse to give credit for others.
But let’s be clear, restricting student access in
exchange for a kickback is unethical. No
provider should ever ask an academic institution
to do this and no college or university should
ever accept such an arrangement.
Probably things work out best when the study
abroad office itself does not have the right to
grant or withhold approved status from specific
programs. Many institutions have committees to
do this—faculty and administrators with no
vested interest in the financial aspects of study
abroad. This is a good way to avoid falling into
the “kickback” trap.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |