Exporting education improves U.S. image abroad

By Aaron K. Chatterji

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Note to Editors:
Aaron K. Chatterji is an assistant professor of strategy at Duke's Fuqua School of Business and a fellow at the Center for American Progress.

DURHAM, NC -- Every election year, an idealistic presidential candidate promises to support more foreign exchange programs to improve America’s image in the world. The U.S. State Department’s Fulbright scholarship program, Rotary Foundation scholarships and numerous other initiatives facilitate valuable opportunities to flex America’s soft power by sending American students abroad and bringing foreign students here. The goal is simple: If they only knew us, they couldn’t help but begin to like us.

However, recent trends in the American education business mean that candidates can be even more ambitious in 2008. Our own colleges and universities are going global, not only offering classes and degree programs abroad, but by opening up entire campuses around the world. We now have the potential to exchange much more than just people, but rather entire institutions with our friends and rivals across the globe. While the benefits of selling iPods and High School Musical lunchboxes to foreigners is often touted, we overlook the fact that American universities are among our most popular brands and have tremendous influence over our global image.

Duke University, the institution where I teach, became one of the first universities to experiment with global education programs when we established the Global Executive MBA program in 1996 with students from 11 countries. Other universities are not far behind, their eyes set on China, India, Dubai and other emerging hotspots. Cornell University has opened up an entire medical school in Qatar, after reaching a $750 million agreement with the emir’s private foundation in 2001. UC Berkeley, Stanford and the University of Texas at Austin recently signed a deal with Saudi Arabia which will fund millions of dollars of research at their home campuses as well as at the new King Abdullah University of Science and Technology.

These developments will dramatically increase the number of foreign students who are exposed to an American-style education. With more than 500,000 foreign students currently in the U.S., there are millions more eager for the opportunity to study at an American institution. These students will begin to earn American university degrees and naturally imbibe some of our values, without ever having to leave home (a critical point in a post-9/11 world where U.S. student visas are harder to obtain). Rather than solely focusing on increasing the small number of American students who study abroad (only 1 percent per year), supporting these global education programs can multiply any positive effects from international exchange.

Of course, there will also be challenges. Critics like Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) argue that this sort of "public service to foreigners" can only compromise our national security and harm American competitiveness. However, extensive research on this topic demonstrates that the congressman need not worry. The large majority of students in these global education programs will be studying subjects like business, economics and medicine, not nuclear engineering. And while some students might use their newly acquired skills to start companies in Dubai instead of Silicon Valley (where immigrant entrepreneurs have been generating jobs for years), their American educational experience could lead to increased trade with and investment in the U.S. over time.

The more fundamental question is how we will deal with "town vs. gown" problems on a global scale. For example, NYU President John Sexton has faced criticism over his university’s new campus in Abu Dhabi, a wealthy Arab emirate where homosexuality is illegal, Israelis are forbidden from visiting and ubiquitous migrant workers are treated harshly. The temptation may be to adjust our programs and ideals to suit the local market, borrowing a strategy employed by consumer products companies like Proctor & Gamble to compete in foreign nations.

Alternatively, I view these initiatives as an opportunity to stand firm on our core values, which underpin an educational system that is the envy of the rest of the world. Schools like Duke, Cornell and Berkeley have powerful brands to leverage, so much so that they can attract students without comprising their integrity on thorny issues on- or off-campus. Most importantly, if we deliver a challenging, open and enriching educational program to students around the world, more than a few of them will begin to see the nation that nurtures our institutions more positively.

Exporting our culture means more than plying foreigners with blue jeans, Coca-Cola and Baywatch. I am confident far stronger connections can be developed in a classroom. Having taught in these programs at Duke, I am convinced that if more young people around the world could see us at our very best, they might just begin to like us.