STUDIES in COMPARATIVE EDUCATION FOREIGN UNDERSTANDING AND INTERPRETATION OF UNITED STATES EDUCATION ___ l U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Office of Education Division of International Education FOREIGN UNDERSTANDING AND INTERPRETATION OF UNITED STATES EDUCATION Report on a Conference Held at the U. S. Office of Education Prepared by- Charles C. Hauch, Comparative Education Specialist Western Hemisphere U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Office of Education, International Education Division Washington, D.C. December i960 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Columbia University Libraries https://archive.org/details/foreignunderstanOOhauc FOREIGN UNDERSTANDING AND INTERPRETATION OF UNITED STATES EDUCATION Report on a Conference Held at the U. S. Office of Education The U. S. Office of Educations International Educational Relations Branch holds responsibility for keeping informed on education in other countries and also for providing to institutions and agencies in the United States a service of advisory evaluation of foreign academic credentials in terms of approximately equivalent levels of schooling in the United States. In connection -with these responsibilities and their various related problems, the Office called a conference which met in Washington for a 3-day period, June 20-22, I960, to discuss the theme, "Foreign Understanding and Inter¬ pretation of United States Education." Some 30 persons representative of university and secondary school administrators, college admissions officers, deans of graduate schools, foreign student advisers, comparative education specialists, and certain educational organizations were invited to meet with representatives of the Office and other interested government agencies—the Department of State, the International Cooperation Administration (ICA), and the U. S. Information Agency (USIA). (See Appendix for list of participants.) Since World War II, there have been ever increasing contacts and cooperative efforts among educators around the world. United States educators and educational institutions, in increasing numbers, have joined with those from other countries in international educational endeavors. There have been more foreign students and teachers than ever before coming to the United States for study in schools and colleges. Along with such activities have come increasing problems, often indicating foreign misunderstanding and und.erevaluation of United States education. These are reflected through general criticisms of United States education and difficulties which some students educated here have experienced in securing full acceptance in other countries of their educational achieve¬ ments. They are also reflected by expectations and demands of foreign educated persons for greater recognition of their foreign education than appears warranted in terras of approximate United States equivalents, for purposes of academic entrance and placement or professional licensing and certification in this country. Although the problems are not new, the conference discussions centering on them brought together information and views ihich, as the following report indicates, contributed valuable infor¬ mation, suggestions, and recommendations toward some solutions. In order to concentrate on obtaining the viewpoints of the representa¬ tives participating in the conference, discussions under the conference theme, "Foreign Understanding and Interpretation of United States Education," were organized around three subheads, as follows: (1) General Considerations ; (2) Expectations of the Foreign Educated Coming to the United States ; (3) Recognition of United States Echcational Experience. 1 2 Several of the conference participants were asked to help initiate the discussions under each of the subheadings, by making short informal remarks from the vantage point of their respective experiences and professional affili¬ ations. All conferees were requested to discuss and hand in as part of the conference record specific examples illustrating the second and third aspects of the conference theme—i.e., cases of persons with foreign educational experience i-ho have expected in the United States more recognition and credit for that experience than is warranted, and of persons whose United States educational experience, degrees, diplomas, and credits have not received full recognition in foreign countries. The last half-day of the conference was devoted to conclusions and recommendations of conference participants on possi¬ ble courses of action to meet various problems and needs revealed by the previous discussions. No formal recommendations were adopted. Interpretation of United States Education Abroad: General Considerations Dr. Oliver J. Caldwell, Assistant Commissioner for International Education, Office of Education, opened the conference by extending the Office 1 s welcome to the conferees and expressed appreciation for their cooperation with the Office in considering this matter. He explained the concern of the Office's Division of International Education with the increasing number of reports of the unfavorable reputation of United States education abroad and difficulties experienced by those educated in the United States in securing acceptance of their American degrees and education. He noted several examples that had come to his attention during his recent visits to various parts of the world, including his trip to Africa. Dr. Caldwell was followed by President Hurst Anderson of The American University, who, as Chairman of the American Council on Education's ad hoc Committee to Insure a Better Understanding of American Higher Education Abroad, reviewed the concern of the American Council with the problem and its activities in this connection. He stated that as early as 1955 the attention of the American Council on Education's Commission on Education and Inter¬ national Affairs was dr$wn "to the fact that adverse foreign attitudes towards American higher education were creating serious implications for the interna¬ tional prestige of the United States." He noted that reports from reliable sources "indicated that such attitudes vary in their intensity from area to area and from country to country and that they range from critical press articles to the invalidation of our degrees." As a result, the Commission became convinced that the problem warranted special study and asked the Council to appoint an ad hoc committee to identify specific problems and recommend remedial measures. Accordingly, the aforementioned Committee was established. It first confirmed and appraised the actual existence of adverse foreign attitudes toward American higher education and satisfied itself that the reputation of American education is not a good one in many areas of the world, particularly 3 in the Near East and Africa. The committee also became convinced that the need for a better understanding of American higher education, -which it observed Fas critical even in past years, has now become a major concern for this Nation. Dr. Anderson stated that his committee had endeavored to identify causative factors for this situation with a view to remedial action. • From the outset it decided against action to eliminate criticism of United States education stemming from anti-American international political and propaganda factors, since such matters lay outside its purview. T-wo significant causes which it felt could be substantially removed were (1) foreign ignorance and misunderstanding of American higher education, which prevail particularly -where the pattern and standards of Western European education are deeply entrenched and (2) dubious educational practices of certain institutions which have become the basis for appraising American higher education in general. These dubious educational practices the committee divided into two groups: (a) activities of unethical "degree mills" which award degrees by mail, and (b) the use of an academic "double standard" for the foreign student by respect¬ able institutions which may wish to make the student*s stay here pleasant, or which may inadvertently make inadequate evaluation of the student*s foreign academic credentials and background, with resuiting admission of unqualified students or improper placement of students. With respect to the first of these causes, the committee recommended that several steps be taken to inform other peoples more adequately about American higher education. First , it recommended and the Council has accepted a proposal that a publication on American higher education be written especially for foreign readers by an individual of recognized stature. The committee believes that additional publications should be prepared as needed and that the desirability of translation should be explored. Second , the committee recommended, in reference to a request from the U. S. Information Agency, that the American Council on Education develop and revise periodically a selected list of publications on American higher education, and that the list indicate those publications important enough to be translated. The first such bibliography has been prepared and submitted to the Director of the U. S. Information Agency. Third , the committee recommended that the USIA place more emphasis on American education in the orientation procedures for United States cultural officers overseas. Dr. Anderson stated that the USIA and the Council have worked closely together to put this recommendation into effect. In the matter of discouraging dubious educational practices vis-a-vis foreign students, the American Council on Education, on the committee*s recommendation, undertook and published in 1959 the report entitled American Degree Mills by Robert H. Reid, which contains recommendations for private and public action to expose and control their unethical activities. With respect to the matter of an academic "double standard" for foreign students, Dr. Anderson noted that many foreign peoples are convinced that American institutions do not maintain as high standards of admission and of academic performance for foreign students as for Americans. While recognizing that the k validity of this criticism could only be appraised by each institution, the committee was proposing that the American Council on Education issue to its member institutions a statement on the academic double standard, calling attention to the seriousness of the problem and the steps which some institu¬ tions have found useful in solving it. Dr. Anderson stated that this state¬ ment, then in process of being cleared by committee members, emphasizes the importance of adequate evaluation of foreign student credentials, so that only properly qualified foreign students will be admitted and will be properly placed. It also emphasizes the need for maintaining high academic standards for the foreign student after he is admitted, since the inadequately prepared foreign graduate of an American institution serves poorly both himself and American higher education.* Dr# Anderson noted that his committee was also making certain recommen¬ dations aimed at encouraging other agencies and groups to explore the possi¬ bility of expanding resources for evaluating the previous educational experi¬ ences of foreign students but that these recommendations had not yet been cleared by the committee. Following Dr. Anderson’s remarks, Dr. W. W. Brickman, Professor of Education at New York University, commented on the theme of the conference generally, as he saw it from the point of view of a specialist in comparative education. Some of his points were as follows: 1. Concern in the United States about foreign views of United States education is not new, as exemplified by publications in earlier years of the Office of Education’s predecessor, the Bureau of Education, on foreign views and influences on United States education. 2. The image of American education held abroad is to a large extent the image we ourselves get of American education, as evidenced by the contrast recently drawn, in an American "picture” magazine of wide circulation, between the serious- minded student of the Russian 10-year school and the average high school teenager of average or low IQ in an average United States high school; this image expresses itself in stereotypes of American education, such as (a) that it is mass education, not interested in individual excellence, |b)that it is characterized by mediocrity , and (c) that it is very modem , without traditions or standards, and is ready to experiment freely. *This statement has since been issued by the American Council on Education under the title. Quality Academic Standards for the Foreign Student. 5 3. We are not the only sinners in the natter of the "double standard," as evidenced by such past and present practices in some European universities as accepting inadequate dissertations and granting degrees to poor students from other countries. i*. In combatting false stereotypes of American education, we need to create counter-stereotypes which build up the reputation of United States education and scholarship. In addition to the effect of preparing, translating, and distributing abroad books on American education (which has been done before), Dr. Brickman noted the favorable impression created by the performance in scholarly and cultural pursuits of certain Americans abroad and also stated that the products of American scholarship and edu¬ cation should receive much wider circulation abroad through distribution of our professional journals and monographs. We would thus prove by showing our scholarly face to the world, and not merely by saying that we are a scholarly nation, that we have high academic and scholarly standards. Following Dr. Brickman's comments, there was general discussion directed mainlj'- to the need for providing better information about American education for foreign readers. There appeared to be general agreement on the desirabil¬ ity of readable publications that could be easily distributed, especially written for foreign consumption, of the type which Dr. Anderson had stated the American Council on Education was planning to undertake on United States higher education. Some of those present doubted that one publication wrould suit all audiences and stated that separate, publications of different types were needed for different categories of readers, such as educational specialists and administrators, prospective students and their parents, employers, and the general lay public. A clear distinction was drawn by several conferees betwe.en publications which present information about United States education and educational institutions for students contemplating further studies in the United States, and publications which contain more basic general information. Mention was made by different conferees of several existing publications descriptive of United States education; and representatives of USIA, the Department of State and ICA indicated that the libraries of their respective offices, Fulbright Commissions and binational cultural centers abroad already include substantial materials descriptive of American education. The question was raised by several conferees as to how many education specialists and other persons visit and use these libraries and the influence of such materials on their thinking and opinions. The need to get the materials directly to educators and other specialists was noted, along with the problem that publi¬ cations issued or distributed under official auspices to bring about a better understanding of the American education system run the risk of being discounted because of their source. 6 Several of the conferees strongly supported the ACE recommendation referred to by Dr. Anderson that American public and cultural affairs officers abroad have a good understanding of American education, both in its basic aspects and in connection with the task of advising and counseling foreign students seeking information about pursuing their education in the United States. The value of a comprehensive and penetrating publication on the aims, organization, and achievements of education in the United States for the edifi¬ cation and use of such officers was stressed. USIA and Department of State representatives stated that their agencies were also fully aware of the need for intensified educational orientation of these officers before proceeding to their foreign posts, and of the beneficial effects this would have both for the understanding of United States education abroad and the operation of the cultural and educational exchange program. Also mentioned were the diffi¬ culties in assuring adequate coverage of this and the numerous other USIA functions on a comprehensive world-wide basis, in the light of the limitations of the USIA budget and the increasing needs for USIA personnel, such as those posed by the opening of offices in newly independent countries. Dr. Brickman further amplified the point he had made regarding the desirability of greater publicity for American scholarly and cultural achieve¬ ments by suggesting the preparation by scholarly and professional groups of annotated bibliographies and summaries of the output of American higher educa¬ tion in various subject disciplines, for dissemination abroad. He also mentioned the desirability of our Government*s doing on an intensified scale something similar to what, for example, the French Cultural Mission in New York and other European Information Offices do in issuing information and articles on various aspects of their cultural achievement related to educational matters, such as annotations of dissertations accepted at their universities. The afternoon session of the conference's first day was opened by comments on the problem generally as seen by a representative of the Institute of International Education. Miss Lily von Klemperer stated that the Institute's experience is that work at institutions in the United States usually does not count toward a foreign degree, and that a student from a country which has prescribed courses and intermediary examinations, such as France, definitely cannot count on having United States study recognized. She asserted that many countries prefer people educated and trained in the United Kingdom to those educated in the United States. She also confirmed Dr. Brickman*s comments regarding the existence of "double standard" practices toward foreign students, including Americans, in other countries. She made the point that the reputa¬ tion abroad of United States education depends not only on the elimination of double standard treatment of foreign students here, but also on the caliber of American students who go abroad and the nature of the increasing number of summer and other programs for sending students abroad. She stated that "if well planned, these enterprises are beneficial; if not, they easily give United States education a bad name." 7 Dr. George Brain, Superintendent of the Baltimore Public Schools and a member of the government-sponsored First Overseas Seminar for American School Administrators, a group -which visited European countries in 1959, then presented views on the conference theme as seen by an elementary and second¬ ary school administrator. He discussed the differences between European and United States educational philosophies and systems, particularly at the secondary level. He said that criticism and unfavorable opinions of United States education in Europe, as of European education in the United States, stem in large part from the different philosophies, ideals, and goals under¬ lying their respective systems. He noted that leading European educational administrators with whom he had talked were appreciative of this situation and quoted a leading official in the Belgian Ministry of Education as follows: ”The European system of education was developed for a specific purpose, primarily to train leadership for the church and for the state. American education is unique. Its purpose was to weld a diverse people into a great nation. It has achieved that purpose. Now that you in America have achieved greatness, do not sacrifice this great principle . . ., for America is the only country known to the free world where the son of a rich man and the son of a poor man have an equal opportunity for educational experiences.” General discussion of the points raised or suggested by Miss von Klemperer’s and Dr. Brain’s remarks followed. Several conferees noted that some European secondary school students and others who had assumed that such students could easily carry more than a normal United States high school load, because in Europe they take a greater number of subjects, had changed their opinions after direct experience with the high school program in this country. It was also pointed out by several participants that some of the criticism of United States secondary education by both foreigners and Americans has stemmed from comparing European academic secondary programs and the less than 20 percent of European youth of secondary schoolage in them with a stereotype of an "average” student and program in a United States comprehensive high school, whereas the more solid comparison might be in terms of our better college preparatory programs and the students taking them. To illustrate the point of how the reputation of American education may suffer because of the quality of American students going abroad, Mr. Robert B. Klinger, Chairman of the Research Committee of the National Association of Foreign Student Advisers (NAFSA), reported that a Guatemalan university official had been unable to understand why one of their better students failed in engineering at the University of Michigan, because he had concluded that United States standards in engineering must be much lower than those in Guatemala. His opinion was based on the fact that a number of American students in engineering at the Guatemalan institution had failed their examinations. Investigation revealed that the American students had 8 been turned down by a number of American engineering institutions. Various conferees commented on the desirability of stricter admission standards by foreign universities for American students going abroad. Conversely, the view was also expressed that the reputation of American education abroad suffers when students who would not have been accepted by universities in their own countries are accepted by institutions in the United States. Mr. Klinger, on the other hand, reported that a survey by the NAFSA research committee of studies on foreign students in United States institu¬ tions of higher learning showed that their academic performance in such insti¬ tutions was equal or superior to that of Ifnited States students. This conclu¬ sion was based on the academic records and grades of foreign students at various colleges and universities. Some of the conferees felt that such findings were inconclusive in view of double standard practices in grading foreign students. Mr. Seymour Rosen, Office of Education Specialist for Eastern Europe, commented that although the consensus of the conference to this point seemed to be that in the interest of the prestige of American education only the best qualified foreign students should be accepted, various international considerations and circumstances might arise which could result in the acceptance of students from critical areas who might not be as well prepared academically as they should be. He mentioned the possibility of a separate degree for certain categories of foreign students which would be recognized as such. Discussion of these possibilities followed, with the consensus appearing to be generally unfavorable. Mr. George Mann of the Department of State said, with reference to the possibility of bringing poorly prepared students here for regular programs of study, that the Department’s student exchange program was moving in the opposite direction. (As the discussions proceeded on other aspects of the conference theme, it appeared that some of the conferees thought that some arrangements not harmful to the standards and prestige of United States education might be desirable in order to take care of the possibilities envisaged by Mr. Rosen.) Interpretation of United States Education Abroad: Expectations of the Foreign Educated Coming to the United States The second phase of the conference discussion was carried on under this heading. The purpose here was to ascertain the extent to which misunder¬ standing and underevaluation of United States education is evidenced by excessive expectations of persons with foreign educational experience for recognition of such experience in the United States. It also served to point up how the reputation of United States education might be harmed by excessive recognition of foreign educational experience through unknowing or lax practices in admitting and assigning credit to foreign students. 9 To initiate the discussions on this phase, three of the conferees made statements from the point of view of their particular responsibilities: Eugene Chamberlain of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from that of a foreign student adviser, William H. Strain of Indiana University from that of an undergraduate admissions officer, and Robert E. Tschan of Pennsylvania State University from that of a graduate admissions officer. Their remarks, the general discussions, and the case examples presented by the conferees made clear that one problem in this connection is that there has been no general agreement among United States institutions as to what constitutes excessive recognition of foreign educational experience. This is evidenced by the wide diversity of practices of different institutions in the evaluation of foreign study for admission and placement purposes and the possible assignment of advanced standing credit. The desirability of greater uniformity in this regard and the role of various organizations, such as the Council on Evaluation of Foreign Student Credentials, the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO), NAFSA, and the U. S. Office of Education in this connection, were emphasized. There was considerable discussion of testing foreign students for subject mastery, as a means of determining proper placement and possible assignment of advanced credit for those seeking college entrance. Warnings were voiced by some of the conferees against large-scale granting of advanced credit on this basis, since in the United States a certain quantitative achievement represented by completion of a full secondary school program is normally required for college freshman admission, aid a similar quantitative achievement should be required of foreign students. Another proposal for gaging proper placement and the granting of advanced credit was that foreign students be placed in courses at the advanced level they claimed to have achieved and if able to perform at this level be granted credit accordingly. On the other hand, it was pointed out that in some cases foreign students with little or no university education here or in their own countries had been allowed to enroll in graduate level courses and had done very well, even to the point in a fe^ instances of being awarded a master*s degree without a bachelor's or comparable degree (as for example in the case of a student who obtained a master's degree in her native language from a well-known United States institution). The probable adverse effects of such practices on the prestige of American higher education were recognized by the conferees. Despite the lack of uniformity from institution to institution in the recognition and evaluation of foreign educational experience, the conference discussions and the individual cases presented indicated agreement that there have been excessive expectations by students. The consensus of the conferees appeared to be that such expectations reflected a lack of under¬ standing and in some cases a low regard for United States education. Some of the reasons given by conferees for the existence of this situation were the following: 1. The fact that in most foreign systems subject specializa¬ tion or professional training has usually begun at an earlier stage of the higher education process than in the United States. (It was recognized that this situation is beginning to change in some foreign areas where general or 10 preprofessional education is being introduced into the beginning years of higher education.) Persons who have completed part or all of academic secondary education and would be eligible in their own countries to begin specialization in university or other programs have often felt they have completed all the general and preprofessional education they need to enter programs of specialization and professional education in this country. 2. The low esteem in which the American bachelor*s degree is held in many foreign countries (mentioned by Mr. Chamberlain in his remarks and confirmed by oilier conferees). This leads some foreign students to claim that their less than full university education is at least comparable to a bachelor*s degree program in the United States. 3. Foreign educational terms which may be used in connection with secondary level programs and institutions abroad but which soulcl similar to terminology of higher education in the United States (e.g., such terms as "college” and ’’bachelor’s degree"). U* Encouragement toward excessive expectations given foreign students by educational authorities of their own countries, and also at times by Americans not well informed about foreign and/or United States education. Two other reasons cited for the existence of excessive recognition expectations of foreign educated persons were the tendency to try to get all the credit possible, and the higher level of admission allegedly accorded other students with identifcal or similar credentials. One participant noted that frequently students making excessive credit demands are the same ones >ho use undue pressure to secure other favors. With respect to students from newer or less developed countries, it was pointed out that nationalistic and personal pride make them reluctant to concede that their certificates, diplomas, and degrees are not worthy of favorable comparison with those of United States institutions. Whatever the factors leading to excessive demands for recognition, there appeared to be general agreement among the conferees that acceding to such demands would perpetuate misunderstanding and downgrading of United States education abroad. Mr. Strain summarized in his remarks certain types of cases involving excessive expectations or demands for placement and credit at the under¬ graduate level, which are indicative of a misunderstanding or low regard for United States education and which if acceded to tend to confirm such impres¬ sions. The comments of other conferees and the individual cases presented confirmed his analysis. The following types of cases were mentioned by Mr. Strain: 11 1. Persons completing academic secondary education in many countries, particularly in Western Europe and in other European-oriented systems, often claim they have completed the equivalent of the United States junior college and demand as much as two years advanced undergraduate stand¬ ing. French-educated students, particularly those from France*s foimer dependencies, are among the most demanding, insisting that the French second baccalaureate be accepted for junior standing in the United States. Scandinavian students sometimes make the same claim for their various maturity certificates, as do many students from the Netherlands, Belgium, and other West European countries. With respect to British area students, Mr. Strain noted that they sometimes do likewise, but the pattern of British secondary education and terminal examinations does not lend itself as easily to an ostensible basis for such demands. Several other conferees noted, however, that in some British Commonwealth areas, expectations of advanced standing in excess of what is considered reasonable in the United States have been encouraged by charts of British and United States equivalencies prepared by local authori¬ ties. Particularly, it was the experience of some of those present that students from some British oriented areas having "form 6" work culminating in successful examinations for the Higher School Certificate or the Advanced Level General Certificate of Education felt they should have a full two years advanced standing, a demand which it appeared the conferees generally considered excessive. Mr. Strain observed that Canadian senior matriculants, Aether 12th- or 13th-grade graduates, also frequently demand junior-year standing. He was of the view that, generally speaking, graduates of 13-year elementary- secondary systems are more likely to deserve and get part of what they demand, perhaps up to one years advanced stand¬ ing, and that this can be granted without damage to the reputation of United States education. 2. Graduates of normal (teacher training) schools, which in most countries of the world are for the preparation of elementary school teachers and which are attended in lieu of secondary schools, often feel that they are already professionals and should be recognized on a par with elementary school teachers from countries where post¬ secondary preparation is the rule. Wien entering United States institutions of higher learning, they often demand at least junior-year and at times graduate standing and 12 and refuse to take basic college-level courses in psychology, education, and other subjects, claiming that they have already had them, or that their age and maturity as teachers ano students be given recognition. 3. Likewise, graduates of foreign technical, commercial, or vocational schools and programs, which parallel academic secondary programs and lead to a vocational or occupa¬ tional title, often ask to be admitted and given credit toward degrees in various technical or specialized fields. Sometimes these programs are shorter than regular academic secondary programs in their own countries. Often such persons are ineligible to attend universities in their own countries without taking additional courses and exami¬ nations. The granting of college-level credit for s specialized work from most of these institutions, or even the admission of such students, is questionable and will react unfavorably on the reputation of American institutions and degrees. !i. Persons T'ho have taken post-secondary programs of specialization in foreign schools of less than univer¬ sity rank (e.g., in programs of teaching, commercial, agricultural, industrial, or other vocational prepara¬ tion) also usually expect transfer credit and a minimum of time and study to obtain a bachelor’s degree, if not direct admission to graduate standing. Mr. Strain suggested that it would go a long way to protect the reputation of United States institutions and higher education generally, if credit is given in such cases only when the foreign institution is one recognized for credit in its own country and even then only if similar work taken in the United States would be acceptable for credit at the United States institu¬ tion the student wishes to attend. 5. Requests are sometimes made for United States undergraduate admission of graduates of 10-year elementary-secondary systems of the Philippines and other Asian and Pacific areas. A similar situation was noted by other conferees with respect to requests for college admission of students who have completed the first cycle of secondary education in their own countries, usually making a total of 9 or 10 13 years of elementary-secondary schooling. The fact that such students, at times with the encouragement and on the recommendation of Americans, have on occasion gained entrance to United States colleges has contributed to a loss of prestige for American education abroad. With respect to graduate education, Robert Tschan stated that since the attaining of a graduate degree is to a large extent a matter of demonstrat¬ ing mastery in a field of specialization, the problem is more one of determin¬ ing eligibility for admission to graduate standing than of determining place¬ ment level within the status of graduate standing. He emphasized that the need was to hold to proper admission prerequisites, which entail a proper understanding of foreign educational patterns and degrees. Several of the conferees commented on the misconception some foreign students have about being able to "pick up" a degree in the United States in a year or so. In some cases participants here for a year's special training under U. S. Government or other programs have apparently expected to do this. In other cases students from Europe who have finished course work for a degree there have thought they could acquire a degree here simply by complet¬ ing a thesis. Several participants observed that such misconceptions reflect a view widely held throughout the world that the United States is the easiest place in the world to get a degree. Dean Reginald Phelps of Harvard, referring to Mr. Rosen's earlier comment regarding the possibility of increasing pressure for admitting foreign students who might not have the best academic qualifications, felt that American graduate schools would not and should not respond to such pressures, but that perhaps special diploma or certificate programs of vocational or quasi-vocational training should be worked out to meet the needs of such students. Professor Brickman noted, as an example of this type of approach in another country, the establishment of the new Peoples Friendship University in Moscow as a special institution for students from less-developed countries who would not be taking regular degree programs in Soviet universities. With reference to secondary education, Dr. Brain and others indicated that they felt it was both realistic and incumbent for the prestige of American education that transfer students at that level not be overclassified. Remarks made by certain of the conferees and some of the written comments seemed to suggest that the standing of United States higher education varies with the reputation of a particular institution. This appeared also to be evidenced by statements indicating a willingness by foreign students to accept with relatively little controversy the evaluations, procedures (includ¬ ing achievement examinations), and placement decisions of certain institutions, even when they did not meet the students* original expectations. On the other hand, from remarks made by conferees it seemed foreign students were at times less willing to accept evaluations and placement decisions of institutions enjoying less prestige, when these decisions fell short of the students’ expectations. lli of U. S. Education Abroad? » S. Educational Experience In remarks opening the discussions on this aspect of the problem. Dr. Ivan Putnam, Adviser to Foreign Students at the University of Florida, set forth some of the reasons why persons educated in the United States some¬ times experience difficulties in securing recognition or acceptance of their education. He made the following points, with specific illustrative examples: 1. The "recognizors" of U. S. educational experience, i.e., those who are responsible for granting official recogni¬ tion to or employing those with such experience, often think European education is superior, because they have been educated in Europe and are oriented to European educational systems. 2. They are relatively ignorant of United States education and cannot understand its diversity and flexibility. 3. They operate in centralized educational systems with policies and practices set at the national level and therefore tend to view all United States education as evidence of a national pattern; being human, they often generalize from the worst examples of American- educated people and the worst errors of United States institutions in conferring degrees on foreign students. U* They believe United States education has no standards because of (a) poor admissions standards and (b) the double standard of academic work in some institutions for foreign students. They draw conclusions unfavor¬ able to U. S. education from examples of persons who were poor students at home and perhaps failed in their efforts to get degrees, but who were admitted to and obtained degrees from United States institutions, sometimes in relatively short periods of time. 5. The foreign students who graduate from our schools determine, in the long run, our educational reputation abroad, and their qualifications in ability and personal characteristics vary greatly. They sometimes tend to overvalue themselves and their United States education in terms of positions they will accept. 6. There are frequently local factors over which the returning student has little or no control that prevent full utilization of his education and skills. Interpretation Recognition of U 15 7. Considering all the hazards and handicaps, it is remark¬ able that United States education is as well thought of as it is. Ur. Putnam stated that of students from 20 countries of Latin America, Europe, and Asia with whom he had recently talked, all but a student from one Southeast Asia country believed that a United States degree was a definite asset in their home countries. Following Dr. Putnam’s remarks, the conferees presented and discussed different situations, with case examples, in which American credits and degrees have not been accepted abroad or have been given only partial recognition. It became clear that the situation varies from country to country and may depend also on the United States institution and field of study in which the degree is taken or the credits earned. It was also pointed out that there are situations in which factors other than the reputation of United States education have been involved in the failure of students educated in the United States to receive recognition or employment commensurate with their education. Lack of employment opportunities, favoritism for political, religious, and family reasons, and personal factors were cited in this connection. Neverthe¬ less, it seemed clear that there have been a growing number of situations in which American-educated individuals have found official policies, regulations, and administrative interpretations have prevented the full acceptance or recognition of their United States educational experience and degrees. Some of the examples of nonrecognition of United States education brought out in the discussions and in the specific cases presented by the conference participants were the following: 1. Nonacceptance of United States degrees on an equal basis with comparable degrees from other countries . The situation in this regard in certain Middle East, Far East, African and Latin American countries was noted by various conferees. The lack of acceptability of the United States bachelor's degree in many countries in Europe and British Commonwealth areas was again emphasized by several conference participants. The practice followed at times in some foiroer British colonial areas, including new countries of Africa, A.sia, and the West Indies, of requiring a United States master's degree as the equivalent of a British univer¬ sity's bachelor's degree was noted. Some of the conference participants commented on the tendency in some countries to equate a United States bachelor's degree from many institutions with not much more than a good secondary school certificate in the given country. 16 2. The restrictive practices in certain countries in recognizing degrees £rom only a few United States institutions . A report conveyed Vy the U. S. Public Affairs officer in one Near Eastern country in 1955 that it recognized degrees from only 5 United States institutions was cited in this connection. Also mentioned was the so-called Mellor Report, embodying views of the former Adviser for British Colonial Students in Washington, which endeavored to set forth criteria for differentiating between degrees of various United States institutions. The recent announcement of the Government of Malaya that it would henceforth recognize degrees in certain speci¬ fied fields from lUO United States institutions was noted. 3. Nonrecognition of United States secondary school credits and diplomas for purposes of further educa¬ tion. Mr. Nicholas Schreiber, Principal of Ann Arbor High School, which has accepted European secondary students under the Department of State's Teen-Age Exchange Program, in cooperation with the Michigan Council of Churches' Youth for Understand¬ ing Program, commented on this point and presented taped interviews with exchange students in his school. Practically all of these students stated that they would receive no credit or recognition of the work taken at Ann Arbor High School. They would be required to resume their secondary studies in Europe where they had left off, and would not be permitted to take regular or special examinations to demonstrate the satisfying of requirements in their home countries on the basis of the year spent in secondary studies in the United States. (Following this conference Mr. Schreiber was leaving for Europe with a group of Michigan school administrators to look into the possibility of securing European acceptance of Michigan high school work under this program. Audio-visual materials on the nature and scope of the Michigan high school curriculum and program were being taken along.) U» The unacceptability of a United States high school cti ploma for college or university entrance in many Toreign countries . The requirement in certain countries of twoor more years of American college or university work for university entrance was noted. 17 5* The lack of recognition of United States college and university credits for transfer purposes at foreign insti¬ tutions of higher learning* For example, Miss Eunice Chapman, Chairman of the AACRAO Committee on Foreign Students, reported -that in two European countries she visited in 1957 students "who have studied a year or two in the United States are required to start exactly at the place where they left off. 11 She also reported that many of the foreign students at her institution, Hastings College, state that "if they wish to continue their education at home they will receive little recog¬ nition of their accomplishment in the United States•" Dr. Stewart Patterson of the International Cooperation Administration and Mr. George Mann of the Department of State were asked to discuss this aspect of the conference theme from the point of view of U. S. Government programs and interests. Insofar as the foreign participants in ICA*s special training programs in American universities in the field of education are concerned. Dr. Patterson stated that, generally speaking, they have returned home with a warm appreciation of their experience in the United States and seemed to gain academic status as a result of this experience. He noted that this might result from a somewhat "ready made" situation for ICA participant trainees, who are not regular students but are usually more mature persons already employed by their governments and chosen for further training in the interest of the overall cooperative program objectives of the two governments. Such persons noimally return to the positions they have left, or to other positions for which they are being specifically prepared. Dr. Patterson noted that problems faced by ICA trainees in regard to recognition of United States experience may increase. He foresaw an increas¬ ing number of problems arising, for example, in the newer and less-developed countries, where it vras likely that circumstances and demands would, necessi¬ tate that ICA shift for the time being from the concept of giving special educational training, within the framework of an individual ICA country project or program, to the award or scholarship approach, in which it is more normal to put the general academic wishes and program, of the student (includ¬ ing his desire for a degree) ahead of his place in the total project. He also indicated that as there come to be an increasing number of such students from former colonial areas under ICA programs, graduates of United States institu¬ tions will find that professional status and certification will not always be possible under the unrepealed regulations of the former colonial powers. Dr. Patterson observed certain ways in which the prestige of United States education has been served by ICA education programs: (1) as United States educators have worked with foreign ministries of education, and United States academic institutions with similar institutions, governments, and edu¬ cators from other countries, a better understanding and recognition of United States education has developed; (2) the supplying of professional books and 18 journals on education to foreign institutions and participants in ICA programs has the same result; (3) the American concept that education should be geared to serve a community and help meet the latter*s problems promotes better appreciation of United States education -when the practical results of this concept in action can be seen firsthand; and (U) ICA's foreign participants have seen that United States degrees and educational achievement by and large are the result of hard work and that Americans work hard for what they have. Mr. Mann stated that "problems in education internationally arise less because one system is better or worse than because they are different and don't match up; world-wide uniformity cannot be expected, so means must be found to gear systems to each other." He observed that both Americans and persons coming here with foreign educational experience have the same objec¬ tive; we want American education credited abroad and they want credit for their educations abroad. He felt we would make more headway if we let others know that we appreciate their values, and that we recognize our own limita¬ tions and are trying to correct our faults. Fhile Mr. Mann agreed that more knowledge abroad about United States education can improve its reputation, he asserted that its successful operation for students from abroad will do it the most good; this c alls for better counseling, more rigid selection of students, tailoring students' academic experience to their future career needs, and offering them more flexible possi¬ bilities here without using a double standard or offering second-class or "bogus" degrees. He reiterated that in the interest of the reputation of United States education, we cannot afford to lower our standards, and he noted that the demand for United States education is high and is mounting abroad. T,1 ith respect to specific problems in recognition of United States educational experience, he said the different situations in individual countries and the different kinds of educational experience tend to invalidate generalizations, and that problems require detailed analysis and specific solutions. Further points made on this aspect of the conference topic in the general discussions and in the written comments submitted by the conferees included the following: 1. The fact that many foreign students continue their education in the United States does not necessarily mean that ministries of education and university officials consider the United States educational system on a level with theirs. Those countries most dedicated to the traditions of the past in their own school systems are likely to be the ones to give little recognition to credits and degrees earned in the United States. 19 2. Ve need more information to permit a real understanding of the extent and nature of the problem of nonrecogni¬ tion. In some cases it appears to be basically one of satisfying legal and administrative procedures and regulations for recognition of foreign study. The situation in the Middle and Far East, for example, is far from clear despite cases of difficulties reported, and the situations there as elsewhere seem to vary from country to country and case to case. 3. Representatives of some institutions indicated that they had little evidence or infomation concerning difficulties in acceptance of the degrees they had granted to foreign students. h» The recognition of United States credits and degrees abroad is a reflection of acceptance or recognition of the philosophy, objectives, practices, and accomplish¬ ments of United States education. To the extent that United States education is accepted in this sense, the problem of recognition of credits and degrees will diminish. Various examples were cited, in addition to those mentioned by Dr. Patterson stemming from ICA education programs, of foreign acceptance of United States educational concepts and practices. Dr. Brickman made the point that dissertation subjects chosen by foreign graduate students and approved by faculties of United States institutions have at times caused a lack of respect for United States education because they indicated American faculty members were ignorant of work done abroad in their own fields and approved topics already worked on abroad or not worthy of intensive study. Conclusions and Recommendations The last session of the conference was devoted to soliciting and bringing together proposals of the conferees on possible courses of action to meet the needs of the situation as developed by the previous discussions, and to indicating which agencies, public or private, they felt could best carry out the proposals. Same suggestions made during the preceding discussions are reiterated here as an overall summary. From this discussion, it seemed clear that the participants felt there were special aptitudes and circumstances favoring the performance of particular tasks by certain agencies or groups. It seemed to be the consensus that the interest shown by the U. S. Office of Education in this problem should be continued and that the Office should take the lead in bringing together repre¬ sentatives of the groups concerned. 20 Mr. Tschan observed that specific responsibilities of different agencies in this connection would appear to be fairly well indicated by the nature of the tasks to be done. He felt, for example, that the Office of Education could and should continue to supply information on foreign educational systems and developments, and to act as catalyst and backstopper for future activity relating to the conference theme. AACRAO and the Council on the Evaluation of Foreign Student Credentials could continue to take steps toward a more uniform and proper pattern of foreign credential evaluation and placement procedures 3 NAFSA could stimulate better followup procedures to see what happens to students and the recognition of their United States education when they return home; and accrediting agencies should be made aware of the needs of the situa¬ tion and should establish norms for the American system of higher education as a whole. T lLth further specific reference to the role of the Office of Education, Mr. Klinger recommended, for example, that the Office’s Cooperative Research Program should be extended to include research projects by associations as well as by institutions. He stated that professional organizations like NAFSA and AACRAO could be useful in getting their individual members to undertake needed research projects in connection with the theme of the conference. He cited specific projects such as (1) an expansion of the chart prepared by Mrs. Inez Sepmeyer of the Admissions Office at the University of California for the i 960 AACRAO meeting, which showed the wide divergences in the practices of selected United States institutions in evaluating credentials from certain European and other foreign countries, (2) a study of the validity of placement and achievement tests in the admissions and placement procedure for foreign students, and (3) a survey of the entire field of engineering education for foreign students in the United States. Another proposal which received support among the conferees w r as that the Office establish a clearing house to coordinate and serve as a center of information on research projects and the compilation of data bearing on the conference theme. Better Foreign Understanding of United States Education Tilth respect to the need discussed on the first day of the conference for wider knowledge in foreign countries about United States education, the following proposals were made or renewed: 1. The preparation and broad distribution of information on the United States educational system and its philosophy, objectives, and achievements. It was hoped that the proposed ACE publication would serve this purpose. It was noted that the Office of Education is updating and reissuing its publication on Education in the United States of America. It was suggested that USIA translate and distribute more of these materials on a wide scale. Mr. Conley of USIA said that while USIA has a substantia], program for translation and distribution of materials of this kind, the program is largely a decentralized field operation geared to needs in each country as seen by each USIA foreign post. 21 2, A more active and intensive role by the U. S. Government and its cultural officers abroad in informing foreign educational officials and personnel about United States educational patterns and institutions. 3. More orientation for United States cultural officers on education in the United States. Mr. Klinger suggested that more use be made of NAFSA facilities in this connection. U. Appointment to foreign posts of American educational attaches \ho would be experts on United States educa¬ tion and would report on and interpret educational patterns and developments in other countries. It was pointed out that the diversity of the duties and back¬ grounds of cultural affairs officers and the demands on their time make it difficult for all of them to delve into educational matters in depth. 5>. More publication and foreign distribution of the output of American scholarship (Professor Brickman*s proposal). It was suggested this be done by enlisting the support of the learned and scholarly societies with assistance from ITSIA. 6. Bringing more qualified and highly placed educators and educational officials from foreign countries to the United States to observe and study the educational system and institutions. 7. Compilation, perhaps by the Office of Education, of annotated bibliographies of publications or articles on United States education by educators and specialists from each country. Professor Brickman, who made this proposal, noted that in this way a summary of the out¬ put and views of each country*s education specialists on United States education would be available. 8. More exhibits and displays in foreign areas depicting and explaining education in the United States. 22 High Standards for Foreign Students On the matter of "dubious educational practices" of United States institutions vis-a-vis foreign students, which had been referred to by Dr. Anderson, there was general agreement that the Office of Education and the U. S. Government should continue to publicize fully the facts concerning "degree and diploma mills," and that all possible legal action should be taken against them. !£Lth respect to the double standard for foreign students, the desirability of wide distribution to United States institutions of infor¬ mation on this practice and its harmful effects on the standing of United States education and the returning foreign student was emphasized. Specifically, the following recommendations were made or reiterated: 1. There should be more uniform and realistic evaluation of foreign academic credentials by United States educa¬ tional institutions, in order to overcome the wide discrepancies that exist despite a trend toward this goal. 2. There should be closer relationships and cooperation between United States and foreign educators and officials, in an effort to establish a basis for proper equivalencies. There seemed to be a feeling that the Office of Education should take the lead in this matter. Mrs. Sepmeyer recommended that American educators get together with highly placed representa¬ tives of foreign ministries of education for the purpose of exchanging information and of reaching agreements on approximately equivalent levels of study and courses at the secondary level which would be useful in determining eligibility for college or university entrance. She suggested that such -work¬ ing groups might develop into bi-national commissions. She and others also recommended that such groups include curriculum specialists who could compare content coverage in different fields of study, as evidenced in syllabuses and textbooks, for example. 3. Mrs. Elinor Reams of the ACE and Mr. Theodore Polk, Coordinator of Graduate Studies at the University of Pittsburgh's School of Education, recommended a project for developing information on the offerings of foreign institutions of higher education from the standpoint of their ecruivalency to American institu¬ tional offerings for the bachelor's degree. Mrs. Reams felt this could best be undertaken by the Office of Education because of its official position and contacts with foreign governments and 23 universities, but that if the Office felt it could not or should not, it should arrange with some nonofficial organization to do it. lu Kr. Strain suggested that a statement might be prepared of what United States colleges and universities would like foreign students to have in the way of secondary school preparation for beginning admission, not merely the minimum requirements, and that if properly prepared this should promote the standing of United States educa¬ tion. He thought that AACRAO was perhaps the agency to prepare such a statement. £. Several participants reiterated the need for developing improved placement tests and testing procedures in the admission of foreign students, perhaps under Office of Education leadership. It was noted that the College Entrance Examination Board has begun to give considera¬ tion to this matter. 6. Analysis by country of the performance of foreign students in programs in United States institutions, in relation to their previous academic education and train¬ ing, was proposed as a guide to realistic placement of students from each country. Some thought the Office of Education would be the agency to undertake such a project or to arrange to have it done elsewhere. 7. Closely related was the suggestion that foreign students be placed in various subjects at the level they feel they should be and their performance closely followed to obtain guidelines on the performance of students who present various types of secondary maturity certificates. 8. After admission, performance comparable to that expected of American students should be required of foreign students. 2h Recognition of United States Educational Experience T !ith respect to the recognition and acceptance abroad of United States educational experience, suggestions made or reiterated by the conferees included the following: 1. More complete followup information should be developed and summarized on the situation of the returned foreign student. It appeared to be the consensus that this information has not been obtained or analyzed in a systematic manner. The ouestion was raised as to ■whether the material on returned foreign students in Department of State and USIA files could be opened to nongovernmental investigators and researchers, since there have been followup reports on participants in government-sponsored exchange programs. For non¬ official programs followup systems should be more fully developed. 2. It was recommended that the situation on recognition be studied on a country-by-country basis, talcing into full account the experiences of as many American- educated individuals as possible and the impressions of all qualified observers on the attitudes and practices toward United States educational experience in individual countries. 3. Studies should be made of the legal and administative regulations in individual countries with respect to recognition of degrees and credits earned in the United States, or foreign countries generally, in connection with their presentation for further educa¬ tion or professional licensing or certification and employment. Several participants recommended that the Office of Education do this or arrange for it to be done. li. Vhere specific situations or cases of lack of recog¬ nition or acceptance of United States degrees and credits exist, U. S. Government representatives, such as cultural affairs officers, should take necessary and appropriate steps to correct misinformation and narrow judgments about United States education. It was recommended that more high officials of ministries of education and other officials who are directly concerned with recognition of United States credits and degrees be brought to the United States to become familiar with educational patterns and programs in this country. 25 > 6. Several conferees suggested that, in order to assist foreign students to choose institutions and programs likely to receive recognition in individual foreign countries, there should be better arrangements for providing U. 3. cultural officers and others advising foreign students abroad with information on the colleges and universities having special facilities for various fields of study. It was pointed out that such informa¬ tion is now available with respect to accreditation of higher education institutions by professional societies for various fields of professional study, and that this information should be more widely distributed. Also suggested in this connection was the possibility of developing some method for a discriminating evaluation and selection of United States institutions and their programs of study for foreign students. Some of the conferees maintained that there were difficulties and hazards in evaluating United States institutions from this point of view; others pointed out that this is being done in some cases by foreign sources perhaps less able than we are to evaluate American educational institutions and programs. 7. It was also recommended that better methods be instituted for supplying information on foreign evaluations of United States educational institutions, programs, degrees, and credits to foreign student advisers in United States institutions. APPENDIX Participants in the Conference Chairman - Charles C. Hauch Office of Education Representative on AACRAO Foreign Student Committee Specialist, Comparative Education Western Hemisphere From Outside the U. S. Government C. Arnold Anderson Director, Comparative Education Center The University of Chicago Chicago, Illinois Hurst Anderson President, The American University Chairman, Committee to Insure a Better Understanding of American Higher Education Abroad American Council on Education Washington, D. C. George B. Brain Superintendent, Baltimore Public Schools Baltimore, Maryland William W. Brickman Professor of Education New York University New York, New York Eugene R. Chamberlain Associate Adviser to Foreign Students Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts Eunice Chapman Chairman, AACRAO Foreign Student Committee Registrar, Hastings College Hastings, Nebraska 26 27 Robert S. Ford Associate Dean, School of Graduate Studies Chairman, Council on Evaluation of Foreign Student Credentials University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan Hattie Jarmon Executive Officer in Charge of Admissions Teachers College, Columbia University New York, New York William H. E. Johnson Professor of Education University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Robert B. Klinger Chairman, NAFSA Research Committee Counselor, The International Center University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan *Clara Koenig Editor, AACRAO World Education Series University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota John Mostert Director of Admissions Moody Bible Institute Chicago, Illinois Joseph Neal Director, International Office University of Texas Austin, Texas Reginald Phelps Acting Dean, The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts Theodore Polk Coordinator of Graduate Studies School of Education University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 28 Ivan Putnam, Jr* Adviser to Foreign Students University of Florida Gainesville, Florida Elinor P. Reams Special Associate and Consultant to the Commission on Education in International Affairs American Council on Education Washington, D. C. Nicholas Schreiber Principal, Ann Arbor High School Ann Arbor, Michigan Inez Sepmeyer Senior Administrative Assistant Office of the Director of Admissions University of California Los Angeles, California Clara Simerville Foreign Student Counselor Oregon State College Corvallis, Oregon ^Morris A. Stewart Dean of the Graduate Division University of California Berkeley, California William H. Strain Coordinator, AACRAO World Education Series5 and Secretary, Council on Evaluation of Foreign Student Credentials Associate Registrar for Admissions Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana Alfred Thomas, Jr. Registrar and Director of Admissions Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona •^Arthur Tichenor Adviser to Foreign Students Purdue University Lafayette, Indiana 29 J. Richard Toven Director, Foreign Student Center New York University New York, New York Robert E. Tschan Assistant Dean, The Graduate School Pennsylvania State University University Park, Pennsylvania Lily von Klemperer Head, Information and Counseling Division Institute of International Education New York, New York Herrick B. Young President Western College for 'vomen Oxford, Ohio