<p>There's a surprise :)</p>
<p>I think the best way to work around this is to look at the study abroad options at other universities in addition to one's own. There are thousands out there and there is no reason to be restricted to a couple of dozen.</p>
<p>And can colleges get any lower than this type of sell-the-student-and-profit mentality? We are not an asset to be sold.</p>
<p>Having dealt with study abroad for my son thru outside institutions, as well as looked at various LAC, I'm not surpised. At least some of the state schools are very open in terms of programs students can use. The LAC seem quite narrow, and require those of us with financial aid to use their programs only, or financial aid doesn't apply. On one hand, it can be a way to ensure quality of programming, on the other hand, it is quite restrictive, and I think limits the immersion potential, as they are with other students from their home school, and spend too much time with other Americans, rather than the target culture. And after reading this, I'm aware they have other, economic incentives.</p>
<p>I think this article overlooked schools that do accept other programs as long as they are pre-approved by the school. Tufts, for instance, has an enormous list of approved programs many of which are through other schools.</p>
<p>As far as the kid at Columbia, I'm confused as to why he thought the school would renege. Columbia has an exchange program with Oxford, through Oxford that they prefer kids take because it's more in line with Columbia's own programs. Is it weird that they wouldn't approve the other one? Yes. But if a school tells you they won't approve program X, don't be surprised when they in fact do not approve program X.</p>
<p>At my d's school, they spend well more per student on their own JYA programs (all in Western Europe) than they do back at the home campus. Very few students from other schools get in (the language standards are too high), and recently, there has been more demand from within the college itself than there are places. Financial aid does carry to all other approved programs, and, if the program isn't already on the list, one can petition to have a faculty member approve it. </p>
<p>The differences among programs, even in same country, even in the same city, are IMMENSE. My d. and my stepnephew (Smith and Duke) both were in programs in (or near) the same city at the same time, and the experiences were as night and day.</p>
<p>The value (in academic and monetary terms) of study abroad programs is rarely as positive as some like to present. In a nutshell, I find the proposition of trading an expensive tuition and expensive room and board for cheapened versions remarkably poor, even at private and restricted programs. </p>
<p>On the other hand, the value for the participating colleges (space and enrollment management) is a lot more tangible. </p>
<p>Most of the programs are available at a fraction of the cost and deliver a better experience AFTER graduation, especially in the form of a foreign master's degree. It won't take long for foreign schools to market such programs with abandon.</p>
<p>SES:</p>
<p>But isn't it strange that Columbia would be so inflexible? It isn't as if Oxford was some unknown university. My S looked into study abroad program. He was a bit late looking at study abroad program, so he could not get into the one available through Butler. But his college also allowed students to attend the same university without going through Butler. The main difference was that S would have to find housing on his own. There was absolutely no difference in terms of academics--and to address Xiggi's point, we had to pay the high cost of tuition at his LAC despite the fact that the foreign university's own tuition was much lower.
I suspect that Columbia's reason were financial rather than academic and considering the recent financial aid scandal, I'm not surprised.</p>
<p>The program Columbia uses for Oxford is a particular, selective Columbia-based program called Oxbridge Scholars." It is very competitive to get into. It's not just one from the list.</p>
<p>I think your last comment Marite was unnecessarily cutting. I'm not excusing them, but the fact is, the subsidized Stafford we were offered and took through their FA office was the same in all particularities including cost and interest rate as any other we could have gotten. Staffords are pretty well regulated, and i don't think that the FA situation there (and at many schools) called for a blanket condemnation such as you just made.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is it weird that they wouldn't approve the other one? Yes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I do think it's weird. But the program is a direct exchange with Oxford NOT a program through another university, so I doubt there is a kickback for Columbia. I think the problem lies in an overly rigid administration rather than something else.</p>
<p>However, the reason the young man interviewed went through a different program for Oxford was probably because he wasn't chosen for the incredibly competitive program that Columbia offers.</p>
<p>From their website:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Approximately 16 students a year go to an Oxbridge college to study their major. Students should have at least a 3.6 GPA. Student selection is made by application due by December 1st of the sophomore year. The Committee will select students with a strong academic record and by appropriate major for study at an Oxbridge college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Garland, I think that there is little justification for actions by schools that follow the example given by Marite where one has "to pay the high cost of tuition at his LAC despite the fact that the foreign university's own tuition was much lower." This is especially true for families that do not receive much financial aid. This said, for students who are on generous finaid, the difference is more subtle. </p>
<p>However, schools that insist in charging the same tuition for students who are abroad should be forced to examine this practice if it IS solely meant to profit from it. The practice of paying schools or professors "kickbacks" should be abolished in all areas of education, and this encompasses study abroad programs, students loans, and academic textbooks choices.</p>
<p>Xiggi-- I agrree, though that tuition difference issue seems ubiquitous. but I think that's different from gratuitously accusing a school of not approving a program because they didn't get a kickback from it. There could possibly be another reason.</p>
<p>SES:</p>
<p>So, does this mean that Columbia discourages students from studying at Oxford unless they are among the "happy few"? Is there some academic reason for it? The more I read, the more I think the young man was justified. And he ended up with an Oxford degree. Good for him--I expect it ended up costing less than Columbia. </p>
<p>Columbia is not the only college that benefits mightily from study abroad programs. Wes did, too, very substantially, from us. Between that and the cost of airfare, we ended up paying more than if he'd stayed put. glad that the NYT published this article.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think your last comment Marite was unnecessarily cutting. I'm not excusing them, but the fact is, the subsidized Stafford we were offered and took through their FA office was the same in all particularities including cost and interest rate as any other we could have gotten. Staffords are pretty well regulated, and i don't think that the FA situation there (and at many schools) called for a blanket condemnation such as you just made.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Garland: Did the accusations against Columbia and other schools that engaged in kickbacks suggest that applicants could have gotten better deals elsewhere? I did not read carefully but it did not seem so to me.</p>
<p>Marite, call me naive in this area, but is that the norm when studying abroad - to pay the high private school tuition and not the lower foreign tution. That seems like a real ripoff since you're not using any of the LAC's resources.</p>
<p>But for kids on financial aid, especially those with full rides or close to full rides, it's actually a better deal.</p>
<p>I don't think that European colleges actually cost the same for international stdents. The schools are subsidized by the state and those resources aren't really meant for translation to non-EU kids.</p>
<p>Canada, for instance, charges non-Canadian citizens more than twice what it charges Canadian citizens.</p>
<p>There is another facet to this, in that at some of the LAC, (most?) study abroad is the same charge as tuition at the home campus, and they don't differentiate between cheap and expensive countries. So the expensive countries are subsidized a bit, I'd assume, by the lower cost in other parts of the world. This was explained to me when attending a session about exchanges at Grinnell, and I was impressed with the egalitarian nature of their plan. They seemed to accept a variety of programs, and when I asked if we found one that was less than Grinnell's tuition, if we received the savings, the tone changed. Well, no he said in haste, that would never happen, they're all more expensive. </p>
<p>However, having dealt with this before, I know some are substantially less per semester than LAC tuition. Looking at IES, a standard study abroad program vendor, a semester in Quito is $12,500, and in Barcelona, $14,990, including meals, health insurance and homestay room and board. Airfare is more, as are extra trips. Semester in Lima, Peru with CIEE $9,900. When you think that the tuition at these universities may be far less than the study abroad program charges, and then kickbacks, money is being made in numerous places. Now some schools send a faculty member with trips from their home institutions, and probably have more of a subtext of discussing what is being seen rather than just sending students to a university to mingle and take classes. But it seem a little absurd, these high costs.</p>
<p>The high costs are absurd. But it's what you pay for bypassing direct enrollment at these schools and ensuring that the college will actually grant you credit for the courses you take.</p>
<p>classicrockerroad:</p>
<p>Yes, indeed. We did not know about this aspect of the study abroad program before; nor did we think of studying abroad as a way of saving on tuition. But we learned that the program my S would be attending would be significantly cheaper than his regular college. Many American colleges refuse to let students graduate early, using AP credits; they use the study abroad program s as a way of enrolling more students without providing more housing (hence the January enrollments) and they make the students going abroad pay the same amount of tuition as those who stay on campus. </p>
<p>It makes sense not to allow students to discriminate among study abroad programs on the basis of cost; so it is probably best to have one uniform tuitition. I am, however, unaware of any foreign university with tuition costs as high as American ones, even for foreign students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Garland: Did the accusations against Columbia and other schools that engaged in kickbacks suggest that applicants could have gotten better deals elsewhere? I did not read carefully but it did not seem so to me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No. Nor did anything in this article suggeste, to me, that Columbia is deliberately ripping off students for kickbacks, as you clearly suggest.</p>
<p>I have to say that I am surprised that you are so quick to make wholesale disparagements of an entire University. I often admonish others for doing the same for one that's important to you, and that gets bashed fairly regularly. Because that type of criticism doesn't sit well with me.</p>
<p>Garland:</p>
<p>I take back my snarky comments. At any rate, I had not intended to suggest that Columbia's decision regarding its study abroad program was shaped by kickbacks but by financial issues. I'm sorry it came out that way.</p>
<p>As for Harvard, I try to counter criticism that I think is erroneous or excessive, but not because it is important to me. Just because I know more, I think, than the critics. It's not quid pro quo.</p>