U.S. flag
  U.S. Leadership in International
Education: The Lost Edge
link gif

E Bureau

Conference Report and Action Agenda

United States Information Agency and Educational Testing Service

Washington, D.C.
September 24, 1998

This document reviews the conference deliberations and sets forth recommendations and a suggested plan of action. The Appendices include abstracts of major addresses made during the conference, the conference agenda, a White Paper by Dr. Ted Sanders, President of Southern Illinois University, and a list of conference participants.

Peter Thorp, Vice President,CitibankLinda Pfister,Vice President,ETSDr. Ted Sanders,President,Southern Illinois UniversityDr. Jacquelyn Belcher,President,DeKalb College
Dr. Sharon Robinson,Chief Operating Officer,ETSKeith Geiger,Director,Office of Academic Programs,USIACongressman Donald M. Payne(D),New JerseyDr. Alan Goodman,President and CEO,IIEMarlene Johnson, Executive Director,NAFSA

Honorable Ray Mabus,Fmr. Governor of Mississippi and Fmr. U.S. Amb. to Saudi ArabiaHonorable William Perry, Fmr. Secretary of DefenseStephen Trachtenberg, President,George Washington UniversityDr. Joseph Duffey,Director,USIA


The presence of international students on U.S. campuses has created significant political, social, and economic benefits for our nation as a whole, but disturbing trends throughout the 1990s show that the United States may be losing its competitive edge in international education.

Officials from U.S. higher education and related organizations are seeing large numbers of students from Japan, China, Korea, India - countries that traditionally provide a large proportion of our foreign student enrollment - choosing to study in other countries. In the 1980s, 40 percent of the 1.3 million students studying abroad did so in the United States. Today we enroll just 32 percent.

In addition to this declining trend in the percentage of international students studying in the United States, officials are also noticing aggressive competition from other English-speaking countries.

To address these concerns, Dr. Joseph Duffey, Director of the United States Information Agency, and Dr. Nancy Cole, President of Educational Testing Service, convened a summit at the State Department on September 24, 1998. Participants in the summit on U.S. Leadership in International Education included representatives from institutions of higher education, U.S. corporations, non-profit organizations, and government entities.

The conference participants sought to identify barriers to international educational exchange between the U.S. and other countries and to formulate an action plan to maintain U.S. leadership. A volunteer task force will be formed to take action on the conference recommendations; and USIA will coordinate U.S. government involvement on this front.


At the end of the conference, it was clear that intensified competition from other countries was only part of the reason for the erosion of America's dominant position in the world of international study. Other more troubling signs emerged - ones showing that key players in the United States' international education effort have contributed to this decline through benign neglect. In his White Paper written for the conference, Dr. Ted Sanders, President of Southern Illinois University, identified complacent attitudes on the part of U.S. institutions of higher education toward promoting themselves to foreign students; state and Federal governments failing to promote an aggressive spirit of entrepreneurship in international education; and diminishing Federal funds to support overseas educational advising centers affiliated with the United States Information Agency as factors that have contributed to this neglect.

Dr. Sanders summed up his position by noting, "If we are to regain our position of dominance in this very important area, we must now begin to emulate the enlightened policies of other advanced nations who have seen the future and are aggressively pursuing it. Nationally, we must enhance our tangible support for international efforts within a framework of a broad-based, clearly defined strategy . . . "

Following a series of major addresses, participants joined one of three groups to discuss the issues in-depth. They identified many of the barriers to U.S. leadership in international education.

For purposes of clarity, we have grouped issues identified by conference participants into four categories: those that need to be addressed by higher education; by Federal, state, and local governments; by businesses and corporations; and global systemic issues.

Institutions of Higher Education

For many decades, the flow of international students to the United States seemed to be never ending. Yet, participants agreed that this abundance has contributed to complacency by some institutions, evidenced by inattention to the marketplace. A long complicated application process for U.S. study and the perceived high cost of a U.S. education hamper international exchange, as does limited collaboration between U.S. and foreign institutions. For many younger U.S. faculty, a year abroad is career-deflating rather than enhancing. The difficulties that faculty sometimes experience in taking advantage of opportunities to research or teach abroad diminish the overall impact of international exchange and hamper Fulbright and other sponsored programs. Participants acknowledged that other institutions, however, are actively engaged in entrepreneurial approaches to international education, with extensive collaboration with institutions abroad and active overseas recruitment efforts.

Participants also discussed the inadequate integration of foreign students on American campuses. It was felt that officials at many institutions viewed these students primarily as revenue sources and offered limited mechanisms for incorporating them into or using their experiences to enrich campus life, including limited use of Fulbright students and scholars on U.S. campuses. There was also little effort given to encouraging foreign students to learn about American life. In addition, participants also identified a lack of information provided to international students on opportunities offered by community colleges as entry points to U.S. study. In the area of recruitment, experts at the conference also noted a failure by U.S. campus administrators to utilize and support the USIA-affiliated advising center network and the need to make better use of overseas alumni for recruiting purposes.

Conference participants focussed primarily on issues related to foreign students in the U.S. However, campus internationalization and study abroad issues also received some attention. Participants noted that U.S. students could benefit more broadly from the presence of foreign students on campus, but that interactions between the two groups are often limited. Rigid curriculum requirements, graduate faculty expectations, and restrictions on using financial aid for study abroad often constrain overseas study opportunities for U.S. students.

Federal, State and Local Governments

It was generally agreed that government officials at all levels had ignored or contributed to these disturbing trends. As Dr. Sanders noted, "In years past, the United States relied heavily on its overseas educational advisement centers, supported by the United States Information Agency, to communicate the strengths of the American model' of higher education. Yet Federal funds to support these centers have steadily diminished, forcing some of them to close and services to others to be cut." Cuts in Federal funding have also affected Fulbright and other scholarship programs and exchanges. Congressman Payne pointed out the need to build interest, concern and knowledge of international issues and programs in the Congress.

Most important, participants noted the absence of a clearly articulated foreign policy strategy which recognizes international educational exchange as a fundamentally important endeavor at policy levels. Such a strategy should be accompanied by compatible regulations and procedures that encourage, rather than discourage, foreign students to study in the United States. There is also insufficient recognition in the Federal government of education as a trade issue.

Another issue of concern to conference participants was the lack of coordination at the Federal level between the State Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), as evidenced by burdensome visa regulations, and consular officers with overly heavy caseloads, resulting in visa interviews that shortchange applicants.

At the state level, there is a need for alliances between state university boards, state governments and commerce officials to support international education. Participants stated that state legislatures have sometimes opposed educating international students at state expense.

Corporations and Businesses

Conference attendees agreed that there was a definite need for the business community to pick up where Federal support for scientific and technological research has declined. They also called for greater links between businesses and universities to ensure premier scientific research capacity and the ability to attract the best minds.

Because of the need for global workforce development, the private sector is well positioned to raise awareness and political support. One supporter of increased investment and attention to international study and exchange by corporations was Peter C. Thorp, Vice President of Corporate University Relations and Educational Programs at Citibank. In remarks that could apply to all businesses he said, "Citicorp receives benefits by supporting education from the employment angle - that is, to recruit bright, well-educated employees, and to better position their businesses worldwide. Creating partnerships, creating ties, can make things happen for businesses. Investments in education can be very long term investments in the economies and leadership of foreign countries."

It was generally agreed that U.S. companies especially need to be involved in international education because of their need to recruit employees overseas who are U.S.-trained. Yet only a small percentage of corporate foundation money is devoted to international activities, compared with the amount of corporate income that originates in overseas markets.

In the invitation to conference attendees, Nancy Cole noted, "Businesses need workers who can function in foreign marketplaces and who are sensitive to cultural and societal issues. America is preeminent in educating leaders for the global economy, and we must ensure that the best and brightest international students continue to choose the United States for their post-secondary schooling."

Global Systemic Issues

While the United States remains the country of choice for most foreign students, our relative share of foreign students has fallen because absolute numbers have plateaued. The reasons, conference attendees learned, are also the result of systemic issues that cut across international borders, and some that are beyond the control of government, education or business. Conference participants raised the following points:

  • In 1997-98, the nearly 500,000 foreign students in the U.S. contributed $8.27 billion to the U.S. economy.
  • Foreign students in Australia contributed more than $1 billion to the Australian economy and foreign students in the United Kingdom contributed approximately $1.8 billion to the economy of the U.K.
  • Distance learning technology is creating new outlets for the marketing of education around the world. In some cases, students can receive a degree from a foreign university without ever leaving home.
  • Many educational systems around the world are strengthening their capacity and increasing enrollments in order to keep their "best and brightest" at home for their higher education.
  • The relative strength, or weakness, of economies of other countries relative to that of the U.S. impacts the ability of students from those countries to afford the costs of U.S. study. This balance is constantly changing and can affect the marketing of U.S. higher education dramatically, as evidenced by the recent financial crisis in Asian countries.
  • The ability of foreign students to study in the U.S. is inhibited by a complex regulatory environment unlike that of the countries which compete with the U.S. for these students.

One conference speaker, the Honorable Ray Mabus, former governor of Mississippi and former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, noted, "International students are important to our national and local economies, to the strength of our system of education; they add diversity to our campuses. It is becoming more difficult to attract and keep international students. Competition from developing local institutions around the world and from other countries trying to attract students could lessen the numbers of foreign students coming to the United States. The United States is going to have to do a better job. We've got competition; we're not a monopoly anymore. We can't beat other countries in the price of higher education, but we can be better in quality. We are the best. We need to do a better job of letting everyone know about what we have here in the United States."


The following list of recommendations for action is the combined work of conference attendees and distinguished speakers who are leaders in the world of education, government and business. They are offered by people who daily face the challenges of maintaining America's preeminent position as the destination of choice for international students seeking the best in higher education. The conference attendees felt these recommendations could serve as the basis for a vitally important effort of bringing international education needed recognition.

Conference Participants

It is critical that the Federal government continue to play a significant role in international educational exchange. We recommend that the U.S. government develop a clear Federal policy statement placing international education on the national agenda. The policy would define the goals of the Federal government in the field of international education and inform and direct programming and regulations, including visa regulations, tax policies and funding for grants, and strengthening of the overseas educational advising network.

The corporate community needs to be engaged with U.S. universities and governments at all levels. We must build up communications networks among the various stakeholders, including government, the academic community, and the corporate sector, and develop a consensus on the issues and messages that need to be conveyed. Possible models for partnerships with the business community include NAFSA's ASPIRE project, alliances with the tourism and airlines industries, and state government/business alliances using public funds to match private sector funds as was successfully done in Minnesota to promote tourism and in Massachusetts to increase foreign student flows.

We recognize the critical need for a coherent case on international education to be made to the professional community and the public at large. The public needs to be educated about the positive impact of international student flows and about the serious nature of the issues surrounding U.S. leadership. This message also needs to be addressed to policy makers, corporations, local, state, and national legislators, and administrators and educators at all levels.

We recommend that the full spectrum of U.S. higher education be marketed and represented abroad in a coordinated manner. Ideas to be examined include devising a group-representation mechanism similar to that used by Australian and British universities; convincing state trade missions to include representatives from universities and community colleges (perhaps subsidized by corporate presidents); reestablishing contact with foreign alumni of U.S. universities; and developing different marketing approaches for varying audiences. Alliances should be developed between community colleges and four-year institutions to market themselves jointly overseas as a cost-effective alternative to other countries' publicity about the high cost of U.S. tuition.

5. PUBLICIZE BEST PRACTICES AT U.S. UNIVERSITIES. We recognize the need to develop models that showcase the integration and utilization of foreign students and scholars on campus, and the need to encourage educational institutions to train faculty, staff and administrators on the kinds of systemic change required to make institutions more hospitable and make curricula more global.


1. Convene a task force to disseminate data on marketing international educational exchange, conduct a public advocacy campaign to put international education on the national agenda, and craft a coherent message that demonstrates the political and financial case and engages policy makers.

The task force should be composed of individuals from universities, corporations, non-governmental organizations, and various levels of government, each of whom would be assigned a specific issue/barrier and who would then identify others with whom to work on dismantling the barrier. A number of conference participants volunteered to work on the task force and will be contacted in the near future by ETS and USIA.

2. Convene the concerned Federal government bodies to discuss coordinating policies and procedures. These would most likely include the Department of State, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. USIA representatives agreed to spearhead the quest to coordinate government action.


Dr. Ted Sanders, President of Southern Illinois University, summed up the challenges ahead saying, "The United States has an unparalleled opportunity to market our advanced and very cost-effective delivery system in higher education. If we don't seize this opportunity, if we continue the gradual erosion of international students in our colleges and universities, we will lose far more than tuition dollars, important as these may be to local and state communities."

"As a nation, we will begin to find it more difficult to make friends around the world, to cement ties economically, culturally, and politically. Our influence as a positive international force depends on people in other countries understanding and appreciating American culture. To sustain that powerful instrument of foreign policy, a coordinated and assertive national policy for international education must be placed near the top of the agenda for Congress and the President."

APPENDIX I: Abstracts of Major Addresses

Dr. Joseph Duffey, Director, U.S. Information Agency, Welcoming Remarks

We want to develop a strategic plan to maintain and maybe increase U.S. competitiveness in international education. This competitiveness has implications for educators, business leaders, and the foreign affairs community. Educators are forced to review the quality of U.S. education; business leaders, to ensure dynamism and resources for growth; and the foreign affairs community, to adjust to a world in which it is increasingly necessary to work together with other countries and ensure a more accurate understanding of the U.S. in the post-Cold War era. There is no substitute for international education since neither tourism nor the popular culture currently being exported gives a complete or accurate view of the U.S. I don't think the edge has been lost, but I don't think we can take it for granted.

Dr. Sharon Robinson, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Educational Testing Service

Today is an important step in articulating our conference mission of maintaining the edge in international education and also in developing a strategy to increase the number of global students coming to the United States to work and study. At ETS we sincerely believe that a critical aspect of education is maintaining a global environment where students of every age, learn about and from people of diverse backgrounds. Being exposed to people of different languages, religions and cultures creates an understanding that is critical to maintaining and expanding our own appreciation of diversity and our own sense of well-being. Education makes it all possible.

The Honorable William Perry, Former Secretary of Defense, "American National Security Interests: The Importance of U.S.-Educated International Students"

International education programs create goodwill toward America all over the world. Foreign students are motivated to come to the U.S. because of our leadership, especially in science and technology, which has contributed to our national economic well-being. The most obvious example of American leadership today is in information technology, and our universities have achieved a unique connection with our technical companies. Foreign students come to the U.S. for education in science and technology because they want the best in education and because they want to learn to relate to industry like our universities do.

But the interest of other countries in having their future leaders educated in American universities depends on the U.S. maintaining its world leadership in science. It also depends on America's universities maintaining their standards of excellence in science and technology education and research, which many Americans take for granted. But this leadership cannot be taken for granted in the future.

Education is of critical importance to a country trying to maintain technological leadership. Technological training at U.S. universities has been relevant and cutting edge because of close ties between education and industry. Our leadership in technology today depends on our leadership in technical education and in maintaining the unique bonding between our universities and our technical companies.

The magnet effect' of U.S. universities is decreasing. We need an increase in Federal funds for technology-based programs or alternatively, funding from research consortia composed of industries to invest in technology-based programs at our universities.

Attracting foreign students to study in the U.S. is a win-win-win situation: it's a win for our economy; it's a win for our foreign policy; and it's a win for our educational programs. Foreign students spend money while they are in the U.S., and when they return home, they often become business leaders who deal with U.S. colleagues. In addition, foreign students work hard in graduate courses, which raises the bar for U.S. students, forcing them to work harder.

The Honorable Ray Mabus, Former Governor of Mississippi and Former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, "Building a Global Community, State by State"

I've always thought that if you did one thing right, education was it, and that you could shut down the rest of government if you did that right. We need to give our children the chance to succeed. Globalization and global interdependence affect us every day, in economics and in higher education. More international students come to the U.S. than U.S. students go abroad, which testifies to the excellence of U.S. higher education. At the University of Mississippi, 58 flags fly in the student union, representing the countries of all Ole Miss students, including 2,100 foreign students. These international students are important to our national and local economies, to the strength of our system of education; they add diversity to our campuses. It is becoming more difficult to attract and keep international students. Competition from developing local institutions around the world and from other countries trying to attract students could lessen the numbers of foreign students coming to the U.S. The U.S. is going to have to do a better job. We've got more competition; we're not a monopoly anymore. We can't beat other countries in price of higher education, but we can be better in quality. We are the best. We need to do a better job of letting everyone know about what we have here in the U.S.

On trade visits abroad, state governors should take education representatives, university presidents with them. We need to think internationally' and be more aggressive in reaching the worldwide audience. International students bring new ideas and cultural richness to our universities and our communities. Also, they experience America. This creates some common ground in international relations. Excellence and hard work are needed and will work for higher education. American higher education will prevail.

Dr. Allan Goodman, President and CEO, Institute of International Education, "Open Doors and Opening Minds: Why Both are Needed for the 21st Century"

Three key questions we must answer are: Why is it important for the U.S. to have the leading edge in international education? What is making it so difficult to keep that edge? What do we have to do?

The single most important success factor for our times is having people whose minds are open to the world. This can only happen through international education. English is the international language, the dollar is the world currency, and the Internet is the means of communication. The costs of retaliation and security following the terrorist bombings in Africa were many times the budget request for international education. This disparity is striking.

While the U.S. government will maintain its leadership role in supporting flagship initiatives such as Fulbright, Humphrey and the National Security Education Program, future programs will require enlarging the circle of private sector stakeholders. Sources of corporate philanthropy have contributed only one out of every nine dollars in grant aid to international programs, while corporations earn six out of every ten dollars from their international activities. The best and brightest foreign students are now being aggressively recruited by other countries. We cannot continue to take for granted the flow of foreign students to U.S. campuses, or underestimate the intellectual, strategic, and financial resource they represent.

While foreign governments are developing sophisticated and well-funded strategies to increase the international mobility of their students and faculty members, there is no parallel strategy or resource pool to encourage and facilitate international academic mobility by Americans. Few American corporate leaders have ever articulated the importance of worldwide learning; yet no major business today can expect to survive without managers who are knowledgeable about and able to work across nations as well as cultures.

The numbers of foreign students coming here have been flat for several years, and visas are harder to get. Only about 1 percent of American college students study abroad, many of those in English-speaking countries. The problem is larger than just Federal funding cuts. Some suspect that internationalize' may be just a buzzword rather than a reality. Faculties do not appear convinced about the value of overseas experience and scholarship.

State governments have virtually ignored the foreign investment brought to them in the millions of dollars by international students. Only a handful of states have developed a coordinated academic recruitment strategy. We cannot take for granted those flows of students to our shores.

There is, in sum, work for all of us here to do.

Why is it so difficult? We are cutting budgets. International educational exchanges are being affected. The private sector must step up to the plate to make international study possible. Companies are generating sales from abroad but not giving enough philanthropy or grants back. The private sector must speak out about the need to promote international education activities. Many nations have an international education policy to easily recruit international students. But our prices are high, and we do not have such a policy. We need to.

The U.S. curriculum makes it difficult to do study abroad. Senior scholars often discourage younger faculty from applying for Fulbright or other fellowships. We need to value the overseas experience more. We should also provide more scholarships. Deans and provosts need to change in this direction.

We need to lead a charge together. The U.S. government, state government, academic leaders, and corporate leaders all have roles. Academic leaders must clearly articulate the value of international students on campus and the value of study abroad for U.S. students. CEOs of major companies must speak out on the importance of international education.

Together we have to make the case that international education is one of the surest ways left to make the world a less dangerous place.

Ms. Marlene Johnson, Executive Director, NAFSA: Association of International Educators, "A Model to Improve Strategies for Supporting Study in the United States"

The U.S. needs more data about the potential pool of international students who may be interested in U.S. study. As a nation we don't know nearly as much about where foreign students come from as we should, given their importance to our colleges and universities, to U.S.-based employers, and to local economies. We have an excellent census that tells us more or less everything we need to know about international student enrollments, but we don't know much about what happens upstream. Knowing that two million students come through USIA's network of 450 advising centers worldwide, and that 50-90 percent of the international students who do study in the U.S. have come through those centers, is not enough information. The U.S. should have a keener business sense of this raw material.' What is the potential of U.S. educational advising as a business?

All of us with a stake in international education have something to learn from McDonald's and its strict but flexible strategy of franchising - demanding standardization, yet allowing a high degree of local ownership and customization, simultaneously protecting and extending its brand. Other top U.S. service export sectors - banking, accounting services, and so on - are much more consolidated and benefit from representation by trade groups. In higher education, the bigger names may not need this trade group representation. But the U.S. education system may benefit from cooperative marketing. Such tactics are most needed and most useful in sectors not dominated by one or more highly visible brands. Competitive pressures from Australia, Canada, and the UK, the rising costs of U.S. education, and increasing educational opportunities in students' home countries are issues which should compel the U.S. to think about the benefits of cooperative marketing.

The place to start with these efforts is the network of U.S. overseas advising centers. U.S. higher education needs to recognize this system and make it an integral part of its own system. Data is needed on how much this network costs to operate and how to more precisely assess its effects.

Then we can begin to think of the changes that consolidation can bring. Currently, each university advertises itself to the international market in a variety of means--booths in international events and education fairs, branch campuses, local advertising, and so forth. It is extremely difficult to market U.S. education' abroad when the system of U.S. education itself is larger, more complicated, and more decentralized than any other nation's. An apt analogy for marketing U.S. education abroad might be piloting a supertanker with hundreds of presumptive captains at the helm.

However, the efforts could be worth it. NAFSA believes that the interests of students and universities and colleges alike would benefit by the creation of a more coordinated, disciplined, and focused marketing of U.S. higher education abroad. Exporters, importers and brokers all would gain from the creation of an independent, self-sustaining entity which would provide products and services such as marketing, management, and training after the franchising model. This entity would be funded by its member institutions, Federal and state governments, and businesses.

We must not allow the present system of overseas advising centers to languish and deteriorate. In a changing geopolitical and technological environment, everyone in the room has something to contribute to the health of this vital network and should not pass on the opportunity or the responsibility to promote U.S. higher education to the world. We must think creatively, we must demonstrate our agility and our willingness to consider new strategies, and we must be entrepreneurial. Our contributions will go farther if we make them together.

Summaries of Panel Discussion on "Forging Alliances to Support International Education" Moderator: Dr. Ted Sanders, President, Southern Illinois University

Panelist 1: Congressman Donald M. Payne (D-NJ):

International exchanges are crucial to the U.S. at the edge of the next millennium, especially with our interdependent world. There exists a most unfortunate lack of interest, concern, and even knowledge of international relations in the U.S. and the U.S. House of Representatives. Funding for USIA programs has been cut. This trend should not continue. The numbers of students from Asia, which had been highest in numbers in the world, are declining due to a variety of factors. We need to recruit international students in new markets, in countries where the economies are growing (for example, in South Africa). Payne also advocated recruiting international students to study in diverse areas of the U.S., to those states that host relatively small numbers of international students.

Panelist 2: Mr. Peter C. Thorp, Vice President, Corporate University Relations and Educational Programs, Citibank:

I am a strong supporter of international education. Citicorp is about globalism. The corporation must support the franchise; it is not interested in old-fashioned philanthropy. Citicorp receives benefits by supporting education from the employment angle - that is, to recruit bright, well-educated employees, and to better position their businesses worldwide. Creating partnerships, creating ties, can make things happen for business. The company puts nearly $6 million annually into higher education programs. Citibank has a worldwide interest in education and economic development. The demand for MBA programs remains steady. Those MBA graduates are appearing all over the world. Investments in education can be very long term investments in the economies and leadership of foreign countries.

Panelist 3: Dr. Jacquelyn Belcher, President, DeKalb College

There continues to be a tremendous lack of understanding about community colleges among the U.S. public and even within the higher education community. Meanwhile, the number of international students coming to community colleges has grown by 9 percent compared with a 2 percent decrease in the number of international students attending four-year institutions. Community colleges can be a solution to the problem of decreasing numbers of international students coming to the U.S. The growing interest of community colleges in international education can be attributed to the involvement of the U.S. in international business; the increase in cultural diversity in the general population and subsequently on college campuses; and the substantial presence of international students, immigrants, and refugees in community colleges.

Is the U.S. higher education commitment to international education still strong or have we stopped pushing the limits of expanding connections? Certainly community colleges do not feel that they have lost the edge. There is expanding involvement by community colleges in international partnerships: approximately 48 percent of community colleges are involved in exchanges and/or study abroad, and 79 percent of these institutions have internationalized the curriculum in some way.

Community colleges can realize numerous benefits from having international students on our campuses. Continuing to attract international students to the U.S. requires commitment, tenacity and caring. It is important to advocate on campuses about the importance of these students, especially to the president because it is the president of each institution who will decide about committing the necessary funding for international programs.

Mr. Steven Trachtenberg, President, George Washington University, "The Lost Edge? An Action Plan for Recapturing U.S. Leadership"

At one time, American students seldom studied abroad unless supported by scholarships, while controversies between traditionalists and non-traditionalists over college and university curricula played a part in attracting large numbers of foreign students to U.S. institutions. Foreign leaders and countries studied the American educational system because it was such a pervasive system so profoundly tied to American economic development. This mega-university' is administered in a totally decentralized manner, operating in a mostly voluntary fashion. It keeps its parts synchronized and interchangeable so that a community college graduate in Illinois can get a B.A. in Los Angeles, an MBA in Texas, and a first job in Virginia. Meanwhile, faculty in research-oriented universities not only teach but serve as the ceaseless analysts of the entire U.S. national system. The rest of the world looks to the United States for assistance in catching up with the American-style higher education system (most of which is controlled by the 50 states) and with a national economy the likes of which the world has never seen. Meanwhile, foreigners' high regard is viewed with bewilderment by the American people. The history of modern American higher education is a story that is dying to be told.

On October 1, 1999, the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs will become part of the
U.S. Department of State. Bureau webpages are being updated accordingly. Thank you for your patience.