Appendix 3: Interviews with Peer Universities – Key Takeaways
The team interviewed senior staff at nine peer universities, with the following topics guiding the conversations:
- guiding principles for international activities
- status of international strategic plan
- structures for programmatic and operational support
- activities abroad: type, description, country
- foreign campus(es)/degrees
- other noteworthy activities
Most of the universities/schools interviewed are much bigger and more diversified than MIT. Nonetheless, we were able to identify a number of themes cutting across multiple respondents, as well as a handful of noteworthy, one-off observations or experiences from one or just a few peers’ responses.
Common Themes
- Most of the interviewed schools don’t have formal strategic plans, but many expressed the need for one or the intent to create one.
- Most had an Office of International Activities (or equivalent), reporting to a Vice Provost or Provost. The reporting relationship/org location was felt to be significant, and importantly rooted in the academic sphere.
- Operational support structures varied, but all seemed to have grappled with the desirability (clarity, simplicity, end-user focus) of having a single point of contact for international operational issues, balanced against the reality that those issues are mostly resolved at the departmental/unit level.
- Several schools used financial incentives to achieve international strategic objectives (grant making to support multi-disciplinary faculty collaboration around the world, or a Provost’s Office “research and engagement fund”), while others offered non-financial incentives (information exchange, publicity, or ease of use via operational improvements).
- Nearly all had created separate legal entities/subsidiaries to facilitate international operations.
- Almost none do institution building/capacity enhancement á la MIT.
Other Noteworthy Ideas/Approaches
- Data gathering/utilization (metrics) approaches: annual progress reporting for every international “project” and responsible office listed in the strategic plan, or gathering/providing real-time info on what students and faculty are doing internationally (via “faculty profiles”).
- Continuous operational improvements process.
- Distinguishing between work done “in” versus “on” a location/region.
- Utilization of an active university-level faculty committee that reviews all projects “of complexity” and advises Provost.
Universities/Schools Interviewed
- Carnegie Mellon University
- Emory University
- ETH Zurich
- Harvard University
- Imperial College, London
- Johns Hopkins University
- Stanford University
- University of Pennsylvania
- Yale University