PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS FOR INTERNATIONALIZING THE LAND GRANT UNIVERSITY

Some faculty in colleges of agriculture at land grant universities wish their institutions had more emphasis on international programming. Penn State University decided to conduct an internal study of the current resources, opportunities, barriers, and desired actions to internationalize the university. Faculty, staff, and students were involved in committees to identify the resources, opportunities, and barriers, and then recommend specific activities for strengthening international programs at Penn State. After eight months of discussion, data gathering, and analysis, 33 recommendations were made. A vision statement was drafted to guide the implementation of these recommendations. The recommendations generated by this study may be useful for other colleges and universities who wish to strengthen international programming in an increasingly interdependent global community. Anyone who has represented a land grant university as an educational consultant abroad recognizes that this role has advantages and disadvantages. In spite of the resources, the support of colleagues, and the institutional base of a mutually supporting system of three parts-extension, resident education, and research-most land grant universities also present problems. They are large, bureaucratic institutions which respond slowly to the needs of individual employees; administrators often support international commitments in word but not in deed; promotion and tenure pressures seem to trouble consultants working abroad; and the vast resources which the consultant needs from the home university are often poorly organized, inaccessible, or difficult to mobilize. These disadvantages decrease the effectiveness of the land grant university as a partner in international development. They hamper relationships between the university and institutions abroad, between the university and governmental agencies both abroad and in the United States, and between the university and non-governmental organizations. They also hamper the effectiveness of individual consultants who are working abroad. The Pennsylvania State University, commonly referred to as Penn State, initiated an institutionwide effort to address these problems during the 1993-94 academic year by conducting an internal study of its international function. At the beginning of this effort the concept of "internationalizing a university" was not well understood. Deutsch (1970) has described three strategic options which can be viewed as aspects of internationalization: (a) increase the number of U.S. students studying abroad, (b) provide more opportunities for foreign students to study in the U.S., and (c) focus on curricula by offering more courses on international topics and adding international content to current