What is a "global education?"

A global education - we all aspire to it. As teachers want to provide it, as students to receive it. We associate with "global education" all that desirable: the ideal of responsible "global citizens" capable to think (and act) both local and global, the values of tolerance and diversity, and visions of leadership for the challenges ahead.

What does "global education" mean to you? How would you define it - or criticize it? How can Columbia give it to you? What is the opposite of a "global education?" How important is it to go to the globe - by being involved in such things as overseas projects or studying abroad?

In the interests of full disclosure, I work for the Weatherhead East Asian Institute, which is one of the sponsors of INTERACT and the conference. However, my comments here are based on my own perspectives and formative experiences.

I think Columbia can provide students with good analytical tools, including intellectual frameworks, statistical tools, and language skills that enable us to observe, study and quantify phenomena around us. But true understanding comes with empathy and to do that you have to get to know the environment in which these phenomena occur. Thus global education to me is a combination of both these aspects. Before I came to work at Columbia, I spent many years working in international health and I've come to the conclusion that it's not enough to come up with generic "global" models or solutions. In fact, superimposing a one-size-fits-all solution rarely led to successful health outcomes. It's only when you take into account local conditions and local narratives that you achieve the best results. I suspect that this is true of many other fields.

I really think Waichi Ho makes very good points about the concept of global education. I largely study history of Asia and the Middle East, so my first instinct when I hear the words "global education" is to think of it as learning about other regions of the world (history, religion, politics, 'culture,' etc.). However, I do think what is perhaps as equally important, if not more important, is the the notion of humility and open-mindedness. Students should learn that other regions and cultures cannot be described with merely a few catchphrases (as they so often are in the media and general society), but rather are extremely complex. While understanding all the complexities of all regions is of course impossible; if students can come to realize the complexity of just one region, or one religion, or one nation's history, I think that they will come to realize that all areas of the globe are equally complex and defy generalization. Generalization is dangerous, especially in media and politics. If students can learn that, in fact, they do not understand much about many areas of the world, and should therefore be humble in their assessments of other cultures and cautious in their assumptions, this will lend itself to future "global" learning after graduation.

After all, learning never stops - Columbia should prepare students for their future learning, rather than to simply stuff information and factoids in their heads (much of which students will forget anyways!). Some professors do this excellently, and I have taken a few classes that I think really influenced and forever changed the way I think.

Full disclosure here as well: I work for ICLS, one of the conference sponsors/organizers.

kcs 2116 writes "I have taken a few classes that I think really influenced and forever changed the way I think." I am curious to hear more about what aspects of these classes caused such a strong impact. Were they seminar courses? Lots of student participation or no? Did they have a "global" aspect? Thanks!

It’s interesting that the posts above share two views on global education – that it should have a moral component and that it should come in a manageable scale. It’s interesting because principles like “empathy” and “humility” don’t usually top the list of ideals that universities champion for the education they provide. Or do the more commonly stressed notions of “leadership” and “citizenship” imply empathy and humility? Also, regarding the classroom experience: do you think that it was the instructor’s intention to in-build humbling moments, or was it a side-product?
The two people seem to apply humility to the way they suggest we should study the globe: seeing the macro through the micro, as the world is too vast and complex for generalizations. I agree that much gets lost in, say, economic developmental models; and that we can get a fine-grained picture of the global economy through an anthropological study of an Andean community. In a way the world is a collection of fragments. But aren’t there also patterns and connections between these fragments? To what extent can we refrain from making general comments, or from aspiring to large – even huge – generalizations?

In response to Catherine's questions -

Actually, funnily enough, the classes that have most changed the way I think about the world have more often been lecture classes than seminar ones. I think that the university and professors (and students even!) underestimate the value of lecture classes, or overestimate the impact that seminar-style teaching has. I think that the reason why seminar classes are often considered so highly is because, to be honest, with smaller class sizes and required discussion, students actually have to attend all the classes, pay attention, and do (most of) the readings. However, in lecture classes, if one does the readings, attends classes, and engages with the material intellectually, a student can learn just as much and be challenged in their preconceptions just as much as in a seminar-style class. (In fact, most lecture classes have "discussion sections" anyways, which allow for some discussion with your peers.) Yet, this is not to say that seminar-style classes have benefits - especially for certain subjects (literature I think is one), smaller class sizes and more discussion is better for the student than is a lecture-style class.

In general, though, I think that it is not the style of teaching that matters as much as the quality of the professor. In Columbia, there are professors who are great, professors who are average, and professors who are below average -- just as any other university or college. Most students recognize that it is the professor that makes the class, and certain professors' classes are more popular than others'. However, professors are not necessarily "great" if they are highly respected academically as scholars: the greatest professors are those who are both well-respected and knowledgeable in their field, and skilled in conveying complex information in an understandable and interesting way and leading students to question their preconceptions and consider issues on a deeper, more complex level.

It is these professors, then, regardless of the style of the class or the amount of student participation, that have impacted me so greatly. Of course, I have learned from my peers a great deal, including a great amount of things about other cultures, regions, and viewpoints. However, this learning takes place both in classes and outside of classes (for me, it has been largely outside of class, in extracurricular activities or just everyday conversation). Classes are the opportunity to learn from some of the foremost scholars in their fields, and if those foremost scholars are great teachers in addition to great scholars, then their impact on students' minds can be huge.

Yes, Education Is Necessary, It's A Basic Requirement To Earn A High School Diploma Or GED Online Nowadays.