Study abroad struggles with changes

Don't pack your bags just yet. The College of Arts and Sciences' study abroad program is experiencing "growing pains," according to College of Arts and Sciences Dean Robert Rescorla. Newly instituted changes, voted on by the school's faculty in April of 1993, were an attempt to find a more academic approach to study abroad. The new policies require students to choose among University-approved programs abroad. In the past, students could take a leave of absence and then transfer study abroad credit from another university's program. The change to a more rigid system is intended to maintain a higher academic standard for the coursework and give students more assurance of receiving better advising and credit approval once they return, according to Joyce Randolph, director of the Office of International Programs. "The consequence operationally is that the College study abroad committee now has a purview over the programs," she said. "Our hope is that students will not have to run from department to department to get credit." Yet students must still get their study abroad courses reviewed by the individual departments. In addition, students will pay regular University tuition for their time abroad, instead of paying tuition directly to the foreign program. An additional study abroad fee will replace the University's general fee and no technology or lab fees will be charged, Randolph said. "You now will receive regular financial aid [for studying abroad] if you're eligible," she said. "We hope that other students who were not considering studying abroad will now consider it as an option." Student reaction to the new guidelines ranges from one extreme to the other. "I'm having a really difficult problem studying abroad," said College junior Amanda Rothwell. "I think that under the old system, the prospect of studying abroad was more encouraging because it made it less expensive to spend a year abroad than spend a year at Penn. That change has discouraged myself and other people I know. "It also makes it more difficult for people to study abroad if Penn does not have a program which suits the needs of your major," she added. But College junior Nida Germanas said she chose to petition the faculty to approve a non-University affiliated program to Berlin. "I was told that I had to have very clear-cut academic reasons," she said. "But they did approve it and everyone was really helpful." College junior Chris Sanger, who plans to study in Florence, Italy next semester, said he was encouraged by the changes. "I think that they tried to pick the best programs," he said. "And, at least for the most part, I think it worked. There's definitely more Penn-approved programs now. But I wouldn't have wanted to miss this experience regardless." College sophomore Brittany Chiou said although the changes limit the choices to students, many people regard study abroad as "a GPA booster." She added that the new financial changes do not have much effect on her decision. "I realize that I'd be paying the same amount going to Penn," said Chiou, "but I'm really curious as to where the money is going." In response to student complaints, Rescorla said the school is trying to accommodate as much as possible. "We're in the process of putting together a data file of courses that have already been approved as being on the same level as coursework at Penn," he said. "It has turned out a heavy workload for some departments, though. But it should alleviate some of the problems." Randolph said other attractive features put the changes in a positive light. "We're going to be giving students more specific advice in choosing sites and courses," she said. "And we've now made certain affiliations which we're going to be testing out for a few years. "One of the keys to a successful program is a regular faculty review, which we're now instituting." she added. "We're hoping to see an increased number of students participating. Eventually, we will see these study abroad opportunities as a recruiting pull." But some continue to question the policy changes. "In terms of cost-effectiveness and availability of programs, I think that the change hasn't dealt with that in the best way," Rothwell said.