Beginning next fall, AU will discontinue its cooperation with the popular Semester at Sea (SAS) program to concentrate on developing its own semester-abroad programs. SAS, which is run through the University of Pittsburgh, gives students the opportunity to travel to about two dozen countries in six continents on a boat. It also gives students the chance to see countries they normally don't have access to or hear little about, such as Cuba and Vietnam.
The administration's decision has already brought some controversy, since some students would like to spend several months traveling around the world. For the many students who haven't traveled extensively (or at all), SAS provides an exceptional opportunity to see the world. The program also gives students the chance to receive a broad view of the world beyond the United States or any one-country semester abroad program.
However, despite the benefits that SAS provides, there are some drawbacks that the administration is right to be concerned about. Unlike traditional study-abroad programs, SAS lacks the in-depth understanding that a student can get from studying in a single country. Just as a foreigner can't make profound judgments about the United States after several days of travel, a student can't make judgments about India after a three-day visit.
Additionally, unlike a study abroad program in a single country, SAS can't possibly provide the immersion of a three-to-four monthlong stay because it only offers a quick and somewhat thin look at a country. While a weeklong trip to China may be interesting and educational, it doesn't compare to a single semester where a student can pick up language skills, understand the culture, thoroughly interact with people and get a window into what life is like in China.
On the other hand, SAS also provides an enhanced communal experience among students, from both AU and other schools, as a sizeable portion of the semester is spent traveling aboard a boat. Additionally, no other program offers a comparable experience. The closest example to SAS is one where a student on his or her own initiative travels to neighboring countries while abroad.
Although traveling to other countries while abroad can be a fun and educational experience, it can also hurt a student's small wallet, and limits the guidance that a professor or native guide can provide. It is clear that when a student travels to multiple countries, it's better to be with a seasoned expert than with an inexperienced tourist.
What we can't understand is why the administration is discontinuing the SAS option when many students are interested in it and can benefit from it. Although AU provides study abroad options to nearly 20 countries and is expanding to include Mexico (among others) it's curious as to why they would remove an option that allows students to see just as many countries for roughly the same price.
If the answer is money, then the logic is flawed, because AU students can currently proxy through schools and study abroad programs independent of AU. If the answer is quality of education then that answer is also flawed. In this case, the argument for quantity versus quality has little merit because SAS is an accredited program that uniquely offers breadth instead of depth. If the administration is concerned about the value of the program, then it should offer students a comparable, AU-approved option.
Before deleting AU credits for this program, AU should consider the wishes of its students in addition to the tremendous opportunity that SAS provides. If AU refuses to do this, it will give another example of its long history of turning a deaf ear to students.
