Though International Studies (IS) is one of the most popular majors at Hopkins with 332 enrolled students, it has frequently come under scrutiny. In response, the IS program released an internal review this month in which both faculty and select students assessed the current state of affairs and outlined ways in which the program can improve. The internal review was held just before the Homewood Academic Council, composed of non-IS Hopkins faculty and faculty from other universities, conducted an external review.
IS is the third most popular major at Hopkins, and for several good reasons. It provides a broad interdisciplinary education encompassing several different fields, including political science, economics, history and foreign language. Yet, due to its interdisciplinary nature, IS is not a department, and thus lacks its own faculty. The Editorial Board understands why IS not a department, but also sees serious problems that must be addressed in order to ensure the program’s continued success.
The internal review lists several of these weaknesses, including the lack of an intellectual core, lack of research method skills and scarcity of students writing honors theses. The Editorial Board commends the program for recognizing such issues and highlighting areas in which the program can improve and move forward.
Some problems stem from the curriculum. The Editorial Board appreciates that IS students are required to pursue a foreign language through the advanced level to acquire near fluent comprehension. However, such in-depth study is not universal across the major largely due to the sheer number of fields it encompasses.
Since 57 percent of IS majors concurrently pursue an additional major or minor, the program has created several degree combination tracks. These include tracks with sociology, German and political science. The Editorial Board appreciates that these tracks enable students to concentrate their interests and offer the benefits of having a department to call home.
However, we suggest creating additional tracks for other double majors such as IS and economics, which is the most common combination. We question why the program has discontinued their major and minor tracks with the history department since there is still significant student interest.
Due to the lack of departmental structure, some students feel that the IS program does not provide them with a sense of community. While it has created the student-run International Studies Leadership Committee (ISLC) and facilitated some social events, these steps alone cannot foster a supportive, cohesive environment. The Editorial Board urges the program to gather feedback from all IS students, not just those selected to be part of the ISLC.
The Editorial Board also finds it puzzling and problematic that only two administrators manage the program. Program Director Sydney Van Morgan advises 142 students and academic adviser Kate Bruffett is charged with 85, all of whom are sophomores. Due to the sheer volume of students Van Morgan and Bruffett are assigned, it seems impossible for them to accommodate the needs of all their advisees.
Furthermore, given the fact that so many students are interested in IS, improving the program should be a top priority for the University. It seems unreasonable for there to be so few resources and such little infrastructure, especially when Hopkins has the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), one of the most prestigious international relations graduate schools in the world.
The Editorial Board recognizes the prestige and popularity of the IS program and hopes that faculty, administrators and students can work together to address the internal problems so as to cultivate a better quality educational experience.
