The revolutionary role of study abroad in higher education

United States undergraduate education today, especially liberal arts education, is often about the self – self-improvement and self-discovery, as well as a lingering commitment among some academics to undergraduate education that is about ‘learning for learning’s sake’ alone, harking back to the rather insular Ancient Greek notion of ‘knowledge for knowledge’s sake’.

These more self-directed and internal ambitions leave undergraduate education underappreciated and thought to be useless by a wide swath of the US population whom it needs for support through favourable opinion, monetary contribution and student enrolment.

In response, liberal arts programmes – the historic platform of American undergraduate education – are being cut from both public and private institutions nationwide, and an increasing number of students are seeking careers at vocational schools and in STEM fields, thereby abandoning the liberal arts.

And yet, according to a 2023 Gallup poll, only 36% of Americans have faith in higher education, a substantial decrease from the percentages in 2015 (57%) and 2018 (48%).

A liberal arts-grounded education in the US was not intended to be useless or focused solely upon self-advancement – quite the contrary.

Of course, in the past few decades there has been an emerging trend to make undergraduate education useful by reducing it to only those courses of study thought to lead directly to a job.

Colleges and universities are appealing to student demand: 58% of students say work outcomes, such as finding a good job with good pay and opportunities for career advancement, are why they seek college degrees.

But that narrow focus on jobs is not in accord with the intended distinctiveness of an American university education nor with the current demands of the society in which education takes place.

History of liberal education

The distinctive higher education issuing from the American Revolution favoured a ‘useful’ liberal education that succeeded to the degree to which college graduates possessed sufficient knowledge to perceive and thwart oppression, to understand the workings of the new democratic form of government and to contribute through knowledge and occupation to the growth of the nation.

‘Useful’ meant ‘applied’ but with a generous area of effect that extended beyond the individual learner to a larger, all-encompassing concept: the prosperity and advancement of the nation. What this education definitely was not was ‘useful’ as understood as narrowly vocational and focused solely upon self.

The principles of a useful American liberal education most prominently issued from two friends, both signers of the Declaration of Independence and deeply involved in defining education in the new United States – Thomas Jefferson, the founder of the University of Virginia, and Dr Benjamin Rush, founder of Dickinson College, Franklin & Marshall College, and the College of Physicians.

Here is Rush on the new direction for a distinctively American education presented as part of a lecture at the University of Pennsylvania in 1795:

“I shall begin by taking notice that the same branches of learning … are taught in American seminaries [colleges] and in the same way in which they were taught 200 years ago, without due allowance being made for the different obligations and interests which have been created by time and the peculiar state of society in a new country, in which the business of the principal part of the inhabitants is to obtain first and foremost necessary means of subsistence…

“It is equally a matter of regret that no accommodation has been made in the system of education in our seminaries to the new form of government and the many national duties and objects of knowledge that have been imposed upon us by the American Revolution.

“Instead of instituting our sons in the Arts most essential to their existence and in the means of acquiring that kind of knowledge which is connected with the time, the country, and the government in which they live, they are compelled to spend the first five years after they enter school in learning two languages which no longer exist [Latin and Greek] and are rarely spoken, which have ceased to be the vehicles of science and literature, and which contain no knowledge but that which is to be met with in a more improved and perfect state in modern languages.”

Rush replaced the classical languages with German and French, as he thought these languages would be more useful in contemporary commerce and diplomacy.

While editing out Latin and Greek from the US college curriculum due to his notion that they were frivolous to those young people who had to build a new nation and had no time for what did not matter, Rush added a subject that he believed was the most useful to what students would face – chemistry. He believed this subject would provide the most connections to new knowledge and innovation of any subject of study.

Thomas Jefferson is succinct about his understanding of a distinctively American undergraduate education: “Education generates habits of application [emphasis added], of order, and the love of virtue; and controls, by the force of habit, any innate obliquities in our moral organisation…”

What employers want

Numerous interested parties – to include outspoken business leaders – want college and university graduates to perform successfully in the 21st century in a manner that differs little from what Thomas Jefferson and Rush wanted at the beginning of the nation.

Learning is to yield that knowledge and those skills that can best be applied to ensure that the republic thrives and that individuals can, in the words of Rush, “obtain first and foremost necessary means of subsistence”.

It’s about job skills, but also the applied liberal arts that support a lifetime commitment to advancing democracy and the individual’s ability to contribute to it in a variety of concrete ways, to include employment.

Nearly 90% of employers responding to the National Association of Colleges and Employers’ Job Outlook 2025 survey indicated that they are seeking evidence of a student’s ability to solve problems, and nearly 80% are seeking candidates who have strong teamwork skills.

Written communication skills, initiative, a strong work ethic and technical skills are important to at least 70% of responding employers. In addition, more than two-thirds seek verbal communication skills, and flexibility or adaptability, and analytical or quantitative skills in the candidates they recruit.

Another study, Cengage’s 2024 Graduate Employability Report, indicates that 35% of employers rate ‘real-world experience’ as a valuable factor in hiring versus degree attainment, and 39% of employers rate ‘skills training’ as a valuable factor in hiring. Nevertheless, 53% of employers say that they struggle to find talent for their intended purposes.

Experiential learning

The approach to undergraduate education that appears to fulfil most completely both the original demand of ‘usefulness’ in an American undergraduate education and the demands of contemporary employers is experiential learning.

When defined through AI, the result is succinct: “Experiential learning is a philosophy and methodology where educators purposefully engage learners in direct experiences and focused reflection to increase knowledge, develop skills and clarify values. It’s essentially learning by doing and reflecting on that experience.”

The ‘doing’ in experiential learning fulfils explicitly the applied intention of a US undergraduate education as understood at its beginnings. It is a methodology and a wide lens to diverse areas of knowledge that often combine class study with practical learning experience in the wider world.

Experiential learning comes in various forms: internships, field studies, research projects, apprenticeships, simulations and problem-solving exercises. And the benefits are indisputable.

According to the 2023 National Survey of College Internships,“the literature also shows that students taking an internship are 170% more likely to graduate…14% more likely to receive a callback for a job interview… and more likely to have higher wages than those without an internship experience…”.

But there is a significant equity, affordability and access issue. According to a Forbes article, students who receive Pell Grants are 30% less likely to participate in internships, Latinos are 25% under-represented, and LGBTQ are 21%.

When it comes to paid internships – essential not only for being able to afford to live while working but also because paid interns receive more job offers, that is, employers are more invested in paid interns – only 51% of female interns are paid compared to 76% of male interns.

Black and Latino interns aren’t paid as often as White and Asian interns, and first-gen interns are also at a disadvantage. Community college students are also much less likely to land paid internships. As a result, the first National Survey of College Internships released last week by Strada summarises the state of internships as “not unlike other extracurricular programmes in higher education – such as study abroad – that are known to be disproportionately pursued by privileged students with ample resources”.

Study abroad and experiential learning

The status of internships linked to study abroad is not insignificant. Study abroad was advanced as a component of nation-building at the beginnings of American undergraduate education. Yet it is often overlooked or dismissed as merely a luxury today.

Study abroad is, in fact, experiential learning and aligns well with the acquisition and application of knowledge and skill that lie deep in our nation’s founding principles.

At least some of the founders appreciated the alignment of study abroad with American education. Being out in the world – experiencing something other than what was familiar in the US – was thought to advance the new nation in most practical ways.

The founders entertained two diametrically opposed views of Americans studying abroad – one against it and one for it.

Those against it – such as Thomas Jefferson – were afraid that young Americans not yet long grounded in democracy would be negatively influenced by exposure to extravagance and monarchy. Of course, he himself spent many years living abroad.

Those who perceived the benefits for students cited the advantage of students bringing back to the young nation the best knowledge and practice to which they were exposed abroad and applying that to build the nation.

Dr Benjamin Rush was also concerned that if young Americans studied abroad without first gaining a grounding in democratic principles, they would be readily and negatively influenced by monarchies.

Nevertheless, he also held positive notions about education abroad and how it could benefit both the individual sojourner and the nation, be they faculty or students. Rush himself studied abroad – medicine in Edinburgh – and proclaimed the experience as “the best year of my life”.

And Rush disseminated broadly his notions of the link between a distinctive American university, study abroad and the securing of useful knowledge to advance the nation.

In his 1787 ‘Address to the People of the United States’, he stated: “To conform the principles, morals and manners of our citizens to our republican forms of government, it is absolutely necessary that knowledge of every kind should be disseminated through every part of the United States…

“In this [federal] university, let everything connected with government, such as history – the law of nature and nations – the civil law – the municipal laws of our country – and the principles of commerce – be taught by three competent professors...

“Above all, let a professor of what is called in the European universities, ‘œconomy’, be established in this federal seminary. His business should be to unfold the principles and practice of agriculture and manufactures of all kinds, and to enable him to make his lectures more extensively useful, Congress should support a travelling correspondent for him, who should visit all the nations of Europe and transmit to him, from time to time, all the discoveries and improvements that are made in agriculture and manufactures.”

In a 1780 letter Rush addressed to John Foulke, only 23 at the time and bound for Edinburgh to study medicine, he offered 18 recommendations about how to maximise the experience – personally and for the emerging nation. The recommendations revolved around the student appreciating his classes but also extending himself regularly into the communities beyond the university.

He was to gain and record experiences of all types of people but also to note innovation in manufacturing and related activities which, brought back to America, could help him improve in his profession and advance the nation.

For example, Rush urged Foulke both to “converse freely with quacks of every class and sex … You cannot conceive how much a physician with a liberal mind may profit from a few casual and secret visits to these people” and “visit every kind of manufactory, and describe them accurately in a book made for that purpose. Find out the price of each article at its delivery from the place of its manufactory”.

Despite their pluralistic views, the founders agreed that education abroad was not merely an educative and developmental option, as it is often viewed today. It was unequivocally a political instrument and a tool of national development, unity and identity, intimately entangled in the advancement of democracy and the core values of a liberal tradition upon which the US was, and is still, based.

Additionally, as with experiential learning, there are numerous advantages to students who study abroad, positioning them both to get a job and to contribute to the advancement of the nation.

For example, an analysis by the Consortium for Analysis of Student Success through International Education found that those who studied abroad were 6.2% more likely to graduate in four years and had an average GPA 0.16 points higher than those who did not study abroad.

Additionally, study abroad can be particularly impactful for first-generation students and under-represented minorities, with those who study abroad 11.6% more likely to graduate in four years and earn a 0.12 higher GPA than similar students who did not study abroad.

Individuals who study abroad tend to get hired faster and earn more than peers without international experience, and the transferable skills gained while abroad, such as communication and problem solving, are keenly sought by employers in the current job market. Yet, despite these advantages, of the approximately 72% of undergraduates who want to study abroad, only about 10% do.

Current models of experiential learning in undergraduate education

Northeastern University is a pioneer of the use of experiential learning to reorder American undergraduate education through its Co-op Program. According to its own wording: “This form of experiential learning sees students alternating between periods of academic study and work experiences in their fields of interest…

“Co-op is not required, although it is highly encouraged. Almost all students participate in co-op, with undergraduates typically completing two or three during their time at Northeastern. Most co-op positions are full-time roles with compensation and are available domestically and globally.”

And the goals for the students are clearly stated: “Gain real-world skills, build on a network, and leverage the co-op advantage in the workplace.”

But what is missing is explicit alignment of experiential learning with the original ambition of a distinctive American education.

When you read Northeastern University’s ambition for its students and, frankly, that of other experiential learning programmes, ambition focuses on the individual student and what he or she gains in the experience for themselves.

That was part of the original ambition of American education, but more defining was an all-encompassing goal that went far beyond self, and that, of course, was the individual, first and foremost, contributing to the building of a prosperous nation in government, economy and culture.

The solution

The solution, then, is to embrace experiential learning and study abroad as the contemporary embodiments of what was originally intended as a distinctive American undergraduate education.

And what was intended was a practical education that extends beyond a focus solely upon self to that of positive advancement of a nation and its people. The self is enriched to the extent that the nation prospers. Experiential learning and study abroad are successful to the degree that they meet this requirement.

American education never experienced the American Revolution. As cited above, Dr Benjamin Rush called this out in 1795. But he offered a solution in his ‘Address to the People of the United States’, cited above: “The American war is over: but this is far from being the case with the American revolution… On the contrary, nothing but the first act of the great drama is closed…”

It is time then to have that revolution and restore what was intended for a distinctive American university education. Experiential learning – to include study abroad – must now be required of all undergraduate education. The whole course of study – to include solving the impediments of access and affordability – must be reordered accordingly. Therein lies the revolution.

Dr William G Durden is a visiting scholar at Johns Hopkins University in the United States; a contributing scholar at Dickinson College, USA; president emeritus of Dickinson College; chair of the Board of Trustees at the API Foundation; and chair of the Board of Trustees of Richmond American University London, United Kingdom.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.