Academic Setting: American and Indonesian University Systems

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Main Discussion
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

Different cultural patterns existing in different countries significantly influence the patterns and principles according to which the education curricula and missions are constructions. The universities all over the world realize the importance of introducing ethical, cultural, and social aspects for effective training and enhancing their students’ potential.

Due to the difference of social and cultural environments, these educational establishments rely on different concepts and approaches introducing training techniques, as well as course requirements (Stewart and Bennett 17).

Therefore, in order to understand how the American University system differs from the Indonesian educational structure, particular reference should be made to the consideration of peculiar cultural patterns influencing the construction of a specific academic setting.

The given evaluation will be based on the analysis of cultural patterns and missions of the Seattle University Bulletin and that of Universitas Pelita Harapan (UPH) systems as an example of the Indonesian educational establishment.

While relying on cultural, ethical, and social aspects, both American and Indonesian structures can be outlined according to differences in moral and ethical values, approaches to developing a well-balanced personality, analysis of cultural diversity issues, and the role of technology in shaping the educational background.

These socio-cultural distinctions can help identify the difference of course requirements in different universities, as well as define rationale behind the academic goals.

Main Discussion

Defining Similarities and Differences in Academic Courses Requirements in both the American University System and the Indonesian University System

While considering the course requirements, as well as the teaching methods presented in both universities, specific emphasis should be placed on the role that tutors and advisors play in shaping students’ goals and objectives.

With regard to this, the American system, particularly the Seattle University, prioritizes the importance of advisors who should support students in the course of a learning process. The counseling department provides a coaching leadership style to managing students.

Such a method is applicable to the situation when students encounter academic difficulties and when they need professional assistance and tutor advice (The Seattle University Bulletin 10). In contrast, the UPH applies to a completely different strategy of educating students.

The professional excellence and integrity, therefore, is achieved through providing a wider space for students to explore the self and define the qualities that will be needed for their future career development and promotion. As a result, self-identification is crucial for enhancing personal experience and acquiring new knowledge.

While regarding the courses in particular, it should be noted that the Seattle University, along with other credible educational establishments in the United States, places an emphasis on financial courses study.

The university underscores the necessity of sufficient financial training because these skills are important for enhancing financial decision making, especially when it comes to the necessity of controlling economical situations at the world market. In addition, global economy and finance is considered one of the most emergent issues that should be comprehended by well-educated professionals (The Seattle University Bulletin 233).

Judging from the academic programs and courses offered by Universitas Pelita Harapan, the major focus is made on acquiring knowledge on science and technology. The University system concept is congruent with the importance of educating technologically competent professionals due to the rapid development of technology and science (Academic Programs n. p.).

In this respect, such disciplines as art and design, industrial engineering, and compute design are among the most important ones at the UPH. Additionally, e-learning perspectives are also heavily discussed by Indonesian educators.

Unlike the Indonesian educational policy, the American University system encourages both intellectual and physical development for students to widen the opportunities and reveal students’ talents and skills. In this respect, the introduction of athletics and other kinds of sports is contributive to the quality and universality of education.

What is more important, the spirit of competition encourages students to achieve higher results in education. Though the UPH does not underline the importance of sports development, the level competition is also sufficient for students to take enormous effort for being enrolled (Sastranegara n. p.).

Identifying the Differences between Social-Academic Expectations as for the Education Systems under Analysis

In Indonesia, the education culture has its roots elsewhere, with education being more or less a spiritual gateway, rather than self-advancement. Education aims to open the student’s mind to greater intelligence, and enhance potential, though national progress is also seen as a key goal.

As such, the education culture in Indonesia is more person-centered, rather than the collective approach of the American education system. In addition, it should be stressed that the American education system is one that fosters a culture of open speech, and encourages frequent dialogue with faculty staff.

In American education culture, it is not uncommon for students and faculty to meet for casual meetings and undertake in scholarly discussions. In fact, it is the American culture for students and teachers to join heads in order to advance knowledge.

It should be stressed that majority of American University systems, including the Seattle University, apply to a holistic approach to creating effective teaching and learning environments whereas the Indonesian University is more prone to use a person-oriented approach to shaping a well-balanced person.

To enlarge on this issue, Seattle University, for instance, ensures that student education is both career-focused and holistic (The Seattle University Bulletin 10). The introduction of a multidimensional approach to educating students and creating an intellectually challenging environment are the main pillars of course training techniques.

In contrast, the UPH is inclined to rely on a person-oriented approach to underscoring the vision of faith, knowledge, and character, which creates a solid platform for enhancing an intergraded and balance education in a multi-cultural environment (Vision and Mission n. p.).

Though personality development and enhancement of leading qualities is applicable to both educational systems, there are still slight differences in methods and criteria that the establishments have set to shape a well-balanced personality.

Specifically, the American universities are more goal and career oriented because these methods contribute greatly to developing a strong motivation for empowering intelligence and meeting professional requirements (Faust n. p.).

In contrast, the Indonesian education focuses primarily on developing and enhancing person’s experience and knowledge irrespective of professional goals and careers. A person, therefore, should define first which abilities and talents he/she wants to develop to enter the global job market (Vision and Mission n. p.).

Explaining the Rational Behind the Academic Goals and Social Expectations in both University Systems

The explicit discrepancies between the American University system and the Indonesian educational model are based on different social and cultural expectations existing behind the established systems (Faust n. p.; Brown n. p.).

Indeed, the presence of diverse social and cultural environment sheds the light on specific educational patterns. At this point, the American system of education is closely associated a socially active model that consists in involving more than one concrete system of educational development.

Hence, the analysis a social system of a typical American university starts with defining the department’s political, social, and economical aspects (Fararo 191). The fiduciary process, therefore, will imply informal socialization of a new department in terms of cultural heritage.

In this respect, a University community can be presented “…as a social network with emergent structure, with particular reference to the level of solidarity of the whole department and of sectors of it” (Fararo 192). With regard to the above-presented model, the Indonesian university model is more based on the action or environmental model that includes social, cultural, personality, and behavioral processes for shaping an academic process.

The environmental policy of the Indonesian University system can also be considered with regard to cultural diversity issues. Living in multi-national community, the UPH strives to meet the standards of the globalized education and provide an equal access to education for all students.

However, the Indonesian Universities are now more concerned with striking the balance between quantity and quality issues to define a golden medium and understand the main triggers that motivate students to learn better.

While comparing Indonesian position to cultural diversity, the American educational system is more concerned with the non-discrimination policies on the basis of religion, race, color, sex, and national origin. Sexual and political orientation is also involved into the philosophy of the American Universities.

On the one hand, the cultural diversity polices established in both educational systems seem to be identical because non-discrimination is often identified with the core of a cultural diversity strategy. One the other hand, American cultural patterns are specifically oriented on managing conflicts based on racial and national affiliation whereas Indonesian educators consider this phenomenon in general terms and their cultural patterns are based on commonly accepted stereotypes.

In other words, American education rely more on historical context of their country and refer to such issues as the rights of African Americans and victims of the Vietnam war (The Seattle University Bulletin 21).

In fact, the diversity of cultural background emerges as a result of certain political and economical processes shaping a contemporary image of the globalized community (Govaris and Kaldi 7). Judging from the above-presented assumption, the cultural rationale of the Indonesian University system correlates with linguistically diverse backgrounds.

Social and cultural settings have also a potent impact on shaping business education with regard to leadership opportunities for students. Hence, American students are more focused on the approaches and academic disciplines that help them achieve self-realization whereas Indonesian students rely on the global experience in reaching professional and career goals.

In this respect, American culture values the idea of freedom and pluralism in choosing a specific profession with regard to existing opportunities and tendencies. In contrast, the Indonesian university system is more confined to the limited possibilities it can offer to students.

The UHP students are more focused on meeting the generally established standards to fit the requirements of a technologically and scientifically advanced community (Why Choose UPH Undergraduate Programs n. p.). In this respect, accent on industrial development makes students think carefully over the occupations connected with computer technologies and wireless communication.

In a culturally diversified world, the educational differences might influence on future career and professional growth. In the case of education systems, particular differences and similarities are evident, though neither of these may on the whole prove the superiority of one system over the other.

Conclusion

In whole, several assumptions should come to the forth to identify the major differences and similarities of social expectations and academic goals as presented in the American University system and the Indonesian one.

These distinctive features are associated with such aspects as different approaches to shaping a well-balanced and intellectual person, consideration of cultural diversity background, analysis of course requirements, and finally, the overall evaluation of the mission and values of the universities.

While relying predominantly on the information about the Seattle University and the Indonesian Universitas Pelita Haparan, it has been revealed that the American education is prone to introduce a holistic and career-oriented approach to shaping a personality of students.

In contrast, the Indonesian University provides space for an integrated and balanced approach to create an intelligent and technologically advanced person that can adjust effectively to a highly developed technological community.

Second, the course requirements also identify certain differences in talking the educational goals. At this point, the American system of education opposes the Indonesian one in terms of pluralistic views in choosing academic disciplines.

A more narrow-focused approach is applied by the Indonesian educational system supporting the idea that computer design and engineering is indispensible to achieving success in a highly competitive job environment.

Finally, cultural diversity issues also influence the educational goals and objectives of each of the University systems. In particular, the American system focuses primarily on non-discriminative policy whereas the Indonesian universities are prone to consider cultural background through a linguistic dimension.

Works Cited

“Academic Programs” Universitas Pelita Harapan. 2009. Web.

“Vision and Mission” Universitas Pelita Harapan. 2009. Web.

“Why Choose – UPH Undergraduate Programs”. University Pelita Haparan. 2009. Web.

Brown. “Brown’s Mission.” Brown University. 2011. Web.

Fararo, Thomas, J. Social Action Systems: Foundation and Synthesis. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing, 2001. Print.

Faust, Drew Gilpin. “Harvard Business School Centennial.” Harvard University. 2008. Web.

Govaris, Christos, and Stavroula Kaldi. The Educational Challenge of Cultural Diversity in the International Context. Munich, Germany: Waxmann Verlag, 2010. Print.

Sastranegara, Beni. Indonesia’s University Dillema: Striking A Balance Between Quality and Quantity. The Jakarta Globe. 2011. Web.

Stewart, Edward., and Milton J. Bennett. American Cultural Patterns: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. 2nd edition. United States: Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 2005. Print.

The Seattle University Bulletin. SU Study Guide. Seattle: The General Libraries, 2010. Print.

Click Here To Order Now!