What first drew you to international education?

My path into international education began early in life, as my family hosted international students from Japan and Taiwan in our home throughout my childhood. After studying abroad in Salamanca, Spain, and graduating from college, I led a Spanish immersion program for high school students in Spain, completed an internship in sustainable development in Costa Rica with a study abroad organization, and led multi-country gap year programs throughout Central America, South America, India, Kenya, and Tanzania. Those experiences helped me see firsthand how powerful international learning can be.

More than twenty years since the first trip I led abroad in 2005, what has kept me in the field is watching the transformation that can happen when students are immersed in a new environment. International experiences can challenge assumptions, build empathy, and fundamentally shift the way students see themselves and the world around them. That kind of growth is incredibly meaningful to witness.

You spent 13 years as a resident director in Costa Rica before moving into strategic partnerships. How does that onsite experience shape the work you do today?

It shapes almost everything I do.

Having spent so many years running programs onsite, I understand what it actually takes to make a program work beyond what appears on an itinerary or proposal. I’ve dealt with student support, logistics, transportation, housing, health and safety, local partnerships, and the unexpected situations that inevitably come up when students are abroad.

That perspective is especially valuable when I’m working with universities or helping develop programs in new destinations. I’m always thinking about what resources are available, what support systems are in place, what the local realities are, and what our on-site staff will need in order to support students effectively.

It also helps me stay connected to our resident and program directors because I understand the realities of their work.

What makes an international program truly meaningful rather than simply a trip abroad?

Intentionality is really the foundation.

We always want to begin by understanding the goals of the faculty member, the study abroad office, and the institution. What do they want students to learn? What kind of growth are they hoping to encourage? Once we understand that, we can design experiences around those goals.

For me, meaningful programming goes beyond simply visiting a destination. Students should be engaging with the local community, reflecting on what they are experiencing, and applying what they are learning in a real-world context.

For example, a student studying marketing might have an opportunity to work with a local cooperative or business. That gives the student practical experience, but it should also create something of value for the local partner.

That reciprocity is extremely important.

There has traditionally been a belief that semester-long programs are more transformative than short-term programs. Do you think that is still true?

 I think we have moved beyond the idea that length alone determines impact.

A semester-long program can absolutely be transformative, but so can a thoughtfully designed short-term experience.

What matters is how intentional the program is and how students are being asked to engage. A shorter program can still create meaningful academic, professional, and personal growth if the experience includes reflection, local engagement, and opportunities for students to step outside of what is familiar.

Short-term programs can also make international education more accessible. Not every student can spend an entire semester abroad because of finances, family responsibilities, work, or academic requirements.

For some students, a short-term program may be the only realistic opportunity they have to participate in an international experience.

How do you balance the desire to challenge students with the responsibility to keep them safe?

I often think about the distinction between a student’s comfort zone and their safety zone.

We want students to move outside their comfort zone while being safe. That is part of the learning process. They may need to navigate unfamiliar transportation, communicate across cultural differences, adapt to new routines, or solve problems independently.

Those experiences can feel uncomfortable, but discomfort is not the same as danger.

Our responsibility is to prepare students so they can recognize that difference.

At Arcos, that preparation happens at multiple levels. We focus on staff training, emergency response protocols, pre-departure education, on-site orientation, and continuous learning from incidents and past experiences.

We want students to become more independent and resourceful, but we also want them to understand when something has moved beyond normal discomfort and when they need to ask for help.

What are some risks or challenges that experienced international educators may underestimate?

Sometimes it is the most basic things.

People who have traveled extensively can forget how unfamiliar international travel may feel to a student who has never done it before.

A student may never have used public transportation. They may not be accustomed to walking long distances. They may not understand how different a climate feels in practice, how important hydration and sun protection can be, or that air conditioning and other conveniences may not be used in the same way they are used to.

Even packing appropriately can make a significant difference in a student’s experience.

That is why we try to provide very practical pre-departure information, including packing guidance, cultural preparation, and information about what daily life will actually look like.

We have to meet students where they are rather than assume they already know how to travel.

How do stereotypes or assumptions about a destination affect risk perception?

They can have a major impact.

Students and families may come into a program with very strong ideas about whether a destination is “safe” or “dangerous,” and those ideas are not always based on the actual risks students are likely to encounter.

Part of our role is to challenge those assumptions and provide more realistic, destination-specific information.

Risk is contextual.

We need to think about where the students are going, what they will be doing, what resources are available, and what the actual conditions are on the ground.

Broad stereotypes about an entire country or region are not a substitute for thoughtful risk assessment.

How do you think about ethics and reciprocity when working with local communities?

I think it is essential to look at a program from the perspective of every stakeholder involved.

We often ask what the student will gain, what the faculty member will gain, or what the university will gain. But we also need to ask what the local partner and the host community are gaining from the experience.

Programs should not be designed only for the benefit of visiting students.

That requires authentic relationships and ongoing dialogue with local partners. We need to listen to what they actually need rather than assuming we know what would be helpful.

Sometimes that means changing the program or adjusting an activity based on feedback.

One example was organizing a solidarity fair in Buenos Aires in which our students were able to support local artisans and cooperatives directly. Experiences like that come out of listening to local partners and thinking about how the program can provide value beyond the students’ learning experience.

When programs involve vulnerable populations, those ethical considerations become even more important. Good intentions are not enough. Students need preparation, appropriate protocols have to be in place, and we need to constantly evaluate whether the engagement is truly beneficial.

What does ethical program design require over the long term?

Continuous reflection.

I do not think ethical program design is something you decide once and then stop thinking about.

You have to continue asking questions.

Are our local partners benefiting from this relationship? Are we creating unnecessary work for them? Are students prepared to engage appropriately? Has the community’s situation changed? Is there a better way to structure the experience?

Those feedback loops are essential.

Programs need to be flexible enough to evolve when local partners tell us that something could be improved or approached differently.

What do you ultimately hope students take away from an international experience?

Empathy and humility are probably two of the biggest things.

I hope students return home with a greater appreciation for the fact that there are many different ways to live, work, build communities, and organize society.

International experiences can expose students to very different approaches to healthcare, sustainability, consumption, work, family, and even time.

For example, students participating in medical shadowing programs may encounter a universal healthcare system for the first time. Other students may notice very different attitudes toward consumption, sustainability, or the pace of daily life.

Those experiences can challenge assumptions students may not have even realized they held.

Ultimately, I hope students return with a broader worldview, a stronger sense of human connection, and the humility to understand that their own way of doing things is only one way among many.

That, to me, is one of the most powerful outcomes of international education.