we did take care to write them with as much force as politics and local context would allow. For instance, we heard that some graduate programs already require some form of "global skills" training. To be fair, we never fully defined what we meant by "global skills" although we used the term as if we knew what we were talking about. But we didn't produce a statement mandating all graduate programs to require such a piece in their curricula. Instead, we opted for consideration of such a possibility. We also heard that some graduate programs require international travel at some point along the way, but, again, we did not write anything quite so directive as this. We would have liked to, but it hardly seemed wise or practical, not if we wished to be taken seriously. The point is that we moved each other to think more openly about opening our graduate programs up to a much larger sense of their connectedness to the world. We want our students to be global citizens but how to shape our programs to make this happen? My German is weak, having studied it seriously for only one semester as grad student many years ago, but being in Germany challenged me to reclaim some of that earlier learning and to want to converse with the locals. Why wouldn't we want to build our graduate programs -- across the disciplinary spectrum -- to afford students the same opportunity and challenges? To push themselves to think