We hear calls to globalize, internationalize, decolonize, and diversify higher education from all corners of the world. What changes do they actually seek? Who is behind them and whose interests do they serve? How much are curricula actually changing? In this article, we explore these questions from outside Europe and the United States by examining art history and comparative literature syllabi from Argentina, Lebanon, and South Korea. We find that despite a broad interest in globalizing the university, stark differences characterize what that means on the ground. Content and theory produced in Europe and North American are still overrepresented in classrooms outside these regions. While a regional focus offsets this somewhat in Argentina, it is a less effective counterpoint in South Korea and Lebanon, where regionalization projects are weaker and contested. The global distribution of intellectual and cultural power still mimics the distribution of geopolitical and economic power.