Altbach and de Wit’s suggestion, in University World News (23 February 2018), that ‘the era of higher education internationalisation…might either be finished or, at least, be on life support’ is troubling if true. However, the examples chosen to support their case seem insufficient in number or weight for the prognosis given. There is, however, a need for ‘rethinking the entire international project of universities worldwide’ that recognises and embraces a new era of internationalisation.
Student Mobility – Slower Growth, Greater Choice
Higher education internationalisation over the past 25 years has been complex. Suggesting, as Altbach and de Wit do, that it ‘appears to have come to a rather abrupt end’ ignores that the undercurrents have always ebbed and flowed. Student mobility may be slowing but diversity of destination, quality of options and increasing student choice is as strong a signal of vibrant internationalisation as simple growth in numbers travelling.
Exemplifying the differentiated rates of growth is simple. US enrolments stagnated for a decade following the attacks on the twin towers in 2001 but enrolments grew rapidly between 2009/10 and 2014/15.
Table 1 – US International Student Enrolment Trends 1945-2015
Source: Institute of International Education (IIE), “International Student Enrollment Trends, 1948/49-2014/15,” Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange (Washington, DC: IIE, 2015), available online.
By contrast global mobility saw remarkable growth worldwide from 2000 to 2010 but flattened out thereafter. Table 2 using OECD data illustrates this point. The US appeared to be catching up but must have been doing so at the expense of some other providers.
Table 2 – OECD – Growth in Students Studying Outside Country of Residency
Source: OECD Education at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators Figure C4.a
What these graphs don’t capture is the retrenchment in Australia from 2010 to 2013 followed by rapid growth thereafter, the acceleration of enrolments in Canada from 2013, or the growth in other providers from non-traditional destination countries. At a more granular level there have been institutional winners and losers including some who have shown healthy growth even as their country has plateaued.
Perhaps Altbach and de Wit’s gloom is partly based on unrealistic expectations. Altbach, writing with Bassett, in Foreign Policy magazine (The Brain Trade, Foreign Policy, Washington DC pp 30-31, Sept-Oct 2004) suggested there would be 8 million globally mobile students by 2025. It was a prediction that found its way into OECD publications but appeared to have little or no data-based foundation. I explore this in more detail in an earlier blog.
A Thousand Cuts Rather Than A Fatal Blow
The current struggles of the UK and US are cumulative rather than, as suggested, wholly or even mainly due to short term factors such as Trump and Brexit. Government policies have an impact but are seldom the only factor and some well organised institutions have significantly outperformed their national sector. Overall , a resurgent Australia, a dynamic Canada and an increasingly assured Europe have taken increasing student numbers as overall growth has slowed. Even in the current year the January 2018 statistics show an 11% rise in applications to the UK through UCAS – despite Brexit coming closer by the day.
It is also possible that many in the US and UK were too slow to recognise or react to foreseeable market changes. The surge of Saudi students slowing to a trickle was predictable, Indian students found more welcoming and lower cost options, and declining oil prices damaged Science without Borders and other Government schemes. Greed in escalating the cost of study, lack of differentiation and insufficient investment in brand building compounded these problems.
Course Delivery In English – Carry On Regardless Or Ripe For Revolution?
Altbach and de Wit seem concerned about the future of English-language delivery. They suggest a growing backlash against delivering courses in English citing comments from the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and Italy. While nobody doubts the sincerity of academics (I am less sure about politicians) who value tuition in local languages for cultural and social reasons the future of teaching in English is likely to continue to be propelled by market forces.
Study Portals reported in 2017 that in 19 European Higher Education Area countries there were 2,900 Bachelors Degrees taught in English. Globally, they reported in February 2016 that there were almost 8,000 courses being taught in English by leading universities in non-English speaking countries. For better or worse this growth was a response to the demands of the international market and the signs are that there is more to come.
Xiamen University opened the first overseas Chinese university campus, in Malaysia in 2017, and it is committed to teaching predominantly in English. There is extraordinary availability of English-language MOOCS (75% of the total in 2015 according to Class Central) and other online courses from international universities. Longer-term a $200 million fund established this week for opening and acquiring Chinese and English bilingual preschools in China is one signal of where the smart money is going.
Will TNE stand for Totally Negligible Expansion?
Altbach and de Wit also conclude – ‘Overall, it is possible that the halcyon days of growth in branch campuses, educational hubs, franchise operations and other forms of transnational education are over.’ They mention Groningen’s decision not to proceed with a branch campus in China but history of universities considering branch campuses is long on false starts and there is no doubt that remote operations are not for the faint-hearted. It is equally notable that as Groningen got cold feet the University of Liverpool announced a second campus with Xi’an Jiaotong University. It is expected to open in 2020 and grow to over 6,000 students by 2025.
Looking further afield universities from 12 different countries operate campuses in higher education “free zones” in Dubai. In 2016 those branch campuses and local institutions numbered 62 with a combined enrolment of 60,300 students, including 33,600 foreign nationals. For the future there are more than 550 English-medium K-12 international schools across the UAE with roughly 550,000 students aged between 3 and 18 in English-medium international schools.
Universities are, quite rightly, learning lessons from failed attempts at TNE but this is likely to mean that future developments are more sustainable. In terms of an internationalisation mindset it will be important to think creatively about the delivery channels, including online, that are available and how they might be creatively aligned in new ways.
A NEW WORLD ORDER
Altbach and de Wit comments regarding non-western higher education are disappointing. At best they lack generosity and, at worst, underestimate the role that these countries will play in a new era of internationalisation. They say China is considered ‘academically closed’ and ‘not the first choice for students’. India ‘lacks relevant infrastructure…struggles to shape its academic structure’. South Africa, Brazil and Russia get similar short shrift.
All higher education systems have challenges and difficulties but there is enormous ambition and significant leaps in quality and investment in many countries. And their ambitions are clear.
Source: ICEF Monitor and The PIE
In terms of desirability it is worth noting that in 2013 China was not in the top ten of receiving countries for students from Africa. In 2017, according to US News, it had overtaken the US and UK and was second only to France. The Times of India reported in 2018 that China had outstripped the UK in student enrolments from India. While Western students may not have a history of travelling overseas in large numbers to study but it seems reasonable to believe that as the world economy realigns there may be significant motivation for them to consider the options.
Internationalisation – Alive And Well But Different
The brute facts for the entire sector are that global demographics are changing and there is a realignment of economic and intellectual power between traditional receiving and sending countries. Technology has brought considerably more power into the hands of students and parents (as well as their advisors) in assessing their options. Where information is freely available and supply exceeds demand a strong value proposition, demonstrable quality, and relevance to customer needs are vital.
In the new world of internationalisation some thematic developments seem likely:
i) Distribution of international students and motivation of providers will change. As countries exceed their volume targets ahead of schedule they may slow growth to take a quality premium. Other providers, including non-traditional destinations, will seize the opportunities this creates.
ii) Power will increasingly lie with students and their advisers. Institutions that believe they merely have to ‘build it and they will come’ will be disappointed. Those who are responsive, flexible and delivering what the market wants will prosper.
iii) The propensity of students to break with tradition and travel west to east in larger numbers will increase. This may, over time, help to embed ‘internationalisation’ as a global phenomenon.
iv) Regional hubs will thrive and provide relatively low cost/risk entry channels for new competitors while branch campuses may eventually grow sufficiently powerful to become ‘partner’ institutions rather than subsidiaries.
v) Online delivery will present new and exciting opportunities for collaboration between institutions as well as bringing lower cost options to students.
vi) The notion of a student travelling abroad for four years to complete an undergraduate degree may become seen as antiquated. For many years institutions have been prepared to deliver in discrete components where a year or two in-country leads to a period overseas. The potential for staging posts involving all or some of distance learning, a regional hub, and a ‘sandwich’ or final year on the other side of the world seem possible.
Internationalisation in such a dynamic and competitive future requires an enlightened approach to accreditation and collaboration as well as a commitment to delivering what the student needs. There will be substantial rewards for those who show creativity and courage in finding and implementing solutions. Those who cling to the old ways or move too slowly will find their horizons substantially shortened.
Excellent … needs a real change in HEI’s attitudes to international education