As a Canadian student working in the U.S., I’ve had to acclimatize to several key differences between the two countries. For example, the transition from bagged milk (yes, we buy our milk in bags) to unwieldy jugs took some getting used to. And I still haven’t fully recovered from the realization that American supermarkets don’t stock my favorite flavor of potato chips: ketchup. Nevertheless, after adjusting to the initial shock of abnormally packed dairy products and lackluster snack food, I’ve realized that the U.S. shares many commonalities with its neighbor to the North.
The challenges facing higher education are no exception. In both countries, declining enrollment levels, erosion in government funding, and shifts in student demand have all contributed to the underlying restlessness of a sector on the precipice of major change.
Faced with this common set of challenges, Canadian and U.S. universities have also identified a common solution: recruiting students from emerging markets. On both sides of the border, institutions are hiring Associate Provosts International, funneling resources towards international recruitment (often through contracts with third party agencies), and publishing comprehensive internationalization strategies.
But, just as with dairy packaging and snack food, there are key differences. And in the case of international higher education, the U.S. could learn a lot from its northern neighbor.
Canada’s internationalization efforts are underpinned by a comprehensive national strategy, supported by government policy and funding at both the federal and provincial levels. In this respect, Canada is not alone: Australia, New Zealand, and the U.K. all have made global student engagement a national priority. At present these countries are rolling out a myriad of new initiatives to ease the visa application process; establish long-term, two-way relationships with developing economies; tailor student support services to meet the needs of international learners; and establish programs that are relevant to global markets. All of this is being undertaken with the support and resourcing from multiple levels of government.
Although Canada and its Commonwealth counterparts have unveiled comprehensive internationalization strategies, conversations south of the border haven’t progressed past identifying the problem. While a number of U.S. institutions and independent consortia have made forays into international recruitment, no strategy has emerged at at any significant scale, let alone at any level of government.
The effects are already beginning to show. While the U.S. hosts more international students that any other country, its share of the world’s globally mobile students is dropping. International students make up 4.3 percent of total U.S. enrollment; in the UK and Australia, this figure is closer to 20%. While Canada’s share of the international student market may be smaller, it has increased by by 84 percent in the last decade.
The international opportunity is not one U.S. colleges and universities can afford to overlook. In his book, College Disrupted: The Great Unbundling of Higher Education, Ryan Craig – who was either kind enough to lend me this column for the week or on vacation (not sure which) – engages in the following thought experiment:
Consider the following: Education is Australia’s largest services “export” sector, contributing $13.5 billion to the Australian economy, or roughly 1 percent of GDP… If the United States was able to generate 1 percent of GDP from the export of online programs, that’s $170 billion or about 7 times the current U.S. higher education “export market” (i.e., international students studying stateside). It would represent a 30 percent increase in the overall higher education market.
In theory, in a purely online world, the potential could be much larger than Australia’s 1 percent. American universities could compete with every Asian university for every Asian student—not simply for those willing to travel abroad. In practice, as average tuition per online student would be much lower than what Chinese students are paying today in Australia, 1 percent is a reasonable target and would make higher education America’s largest export, ahead of agriculture and entertainment.
Just as the U.S. stands to gain a lot by engaging international student markets, it also has a lot to lose if it fails to do so. As Carmen Neghina, education intelligence specialist at Study Portals, recently noted in an article in Times Higher Education, “While American universities still benefit from having a strong reputation in terms of higher education, they now face increasing competition not only from other English-speaking countries, but also from universities in the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland… U.S. universities will need to do a better job at competing with the top universities around the world. Competition for the world’s best students is becoming increasingly global.” Simply put, failing to establish a forward-thinking strategy could result in the U.S. forfeiting its natural market share, let alone growing it.
So what should an American internationalization strategy look like? A key component must relate to student visas. When it comes to deciding on international study, factors related to visa processing are a central element of student decision making. Australia focused on simplifying and expediting the student visa process and, several years later, streamlined visa processing has been partially credited for the country’s rebound in international recruitment following a period of decline.
In addition, America’s internationalization strategy must address employment opportunities available to students once they’ve entered the U.S., both in-study and after. A recent change to Canadian immigration policy permits international students to work up to 20 hours per week, waiving the requirement to obtain a separate work permit. This is in stark contrast to developments in the United Kingdom where the Conservative government has eliminated the opportunity to obtain in-study employment entirely. While the U.S. may not have the same restrictions as the U.K., international students in America remain limited in their ability to work while in-study. At present, the U.S. restricts international students from obtaining any form of employment during their first year, and must undertake a lengthy process with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to secure a job once this period has passed. That sound you hear is the sound of international students fleeing to Canada and Australia.
Beyond in-study employment, Canada has made a concerted effort to create clear pathways towards full-time work following graduation. Fanta Aw, President of NAFSA, recently contrasted the U.S. non-approach unfavorably with Canada’s strategic view of international student recruitment as a key component of a skilled immigration pipeline. Aw commented that, “In most other places there’s been a more direct relationship between economy and education that’s not made here in the U.S.”
What’s more, a simplified visa system with ample opportunity for employment in-study and after is worth little if these elements are not effectively marketed. After updating its visa framework, Australia incorporated it into its overall international student recruitment strategy.
Over the next decade, as many as 100M additional students from emerging markets are projected to participate in higher education. Millions will have an interest in attending U.S. universities as well as the means to do so. The countries that fail to organize themselves to take full advantage may find they've squandered a $170B opportunity. And $170B would buy all the milk bags and ketchup chips in Canada.
