Risks and Challenges in Going Global
The irony of the current turmoil and restructuring in US post-secondary education is that the US higher education continues to be the gold standard for the world. With regard to virtually every meaningful metric – depth, diversity, quality, innovativeness, responsiveness to changing demand – US colleges and universities, taken as a whole or “system,” are regarded as setting the world standard for a developed nation.
There are two quick proofs that US higher education is held in very high regard by the world. The first is the number of high quality foreign students – almost 725,000 during 2010/2011 academic year – who choose to study in the US despite the cost. That is, higher education is a major US export.
The second is the degree to which US colleges and universities are invited, entreated or paid to provide US-style (and US branded) higher education abroad. In economic terms, many countries of the world are eager for US educational foreign direct investment as the path to developing their own national higher education systems. And they use the typical incentives to attract that investment, including tax breaks, regulatory relief, free or discounted real estate and facilities, revenue guarantees, and cash payments.
Most US colleges and universities are fully aware of the huge scale of global demand and have generally taken a pragmatic approach to global interests. Qualified foreign students are generally welcomed as contributing to the diversity and quality of the institution and especially welcome as they are willing and able to pay full or premium tuition.
Similarly, colleges and universities have historically welcomed international opportunities including exchanges, partnerships or even satellite campuses. During the second half of the 20th century, visionary educators saw the globalization of education and research and led their institutions abroad with joint degree programs, exchanges and even satellite campuses.
In the context of the current restructuring pressures on US institutions, investment in global partnerships, joint international programs, and international satellite campuses are seen as potentially appealing but risky ventures that need to be evaluated on basic business terms:
- What investment is required and will revenue cover capital and operating costs?
- Does the institution have the ability to execute a half a world away?
- Is the local partner funded, reliable and aligned with our mission?
- Will this degrade or improve our brand in the marketplace?
- How will our current stakeholders (faculty, alumni, donors, and for public institutions, the state legislature) regard this move?
In most cases, when it comes to establishing a new traditional residential undergraduate satellite campus abroad, the evaluation is easy, leading to a quick “no, thank you.”
Part of the structural shift in U.S. post secondary education, however, is the emergence of high-quality, branded, online education an increasingly viable alternative to significant aspects of a traditional residential education. It is much less clear whether, applying the same evaluation criteria, a specific US institution should say “yes” or “no” to a specific international opportunity to offer online certificates or even online or hybrid (online plus some residential activity) graduate and undergraduate degrees.