Two Models of International Higher Education

¶ … International Education

There are several models that identify different formats for international higher education, and the focus in this paper will be on just two of those models. When looking at international educational models, there is a dramatic difference between the Cross Border Model (CBM) and International Student Mobility (ISM). Those two models will be compared and contrasted in this paper.

International Student Mobility

According to the Philippine APEC Study Center Network (PASCN) among the oldest models of international education is the model of "International Student Mobility" -- the model in which a student moves to another country in order to attend a higher educational institution in that foreign country (Bernardo, 2002). The countries that draw the most students from abroad include: the U.S. (which receives around 30% of all foreign students); France; Germany, the UK; Russia; Japan; Australia; Canada; Belgium; Switzerland; Austria; and Italy (Bernardo, 7). Bernardo explains that 75% of all foreign students internationally travel to those ten countries, and that the motivation to travel abroad to study in recent years is driven by "market considerations" -- and economic possibilities.

In the year 2012, about 4 million students traveled abroad to attend higher educational institutions (UNESCO); that is an increase from about 2 million students in the year 2000. About one half of all mobile students traveled to five countries for advanced learning in 2012; those five countries: United States (18%); UK (11%); France (7%); Australia (6%); and Germany (5%) (UNESCO).

Just one country from sub-Sahara Africa is among the top 50 countries from which students travel, according to UNESCO, and that is Kenya. Some 3,776 students from Kenya attended higher educational institutions in the U.S. In 2012 (UNESCO). By contrast, 97,120 students from India traveled to the U.S. To attend universities in 2012, and 210,452 Chinese students arrived in the U.S. To study in 2012 (UNESCO). Clearly, India and China are not developing countries (as Kenya is), and they are large nations, so it comes as no surprise that China and India would have many thousands of their students abroad.

UNESCO statistics show that eight countries have more students studying abroad than at home: Turks and Calcos Islands; Seychelles; Montserrat; Luxembourg; Liechtenstein; Bermuda; Anguilla; and Andorra.

Meanwhile, a global survey was taken by 3,358 students that are intending to study abroad at a graduate level, and the online questionnaire reflected that following completion of a post-graduate degree: a) 24.1% wish to run their own business; b) 17% with to be a director in a corporation; c) 14% have a goal of being CEO in a corporation; d) 8.7% plan to become academically involved (teaching); e) 7.7% want to be a self-employed consultant; f) 5.8% want to partner with another person in professional services; g) 5.2% plan to be a middle manager or a senior manager; and h) 3.9% hope to be a senior technologist (some indicated "other" and director in a "small company" (Topuniversities.com).

Cross Border Model for Higher Education

This model of higher education is vastly different from the ISM model. Whereas in the ISM model students just leave one country and go to another for their education, the cross border model entails a university setting up another campus abroad. The cross border concept could also be called "franchise" education, because cross border campuses are branch campuses of existing colleges and universities. There are problems with franchising education, and Professor Philip G. Altbach (Boston College) points out that franchising is exactly what McDonald's does, but McDonald's franchise requires "a significant investment & #8230; in facilities, equipment." When colleges and universities are franchised, all the branch campus needs in some instances is to "rent space with little additional investment" (Altbach, 2).

Also, the branch campus may use the same curriculum, "but it may not be taught with the same ethos" found in the home campus, Altbach explains (3). there were (as of 2008). "More than 400 franchise arrangements" (Altbach, 2012). Moreover, for example, the curriculum that is offered in the branch location overseas may not be "appropriate for the needs of developing or middle-income countries"; some universities are focused on the "product" offered, but not on the appropriateness for that region and not on the quality of instruction (Altbach, 3). Kevin Kinser and Jason Lane point out that "Few (if any) standards" are present in the global educational milieu, and quality assurance (evaluating the quality of what is being taught) is spotty at best (Kinser, et al., 2013).

The literature on cross border education shows that the United States has 77 branch campuses internationally; and that number is more than the combined branch campuses of UK, France, and Australia, according to the peer-reviewed publication International Higher Education (Zhang, et al., 2014). The literature also reflects that United Arab Emirates, Singapore and Qatar are "major innovation economies" that host university and college branches from around the world. China and Malaysia are "efficiency driven economies" and they encourage foreign higher educational institutions to come into their countries.