Globalization and Education Globalization involves a number of different elements, including economic integration, freedom of capital movements, and the increasing "transfer of knowledge, cultural stability" and an increase in cultural interactions (Al-Rodhan, 2006). The process of globalization has been fostered by industrial-age improvements in transportation, communication and through political and economic liberalization. One of the antecedents of the era of globalization was the creation of the European Common Market. When this was extended to not only allow for goods and capital to move more easily across borders but labor as well, this ushered in a new era of mass migration. Today, many of the world's leading cities have incredibly diverse populations, as people from all over the world are drawn by the economic promise of major urban hubs. One of the areas where this trend can be seen is with education. For decades, education has been trumpeted as a pathway out of poverty. Aid programs to the developing world often focus on providing better access to education as a result of this reality (Grootaert, 1994).

Where education and globalization intersect is at the level of higher education. Many developing countries have relatively underdeveloped higher education sectors, whereas countries in the developed world have highly-developed higher education sectors. They use their education as a form of competitive advantage, turning out talented graduates to be the leaders of tomorrow. People from outside of these countries rightly see the advantages of an education at a Western institution, usually with preference given to education in English and to institutions with a strong reputation. As such, demand for places at schools in the U.S., UK, Canada and Australia has increased substantially over the past couple of decades. Coupled with a decline in public funding for universities in many Western nations, many such schools actively compete for foreign students as a means of balancing their budgets (Besser, Cronau & Cohen, 2015).

Many, however, feel that the pendulum has swung too far, that domestic schools are catering too much to foreign students. Many people in education and politics, as well as prospective students, have become concerned that the emphasis on recruiting foreign students has reduced the amount of opportunity for domestic students, creating a goal conflict within the higher education system (Bradshaw, 2014). From a political point-of-view, foreign students reduce cash outlays to universities, but they also reduce the national competitive advantage that countries enjoy from having built and maintained a high-quality higher education system. Educators are likewise caught in the middle, with the need to balance the budget and simultaneous loyalties to providing a high-quality education to all, but for public universities (state schools, or almost all schools in other nations) there is also a mandate specifically to provide an education for domestic students. It is my contention that while private schools are free to set their own mandates, publicly-funded schools should maintain a focus on preparing domestic students, and therefore should not display any trade-off of foreign student for domestic one. Places for foreign students should come with expansion of facilities, which ultimately benefits everybody.

The Core Case

At the heart of the argument is that publicly-funded schools a) have an obligation to those who provide the funding and b) play a role in national competitive advantage. On the first point, a school naturally has a duty of care to any student who pays tuition. That responsibility is accepted by all, as part of the contractual agreement between student and educational institution. However, in many countries, and at state schools, universities also receive taxpayer funding. This makes the taxpayer a stakeholder in the higher education system. Taxpayers have children, and wish for their children to do well in life. There is a direct correlation between a university education and higher income, so it stands to reason that a parent of a student who intellectually and in terms of discipline is capable of earning a four-year degree would want their child to have that opportunity. This view is not necessarily a strictly economic one -- access to education need not be an economic argument in this view.

Access to education is, however, something desirable, and that makes it a commodity. It is also a commodity in which the world's major English-speaking nations have a distinct competitive advantage. The neoliberalism that drives globalization inevitably seeks to create opportunities for mobility of students, for knowledge transfer, and for opportunities for talented people to live, study and eventually work abroad. Vaira (2004)...

Unwinding public education is part of the process of unwinding the nation-state itself. Higher education's role has shifted to readying people for the work world, rather than teaching them how to think. The university as a job training institution has been attributed to globalization in a couple of ways. First, it is argued that higher education must prepare people for a globalized economy. If, this argument posits, we are competing against the world, there can be no room in higher education for non-economic learning. This leads down a path to education as a commodity, where its merit is determined solely by its economic value.
The second is that globalization undermines the ability of the state to finance education, and therefore leads schools to seek out revenues elsewhere. Because schools can set their own prices for foreign students, and because improving economies around the world mean that for many foreign students there is low price elasticity of demand for higher education abroad, there are significant revenue opportunities available for universities in the West. Alderman (2010) notes that a neoliberal free market approach to education means that higher education should be a global industry. The issue, of course, is that for many in the West, there are no opportunities overseas because emerging markets simply do not have the capacity, and they then see the capacity that was built with their tax dollars go to foreign students instead of their own. When supply is constrained, a fully free market system will invariably squeeze some buyers out of the market, which in the case of higher education is very much to their detriment as there are limited reasonable substitution options for most.

National Interest

With demand for higher education growing rapidly around the world, and supply constrained by the lack of funding in most emerging markets, and the reality that it takes time to build out supply in higher education, some students will lose out on their opportunity for higher education. Jurisdictions that had supply problems twenty years ago are completely unable to deal with the demand situation today. The problem comes when domestic students are the ones who are denied opportunities to enter university. They either scramble to find some other form of higher education -- for-profit online schools, community colleges, etc. -- or they are forced to delay their entry into higher education. Advocates of the market system would argue that such any student who wishes to gain entry should be prepared to work as hard as those who are presently given entry -- spots in universities should be based on merit, and merit allows for greater economic efficiency (Odin & Manicas, 2004). If this approach weakens competitive advantage, that is just as well, as the nation-state is entering into obsolescence. The neoliberal view holds the nation-state as anachronistic, regardless of how the majority of the people in the world see it.

But for those who do not subscribe to the neoliberal, free-market point-of-view, higher education is one of the means by which national competitive advantage derives. Given how difficult it is to build out a high-quality system of higher education, it can be a source of sustainable competitive advantage. In the knowledge economy, having a high level of knowledge is definitely a competitive advantage. Scandinavian countries have long been aware of this, and provide higher education for free to their citizens, knowing that high-value jobs today require a high level of intellectual capability and education. National competitive advantage today almost entirely rests on the education level a country has. Regardless of one's views on educating the citizens of other countries -- it is actually hard to argue that this is a bad thing -- educating one's own citizens is a key element of maintaining national advantage.

Having foreign students is actually useful for countries. Neoliberal thinking is correct in promoting the value of intellectual exchange. Knowledge and culture are transferable, and overseas students can have significant benefits to the host country whether they migrate permanently or simply return home with a high level of knowledge about the host country and its culture. Altbach and Knight note that knowledge and language acquisition, and the structural changes that higher…