Branch campuses can widen access to global learning

In the past couple of months, driven by the motivation of improving the quality and competitiveness of local universities, India and Saudi Arabia have indicated an interest in policies involving international branch campuses.

Both these countries are among the top 10 sources of globally mobile degree-seeking students. In 2017, 332,000 students from India were studying overseas as compared to 84,000 students from Saudi Arabia, according to UNESCO. However, these numbers mean only a tiny proportion of total student enrolment in tertiary education have access to global learning – 1% in India and 5% in Saudi Arabia.

In other words, a large segment of the student population still does not benefit from the opportunity to engage in global learning experiences. I contend that policy-makers, quality assurance agencies and institutional leaders should rethink and reframe their approach to international campuses as a catalyst for expanding access to global learning.

The challenge of scale

Five years ago, I argued that international branch campuses constitute a small proportion of internationalisation activities and models of transnational education. Even Australia and the United Kingdom, which have been the most proactive in rolling out an international branch campus (IBC) strategy, do not have substantial numbers.

In 2018, Australian universities enrolled just over 39,080 students in degree programmes provided at their offshore campuses, according to the Australian Department of Education. Likewise, only 28,355 were studying in overseas campuses of British higher education providers in 2017-18, according to Universities UK.

A report by the Observatory on Borderless Higher Education and C-BERT noted that 249 IBCs enrolled about 180,000 students in 2015. Contrast this scale of enrolment in IBCs with 4.8 million degree-seeking globally mobile students in 2015.

The institutional rationale for having a branch campus strategy ranges from building reputation to growing revenue based on the country and type of institution. In the 2019 European Association for International Education or EAIE Barometer survey, branch campuses did not make it into the top 10 activities identified as priorities by over 1,900 respondents. Yet more than a quarter of the UK respondents (28%) identified branch campuses as a priority activity.

It is well-established that IBCs are time-intensive and risky endeavours with little proven long-term impact. As a result, over the years, we have seen several cases of overseas campuses which have not met expectations and have faced closure.

Because of the complexities involved in establishing overseas campus ventures, they have often struggled to ensure sustainability and provide value to stakeholders at home and at host campuses.

The promise of access

In a previous article with Hans de Wit, I highlighted that the mobility of international students is under threat due to the challenge of affordability. One way to address this challenge is to frame IBCs as a way of bringing affordable global learning opportunities to students.

However, to achieve the promise of IBCs, we must recognise that the needs and expectations of ‘glocal’ students who want access to overseas education at home are different due to a range of reasons, including academic preparedness and financial resources.

Institutional strategies and corresponding quality assurance policies which try to mirror the cost and quality structures of home campuses are unable to serve ‘glocal’ students and create a sustainable model.

The alternative approach for national policy-makers, quality assurance agencies and institutional leaders is to recognise that the ‘copy and paste’ model of replicating home campuses is limiting opportunities for expanding access of global learning to more students around the world.

Universities must open themselves to more innovative ways of expanding access to affordable global learning opportunities. For example, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, in addition to providing an international curriculum and global faculty on their China campus, also offers a 2+2 route to complete the final two years at the University of Liverpool in the UK.

Similarly, Webster University Uzbekistan offers affordable programmes at one-eighth of the tuition price of their degrees in the US and has already enrolled 500 students in its first year. Beth Stroble, the chancellor of Webster University, notes that tuition pricing at Webster’s international campuses reflects its mission of addressing unmet needs, recognising regional contexts and partnering with stakeholders.

In sum, international branch campuses have immense potential for expanding access to global learning opportunities to a large segment of students who are unable to go overseas to earn a degree. Stakeholders must rethink the constraints and prioritise the diversity of student needs and expectations to make global learning accessible and affordable.

Dr Rahul Choudaha is US-based global higher education strategist at DrEducation. As a scholar-practitioner, he publishes, presents and advises on data-informed internationalisation strategies in the context of shifting student mobility trends and evolving transnational education models. Follow him @DrEducationBlog.