IIE Networker - Spring 2006 - (Page 36)

education providers such as those of the American Ivy League and other top-tier institutions. This is an increasingly important motivation for countries that are seeking to recruit more foreign students, several of which have announced plans to use international campuses to establish regional or global “education hubs,” aiming to attract international students and leading academics. For example, Singapore has declared its intention to attract 150,000 international students by the year 2012, and has an articulated series of plans in place to achieve the target. To date Singapore has attracted campus presences of France’s INSEAD, the USA’s Stanford University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, and Australia’s University of New South Wales. In the United Arab Emirates, Dubai has established a “Knowledge Village,” offering favorable regulatory conditions for foreign providers, and has attracted institutions from the United Kingdom, Ireland, Belgium, India and Australia. The benefits for the provider institution include attracting students unable or unwilling to attend the home campus (with the associated benefit of additional export revenue and expanded alumni numbers) and providing enhanced opportunities for student and staff mobility within the campus network. More broadly there is the prestige benefit of having Institutional mobility is potentially a profound means of internationalization. an international “footprint.” Universities that have strong experience in the recruitment of international students to their home campuses and in partner-supported delivery abroad, like to think of themselves as ‘international’ universities, and one way to demonstrate this identity is to establish an international branch campus. A campus provides a tangible sign of the institution’s international selfimage and ambitions, and signals that it will not be constrained by the geography or history of the home campus. For the host country student, there is the opportunity to obtain a foreign degree at home; course fees are frequently lower than those charged for study at the provider institution’s home campus; substantial savings are made by not having to pay for living expenses (such as rent, food, transport, etc.) in a foreign country; one can work full time, whereas visa restrictions normally limit the hours a foreign student can work; one can study part time, whereas visa restrictions normally require foreign students to study full time; and there is little or no disruption to family and work life, compared to studying abroad. It is, of course, not all smooth sailing. In addition to grappling with critics’ concerns about foreign education constituting “cultural imperialism,” the host countr y must develop appropriate mechanisms to ensure consumer protection and promote quality assurance. There are concerns that the presence of foreign providers could reduce the ability of the government to control the local system, including public good and nation building goals, and can exacerbate inequities of access to education, as transnational education is generally geared to meeting the demand of those who can pay, although some providers do offer equity scholarships. The balance of disciplines within a system could be skewed (for example, favoring business studies rather than arts). Foreign providers may “cherrypick,” offering only the more popular and profitable courses. This can reduce the ability of local institutions to crosssubsidize expensive courses (such as engineering, which requires laboratories and materials) with courses that are cheaper to run (such as business and other predominantly text-based disciplines). Local academic jobs created by the foreign branch campus may be hollowed out (with no research or role in curriculum design), or capped at junior levels such as tutor, with little or no opportunity for progression. Further, as countries find themselves in competition with each other in seeking to attract prestigious foreign providers, they may need to offer costly inducements and concessions. Indeed, host countries run the risk of being rebuffed. For example, the UK’s University of Warwick in 2005 declined Singapore’s invitation to establish a branch campus, reportedly concerned about finances, staffing and other issues. In addition to the challenges of governance and quality assurance, there are numerous pitfalls for the provider, including financial, legal, sovereign and physical risks involved in operating in a foreign jurisdiction. Students must consider the risk of the course being closed or the provider withdrawing from the country. The transnational program is inherently more likely to collapse than a course at a local public institution or at the home http://www.jyf.sbc.edu

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IIE Networker - Spring 2006

IIE Networker - Spring 2006
Message from Allan E. Goodman
Up Front: The International Education Diary
The “Global Campus”: Andrew Heiskell Awards for Innovation in International Education
Paths to Global Competence: Preparing American College Students to Meet the World
Globalization and Higher Education: Eight Common Perceptions from University Leaders
The International Branch Campus
Investing in Communities and Capabilities Worldwide
Institutional Leadership Internationalizing the Campus through Institutional Leadership at University of California, Davis
International Students Could Anthropology Be an Answer to Exchange Students’ Cocooning?
Study Abroad The Study Abroad Superhero Search: A Practical Approach to Marketing Study Abroad on Campus
Internationalization in the UK UCL: London’s Global University
Community Colleges The International Negotiation Modules Project: Using Computer-Assisted Simulation to Enhance Teaching and Learning Strategies in the Community College
Country Focus: Brazil Institutionalization of International Education in Brazil
The Browser: Index of Advertisers

IIE Networker - Spring 2006