Patterns of U.S. Student Mobility in a New Environment: Implications for Europe and AustraliaProf. John K. Hudzik Vice President Global Engagement and Strategic Projects, Michigan State University and

President of NAFSA: Association of International Educators

IEAA Conference Sydney, Australia - October 2009Software: Powerpoint 2007

Drivers of Higher Education (HE) Cross-Border Student Mobility

Global higher education trends.

Perceived value of student mobility for non-elites.

Global and national economies.

Public and private support.

Commitment to internationalize campuses & learning.

Student and family perceptions of career impacts.

Integration with other institutional “missions.”

2

Global Higher Education (HE) Demographics

By 2025 (from a 2000 base) global HE demand for seats will double to 200 million annually, or more.

There will be a very substantial increase in the number and size of HE institutions and seats globally.

“Emerging economies” will account for a majority of global capacity and significantly define the global HE profile.

More of the world’s HE systems will move from elite to more widely accessible models.

3

Consequences of Global Demographics

Worldwide, more students will study at home, take degrees abroad and incorporate study abroad into their home programs. A growth industry.

“Non-traditional” students will be an expanding component in the global HE market.

Quality control and standards will be challenged.

HE will become more of a globally traded commodity.

Competition for the students, particularly the best, will intensify.

4

Rising Global HE CompetitionPrice competition is likely to intensify.

Protectionist barriers may arise related to security, limited capacity, pricing for home markets.

There may be “political” limits on the proportion of on-campus seats taken by international students.

Competitiveness will require rapid innovation in BOTH subject matter and pedagogy.

Challenges will mount to finding adequate numbers of qualified faculty and administrators, and possibly cross-border bidding challenges.

5

Who Will Compete Well in Student Flows and in Forming Partnerships/Alliances?

• Reputation, reputation, reputation.

• Cost competitiveness.

• Cutting edge research capacity.

• Low institutional barriers to external collaboration.

• Country/location of “interest.”

• Mixed and active-learning models of education.

• Just-in-time delivery of emergent subject matter.

• Flexibility and innovation.

6

7

Meanwhile, Back in the US of A

Cumulative State/Local Appropriation DeclinesIn the Context of a Wider “Perfect Storm”There has been a steady transition of USHE

from a public good to a private good.

Massive rises in tuition costs seriously threaten student access, particularly for the middle class.

All USHE revenue sources under simultaneous challenge.

Economic recovery options: “W” “V” “U” or saucer.

8

States’ Deficits in Billions of Dollars

9

U.S. Tuition Trends Public Instate

10

Interplay of Yearly Appropriations and Tuition Changes

11

Impetus for Structural Change in USHE

Will USHE institutions believe matters will return to “normal,” or will a “new normal” emerge to require fundamental structural adjustments—strategic rather than tactical adjustments?

Tuition is on average 51% of operating revenue of public research universities, up from 38% in 2002.

Pressure is building for “value for money education” political (e.g., U.S. Department of Education) and within USHE (e.g., A.P.L.U).

12

Significant change is afoot in American higher education e.g.,

Rising emphasis on value for money and cost control.

Challenges to hallowed practices.

Greater commitment to internationalizationFrom below “radar coverage” to well within the radar screen on many campuses.As a result, powerful new players are active in the campus internationalization sandbox.

13

Forecasting U.S. Student Mobility: Questions and Countervailing Forces

The concept of education abroad (in its various forms) has transitioned from being for the chosen few to expectations of much wider participation (e.g., MSU and ACE survey results).

A key issue is whether USHE will continue to support education abroad (receiving and sending) under sustained conditions of serious economic stress.

There is concern over possible “de-enriching” behaviors by students (e.g., forego study abroad) because of the cost squeeze. 14

Implications for SA of USHE Internationalization

Campus internationalization creates new demand for EA and ISSS and also competition for resources.

For Graduate and Research USHE institutions:A late-in-coming awareness that not all good ideas are invented here leads to an expansion of global research partnerships.Pressures rise to select institutional partners that permit integrating instruction, research and projects.This in turn may reset institutional priorities for partner EA and ISS countries and institutions

15

The Role of Private Funding for HEPrivate funding for HE and mobility is increasing globally.

As a proportion of total funds for higher education, private funding will continue to increase significantly.

62% of international students in the US are supported primarily by personal/family funds.

When students and families contribute significantly to the cost of education, their interest in cost control and value for money become substantial market factors.

16

Percent Private Funding of Total Tertiary Education Funding

17

Impacts of Global HE Markets on USHE: Incoming Students

USHE is likely to maintain or grow somewhat its total number of international students.

USHE proportion of the global flow of international students will decrease, perhaps substantially.

Global HE innovation, quality enhancement and cost control will pressure USHE structural change.

18

Future Patterns of US Student Flows: Outbound Students• As “countries of interest” and SA options widen,

more US students will go to “non traditional” countries.

• Greater competition and higher price sensitivity will lead US students to less costly options.

• A larger proportion of US SA students will seek “non-traditional” programs in length and subject matter.

• Over time US students will become a smaller proportion of global SA, although total US numbers will grow substantially.

19

Factors Determining the Flow of US Students to Australia and Europe1. Cost

• Tuition and living costs in Australia and Europe.

• Exchange rates and the reserve currency.• Transportation costs.• Inflation in cities.

Do Australia and Europe care about the diversity of American students they attract?

20

Factors Determining Flow (cont’d)

2. Competition• Increasing interest in non-English

speaking and non-western locations.• Aggressive marketing by others.• Changing “flavors of the month?”• The spread of classroom English

options in non-English, non-European locations.

• U.S. foreign policy interests.

21

Factors Determining Flow (cont’d)3. Reciprocity

• Funding for Australian and European students to the U.S.

• Assuring portability of financial assistance.• Easing credit transfer from the U.S.

4. Accommodating a Diversified Market • Greater diversity in program design/length.• Diversifying the subject matter of programs.• Customer service.

22

Legislative Wildcard: The Simon Study Abroad Legislation

• Send 1 million U.S. students abroad annually by 2018 (roughly a four-fold increase).

• The experience must grant academic credit and count toward graduation.

• Minimum of 3 academic credits—shorter and longer-term stays.

• Awards from $0 to $5,000. Simon (Lincoln) money must leverage other funds.

23