1

Three waves of international student mobility (1999-2020) Rahul Choudaha, PhD DrEducation, USA [email protected]

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Studies in Higher Education on 02 March, 2017, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03075079.2017.1293872

Suggested Citation: Choudaha, R. (2017). Three waves of international student mobility (1999-2020). Studies in Higher Education. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03075079.2017.1293872

2

Three waves of international student mobility (1999-2020) This article analyses the changes in international student mobility from the lens of three overlapping Waves spread over seven years between 1999-2020. Here a Wave is defined by the key events and trends impacting international student mobility within temporal periods. Wave I was shaped by the terrorist attacks of 2001 and enrolment of international students at institutions seeking to build research excellence. Wave II was shaped by the global financial recession which triggered financial motivations for recruiting international students. Wave III is being shaped by the slowdown in the Chinese economy, UK’s referendum to leave the European Union and American Presidential elections. The trends for Wave III show increasing competition among new and traditional destinations to attract international students. The underlying drivers and characteristics of three Waves suggest that institutions are under increasing financial and competitive pressure to attract and retain international students. Going forward, institutions must innovate not only to grow international student enrolment but also balance it with corresponding support services that advance student success including expectations of career and employability outcomes. Keywords: international student; student mobility; international enrolment; global talent; skilled migration

Introduction The number of globally mobile international students doubled to reach 4 million students between the period 2000 to 2013. In this period, two major events which had its origins in the USA influenced the mobility patterns of international students. First, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11) in New York City and second the global financial recession of 2007/08 triggered by the housing crisis in the USA. While these two events did not deter international students from going abroad, it shifted the mobility directions and drivers of mobility for international students (Choudaha and de Wit 2014).

3 In this article, I analyse the changes in international student mobility from the lens of three overlapping Waves each spanning seven years between 1999-2020. Here a Wave is defined by the key events and trends impacting international student mobility within temporal periods. In this commentary, I intend to provide a high-level overview of the mobility trends and not capture the entire scholarly complexity and depth of the research topic. The three Waves are a conceptual classification based on my analysis of mobility data and underlying major events. The Waves do not necessarily indicate a deterministic output. The first two Waves coincided with 9/11 and the global financial recession. The Third Wave is being shaped by a combination of three events—the slowdown of the Chinese economy, the 2016 UK referendum to leave the European Union, and the 2016 American presidential election. In the Third Wave, I provide a projection of the future directions of international student mobility. While mobility is shaped by a complex interplay of many variables, this analysis and forecast focuses on some of the key themes to illustrate the trends and differences. Figure 1. Three waves of international student mobility [Figure 1 near here].

Wave I (1999-2006) International mobility of highly skilled talent has existed for decades, however, the growth of information and communication technologies (ICT) in the 1990’s provided a strong interest in attracting high skilled workers (OECD 2001). The rise of temporary migration of ICT workers and researchers rose substantially in OECD countries during the 1990s (Kuptsch and Pang 2006; OECD 2001). Wave I of international students has its origin in this increasing demand for high skilled talent for economic and

4 technological development. This Wave witnessed an increase in enrolment of international students in fields related to science, technology, and engineering. Institutional motivations to attract international students included access to research funding, pursuit of research excellence and response to a high demand for labour in ICT fields (OECD 2001). Students were motivated to study abroad as they were also getting economic rewards from the skills gap they could fill in high demand technology related jobs. During this time receiving institutions and countries were open to providing funding to talent in science and technology. Due to the research base and funding opportunities, the USA was one of the key destinations of choice, especially in science and technology at master’s and doctoral education levels (National Research Council 2005). However, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 changed the equation, and the tightened visa requirements made it more difficult for students to study in the USA (OECD 2005). Around the same time, Bologna process and European Higher Education Area (EHEA), started taking shape to create more comparable and coherent systems of higher education to foster student mobility within Europe. Towards the end of Wave I, five of the top 10 destination countries including UK, France, Italy, Austria and Switzerland were in Europe1. Specifically, UK gained the most regarding mobility from non-EHEA and EHEA (European Commission 2015). Beyond Europe, Canada and Australia were

1

UNESCO Institute of Statistics data for the number of international students in Germany for 2006 is unavailable. In 2004, Germany was the third leading destination with 260,314 students, even more than 247,510 international students France had in 2006. Hence, it would be safe to say that Germany would have been among top 10 destination countries in 2006.

5 other destinations attracting some of the international students moving away from the USA.

Table 1. Three waves of international student mobility with top-10 source and destination countries [Table 1 near here]. Regarding leading source countries, while the number of Chinese students going abroad grew by 231% (see Table 1), many of them stayed within the region to study in Japan or South Korea. India and South Korea both experienced strong growth in the number of students going abroad primarily driven by enrolment in science and engineering fields (OECD 2005; OECD 2001). A combination of reasons suggests that international students in this Wave were more likely to be academically prepared and self-directed and dependent on financial aid and scholarship from institutions. According to OECD (2005, 252), “For individuals, the returns of studying abroad depend to a large extent on sending countries’ policies regarding financial aid to students going abroad for study and the policies of countries of destination on tuition fees and financial support for international students.” Many international students were headed to research-intensive universities which required a higher ability to gain admissions and had more experience in enroling, funding, and supporting international students. Most students were at master’s and doctoral level which also contributed to their ability to navigate and meet the academic expectations. These highly motivated students were driven to learn and shape their career paths in the destination country as many of them were focused in fields where skills gap existed. For example, in the case of China, many overseas returnees benefited

6 from supportive government policies and attractive employment opportunities from a growing economy (Wang 2004). In sum, Wave I was shaped by the terrorist attacks of 2001 and mobility of international students who were enroled in institutions seeking to build research excellence.

Wave II (2006-2013) This wave has its origins in the global financial crisis which started in the USA. One of the biggest outcomes of the recession was severe budget cuts in the higher education sector in many countries around the world (Eggins and West 2010). According to OECD (2010, 310), there was a “greater interest in recruiting foreign students as tertiary institutions increasingly rely on revenues from foreign tuition fees which are often higher than for national students.” However, many institutions were unprepared to support the diverse needs and expectations of international students (Schulte and Choudaha 2014). This time, neither universities nor governments in destination countries had resources to offer financial support or scholarships (Choudaha and Li 2012). As recession moved from the USA to Europe and Australia, many universities faced the challenge of supporting international students. The narrative of Wave I of “attracting global talent” changed to “recruiting international students” in Wave II. At a time when higher education institutions in leading destination countries like the USA and the UK were facing financial challenges, aspirations of China’s middleclass were growing, and many could afford to study abroad. Around the same time, many Saudi students supported by the scholarships from the Saudi Arabian government started to go abroad.

7 Another shift in Wave II was regarding the field of study. With the decline in funding for research programs, most students in this Wave were self-funded and concentrated in business, especially at undergraduate level, as compared to science and engineering at master’s and doctoral level in Wave I. With the increasing interest to expand international enrolment, institutions started to create additional pathways for attracting students with lesser academic rigor and/or lesser English language proficiency (Redden 2013). Benzie (2010, 451) argues, “In a climate where institutions deprived of Government funding rely heavily on international student fees, recruitment departments may be tempted to allow students to enter universities with English language test scores that are lower than desirable.” This resulted in challenges related to measuring and tracking English proficiency of admitted candidates and providing corresponding support services to international students (Andrade, Evans and Hartshorn 2014; Matthews 2016). On the one side, issues related to the academic preparedness of international students were emerging and on the other side institutional resources and preparedness to providing support services to international students was lacking (Bista and Foster 2016, xxii). These additional support services ranged from academic services like language and writing support to non-academic services like career and counselling. Consider the case of Chinese students, who are often stereotyped from a deficit perspective. The reality may be that institutions themselves have not supported them enough by increasing intercultural understanding and improving practices and policies that address diverse students’ needs (Heng 2016). The lure of new sources of revenue from self-funded Chinese students and government-funded Saudi students, allowed for the dramatic growth of Chinese students by 75% and Saudi Arabia enters as the sixth largest provider of globally mobile students

8 (See Table 1). This was also the time when Indian students who were more pricesensitive and relied on financial assistantships/scholarships from institutions felt the financial pressure due to decline in funding from institutions (Choudaha 2014). The global mobility of Indian students in Wave II grew at a much slower pace of 25% as compared to 163% for Wave I. In Wave II, countries like Vietnam and Nigeria entered the top-10 sources, and the majority of mobility was within the region or towards Australia and the UK respectively. This was also the time when continued economic challenges in Japan reduced its attractiveness for regional source countries like China and South Korea which formed 75% of all international students in Japan (Japan Student Services Organization 2010). In sum, Wave II was shaped by the global financial recession which triggered financial motivations among some institutions in traditional top destinations to aggressively expand international student enrolment.

Wave III (2013-2020) In this section, I analyse the future trends with international student mobility (see final column of Table 1). This analysis is not a statistical forecast, instead, it synthesises trends to provide a qualitative commentary of how Wave III growth trend is likely to compare with Wave II. Wave III is being shaped by a combination of three major events. First, the economic slowdown in the largest source country—China— is decelerating the growth of Chinese students going abroad. At the same time, Chinese students are questioning the value of investing in their education abroad when neither host countries’ immigration policies nor institutional support for career services can provide a pathway for experiential opportunities (Choudaha and Hu 2016).

9 The second major event is the referendum in the UK to exit from the European Union, or “Brexit,” and the third is the election of Donald Trump as the President of the USA. Both these events in the top-two destination countries had a strong antiimmigration tone that is negatively affecting the perception of safety, post-graduation work and immigration opportunities (Najar and Saul 2016). Alternative destinations like the Canada and Australia with more welcoming immigration policies are likely to gain from an uncertain and unwelcoming environment. Likewise, international students from the European Union who currently pay the same tuition fee as British students are considering alternative destinations within EU like Germany and France where they would not be expected to pay a higher tuition fee and have more potential pathways for work opportunities (Redden 2016). In the context of economic and political turbulence, this Wave is being influenced by demographics shifts and emergence of new destinations for international students. Yet, given the size and reputation of American higher education system, it is expected to continue to be the leading destination. Despite the anti-immigration drivers of Brexit, demographic factors will compel some of the OECD countries to build immigration pathways. Hawthorne (2010) notes that economic incentives had been a strong motivation for studying abroad. However, the skills gap created due to demographic factors will prompt policies that align migration programs with the economic needs of the country through international students. For example, a recent proposal by the European Union aims to revise EU-wide policies of attracting and retaining talent to address skills shortages and demographic challenges with international students as future potential workforce (European Commission 2016, 7). Demographic changes and economic priorities are prompting some of the traditional source countries like China, Japan and

10 Korea to attract international students as future skilled migrants and become key destination countries (Asian Development Bank Institute 2014). The aspiration of traditional source countries to become new education destinations for international students will further accelerate the growth of glocal students--those who aspire to gain global experiences at local cost (Choudaha 2012). Already one out of five globally mobile foreign students to OECD countries came from countries that share land or maritime borders (OECD 2015). This translates into more than 850,000 regionally mobile international students who are seeking global education while staying close to their home country. The institutional driver in this Wave will be to innovate and offer new modes of programs through partnerships, transnational and online education to attract glocal students. A recent report by Richardson (2015) asserts that it is critical to find ways to expand reach of cross-border mobility to as many higher education students as possible in all Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) economies and “[f]or cost reasons, the only feasible way of doing so is to tap into the opportunities provided by online modes of learning” (67). In terms of source countries, emerging economies of Vietnam, Nigeria, and India are expected to meet some of the demand for skills and talent in destination countries. Saudi Arabia will face a slowdown due to declining oil prices and the reduction in scholarships which enabled the bulk of the global mobility of Saudi students. As the mobility of China slows down and is replaced by students from emerging economies, there will be a higher expectation of recovering the cost of studying abroad through better career outcomes. For example, the majority of international students in Australia institutions reported an expectation that their university would help them find work (Lawson 2014). Likewise, in the USA, lack of

11 internship and job opportunities was found to be the primary reason for dissatisfaction among international undergraduate students (Schulte and Choudaha 2014). In sum, Wave III indicates a trend towards increasing competition among new and traditional destinations to attract international students, and increasing expectation of career and employability outcomes among international students.

Supporting Success of International Students The three Waves of international student mobility show that while interest for gaining global educational experiences remains strong, the needs and profile of students continues to change. At the same time, institutional drivers and rationales for recruiting and retaining international students are evolving. Going forward, institutions must innovate not only to grow international student enrolment but also balance it with corresponding support services that advance student success. In specific, increasing competition among destinations and institutions will amplify the importance of meeting career and employability expectations of international students in either host or home countries.

References Andrade, M. S., N. W. Evans, and K. J. Hartshorn. 2014. Linguistic support for nonnative English speakers: Higher education practices in the United States. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice 51 no. 2: 207–221. Asian Development Bank Institute. 2014. Labor migration, skills & student mobility in Asia. http://hdl.handle.net/11540/174 Benzie, H. 2010. Graduating as a ‘native speaker’: International students and English language proficiency in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development 29 no. 4: 447-459.

12 Bista, K., and C. Foster, eds. 2016. Campus support services, programs, and policies for international students. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Choudaha, R. 2012. The rise of ‘glocal’ students and transnational education. The Guardian, June 21. Choudaha, R. 2014. Universities need to get ready for India’s high fliers. University World News. August 24. Choudaha, R., and H. de Wit. 2014. Challenges and opportunities for global student mobility in the future: A comparative and critical analysis. In Internationalisation of higher education and global mobility, edited by B. Streitwieser, 19–33. Oxford: Symposium Books Ltd. Choudaha, R. and D. Hu. 2016. With poor job prospects for Chinese students, is it still worth investing in a US education? South China Morning Post. February 5. Choudaha, R., and C. Li. 2012. Trends in international student mobility. World Education News & Reviews. New York: World Education Services. European Commission. 2015. The European Higher Education Area in 2015: Bologna process implementation report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. European Commission. 2016. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly skilled employment. June 7. http://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52016SC0194 Eggins, H., and P. West. 2010. The global impact of the financial crisis: Main trends in developed and developing countries. Higher Education Management and Policy 22 no. 3: 1-16. Hawthorne, L. 2010. Demography, migration and demand for international students. In

13 Globalization and tertiary education in the Asia-pacific – The changing nature of a dynamic market edited by C. Findlay and W. Tierney, 91-120, Singapore: World Scientific Press. Heng, T. T. 2016. Different is not deficient: contradicting stereotypes of Chinese international students in US higher education. Studies in Higher Education. doi:10.1080/03075079.2016.1152466 Japan Student Services Organization. 2010. International students in Japan 2010. http://www.jasso.go.jp/en/about/statistics/intl_student_e/2010/index.html Kuptsch, C., and E. F. Pang. 2006. Competing for Global Talent. International Labour Organization, Geneva. Lawson, C. 2014. International higher education student satisfaction with opportunities for work experience and employment in Australia. Department of Education. https://internationaleducation.gov.au/research/Publications/Documents/Employ ment%20report.pdf. Matthews, D. 2016. Chinese student market: Can the West weather a perfect storm? Times Higher Education. May 26. Najar, N., and S. Saul. 2016. ‘Is it safe?’ foreign students consider college in Donald Trump’s U.S., The New York Times. November 16. National Research Council. 2005. Policy implications of international graduate students and postdoctoral scholars in the United States. Washington (DC): National Academies Press. OECD. 2001. International mobility of the highly skilled. OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264196087-en OECD. 2005. Education at a glance 2005: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2005-en

14 OECD. 2010. Education at a glance 2010: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1787/eag-2010-en OECD. 2015. Education at a glance 2015: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2015-en Redden, E. 2013. Conditional admission and pathway programs proliferate. Inside Higher Ed. January 3. Redden, E. 2016. British universities brace likely drop in EU students. Inside Higher Ed. June 29. Richardson, S. 2015. Enhancing cross-border higher education institution mobility in the APEC region. Singapore: APEC Secretariat. http://research.acer.edu.au/higher_education/45 Schulte, S., and R. Choudaha. 2014. Improving the experiences of international students. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. 46 (6), 52-58. Wang, H. 2004. Come back from overseas! The ‘talent reflux’ era has arrived. Chinese Education and Society. 37 (2): 7-11.

15

Table 1. Three waves of international student mobility with top-10 source and destination countries Wave I (1999-2006) % Change (1999-2006) 46%

1999 2006 2013 Total 2,000,811 2,914,429 4,056,680 Destination Countries USA 451,935 USA 584,719 29% USA 784,427 UK 232,540 UK 330,078 42% UK 416,693 Germany 178,195 France 247,510 89% Australia 249,868 France 130,952 Australia 184,710 57% France 228,639 Australia 117,485 Japan 130,124 130% Germany 196,619 Japan 56,552 Canada 68,520 111% Canada 151,244 Belgium 36,136 South Africa 53,738 55% Japan 135,803 South Africa 34,770 Italy 49,090 New China 96,409 Spain 32,954 Austria 39,329 New Italy 82,450 Canada 32,466 Switzerland 36,680 New Austria 70,852 Total of Top-10 1,303,985 1,724,498 32% 2,413,004 Source Countries China 123,076 China 407,280 231% China 712,157 South Korea 68,129 India 145,539 163% India 181,872 Greece 66,951 South Korea 104,763 54% Germany 119,123 Japan 58,390 Germany 70,750 33% South Korea 116,942 India 55,436 Japan 59,154 1% France 84,059 Malaysia 54,255 USA 54,419 31% Saudi Arabia 73,548 Germany 53,333 France 53,352 10% USA 60,292 Turkey 51,295 Malaysia 49,000 -10% Malaysia 56,260 France 48,316 Canada 44,542 New Vietnam 53,546 USA 41,503 Morocco 43,729 New Nigeria 52,066 Total of Top-10 620,684 1,032,528 66% 1,509,865 Data Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics [extracted 6 June 2016] | * Author's Analysis of Future Trends

Wave II (2006-2013) % Change (2006-2013) 39%

Wave III (2013-2020) Growth Trend Compared to Wave II* Similar

34% 26% 35% -8% N/A 121% 4% New 68% 80% 40%

Slower Slower Similar Similar Higher Higher Similar Higher Slower Slower

75% 25% 68% 12% 58% New 11% 15% New New 46%

Slower Higher Slower Slower Slower Slower Similar Similar Higher Higher

16 Figure 1. Three waves of international student mobility

Wave II • 1999-2006 • Talent and Terrorism • Student need: financial support • Institutional driver: research

Wave I

• 2006-2013 • Economics and English • Student need: academic support • Institutional driver: finance

• 2013-2020 • Demographics and Destinations • Student need: career support • Institutional driver: innovation

Wave III