Student Mobility - Australia

Kristina Bernadette M.
Dulay
International Student Mobility:
Australian Case
Jay Anne C. Tayag

International Student
Mobility: China
Rochelle S. Rumbawa
Indonesia
Cathleen M. Pineda
Mobility: Republic of
Stephanie Ane M. Del Rosario

Mobility:Philippines Case
Rizel Samulde
Malaysia
Diane Nicole Dupitas

Mobility: Thailand
Group 6
Kristina Bernadette M. Dulay
Diane Nicole B. Dupitas
Rizel Samulde
Cathleen M. Pineda
Stephanie Ane M. Del Rosario
Jay Anne C. Tayag
Rochelle S. Rumbawa
Introduction
The topic of international student flows has assumed greater prominence in the last two
decades. As a result of economic globalization and heightening of governments’
awareness of the perceived links between education and economic competitiveness, a
large number of governments have pumped billions of dollars into increasing the number
of higher education institutions and boosting student enrollments. This expansion of
enrollments has meant that many countries, such as Republic of Korea, China and
Singapore, have made rapid transitions from an extremely elite system of limited access
to a university education, to a mass higher education system. The expansion has,
however, failed to keep up with domestic demand as parents and students flock to higher
education as a means to improve or maintain socio-economic mobility and enhance
individual competitiveness in the job market.
The increasing demand, coupled with the financial power of the growing middle classes,
has in turn fueled the trend for students to choose to leave their home countries in search
of an overseas university education. Until the mid-1990s, the overwhelming destinations
of choice were the traditional English-speaking countries, such as the United States, the
United Kingdom and Australia. This choice made sense in view of the predominance of
English as the global language of business, science and technology. Beginning in the
mid-1990s, countries such as Malaysia began capitalizing on the international appetite
for higher education by positioning themselves as education hubs. Not only would the
domestic higher education institutions aggressively attempt to recruit foreign students,
governments would also encourage foreign education institutions to provide degrees and
diplomas through a variety of formats, for instance, fully-fledged branch campuses, or
twinning arrangements with domestic for-profit schools or publicly-run universities.
These foreign education providers would also cater to local students in order to relieve
governments of the pressure of catering to all of the demand.
By the early 2010s, the phenomenon of international student flows had spread
throughout East Asia, with students from China constituting the largest single overseas
group of students in the United States higher education system. Several East Asian
countries and territories, such as Hong Kong SAR, China1, Singapore, and Malaysia
were actively competing to become the education destination of choice for foreign
students. Numerous universities, especially those from Australia, the United Kingdom
and the United States had set up branch campuses or signed collaborative agreements
with Asian-based providers.
This paper summarizes the content of seven papers that were presented at the Regional
Seminar on the International Mobility of Students, in March 2011 at the Imperial
Queen’s Park Hotel, Bangkok, Thailand. The seven papers are:
 International Student Mobility: The Australian Case, by V. Lynn Meek;

 The case of Hong Kong SAR, China was presented at the ERI-net Regional Seminar
on the International Mobility of Students”, on 22–24 March 2011, however, due to
copyright reasons UNESCO is unable to include the text in this publication. The text
can be accessed at
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03075079.2011.630726#.
UsvSm2RDtAs
 International Student Mobility as Trade in Services: A Case Study of China, by Yue
Changjun;
 Student Mobility: Policies, Implementation and Problems: A Case of Indonesia, by
Hendarman;
 International Student Mobility Patterns and Trends: The Case of Malaysia, by
Morshidi Sirat, Rosni Bakar and Koo Yew Lie;
 Philippine Participation in International Student Mobility, by Jean C. Tayag;
 Government Policies and the Internationalization of Universities: International
Student Mobility in Republic of Korea, by Kwon Ki Seok; and
 International Higher Education Student Mobility: A Case Study of Thailand, by
Paitoon Sinlarat.
The summary will be divided into several main themes: the domestic and external factors
affecting international student flows; countries as receivers or senders of students; the
government role vis-à-vis university and individual decision-making in international
student mobility; modes of provision in international education; and the consequences
and implications of international student mobility.
International Student Mobility: the

Australian Case
Tertiary education institutions, universities in particular, have always encouraged

international co-operation and free flow between countries of staff, students and ideas.
They have appreciated that science and scholarship do not recognize national boundaries
and that progress in research will be facilitated by effective international sharing of ideas
and discoveries.
The need to promote such co-operation is even greater today than in the past. National
economies generally are becoming increasingly interdependent, while each year new
technological advances in communication and transport mean that nations generally are
in closer contact with one another. Added to this is the realization that many areas of
scientific, technological and medical research are becoming increasingly expensive, and
that facilitating mobility of professional personnel is, on balance, likely to advantage
rather than disadvantage most countries socially, culturally and economically. “Indeed”,
as Wildavsky states (2010, p. 8) “academic free trade may be more important than any
other kind”.
Curiosity still motivates a number of students to seek study abroad, but in the latter half
of the twentieth century, international education has increasingly become tied to the
development of global markets and worldwide economic restructuring. The
internationalization of tertiary education is expanding and as the production of wealth
increasingly becomes based on knowledge rather than manual labour or mechanization,
it can be expected that the exploitation of international “knowledge-markets” will
assume even greater importance. The number of students enrolled outside their country
of citizenship has increased from 0.8 million in 1975 to 4.1 million in 2010 worldwide.
This growth has greatly accelerated over the past decade or so with an average annual
increase of 7.1 per cent, “mirroring the globalization of economies and societies”.
(OECD, 2010, p. 313; OECD, 2012) There is little or no evidence to suggest that growth
in international student mobility is likely to abate in the near future.
Until recently, student mobility flows were overwhelmingly from south to north – from
developing to developed nations. Even by 2008, nearly 80 per cent of the students
enrolled outside their country of citizenship were studying in OECD countries, with only
five OECD countries (Australia, France, Germany the United Kingdom and United
States) enrolling more than 50 per cent of all foreign students. However, reflecting an
“increasing preference to study in emerging countries” (OECD, 2010, p. 312) since
2005, the rate of growth has been higher in non-OECD jurisdictions.
Globally, and within Australia, the largest number of international students in absolute
terms is nationals from China and India. In 2009, students from China (25 per cent) and
India (19 per cent) made up 44 per cent of all international students onshore in Australia.
From 2009 for reasons to be discussed below, the number of international students from
India declined drastically (particularly in the Vocational Education and Training (VET)
sector), though over recent months they appear to be recovering. But whichever way you
look at it, more than three-quarters of international students in Australia are of Asian
origin.
In promoting student mobility, governments finance in one form or another various

education co-operative efforts. Many governments expend a proportion of their
international aid in the form of overseas fellowships and scholarships. (By so doing, of
course, they recoup some of the international aid via overseas student financial
expenditure at the host institutions.) Many cultural treaties between nations contain
explicit provision for exchange of academic staff and students, and several government
ministries of education have created formal programme to further the international
activities of their respective education systems.
Governments promote international co-operative schemes not merely for the cultural and
academic enhancement of students and staff who participate in them. Governments are
becoming increasingly concerned that they occupy for economic and political purposes
an advantageous position in the international knowledge-market. These are clearly
motivating factors behind Australia’s prominent role in international education.
Australia is recognized as a world leader with respect to promoting the mobility of

international tertiary education students. Although a small country in terms of
population, Australia ranks third in terms of its worldwide share (6.9 per cent) of
international students. While the United States has the largest share of international
students at around 18 per cent, its overall market share until quite recently has
significantly declined following the events of 9/11. In terms of the percentage of tertiary
education students who are international, Australia is the world leader and far above the
OECD average (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Percentage of international students in tertiary enrollments, 2008
22
20
18
14
12
10
OECD average
8
Sl
Swit New Neth ov
Aust Aust zerla Zeal Belg Can Swe erlan Icela Hun Finl Japa Den Slov Port Nor Spai Esto eni
ralia ria UK nd and ium ada den ds nd USA gary and n mark ak ugal way n nia Chile a
Source: OECD, 2010, p. 308.
Australian international education is based primarily on attracting foreign students to

Australian tertiary education institutions and, to a lesser extent, through various
mechanisms providing nationals of other countries the opportunity to gain an Australian
qualification while studying in their home country (offshore or transnational education).
Australia attracts students from around the world through various student-exchange
arrangements and encourages its own tertiary students to gain international experience
through studying abroad, usually for one or two semesters. However, the great bulk of
Australia’s engagement with international education involves fee-paying students
enrolled for a formal educational qualification.
The reasons for Australia’s success with international education are complex, involving,
on the one hand, increasing market-like co-ordination of Australian tertiary education,
funding diversification and the continuing privatization of the tertiary education sector,
and on the other hand, the desirability of Australia as a country to immigrate. Australian
universities have dominated most of the history of international education in Australia.
But over the past five years or so, the VET sector has become a significant player, both
in terms of recruitment of international students and the present “crisis” faced by the
Australian international education industry (see below).
Internationalization: the Policy Context

of from Aid to Trade
Although there are a number of minor qualifications, the period between the end of the
Second World War and the late 1980s was one dominated by the principal of aid to
developing countries with respect to the recruitment of foreign students to Australia.
This changed with the publication of the 1987 Department of Employment, Education
and Training (DEET) Green Paper on higher education (Higher Education: a Policy
Discussion Paper) which foreshadowed a more market oriented approach to foreign
students by stating that “full-fee paying overseas students provide another important
source of potential revenue growth” (p. 83) - quite an understatement as it turned out.
In 1988, the government recognized that “the subsidized overseas student programme
was no longer satisfactorily meeting its aid, education or economic objectives” (DEET,
1991, p. 380). From the beginning of 1990, all foreign students would enter Australian
universities on a full cost basis, and government deregulated the overseas student market
by allowing individual institutions to directly recruit overseas students and to set and
retain fees with no corresponding reduction in government operating grants. The change
in policy was justified in the following terms:
In the light of significant external economic changes and changes in the policy and
administrative environment, Australia could no longer see itself so much as a donor of
education and training services to developing countries, a benefactor, but more as a
partner where mutual benefits for individuals and countries is the desired outcome
(DEET, 1991, p. 380).
The deregulation of the foreign student market created an environment of fierce

competition amongst institutions for the overseas student dollar. Nearly all institutions
regularly send representatives on student recruitment drives throughout South-East Asia,
and some institutions have established overseas campuses in Asia and elsewhere.
Hundreds of thousands of international students are studying in Australia or for

Australian qualifications offshore and contributing billions of dollars to the national
economy, making the education of overseas students one of the country’s largest export
earners (see below). Here is an example of how enhanced competition in a deregulated
higher education environment appears to produce the desired outcome.
No one at the time of the late 1980s/early 1990s higher education reforms predicted how
successful Australian universities would be in recruiting full fee-paying international
students, but a number of stars seemed to be in perfect alignment. In accord with the old
adage that “necessity is the mother of invention”, Australian universities needed to find
extra sources of revenue to not only fund expansion, but initially replace subsidized
overseas students with fee-paying ones. Externally, many of Australia’s Asian neighbors
were developing economically, but did not have the capacity to meet the tertiary
education needs and demands of all their citizens. Also, Australia was seen as providing
quality higher education at a competitive price, as well as providing a safe and secure
destination for students. Finally, the Australian government was prepared to play an
important and major facilitating role. And as they say, the rest is history (although as
discussed later, not quite).
The Australian International

Education Industry Today
Nearly two and a half million international students have studied in Australian
universities and other educational institutions since records were first kept (Murray,
2011). The number of international student onshore in Australia across all education
sectors grew from 21,118 in 1988 to 629,864 in 2009, the year in which the number of
international student enrollments peaked. About another 100,000 international students
study for Australian degrees and diplomas offshore.
Higher education has been the largest single actor in the Australian international student
market. But from 2005 there was explosive growth of enrollments in the VET sector,
which as described later, proved to be unsustainable and led inevitably to the
nationalization and restructuring.
With respect to higher education, about 56 per cent of the international students are
enrolled at the undergraduate level and 44 per cent at the postgraduate level (mostly in
coursework masters courses). International students are not evenly distributed across all
courses or institutions. Rather, around 55 per cent of both undergraduates and
postgraduate international students are enrolled in management and commerce courses,
followed to a much lesser extent by information technology, engineering and related
technologies, health and society and culture.
The distribution of international higher education students by field of study in Australia

is much more skewed towards the social sciences compared to that of some of its key
competitors, such as the United States, Germany, United Kingdom and Canada. This will
be something that will need to be taken into account as the international competition for
highly skilled personnel heats up over the coming years.
As might be expected, some universities have been much more successful than others in
attracting international students. About 44 per cent of international higher education
students are enrolled in only eight universities, while another eleven universities each
enrol 3,000 or less international students. Of course, the greater an institution is
dependent on international students as a major source of income, the more vulnerable
they are to any sudden shifts in demand.
Offshore or Transnational Education

Offshore educational provision – sometimes referred to as transnational education or
mode3: commercial presence in GATS parlance – increased dramatically during the late
1990s and early 2000s, from about 300 programme in 1996 to a peak of 1,569
programme in 2003. In the latter half of the 2000s, the number offshore programme were
substantially reduced, either through consolidation or closure due in part to quality
assurance concerns– although the actual number of students per programme increased
and has more or less stabilized since the mid-2000s (Murray, 2011). In 2008 in the
higher education sector, 93,596 international students were studying for Australian
qualifications offshore (Murray, 2011; and see Meek, 2005).
There are a number of different types of offshore delivery modes as summarized below:
 Twinning: Students study for a period of time offshore and then at the onshore
campus of an Australian university.
 Mixed mode: A local offshore institution delivers an Australian university
programme with course delivery through intensive residential schools and distance
education.
 Offshore campuses: An Australian university establishes a campus of the institution
offshore.
 Online programme are delivered through the internet by Australian onshore staff.
While Australian education programme are delivered in more than 50 countries, in 2008,
the top five nations in order of magnitude involved in Australian offshore education
were: Singapore, Malaysia, China, Hong Kong SAR, China and Viet Nam, a different
pattern in terms of the top five nations sending students to study in Australia (see above).
Offshore students are also more likely to be younger and studying part-time, compared to
international students studying in Australia. Most offshore programme are taught in
English, although there are programmes where the local language is used for instruction,
either through interpreters or by other means.
It is important to note that the regulatory framework covering offshore programmes is

different from that pertaining to onshore programmes (described below).
“In contrast to onshore programmes, Commonwealth and State governments do not

require registration for Australian higher education programmes that are offered entirely
offshore and, where international students will not enter Australia to study as any part of
the programme. Institutions must endeavour to ensure, however, that income derived
from offshore programmes covers the cost of provision, a requirement which applies to
offshore courses which lead to an Australian higher education qualification and to
arrangements where overseas institutions are licensed by an Australian institution to
offer courses” (NTEU, 2004, p. 16).
The approach to transnational education by Australian universities has matured greatly
over the last decade. It has moved from a “cottage industry” support by a few faculty
enthusiasts to (where it’s offered) core university business, supported by sophisticated
business plans and quality assurance mechanisms. The volume of transnational education
activity appears to have stabilized, but how Australian offshore delivery will develop in
Australian Higher Education Student

Mobility
the future is difficult to predict.
There are various non-revenue generating student exchange programmes between
Australian universities and their sister institutions overseas. Such programmes usually
involve a memorandum of understanding between an Australian and overseas university
which allows students from the respective country to study for course-credits for one or
more semesters tuition free. Both the federal government and individual universities
have promoted the benefits of sending Australian students to overseas universities for
part of their higher education programme through scholarships and other schemes. In
2009, the federal government provided AUD 34.3 million annually to support the
mobility of Australian students (AEI, 2010).
The International Education Industry

In terms of numbers, Australian student uptake of student mobility initiatives has been
modest. In 2007, about 10,000 Australian students engaged in study abroad programmes,
compared to around 50,000 United States students studying abroad and 25,000 United
Kingdom students doing the same. However, in terms of percentage of all students (1 per
cent), Australia compares favorably with the United Kingdom (1.2 per cent) and is
substantially higher than the United States (0.3 per cent) (AEI, 2010). The majority of
outbound Australian students study in OECD country destinations: United States, New
Zealand, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and Japan.
International students contribute financially not only through the payment of tuition fees,
but also in a variety of other ways: travel, accommodation, leisure activities, food,
clothing and so on. International education has evolved into an industry and is treated as
such by government. Some academics recoil at describing international education as an
“industry”, but whatever words are used to describe it cannot mask its economic
importance.
In 2009, the export value of international education was AUD 18.6 billion from spending
on fees and goods and services, AUD 18.0 billion spent by international onshore students
and a further AUD 589 million earned through offshore activities (AEI, 2010) (Figure 2).
lion, 2005 – 2009
18 18.6
15.5
16
14
12.6
12
10.7
$Bil
lion
10 9.6
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Source: AEI, 2010.
International education is now Australia’s third largest export industry ahead of tourism
and exceeded only by coal and iron ore in importance. It is worthwhile to note that
higher education due to numbers and higher tuition fees, significantly accounts for the
Regulation of the International

Education Industry
largest proportion of the income from international students.
All institutions receiving Australian Government financial support must meet quality and
accountability requirements set out in the Higher Education Support Act (HESA, 2003).
They are required by legislation to have in place appropriate quality assurance processes
which are periodically audited by the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA),
an independent, national quality assurance body that audits the key activities of teaching,
learning, research and management in Australian universities. Internationalization has
been a compulsory theme in AUQA’s 2005 to 2012 round of quality audits.
The international education industry is highly regulated and coordinated from the
government level down to the institutional level. Main federal government departments
are:
 Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) and
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (DIISR) have
responsibility for the operation of the higher education sector.
 Department of Immigration and Citizenship is responsible for overseas student visas.
 Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has shared responsibility with AEI for
marketing and scholarships.
 Australian Education International (AEI) within DEEWR plays the leading role in
policy development, market intelligence, regulation and government-to-government
engagement.
Universities and other educational institutions aggressively market overseas with the
assistance of AEI, IDP Education, and overseas student recruitment agents of various
types. Nearly all universities would have an international student office, headed by a
Deputy Vice-Chancellor International (or equivalent).
The Education Services for Overseas Students Act – The ESOS Act, sets out the legal
framework governing delivery of education to overseas students studying in Australia on
a student visa. There is also CRICOS - the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and
Courses for Overseas Students. Only CRICOS courses can be offered to international
students studying in Australia on a student visa.
There is a National Code of Practice for Registration Authorities and Providers of

Education and Training to Overseas Students. The national code of practice provides
legally enforceable standards under the ESOS act that govern the protection of overseas
students and delivery of courses to those students by providers registered on CRICOS. In
addition, VET international provision is regulated by a variety of different state
legislation and authorities.
There are two new regulatory bodies commencing in mid-2011: Tertiary Education
Quality and Standards Agency (TESQA) and the National Vocational Education and
Training Regulator. TESQA will replace AUQA and have responsibility for the higher
education sector. Between them, TESQA and the national VET regulator will replace a
myriad of State and Territory tertiary education accreditation and regulatory authorities.
The new regulatory structure will strengthen in particular the quality of the international
provision in the VET sector – the sector generally regarded as having most of the
problems in this respect. It is intended that TEQSA and the VET regulator will be
amalgamated in 2013, but it remains to be seen if that actually occurs.
International education creates direct employment for literally thousands of individuals.

Those involved in international education have their own professional associations, the
The Perfect Storm

main one being the International Education Association for Australia (IEAA).
The growth of international education in Australia has not only been spectacular in terms
of numbers, but highly resilient to external pressures. Over the years, Australian
international education has defied predictions of its collapse despite the bird flu and
Asian economic crises of the 1990s and the 9/11, SARS, oil and GFC crises of the
2000s.
The Australian experience reflects global trends. Despite numerous global crises, over a
30 year period there has been no single dip in aggregate numbers of global international
students (up to now). But while global student mobility appears to be fairly resilient, host
countries can intentionally or unintentionally compromise their popularity as a student
destination. Apparently commencing in 2009, Australia did precisely that.
The downturn in Australia’s popularity as an international student destination hit

suddenly and hard in 2009, beginning a substantial reduction in international student
numbers. In September 2010 the Department of Immigration advised the Minister for
Immigration that student arrivals over the 2013 to 2014 period would be down by 50 per
cent on 2010 figures. This forecast proved overly pessimistic but there have been
substantial declines nonetheless.
Figure 3 displays international student commencements (i.e. international students in

Australia on a student visa) by year 2009 to 2012 and sector. As can be seen, while the
decline in higher education did not begin until 2011, there has been a steady and quite
substantial decline in VET and English Language Intensive Courses for Overseas
Students (ELICOS) international commencing students. It is important to note that there
is a delayed impact on higher education enrollments by ELICOS declining numbers
because many international students complete ELICOS programmes as a prerequi
Figure 3: International Student Commencements by Sector 2009-2012
120,000
100,000
80,000 2009
2010
60,000
2011
40,000 2012
20,000
0
Higher Education VET ELICOS Schools Other
Source: AEI, 2012.
The total number of international students studying in Australia has steadily declined
since 2009, from a total of 631,935 in 2009 to 425,555 in 2012, an overall decline of
about 27 per cent. Again, the pace of decline has been slower for higher education and
has started to stabilize overall (Table 1). But it will be some time before the number of
international students studying at Australian tertiary education institutions reaches 2009
levels. One prognosis is that international student numbers will not be restored to 2009
levels until 2020.
Table 1: International Student Enrollments, 2011 and 2012
Enrollments, Year-to-date
YTD June Growth on YTD June

Sector YTD June 2011 2012 11
Higher Education 205,791 195,970 -4.8%

VET 124,149 106,308 -14.4%
ELICOS 59,778 55.884 -6.5%
Schools 17,339 15,270 -11.9%
Other 18,498 15,924 -13.9%
Total in Australia 425,555 389,356 -8.5%
Source: AEI, 2012.
Some universities have reduced staff numbers to cope with the decline in international
student enrollments. Higher education as a whole depends on international student fees
for about 18 per cent of its revenue. Seven universities depend on international students
for more than 20 per cent of their income, with a few deriving more than 30 per cent of
their revenue from international students. The pain resulting from the international
student downturn will not be equally shared, with some universities experiencing little or
no impact, even though they have large numbers of international students (mostly the
more prestigious institutions for which the demand for student places is very high).
No one factor brought about this “crisis”. Rather a number of events coincided to create
what has been called a “perfect storm” in Australian international higher education
(Murray, 2011). But high on the list of importance was the over rapid and unsustainable
growth of international students particularly in the private VET sector brought about by
changes in immigration policy. In 2005, the Howard liberal coalition government
amended immigration laws to allow international students in non-university trade
courses, including hospitality, hairdressing and childcare, to gain permanent residency.
This led to an explosion in both overseas residents seeking enrolment in private VET
trade courses and in the number of private VET providers, some of which it soon became
apparent had poor facilities, deficiencies in course quality, and allowed overcrowding.
Apparently, lapses in application of state regulation allowed “rogue providers” to
establish themselves. By 2009, problems with some providers were gaining much
publicity, with some declaring bankruptcy. This led to considerable student
dissatisfaction and some public demonstrations. The National Tertiary Education Union
(NTEU, 2009, p. 16) stated that:
Although originally designed to assist skilled migration to Australia, there is now

considerable evidence that the pathway to permanent residency has opened a doorway to
what has been described as a “black market” trade in fraudulent letters of completion and
migration services.
The next problem resulted from the government (now a Labour government)
overreaction (or at least perceived to be) to the training and permanent residency issue.
Changes to the permanent residency visa requirements reduced the number of eligible
occupations in high demand by more than 50 per cent, and visa places were capped for
some occupations. Overall, the student visa regime was tightened, with more rigorous
assessment of availability of financial support, longer visa processing times and other
major changes attempting to weed out bogus students. In combination with other factors,
this lead to a perception in the region that Australia no longer welcomed international
students. Once the damage being done to the international student market became quite
apparent, government softened some of its measures and announced in December 2010 a
strategic review of the student visa programme. Also in 2010, government required all
providers offering courses to international students to be re-registered. By the beginning
of 2011, more than 50 education and training providers had shut for financial reasons
and/or been stripped of their registration (Mather, 2011, p. 27). A number of other
providers voluntarily canceled their registration rather than subjecting themselves to
audit. While the VET private sector has been “cleaned up”, the process sent negative
messages to potential foreign students.
The third factor is the strengthening of the Australian dollar, coupled with increased
competition for international students from, on the one hand, Canada, United Kingdom
and United States, and on the other, maturing higher education systems in the region
which are not only beginning to meet the higher education needs of their citizens but are
themselves attracting international students. The Australian dollar has now achieved
parity with the US dollar, making Australian education far more expensive than in past
years where the average exchange rate was 70¢ USD to one Australian Dollar. Due to
financial crises in both the United States and the United Kingdom, universities in these
countries are aggressively marketing for international students to help support falling
budgets. In the absence of its historical price advantage, it is difficult for Australia to
compete.
Finally, other important factors damaging Australia’s image in the region were highly
publicized (though relatively small occurrences) attacks on international students (Indian
Impact of the Growth of

International Education
students in particular) and adverse publicity arising from political debates over
immigration and population issues. During the 2010 federal elections, both major
political parties were trying to outdo the other in sounding tough on migration issues and
asylum seekers and refugees, a political debate that has continued unabated.
The downward spiral in international student enrollments appearing in 2010 will take
some years to play out. But in the long run, probably the present Australian international
student recruitment crisis will not prove to be all that significant. In fact, it has had a
positive impact in terms of vastly improving educational provision in the private VET
sector and in focusing attention on quality and student welfare issues in all sectors.
Those involved with international education have taken the issues of alleged racism and
the civil rights of international students quite seriously (Graycar, 2010; Jakubowicz and
Monani, 2010; Davis and Mackintosh, 2011).
There have been regular surveys in Australia of international student satisfaction and
graduate outcomes. While not diminishing the importance of housing, work and safety
issues faced by international students (Marginson, 2010), it is interesting to note that
international students’ opinion of both the quality of their education and living
conditions has actually improved over the years.
For example, the AEI’s International Student Survey 2010, conducted between late 2009
and mid-2010, confirmed that a high percentage of international students in Australia are
satisfied with their living experience (86 per cent), study experiences (84 per cent) and
student support services (84 per cent). The results mirrored the international benchmark
as measured through the International Student Barometer (ISB) and were “an
improvement on the levels reported in the last international student survey conducted in
Australia in 2006” (AEI, 2010, p. 1). Interestingly, according to the report, safety
recorded high satisfaction levels in respect of the higher education cohort (86 per cent)
and compared favorably with the ISB score of 89 per cent, and were a marked
improvement on scores recorded for safety and security in the 2006 survey. Teaching
elements within the Study in Australia category scored very highly, while ratings were
lower for aspects relating to work such as work experience and careers advice. ISB
respondents and Australian domestic students recorded similar satisfaction levels for
these elements. As was the case in the 2006 ISB, the factors identified by survey
respondents as being the most important in terms of influencing their decision on where
to study were quality of education, followed by the reputation of the qualification from
the institution and reputation of the institution itself (AEI, 2010).
There is the question of whether Australia’s international student market should grow
any larger than what it is today. Of course, cash-strapped universities and other higher
education institutions will always wish to supplement their incomes.
But numbers and dollars are not sufficiently descriptive of the impact of
internationalization on Australian tertiary education institutions. Over the last couple of
decades, internationalization has come to mean in Australia much more than merely
Positive aspects of
internationalization:
recruitment of fee-paying overseas students, as important as this aspect may be. A brief
summary of the positive and negative aspects of the Australian experience with
internationalization of tertiary education are outlined below. Overall, the positives far
outweigh the negatives.
Obvious financial advantage for institutions and the economy generally;
 Well-developed sophisticated international support, with the study of the

international student experience becoming an academic sub-discipline;
 Internationalization of the curricula;
 Cosmopolitan campus culture – although still a long way to go;
 Strengthening of political, economic, educational and cultural networks in the
region;
 Encouragement and support for Australian domestic students to gain international
experience;
 Promotion of academic staff mobility through building international teaching and
research networks.
Mobility: China
Since the implementation of the reform and opening up policy in 1978, China has
enjoyed a long-term economic boom. In 2010, China surpassed Japan to become
the second largest economy in the world, ranked only behind the United States.
Meanwhile, China became the world’s largest exporter and remains the world’s
second largest importer. Undoubtedly, this success in economic development
benefits from the reform and opening up policy, which is regarded as bringing
about foreign investment, high technology, and advanced management.
Moreover, the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping was aware of the importance of
international student mobility and made the decision in 1978 to expand the number
of students and scholars sent abroad. The policy serves as a window for China’s
reforms and opening up as well as for the cultural exchange between China and
other countries. China’s government promulgated the guideline for students and
scholars studying abroad, which is “to support students and scholars studying
abroad, to encourage them to return to China after their completion of studies and
guarantee them the freedom of coming and going”. On the other hand, the central
government of China developed many policies to attract foreign students to study
in China.
China’s higher eduCation as a Case study

China plays a key role in the trade in higher education services. It has been a
leading consumer of education abroad, becoming the biggest consumer in the
world. In 2008, there were 2,965,840 overseas students in the whole world, of
which 441,186 were from China (Table 1), accounting for 14.9 per cent of the total.
India ranked second with 170,256 outbound students, accounting for 5.7 per cent.
Table 1: Top 12 Countries of Origin and Host Countries, 2008
Country of Share Rankin Host Share

Ranking Origin Number (%) g Country Number (%)
1 China 441,186 14.9 1 USA 624,474 21.1

2 India 170,256 5.7 2 UK 341,791 11.5
Rep. of
3 Korea 112,588 3.8 3 France 243,436 8.2
4 Germany 83,524 2.8 4 Australia 230,635 7.8
5 USA 50,728 1.7 5 Germany 189,347 6.4
6 Japan 50,380 1.7 6 Japan 126,568 4.3
7 Malaysia 47,395 1.6 7 Canada 68,520 2.3
South
8 France 45,191 1.5 8 Africa 63,964 2.2
9 Canada 44,883 1.5 9 Russia 60,288 2.0
10 Russia 43,982 1.5 10 Italy 57,271 1.9
11 Morocco 41,254 1.4 11 Austria 53,396 1.8
12 Turkey 41,120 1.4 12 China 51,038 1.7
Although the number of students from China studying abroad was the biggest, it is small
compared with the huge scale of China’s higher education. The outbound mobility ratio
was a mere 1.7 per cent in 2008, and the gross outbound mobility ratio was only 0.4 per
cent (Table 2).
Table 2: Outbound Student Ratios in China, 2002-2009
2005 2006 2007 2008
Students from China studying

abroad 343,126 417,351 421,148 441,186
Outbound mobility ratio (%) 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.7
Gross outbound mobility ratio (%) 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4
Inbound mobility ratio (%) - 0.2 0.2 0.2
Since 1999 the scale of higher education in China has enjoyed a quick expansion. In
2002, the gross entrance rate to higher education reached 15 per cent, indicating that
China had entered the era of mass higher education (Table 3). In 2009, the ratio rose to
24.2 per cent; the number of school students in general universities reaching more than
20 million. China has replaced the United States as the country that with the largest
higher education sector.
Table 3: Expenditure Trends in Secondary and Tertiary Education in China,

2001–2009
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Number of Student
Enrolment. 7.19 9.03 11.09 13.34 15.62 17.39 18.85 20.21 21.45
Tertiary.
(million)
Gross entrance rate.
Tertiary. 13.30 15.0 17.00 19.00 21.00 22.0 0 23.00 23.30 24.20
(%)
Public
expenditure on 2.79 2.90 2.84 2.79 2.82 3.00 3.22 3.48 -
education as % of
GDP
Percentage of
public 38.40 40.10 40.4 0 40.30 41.1 0 41.4 0 41.40 42.10 -
Expenditure
distribution.
Secondary (%)
Percentage of
public 24.30 24.2 0 24.30 24.30 23.80 23.20 22.40 22.3 0 -
Expenditure
distribution.
Tertiary (%)
Some key universities such as Peking University and Tsinghua University believe
they are world-class. The ratio of international students and faculty members are
key indicators in some world university rankings. In recent years, hundreds of
Chinese universities attempt to absorb foreign students, with strong support from
the Ministry of Education of China. The government published the National
Outline for Medium and Long-Term Education Reform and Development (2010–
2020) in 2010, calling for an expansion of international co-operation and exchange
among institutions of higher education. By 2020, according to the plan, the number
of inbound students in China will reach 500,000.
The Mobility Service Modes

Mode 1: Cross-border Supply
There are a number of reasons why China can become an important supplier of
quality education for international consumers. First, China’s economy has been
undergoing rapid growth since 1978 when it initiated its reform and opening-up
policy. It has now surpassed Japan, becoming the second largest economy in 2010.
This economic success attracts more and more students from all over the world to
undertake study and research in China. Second, the quality of higher education in
China has improved and the country has signed protocols with more than 34
countries in mutual recognition of academic degrees and qualifications. As there
are so many faculties in key universities who received their doctoral degrees from
universities in the United States, the United Kingdom, and other countries, courses
can be taught in English. Third, in order to strengthen mutual understanding and
friendship between the Chinese people and people from all over the world, and to
develop co-operation and exchange in politics, economy, culture, education and
trade, the Chinese government has set up a series of scholarship programmes to
sponsor international students, teachers and scholars to undertake study and
research in Chinese higher education institutions (HEIs). Fourth, foreign students
have bright employment prospects in China after graduation. Since China has
become the world’s largest exporter and second largest importer, the bilateral trade
between China and many countries has become important. Foreign companies
prefer to recruit Chinese speaking foreigners who understand China’s economy and
culture. Many international graduates chose to work in China in recent years
because there are more job opportunities in China’s labour market. Fifth, the cost
of higher education in China, including tuition and the living costs are much lower
than those in developed countries.
Figure 1: Total International Students in China (1999–2010)
300,000
265,0
90
238,1
250,000 84
223,4
99
195,5
03
200,000
162,6
95
141,0
150,000 87
110,8
44
100,000 85,8
29
77,7
15
61,8
69
44,7 52,1
50,000 11 50
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
0 1999 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2010
In 1950, China received the first group of 33 students from the East European
countries. By the end of 2009, the total number of international students in China
had increased to 238,184. They are from more than 190 countries and study in 619
higher education institutions and other organizations. International students from
Asia still top the list, totalling 161,605 and accounting for 67.8 per cent (Table 4).
Students from Europe number 35,876, accounting for 15.1 per cent; 25,557 from
America account for 10.7 per cent; 12,436 from Africa account for 5.2 per cent;
and 2,710 from Oceania account for 1.1 per cent.
Table 4: Inbound Student Mobility in China, 2001–2009
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Total 110,84 141,08 162,69 195,50 223,49 238,18

International 61,869 85,829 77,715 4 7 5 3 9 4
students in
China
International 106,84 120,93 141,68 152,93 161,60
students 46,142 66,040 63,672 85,112 0 0 9 1 5
from Asia
International
students 6,717 8,127 6,462 11,524 16,463 20,676 26,339 32,461 35,876
from Europe
International
students 6,411 8,892 4,703 10,695 13,221 15,619 19,673 26,559 25,557
from America
International
students 1,526 1,646 1,793 2,186 2,757 3,737 5,915 8,799 12,436
from Africa
International
students 1,073 1,124 1,085 1,327 1,806 1,733 1,887 2,749 2,710
from Oceania
Among the 190 source countries and areas, the top six with the largest numbers of
international students are Korea, the United States, Japan, Viet Nam, Thailand and
Russia (Table 5). Each has over 10,000 students in China, accounting for 55.6 per
cent of the total overseas students. The top twenty countries that have the largest
number of students in China are from either developed countries (namely United
States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, France and Italy) or neighbouring
countries in Asia.
Table 5: Top 20 Countries of Inbound Students in China, 2009
Ranki Country/reg Number of Degree Non-Degree Percentage

ng ion Students Students Students (%)
1 Rep. of Korea 64,232 26,874 37,358 27.0

2 USA 18,650 1,525 17,125 7.8
3 Japan 15,409 2,865 12,544 6.5
4 Viet Nam 12,247 8,447 3,800 5.1
5 Thailand 11,379 3,217 8,162 4.8
6 Russia 10,596 3,290 7,306 4.4
7 India 8,468 8,064 404 3.6
8 Indonesia 7,926 2,922 5,004 3.3
9 Kazakhstan 6,497 1,883 4,614 2.7
10 Pakistan 5,738 5,396 342 2.4
11 Mongolia 5,684 2,864 2,820 2.4
12 France 5,422 710 4,712 2.3
13 Germany 4,239 490 3,749 1.8
14 Singapore 3,198 1,109 2,089 1.3
15 UK 3,002 290 2,712 1.3
16 Malaysia 2,792 1,990 802 1.2
17 Italy 2,659 312 2,347 1.1
The share of degree students increased significantly from 26.9 per cent in 2001 to
39.2 per cent in 2009. Among the degree students, 73,515 are bachelor degree
students, accounting for 78.7 per cent; 14,227 are master degree students (15.2 per
cent); 4,751 are doctoral degree students (5.1 per cent); and 957 are specialized
course students, accounting for 1.0 per cent).
Table 6: Inbound Degree Student Mobility in China, 2001–2009
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Specialize
d 1,282 499 263 450 593 1,009 1,119 860 957
Bachelor
Degree 11,797 16,309 19,319 25,351 37,147 45,207 56,248 64,864 73,515
Master
Degree 2,377 2,858 3,397 3,883 4,807 5,966 7,628 10,373 14,227
Doctor
Degree 1,194 1,389 1,637 1,932 2,304 2,677 3,218 3,908 4,751
Total 16,650 21,055 24,616 31,616 44,851 54,859 68,213 80,005 93,450
Fifteen disciplines (Table 7) were offered in China in 2009, among which Chinese,
Medicine, Humanities, Economics, Management, Engineering and Chinese
Medicine have over 5,000 international students. The Chinese language is the most
popular discipline, the choice of 57.3 per cent of all students.
Table 7: The Discipline Structure of Inbound Students in China in 2009
Degree Non-Degree
code Number student student Percentage
136,57 118,36
1 Chinese 6 18,209 7 57.3
2 Medicine 21,123 19,757 1,366 8.9
3 Humanity 16,635 9,771 6,864 7.0
4 Economics 14,367 11,893 2,474 6.0
5 Management 12,260 7,982 4,278 5.1
6 Engineering 11,606 8,631 2,975 4.9
7 Chinese Medicine 11,022 7,740 3,282 4.6
8 Law 4,966 3,906 1,060 2.1
9 Arts 2,732 1,729 1,003 1.1
10 Education 1,470 756 714 0.6
11 Sciences 1,417 1,062 355 0.6
12 Physical Education 1,318 738 580 0.6
13 History 1,046 468 578 0.4
14 Agriculture 1,018 600 418 0.4
15 Philosophy 628 208 420 0.3
Since 1997, the Chinese Scholarships Council (CSC) has been entrusted by the
Ministry of Education with the enrolment and administration of daily operations
concerning international students in China sponsored by Chinese government
scholarships
Table 8: Chinese Government Scholarship Students, 2009
Number Percentage
International students from Asia 8,409 46.1

International students from Africa 4,824 26.4
International students from Europe 3,022 16.6
International students from
America 1,599 8.8
International students from Oceania 391 2.1
Total 18,245 100.0
By 2010, the number of foreign students in China had risen dramatically, hitting a
record high of more than 260,000. A total of 265,090 foreign students from 194
countries came that year to study in China’s 620 universities, research institutes
and educational institutions. Republic of Korea sent the largest group, followed by
the United States, Japan, Thailand, Viet Nam, Russia, Indonesia, India, Kazakhstan
and Pakistan.
Mode 2: Consumption Abroad

It has been more than 100 years since China began to send its students and scholars
to study abroad. Although the numbers and types of study have changed over time,
the underlying principle remains the same. Before the foundation of China, there
were already many Chinese going abroad for further studies in order to bring home
knowledge that could help build a stronger country. After the establishment of new
China, the central government decided to send students and scholars to the former
Soviet Union and other socialist countries to study advanced science and
technology and management. Beginning from the 1960s, with the change of the
international political climate, the central government accordingly made
adjustments in policies related to sending students and scholars abroad.
In 1978, with strategic insight, Deng Xiaoping made the important decision of
expanding the scale of overseas study. From then on, the number of students
studying abroad began to increase, but the quantity was still very small. It is from
2001 that numbers increased dramatically (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Students Studying Abroad and Returned Students (1978–2010)
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
The number of Chinese choosing to study abroad increased hugely in 2010,
reaching 284,700, while the number of Chinese returning from schools overseas
was 134,800 for the same year.
In 2008, the total number of students and scholars studying abroad was 179,800, of
whom 11,400 (6.3 per cent) were state-funded, 6,800 (3.8 per cent)
employer-funded and 161,600 (89.9 per cent) self-funded (Table 9). The number of
self-funded Chinese students increased significantly in 2001 and 2002. About 90
per cent of Chinese students studying overseas are self-funded.
Table 9: Three Complementary Channels for Overseas Chinese Students, 2000–2008
Employer-funde
Year State-funded d Self-funded
2000 3,000 4,000 32,000

2001 3,000 5,000 76,000
2002 3,500 4,500 117,000
2003 3,002 5,144 109,200
2004 3,500 6,900 104,300
2005 3,979 8,078 106,500
2006 5,580 7,542 120,700
2007 8,853 6,957 129,000
2008 11,400 6,800 161,600
It took China 52 years to reach this level from the founding of the People’ Republic
of China. After breaking the threshold of USD$1,000, China’s economy began to
take off substantially. It took only five years for GDP per capita to increase a
second USD$1,000, reaching USD$2,070 in 2006. Only two year later, the GDP
per capita increased by another one thousand dollars to USD$3,414 in 2008. In
2010, the GDP per capita increased to USD$4,430. There is a significant
relationship between the scale of outbound students and GDP growth (the
correlation value is 0.933, significant at the 0.01 level). Often, Chinese students
who fail to get into the top tier local institutions opt for a foreign education rather
than a second tier education at home.
Table 10: The Growth of Outbound Student Flows in China, 1999–2010
Year
Outbound Total Local Local GDP per capita, current Total GDP,
Students Population enrolment, enrolment, current $US,
secondary tertiary
(million) (million) (million) $US (billion)
1999 23,749 1258 73.05 4.13 865 1083

2000 38,989 1267 78.72 5.56 949 1198
2001 83,973 1276 83.02 7.19 1042 1325
2002 125,179 1285 87.99 9.03 1135 1454
2003 117,307 1292 91.11 11.09 1274 1641
2004 114,682 1300 92.65 13.34 1490 1932
2005 118,515 1308 92.06 15.62 1732 2258
2006 134,000 1314 91.28 17.39 2070 2713
2007 144,000 1321 89.84 18.85 2652 3496
2008 179,800 1328 88.12 20.21 3414 4522
2009 229,300 1335 86.54 21.45 3744 4985
2010 284,700 1341 84.33 22.32 4430 5927
The top five destinations for Chinese outbound students at the tertiary level are the
United States (110,246), Japan (77,916), Australia (57,596), United Kingdom (45,356),
and Korea (30,552) as shown in Table 11. These countries can be divided into two
groups: one consists of English-speaking countries, while the other group consists of
neighbouring countries. Since the English language is a compulsory course for most
Chinese students at both the basic and higher education stage, they like to pursue degrees
in English-speaking countries. It is because many world-class universities are in the
United States and the United Kingdom that Chinese students wish to go to these two
countries for a high quality education. Australia, New Zealand and Canada are not only
English-speaking countries but also countries of immigrants, so these counties are also
favourite destinations.
Japan and Korea are China’s neighbours with a large amount of bilateral trade. Cultural
traditions are also similar. In recent years, popular music, soap operas and movies made
in Korea are very popular among Chinese youth. This has contributed to the number of
Chinese students in Korea increasing 33 times, from 902 in 1999 to 30,552 in 2008.
Meanwhile, the share of Chinese students in Korea increased from 31.4 per cent to 75.8
per cent of the total number of international students in Korea during the same period
(Table 11).
Japanese animation and comics are popular among young Chinese. Electric and
mechanical products made in Japan are well-liked too. Japan has been a key destination
for Chinese people since China’s reform and opening-up in 1978, and has remained the
second largest host country. The number of Chinese students in Japan increased from
25,655 in 1999 to 77,916 in 2008. Meanwhile, the share of Chinese students of the total
number of international students in Japan increased from 45.4 per cent to 61.6 per cent
during the same period (Table 11).
Much research is focused on determinants of student choice. According to a 2001

Education World Survey of one thousand undergraduate students who travelled abroad
from ten Asian countries, “mobile students’ key choice factors” were “country (54 per
cent), course (18 per cent), institution (17 per cent) and city (10 per cent)”. The desire to
access education of higher quality than available at home was as strong a motive as the
desire for foreign education and experience for their own sake (OECD, 2004, pp.
172-173, 266).
Table 11: China Students Abroad at Tertiary Level: by Major Country-Recipients
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
USA
(number) 46,949 50,281 51,986 63,211 92,774 87,943 92,370 93,672 98,958 110,246
USA (%) 10.4 10.6 10.9 10.8 15.8 15.4 15.7 16.0 16.6 17.7
Japan
25,655 28,076 31,955 41,180 51,656 76,130 83,264 86,378 80,231 77,916
(number)
Japan
(%) 45.4 47.0 50.2 55.0 59.7 64.6 66.1 66.4 63.7 61.6
Australia
4,578 5,008 17,343 23,448 28,309 37,344 42,008 50,418 57,596
(number)
Australia
(%) 3.9 4.7 9.7 12.5 17.0 21.1 22.7 23.8 25.0
UK
(number) 4,250 6,158 10,388 17,483 30,690 47,738 52,677 50,753 49,594 45,356
UK (%) 1.8 2.8 4.6 7.7 12.0 15.9 16.5 15.4 14.1 13.3
Rep. of
Korea
902 1,182 1,645 2,407 4,025 6,462 10,093 15,288 23,097 30,552
(number)
Rep. of
Korea
31.4 35.0 42.7 48.6 51.3 60.0 65.1 68.7 72.3 75.8
(%)
Germany 5,355 6,526 9,109 14,070 20,141 25,284 27,129 24,221 23,791 21,977
(number)
Germany
(%) 3.0 3.5 4.6 6.4 8.4 9.7 10.4 11.6 11.5 11.6
France
1,934 2,111 3,068 5,477 10,665 11,514 14,316 17,132 18,836 20,852
(number)
France
(%) 1.5 1.5 2.1 3.3 4.8 4.8 6.1 6.9 7.6 8.6
Mode 3: Commercial Presence

The commercial presence of China satellite campuses abroad is still in its early
stages. By December 2010, only 56 overseas education programmes had been
developed by 23 higher education institutions.
With the rapidly growing domestic demand for higher education, the scale of
higher education in China has enjoyed quick expansion. Student enrolment has
increased 4.2 times from 1998 to 2009, but public expenditure on tertiary education
has not increased at the same speed. Additionally, the percentage of public
expenditure on higher education shows a decreasing trend, dropping from 24.3 per
cent to 22.3 per cent during 2001-2008. In order to compete in recruiting new
students, many universities in China borrowed lots of money from banks to build
new buildings resulting in heavy debts.
The Beijing Language and Culture University (BLCU) is the only international
university in China. Its main task is teaching the Chinese language and culture to
foreign students. BLCU always attaches great importance to international exchange
and co-operation. As the country opens up, the university is also broadening its
co-operation, building partnerships with 210 universities in 39 countries.
With the rapid growth of China’s economy, there has also been a sharp increase in
world demand for Chinese learning. China began its own exploration in 2004 by
establishing non-profit public institutions which aim to promote Chinese language
and culture in foreign countries. They are called the Confucius Institute. Over
recent years, the Confucius Institutes’ development has been sharp and they have
provided scope for people all over the world to learn about Chinese language and
culture. Through the joint efforts of China and the Confucius Institute host
countries, by the end of 2010 there were 322 Confucius Institutes and 369
Confucius Classrooms in 96 countries. In 2009, Confucius Institutes/Classrooms
around the world offered 9,000 Chinese courses with a total enrolment of 260,000.
At the same time, there is a growing commercial presence of foreign providers on
China’s campuses. Sino-foreign co-operation in running schools has developed so
rapidly that more than 1,200 Sino-foreign joint institutions and programmes had
been established by 2010. Sino-foreign joint programmes are also known as
‘split-campus programmes’ usually in the form of “2+2” or “1+3”, where the first
two years (or one year) of the course study takes place at the Chinese institution
and the last two years (or three years) at the foreign partner institution. Joint
programmes result in one qualification – that of the foreign partner. Degree-level
Sino-foreign joint programmes must be approved and registered by the Ministry of
Education, and diploma-level by the relevant local provincial education
commissions.
Mode 4: The Presence of Natural Persons

Rejuvenation of China through education and science is China’s basic development
strategy. China’s State Administration of Foreign Experts Affairs (SAFEA) has made
great progress in serving China’s quest for scientific development through “overseas
expertise introduction” (OEI). The number of overseas experts recruited to work in
China reached 2,300,000 during 2006-2010.
The central government has taken effective measures to attract outstanding students and
scholars to return to China or to make contributions in various ways. The returned
students and scholars play a leading role in areas like education, science and technology,
high-tech industries, finance, insurance, trade and management and serve as a driving
force for the country’s economic and social development. At the same time, many
students and scholars staying abroad contribute in various ways such as giving lectures
during short-term visits to China, having academic exchanges, conducting joint research,
bringing in projects and investments and providing information and technical
consultancy. Accordingly, Chinese governments at all levels, enterprises and institutions
have developed supportive policies in this regard. Institutions, special funds and
talent-reserves have been established to facilitate the returnees in their careers. As for the
MOE, it has been conducting some exemplary programmes to encourage students and
scholars to return as well as to facilitate their careers. The main programmes are as
follows:
“The Fund for Returnees to Launch S&T Research”.
“Programme for Training Talents Toward the Twenty-first Century”.
“The Chunhui (literally, Spring Bud) Programme”: The programme targets those
returnees with doctoral degrees and with outstanding achievements in their respective
fields.
“Changjiang Scholar Incentive Programme”: The programme provides financial
support to leading young and middle-aged scholars of certain disciplines who have
studied abroad and are invited by Chinese HEIs as Special Professors or Lecture
Professors.
“Programme of Academic Short-return for Scholars and Research Overseas”.
To improve global educational competitive power, many universities in China began to

recruit foreign faculty. Schools where more than half of the teachers are foreign include
the China Europe International Business School (CEIBS), the School of Transnational
Law at Peking University, and the Peking University HSBC Business School (PHBS).
CEIBS is the leading China-based international business school, with all three of its
programmes ranked in the Global Top 30 by the Financial Times. The school’s main
objective is to contribute to the economic development of China by offering its students
a thorough understanding of the latest international management knowledge and
practices coupled with China expertise. CEIBS is a not-for-profit joint venture
established under an agreement between MOFTEC and the European Commission.
CEIBS’ faculty members have attained impressive academic and professional reputations
in China and abroad. The school has for five years running ranked among the top six
worldwide in terms of the international diversity of its members according to the
Financial Times.
To develop lawyers familiar with globalization processes, the School of Transnational

Law at Peking University was set up in 2007. Peking University recruited Jeffrey
Lehman, the former president of Cornell University and former president of the
American Law Deans Association, to lead the new school which is located on the
University’s Shenzhen campus. Besides the dean, all other faculty members are
foreigners or returned students from the United States.
References
China. Ministry of Education. 2009. Students Studying
in China Statistics. China. National Bureau of
Statistics. 2003–2010. China Statistical Yearbook.
China. State Administration of Foreign Experts
Affairs. http://www.safea.gov.cn OECD. 2004.
Internationalization and Trade in Higher Education.
Paris, OECD.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. 2007-2010. Global Education Digest. Montreal,

Canada, UIS.
Wang, Huiyao. 2009. Report on the Development of Chinese Overseas
Educated Talents. China Machine Press.
Twenty years ago, the primary motivation for people to study abroad related to
academic, political, geo-strategic, and cultural and development aid issues and
considerations. This changed when many countries took initiatives to encourage mobility
of students and academics as an opening up of the world under the assumption that it
could create international networks of elites. Today, cross-border education that entails
the international mobility of students and teachers, educational programmes or
institutions of higher learning is being increasingly driven by economic considerations
(Knight, 2004).
Governments see it as a means of improving the quality of higher education and their
institutions of higher learning; whereas individuals see it as a further boost to their career
both in their home country and in the international job market. Between 1998 and 2004
the number of foreign students enrolled worldwide rose by 52 per cent to 2.7 per cent of
total higher education students, with the OECD countries hosting 85 per cent of the total
(Vincent-Lancrin, 2004).
Asia is a hot house of student mobility, programme mobility, and innovative forms of
managing and regulating international education. There are a growing number of middle
class families willing to invest in post-secondary education, which given lack of local
opportunities, plus the benefits of going abroad, often means a foreign education. The
challenge for future governments and institutions is to ensure an optimal balance
between academic, cultural, economic and strategic priorities. For students and
academics, the region provides many opportunities to engage in rich cultural, linguistic,
academic, geographical and social experiences (Marginson and McBurnie, 2004).
In the context of Indonesia, the importance of student mobility has been emphasized by
the Vice-Minister of National Education Indonesia during the press conference of
SEAMEO RIHED in Jakarta, March 2010. He stated that “Enhancing student mobility
will allow a university student’s credit points and grades obtained at other universities in
the South-East Asian region to transfer to a home university. It is beneficial for
Indonesian university students if they can study in many countries, with recognized
credit transfer”.
Related Policies on Student Mobility
Indonesia encourages foreign academics and foreign programmes and institutions to

come to Indonesia. Therefore, Indonesia has made legal provision for locally based
co-operation with foreign universities to “improve and enhance the performance of
higher education” and to “maintain, develop, empower and expand science, technology
and/or arts” (Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi, 2004). The issuance of this policy
assumes that foreign education within the nation can create broader benefits. It can foster
academic jobs and expand infrastructure (classrooms, libraries, laboratories and IT
equipment); create educational programmes and textbooks; and add testing services,
administrative systems and policy blueprints.
The Government of Indonesia through the Ministry of National Education widely

encourages both study abroad by domestic students and income-generating foreign
programmes and institutions in its higher education institutions (HEIs) both public and
private. In addition to providing opportunities for students to earn a foreign degree while
remaining at home, and creating new forms of partnership and delivery, programme and
institution mobility (PIM) is of major importance in student enrolments the Government
of Indonesia encourages international students to study in Indonesia and at the same time
sends Indonesian scholars to study abroad under different scholarship schemes. The
Ministry of National Education offers the so-called “Beasiswa Darmasiswa Republik
Indonesia” (Darmasiswa Scholarships) for international students to learn Bahasa
Indonesia, music, traditional dance and other studies in Indonesia’s higher education
institutions. This scheme is the response of the government to scholarship programmes
offered by other countries. This scheme is for the period 2007 to 2015. The target
number of students is increased from year to year: 500, 750, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, 4,000,
5,000, 7,500 and 10,000 students from 2007 to 2015. The categories of this scheme
include among others: (1) regular, (2) short-course, (3) plus courses (including Bahasa
Indonesia) and (4) double-degree. There were 44 participating countries by 2008; and by
2008 there were 2,037 alumni from 85 countries.
With the purpose of providing an international dimension to universities in ASEAN, on

23 November 2009, three countries within SEAMEO RIHED - Indonesia, Malaysia and
Thailand - launched the M-I-T Pilot Project on Promoting Student Mobility in
South-East Asia. SEAMEO RIHED (SEAMEO Regional Centre for Higher Education
and Development) is one of the SEAMEO Centres in ASEAN. The role of SEAMEO
RIHED located in Thailand is to build the networking and capacity building of
universities in ASEAN. This programme will be started in 2010 by conducting student
exchange among the three countries in agriculture, tourism, language and culture, food
technology, and international business. At present, Indonesia will involve 11 universities
(both state and private). The tuition fee will be borne by the receiving university, while
transport and a stipend will be provided by their own government.
Table 1: Institutions and Number of Awardees of “Scholarship on Developing

Countries Partnership (KNB)”
KNB
Name AUN-SEED/
of Net JICA
No S
. 1 S2
institutio
ns
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009
1 UGM 2 1 10 10 6 8 7 5 5 5
UAJ
2 Yogya 2 4 3 4
3 UNY 3 7 5 3 7
4 UNS 1 5 7 5 6
5 UM 1 3 5 5
UM
6 AIR 7 6 5 7
7 ITS 1 1 4 3 3 3
UN
8 PAD 3 1 1 7 5 5 6
9 ITB 5 8 2 7 4 5
10 UNPAR 1 1 3 3 4
11 UPI 2 2 2 3 3 4
USAKT
12 I 2 1 1 3 4 4
13 IP B 1 6 5 6 5
Total 1 5 10 7 6 1 51 65 51 65 7 12 9 10
Source: Directorate of Institutional and Corporation (2010).

Table 2 shows the total number of international students registered in public and
private HEIs in Indonesia as of 2010. This table indicates that students come from
about 89 countries in Asia and Africa. The total number of students recorded in this
table includes the KNB or DCP scholars shown in Table 1.
Table 2: Total of International Students in Indonesia as of January to December 2010
Numbe Numbe Numbe

No. Country r No. Country r No. Country r
1 Malaysia 1,980 31 Brazil 14 61 South Africa 1

2 Timor Leste 2,618 32 Swiss 12 62 Maxico 1
Republic of
3 Korea 447 33 Cheko 10 63 Papua Nugini 1
4 China 363 34 Pakistan 9 64 Russia 1
Isalamic Rep. of
5 USA 176 35 Italy 9 65 Iran 1
6 Japan 148 36 Belgium 8 66 Sudan 1
7 Australia 127 37 Myanmar 6 67 Suriname 1
New
8 India 123 38 Zealand 6 68 Mali 1
Turkmenista
9 n 94 39 Norway 6 69 Tunisia 1
10 Lybia 89 40 Denmark 5 70 Ceylon 1
11 Germany 77 41 Poland 5 71 Argentina 1
12 Thailand 75 42 Finland 3 72 Bergia 1
13 Turkey 74 43 Sweden 3 73 Ukraina 1
14 Viet Nam 74 44 Egypt 3 74 Palestine 1
15 Philippines 73 45 Slovakia 3 75 Hongkong 1
Republik of Seira
16 Netherland 65 46 Gambia 3 76 Leone 1
17 France 40 47 Cameroon 2 77 Yordania 0
United
18 Kingdom 36 48 Aliazair 2 78 Austria 0
19 Canada 35 49 Lao PDR 2 79 Equador 0
20 Somalia 31 50 Bosnia 2 80 Kazakhstan 0
21 Tajikistan 26 51 Ethiopia 2 81 Costa Rica 0
22 Iraq 24 52 Colombia 2 82 Syria 0
Taiwan,
23 China 20 53 Romania 2 83 Maldives 0
24 Nigeria 20 54 Uzbekistan 2 84 Fiji 0
25 Spain 20 55 Islandya 2 85 Kenya 0
26 Singapore 16 56 Romania 2 86 Marocco 0
27 Yaman 16 57 Lithuania 2 87 Mongolia 0
Pantai
28 Azerbaijan 15 58 Namibia 2 88 Gading 0
29 Cambodia 15 59 Hungary 1 89 Uganda 0
30 Madagaskan 15 60 Afghanistan 1
Total 6,932 Total 7,079 Total 16
Source: Directorate of Institutional and Corporation (2010).
Related documents indicate that various scholarships are available for international
students to study in Indonesian higher education institutions either for short or long
periods. For example, at the Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) in Bandung,
the scholarships are given by the Government of Indonesia (GOI), donors, and
sending countries.
The tendency is for the number of international students to increase year by year.
The data of international students in 2010 as shown in Table 2 and data for 2007
and 2008 in Table 3 confirms this. The fact that several countries have for years
chosen Indonesia as a place of learning shows that Indonesian study programmes
are recognized by other countries.
Table 3: Total Number of Foreign Students in Indonesia HEIs (2007–2008)
No Countries 2007 2008

Public Private Public Private
2,50
1 Malaysia 2 320 2,026 201
2 Timor Leste 51 1,629 160 2,097
3 China 23 154 13 107
4 Rep. of Korea 29 10 97 72
5 Japan 63 15 91 21
6 Germany 71 86 63 8
7 Australia 37 12 48 2
8 Thailand 2 27 4 19
9 Turkey 43 29 1 24
10 Viet Nam 14 8 11 16
11 Other countries 87 98 168 139
Sub-tot 2,92
al 2 2,388 2,682 2,706
Total 5,310 5,388
Source: Directorate of Institutional Development, Directorate General of Higher

Education, MONE (2009).
Another example of student mobility is the various schemes used by Institut Teknologi
Bandung (Bandung Technology Institute) for incoming and outgoing students. For
incoming students, the schemes include among others student exchange, research
exchange, full time students, summer programmes, and international network
membership. Student exchange includes attending courses/classes in the regular semester
where the medium of instruction is English. Research exchange comprises of
thesis/dissertation research which can be undertaken in university partners overseas.
International networks membership covers AOTULE (Asia Oceania Top University
League in Engineering), ASEA UNINET, AUN, AUN/ SEED-Net, Global E3 and
others. For outgoing programmes, the schemes are almost the same such as the summer
programme which is usually a three week course in July and is equivalent to three
credits.
PROBLEM
 To be eligible to study in Indonesia, students are required to apply for a visa. There
are two relevant visas, the short-visit visa (VITAS) and the social-visit visa (VKSB).
The short-visit visa can be obtained from the Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia
in the candidate’s home country. Upon arrival in Indonesia this visa should be
converted to the stay-permit (ITAS) for one year through the local immigration
office where the candidate will study. The student must report to the local
immigration office within seven days upon arrival to get the stay-permit and must
have a passport which is valid for a minimum of two years.
 To get the stay-permit, students must produce the necessary documents such as a
copy of their passport (including the visa used) and a letter of acceptance from the
host Indonesian university which will be sent to the Bureau of Planning and
International Co-operation and the Ministry of National Education. Then it will be
passed to the State Secretariat, the Directorate General of Immigration and a local
immigration office for processing. The successful candidates are prohibited from
using a tourist visa to study in Indonesia since it will cause a problem in processing
the stay-permit.
 In many cases, as revealed through interviews with a few students, they have had to
spend extra time on this process. This is especially so for students who entered
Indonesia using the VKSB. This will not happen to students with the VITAS visa
who need just three days for their stay-permit to be issued. If the students fail to
meet the deadline for this process there will be administrative sanctions.
 The new Government Regulation No. 17/2010 states that recognition of the
student/lecture exchange programme or double-degree will be endorsed by the
Directorate General of Higher Education (DGHE) Indonesia as long as the study
programme(s) at Indonesian HEIs has been accredited “A” by the National Board of
Accreditation (BAN-PT) Indonesia. In fact, out of 18,424 study programmes
available in more than 3,000 public and private universities, only 64.03 per cent are
accredited and only 1,411 study programmes have an A status in the accreditation
process. Because of this it seems that very few higher education institutions in
Indonesia have the opportunity to initiate student mobility (BAN-PT, 2011).
Conclusion and Recommendations
Academic mobility and education exchange across borders has been a central feature of
Indonesian higher education. It has flourished due to cultural and academic exchange.
Educators and policy makers are aware of the new opportunities as well as potential risks
to higher education in Indonesia if basic pre-requisites for a fair and equitable
cross-border provision of education are not met.
Policies on student mobility have been in place, with amendments made from time to
time due to dynamic and growing issues in its implementation. With this in mind, the
Government of Indonesia has offered various scholarship schemes not only to attract
international students but also to send Indonesian students to study overseas in
recognized foreign higher education institutions.
Although the number of international students is growing slowly, they still face
problems. The critical problem relates to visas. There are two types of visa used by
international students and it is felt that the process is bureaucratic when compared to
student visa systems in other countries.
It is recommended that the Ministry of National Education should table issues related to
international students to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Immigration Office and
local education authorities. This will result in a more effective, efficient and accountable
visa granting process.
Along with the powerful socio-economic forces of globalization, the
internationalization of higher education has been gaining momentum during the
last few decades. According to Knight (2005), this internationalization involves the
integration of research, the use of English as the lingua franca for academic
communication and the growing international labour market for scholars. In other
words, it is the process of weaving academic programmes, institutions and their
quality into the global context.
The internationalization of higher education involves two goals: one is joining the
first-rate education level, and the other is bilateral openness (Park, 2009). In order
to accomplish both, two strategies are crucial for Korean higher education system.
Firstly, it is pivotal to benchmark the top-ranking overseas universities and to
internalise the best practices considering idiosyncratic properties of Korean
universities’ system. Secondly, a strategic alliance with first-class overseas
universities is also necessary. Consequently, Korean universities can provide a high
quality of education, maintain recognition, and promote the inbound movement of
international students.
Recently, while scholars have noted the prominent growth of cross-border higher
education in Europe, they have also noted an increased interest in the
internalization of higher education in Asia as well as in political and economic
co-operation. In particular, student mobility has tended to increase in Korea.
During the last half century, Korean universities have experienced tremendous
change, both quantitatively and qualitatively. The number of universities, academic
faculties and students has increased at a rapid rate compared to both developing
countries and developed countries. For example, according to the enrolment rates
of each stage, Trow (1974) suggested three stages of development of higher
education: elite (less than 15 per cent), mass (between 15 per cent and 50 per cent)
and universal (more than 55 per cent). Based on his definition, Korean higher
education has moved from the “elite phase” to the “universal phase” within only
three decades.
From the early stage of catch-up, the Korean government has been a dominant
actor influencing the growth of the university system as well as of industry. In
particular, through the provision of technically skilled labour and qualified
scientists and engineers, Korean universities have been continually encouraged to
play a role as a human resource supplier for economic growth. In the 1990s, the
government adopted a series of policies for strengthening universities’ research
activities, and recently Korean universities began to gain recognition as direct
contributors to the nation’s economic development.
Change of Korean Government’s
University Policies
This section suggests a categorization based on the development of the Korean

government’s university policies. The various responses of universities according to their
different policy environments are discussed.
Strong regulation of the education system

for economic take-off (1960s – mid 1970s)
In the aftermath of Park Chung -Hee’s military coup in 1961, strong regulation of the
national system as well as the education sector characterizes the 1960s and 1970s (Lee et
al., 1998). In this period, acting as a supplier of technical labour, especially through
vocational education and training, was considered the main role of the secondary and
tertiary education systems; access to universities was limited (Kim and Lee, 2006; Lee et
al., 1998). In particular, in addition to encouraging an increase in the supply of human
resources to the fields of science and engineering, overall government control over
public and private universities was based on strong policy measures such as fixed
numbers of students.
Based on the fixed number policy, large national universities in the regions were strongly
supported. As mentioned earlier, the government regarded the imbalanced development
between the capital area and other regions as a serious problem stemming from 1950s
policies related to the economy and education. By increasing the quota for enrolled
students at regional universities, the government aimed both to reduce the concentration
of students in the capital area and to attract them to regional universities.
In terms of highly qualified scientists and engineers, the strong dependence on overseas
institutions started during this period. In the 1950s, the government began to encourage
overseas training supported by foreign scholarships, and initiated an official support
programme for students to study abroad in 1954. These initiatives were possible due to
United States aid just after the Korean War. In the 1960s and 1970s, the training of
highly qualified scientists and engineers was motivated both by these government
initiatives and individual demand for higher education at overseas institutions (Kim,
1997). Half of these students studied science and engineering and most of them attended
institutions in the United States.
Massive expansion of the higher
education system (late 1970s to 1980s)
In the aftermath of the coup in 1980, General Chun Doo-Hwan succeeded Park
Chung-Hee. In light of the vulnerable political legitimacy of the government, a series of
distinctive reforms of the education system were implemented (Lee et al., 1998). The
most significant characteristics of this period are the massive expansion of the university
system and the relaxation of the previously strong regulation of universities, in order to
meet the explosive demand for higher education (Kim and Lee, 2006). However, the
expansion occurred mainly in terms of the number of students in non-technological
disciplines such as the humanities and social sciences, whereas in the previous period,
vocational training in the fields of science and engineering was stressed (Cho et al.,
2002).
Liberalization and globalization (1990s –

present)
In 1988, the direct vote system for the presidential election resumed in response to
popular pressure; and in 1993 a leader of the democratic movement, Kim
Young-Sam, was elected as president. Following this, a series of educational
reforms as well as political ones were implemented. Democratization in the 1990s
sped up the deregulation of education policy and as a result it became easier to
establish higher education institutions. In other words, the previous “permission”
policy was replaced by the minimal “condition” policy for the establishment of
new higher education institutions.
For example, one of the most distinctive education reforms was the abolition of the
quota system for higher education institutions (except for those in the capital area)
in 1995 (Kim and Lee, 2006). This led to the creation of numerous higher
education institutions, not only typical small- and medium-sized private
universities in local areas but also new forms of institutions, such as graduate
schools without undergraduate students, and online universities. This reform also
encouraged large private universities in Seoul to create a dozen local autonomous
campuses. This increase can be regarded as the second explosion in the number of
universities as well as in the number of students enrolled. Between 1990 and 1993,
twenty new four-year universities were created.
Moreover, the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 had
significant influence on Korean higher education, especially on the
internationalization policies. In 1996, the “Initial Plan for Opening the Higher
Education Market to Foreign Countries” was announced by the Korean government
in anticipation of the upcoming WTO negotiations. In this vein, the neo-liberal
Student Mobility in Republic of Korea

higher education reform based on market-friendly approach was internally set up.
During the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s, Korea’s internationalization
reached a new phase. Shifting away from policies focusing on deregulation, the
Korean government put an emphasis on the financial aspect of higher education by
exerting an effort to attract foreign students to study in Korea and to hinder
domestic students from studying abroad. Now that Korea was situated in a
transitional period in which the freshman enrolment quota exceeded the
eighteen-year-old population (a phenomenon induced by the falling birth rate over
the previous two decades), Korean higher education institutions saw the
internationalization of higher education as a survival strategy and endeavoured to
target the international market to recruit students from abroad (Byun, 2010).
As the country’s birth rate dropped over the previous two decades, it caused a decrease
in the freshman-age population (Choi, 2008). The eighteen-year-old population is
estimated to shrink dramatically after 2010 and the enrolment quota is predicted to be
equal to the freshman-age population in 2020 (Figure 1). After 2020, the
eighteen-year-old population will lag far behind the total enrolment quota.
Thus, the gap between the enrolment quota and the freshman-age population will be so
aggravated that it is estimated to be -23.4 per cent in 2023. The encouragement of
international student mobility, especially of inbound foreign students, could be a
reasonable solution to this shrinking freshman-age population. Consequently, it is
important for the government to enforce effective policies in order to make up for this
lack of enrolment.
Figure 1: The Estimated Trend of University Enrolment Quota and

18-Year-Old Population
Number of 30.0%
18-year-old Enrollment Quota Ful llment
Studens
Population Quota Rate
700,000 20.0%
650,000
10.0%
600,000
1.1%
0.0%
550,000
500,000 -9.6% -10.0%
450,000 -16.1%
-20.0%
-18.7%
400,000 -23.4%
350,000 -30.0%
300,000 -40.0%
200 200 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202
8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 2021 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2030
Year
Source: Park, Jaeyoon et al. 2010. Research on the Educational Vision toward Future
Education. Korean Educational Development Institute.
The population and enrolment rate of inbound foreign students involved in Korean
higher education are both experiencing continuous growth. During the period from 1980
to 2000, the foreign student population was no more than a few thousand, and the ratio of
foreign students remained low (0.1 per cent or 0.2 per cent) throughout this period.
However, there has been a dramatic increase of inbound foreign students since 2005.
Their number is growing by 0.3 per cent on average every year since 2005. Moreover,
the sharp rise in the number of foreign students can be easily noted because the figures
since 2005 were measured every year, not every five years. Comparing only the figures
from 2000, 2005 and 2010 (respectively 0.1, 0.6 and 2.3 per cent) indicates a great
inflow of foreign students to Korea in recent years.
Table 1: Number of Inbound Foreign Students Per Year
Year Total Sum Ratio of Foreign Students Degree Programmes Language Studies, etc
1980 1,015 0.2 1,015 -
1985 910 0.1 910 -
1990 2,237 0.2 2,237 -
1995 1,983 0.1 1,983 -
2000 3,963 0.1 3,963 -
2005 22,526 0.6 15,577 6,949
2006 32,557 0.9 22,624 9,933
2007 49,270 1.4 32,056 17,214
2008 63,952 1.8 40,585 23,367
2009 75,850 2.1 50,591 25,259
2010 83,842 2.3 60,000 23,842
The Ratio of Foreign Students at the Higher Education Level and the Index
of Ratio Change of Foreign Students in 2008
8.5 OECD Average

263
1.3 Rep. of Korea 1,195
13.1 Canada 196
11.2 France 178
10.9 Germany 131
3.0 Italy 274
3.2 Japan 190
1.4 Russia 348
19.9 UK 151
USA 131
20 15 10 5 0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Ratio of foreign student at the higher education level Index of ratio change of foreign students (base year 2000=100 points)
The Ratio of Foreign Students at the Higher Education Level and the Index
of Ratio Change of Foreign Students in 2008
8.5 OECD Average 263
1.3 Rep. of Korea 1,195
13.1 Canada 196
11.2 France 178
10.9 Germany 131
3.0 Italy 274
3.2 Japan 190
1.4 Russia 348
19.9 UK 151
USA 131
20 15 10 5 0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Ratio of foreign student at the higher education level Index of ratio change of foreign students (base year 2000=100 points)
Development Institute
Figure 3 represents the ratio of foreign students at the higher education level and the
index of ratio change of foreign students in 2008. Compared to the OECD average
regarding the ratio of foreign students at the higher education level, the proportion of
foreign students who received higher education in Korea was only 1.3 per cent. The
United Kingdom, on the other hand, had the highest ratio (19.9 per cent) of foreign
students at the higher education level. The average ratio of foreign students among
OECD countries was 8.5 per cent. This figure suggests that Korea needs to exert greater
efforts to internationalize its higher education system.
We have seen the overall increase in foreign students who come to Korea for higher
education. In order to closely approximate international student mobility, it is critical to
conduct a comparative study with other countries by studying the figures of inflow and
outflow of students in higher education. This paper compares the number of inbound
foreign students in higher education per thousand and that of outbound students in higher
education per thousand in Korea with the same figures for other Asian countries and
European countries.
Table 2: Comparison with other Asian Countries
Rep. of Hong Kong Singapor Taiwan,

Korea SAR, e Japan China China
China
Number of inbound foreign

students in HE 0.66 0.91 - 0.99 0.03 0.67
Number of outbound domestic
students in HE 2.17 1.73 3.97 0.43 0.32 1.52
Note: The numbers are calculated per thousand people, HE: Higher Education.
Source: KEDI. 2010. Sourcebook of Statistics Analysis in Education in 2010.

Korean Educational Development Institute.
In comparison with other Asian countries, the number of outbound students in higher
education per thousand people in Korea was, at 2.17, second to Singapore. However, the
number of inbound foreign students in higher education per thousand in Korea was very
low, with a value of 0.66. This is partially related to the fact that talented Korean
students are more likely to study abroad instead of pursuing higher education
domestically. Furthermore, considering that Hong Kong’s number of inbound foreign
students in higher education per thousand was 0.91, Korea lags behind Hong Kong in the
internationalization of domestic education. In fact, the more foreign students coming to a
country means that they tend to seek more opportunities and convenience in terms of
language, selection of English courses and so on. Thus, the high proportion of foreign
students in Hong Kong compared with other Asian countries, including Korea, results
from the fact that Hong Kong has internationalized domestic higher education for a long
time.
In Table 2, another noticeable point is that Japan shows a result opposite to Korea’s.
While Japan’s inbound student population per thousand is merely 0.99 persons, its
outbound student population per thousand is recorded as 0.43, which is the highest
among Asian countries and even higher than Hong Kong. That is, Japanese students have
a strong tendency to get higher education in their country rather than abroad. Also, since
it has a low number of outbound domestic students, it is surprising that Japan shows a
high ratio of inbound foreign students at the same time.
Table 3: Comparison with European Countries
Rep. of Denmar Finla Switzerlan

Korea k nd Sweden d Iceland
Number of inbound foreign

students in HE 0.66 2.33 1.9 2.41 5.07 -
Number of outbound students
in HE 2.17 0.92 1.13 1.49 1.39 8.05
Note: The numbers are calculated per thousand people, HE: Higher Education.
Source: KEDI. 2010. Sourcebook of Statistics Analysis in Education in 2010.

Korean Educational Development Institute.
Generally, in Asian countries the number of inbound foreign students in higher

education is low, whereas the number of outbound domestic students is relatively
high, except in Japan. In European countries, the trend is quite different. Those
countries had more inbound foreign students than outbound domestic students.
Setting aside Switzerland, where international students’ mobility is particularly
active, the inflow and outflow of students in European countries tends to be
counterbalanced. That is to say, the gap between the number of inbound and
outbound students is narrower than that of Asian countries.
Implemented Policies and Efforts of

Korean Universities Concerning the
Promotion of International Mobility
This section mainly focuses on two topics: government policies and universities’
response to the policy measures. Before doing this, a framework assessing the two topics
is introduced. Finally, some discussions are presented in the next section.
Evaluation of internationalization of higher
education
In assessing the degree of internationalization of higher education, it is critical to

determine what kind of index of analysis should be used. Lee et al. (2001)
comprehensively outlines three general analysis criteria: infrastructure of international
education, internationalization programmes and human resources. First, under the
infrastructure of international education category, whether institutions in charge of the
internationalization education, international education or international co-operation are
established or not can be one standard. In addition, the number of foreign books and
journals that the university has in its library is an important determinant of the quality of
the infrastructure of international education.
Internationalization programmes are related to the university’s exchange agreement with

other universities abroad. Even though individual researchers at a university can
privately contact other researchers overseas, these agreements between universities
facilitate international co-operation, which means creating a more collaborative
environment for the internationalization of higher education. With those agreements,
co-research can be activated among foreign universities or foreign research institutes. As
for domestic students, instituting the cross registration system with foreign universities
offers a good cause to go abroad to get a higher education. At the same time, it creates
more opportunities for foreign students to come to Korea. Internationalization
programmes also include university courses conducted in English. For the non-English
native countries, a large number of subjects need to be offered in order to attract more
foreign students to those countries.
The human resources criterion assesses the degree of internationalization. This standard
is divided into professors and students. The former comprises the number of papers
published in foreign journals, participation in academic societies overseas, participation
in foreign research projects, and exchange of professors. The latter is related to the
number of exchange students sent overseas. Attracting foreign students is also included
in this category.
assessment of Korea’s
internationalization of higher
education
With these criteria, understanding Korea’s state of internationalization of higher

education is possible. As mentioned earlier, it is clear that the number of inbound
foreigners in higher education has been dramatically increasing since 2000. Since the
mid-1990s, interest in internationalization of education gained strength among
universities in Korea. The number of Korean universities which had installed
Korea’s poliCy for internationalization

of higher education
departments in charge of international education and international exchange was 44 (80
per cent) out of 55, and most of them planned to install permanent offices in 2000 (Lee at
al., 2000).
One of the most famous higher education policies for internationalization in Korea
is the Brain Korea 21 Project (BK 21 Project), which was active between 1999 and
2005. The goal was to apply new rules of competition among universities in setting
the amount of national research funds and to introduce a new evaluation system for
the academic performance of universities. Over seven years, 1.2 billion USD
dollars was invested (Kim, 2005). The BK 21 Project emphasized the achievement
of getting more global recognition for Korean research especially through
publication in academic journals and citations in Science Citation Index (SCI)
(Byun, 2010). According to the Ministry of Education, BK21 contributed to an
increase in SCI-level publications by Korean academics
With the increase in the number of Korean scholars’ papers from the BK 21
Project, the Lee Myung Bak administration launched the World Class University
Project (WCU Project) in 2008. Its goal was to hinder Korea’s brain drain and to
attract more well-known scholars to Korea. Also, this project encouraged new
academic programmes in growth-generating fields such as nanotechnology as well
as collaboration with foreign academics (Byun, 2010).
Efforts of Korean universities
While establishing partnerships with international higher education institutions,

one of the other approaches to internationalization is offering courses in English.
According to data provided by the KEDI, 120 schools have internationally related
programmes. The development of an internationalized curriculum can be a good
way to achieve reforms in diversification and specialization. In addition, the
establishment of “international” graduate schools will bring stronger
competitiveness to Korean universities’ academic programmes. The idea of
establishing international graduate schools was presented around the mid-1990s,
when Korea was negotiating an agreement for the terms of trade in services and
agricultural products with the United States (Kim, E., 2006)
Discussion and Summary
Globalization has triggered the internationalization of higher education. International

student mobility has been facilitated and many students have studied abroad to get a
quality higher education. Korea is not an exception to this global trend. Korean students
have studied abroad for a long time. The number of outbound students shows no sign of
declining. This can result in a brain drain and loss of human resources for the country.
However, recently, “brain circulation” perspective is gaining currency which means that
outbound students return to Korea to contribute to nation building. Also, in response to
the expected deficit in the registration quota in the future due to the falling birth rate in
Korea, higher education institutions have focused on attracting foreign students to Korea.
As a result of such efforts, the population of inbound foreign students has increased since
2000, and it continues to progress steadily.
The internationalization of higher education diversifies academic programmes and

institutional types. These encourage efficiency, productivity and quality within the
higher education system. In addition, Korea’s competitiveness with other universities in
the world will be enhanced to a great extent if internationalization is strengthened. Thus,
in the long run, internationalization will attract more foreign students to Korea while
encouraging domestic students to study in Korea rather than abroad. That is, domestic
students will be able to receive an almost equal level of higher education without going
to other countries, because internationalisation causes not only international student
mobility but faculty member mobility too.
References
Ahn, M. 2006. The Current Issues and Tasks of Internationalisation of Higher

Education. Keynote Presentation at Conference of Higher Education Institute,
Korea University, Seoul.
Altbach, P.G and Knight, J. 2007. The Internationalisation of Higher Education:

Motivations and Realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 11,
No. 3/4, pp. 290–305
Byun, K. and Kim, M. 2010. Shifting Patterns of the Government’s Policies for the
Internationalisation of Korean Higher Education. Journal of Studies in International
Education, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 467–486.
Cho, H., Lee, E., Lee C. and Kim, S. 2002. Review of S&T Human Resource
Policies in Korea. STEPI (Science and Technology Institute), Seoul.
Choi, J. 2008. Comparative Study on the Concept and the Motivation of

Internationalisation of Higher Education. Education of Religion Research, Vol. 28,
No.1, pp. 213–232.
KCUE. 2003. A Survey on International Cooperation of Korean Universities, Korea
Council for University Education. Seoul, Korea.
Kim, E. 2006. Internationalisation and isomorphic forces in Korean higher

education, Perspectives in Education, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 69–80.
Kim, L. 1997. Imitation to Innovation: The Dynamics of Korea’s

Technological Learning. Harvard Business School Press.
Kim, S. and Lee, J. 2006. Changing Facets of Korean Higher Education:

Market Competition and the Role of the State. Higher Education, Vol. 52,
pp. 557–587.
Kim, T. 2005. Internationalisation of Higher Education in South Korea:

Reality, Rhetoric, and Disparity in Academic Culture and Identities.
Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 49. No. 1, pp.89–103
Lee, H., Choi, K., Yoon, J. and Kim G. 1998. A study on the History of
Modern Education after Liberation from Japanese Rule. Korean
Educational Development Institute (KEDI), Seoul.
Lee, J. K. 2006. Educational Fever and South Korean Higher Education,

Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Educativa, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.1–14.
Lee, Y. et al. 2001. Study on the Systematic Approach to the Effective

Internationalization Policy of Universities. Korean Journal of Higher
Education, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.155–205.
OECD. 2009. Globalisation and Higher Education: What Might the Future
Bring? Paris, OECD.
Park, S. 2009. The Advancement of Higher Education in Globalised World.

Keynote presentation, conference for the promotion of private education.
31st, June, 2009. Korean Foundation for Private Education, Seoul, Korea.
A report by British Council in 2003 noted that the global demand for international
student places will increase to approximately 5.8 million in 2020 (British Council, 2003),
making international student mobility an increasingly important part of the global higher
education landscape (Verbik and Lasanowski, 2007b). It is also recorded that more than
90 per cent of international students have enrolled in institutions in countries belonging
to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) with the main
destinations (the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Australia)
recruiting over 70 per cent of them (Verbik and Lasanowski, 2007a).
As revealed in Table 1, the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia are the
“major players” (Lasanowski, 2009) in international student mobility (ISM) service
provision. These three countries have become the leaders in the international student
market recording the highest number of foreign students, with approximately 45 per cent
of 2.7 million foreign students studying abroad (Verbik and Lasanowski, 2007a). The
“brand name” provision and perceptions of comparative values explain this dominance
of the United States and the United Kingdom over their counterpart providers. Australia,
on the other hand, is a major player in international student recruitment. Lasanowski
(2009) reports that the country’s traditional markets are slowing (Singapore, Japan, Hong
Kong SAR, China and Taiwan, China), but it is taking measures to facilitate growth in
new potential markets (Nepal, Viet Nam).
The “middle powers” (Lasanowski, 2009) in the international student market are
Germany, France and China, attracting approximately 25 per cent of students who are
mainly from their proximate countries. These ISM providers represent the “global
regionalism” which is now influencing mobility trends. Lasanowski points out that they
are reassessing their recruitment policy to implement new tactics to tap into new
markets, for e.g. by introducing English-taught provision to cater to students from
countries where English is widely used.
Lasanowski (2009) terms Canada, New Zealand and Japan as the “shape shifters” of the
ISM services. As the providers for approximately 10 per cent of the world’s overseas
students, they implement transformative policy in an effort to grow their visibility in the
recruitment landscape. Brand provision is arguably their main challenge. On the other
hand, Singapore, Malaysia and Republic of Korea are positioned as the “emerging
contenders” (Lasanowski, 2009) in the ISM attracting more than 5 per cent of the
world’s international students primarily from Asian countries. These countries which
include China, have historically been key players in sending students abroad and are now
seeking to attract more students to their own universities. Lasanowski (2009, p. 3)
comments that Singapore and Malaysia “stand to benefit by marketing the value of their
education to an increasingly wide environments. They are in fact, aiming to expand their
ISM services by “actively implementing strategic policy designed to transform
themselves into regional educational leaders” (Lasanowski, 2009, p. 3) beyond the
region.
Top Ten Countries of Origin of Foreign Students, 1975 –
2005
Compared to China, Malaysia has been supporting the expansion and the development of
higher education since her independence in 1957 and marks her appearance as one of the
main exporters of students. By 1985, Malaysia had become the world’s third largest
exporter of students. However, the number of Malaysian students sent overseas has been
dwindling especially after the economic crises of 1986 and 1997. To decrease the
outflow of foreign exchange the government reduced the number of
government-sponsored students sent overseas. At the same time, the government has also
encouraged privately-funded students to study locally. Malaysia had since overhauled its
policy of sending students abroad and emphasized the need for students to enrol in local
institutions. This explained the significant increase in the number of students enrolled in
local higher institutions after the 1986 and 1997 economic crises. From a positive
perspective, the 1997 crisis propelled Malaysia into becoming a regional and
international centre of education excellence.
Expansion of Higher Education and International

Student Mobility in Malaysia
Over the last four to five decades, the world had been experiencing an education boom
where enrolment at all levels of education increased tremendously. Malaysia was no
exception especially after the launching of the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1970
which called for greater accessibility at all levels of education. A tremendous increase in
enrolment was noted especially at the higher level where the number of students who
qualified to enrol in local public universities grew considerably. The enrolment in local
higher institutions was 8,633 in 1970, 26,410 in 1980 and 58,286 in 1990, an enrolment
rate at 0.61 per cent, 1.63 per cent and 2.87 per cent, respectively.
The period from 1970 to 1995 saw an expansion of higher education through the
implementation of the NEP. A greater portion of government expenditure was allocated
for the growth of higher education but even then, public universities still could not meet
the growing number of high school graduates wanting to enter public HEIs. Owing to the
limited availability of places within the country, some students were sent overseas for
higher education. Many opted to go overseas on their own and some were on
scholarships. Table 2 reveals that in 1975 only 16,162 Malaysians studied overseas but
by 1985 there were about 40,493. In 1985, Malaysia also ranked as the third largest
provider of outbound international students.
However, the 1986 and 1997 economic crises had their impact on the Malaysian
economy. The weaker Malaysia currency during this period made studying overseas
affordability and expensive to many. Some students who were on public scholarships
were recalled and instructed to continue their studies locally. This situation together with
the upsurge in demand for tertiary education and the inability of the public local
institutions to meet the demand led to a new government policy and strategy. The
government had to call upon the private sector to participate in providing higher
education through the passing of the Private Higher Educational Institution Act (PHEIA)
in 1996 and universities as well as to elite foreign universities which catered to the
demand from local and foreign students in their campus or branch campuses. Some of
these private universities and colleges offered twinning programmes, franchising
programmes and distance education.
Malaysia: Patterns and Trends of Outward Student

Mobility
Malaysia has a long history of providing scholarships to its students to study abroad.
Indeed, until 2007, it sent more students abroad than it received. As of 2009, of those
Malaysian students studying overseas, 47.6 per cent enrolled in Australian universities,
followed by 23.8 per cent in the United Kingdom and 16.2 per cent in the United States.
In total, 96.9 per cent of these students enrolled in universities of OECD countries. Of
the students who studied abroad, slightly less than half (47.6 per cent) were in advanced
research institutions and most likely in doctoral programmes. The remaining 52.4 per
cent were in professional programmes geared to prepare graduates for direct entry into
the labour market.
Number of Malaysian Students Studying Overseas (2002–2009

As indicated earlier, Malaysia in 1985 was one of the top ten source countries providing
international students. Countries like the United States, United Kingdom and Australia
were the popular destinations for higher education as revealed in Table 3 and Table 4.
Apparently, the number of Malaysian students going to United States reduced
significantly from the end of the 1990s and by 2004 the number had plummeted to only
5,515 (Table 4). Many would attribute this downward trend to the post 9/11 factor but
this may not be the complete picture. In fact, as shown Figure 1, the downward trend had
already begun in 1998 and the triggering factor could have been the Asian financial crisis
whereby Malaysians found overseas education too costly. Furthermore, during that
period, transnational higher education providers and branch campuses of reputable
foreign higher education institutions established themselves in Malaysia thus increasing
local capacity (Morshidi, 2006; Morshidi, 2008). Doubtless, the easing of regulations
pertaining to private higher education in Malaysia has made studying locally and
regionally possible and attractive.
Table 4 also reveals that there was a substantial decline in the inflow of Malaysian
students to the United Kingdom. This decline was less dramatic compared to the
outbound numbers to the United States. But, while still in the “top ten” source countries
for the United Kingdom, the number of Malaysian students there decreased yearly. The
decline in student numbers which began in 1998 was partly attributed to the high cost of
higher education in the United Kingdom. At the time when the cost of overseas
education was rising steeply (because of the strength of the British Pound vis-à-vis the
Malaysian Ringgit), Malaysia was experiencing the debilitating aftermath of the Asian
financial crisis. In order to reduce the outflow of funds, the government intervened by
expanding the capacity of the local (private) higher education sector. The rise in student
flows to the United Kingdom after 2002 could be attributed to sending sponsored
students there to pursue higher degrees and other professional courses when places were
still very limited locally. However, a sharp decrease in 2009 can be attributed to the
global financial crisis.
Malaysian students’ presence in Australia is very strong, with 14,918 in 2006 (however,
we note the discrepancy of data in Table 4 and Table 1 because of different sources of
information). In 2006, Malaysia was third in importance after China and India in terms
of foreign student enrolment in Australia. Again, the decline in student flows to Australia
in 1999 and 2002 could be linked to the effects of the Asian financial crisis and
September 11, respectively. But more importantly, the decline could be due to the fact
that Malaysian students could now pursue their Australian-style education in Australian
campuses at home: Monash University Sunway Campus, Swinburne University Sarawak
and Curtin University branch campus in Miri, Sarawak. However, it is interesting to note
that during the economic crisis in 2008-2009, the number of Malaysian students studying
in Australia increased quite significantly from 15,124 in 2008 to 17,311 in 2009. Could
this be due to the trade-off between the United Kingdom and Australia as the cost of
studying in United Kingdom is relatively higher than in Australia?
As indicated in Figure 1, Egypt and Indonesia have become important destinations for
Malaysian students. Unlike the United Kingdom and the United States, the number of
Malaysian students studying in Egypt and Indonesia has gradually increased every year.
Egypt in particular has traditionally been an important destination for Malaysian students
since the 1970’s and 1980’s. However, we are not able to get data for that period.
Malaysian Student Enrolment in the United States, Australia and

United Kingdom Higher Institutions (1997–2009)
Destination for Malaysian Students (1997–2009)
Inward Student Mobility: Patterns and Trends

in Malaysia
Malaysia has set an ambitious target to attract more foreign students in the coming years.
In its National Higher Education Strategic Plan 2020, Malaysia has confirmed a target of
100,000 international students by 2010 and is currently implementing strategies to
become a major exporter of higher education in the Asian region. Admittedly, Malaysia
has allocated substantial financial and human resources towards the development of
“world-class” universities (as opposed to a world class higher education system). Thus
far, Malaysia has been successful in attracting international students from countries in
South-East Asia, the Far East, and the Middle East (Morshidi, 2008). Based on Verbik
and Lasanowski’s (2007) analysis, Malaysia has an approximate two per cent share of
the international student market, with around 55,000 foreign students enrolled in the
country’s higher education institutions in 2006. (The actual figure from the Ministry of
Higher Education was only 44,390 as revealed in Table 5). Traditionally, the large
majority of them have come from the neighbouring Asian countries, such as Indonesia,
Thailand, Bangladesh, the Maldives, Singapore and overwhelmingly, China. However,
the pattern has changed recently with more students arriving from Middle East countries.
Table 5 shows the number of international students enrolled in public and private higher
education institutions in Malaysia. It is obvious that the private higher institutions are
more successful than the public institutions in attracting international students. However,
the percentage distribution of foreign student enrolment in private higher education
institutions has dropped significantly from 82.1 per cent in 2006 to 70.1 per cent in 2007.
On the other hand, an increase of international student enrolment is noted in public
higher education institutions from 17.9 per cent in 2006 to 29.9 per cent in 2007. This
could be the result of the implementation of National Higher Education Strategic Plan in
2007 that called for more international students in local public higher education
institutions. Overall, in less than a decade i.e., from year 2002 to 2009, the number of
international students studying in Malaysia has increased tremendously at a whopping
189.7 per cent.
International Students’ Enrolment in Public and Private Higher

Education Institutions in Malaysia 2002–2009
The private higher education institutions on the other hand, captured 21.5 per cent and
24.3 per cent of the Middle East students for 2008 and 2009, respectively. Isalamic
Republic of Iran emerged as the biggest provider of students among the Middle East
countries. It is also interesting to note that in 2002, Iran was among the lowest
contributors to Malaysian higher education institutions but had since increased its
numbers significantly, both in public and private higher institutions.
Equally interesting is that although China has become the main provider of students to
private higher education institutions, the number has gradually declined from 10,731 (47
per cent) in 2002 to 7,078 (12 per cent) in 2009.
Top Twenty Countries of Origin (based on 2009) of Foreign Students in
Public Higher Institutions in Malaysia (2002–2009)
Top Twenty Countries of Origin of Foreign Students in Private Higher

Institutions in Malaysia (2007–2009)
International Student Enrolment by Types of Private Higher Education
Institutions (2008–2009)
Top Three Contributors of Foreign Students to Public Higher

Education Institutions in Malaysia (2002–2009)
Foreign Students to Private Higher Education Institutions in Malaysia
(2002–2009)
Top Three Contributors of Foreign Students to Malaysia’s Public and

Private Higher Education Institutions (2002–2009)
Challenges and Prospects
Malaysia is looking strategically at the Middle East and the Arabian Gulf region to meet
the 100,000 foreign students target by 2010. Presently, they form the majority of the
international students in Malaysia. However, Malaysia must not forget that the Arabian
Gulf countries are also spending hefty sums to upgrade infrastructure and increase
capacity and capability. They are also inviting reputable universities from the United
States to provide an American-style education in the Arabian Gulf region. A United
States higher education is seen as a worthy investment due to its “world-class” image,
quality provision and high “brand” visibility in the international market (Verbik and
Lasanowski, 2007b). The governments of the Arabian Gulf countries realize this fact.
Currently, the United Arab Emirates is already hosting 40 international branch campuses,
a quarter of all such ventures in the world. Two-thirds of these foreign campuses are
located in Dubai International Academic City. This prime position is largely driven by
high student demand, coupled with the country’s need to build a knowledge economy
and reduce its dependence on the export of oil (Becker, 2010).
By the time the huge investment in infrastructure and capacity in the Arabian Gulf region
is in place, the number of students from that region coming to Malaysia will decrease
drastically. Parents will be more comfortable having their children study closer to home
believing that they will not be exposed to customs and traditions that may be viewed as
contrary to theirs. If in the near future the United States government decides to ease
permanent residency requirements for highly-skilled international graduates so as to
entice them to choose to study at American institutions in the United States, we can
anticipate that the flow of Middle Eastern students to American universities will increase
and the flow to Malaysia will be significantly reduced. Thus, the over-dependence on the
Middle East market is not a sound strategy in the longer term.
Like Malaysia, Singapore is also aggressively working towards becoming an education

service provider in the region. The Singapore government has also formulated policies to
require colleges and universities to aim for a foreign student population of 20 per cent to
promote the internationalization of education in Singapore (“Foreign Students in
Singapore”, 2009). It also aims to increase the number of foreign students studying in
Singapore to 150,000 by 2015. By 2006, Singapore already hosted over 80,000
international students and in 2009 the international student numbers were recorded at
97,000. The majority of these students come from mainland China, India, Malaysia and
Indonesia. Singapore is not only a popular destination for Asian students but also to
students from Europe, the United States and Australia. Many Western students consider
Singapore to be a comfortable introduction to Asia that provides them with a Western
styled curriculum in English at globally ranked institutions (Eu-Asia Higher Education
Platform (EAHEP)2010).
The Economic Development Board of Singapore has also continued to pursue

brand-name foreign universities to set up specialized campuses to serve an international
market for Singapore (British Council, 2009). Already, 16 international branch-campuses
have been set up comprising global brand names such as INSEAD, Chicago School of
Business and Duke Medical School, New York University.
The emphasis on turning Singapore into an education hub in the region and to increase a
substantial number of international students by 2015 has become a threat not only to her
neighbouring countries such as Malaysia (which has a similar mission), but also to
Anglophone countries which have been the leaders in international student markets. To
attract more foreign students, Singapore also provides subsidies, scholarships, school
fees and loans to reduce the study costs to local and foreign students. Furthermore, with
fairly liberal immigration requirements, it is easier to attract foreign talent to work in
Singapore after graduating (EAHEP, 2010). government of Malaysia seeks to promote
Malaysia as a regional education hub and to attract more international students. The goal
is to increase the number of international students in the Malaysian system to 100,000 by
the year 2010. It is noted that the majority of Malaysia’s international student body as of
2009 is from Asia, primarily from Isalamic Republic of Iran, China and Indonesia at 13.5
per cent, 12.2 per cent and 11.36 per cent respectively. Measures were also taken to
attract and recruit students from Pakistan and the Middle East.
Efforts were taken to develop education as an export industry as a source of foreign

exchange earnings. These included fact-finding missions, government-to-government
initiatives on accreditation of qualifications and education promotion activities. As a
result, a total of 80,779 foreign students from various countries enrolled in local
institutions of higher learning in 2009 compared with 69,164 in 2008, i.e. an increase of
16.8 per cent in just a year. The preferred fields of study of foreign students are business
administration, ICT and engineering.
The rapid expansion of private higher institutions together with the growth in student
numbers led to increased emphasis on the promotion of Malaysia as a centre of
educational excellence for foreign students. The number of foreign students enrolled in
private higher institutions of education grew from 13,472 in 2001 to 40,525 in 2005 and
to 58,294 in 2009. The education sector has since contributed towards export revenue
and the reduction of the perennial services deficit in the country.
The number of international students studying in Malaysia in 2009 has increased

threefold since 2002, with 27,872 students in 2002 soaring to 80,750 in 2009. The
increasing number of foreign student enrolments is turning Malaysia into the education
‘hub’ for South-East Asia it aspires to be. The majority of the country’s international
student population are from Isalamic Republic of Iran, Indonesia and China. The
enrolment from these three countries numbered 29,921 in 2009 and represents
approximately 37.05 per cent of the country’s total international student population of
80,750.
More recently, Malaysian recruiters have widened their search for international students
by targeting many countries in the Middle East including the United Arab Emirates,
Oman, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon (Sedgwick, 2004 as cited in Morshidi, 2008,
p. 87). As a result of these efforts the number of students from the Arab world at
Malaysian higher education institutions, in particular at Malaysia’s International Islamic
University (which uses both Arabic and English as the medium of instruction), has been
growing steadily (Morshidi, 2008, p.87). Furthermore, the pull factors for Middle East
students to Malaysia are lower costs, bureaucratic convenience and security and the
attractiveness of a Western style Education.
References:
Becker, R. 2010. International Branch Campuses: Trends and Directions. International
Higher Education, Vol. 58, Winter, pp. 3–5.
British Council. 2003. Vision 2020: Forecasting International Student Mobility – A UK
Perspective. UK.
British Council. 2009. Singapore Market Introduction.
http://www.britishcouncil.org/eumd-information-background-Singapore (Accessed 1
March 2011.)
Eu-Asia Higher Education Platform (EAHEP). 2010. Developing Asian Education Hubs.
http://www.
eahep.org/asiahigher-education/asian-policy-drivers/127-developing-asian-education-hub
s.html (Accessed 1 March 2011.)
Foreign Students in Singapore. 2009, March 24. Ministry of Education, Singapore.
http://www.
The Philippines is an archipelagic county of 94 million people with a long history of

colonial rule, first under Spain, then under the United States of America.
Hence, the nation’s early experiences with international student mobility (ISM) were as
a recipient of colonial education and later, a more subtle form of indoctrination called
“benevolent assimilation”. After independence, the nation continued to benefit from ISM
components of international education exchanges under the aegis of various donors and
countries other than its two former colonial sponsors.
Towards the end of the twentieth century, the government started actively initiating and
engaging in cross-border collaboration and exchange through bilateral agreements with
other countries and provision of scholarships for study abroad in priority disciplines
needed for the country’s development. These initiatives were in recognition of the
important role of such collaboration in fostering mutual understanding and co-operation
among nations and in developing the country’s human resources.
On their own initiative, the leading higher education institutions joined regional
university networks and entered into bilateral agreements with foreign counterparts for
the conduct of academic exchange programmes in order to enhance their institutional
capacity and international standing and at the same time participate in the collective
pursuit and advancement of knowledge.
Amidst globalization and the heightened commercialization of cross-border education,

the country’s involvement in ISM and internationalization of education has yet to be
appreciated within and outside the country. At present, the Philippines is a very minor
player as a consumer and provider in the international student market, accounting for less
than half a per cent of the total international student movements in 2008.
Is the nation inclined to or should it expand its level of participation? Should it try to
boost student mobility out of and/or into the country? What for? Does it have clear
policy goals to enhance international student mobility? What would it entail to improve
its competitive position as a destination for students and a provider of international
education programmes?
This paper retraces the development and current state of ISM from and into the country,
examines pertinent policy pronouncements, and based on the current state of the
Philippine higher education system, reflects on whether or not and how the system
should move from its peripheral position towards a better vantage point in the
international student market.
ISM As an Instrument of
Colonial/Neo-colonial Policy
The country was under colonial rule for centuries – as a colony of Spain for almost four
centuries, then as a colony/neo-colony of the United States of America for another five
decades. Study abroad programmes under the colonial regime served as a tool for
“indoctrinating the subject people into their colonial statuses and roles and equipping
them with knowledge, attitudes and skills required of subservient and loyal subjects”
(Cortes, 1993). As Varghese (2008) aptly observed, overseas education under
colonialism served to develop reliable and competent administrative support for the
colonial government and as a means of social control.
During the Spanish regime, the lone university – the University of Sto. Tomas and the
few schools that were established at that time were limited to the elite of the colonial
society – the European born and local Spaniards, the mestizos (i.e. the children of
Spanish-Filipino marriages) and a few native Filipinos. These also had limited offerings,
intended for those aspiring to become priests and clerks in the colonial administration.
The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869, and the ensuing increase in commercial activities
between the Philippines and the rest of the world, enabled the wealthy Filipino students
to go to Europe for advanced studies in medicine, the sciences, engineering, arts and law.
Ironically, among those who went to study abroad were the group of ilustrados who
founded the Propaganda Movement that eventually led to the Philippine revolution
against Spain in the 1896 (Caoili and Valenzuela, 2000).
ISM for Human Resource and Institutional

Development
Post-colonial Philippine participation in international educational exchanges had been

largely donor-funded, often linked with technical assistance or Overseas Development
Assistance (ODA) programmes offered by countries like Australia, Belgium, Germany,
India, Israel, Japan, Rep. of Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand and Spain. 62The
International Mobility of Students in Asia and the Pacific Towards the end of the
twentieth century, the country assumed a more active role and started initiating and
engaging in cross-border collaboration and exchanges. The Philippine Government
entered into bilateral agreements with several countries for cultural co-operation and
education exchanges, particularly in the fields of agriculture, fisheries, medical science,
health and related courses, engineering, natural sciences and social sciences.
The government also provided scholarships for study abroad in priority disciplines
needed for the country’s development. In order to strengthen engineering and science
education in the country, the government even took out a loan from the World Bank to
co-fund (with the Japanese Government) the Engineering and Science Education Project
or ESEP, 1992-1998, which provided scholarships for 5,935 students/faculty including
more than 300 who studied abroad. With the objective of exposing Filipino students to
work environments in other countries, the Commission on Higher Education (CHED)
supported the International Practicum Training Programme (IPTP). Under this
programme, participating HEIs could send qualified students for a six month on-the-job
training outside the country. This ongoing programme has been incorporated into the
hotel and restaurant management and tourism courses in most schools and hundreds of
undergraduate students have availed of it to do OJT in hotels and restaurants in Asian
and Western countries. On their own initiative, or with CHED assistance, the leading
higher education institutions, particularly the University of the Philippines, De La Salle
University, University of Sto. Tomas, Ateneo de Manila University and University of
Asia and the Pacific, participated in academic exchange programmes through bilateral
agreements with foreign counterparts.
HEIs also joined regional university networks such as the Association of Southeast Asian
Institutions of Higher Learning (ASAHIL), the ASEAN University Network (AUN) and
University Mobility in Asia and the Pacific (UMAP) which offer venues for mutual
co-operation towards enhancing institutional capacities and international standing while
addressing common concerns of universal scholarship. These international linkage
activities involve not only ISM but also other forms of cross-border collaboration such as
faculty mobility, programme mobility and joint research projects.
Outbound ISM
The number of outbound Filipino students increased from 6,974 in 2004 to 8,443 in 2008
(Table 1). Still, the number is small, representing only 0.3 per cent of the total enrolment
in the local tertiary education sector and 0.1 per cent of the total college age population.
Students studying abroad sponsored under various ODA and government programmes
make up only about two per cent of the total number of outbound students (Table 2).
Add the few hundred faculty and students involved in HEI-to-HEI exchange
arrangements and those who manage to get into the highly competitive scholarships and
mixed study-work assistance programmes of individual universities abroad, and the total
number of sponsored/assisted outbound students would still be small. The remainder
could be assumed to comprise self-financing outbound students. The growing number of
non-scholarship or unsponsored overseas Filipino students could mean that the country
now has more affluent families who can afford to finance studies abroad. There may be
other explanations for this development, though, such as overseas studies serving as
entry, transit or a concurrent channel for overseas employment. The destination countries
of outbound students are, understandably the United States, the country’s former
colonizer, United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Republic of Korea, and New Zealand
(Table 3). These are countries that have been providing ODA to the country. There are
also universities in these countries that offer attractive scholarship packages and/or
provide other ways of helping 63The International Mobility of Students in Asia and the
Pacific students finance their studies as teaching fellows, research assistants, or interns,
in lieu of outright grants.
Inbound ISM
The data from UNESCO show an increase in the number of foreign students in Philippine tertiary
institutions from 2,323 in 2001 to 5,136 in 2006, then a 48 per cent decline to 2,665 in 2008 (Table
4). Another set of data shows a slightly different and more dramatic picture, indicating that the
number of inbound tertiary (post-secondary and higher) education students more than doubled in
the last five years (Table 5). Foreign students enrolled in higher education institutions alone
(excluding those enrolled in post-secondary and TESDA-listed schools) totalled 8,125 (Table 6),
accounting for 0.29 per cent of total higher education enrolment of 2,770,965 in the country in
Academic Year 2010-2011. The top consumers of Philippine tertiary education are Koreans, Chinese,
Taiwanese, Indonesians, Americans and Iranians (Table 5). Increasing numbers from developing
countries in Asia and Africa are also
observable. Foreign students are distributed
in 134 HEIs, 118 private and 16 public,
throughout the country. Hence, 7.5 per cent
of the country’s total number HEIs is
actively involved in hosting foreign
students. The biggest concentrations of
foreign students are found in the National
Capital Region or Metro Manila with 2,891
and Region VII or Metro Cebu with 2,049.
Next most favoured destinations are Region
III (particularly Angeles City), and Cordillera
Administration Region (particularly Baguio
City). Metro Manila serves as a melting pot, hosting 2,891 students from more than 60 countries.
The biggest groups of foreign students in the city are Chinese (1,064), Koreans (696), Indians (162)
and Americans (156). In Metro Cebu, the biggest groups are Iranians, Kuwaitis, Africans and
Koreans. Institution-wise, the HEIs with the biggest numbers of foreign students are: Far Eastern
University and De La Salle University in Metro Manila, and University of the Visayas in Region VII.
Inbound student mobility
As mentioned earlier, the essentially regulatory policy on foreign students could inhibit student
mobility into the country. In a National Convention of Foreign Students convened by CHED in 2010,
several issues were raised by the foreign students themselves. The guidelines for equivalency and
recognition of eleventh and twelfth years of secondary education taken abroad are not clear to
students and sometimes to prospective host HEIs. Many foreign students claim that the last two
years of secondary education should be counted as equivalent to the first two years of college in the
Philippines and hence insist that they should be allowed to proceed to the third year. Some
applicants even demand automatic admission to the Medicine Proper without going through the 3–
4 year pre-medicine programme. Most of these students go through the process of accreditation
eventually, but some return home.
Other Moralities of Cross-Border

Education
As discussed earlier, the country has already been drawn into the international education market via
Mode 2 - consumption abroad in the form of study abroad programmes and student exchanges, and
Mode 4 - presence of natural persons through faculty exchanges and visiting professorships. The
two other modes of commercialization under the framework of the General Agreement on Trade
and Services (GATS) are also now observable in the country’s education sector: Cross-border supply
(Mode 1) via e-learning or distance learning programmes, and commercial presence (Mode 3) -
through the offshore campus delivery of courses/programmes. There are now eight transnational
providers of higher education that have been granted CHED authority to deliver twinning/offshore
programmes in the country. However, the regulatory framework for transnational education
provision through Mode 3 is less encouraging compared to that for ISM. The rationale is to ensure
that the education being provided is of acceptable quality and to protect Filipino consumers from
“diploma mills” and unscrupulous operators. The establishment of a foreign school is governed by
applicable laws of the Philippines and its operation is governed by policies, standards and guidelines
prescribed by CHED (CMO No.2, s.2008) pursuant to law. Regulatory measures include:
establishment, registration and ownership requirements, including foreign equity ceiling of 40 per
cent; mandatory government authority to operate; accreditation; professional regulation; civil
service requirements; and tax and foreign exchange regulations.
Current Inclinations Towards ISM and

Cross Border Education
Is the country inclined to upgrade its level of participation? The country is bound to be drawn
deeper into the international education market. The government has acceded to subject selected
industries in the services sector under the rules of the GATS, but it has not yet made any specific
commitment on the educational services subsector. Still, the reality of the impact of globalization
and the need for as well as the advantages of internationalization of higher education, are well
recognized. 67The International Mobility of Students in Asia and the Pacific The vision and goals
relative to ISM and internationalization of higher education that were articulated in the Long-term
Higher Education Plan for 1996–2005 still hold. These have been restated in the successor plans
formulated by the CHED. The crucial question, however, is – how should the country’s participation
in the global education market be enhanced in order to maximize the benefits to be derived and
minimize the attendant risks?

Thailand
The dynamics of student mobility and the internationalization of higher education have
changed profoundly since the 1990s. Twenty years ago, the primary motivations to study
abroad were related to academic, political, geo-strategic, cultural and development aid
issues and considerations. At the time, countries took a favourable view of the mobility
of students and academics as an opening to the world, in the hope of creating
international networks of elites. Today, even though the original motivations remain
valid, cross-border education is being increasingly driven by economic considerations
(Knight, 2004).
A growing number of persons either go abroad to study, enrol in foreign programmes or

establishments present in their country, or simply turn to the internet to follow courses
run by universities or other institutions of higher learning at a distance from other
countries (OECD, 2008). International student mobility is the main form of cross-border
higher education. In 2004, there were 2.7 million students worldwide studying outside
their own countries; in other words, almost three times as many as 20 years ago. The
decision to study abroad and where depends on a broad spectrum of cultural, educational,
economic and social factors (Vincent-Lancrin, 2008).
The trends of student mobility, the most popular field of study, source of funds, inbound
and outbound ratios of international tertiary students in Thailand will be described.
the World’s tertiary student

Mobility Flows
In 2007, over 2.8 million students were enrolled in educational institutions outside of
their country of origin. This represents 123,400 more students than in 2006, an increase
of 4.6 per cent. The global number of mobile students has grown by 53 per cent since
1999 and by 2.5 times since 1945 with an average annual increase of 11.70 per cent
throughout this period. China sends the greatest number of students abroad, amounting to
421,148. The other major countries of origin are India (153,300), the Republic of Korea
(105,327), Germany (77,500) , Japan (54,506), France (54,000), the United States
(50,300), Malaysia (46,478), Canada (43,900) and the Russian Federation (42,900).
These ten countries account for 37.50 per cent of the world’s mobile students, reported
by 153 host countries. In 2007, the global outbound mobility ratio was 1.80 per cent.
This means that about 2 out of 100 tertiary students left their home countries to study.
Globally, student mobility has kept pace with student enrolment. (UNESCO-UIS, 2009).
In 2007, about 29 per cent of global mobile students were from East Asia and the
Pacific. Students from China accounted for one-seventh of the total. The overall
outbound ratio is 1.90 per cent. Less than two per cent of tertiary students from the
following countries study abroad: Australia, Indonesia, Japan, New Zealand, the
Philippines, Thailand and Viet Nam. In contrast, outbound mobility ratios
increased, reaching 47 per cent in Brunei Darussalam, Hong Kong SAR, China (20
per cent), and Singapore (11 per cent). In general, mobile students from East Asia
and the Pacific tend to study among a relatively large group of host countries
(UNESCO, 2009, p. 15). This is clearly illustrated in the case of Thailand. In 2007,
about 37 per cent of its mobile students went to the United States compared to 58
per cent in 1999. At the same time, the share of mobile students rose in the other
key destinations: the United Kingdom (14 per cent to 18 per cent), Australia (13
per cent to 20 per cent) and Japan (5 per cent to 7 per cent).
Higher Education in Thailand

There are eight categories of post secondary education institutions in Thailand. These are
public universities with limited admission, autonomous public universities, open
universities, the Rajabhat University, the Rajamangala University of Technology, public
vocational colleges, private universities and private colleges. All, except private
universities and private colleges, operate on a budget allocated by the government.
There are currently 143 higher education institutions in Thailand (77 public and 66
private universities and colleges) under the supervision of the Office of the Higher
Education Commission. Tertiary level institutions include those that offer four year
programmes of study leading to a bachelor’s degree. This does not include public and
private vocational colleges, which offer two year study programmes leading to a
vocational diploma.
Economic Impact on Higher Education

As shown in student numbers in higher education, including those in open universities,
enrolment declined from 2,054,426 in academic year 2006 to 1,970,644 in 2009 (Table
1). Both public and private universities are faced with declining numbers of students.
This might be due to economic problems in the country. The crisis in Thailand led to a
decreased rate of economic growth. The growth rate declined from 4.90 per cent in 2007
to 2.50 per cent in 2008 and contracted to 2.20 per cent in 2009 (Sinlarat, 2010).
In 2006 there were 320,815 graduates with bachelor’s degrees and above. In 2007 this
figure increased to 371,982. In 2006, about 75.02 per cent of graduates (excluding those
from open universities) found employment. About 18 per cent of graduates did not find
employment. The proportion of employed graduates dropped to 68.65 per cent in 2008
and unemployment rose to 28.98 per cent. Unemployment is believed to be because of a
mismatch between employers’ demands and graduates’ qualifications and to a reduction
in job openings in the labour market between 2006 and 2008, which came about as a
result of the economic crisis.
Table 1: Number of Students by Type of University, Academic Year 2006–2009
Type of University 2006 2007 2008 2009
Public University 1,777,923 1,708,409 1,713,094 1,695,519
Limited Admission University 448,363 478,884 329,603 365,709
Autonomous University1 35,369 39,242 225,813 237,559
Open University 665,319 556,595 514,703 523,889
Rajabhat University 540,703 527,274 525,702 447,7982
Rajamangala University 88,169 106,414 117,273 120,5643
Private University 276,503 283,521 295,757 275,1254
Total All Universities 2,054,426 1,991,930 2,008,851 1,970,644
Note:
There are 11 universities under this type.
Data of four universities were not available.
Bangkok Rajamangala University data was not available.
Data of two private universities were not available.
As a result of the economic crisis, graduates are likely to have more difficulties in
finding jobs. It is likely that some graduates have to take jobs not related to their
qualifications or be underemployed because they cannot find jobs for their qualification
levels.
Universities and colleges are stable institutions, in part due to their mission and role in
society and in part due to how they operate and are managed. Nonetheless, the economic
downturn in Thailand had an impact on higher education institutions in a variety of
ways. There was a reduction in endowments and some promised donations were delayed.
It is likely that there will be no budget for certain forms of education development. The
financial crisis also affected the market value of university endowment funds.
Only a small fraction of government revenue is spent on education. Between 2006 and
2009, about 21.70 and 22.70 per cent of national expenditure was allocated for
education. This increased to 23.70 per cent in 2010. Investment in education was mainly
for basic education. In 2006, only 17.60 per cent of public expenditure on education went
to tertiary education (bachelor’s degrees and above). Expenditure on tertiary increased
slightly to 18.70 per cent in 2009 but dropped to 16.60 per cent in 2010.
In general, government spending on public universities is usually inadequate. The larger

part is spent on maintaining the operations of the institutions and increasing the number
of student recruits. About 15 to 20 per cent of the higher education budget is spent each
year on construction and acquisition of new equipment. The capital budget was reduced
to 9.50 per cent in 2010.
Reform of Higher Education in

Thailand
Higher education is essential to human resource development especially in this era of
globalization, in which a country’s international competitiveness depends a great deal on
the capability of its citizens to succeed in a knowledge – based economy and society.
The Thai higher education system is facing a crisis. A large proportion of university
graduates are not sufficiently competent in their fields; and while there is a surplus of
graduates in the field of social sciences there is a lack of qualified graduates in the
technological and professional fields (Weesakul and Associates, 2004;
Rachapaetayakom, 2005).
Several endeavours have been made to increase access to higher education and improve
its quality. These include the provision of education loan funds, establishment of new
universities, transformation of existing public institutions into private universities,
reform of the central university admission system and promotion of research and
innovation in Thai higher education institutions (Office of the Education Council, 2006,
p. 17).
To enable universities to produce high calibre graduates consistent with the requirements
for social and economic development and national competitiveness, and to serve as
centres for the creation of knowledge required for transformation to a knowledge-based
economy and society, the reform of higher education has focused on improving the
structure and administrative system and on strengthening the mechanisms and
administrative procedures for enhancing the quality of education (Thailand. Office of the
Education Council, 2006, p. 22). A policy and roadmap was issued for the functioning of
the Ministry, based on government policy, ongoing strategies of the Ministry of
Education and relevant studies.
During the last decades, international education has become a growing business as a
result of the globalization and liberalization process that has caused freer flow of
cross-border education. Consequently, agencies involved in the provision of education
must improve quality to compete in the international arena. At the same time,
international co-operation in education is essential to educational development in all
countries. Several public and private agencies are involved in promoting international
education services available in Thailand. For international tertiary programmes, a total of
844 international programmes were offered in 2007 by 53 higher education institutions.
Among these, 844 international programmes were offered by 30 public universities while
the rest were offered by 23 private universities (Thailand. Office of the Education
Council, 2007).
In 2009, there were 19,052 foreign students studying in public (11,177) and private
(7,875) higher education institutions under the supervision of the Office of Higher
Education Commission. The majority of foreign students came from Asia (Table 2). If
we include foreign students at the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) the total number
will be 19,872. The AIT which is based in Thailand with a branch in Viet Nam is an
autonomous graduate institution offering programmes in science and engineering,
development and management, with the goal of addressing the needs of the region and
contributing to its sustainable economic growth (Thailand. Office of the Education
Council 2006). The total number of foreign students in 2005 was 911 decreasing to 822
and 775 in 2009 and 2010, respectively (Tables 3 and Table 4). In 2005, Indian students
had the highest number, with 112 followed by students from Bangladesh and Nepal.
Pakistan provided the highest number of foreign students at AIT in 2009 and 2010.
Overseas Study and Training: The number of government scholarship recipients and
other Thai students going overseas under the supervision of the Office of Civil Service
Commission decreased from 6,215 in 2005 to 5,373 in 2009. The number of government
officials going overseas to study declined from 2,309 in 2005 to 942 in 2009. Among
those awarded government scholarships to study overseas, the highest number went to
the United States. The United Kingdom is the second popular destination country. In
2009, more Thai officers went to study in China than in 2005. It is observed that the Thai
officers selected more developed countries (Table 4) in which to study It was found that
the institutions having the highest number of foreign students were Assumption
University and Mahidol University. Most of the foreign students came from China. The
most popular field of study is business administration.
Table 2: Number of International Students Studying in Thailand classified by

Region of Origin, 2010
Region Number Highest Country of Origin1

Asia (40 countries) 16,667 China (8,993)
Europe (31 Countries) 1,084 Germany (215)
North America (8 Countries) 959 USA (818)
Africa (31 Countries) 243 Nigeria (49)

Australia (6 Countries) 71 Australia (55)
South America (8 Countries) 27 Brazil (9)
Highest number of students from country of origin.
Source: Thailand. Office of the Higher Education Commission, Ministry of Education.
International Higher Education

Student Mobility in Thailand
Table 3: Top Ten Countries of Origin for International Students Studying at the
Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) in Thailand, 2005, 2009 and 2010
2005 2009 2010
Country Number Country Number Country Number
1 India 112 Pakistan 109 Pakistan 106
2 Bangladesh 94 Nepal 95 India 95
3 Nepal 87 India 83 Nepal 94
4 Myanmar 84 Indonesia 78 Sri Lanka 59
5 Cambodia 63 Sri Lanka 61 Myanmar 56
6 China 62 Myanmar 60 Indonesia 52
7 Lao PDR 61 Bangladesh 42 Viet Nam 39
8 Indonesia 45 Viet Nam 39 Bangladesh 38
9 Sri Lanka 39 Cambodia 34 France 28
10 Viet Nam 39 Lao PDR 34 Cambodia 26
Total 1-10 686 635 593
Total Thai students 674 937 874
Total international students6 911 822 775
Notes: 1Excludes Thai students studying in Thailand and also these students studying at
the AIT Branch in Viet Nam.
Source: The Registry Office, Asian Institute of Technology: Thailand.
Table 4: Thai Students Studying Abroad under the Supervision of the Civil Service
Commission (CSC) of Thai
2009, five countries with the highest number of students studying in higher education
institutions in Thailand were studied. For five consecutive years, most of the foreign
students studying in Thailand came from China. During 2004 and 2005, Myanmar came
second, replaced by Lao PDR in 2008 and 2009. Myanmar fell to third position in the
same period. It seems that during 2008 and 2009, the foreign student flow to Thailand
was from East Asia, the Pacific Region and ASEAN countries (Table 5).
Table 5: Top Five Countries of Origin of Foreign Students Studying in Education
Institutions in Thailand (Academic Years 2005–2009)
No. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
1 China (1,615) China (2,698) China (4,028) China (7,301) China (8,993)
2 Myanmar (489) Myanmar (631) Viet Nam (751) Lao PDR (1,301) Lao PDR (1,254)
3 Lao PDR (436) Viet Nam (599) Myanmar (741) Myanmar (999) Myanmar (1,205)
4 Viet Nam (409) USA (521) Lao PDR (664) Cambodia (984) Viet Nam (1,141)
5 Japan (307) Lao PDR (493) USA (527) Viet Nam (895) Cambodia (1,009)
Total five countries 3,256 4,942 6,756 11,480 13,602
Total all countries 5,321 7,947 10,518 15,917 19,052
Source: Office of the Higher Education Commission, Ministry of Education,

Thailand.
Inbound and Outbound Mobility

The inbound mobile students in seven host countries are from East Asia and the Pacific
(Table 6). In 2007, Australia has 211,526 tertiary foreign students from around the
world. Thailand had the smallest number of international mobile students. The highest
inbound mobile ratio is 19.50 for Australia, followed by New Zealand with 13.60. China
has the lowest inbound mobile ratio, only 0.20. About 21.25 per cent of foreign students
in Malaysia arrived from South and West Asia and 14.65 per cent from the Arab states.
Table 6: Tertiary International Mobile Students by Host Country and Region of

Origin, 2007
Inbound Mobile Students in

Host Country
Region of Origin Rep. of New

Australia China Japan Malaysia Korea Thailand Zealand
Arab States 4,406 - 564 3,574 112 23 328
Central + Eastern Europe 1,524 - 1,217 207 374 103 350
Central Asia 194 - 1,246 227 1293 44 39
East Asia and the Pacific 126,633 - 112,257 13,149 26,903 8,064 23,383
Latin America and the Caribbean 2,394 - 1,288 40 171 35 319
North America and Western Europe 15,912 - 4,301 301 930 1,416 5,472
South and West Asia 36,764 - 4,463 5,186 1,123 1,151 2,859
Sub-Saharan Africa 6,487 - 531 1,680 187 131 256
Unspecified 17,212 42,138 10 40 850 - 41
All Regions 211,526 42,138 125,877 24,404 31,943 10,967 33,047
Inbound Mobile Ratio (%) 19.5 0.2 3.0 3.3 1.0 0.5 13.6
The top five destinations for outbound mobile students by country of origin, Australia,
China, Malaysia and Thailand is illustrated in Table 7 and Figure 1. The most popular
country among Australia, China and Thailand is the United States, but not for Malaysia.
The second most popular destination of Thai students is Australia, while Australia, China
and Malaysia prefer New Zealand, Japan and the United Kingdom.
Table 7: Top Five Destinations (Host Countries)1 for Outbound Mobile Students by
Country of Origins in 2007
Australia China Malaysia Thailand
Number 9,968 421,148 46,473 24,485
1 USA (28.68) USA (23.49) Australia (38.07) USA (37.09)
2 New Zealand (27.59) Japan (19.05) United Kingdom (25.41) Australia (19.95)
3 United Kingdom (17.77) Australia (11.97) USA (11.62) United Kingdom (18.55)
4 Germany (3.93) United Kingdom (11.78) Japan (4.42) Japan (7.04)
5 Japan (3.62) Germany (5.65) New Zealand (3.72) Malaysia (3.47)
6 Others2 (18.41) (28.06) (16.76) (13.90)
Notes: 1Percent of students from given country studying in the host countries is shown in
the brackets.
The rest of top five destinations.
Source: Compiled from UNESCO Statistics International Flow of Mobile Students,
2007.
Figure 1: Top Five Destinations for Outbound Mobile Students from Australia,
China, Malaysia, and Thailand, 2007
Source: Compiled from UNESCO Statistics, 2007.
Tertiary students of selected countries in 2007. China has the largest number of students
studying abroad (421,148) with the outbound mobility ratio of 1.90 while the inbound
ratio is only 0.20 and the net flow ratio is -1.70. Malaysia has an outbound ratio 6.10 and
an inbound ratio of 3.30 with -2.80 net flows ratio. Thailand has a 0.90 outbound ratio
with a 0.50 inbound ratio. Australia seems to be the most popular destination for foreign
students to study, with the highest inbound ratio at 19.50, followed by New Zealand at
13.60.
Table 8: International Flows of Mobile Tertiary Students, 2007
Students Studying Abroad Students from Abroad
Outbound Inbound Net Flow Ratio

Country Mobility Ratio Mobility Ratio (%)
Number Number
(%) (%)
Australia 9,968 1.0 211,526 19.5 18.5
China 421,148 1.9 42,138 0.20 -1.70
Japan 54,506 1.2 125,877 3.00 1.80
Malaysia 464,738 6.1 24,404 3.30 -2.80
Rep. of Korea 105,327 3.1 31,943 1.00 -2.10
Thailand 24,485 0.9 10,967 0.50 -0.40
New Zealand 4,104 1.9 33,047 13.60 11.70
The Most Popular Fields of Study

Source: Compiled from UNESCO, Global Education Digest 2009.
The top five fields of study among foreign students studying in higher education
institutes in Thailand between Academic Year 2005 and 2009 were surveyed. It was
found that business administration was the most popular field of study for three
consecutive years, 2004 to 2006 (Table 9). From 2008 and 2009, the most popular field
changed to the Thai language (Thailand. Office of the Higher Education Commission,
2009). In 2009, business administration came second followed by international business,
English language and marketing. It was found that foreign students studying at the
bachelor degree level exceeded those studied at other levels in higher education
institutions in Thailand.
Table 9: Top Five Fields of Study Among Foreign Students Studying in Thailand,
Academic Years 2005–2009
No 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Field of Field of Field of Field of Field of

study Total study Total study Total study Total study Total
Thai Thai
1 Business 279 Business 1,148 Business 1,575 Language 1,927 Language 3,075
Administratio Administratio Administratio

n n n
Thai Thai
2 Marketing 267 Language 832 Language 1,101 Business 1,739 Business 2,376
Administratio Administratio
n n
Thai English
3 Language 214 Marketing 414 Marketing 517 Language 717 International 960
Business
Business English
4 English 159 International 241 International 412 International 656 Language 801
Business Business Business
Business
5 Business 134 Thai Studies 230 English 308 Marketing 521 Marketing 589
Source: Office of the Higher Education Commission, Ministry of Education:

Thailand.
Educational Expenses
Educational expenses of foreign students studying in higher education institutions came

from three sources. Self–funding played the most important role during 2005 to 2009
(Table 10 and Figure 2). In 2005, about 74.21 per cent of 5,351 foreign students spent
their own money for studying in Thailand. This proportion increased to 84.51 per cent in
2008 and declined to 78.02 per cent in 2009. Educational expenses from Thai
scholarships and overseas scholarships declined from 14 per cent in 2005 to 13.41 per
cent in 2009 and from 11.79 per cent to 8.57 per cent, respectively.
Table 10: Source of Educational Expenses of Foreign Students Studying in Higher

Education
Source of
Expenses 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Self-funding 3,971(74.21) 6,286(79.10) 8,658(82.32) 13,451(84.51) 14,866(78.02)
Thai Scholarship 749(14.00) 896(11.27) 1,022(9.72) 1,232(7.74) 2,552(13.41)
Overseas Scholarship 631(11.79) 765(9.63) 838(7.96) 1,234(7.75) 1,634(8.57)
Total 5,351(100.00) 7,947(100.00) 10,518(100.00) 15,917(100.00) 19,052(100.00)
Source: Office of the Higher Education Commission,

Ministry of Education: Thailand.
Figure 2: Source of Educational Expenses of Foreign Students 2005

and 2009
90
80 78.02
74.21
70
60
50
40
30
20
14.00 13.41 11.79 8.57

10
0
Self-funding Thai Scholarship Overseas Scholarship
2005 2009
Source: Thailand. Office of the Higher Education Commission, Ministry of
Education.
Concluding Remarks
Student flows grew rapidly over the past decade and show no signs of diminishing in the
decades ahead. Globalization, increased migration flows of all types, the strategies
followed by institutions of higher learning and the policies of developing countries are
combining to create a more competitive, homogeneous and globalized arena of higher
education, which, in turn, makes for continuing student mobility. (Vincent-Lancrin,
2008, p. 105).
There are many reasons why students pursue their education abroad. For some, it is a
chance to broaden cultural and intellectual horizons. Others go abroad to avoid the
frustrations of under– resourced universities at home. Many have no choice but to go
abroad in other to pursue a particular field of education or type of academic programme.
These are just some of the factors that can push students to pursue educational
opportunities outside of their home countries.
The flow of cross border students indicates that the dominant flow continues to be from
the developing to the developed countries (Varghese, 2008, p. 26). The United States
used to be the favourite destination for many students but the trend is changing,
making countries such as Australia and New Zealand attractive destinations. Many
institutions in the host countries rely heavily on the domestic students.
The promotion of international higher education should be on the “National Agenda” at

the National Committee level by looking at international education development issues
as: human resources development; quality assurance and assessment development for
world class programmes; international higher education curriculums; and
networking promotion and market development. However, the integration of the ASEAN
Social and Cultural Community. ASEAN countries should be prepared and alert to
participate in this programme. It is expected that international higher education will
be developed, co-ordinated and managed among ASEAN countries.
References
Asian Institute of Technology (AIT). 2010. Enrolment Statistics. Bangkok, AIT Registry
Office.
Knight, J. 2004. International Remodeled: Definition, Approaches, and Rationales.

Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 5–31.
Organization for Economic Co–operation and Development (OECD). 2006.

Education at a Glance 2006. Paris, OECD.
Rachapaetayakom, J. 2004. Labour Mobility in Rural and Urban Societies:
Opportunities or Risks?, Presented at the National Seminar on “Rural to Urban
Transformation”, Thailand.
Sinlarat, P. 2010. Impact of the Global Financial Crisis on Higher Education in

Thailand. Presented at the Regional Seminar on the “Impact of the Economic Crisis
on Higher Education”, organized by UNESCO, 30 June to 2 July.
Sugimura, M. 2009. Higher Education Strategies and International Student Flows in
Asian Countries.
Tokyo, Sophia University.
Office of Civil Service Commission. 2009. Statistics of Students Studying Abroad, 2009.
Thailand.
Office of the Education Council. 2007. Education in Thailand 2007. Bangkok,

Ministry of Education, Thailand.
Office of the Higher Education Commission. 2010. Higher Education Statistics.

Bangkok, Ministry of Education, Thailand.
UNESCO. 2007. Global Education Digest 2007: comparing education statistics

across the world. Montreal, Canada, UIS.
Varghese, N.V. 2008. Globalization of Higher Education and Cross-Border Student

Mobility. (Research paper of International Institutes for Education Planning,
UNESCO).
Vincent-Lancrin, S. 2005. Building capacity through cross-border higher

education. London, Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.
Vincent-Lancrin, S. 2008. Student Mobility, Internationalization of Higher

Education and Skilled Migration. World Migration. Paris, OECD.
Weesakul, B. and Associates. 2004. A Summary of Financing of Thai Higher
Education: Leverage for Quality Improvement Reform. (Research grant supported
by the Office of the Education Council). Bangkok, Dhurakij Pundit University

Student Mobility - Australia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Student Mobility - Australia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Student Mobility - Australia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kristina Bernadette M.

Jay Anne C. Tayag

Stephanie Ane M. Del Rosario

Diane Nicole Dupitas

 International Student Mobility: The Australian Case, by V. Lynn Meek;

International Student Mobility: the

Tertiary education institutions, universities in particular, have always encouraged

In promoting student mobility, governments finance in one form or another various

Australia is recognized as a world leader with respect to promoting the mobility of

Figure 1: Percentage of international students in tertiary enrollments, 2008

Source: OECD, 2010, p. 308.

Australian international education is based primarily on attracting foreign students to

Internationalization: the Policy Context

The deregulation of the foreign student market created an environment of fierce

Hundreds of thousands of international students are studying in Australia or for

The Australian International

The distribution of international higher education students by field of study in Australia

Offshore or Transnational Education

It is important to note that the regulatory framework covering offshore programmes is

“In contrast to onshore programmes, Commonwealth and State governments do not

Australian Higher Education Student

The International Education Industry

lion, 2005 – 2009

Source: AEI, 2010.

Regulation of the International

There is a National Code of Practice for Registration Authorities and Providers of

International education creates direct employment for literally thousands of individuals.

The Perfect Storm

The downturn in Australia’s popularity as an international student destination hit

Figure 3 displays international student commencements (i.e. international students in

Figure 3: International Student Commencements by Sector 2009-2012

Source: AEI, 2012.

Table 1: International Student Enrollments, 2011 and 2012

YTD June Growth on YTD June

Higher Education 205,791 195,970 -4.8%

Source: AEI, 2012.

Although originally designed to assist skilled migration to Australia, there is now

Impact of the Growth of

Obvious financial advantage for institutions and the economy generally;

 Well-developed sophisticated international support, with the study of the

China’s higher eduCation as a Case study

Country of Share Rankin Host Share

1 China 441,186 14.9 1 USA 624,474 21.1

Table 2: Outbound Student Ratios in China, 2002-2009

2005 2006 2007 2008

Students from China studying

Table 3: Expenditure Trends in Secondary and Tertiary Education in China,

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

The Mobility Service Modes

Figure 1: Total International Students in China (1999–2010)

Table 4: Inbound Student Mobility in China, 2001–2009

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Total 110,84 141,08 162,69 195,50 223,49 238,18

Table 5: Top 20 Countries of Inbound Students in China, 2009

Ranki Country/reg Number of Degree Non-Degree Percentage

1 Rep. of Korea 64,232 26,874 37,358 27.0

Table 6: Inbound Degree Student Mobility in China, 2001–2009

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Table 7: The Discipline Structure of Inbound Students in China in 2009