THB universities everywhere should compete to attract the most qualified students, regardless of nat

Once people leave compulsory education the relationship they have with the state changes dramatically. The state no longer has so great a duty of care. Their option, other than going to university, would normally be to get a job. In doing so they are in an open competition. It seems unreasonable that universities should not treat them in the same way as a company would. Universities, like companies, should therefore have to compete for the best academic talent and there should be a level playing field in this competition rather than setting quotas or giving a leg up for students whether it is for the poor or for those native to the country where the university is located.

Universities work on an international basis already with different specialisms, costs and reputations in international marketplace. This is simply the logical conclusion of that.[i]

[i] IIE Global Students Atlas.

The state has invested in the individual student and in the university as an institution, it is therefore a stakeholder. A university is, therefore in a significantly different position to a private company which is a more obviously independent actor.

Although universities do compete globally they also receive direct support from the state for at least some of their funding. Even in a rich university such as Oxford the state and tuition fees makes up 50% of the cost of teaching a student.[i]  As a result the state has both an interest and a right in ensuring that the university protects its interests first and foremost. The state in turn has a duty to the taxpayers who are, ultimately footing the bill. Even those universities that are self-funded still owe a residual duty to the state. To the extent that they benefit institutionally from the actions of even the most rolled back state in matters such as defence and transport infrastructure – not to mention the secondary education of the bulk of their students.

[i] Hamilton, Andrew, ‘Termly message – Michaelmas 2010’, October 2010,

If universities are expected to become increasingly self-funding (in the case of many nations they already are entirely self-funded) it is unfair to restrict whatever advantages they may have to succeed. Equally those universities in a country which simply aren’t up to scratch should not be guaranteed the luxury of an inbuilt base of domestic students.

A free and open market would improve the education provided to student both domestic and foreign by refining the tertiary sector through competition. Those universities which are failing will have to improve standards if they are to retain their students.

At the moment foreign students often pay more, for example for 2012/13 entry into Oxford to do biological sciences overseas students pay £18550 while home students pay £9000.[i] Therefore the real rate the university would charge if it was attempting to break even while making a level playing field for global talent would be somewhere between these two levels. As a result there will both be more competition to get into the best universities; so driving up educational standards among school leavers, and more among universities who will also be competition for the domestic market.

[i] University of Oxford, ‘2012/13 University tuition fee rates’, 7 September 2011

This is simply unfair to nations with less developed tertiary sectors who would lose all of the little advantage they currently have. Even accepting the analogy with a market place, the results would work poorly for education – just as they have for many involved in free markets in other sectors. The reality of a free market is not that it improves standards across the board but, rather, that it produces a handful of global leaders – usually those who had all of the advantages to start with – and the rest of them go to the wall.[i]

This would be particularly serious for developing nations as they would not have any obvious way to fund not only the teaching of those students who remain but the research being undertaken by the academics.

To remove the research base of a developing nation is particularly unfair.

[i] Hotson, Howard, ‘Don’t Look to the Ivy League’, London Review of Books, Vol. 33, No. 10, 19 May 2011

The predominant role of tertiary education is skilling people for the workplace. This is done either through direct vocational training or the somewhat more pedagogical ‘shaping of the mind’. Universities also provide the setting for acquiring skills of socialization that allow people to function as independent citizens outside the family home.

Increasingly both that workplace and that socializing takes place in an international, globalized setting. As a result the greater internationalisation both of education and the wider social setting of the university will result in all graduates being better prepared to compete in the global labour market.

At the same time the nation will be benefiting in a similar way. If more international students are attracted to study in university then more are likely to stay in that country resulting in a larger, more knowledgeable workforce, something even countries that are usually against migrants want to encourage.[i][ii]

[i] Toneguzzi, Mario, ‘University reaches out to keep foreign students Graduates seen as part of labour shortage solution’, Calgary Herald, 3 March 2012

[ii] BBC News, ‘Immigrants ‘have to earn £35,000’ to settle – from 2016’, 29 February 2012.

The vast majority of graduates will find their work in their country of birth. In a survey of international students in U.S. universities “only 6 percent of Indian students, 10 percent of Chinese students and 15 percent of European students said they wanted to remain permanently” in the U.S.[i] To design the entire education system to the benefit of these people who will not end up benefiting the economy is perverse.

Those who are most likely to go on to compete in ‘global’ professions are already more likely to attend the most internationalized of universities – those at the very top of the batch academically.

In addition to which, it is not uncommon for universities to have an international community of some form and so the opportunity for cross-cultural dialogue exists for those who wish to seek it out.

[i] Maclay, Kathleen, ‘U.S. economy spurs foreign students to return home, study says’, UC Berkeley News, 19 March 2009. 

Once people leave compulsory education the relationship they have with the state changes dramatically. The state no longer has so great a duty of care. Their option, other than going to university, would normally be to get a job. In doing so they are in an open competition. It seems unreasonable that universities should not treat them in the same way as a company would. Universities, like companies, should therefore have to compete for the best academic talent and there should be a level playing field in this competition rather than setting quotas or giving a leg up for students whether it is for the poor or for those native to the country where the university is located.

Universities work on an international basis already with different specialisms, costs and reputations in international marketplace. This is simply the logical conclusion of that.[i]

[i] IIE Global Students Atlas.

The state has invested in the individual student and in the university as an institution, it is therefore a stakeholder. A university is, therefore in a significantly different position to a private company which is a more obviously independent actor.

Although universities do compete globally they also receive direct support from the state for at least some of their funding. Even in a rich university such as Oxford the state and tuition fees makes up 50% of the cost of teaching a student.[i]  As a result the state has both an interest and a right in ensuring that the university protects its interests first and foremost. The state in turn has a duty to the taxpayers who are, ultimately footing the bill. Even those universities that are self-funded still owe a residual duty to the state. To the extent that they benefit institutionally from the actions of even the most rolled back state in matters such as defence and transport infrastructure – not to mention the secondary education of the bulk of their students.

[i] Hamilton, Andrew, ‘Termly message – Michaelmas 2010’, October 2010,

If universities are expected to become increasingly self-funding (in the case of many nations they already are entirely self-funded) it is unfair to restrict whatever advantages they may have to succeed. Equally those universities in a country which simply aren’t up to scratch should not be guaranteed the luxury of an inbuilt base of domestic students.

A free and open market would improve the education provided to student both domestic and foreign by refining the tertiary sector through competition. Those universities which are failing will have to improve standards if they are to retain their students.

At the moment foreign students often pay more, for example for 2012/13 entry into Oxford to do biological sciences overseas students pay £18550 while home students pay £9000.[i] Therefore the real rate the university would charge if it was attempting to break even while making a level playing field for global talent would be somewhere between these two levels. As a result there will both be more competition to get into the best universities; so driving up educational standards among school leavers, and more among universities who will also be competition for the domestic market.

[i] University of Oxford, ‘2012/13 University tuition fee rates’, 7 September 2011

This is simply unfair to nations with less developed tertiary sectors who would lose all of the little advantage they currently have. Even accepting the analogy with a market place, the results would work poorly for education – just as they have for many involved in free markets in other sectors. The reality of a free market is not that it improves standards across the board but, rather, that it produces a handful of global leaders – usually those who had all of the advantages to start with – and the rest of them go to the wall.[i]

This would be particularly serious for developing nations as they would not have any obvious way to fund not only the teaching of those students who remain but the research being undertaken by the academics.

To remove the research base of a developing nation is particularly unfair.

[i] Hotson, Howard, ‘Don’t Look to the Ivy League’, London Review of Books, Vol. 33, No. 10, 19 May 2011

The predominant role of tertiary education is skilling people for the workplace. This is done either through direct vocational training or the somewhat more pedagogical ‘shaping of the mind’. Universities also provide the setting for acquiring skills of socialization that allow people to function as independent citizens outside the family home.

Increasingly both that workplace and that socializing takes place in an international, globalized setting. As a result the greater internationalisation both of education and the wider social setting of the university will result in all graduates being better prepared to compete in the global labour market.

At the same time the nation will be benefiting in a similar way. If more international students are attracted to study in university then more are likely to stay in that country resulting in a larger, more knowledgeable workforce, something even countries that are usually against migrants want to encourage.[i][ii]

[i] Toneguzzi, Mario, ‘University reaches out to keep foreign students Graduates seen as part of labour shortage solution’, Calgary Herald, 3 March 2012

[ii] BBC News, ‘Immigrants ‘have to earn £35,000’ to settle – from 2016’, 29 February 2012.

The vast majority of graduates will find their work in their country of birth. In a survey of international students in U.S. universities “only 6 percent of Indian students, 10 percent of Chinese students and 15 percent of European students said they wanted to remain permanently” in the U.S.[i] To design the entire education system to the benefit of these people who will not end up benefiting the economy is perverse.

Those who are most likely to go on to compete in ‘global’ professions are already more likely to attend the most internationalized of universities – those at the very top of the batch academically.

In addition to which, it is not uncommon for universities to have an international community of some form and so the opportunity for cross-cultural dialogue exists for those who wish to seek it out.

[i] Maclay, Kathleen, ‘U.S. economy spurs foreign students to return home, study says’, UC Berkeley News, 19 March 2009. 

The first responsibility of any government is to its own citizens. A large part of that in relationship to, especially, the young relates to ensuring that they are equipped with the skills and knowledge to compete in later life. It has for decades been assumed that the state has a responsibility to provide primary and secondary education, now higher education is increasingly necessary as well. That members of the Council of Europe in 2001 and 2003 stated that higher education is a “public responsibility”, shows that many governments agree.[i] It is therefore quite reasonable for governments to require universities to favour domestic students and only take international students once they have met the needs of the domestic market.

This then ensures that the taxpayers of that nation are getting what they pay for; the best possible education for their own children rather than subsidising the education of international students.  This ensures that the next generation is as skilled as possible as is required in order to create a knowledge economy.

[i] Weber, Luc, ‘Nature and scope of the public responsibility for higher education and research?’, in Luc Weber and Sjur Bergan eds., The public responsibility for higher education and research, Council of Europe Pubishing, April 2005, pp.29-44. 

Simply for reasons of family ties, finance and language, the majority of students would look to study domestically.

In the light of this the bulk of students are likely to study at home allowing the government to fulfill their obligation to have a well-educated workforce. Moreover those who decide to study abroad are not damaging this workforce as they are still getting the education they retire. This responsibility of government should not therefore be seen as a responsibility to force domestic students to study at their own universities but rather to ensure that their students get the best education possible no matter where in the world that may be.

A free market in higher education will inevitably result in large flows of people around the world – this may bring some benefits but governments also have to consider its negative implications. It is one of the primary roles of governments to control the number of non-nationals entering the country. This is for a number of reasons, partly this is done to protect the interests of their own nationals but also to take account concerns of national security. For example there were concerns in the UK in 2009 that terrorists could get into the country on student visas leading to a tightening of the rules.[i] Similar worries would mean that governments would be unable to make the necessary relaxation of the rules to truly allow free competition for university places.

Assuming that the lion’s share of any change would be seen in students from the developing world studying in the developed world, all of the countries concerned already have problems with migrants ‘disappearing’ into the population.

Were universities to significantly increase this, there would, of course be implications both for the job market and for the threat from terrorism.

[i] Laville, Sandra, Northn-Taylor, Richard and Dodd, Vikram, ‘Student visa link to terror raids as Gordon Brown points finger at Pakistan’, guardian.co.uk, 10 April 2009. 

There are already laws in place to deal with both of these difficulties. If students are on a student visa they are, generally, not allowed to work. Equally there are security measures in place to prevent acts of terrorism.

The problems with non-nationals illegally entering the workforce is more easily dealt with in the case of university students as the university itself has reliable methods of knowing whether someone is actually acting as a student on the basis of whether or not work is being completed. On this logic countries would also have to seriously reduce tourism – a far more common method of immigrating illegally than student visas.

The main attraction of foreign students to universities is not the cultural diversity they represent but the revenue. It makes sense that universities where they can should make use of this revenue stream – this money can then be put to good use to make the university a better learning environment so benefiting all students.  Having scholarships available to the brightest helps to mean that even while charging the highest possible prices the best will still be encouraged to the university.

The proposition wants universities to compete to attract the best students so must be willing to accept that many of the best will not be able to afford the cost even if it is set at the same rate as domestic students. While this creates level playing field it does not help the poorest. It is not even the most free market option as the ideal in any market is to charge everyone individually based upon what they can afford. Instead a system where there are differing fees and many scholarships means that it should be considered that domestic students be charged less on account of already paying for many of things that the university needs; research grants, infrastructure etc. 

Charging lower fees for domestic students cannot be justified on the basis that they (or their parents) have already paid for much of the infrastructure that supports the university as if all universities were to follow a policy of charging the same to all students then then populations everywhere will be making some contributions in this way to the education of foreign students.  While we accept that there will need to be some scholarships this should not mean charging some students large amounts more than other students who are academically on the same level but just happen to be a domestic student. Both domestic and overseas students should be subsidising those who can’t afford university no matter their nationality.