Mark Scott was a major advocate for no overseas student cap last year. Picture: Jane Dempster
University of Sydney vice-chancellor Mark Scott reaffirmed that all international students are welcome at his university during a meeting of student unions on Wednesday.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
If families looking to relocate to “top destinations” such as the US and Canada choose the right program for their children, they may be granted permanent residency as domestic students or even graduate from their chosen institution as residents or citizens, according to Tess Wilkinson, director of education services at Henley & Partners Education in the UK.
“We’re now seeing a real uptick in the types of families who are now becoming aware that there is an option for them,” she told The PIE News.
“For families looking at relocating, there can be real gains in the amount of fees they spend on education in places like Canada,” she explained. “They can they can save [up to] $150,000 on fees.”
The sheer number of clients asking for assistance in this area signals that education is swiftly becoming “one of the key drivers for people looking at second residences to citizenships”, she added.
Henley & Partners refers to itself as a “global leader in residence and citizenship by investment”. Its education arm, Wilkinson explained, helps to “advise transnational families who are looking for global education solutions”.
Working with families all over the world with children and adults of all ages – from K-12 to those seeking master’s degrees or MBAs – it “assists them to find the right match”, taking into account children’s individual needs and the types of residency or citizenship that may become available to its clients through educational opportunities.
“We can advise on all the top-tier destinations. So we have a family, for instance, who are considering the UK, the US and Australia and they’re putting in applications for all three countries,” Wilkinson shared.
We’re now seeing a real uptick in the types of families who are now becoming aware that there is an option for them
Tess Wilkinson, Henley & Partners Education
With immigration policies in key markets such as the UK, the US, Canada and Australia shifting all the time, Wilkinson acknowledged that it “is not something that is simple”.
But she said that, with expertise across a number of key markets, Henley & Partners can provide families with education counsellors to help match children to institutions that suit them best, as well as help with applying to universities or summer programs.
The ‘big four’ international education destination countries are all seeing turbulence in their respective markets. Some of these restrictive policies are having an impact on students’ ability to study in the countries, hindering them from securing post-graduate residency in their chosen destination.
Australia and Canada are both subject restrictions on international students, while UK universities’ international departments have been blighted by a crackdown on overseas students’ ability to bring their families into the country with them.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s second term as US President continues to present challenges to the sector, as he freezes study abroad funding, battles against DEI legislation and moves to arrest or even deport international student protestors.
Tess Wilkinson will be speaking at The PIE Live Europe at the PIEx Power Up Expanding horizons: accessing global education & opportunity via investment migration on March 11 at 16:00. Tickets are available online here.
Edward Choi and Young Jae Kim
South Korea has become an attractive destination for international students, boasting a strong higher education system with internationally recognised universities. A complication, however, is emerging with some foreign students enrolling in what they believe are universities, only to later discover that they are attending junior colleges, Korea’s flagship vocational institutions.
This phenomenon may be linked to changes in institutional marketing (identity branding) and key organizational characteristics at junior colleges and universities alike. Many colleges have removed words like “technical” or “vocational” from their names and are now called universities in both Korean and English. They have also expanded their degree offerings to include bachelor’s and, in some cases, even graduate programs.
The blurring of identities (and institutional traits) and the implications thereof are a focus of our study, Confusion in the Marketplace: A Study of Institutional Isomorphism and Organisational Identity in South Korea (Choi and Kim, 2024). Through a national, statistical overview and the content analysis of select institutional websites, we examined the dimensions along which South Korean colleges and universities are organizationally isomorphic, a concept that describes how organizations begin to resemble each other as a result of external pressures (see DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Importantly, we discuss in our article the market implications for this type of institutional convergence.
Key changes or dimensions of likeness
Nearly all colleges (95%) have rebranded themselves with the term “university” in their Korean names, and 61% have done so in English. Colleges now offer bachelor’s-equivalent degrees, with 92% providing such programs, and some even offering graduate degrees (11%). Both colleges and universities emphasise similar disciplines, including Business Administration, Family & Social Welfare, and Mechanical Engineering, reflecting shared market demands.
Institutional websites suggest colleges and universities adopt similar marketing strategies, emphasising employment outcomes and industry-academic collaboration. Less selective universities resemble colleges in focusing on job-market relevance in research and academic programming. Both institution types operate in local, national, and international spheres with internationalisation efforts at both types.
There are key differences to note. Some universities, particularly elite ones, highlight intellectual growth and social development as a societal role in vision and other identity statements. Research at especially elite universities is both applied and humanities-focused, while this is not true in the case of colleges and lower-tier universities. Furthermore, internationalisation at universities is mostly about citizenship and cultural development while the same is less cultural but utilitarian at colleges (eg career development through international field placements).
Why are junior colleges becoming more like universities?
We discuss several key reasons behind the organisational sameness among Korea’s colleges and universities. One key factor is South Korea’s shrinking student population. With birth rates at record lows, the number of high school graduates has plummeted, creating a crisis for universities and junior colleges alike (Lee, 2024) and forcing these institutions to compete directly for a shrinking pool of students. The offering of baccalaureate degrees and graduate programming, among other organizational changes, may serve as primary examples of survival strategies amid the changing demographics. The same may be said of universities where there is a strong vocational dimension in academic offerings, much like what we see at colleges.
Government policies (both historical and contemporaneous) have also played a major role in the Korean case of institutional isomorphism. Such policy directions have pushed both universities and junior colleges to align their offerings with workforce demands (Ministry of Education, 2023d, 2024a). In 2008 the government approved bachelor’s-equivalent degrees for junior colleges, allowing them to offer advanced major courses. In 2022, junior colleges were even permitted to introduce graduate programs, further blurring the distinction between these institutions and universities.
Additionally, South Korea’s push for internationalisation amid globalisation has encouraged universities and junior colleges alike to aggressively market themselves to international students. The country has set ambitious national goals for attracting students from abroad (ICEF, 2023); as a result, both institutional types are using similar branding strategies. Words like “world-class,” “global,” and “innovative” appear frequently on websites, even in the case of junior colleges like Kyung-in Women’s University, an institution with virtually negligible global recognition or research excellence.
The risks of blurred identities
A key concern with blurred identities and institutional characteristics (including social roles) is that they can create confusion for international students who are increasingly looking to Korea as an attractive education destination. For students seeking a traditional university experience, this can lead to disappointment and even financial and academic setbacks, not to mention reputational damages to Korea and its higher education system.
There is also the issue of mission creep, where junior colleges in their efforts to emulate universities, risk losing sight of their normative societal function. Junior colleges have historically complemented universities in increasing access to education and providing job training for students who might not otherwise pursue higher education (see Brint and Karabel, 1989; Dougherty, 1994; Lee, 1992). This mission is at stake. The accretion and expansion of new and existing programs and services, respectively, require invariably additional resources, which might drive up educational costs. Many prospective students may not be able to afford these fee hikes.
What to make of institutional isomorphism?
At the end of the day, students want a quality education and meaningful career opportunities. It is important for them to clearly understand what they are signing up for – given how important higher education is to shaping their career trajectories. Policy discussions at the national level must now consider the global character of Korea’s junior colleges, whose cosmetic and organisational changes can impact international mobility patterns. Clearer differentiation from a policy perspective is needed in this regard.
We must not ignore the positive implications of institutional isomorphism, whose market advantages have not been fully explored by scholars. We argue that institutional isomorphism – particularly where college and university programs converge – can be strategically utilised as a policy lever to address market challenges. Rather than viewing institutional homogenization as inherently problematic, policymakers could use it to correct market inefficiencies like supply and demand challenges. The shortage of nurses in Korea (see Lee, 2023), for example, is likely being addressed through the joint efforts of colleges and universities in training and producing nurses with similar qualifications.
Unchecked isomorphism, however, has its challenges, as pointed out earlier (ie confusion in the international student marketplace). We are also concerned about a skills mismatch where colleges and universities are pumping out graduates with homogenised skillsets. This type of sub-optimisation can result in high youth unemployment rates and students working in careers unrelated to their academic majors, which are already concerns in Korea (see Sungmin and Lee, 2023).
To conclude, our study notes that institutional isomorphism is a global phenomenon, with similar trends observed in countries such as China, the US, and Australia (see Bae, Grimm, and Kim, 2023; Bük, Atakan-Duman, and Paşamehmetoğlu, 2017; Hartley and Morphew, 2008; Saichaie and Morphew, 2014; Taylor and Morphew, 2010). Further research is needed to assess whether isomorphism in higher education lends to competitive market advantages beyond Korea.
Edward Choi is an Assistant Professor at Underwood International College, Yonsei University. His research interests centre on a range of topics: Korean higher education, traditional Korean education, the internationalisation of higher education, and the global phenomenon of family-owned universities.
Young Jae Kim was a student at Underwood International College, Yonsei University.
In February 2025, five years after the UK formally left the EU, Sir Keir Starmer became the first UK Prime Minister since Brexit to head to Brussels to join a meeting of EU leaders. The trip was packaged as part of a “reset” in relations between the UK and the EU, albeit caveated with promises that the UK government is not seeking to re-join the EU’s single market or customs union, nor sign up to the principle of freedom of movement.
With President Donald Trump back in the White House and war ongoing in Ukraine, closer cooperation between the UK and EU in areas of security and defence will be vital to maintain pressure on Russia and bring about peace on the continent. Enhancing trade between the UK and EU will also be a key ambition shared by both parties, given the looming threat of American tariffs and the need to secure economic growth.
Youth mobility
The process of resetting the UK-EU relationship by the spring is one to watch for the UK’s higher education sector. This is because, while the EU has the power to ease restrictions on UK businesses to improve British trade prospects, the UK also has something that many in the EU want in return: namely the power to reinstate a youth mobility scheme between the UK and the EU.
At its most ambitious, such a scheme could allow young people from the UK and Europe the freedom to travel across countries to study and work as was the norm before Brexit. A curtailed version could at least see mobility enacted for shorter, time-limited placements. Either way, UK universities could find themselves becoming an important bargaining chip in any future renegotiations.
Bargaining power
Given the demand for a return of youth mobility is greater in the EU-27 than it is in Britain, UK ministers understandably remain cautious about giving the green light to this idea too soon. The recent gains of the populist Reform UK party in public popularity polls will likely also enhance this nervousness. Moreover, with the policy in clear breach of the UK Government’s own ‘red line’ on freedom of movement, British officials are playing down the prospect of any return to youth mobility between the two powers.
UK universities could find themselves becoming an important bargaining chip in any future renegotiations
Yet, as anybody who has ever been involved in some sort of negotiation knows, the key to a good outcome is not showing your own hand too early in the process. Doing so may significantly weaken your bargaining power and ability to leverage the situation in your own favour. The possibility of the UK offering a youth mobility concession to European leaders to secure more lucrative trading conditions and pump-prime economic growth may not, therefore, be completely off the table.
Risky business
In the past, the UK higher education sector would have been first to welcome the return to Britain of a youth mobility scheme such as Erasmus+. However, the current financial troubles facing the sector are likely to dampen university managers’ enthusiasm for any measures that would see EU students once again regarded as ‘home’ students, thereby capping the fees they pay.
The introduction of youth mobility measures would provide a welcome boost to the diversity of UK student populations by making it easier for those from less privileged backgrounds in Europe to study in Britain. However, with universities now focusing on their bottom line rather than the size and shape of their student intakes, any concessions that could reduce the revenue-generating potential of EU students could destabilise universities’ finances at a time when every penny counts.
Balancing act
The big question facing the higher education sector, then, is whether there is a proposal the UK government could make involving UK-EU student mobility that reconciles universities’ search for greater diversity on campus and enhanced prospects for their students with their need for extra income.
As it stands, the future of UK and EU students rests in the back pocket of the UK Prime Minister. Whether he pulls a student mobility scheme out as a trump card to get a beneficial deal for the British economy depends on the messages UK universities send to ministers and officials over the coming months.
Not enough noise about potential changes to the status of EU students could leave universities exposed without a financial compensation package from Treasury to cover any headline fee changes that a new youth mobility programme would incur. Yet, too much noise would also risk negative headlines around the world that international students are nothing more than lucrative cash flows for hard-up institutions.
The political reset ahead represents a balancing act for UK higher education. The key is whether we can find a solution that opens up UK universities and their students’ prospects further to the outside world while stabilising them financially so they can continue to transform lives for generations to come.
The post Beech-side views: Here’s looking at EU! appeared first on The PIE News.
Reports say that Indian Students in the US are becoming collateral damage amidst President Donald Trump’s Mass Deportation Drive. The Indian students entered the US legally, on valid visas. But they say they are now being subjected to more frequent questioning from US immigration officials. They say uniformed officers have been questioning them more frequently, and demanding to see their student IDs and documents. Is Trump’s deportation drive becoming an all out purge of migrants, irrespective of whether they’re in the US legally or not?
The case will be heard at London’s High Court April 1-3, the Independent Schools Council (ISC), which represents private schools in the UK, revealed this week.
It’s the latest step in its furious battle to overturn a policy – key to the Labour party’s election manifesto before it regained power in July 2024 – to start levying VAT on private school fees.
The ISC said its case, led by prominent human rights barrister Lord Pannick KC, would argue that the VAT policy “impedes access to education in independent schools” and is therefore incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
In the case, the ISC is supporting six families impacted by the policy, and the defendent in UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves.
The case is being heard on an expedited basis following a successful argument from Lord Pannick that parents needed certainty because they are already feeling the effects of the policy.
ISC CEO Julie Robinson said the organisation’s aim was to “protect the rights” of families and young people “who are having their choice removed from them”.
“This is an unprecedented tax on education – it is right that its compatibility with human rights law is tested,” she continued. “We believe the diversity within independent schools has been ignored in the haste to implement this damaging policy, with families and, ultimately, children, bearing the brunt of the negative impacts this rushed decision is already having.”
This is an unprecedented tax on education – it is right that its compatibility with human rights law is tested
Julie Robinson, ISC
Reeves confirmed in October that the party would be slapping a 20% tax on fees for January 2025, leading to fears from independent boarding schools that their intake of international students could plummet.
Experts predicted that although some schools would choose to swallow the loss of revenue, most would be forced to raise their fees an average of 10-15% to cover costs.
An online private school told The PIE News earlier this month that it has seen a “five-fold” surge in interest from parents since the VAT policy was announced last year.
CEO of Minerva’s Virtual Academy, Hugh Viney, credited the rise in demand to the VAT policy, as he said the school’s fees are “good value” and much less than most private schools at under £8,500 per year – a price that has always included VAT and is therefore unchanged by the new legislation.
Jason Clare implemented the direction after his Bill was downvoted by the Coalition and Greens. Picture: Brett Hartwig
Ministerial Direction 111 (MD111) is the new way of processing international student visa applications and has replaced Ministerial Direction 107. It came into effect on December 19, 2024.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
Speaking at an event in Glasgow this week, John Swinney blasted the UK’s “disastrous” decision to leave the European Union, but suggested a new migration route specifically for students who choose to study in Scotland.
“Twenty years ago, the Scottish and UK governments worked together to launch a tailored migration route designed to enable international students to stay in Scotland after they graduated,” he said. “I see no reason why this cannot happen again.”
Under the plans, designed to keep highly skilled graduates in the country, the Scottish Graduate Visa would be linked to a Scottish tax code and be issued on the understanding that recipients would live and work in Scotland.
But despite Swinney’s assurances that he was “ready to work with” Downing Street on making the proposal a reality, his idea already appears to have been rebuffed by the UK government.
A government spokesperson quoted by The Evening Standard indicated that there were “no plans” for a new Scottish visa, citing the UK’s Graduate Route already in place that allows international students to stay in the country for up to two years after they graduate.
In his speech, Swinney said a new Scottish Graduate Visa would benefit not only the country’s institutions but its economy after international students’ graduation, highlighting that this group contributes £4.75 billion a year.
“In small but important ways, it would make our economy more robust, and our public services more sustainable. It would play a part in making our communities more prosperous,” he said.
In small but important ways, it would make our economy more robust, and our public services more sustainable
John Swinney, Scottish first minister
Pointing out that Scotland’s projected population is expected to dip for the next two generations, Universities Scotland convener Paul Grice highlighted the benefits a Scottish Graduate Visa could bring the country and said he hoped the proposal would “progress in a meaningful way”.
“It would be enormously helpful if a policy space could be created between governments to consider greater regional variation of migration within an overall UK framework,” he said.
“Inward migration will be essential to Scotland’s future and there is a really positive opportunity for Scotland’s universities, as magnets for the attraction and retention of highly-skilled people, to help deliver this as a win-win for the sector and Scotland as a whole. There is a lot to like in this outline proposal.”
Although it does not appear to welcome the idea of a Scottish Graduate Visa for the time being, the UK government seems to be embracing international students.
This week, education secretary Bridget Phillipson recorded a video message to international students in the UK promoting the country’s post-graduation work opportunities.
Rachel
Oglesby most recently served as America First Policy Institute’s Chief
State Action Officer & Director, Center for the American Worker. In
this role, she worked to advance policies that promote worker freedom,
create opportunities outside of a four-year college degree, and provide
workers with the necessary skills to succeed in the modern economy, as
well as leading all of AFPI’s state policy development and advocacy
work. She previously worked as Chief of Policy and Deputy Chief of Staff
for Governor Kristi Noem in South Dakota, overseeing the implementation
of the Governor’s pro-freedom agenda across all policy areas and state
government agencies. Oglesby holds a master’s degree in public policy
from George Mason University and earned her bachelor’s degree in
philosophy from Wake Forest University.
Jonathan Pidluzny – Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Programs
Jonathan
Pidluzny most recently served as Director of the Higher Education
Reform Initiative at the America First Policy Institute. Prior to that,
he was Vice President of Academic Affairs at the American Council of
Trustees and Alumni, where his work focused on academic freedom and
general education. Jonathan began his career in higher education
teaching political science at Morehead State University, where he was an
associate professor, program coordinator, and faculty regent from
2017-2019. He received his Ph.D from Boston College and holds a
bachelor’s degree and master’s degree from the University of Alberta.
Chase Forrester – Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations
Virginia
“Chase” Forrester most recently served as the Chief Events Officer at
America First Policy Institute, where she oversaw the planning and
execution of 80+ high-profile events annually for AFPI’s 22 policy
centers, featuring former Cabinet Officials and other distinguished
speakers. Chase previously served as Operations Manager on the
Trump-Pence 2020 presidential campaign, where she spearheaded all event
operations for the Vice President of the United States and the Second
Family. Chase worked for the National Republican Senatorial Committee
during the Senate run-off races in Georgia and as a fundraiser for
Members of Congress. Chase graduated from Clemson University with a
bachelor’s degree in political science and a double-minor in Spanish and
legal studies.
Steve Warzoha – White House Liaison
Steve
Warzoha joins the U.S. Department of Education after most recently
serving on the Trump-Vance Transition Team. A native of Greenwich, CT,
he is a former local legislator who served on the Education Committee
and as Vice Chairman of both the Budget Overview and Transportation
Committees. He is also an elected leader of the Greenwich Republican
Town Committee. Steve has run and served in senior positions on numerous
local, state, and federal campaigns. Steve comes from a family of
educators and public servants and is a proud product of Greenwich Public
Schools and an Eagle Scout.
Tom Wheeler – Principal Deputy General Counsel
Tom
Wheeler’s prior federal service includes as the Acting Assistant
Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, a
Senior Advisor to the White House Federal Commission on School Safety,
and as a Senior Advisor/Counsel to the Secretary of Education. He has
also been asked to serve on many Boards and Commissions, including as
Chair of the Hate Crimes Sub-Committee for the Federal Violent Crime
Reduction Task Force, a member of the Department of Justice’s Regulatory
Reform Task Force, and as an advisor to the White House Coronavirus
Task Force, where he worked with the CDC and HHS to develop guidelines
for the safe reopening of schools and guidelines for law enforcement and
jails/prisons. Prior to rejoining the U.S. Department of Education, Tom
was a partner at an AM-100 law firm, where he represented federal,
state, and local public entities including educational institutions and
law enforcement agencies in regulatory, administrative, trial, and
appellate matters in local, state and federal venues. He is a frequent
author and speaker in the areas of civil rights, free speech, and
Constitutional issues, improving law enforcement, and school safety.
Craig Trainor – Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office for Civil Rights
Craig
Trainor most recently served as Senior Special Counsel with the U.S.
House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary under Chairman Jim
Jordan (R-OH), where Mr. Trainor investigated and conducted oversight of
the U.S. Department of Justice, including its Civil Rights Division,
the FBI, the Biden-Harris White House, and the Intelligence Community
for civil rights and liberties abuses. He also worked as primary counsel
on the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited
Government’s investigation into the suppression of free speech and
antisemitic harassment on college and university campuses, resulting in
the House passing the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023. Previously, he
served as Senior Litigation Counsel with the America First Policy
Institute under former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, Of Counsel
with the Fairness Center, and had his own civil rights and criminal
defense law practice in New York City for over a decade. Upon graduating
from the Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, he
clerked for Chief Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of New York. Mr. Trainor is admitted to
practice law in the state of New York, the U.S. District Court for the
Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Madi Biedermann – Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Communications and Outreach
Madi
Biedermann is an experienced education policy and communications
professional with experience spanning both federal and state government
and policy advocacy organizations. She most recently worked as the Chief
Operating Officer at P2 Public Affairs. Prior to that, she served as an
Assistant Secretary of Education for Governor Glenn Youngkin and worked
as a Special Assistant and Presidential Management Fellow at the Office
of Management and Budget in the first Trump Administration. Madi
received her bachelor’s degree and master of public administration from
the University of Southern California.
Candice Jackson – Deputy General Counsel
Candice
Jackson returns to the U.S. Department of Education to serve as Deputy
General Counsel. Candice served in the first Trump Administration as
Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, and Deputy General Counsel,
from 2017-2021. For the last few years, Candice has practiced law in
Washington State and California and consulted with groups and
individuals challenging the harmful effects of the concept of “gender
identity” in laws and policies in schools, employment, and public
accommodations. Candice is mom to girl-boy twins Madelyn and Zachary,
age 11.
Joshua Kleinfeld – Deputy General Counsel
Joshua
Kleinfeld is the Allison & Dorothy Rouse Professor of Law and
Director of the Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative
State at George Mason University’s Scalia School of Law. He writes and
teaches about constitutional law, criminal law, and statutory
interpretation, focusing in all fields on whether democratic ideals are
realized in governmental practice. As a scholar and public intellectual,
he has published work in the Harvard, Stanford, and University of
Chicago Law Reviews, among other venues. As a practicing lawyer, he has
clerked on the D.C. Circuit, Fourth Circuit, and Supreme Court of
Israel, represented major corporations accused of billion-dollar
wrongdoing, and, on a pro bono basis, represented children accused of
homicide. As an academic, he was a tenured full professor at
Northwestern Law School before lateraling to Scalia Law School. He holds
a J.D. in law from Yale Law School, a Ph.D. in philosophy from the
Goethe University of Frankfurt, and a B.A. in philosophy from Yale
College.
Hannah Ruth Earl – Director, Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships
Hannah
Ruth Earl is the former executive director of America’s Future, where
she cultivated communities of freedom-minded young professionals and
local leaders. She previously co-produced award-winning feature films as
director of talent and creative development at the Moving Picture
Institute. A native of Tennessee, she holds a master of arts in religion
from Yale Divinity School.
AFPI Reform Priorities
AFPI’s higher education priorities are to:
Related links:
StatsCan dropped some college financial data over the XMAS holidays. I know you guys are probably sick of this subject, but it’s still good to have some national data—even if it is eighteen months out of date and doesn’t really count the last frenzied months of the international student gold rush (aka “doing the Conestoga”). But it does cover the year in which everyone now agrees student visa numbers “got out of control,” so there are some interesting things to be learned here nonetheless.
To start, let’s look quickly at college income by source. Figure 1, below, shows that college income did rise somewhat in 2022-23, due mainly to an increase in tuition income (up 35% between the nadir COVID year of 20-21 and 22-23). But overall, once inflation is taken into account, the increase in college income really wasn’t all that big: about a billion dollars in 2021-22 and about the same again in 2022-23, or about 6-7% per year after inflation. Good? Definitely. Way above what universities were managing, and well above most sectors internationally? But it’s not exactly the banditry that some communicators (including the unofficial national minister of higher education, Marc Miller) like to imply.
Figure 1: College Income by Source, Canada, 2017-18 to 2022-23, in Billions of $2022
Now I know a few of you are looking at this and scratching your heads, asking what the hell is going on in Figure 1. After all, haven’t I (among others) made the point about record surpluses in the college sector? Well, yes. But I’ve only ever really been talking about Ontario, which is the only province where international tuition fees have really taken flight. In Figure 2, I put the results for Ontario and for the other nine provinces side-by-side. And you can see how different the two are. Ontario has seen quite large increases in income, mainly through tuition fees and by ancillary income bouncing back to where it was pre-COVID, while in the other nine provinces income growth is basically non-existent in any of the three categories.
Figure 2a/b. College Income by Source, Ontario vs Other Nine Provinces, 2017-18 to 2022-23, in Billions of $2022
(As an aside, just note here that over 70% of all college tuition income is collected in the province of Ontario, which is kind of wild. At the national level, Canada’s college sector is not really a sector at all…their aims, goals, tools, and income patterns all diverge enormously.)
Figure 3 drills down a little bit on the issue of tuition fee income to show where they have been growing and where they have not. One might look at this and think its irreconcilable with Figure 2, since tuition fees in the seven smaller provinces seem to be increasing at a rate similar to Ontario. What that should tell you, though, is that the base tuition from which these figures are rising are pretty meagre in the seven smallest provinces, and quite significant in Ontario. (Also, remember that in Ontario, domestic tuition fees fell by over 20% or so after inflation between 2019-20 and 2022-23, so this chart is actually underplaying the growth in international fees in that province a bit.)
Figure 3: Change in Real Aggregate Tuition Income by Province, 2017-18 to 2022-23, (2017-18 = 100)
Now I want to look specifically at some of the data with respect to expenditures and to try to ask the question: where did that extra $2.2 billion that the sector acquired in 21-22 and 22-23 (of which, recall, over 70% went to Ontario alone) go?
Figure 4 answers this question in precise detail, and once again the answer depends on whether you are talking about Ontario or the rest of the country. The biggest jump in expenditures by far is “contracted services” in Ontario—an increase of over $500M in just two years. This is probably as close a look as we will ever get at the economics of those PPP colleges that were set up around the GTA since most of this sum is almost certainly made up of public college payments to those institutions for paying the new students had arrived in those two years. If you assume the increase in international students at those colleges was about 40,000 (for a variety of reasons, an exact count on this is difficult), then that implies that colleges were paying their PPP partners about $12,500 per student on average and pocketing the difference, which would have been anywhere between about $2,500 and $10,000, depending on the campus and program. And of course, most of the funds spent on PPP were spent one way or another on teaching expenses for these students.
Figure 4: Change in Expenditures/Surplus, Canadian Colleges 2022-23 vs 2020-21, Ontario vs. Other 9 Provinces, in millions of 2022
On top of that, Ontario colleges threw an extra $300 million into new construction (this is a bit of an exaggeration because 2020-21 was a COVID year and building expenses were abnormally low), and an extra $260 million (half a billion in total) thrown into reserve funds for future years. This last is money that probably would have ended up as capital expenditures in future years if the feds hadn’t come crashing in and destroying the whole system last year but will now probably get used to cover losses over the next year or two instead. Meanwhile, in the rest of Canada, surpluses decreased between 2020-21 and 2022-23, and such spending increases as occurred came mostly under the categories “miscellaneous” and “ancillary enterprises.”
2022-23 of course was not quite “peak international student” so this analysis can’t quite tell the full story of how international students affected colleges. We’ll need to wait another 11 months for that data to show up. But I doubt that the story I have outlined based on the data available to date will not change too much. In short, the financials show that:
If there was “empire building” going on, it was in the form of constructing new buildings, not in terms of massive salary rises or hiring sprees.
