Tag: headlines

  • key headlines from East and Southeast Asia

    key headlines from East and Southeast Asia

    From China’s TNE reforms, to Japan’s internationalisation push, East Asia is in the midst of a drive to attract more international students. Meanwhile, Southeast Asian countries are deepening higher education links with the UK and Australia while seeking to attract international students themselves.

    Here’s The PIE’s pick of the biggest international education stories of the region from the year that’s just gone.

    1. Universities across ASEAN join forces to strengthen HE collaboration and partnerships

    At the ASEAN Universities Exhibition and Forum 2025, which brought together universities from across Southeast Asia, more than 10 collaborations were signed between ASEAN institutions, highlighting growing regional cooperation in higher education. The forum also emphasised a collective commitment to strengthening Asia’s position as a “rising contender” to the traditional big four study destinations.

    Key announcements included the soft launch of the ASEAN Global Exchange for Mobility & Scholarship (ASEAN GEMS) platform and the launch of the ASEAN Student Mobility Program in collaboration with Universiti Utara Malaysia and 13 Malaysian universities, with transnational education being underscored as a “key pillar” of the region’s higher education future.

    2. East Asian countries view internationalisation as key to sustaining regional economic growth

    In 2025, most East Asian countries were clear that international students and intra-regional mobility are key to sustaining strong economic growth. The “Asian tigers” — Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore — have been central to this shift, with places like Hong Kong actively diversifying their student body to include learners from India, Nigeria, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and other emerging markets.

    While enrolments from East Asia to UK universities remain steady, rising price sensitivity and expanding regional options are reshaping student flows. At the same time, uneven wage growth across East Asia has coincided with student mobility within the region growing faster between 2013 and 2020 than mobility to major English-speaking destinations.

    3. Malaysia’s rise as Asia’s “belle of the ball” for international students

    The Southeast Asian country has seen a 26% rise in international applications over the past two years and has set a target of hosting 250,000 international students by 2030.

    With the majority of applications coming from China, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan, the Malaysian government announced plans last year to introduce a centralised system aimed at streamlining international student admissions, alongside collaboration with source countries to ensure a “smooth and secure” process.

    Moreover, Malaysia is seeking to grow recruitment from Central Asia and Africa, though the planned introduction of a 6% service tax on private education services for non-Malaysian students has raised concerns about the destination’s long-term attractiveness.

    4. Chinese student demand softens for the Big Four, especially the US

    A July 2025 webinar confirmed what many had long suspected: China is no longer the “easy goldmine” it once was. Chinese students are increasingly opting for alternatives closer to home, with countries like the US and Canada seeing notable declines in Chinese enrolments, while destinations such as the UK, Australia and New Zealand have shown opposite trends.

    This shift comes as China issued warnings to its student nationals in April last year to exercise caution when planning to study in certain US states following the passage of Ohio’s higher education bill, which restricts Chinese partnerships.

    At the same time, the Trump administration pledged to “aggressively revoke” visas for Chinese students with links to the Chinese Communist Party or those studying in “critical fields”, although the President has since defended Chinese students as an important part of the US higher education system on separate occasions.

    5. China aims to expand TNE enrolments from 800,000 to eight million within a decade

    In 2025, China’s education ministry announced a series of updates to its TNE policy during a briefing for international diplomatic missions, as part of efforts to scale up TNE enrolments nationwide.

    The revised framework eases several restrictions, including removing the 1,200-student enrolment cap previously applied to joint education institutes and programmes. It also expands flexibility beyond the traditional 4+0 model to include 3+1 and other blended formats that allow students to spend part of their studies overseas, while enabling institutions to submit multiple applications within a single approval cycle.

    Against this backdrop, a Universities Australia delegation led by chair Carolyn Evans and supported by CEO Luke Sheehy visited Shenzhen and Beijing in October 2025 to renew partnerships in education, research and innovation, with the aim of deepening cooperation in areas critical to both countries, including clean energy, advanced manufacturing, health and technology.

    6. Japan moves to increase international students and researchers

    Japan’s Ministry of Education (MEXT) is planning to raise enrolment caps at select institutions to boost international student numbers.

    Under the proposals, some universities, junior colleges and technical colleges would be allowed to exceed their enrolment limits by up to 5% from the next academic year, starting in April 2026. The move forms part of the government’s push to meet its target of attracting 400,000 international students by 2033.

    In parallel, Japan has launched a new program aimed at attracting overseas researchers to 11 institutions as it seeks to position itself as a world-class research hub. Led by MEXT, the initiative will see ¥3.3bn allocated across the universities to support researchers over the next three years.

    7. South Korea hits 300k international student goal two years ahead of schedule

    International student enrolments in South Korea surpassed 300,000 for the first time in August 2025, according to government immigration data, with more than a third of students coming from Vietnam. Chinese students made up 28% of the total, followed by smaller cohorts from Uzbekistan, Mongolia and Nepal.

    The growth has been driven largely by government policy, particularly the launch of the “Study Korea 300K” initiative in 2023, which aimed to reach the target by 2027.

    Measures under the strategy included easing financial requirements for D-2 student visas, expanding permitted working hours during study, extending post-study job-seeking periods, and stepping up recruitment in Southeast and Central Asia. Universities were also given greater flexibility to introduce English-taught programmes and strengthen student support.

    However, challenges remain, with experts pointing to a lack of clear pathways linking international students to employers. Students and the labour market remain largely disconnected, even as around 90% of international students hope to stay and work in South Korea after graduation.

    8. China rolls out K visa in bid to attract international talent

    Effective since October 1, the K visa is open to international youths with undergraduate or STEM degrees from leading domestic and global research institutions, as well as early-career professionals engaged in education and research in STEM fields.

    The visa is designed to offer greater convenience through multiple entries, longer validity, and extended stay durations, while also facilitating exchanges and collaboration across education, science, technology, culture, business, and entrepreneurship, with applications assessed based on age, education, and work experience rather than requiring sponsorship from a local enterprise.

    The move comes amid declining interest in pursuing artificial intelligence degrees in the US, alongside growing interest in studying AI in China. The K visa is being seen as a significant step in China’s efforts to attract young international science and technology talent and challenge US technological leadership.

    9. Monash opens second Malaysia campus amid Australia’s Southeast Asia push

    Monash University Malaysia will partner with TRX City, developer of Kuala Lumpur’s Tun Razak Exchange, to deliver its RM2.8 billion (USD $1bn) investment in a new campus aimed at deepening engagement in the ASEAN region.

    Scheduled to open in 2032, the campus will eventually accommodate 22,500 students and 1,700 staff, featuring cutting-edge research centres in energy transition, health, AI, and data science.

    The move aligns with Invested: Australia’s Southeast Asia Economic Strategy to 2040, which seeks to strengthen ties between Australia and Southeast Asia across education, agriculture, and resources.

    10. TOEIC cheating in Japan raises questions about paper-based test delivery

    Japan cancelled 803 TOEIC scores following a student’s arrest for cheating, prompting a review of tests taken since May 2023.

    The testing company said maintaining the integrity and fairness of its assessments is a top priority, with security measures described as “multilayered” and “regionally adaptive”.

    11. China and Japan warn students about safety in each other’s countries

    Last year, China and Japan issued safety warnings for students amid rising diplomatic tensions. China’s Ministry of Education cited “social unrest” and increasing crimes against Chinese nationals in Japan, while Japan advised its citizens in China, particularly students, to exercise extra caution and said it was working to ensure their safety.

    The warnings followed Japanese PM Sanae Takaichi’s statement that any Chinese military action against Taiwan could threaten Japan’s survival, prompting Beijing to call the remarks “brazenly provocative”.

    With over 123,000 Chinese students in Japan and more than 10,000 Japanese students in China as of May 2024, both countries are now expected to see a decline in student enrolments.

    12. First UK-Australia university campus opens in Indonesia

    The Deakin Lancaster Indonesia University (DLI) campus, first announced in January 2024, officially opened in Bandung, West Java, on February 26, 2025.

    The campus represents the first UK-Australian transnational education (TNE) partnership in Indonesia, allowing students to complete dual undergraduate degrees from Deakin University and Lancaster University without leaving the country.

    13. Vietnam’s growing international education strategy and UK partnership gain traction

    Vietnam aims to increase international students from 0.5% to 1.5% of enrolments and improve the global standing of its universities, targeting top-500 positions worldwide and top-200 in Asia. The government’s 2030 strategy focuses on advancing education, science, research, and innovation, with a vision extending to 2045.

    Separately, Vietnam is opening its doors to UK institutions to establish branches and expand operations, as the country positions itself as an emerging hub for international education.

    Source link

  • Subcontractual higher education beyond the headlines

    Subcontractual higher education beyond the headlines

    We’ve written a lot about subcontractual provision on Wonkhe, and it is fair to say that very little of it has been positive.

    What’s repeatedly hit the headlines, here and elsewhere, are the providers that teach large numbers of students in circumstances that have sparked concerns about teaching quality, academic standards, and indeed financial probity or even ethics.

    There are a fair number of students that are getting a very bad deal out of subcontractual agreements and, although we’ve been screaming about this for several years, it is good to finally see the beginnings of some action.

    Student number tools

    The long-awaited release of OfS data is not perfect – there’s lots that we’d love to see that does not appear to have been delivered. One of these is proper student numbers: it should be possible to see data on how many students are studying at each subcontracted provider at the last census point.

    Instead, we are scrabbling around with denominators and suppressions trying to build a picture of this part of the sector that is both heavily caveated and three years out of date. This isn’t good enough.

    And it is a shame. Because as well as the horror show, the data we do have offers a glimpse of a little known corner of higher education that arguably deserves to be celebrated.

    I’ve developed some new visualisations to help you explore the data – these add substantial new features to what I have previously published. Both these dashboards work in broadly the same way – the first allows you to examine relationships at delivery providers, the second at lead providers. You choose your provider of interest at the top left, which shows the various relationships on a map on the left hand side. On the right you can see denominator numbers for each year of data – you can use the filter at the top right to see information about the total number of students who might be continuing, completing, or progressing in a given year.

    Each row on the right hand side shows a combination of provider (lead provider on the first dashboard, delivery provider on the second), mode, and level – with denominators and suppression codes available in the coloured squares on the right. The suppression codes are as follows:

    • [DQ]: information suppressed due to low data quality from the 2022-23 collection
    • [low]: There are more than 2 but fewer than 23 students in the denominator
    • [none]: There are 2 students or fewer in the denominator
    • [DP]: Data redacted for reasons of data protection
    • [DPL]: Data redacted for reasons of data protection (very low numbers,
    • [DPH]: Data redacted for reasons of data protection (within 2 of the denominator)
    • [RR] below threshold response rate (for progression)
    • [BK] no benchmarks (the benchmark includes at least 50 per cent of the provider’s students)

    You can see available indicators (including upper and lower confidence intervals at 95%), benchmarks, and numeric thresholds by mousing over one of the coloured squares. The filled circle is the indicator, the outline diamond is the benchmark, and the cross is the threshold.

    [Full screen]

    [Full screen]

    A typology

    It’s worth noting the range of providers that are subcontracted to deliver higher education for others. There were an astonishing 681 of these between 2014 and 2022.

    A third of those active in delivering provision for others (227) are registered with the Office for Students in their own right. Fifty-nine of these are recognisable as universities or other established higher education providers – including 14 in the Russell Group.

    Why would that happen? In some cases, a provider may not have had the degree awarding powers necessary for research degrees, so would partner with another university to deliver particular courses. In other cases, the peculiarities of this data mean that apprenticeship arrangements are shown with the university partner. There’s also some examples of two universities working together to deliver a single programme.

    We also find many examples of longstanding collaborations between universities and teaching organisations in the arts. Numerous independent schools of dance, drama, and music have offered higher education qualifications with the support of a university – the Bird School’s relationship with the Doreen Bird College of Performing Arts began in 1997. Italia Conti used to have an arrangement with the University of East London, it now works with the University of Chichester.

    There are 135 organisations delivering apprenticeships in a relationship with an OfS-registered higher education provider. Universities often offer end point assessment and administrative support to employers and others who offer apprenticeships between level 4 and level 7.

    Two large providers – Navitas and QA – offer foundation courses and accredited year one courses for international students at UK universities: QA also offers a range of programmes aimed at home undergraduates. We could also add Into as a smaller example. This dataset probably isn’t the best place to see this (QA is shown as multiple, linked, organisations) but this is a huge area of provision

    Seventy-four subcontracted providers are schools, or school centred initial teacher training (SCITT) organisations. As teacher training has gradually moved closer to the classroom and away from the lecture hall, many schools offer opportunities to gain the industry-standard Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE), which is the main route to qualified teacher status. A PGCE is a postgraduate qualification and is thus only awarded by organisations with postgraduate degree awarding powers.

    In total there are 144 providers subcontracted to deliver PGCE (initial teacher training) courses, primarily schools, local councils, and further education colleges (FECs). There are 166 FECs involved in subcontracted delivery – and this extends far beyond teacher training. Most large FECs have a university centre or similar, offering a range of foundation and undergraduate courses often (but not always) in vocational subjects. The Newcastle College Group used its experience of delivering postgraduate taught masters courses for Canterbury Christ Church University to successfully apply for postgraduate degree awarding powers – the first FEC to do so.

    We find 23 NHS organisations represented within the data. Any provider delivering medical, medical related, or healthcare subjects will have a relationship with one or more NHS foundation trust – as a means to offer student placements, and bring clinical expertise into teaching. This is generally an accreditation requirement. But in many cases, the relationship extends to the university awarding credit or qualifications for the learning and training that NHS staff do. The Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust works with multiple providers (the University of Oxford, Oxford Brookes University, and Buckinghamshire New University), to offer postgraduate apprenticeships in clinical and non-clinical roles.

    Nine police organisations (either constabularies or police and crime commissioners) have subcontractual relationships with registered higher education providers. Teesside University works with the Chief Constable of Cleveland to offer an undergraduate apprenticeship for prospective police officers.

    All three of the UKs armed forces have subcontractual relationships with higher education providers. The British Army currently works with the University of Reading to offer undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in leadership and strategic studies – in the past it has offered a range of qualifications from Bournemouth University. Kingston University has a relationship with the Royal Navy, currently offering an MSc in Technology (Maritime Operations) undertaken entirely in the workplace.

    Ecosystem

    When I talk to people about franchise and partnership arrangements, most (perhaps thinking of the examples that make the mainstream press) ask me whether it would not be easier to simply ban such arrangements. After all, it is very difficult to see any benefit from the possibly fraudulent and often low quality behavior that is plastered all over The Times on a regular basis.

    As I think the data demonstrates, a straight-ahead ban would be hugely damaging – swathes of national priorities and achievements (from NHS staff development, to offering higher education in “cold spots”, to the quality of performances on London’s West End) would be adversely affected. But the same could be said for increases in regulatory overheads.

    There are a handful of very large providers (I’d start with Global Banking School, Elizabeth School of London, Navitas, QA, Into, London School of Science and Technology, and a few others – and from the data you’d have included Oxford Business Colleges) that are, effectively, university-like in size and scope. It is very difficult to understand why these are not registered providers given the scale of their operations (GBS, Into, and Navitas already are) and this does seem to be the right direction of travel.

    There are a clutch of medium-sized delivery providers, often in a single long-standing relationship with a higher education institution. Often, these are nano-specialisms, particularly in the creative arts or in locally important industries. In many of these cases oversight on quality and standards from the lead provider has been proven over a number of years to work well – and there seems little benefit to changing this arrangement. I would hope for this group – as is likely to happen for the FECs, SCITTs, NHS, police, and armed forces – that a change to regulatory oversight only happens where there is an issue identified.

    There is also a long tail of very small arrangements, often linked to apprenticeships (and regulated accordingly). For others at this end of the scale it is difficult to imagine OfS having the time or the capacity to regulate, so almost by default oversight remains with the lead partners. I know I say this in nearly every article, but at this end it feels like we need some kind of regular review of the way quality processes work for external providers within lead providers – we need to be sure lead providers are able to do what can be a very difficult job and do it well.

    Source link