Latitudes

From my bookshelf, some recommendations

One of the things that’s shifted most in the years I’ve been covering international education is the volume of research on the field. Scholars are digging into fundamental questions: What forces encourage, or discourage, global mobility? How can colleges serve students in more culturally nuanced ways? Is neonationalism reshaping international research?

As a journalist, I’ve found the flourishing of such scholarship invaluable, and it’s expanded the horizons of my reporting. For the first newsletter of 2024, I wanted to do something a little different and share three international-education books from the past year that left an impression.

First up, Constructing Student Mobility: How Universities Recruit Students and Shape Pathways Between Berkeley and Seoul, by Stephanie K. Kim. Kim’s book caught my eye because of the focus on colleges as actors in international mobility, an oft-overlooked middle ground in higher-ed literature that frequently centers on students or government policymakers. In part that decision was practical, Kim, an associate professor of the practice at Georgetown University’s School of Continuing Studies, told me in an interview: When she began her research, she was working in an administrative-staff position at the University of California at Berkeley. Unable to go overseas for field work, she used her immediate surroundings as a research site.

As a writer, I also appreciated Kim’s human touch, bringing to life the students, professors, and administrators she spoke with — and even putting a bit of herself on the pages. Our conversation was edited for length and clarity.

Universities have different priorities and needs that can affect international recruitment. How did you see those priorities influencing institutional approaches?

When I decided to focus on UC-Berkeley, I had to contextualize it as a university within a receiving country. Obviously, California is not a country, but it might feel like it sometimes. It’s the state with the largest international-student numbers. Profit is a strong motivation for these institutional actors. International students pay higher fees and make up for shrinking revenues. But at the same time, because these are public institutions, there’s also a strong public backlash against the perception that these institutions are seeking out profits at the expense of local students’ needs. That’s especially the case in California, where there’s this distinct discourse that’s emerged that international students are taking away seats from California students across the UC campuses. Because of that public backlash, you see regents putting in strict admissions quotas on how many international or how many non-California students they can take.

Even though those quotas are there, it doesn’t mean that the California higher-education system as a whole is not taking in international students. It’s just doing that in a more creative way, which is what the book explores. For example, California community colleges are now able to position and market themselves as transfer gateways into UC campuses that are not as accessible as they were before for international students. It’s also prestige-seeking because these colleges, which have been historically very much locally focused institutions, now have this global footing and are able to tap into global student markets.

In international-education circles, we focus primarily on China and India, and for good reason. But consistently for the last two decades, South Korea has been the third-largest sender of international students to the U.S. That’s amazing considering how relatively small the population is compared to a country like China or India. The question I was really interested in is how does a university in a sending country tap into global student markets as well? One way it does this is by retaining domestic students who might have otherwise studied abroad in the United States but now have an opportunity to pursue international education at home. And this is what Yonsei University did, in creating an American-style liberal-arts college, taught entirely in English, primarily by overseas recruited faculty members. On one hand, it’s definitely a profit-driven endeavor — the tuition for this college is double that of other parts of the university. But it’s also prestige-seeking because it aligns this Korean university with the prestige markers of a world-class university, with the American university model.

The international community-college transfer pathway is often underexplored. What did you discover?

It was fascinating talking to the Korean students because of how they would label themselves at Berkeley: “I’m a freshman student” or “I’m a transfer student.” Ironically, the label of transfer also implied rich international students, which is kind of funny when you think about what the purpose of community colleges has historically been. But the more accessible pathway into a community college was seen as an ability to pay to get in because there weren’t barriers to entry in terms of maintaining a certain GPA or getting certain test scores as for admission to Berkeley.

The wealthy international student is a common stereotype. When we talk about international students as a monolith, what are the implications?

When students are all painted as wealthy, privileged globetrotters, not only do they have to negotiate these stereotypes, but they’ve also internalized it. The very fact that students would describe themselves as freshman students or transfer students as meaningful markers that had class-laden stereotypes behind them was one example. Some international students would call other international students wealthy and privileged because it was a way that they could then deflect that label onto someone else. All of these things were a result of the way colleges have framed the increasing presence of international students for primarily financial reasons. That trickles down into the way students behave.

Do you think there are ways universities can break that stereotyping?

It would come down to reframing why colleges are bringing in international students in the first place, beyond the monetary reasons. Think of the rhetoric around the way the UC system considers international students — as a way to subsidize the tuition of California residents. It’s painted the picture that these students are there first and foremost for financial reasons and any other auxiliary benefits are secondary. It doesn’t mean that you can’t think of students as a form of revenue, but it has to go hand in hand with something much more fundamental and meaningful to the student experience.

But isn’t that framing a direct response to the critique that international students are taking away seats from Californians?

The assumption is that it’s a zero-sum game. That’s a false dichotomy to say that one group of students is taking away seats from the other. It’s scapegoating. If there is any shift in the percentage of California students, that really is an intentional state-policy decision.

Despite the way international students are often framed as financial resources, I think what can be done most immediately on a practitioner level is reprioritizing the needs of the students. Thinking through what are the needs of international students as opposed to what are the needs of the college as we bring in new students, I think that’s key to creating a healthier student experience.

Is this the book you set out to write?

Yes, in the sense that the actual crux of the argument itself didn’t change much as I was writing it. I think what changed was I put a lot more of myself in the book than I had originally intended to. If I’m interviewing a student, I actually put myself in the exchange or I talk about what I was reflecting on or my own thought process, almost like breaking the fourth wall. I didn’t intend to do that initially because it’s a scholarly book. But I thought to write an honest analysis, I have to put in the actual engagement, the reflective piece. Still, I didn’t want the book to be about me per se. I guess the whole beauty of writing my book is I can write it the way I want to write.

What about future projects? Is there another book percolating in you?

I’m doing something different, completely away from international students, but I’m engaging with similar questions about race and racism and xenophobia in higher education. I couldn’t ignore what’s just happening at the national-policy level on things like anti-China rhetoric and how that then trickles down into the way universities are funded and how they operate. I’m in the very beginning stages of a new project that looks at how xenophobia becomes operationalized in American higher education.

Global views of college equity

But they also dig into what can be done to reduce inequities, such as peer mentorships for low-income and rural students at China’s elite Fudan University, and scholarships and other support for disabled students at the University of Gondar in Ethiopia. As a bonus, the link above includes video interviews with some of the authors, as well as a toolkit for developing campus equity programming.

A broad look at a black-and-white subject

I also found value in hearing from both students and agents themselves, in addition to scholars and college administrators, as well as in the global sweep of the book — not surprising since its editors are on three different continents. I connected via email with Pii-Tuulia Nikula, an associate professor at Eastern Institute of Technology, in New Zealand; Vincenzo Raimo, an independent higher-education consultant and visiting fellow at the University of Reading, in Britain; and Eddie West, an assistant dean of international strategy and programs at San Diego State University. Their responses have been lightly edited for clarity and length.

What’s the most important takeaway from your book?

Raimo: That the global mobility of students is big business with an increasing number of commercial intermediaries providing services to future students at one end and educational institutions at the other. The fact that many of the new commercial intermediaries are financed by private equity and venture capital has heightened the focus on short-term targets and financial returns, making the need for student protections ever more important.

West: The realm of agent-based international-student recruitment is complex and dynamic, and there are about as many opinions and perspectives among stakeholders as there are stakeholders. Given the significant role agents play in the global student-mobility environment, far more attention to current and evolving practice is warranted. We hope our book catalyzes more such discussion and examination.

Nikula: One of the key takeaways is that we need to understand the views and practices of all key stakeholders to make informed decisions. This knowledge is essential if we want to mitigate problems and advance good practices across the sector.

What was the most surprising thing you learned when researching and editing the book?

Raimo: That in most of the receiving countries of international students, the work of international-student-recruitment agents remains a largely hidden activity — hidden from society at large but also hidden within education institutions so that most professors have very limited understanding of how many of the international students sitting in their classrooms have been recruited or that commercial intermediaries are paid on successful student enrollment.

West: In hindsight it shouldn’t have been surprising, but working on this book opened my eyes to the fact that as discussion and debate about agents regularly occurs among educational institutions in leading destination countries — like the U.S., Australia, the U.K., New Zealand, and Canada — we should recognize that it’s a far more worldwide phenomenon than that. The chapter by Enrico Sartor on agent use among Italian higher-education institutions is one such reminder. It would be fascinating to look at agent use among other non-English-speaking destination countries, including those of the so-called Global South. I suspect it’s a realm of activity that’s likely far larger than those of us in “usual suspect” countries realize.

Nikula: I found the idea of using an existing global-consumer-protection network as a platform to help protect international students’ rights really interesting. It was also interesting how many of the authors, working separately and representing different stakeholder views, touched on issues related to information asymmetry. The book emphasizes the need for increased transparency across the sector.

What sort of nuance do you hope your work will bring to the discussion around agents?

Nikula: I hope the book illustrates the fact that two things can be true at the same time: Agents can be good and bad, just like stakeholders, such as higher-education institutions, can have both good and bad practices. It really comes down to universities themselves doing their homework, making informed decisions, and, if deciding to use agents, providing sufficient resources for their agent-management functions.

Crystal-ball time: What’s the most important trend to watch when it comes to agents? How do you think that development could shape the ways that colleges work with agents in the future?

Nikula: I’m personally very interested in seeing how artificial intelligence — such as chatbots, machine learning, predictive analytics, process automation, and language tools — will be used by both universities and agents and its impacts on international-student recruitment. There will be new opportunities and potential pitfalls associated with this pivot that will need to be carefully considered and managed. Another area, while perhaps not among the most important trends yet, is the increasing emphasis on environmental sustainability by many higher-education institutions and how that will look in their international operations, including their agent-engagement practices. Some agents are now demonstrating leadership and have their own sustainability strategies, but universities can also influence and support their agent partners in this area. These discussions will become more and more important in the next couple of years as we need to take rapid action to respond to the climate crisis.

West: With the advent of generative AI it feels like we’re on the cusp of a “next-level” profusion in digital content — a kind of Cambrian explosion of online information. Most of that is likely to be noise, not signal. It’s now almost cliché to point this out, but I don’t think traditional agents will be displaced by AI as much as they may be displaced by agents who learn how to effectively use AI. The same may be true of international-education professionals. And at the risk of waxing over-philosophical, the importance of agents and other stakeholders centering what might fairly be called natural intelligence in their work could become that much more important as artificially produced content proliferates. I also second Pii-Tuulia’s observation about the climate crisis inevitably impacting global student mobility, including the work of agents. As in any field there’ll be leaders and laggards in terms of recognizing not just the existential threat, but also the immense opportunity. Higher-education institutions will need to carefully consider both of these developments, AI and climate, far more consciously and proactively than we currently do in order to be successful.

Raimo: We have seen universities, particularly in Australia and the U.K., but also increasingly elsewhere in the world, becoming overly focused on student numbers and tuition fees collected that they are failing to give proper attention to the full cost of student acquisition. We have seen spiraling commission rates being asked for by agents and paid by universities desperate to meet ever more ambitious short-term student-recruitment targets. There will come a point, and I think we’re close to it now, when some universities start seriously asking themselves whether the cost of working with agents is really worth it — financially and ethically.

Around the globe

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security released updated policy guidance for international students, including clarifying that student-visa holders who apply for work and other immigrant visas may still be able to demonstrate their intention to depart after a temporary period of stay. The failure to prove that an applicant doesn’t intend to move permanently to the United States is a major reason for visa denials.

The Homeland Security Department is increasing premium-processing fees for student and other visas to reflect inflation.

A new law in California will make it easier for undocumented students to apply for state financial aid.

A student at Prague’s Charles University shot and killed 14 people on campus, the worst mass shooting in Czech history.

The University of Haifa suspended eight Arab students for allegedly expressing support for Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel, pending disciplinary proceedings.

Three students at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst were told they could not study abroad during the spring semester after they were put on campus sanction or probation as a result of their arrests for trespassing as part of a pro-Palestinian protest.

Japan’s government hopes changes to give outside experts a greater voice in university decisions will help institutions there regain lost prestige, but critics fear they will add to the bureaucracy and encourage scientists to emphasize applied research.

A Chinese high-school exchange student in Utah was found safe after his parents were extorted for $80,000 in a “cyber kidnapping” scam.

The China Education Association for International Exchange and the U.S.-China Education Trust will host a workshop to help American and Chinese educators increase the number of American students in China. Study-abroad in China has taken a nosedive since the pandemic.

And finally …

Students in South Korea are suing the government after their college-admissions exam was ended 90 seconds too early. The students at an exam site in Seoul contend that the error affected their outcomes on the grueling eight-hour national exam. They’re asking for 20 million won, or about $15,400 — the cost of a year’s studying to retake the test.

Thanks for reading. I always welcome your feedback and ideas for future reporting, so drop me a line at karin.fischer@chronicle.com. You can also connect with me on X or LinkedIn. If you like this newsletter, please share it with colleagues and friends. They can sign up here.