Perhaps you’ve seen articles about universities establishing
branch campuses in other countries.
Check out this piece, which is the most informative I’ve seen on the
subject: http://theconversation.com/universities-that-set-up-branch-campuses-in-other-countries-are-not-colonisers-46289. It was written by Nigel Healey, at Nottingham
Trent University.
Follow the links embedded in the article, and I think you’ll
have a good overview of the trend. Note
that quite a few international branches have failed and, if you are associated
with what I’ll call “domestic” branch campuses, you’ll also see that there are
extra challenges that come with working internationally.
The article mentions that universities in the United States
currently have 50 international branches and United Kingdom universities have
27. Other countries have smaller
numbers, yielding a total of well over 200, in all. Of course, these numbers are probably a tenth
of the number of domestic branches in the United States, alone, so the true
impact of international branches is likely to be modest, at least in terms of
numbers served or net revenue generated.
I suspect the fact that a number of “elite” institutions have gone the
international route has done more to draw attention than anything else.
My own experience with international branch campuses is
quite modest. I’ve visited branches in
Russia, Mexico, Hong Kong, and Canada, but all of these campuses were domestic,
in the sense that the main campus was in the same country. Still, the experiences were informative.
Ohio University, like most institutions has many
international relationships and has offered programs in other countries, but
we’ve not had anything I’d call an actual branch campus. We did have a center in Hong Kong for more
than 20 years, based at Hong Kong Baptist University, and that center reported
up to me in my years as vice president. We
employed a small on-site staff and local faculty to teach traditional
face-to-face classes. We sent Ohio
faculty to teach intensive courses in the summers and during the winter
intersession we had at the time. Hong
Kong students also had access to online or correspondence courses.
I loved the Hong Kong center, and we learned a lot through
the work we did there. The center
occasionally helped with other relationships in the region, but it was never
highly profitable. Eventually, the
center closed, partly because of the emergence of online programs, but mostly
because local universities expanded the opportunities they could provide in a
way that cut into our enrollment. I
suspect other institutions may find a limited timespan for international
branches, as well. That doesn’t make
them a bad idea, but it does suggest being careful about investment in
facilities or in permanent local faculty.
Personally, I’m skeptical that international branches will
bring the sort of enrollment and financial contributions that domestic branches
often achieve, but there may well be other reasons to proceed, even if the
branch is likely to survive only for a relatively brief time. In any case, although the international story
is interesting, I wish domestic branches and their good work were receiving as
much attention as the international trend.
