The mere eight pages devoted to international education in the Australian Universities Accord’s 400-page is hardly adequate for so integral an aspect of Australia’s university system.
Even more regrettably, the report, published in February, lacks any vision for the future of international education or the benefits it brings to Australia’s universities and broader society. It begins by acknowledging that international education “is one of Australia’s most successful exports” but confines its subsequent discussion to a range of perceived problems with it.
This is an astounding way to speak about one of Australia’s great successes, but it is also unsurprising. It reflects the blinkered way we as a society think about international education. It is a conversation we have allowed to default to questions of financial sustainability and student competence, entirely overlooking the inherent benefits of international education.
Let’s start with history. International education played a catalytic role in helping Australia find a role as an accepted and admired part of a stable, prosperous region. Students from Asia and the Pacific began to study at Australian universities in significant numbers in the 1950s. Their presence had a double benefit. First, it allowed Australia to train generations of university graduates who would construct secure and successful societies in our region. Second, it was pivotal to shifting Australians’ attitudes on race, leading to the dismantling of a White Australia Policy that was isolating us in Asia.
Fast forward to today. Australia has the most internationalised university system in the world, meaning that there are more international students here per capita than in any other country. It is a position envied by our counterparts in Europe, North America and Asia. Yet it is also a position lamented by too many commentators and policymakers.
Why do international students come to Australia? I’ve spoken with hundreds of them, as well as their parents, and, to them, our value proposition is clear. We provide world-class, research-informed education in a native English-speaking context. We offer vibrant, highly diverse campuses and cities. And our students study in an egalitarian and informal environment of social and economic freedom, which those from authoritarian and traditional societies highly value.
The benefits flow the other way also. Diverse classrooms provide much richer educational environments, enabling Australian students to experience different viewpoints from beyond our shores and improve their ability to engage internationally. This ranges from the sharing of Australian and international indigenous knowledges to participating in global case competitions, where student teams from international universities develop responses to a particular challenge – health, environmental, societal – and then present and critique each other’s cases. A panel then provides feedback and selects a winning team.
If our aim is to produce globally engaged, culturally curious and broad-minded graduates, highly internationalised campuses are critical. It is little wonder, then, that graduates of Australian universities are some of the most globally mobile people in the world. Among the thousands of University of Melbourne alumni I meet while travelling, significant numbers are Australian citizens living and thriving abroad.
Yet there is not a word about any of this in the accord. Instead, the final report focuses on suggestions that international education is responsible for Australia’s elevated migration rate, that it detracts from the domestic student experience, and that it exacerbates accommodation shortages and inequities between universities. There has been plenty of speculative commentary about this list of grievances – recently supplemented by the cost of living pressures – but no clear analysis based on hard evidence.
Unsurprisingly, then, the accord's recommendations and mooted interventions are uninspiring, unhelpful and, at times, alarming. The report? the government is taking measures “to strengthen the integrity and quality of the international education sector”, which “may slow growth” – or, more seriously (though the distinction is not acknowledged), lead to “lower international student numbers”.
It is not clear that any serious thought or analysis has gone into this. How will lower numbers of international students lead, as the report claims, to a more “sustainable international education sector”? For those with even a rudimentary grasp of university finances, that is a contradiction in terms – particularly when the report forecasts a doubling over the next two decades in the number of Australian students seeking a (loss-making) university education.
The real danger is that unthinking policy responses to perceived problems do sustained damage to a national asset. We need to begin with a positive vision for international education that embraces the virtues of a sustainable, diverse international student cohort. It would identify the need to broaden international access to those from a greater range of financial and geographical backgrounds, as well as to diversify the subjects they study. It would ensure that universities and academics maximise the value of the diversity by encouraging and equipping all students to understand, reflect on and reach across cultural differences. And it would promote the building of global networks of alumni: enduring and enthusiastic ambassadors for Australia.
Yes, let’s acknowledge and understand the challenges and work together, universities and governments, to tackle them. But we must remember that international education is increasingly competitive. The students Australia turns away will go elsewhere, empowering other countries’ universities and enriching their societies in ways that we currently benefit from.
Let’s hope the government skips over those eight pages in the accord report and adopts a more far-sighted approach to international education.
is deputy vice-chancellor global, culture and engagement at the University of Melbourne.
