China’s “soft power” initiatives
A little more than a decade ago China began imitating the United States, Britain, France and Germany by engaging in what Joseph Nye, a political scientist at the Kennedy School of Government, termed “soft power,” or a collection of methods used to extend a country’s influence on the world stage.
One example of Chinese “soft power” was the creation of hundreds of Confucius Institutes worldwide. The objectives of Confucius Institutes are as old as the imperial era itself when the policies and geopolitical interests of the Middle Kingdom mirrored the stated objectives of China’s “One Belt One Road” initiative.
The first Confucius Institute opened in South Korea in 2004 and the institutes quickly spread to Japan, Australia, Canada, the United States and Europe. Today there are more than 100 Confucius Institutes at public and private universities in the United States and more than that number at American high schools. An article in “The Economist” reported that the Chinese government spends $10 billion a year to promote its image abroad.
The Chinese government has made ample use of financial incentives to encourage the acceptance of Confucius Institutes on campuses worldwide. China pays $100,000 to each college or university that agrees to sponsor a Confucius Institute on its campus, making annual payments over five-years. It is not surprising that schools with institutes enroll a significant number of full-paying Chinese students.
The Communist Party of China has made no secret that it considers Confucius Institutes a “soft” propaganda arm for the government. Chinese minister of propaganda, Liu Yunshan, in an article in “People’s Daily,” wrote: “We want to coordinate the efforts of overseas and domestic propaganda and further create a favorable international environment for us.” Creating a favorable international environment includes no mention or discussion of Tiananmen Square, Taiwan or Tibet. Information disseminated through the institutes follows strict Communist Party lines. It is no accident that the ruling body of the Office of Chinese Language International, a branch of the Ministry of Education, coordinates all institutes’ programs.
Within the past few years there has been pushback from several colleges and universities with regard to Confucius Institutes. In 2014, for example, more than 100 University of Chicago faculty members signed a petition citing information from the Confucius Institute that contradicts the university’s core academic values. The university did not renew its Confucius Institute contract. McMaster University in Canada also did not renew its contract. Other universities followed suite, including, Pennsylvania State University, Stockholm University, and the University of Lyon. But other schools in the United States continue to support their Confucius institutes including, George Washington University, Tufts University, Portland State University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
Still the controversy continues. In February 2018 Florida Senator Marco Rubio asked Miami Dade College and several universities in Florida, to shut down their Confucius programs. Along with many other government officials, Senator Rubio considers the institutes a threat to America’s national security by institutionalizing Chinese propaganda on American colleges and university campuses. The director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation also raised concerns about Chinese infiltration on American college campuses and intellectual property issues.
The Chinese government, quick to recognize a problem, has promised reforms. What reforms will be implemented and when they will be implemented has not yet been determined.
Are Confucius Institutes examples of soft power becoming hard power, as enrollment of Chinese students becomes dependent on the institution hosting an institute? Are Confucius Institutes just one piece of China’s plan to be recognized as a major player on the world’s stage? Is it fair to criticize China for what many other countries have done for decades?
Each college and university already hosting a Confucius Institute or considering partnering with China to establish a Confucius Institute will have to decide how to proceed according to its culture, academic norms and international long-term strategic planning.
The term “Silk Road” was first coined in 1877 by a German geographer, Ferdinand von Richthofen, to describe a connecting series of Chinese routes. Then, as now, the objective was to promulgate Chinese culture and influence worldwide.
The “One Belt Road One Road” is China’s new “Silk Road” and its major initiative to create economic and political, cultural and education influence, linking far-flung markets and energy reserves from the Arctic to the Indian, Pacific and Atlantic oceans. China’s plan calls for Europe, Asia and Africa to be connected by railways, highways and fiber-optic cables.
Chinese maps show the belt and road of ancient times as routes that traversed Eurasia and the seas between China and Africa. Today’s Chinese leaders speak about the “One Belt One Road” initiative as encompassing the entire world. The Chinese premier, XiJinping, considers the project as “great power diplomacy with Chinese characteristics.”
In 2016 the Ministry of Education released a document outlining the investment China will make in higher education in the 49 countries along the ancient “Silk Road.”
According to a report in September, 2016, by the Observatory on Borderless Education, The Chinese Ministry of Higher Education specifies three main avenues of education cooperation: interoperability between national education systems, including policy coordination, language teaching and degree recognition; student mobility and transnational education; and scholarships and capacity building.
A university network named “New Silk Road University League” was founded in May, 2015 by Xi’ an Jiaotong University, and encompasses nearly 100 universities from 22 countries. Another consortium, the “One Belt One Road University Strategic League,” was founded in Gansu Province in October 2015 and includes 46 universities, including Fudan University and Beijing Normal University and eight universities from Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Malaysia, and South Korea.
China has educational collaborations with colleges and universities in Malaysia, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States.
China has a long history of exerting its “soft power” initiatives in Africa. In addition to subsidizing infrastructure projects in several African countries, China awards a significant number of university scholarships to African students to study in China. There are more African students studying in China than anywhere else in the world.
ASEAN students represent the biggest group of foreign students studying in Chinese colleges and universities. According to the China University and College Admission System, an online information and application portal, an estimated 80,000 students from Southeast Asia opted for a Chinese education in 2016.
According to Zhang Baohui, a professor and director of the Centre for Asian Pacific Studies at Lingnan University in Hong Kong, “Exporting education is a way to promote China’s “soft power.” It reflects China’s quest for broader influence in the world.”
China now allows international students to take part-time jobs during their studies in China in an attempt to make the country’s higher educational system more attractive to students worldwide. Off-campus internships are also allowed with the approval of a student’s Chinese college or university.
After graduation from a Chinese university international students are permitted to start their own business in the Zhangjiang National Innovation Demonstration Zone for up to two years after graduation.
A cautionary note: China’s “soft power” will last only as long as its cash reserves do. China will influence, but not entirely determine, global trends in international student mobility and enrollment.
Alternative international higher education myths
At the risk of being accused of being politically correct (or incorrect), I would like to share with you some of the international higher education myths I have uncovered over the past few months.
The U.S. continues leads the world in attracting international students.
Last year, the U.S. had a 10 percent increase in international students. But Canada increased its international student population by 13 percent, and Australia and New Zealand increased the number of students studying on its campuses by 12 percent.
The demand for higher education is greatest in Europe.
The demand for higher education in South Asia is exploding. With a population of more than 600 million under the age of 18, and with the rapid pace of social and economic changes taking place in the region, South Asia is poised to take over Western Europe and the U.S. as a primary choice for enrollment. This fact may not be reflected in next year’s enrollment statistics, but this is a trend that I would watch closely for future recruitment threats and opportunities.
International hubs and branch campuses will continue to increase in the future.
International hubs may increase in the future but I predict regional hubs, rather than international hubs, will grow faster.
The Asian middle class has grown faster than any other region in the world.
The Asian middle class has increased in numbers over the past two decades but the African middle class has tripled over the past 14 years from 4.6 million households in 2000 to 15 million in 2016.
The UK continues to be the number one choice for U.S. students studying abroad.
The fastest growing market for U.S. students is Germany. The number of U.S. students studying in Germany is estimated to be 10,000. Most of the students pay no tuition.
The fastest growing Chinese market will be at the graduate and undergraduate level.
Chinese teenagers, as young as 14, are enrolling in high schools throughout the world in increasing numbers. Last year, for example, the number of Chinese high school students was nearly 50,000. This is 100 times more than in 2004.
These are but a few of the myths and facts in international higher education. More to come in the future.
International Student Mobility and the New World Disorder
It is perhaps both risky and foolish to predict future international student recruitment patterns and trends. Fast-moving political, economic, and technological worldwide developments make it impossible to predict with certainty the impact of these developments on higher education and future international recruitment and enrollment.
However, I do think it is important to recognize that world events have had, and will continue to have, an impact on future generations of international students. The destinations of future foreign students cannot be isolated from changing worldwide geopolitical and economic realities. There are messages for international enrollment managers and deans on the front pages of our newspapers today.
Few would argue that 2017 was a year of worldwide change and disruption. Players in the geopolitical chess game seem to be constantly changing, creating new alliances – political, economic and societal.
In his recent book, A World in Disarray, Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, quotes a former United States director of national intelligence, who wrote: “Emerging trends suggest that geopolitical competition among major powers is increasing in ways that challenge international norms.” Disruption on the world stage.
Rob Brown of the global education group Navitas, in addressing a conference in September, 2016, wrote “Disruption will happen in higher education like nothing we have seen before and first world institutions are going to suffer the hardest. The real opportunities exist in the developing world.” Disruption on the international higher education stage.
In the Price Waterhouse Coopers report, The World in 2050: Will the shift in global power continue?, the authors estimate that in just a few decades, the world will be very different from what it is today in terms of global ranking of national economies and the major drivers of economic growth. The report notes that China overtook the United States in 2014 to become the world’s largest economy on purchasing power parity and by 2028 the authors project that China will surpass the United States’ GDP in market exchange rate terms.
Countries with the fastest growing economies, populations and growing middle classes in Asia, like Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam will dominate economic growth in the region. The Asian middle class is expected to increase from 600 million in 2010 to more than 3 billion by 2030 to represent 66 percent of total global middle class population.
International student mobility, by extension, will be impacted by this new economic reality. I think it is safe to predict that regional mobility will grow in importance and the major importers of student today, the United States and the United Kingdom, will continue to lose their share of internationally mobile students. While China will remain a leading exporter of students, it will increasingly become a major importer of students with a goal of enrolling 500,000 international students by 2020.
According to an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development report, the stage is set for a new level of competition among international study destinations. National visa and immigration policies, coordinated regional and national marketing campaigns, and the availability of scholarships and employment after graduation will be some of the factors countries can leverage to increase their market share of international students.
Demographic and income growth and expansion of the middle class will set the dial for future international student mobility. As long as the middle class continues to grow across the globe, demand for postsecondary education will continue to outpace supply.
The impact of populism on international student mobility cannot be underestimated and has already been realized in the United States and in Britain. Enrollment statistics for the fall, 2017 term for both countries revealed changes and in certain cohorts, declines in the number of international students.
In contrast, the governments of Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Taiwan, Vietnam and Singapore have made education a priority and have invested heavily in the sector. The result has been the creation of a political and economic “infrastructure” in those countries that supports higher education enrollments and academic and research collaborations.
There will probably be no greater impact on worldwide higher education than the integration of technology into education delivery methods. The internet has rendered geography irrelevant and digital options, especially in India and in some African countries, are changing the way higher education is consumed in those countries. The numbers are staggering and change daily, but according to the report, Digital Learning Compass: Distance Education Enrollment Report 2017, 30 percent of students worldwide are enrolled in at least one online course.
The jury is still out on the potential and sustainability of online education. But the major MOOC providers, Udacity, Coursera, edX in the United States, FutrureLearn in Britain and Iversity in Germany, among others, believe that MOOCs have the potential to educate millions of students, democratize higher education and build global communities.
I believe that the greatest promises of online learning and MOOCs, as well as the greatest threats, have yet to materialize.
The intersection of disruption with unpredictability demands a new way of thinking and planning. Successful international student recruitment and enrollment in the future will require international deans and recruiters who are both curious and courageous and engage in what Amit Mrig, the President of Academic Impressions, calls “horizon thinking.”
No one has a crystal ball. No one knows for certain how international higher education will evolve over the next year and in future years. The only thing we know for sure is that change will be our constant companion and political, economic and technological trends have, and will continue to have, an impact on where students enroll and why they select one country over another.
Seth Odell, a higher education writer, wrote: “The safe creative seldom achieves the momentum” Successfully embracing and managing change will be the currency of successful schools in the future.
The world is changing. And there are some segments of international higher education plans that are not changing fast enough to meet the headwinds of change.
We can either succumb to change or manage it. The choice is ours.
China and the new world order
The worldwide political changes of 2017 will benefit China by increasing its political and economic influence in Asia and around the world. China’s new dominance and strategic alliances will influence the future of international student mobility.
It would be easy to focus an article about the impressive rise of China’s higher education system and the impact of Chinese students on international mobility patterns.
mbers are dazzling.
In 2017 more than 700,000 Chinese students studied abroad, some in high schools and colleges, others for a shorter period of time, perhaps for language study. According to an April 22, 2017 article in “The Economist,” 57 per cent of Chinese parents would like to send their children abroad for study.
But this is not an article about increasing Chinese student numbers. This article is an attempt to see to tomorrow and how China may and can emerge as a higher education superpower in the coming years.
U.S. columnist Ian Bremer predicts that American international leadership, a constant since 1945, will end this year. The U.S. has become the single biggest source of international uncertainty, creating a void that China is eager to fill.
Xi Jingping, China’s most powerful leader since Deng Xiaoping, has been called the chairman of everything. His policies have ushered in a new territorial assertiveness as evidenced by recent events. The fawning reception given him at the January, 2017 World Economic Forum in Davos signaled the importance of the Chinese president on the world stage. And the chairman did not disappoint. He presented himself and his country as champions for globalization and open markets and he suggested that China should guide economic globalization in the future. Mr. Xi’s frequently refers to the “Chinese dre
am of the great revival of the Chinese nation.”
Contrast these sentiments with the inward-looking policies of the U.S. and it is easy to understand why Xi’s comments were not lost on the attendees of the World Economic Forum. Nor were they lost on the countries in Asia and Southeast Asia, such as Thailand, the Philippines and Malaysia.
In May, 2017 the first Belt and Road Forum was held in Beijing. This initiative will spend $150 billion in infrastructure projects in countries south and west of China, along the historic Silk Road. The overarching aim of the project is to construct a network of ports, railways and pipelines that will plug China into economic hubs across Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Europe.
of the Asian Universities Alliance, with an initial membership of 15 universities from across the region, has initial funding of $1.5 million from Tsinghua University and is an example of China flexing its higher education muscles.
Joining Tsinghua University are several academic powerhouses in the region, including Peking University, the University of Tokyo, Seoul National University, the National University of Singapore and the University of Malaysia.
In addition to promoting student and faculty mobility within Asia, the organization also aims to promote collaborative research among member institutions. Chinese Vice-Premier Liu Yandong delivered the keynote address at the opening ceremony and predicte
d that the Asian Universities Alliance will “Resolve regional and global problems and bring together outstanding talents with an international perspective to serve regional development.”
According to Yoichi Funabashi, chairman of the Tokyo-based think tank, Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation, China can and will use its economic pull to draw Asian nations into its geopolitical orbit. Inevitably, political and economic ties eventually translate into educational ties.
Joseph Nye, who coined the term “soft power” in 1990, certainly would agree that China’s initi
atives are good examples of making “soft power” investments that have the potential to directly impact the political and economic future of the region.
What does this mean for the future of international student enrollment in the United States? It is my opinion that if, and when, United States’ policies change, it will still take a long time to untangle current perceptions and realities. International deans and recruiters will have to accept the reality of the increasing importance of China’s educational prowess and adjust future strategic plans accordingly.
ll be opportunities for American colleges and universities in the new world order. But these opportunities will demand a different way of recruiting from today’s standard procedures. International deans and recruiters will have to think differently and will have to focus more on collaboration and less on the go-it-alone strategies many schools use today.
Strategic plans written last year or this year, should be scrapped in full or in part. New plans should be written taking into account that what was once certain with regard to international student mobility patterns, are now uncertain.
Beyond the corridors of today lies a new world order.
Artificial Intelligence and College and University Recruitment, Admission, Progression and Retention
In a previous artificial on AI and its potential impact on higher education I cited a report, Artificial Intelligence Market in the United States Education Sector, that listed an expected 47.5 percent AI increase in U.S. education from 2017 to 2020.
Many of the articles written about the potential impact of AI on higher education focus on the teaching and learning tasks that will be disrupted by the fourth Industrial Revolution, the digital revolution. This article will examine the potential impact of AI on recruitment, admission, progression and retention of college and university students as well as some of the potential pitfalls of AI on college administration.
Imagine an admission office and staff that were able to answer the thousands of inquiries received during the normal admission cycle. Imagine a potential applicant, receiving on a regular basis, interactive website materials and answers to common admission questions asked within hours after making a request for information. Imagine an admission office with the ability to customize the process from inquiry to application to acceptance to enrollment for each potential student. Imagine an admission office that can predict which applicants are most likely to enroll, allowing admission staff to focus on this cohort of potential students.
What we are imagining is an admission process that has the capacity to personalize the college application process without adding extra staff or departments. We are imagining administrative functions that have the potential to be both cost effective and efficient. We are imagining an admission office with fewer publications, fewer trips to different states or countries, and fewer staff doing routine admission tasks.
Imagine student success and retention deans able to identify, before enrollment and during the critical first semester, students who are most likely to experience academic difficulty. Imagine algorithms that enable deans and counselors to create effective tutoring and retention intervention techniques.
What we are imaging is a college or university that will improve its financial bottom line by retaining more students. What we are imagining is a school that has reduced the pressure on the “front end,” the admission office, to enroll additional students to replace the students who withdrew.
The implications for a school’s financial bottom line, are obvious.
What about the potential pitfalls of AI on college admission and retention? Pascal Fung, director of the Center for Artificial Intelligence Research at Hong Kong’s University of Science and Technology cautions: “A high level of ethical principles cannot be integrated into algorithms.”
In 2015 Bill Gates, Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking warned about the potential negative impact of AI in making ethical decisions. In recruiting students, for example, AI information could be used to limit or control the number of students from a particular state, region, or country who are admitted not because of academic ability but because of other considerations like ethnicity or ability to pay tuition and school fees.
While computers excel at accumulating knowledge, computation and pattern recognition, they cannot replace human administrators. The data is only as good as the data sources. And we should remember that students are more than just data sets. Overreliance on AI research and applicability in the recruitment and retention of students is neither a wise nor creative administrative decision.
While there is a great amount of information on the potential of AI to reduce or eliminate jobs currently performed by humans, I believe admission and retention functions will change, not disappear. Admission and retention staff may perform different administrative tasks based on AI data.
In a July 8, 2018 article in The New York Times, Erik Byrnjolfssin, an economist at MIT and Tom Mitchell, a Carnegie Mellon computer scientist, wrote that jobs, in their opinion, will be partly automated rather than disappear altogether.
I agree with this opinion as it relates to the future of AI in recruitment, admission, progression and retention plans and programs. I also believe that administrators charged with the responsibility of enrolling and graduating students cannot ignore the role AI will play in the future.