SRHE Blog

The Society for Research into Higher Education

Tag Archives: market strategy

Image of Rob Cuthbert


by 1 Comment

How universities behaving sensibly could destroy access to HE

by Rob Cuthbert

Since the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, national policy for higher education has left HE institutions to the mercies of a market overseen by a regulator, the Office for Students. Each year A-Levels results shine a spotlight on the consequences, which are already visible – major financial difficulties, academic staff redundancies, reductions in course and programme offerings. What everyone knows is that these are the consequences of the wrong kind of competition and a mix of government policies which have combined to slash HEI revenues. These consequences flow from behaviour by students and universities responding rationally, as best they can, to the policy context. But if higher education policy stays the same, the behaviours which seem so rational at institutional level will destroy opportunities for access to the whole higher education sector.

Everyone knew that 2026 would be another ‘highly competitive’ results round – for universities. Applicants, on the other hand, have discovered that there are higher-tariff universities making lower-tariff offers. Increasingly, their ‘insurance’ choices are not insurance against lower grades, but instead simply offer two chances to apply to high-tariff providers. Clearing increasingly offers more flexibility and more chances, if results are not what some had hoped. And things will only get better for applicants over the next five years or more. This is good news for some – the offspring of the mobile middle classes will be experiencing a buyer’s market for some time. But it may be increasingly bad news for others, who just live in the wrong place, may not have much social and financial capital, and can’t move far to go to university or another HE provider.

Everyone also knows what Bahram Bekhradnia pointed out in his recent HEPI Report, Demographic decline and predatory recruitment: the twin threats to English higher education into the 2040s. Population decline means that the number of 18 year olds will be almost 20% lower than at present by the late 2030s. It follows that unless an increasing proportion of young people apply to HE there will be 20% fewer students in English HE in ten years’ time, with a corresponding loss of revenue. However there is no sign of an increase in the proportions applying for HE, which is unsurprising given the intensity of media coverage of student debt and the associated question ‘Is higher education worth it?’. This, of course, is despite the evidence that there is still a ‘graduate premium’ in lifetime earnings, even if it is declining. There is no sign of demand weakening, and students’ satisfaction with their HE experience remains high, even edging higher in the most recent national survey.

Phil Hill in his OnEdTech blog on 13 August 2026 spotted the parallel contradictions in UK and US education policies: “Omar Khan … published a piece at Wonkhe this week arguing that UK policy on graduate earnings contradicts itself. The government wants the graduate earnings premium to rise … It also wants parity of esteem for young people who don’t go to university. Khan calls out the problem: “no amount of rhetorical flourish can make both graduates and non-graduates earn more than the other in their monthly payslips.” … Based on the latest ED [US Education Department] data, 29.0% of undergraduate certificate programs and 6.6% of associate degree programs would fail the earnings premium rules, while just 1.2% of bachelor degree programs would fail. The actual policy is about to put a massive constraint on non-degree student programs. … So which is it? Are we building short-form pathways or auditing them out of existence? The UK can’t decide whether it wants the premium up or the gap closed. The US can’t decide whether it is promoting the alternatives or testing them to death. The earnings premium is not solely an American idea being argued in American terms. Not only is the earnings premium idea bipartisan in the US, it is international and may be growing in scope.”

Phil Hill’s associate Glenda Morgan underlined the parallels between the US and the UK in her On Student Success website. “Two recent reports – one on American public higher education from NCHEMS and another on English universities from the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) – show what this looks like in practice. Higher education systems are, like it or not, stratified by prestige, selectivity, wealth, and recruiting power. That is a description of institutional position, not a judgment about educational quality or public value. But what happens when the number of prospective students stops growing? In a stagnant or shrinking market, institutions cannot all maintain their enrollment by capturing a larger share. Growth becomes increasingly redistributive: one institution’s gain is more likely to produce losses elsewhere. Better-resourced institutions expand into markets traditionally served by other colleges and universities. Institutions with less power in the hierarchy respond by adding programs, recruiting new student populations, or moving into the territory of still more vulnerable institutions. Each decision may be rational for the institution that makes it. Collectively, however, these decisions can leave higher education systems more hierarchical, less stable, and less capable of serving students who depend on affordable and geographically accessible options”

UK government policy restricting applications by foreign students, driven by concerns over immigration, has severely reduced the alternative revenue-generating options for most universities, as recently recognised by the mainstream media. Louise Eccles, Robert Watts and Yennah Smart wrote in The Sunday Times on 8 August 2026, previewing A-level results day: “Foreign student slump forces A* universities to accept BBB grades”. At the same time there are now 700,000 (31%) of UK students, facing the prospect of huge debt from student loans, who choose or are compelled to stay in the family home and become commuters to a university within reach.

Applications from the UK are increasing for STEM and related disciplines, which applicants probably believe will offer better career and financial prospects for graduates. (FFT Education Datalab provides authoritative analyses of trends and variations in patterns of achievement.) Institutions respond by taking a medium or long-term view and reshaping their academic offering in response to changes in application patterns. Rather than making across-the-board reductions. many institutions choose to eliminate entire subjects or fields of study. The British Academy’s recent report, Cold Spots: Mapping Inequality in SHAPE Provision in UK Higher Education, spelt out the danger underlined in the recent SRHE blog by Christopher Playford and colleagues at Exeter: “Some students travel far from home to attend university. But many do not, and many cannot. The rising cost of higher education means that for students from lower-income families, mature students, commuters, carers and those with strong local ties, the possibility of studying close to home can determine whether higher education is realistic at all. Local provision of higher education therefore affects what courses are available to young people.”

UK government policy choices have made things worse for HE, by encouraging the mis-framing of HE as ‘academic’ and FE as ‘vocational’ and putting HE and FE sectors into competition rather than supporting the FE-HE collaboration which is essential, and seems to be appreciated much more in Wales and Scotland than in England. Other policy initiatives have significantly reduced HE revenues, with increased National Insurance charges for employers, a levy on overseas student fees, and changes to student visa requirements reducing demand from overseas applicants. There were media reports on 21 August 2026 that the government might agree to cut overseas fees for EU students as part of its broader attempts at rapprochement with Europe, further reducing revenue for already cash-strapped universities. These reductions have far outweighed the benefit from ending the long-term freeze of undergraduate fee levels. Real-terms institutional income has been reduced to levels not seen since 2010, well below the economic cost of delivering undergraduate education.

Institutions are behaving rationally in their own interests, within the prevailing policy context. Applicants are behaving rationally and consistently in responding to the incentives and opportunities presented to them. It is the policy that needs to change – we urgently need financial incentives or rewards for institutions seeking to maintain opportunities for reasonably local and regional study across the country. Without such changes the HE sector may see the participation rate decline, in sharp contrast to the global trend almost everywhere else. That would be an astonishing response, in one of the UK’s most globally successful sectors, to the UK’s need for economic growth. This is a particularly English problem: different government structures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland offer more opportunities for intervention. But the market in English HE has failed to protect access, and things will get worse unless the government chooses to intervene. Those earlier policy creations, the University Grants Committee and the Higher Education Funding Council for England, as funding agencies delivering most of the funds for teaching, would have found it feasible, perhaps even comparatively straightforward to address the problem. The question is whether government now wants it to happen, and whether the Office for Students as regulator has the competence and capability to do what needs to be done.

Rob Cuthbert is Emeritus Professor of Higher Education Management, University of the West of England and Joint Managing Partner, Practical Academics rob.cuthbert@btinternet.com. X/Twitter @RobCuthbert. Bluesky @robcuthbert22.bsky.social.


by Leave a comment

Branch campuses and the mirage of demand

by Kyuseok Kim

As US universities confront declining domestic enrolments, political instability, and intensified scrutiny over their financial and ideological foundations, a growing number are once again looking outward. International branch campuses (IBCs), once celebrated as symbols of academic globalism and later scrutinized as costly misadventures, seem to be returning to the strategic conversation, not only as diversification mechanisms but also as protective pivots in an era of unpredictability.

Georgetown University’s decision to extend its Qatar campus for another decade and the Illinois Institute of Technology’s plan to launch a new campus in Mumbai are recent examples. Behind such moves lies a quiet but growing calculus: that global presence may serve as both brand amplifier and institutional hedge, especially in the face of resurging nationalism, culture wars, and regulatory constraints at home.

South Korea’s Incheon Global Campus (IGC), a government-backed transnational education hub, is now preparing to welcome two additional foreign universities and one of them is American. But as the IGC experiment has already entered its second decade, its mixed results offer not a template but a cautionary tale. For any U.S. institution considering overseas expansion, IGC reminds us that expectations of seamless demand, regional magnetism, and reputational uplift often collide with complex realities.

The pitfall of assuming “If you build it, they will come”

At the heart of many US institutions’ international ventures lies a persistent assumption: that placing an American university within geographic proximity to large student markets will organically generate demand. IGC was envisioned as a Northeast Asian education magnet, ideally situated to recruit from China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and beyond. The notion was that Korea’s infrastructure, safety, and proximity, combined with US academic credentials, would make IGC highly attractive.

But the numbers tell a different story. As of 2024, IGC’s five institutions, SUNY Korea (Home of Stony Brook University, Fashion Institute of Technology), George Mason University Korea (GMUK), University of Utah Asia Campus (UAC), Ghent University Global Campus (GUGC), enrol about 4,300 students, far short of the original 10,000 target. Among them, only 400 are international students, accounting for 9%. And of those, just around 20 are from China, the very country that was expected to be a key source of enrolments.

This dearth is not for lack of infrastructure or academic rigor. Rather, it illustrates the limitations of relying on passive geographic logic. In an age where students and parents are increasingly sophisticated consumers of education, recruitment requires far more than proximity or even prestige. It demands clarity of value, strong brand presence, affordability, cultural alignment, and a persuasive post-graduation pathway.

English-medium instruction as a double-edged sword

US institutions often assume that English-medium instruction (EMI) automatically confers competitive advantage in Asia. At IGC, all programs are delivered entirely in English, and faculty are predominantly international; 188 of the 304 faculty members across the five campuses are foreign nationals. On paper, this aligns with global academic norms and affirms a commitment to international standards.

However, EMI can paradoxically limit access. While affluent Korean students may see EMI as an elite advantage, students from Vietnam, China, and Indonesia often seek local cultural immersion, language acquisition, and regional relevance. For many Chinese students in particular, one of the draws of studying in Korea is precisely to learn Korean and gain access to Korean labour markets. EMI-only models thus alienate both local integration seekers and English-language learners.

Moreover, when EMI is not paired with robust academic support services, such as English-language tutoring, multilingual advising, or transitional curriculum tracks, it can undermine retention and student success. IGC’s high leave-of-absence rate (26% of total enrolment) may in part reflect this challenge. The EMI strategy, while noble in intent, must therefore be contextualised. In transnational campuses, language policy is not just a delivery decision, it is a recruitment strategy.

Misplaced confidence in institutional brand recognition

American universities often overestimate their brand power abroad. SUNY Korea, anchored by Stony Brook University, and GMUK both represent reputable public institutions in the US academic ecosystem. Yet in East Asia, brand equity does not always travel well. Many students and parents in China, Southeast Asia, and even Korea struggle to distinguish among US institutions unless they are among the globally top-ranked or highly visible.

In contrast, joint-venture universities such as NYU Shanghai or Duke Kunshan benefit from stronger recognition, thanks in part to the halo effect of globally prestigious parent institutions and active marketing within China. These institutions also benefit from location-based credibility; being within China, their offerings align more naturally with Chinese career and immigration aspirations.

Geopolitical frictions and the fragility of demand

US institutions frequently see international branch campuses as safe havens from domestic politics. Yet international expansion brings its own geopolitical risks. IGC’s failure to attract Chinese students cannot be separated from the lingering effects of the 2017 THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) dispute – a regional conflict that emerged when South Korea agreed to deploy a US missile defense system on its soil. China strongly opposed it, viewing the system as a threat to its own strategic interests. In response, China imposed strong sanctions on South Korea, which led to the challenges in  educational diplomacy between two countries. Nor can it be divorced from the broader geopolitics of US-China relations, which makes Chinese families wary of American degrees, especially those delivered from politically allied countries like Korea.

There is also the perception gap between a degree “from a U.S. university” and a degree “earned in Korea.” Even when academic standards and credentials are identical, students and employers may view transnational degrees as second-tier or less prestigious. For example, in Korea, IGC campuses are often viewed as a second choice in the stratified higher education structure locally. The reputational buffer that a US degree once offered is increasingly interrogated, especially in environments where political affiliations, social conditions, and post-graduation options matter more than branding. In this sense, branch campuses are not outside the storm; they are situated in a different part of it.

A US-oriented reality check within the local contexts

For US universities, the decision to open a branch campus abroad is no longer a question of academic vision alone; it is a financial and reputational calculation. The domestic context is sobering: declining birth rates are shrinking the college-aged population, public trust in higher education is waning, and federal support for research and student aid is increasingly politicised. Internationalisation is no longer just an opportunity; it is increasingly seen as a survival strategy.

But survival strategies must be strategic, not reactionary. IGC’s challenges illustrate what happens when institutions pursue global expansion without first understanding the local education marketplace. Without granular market research, locally embedded partnerships, and nuanced branding strategies, even well-intentioned ventures become “white elephants”, costly and underutilized. A forthcoming US institution entering IGC would have an opportunity to learn from these lessons and chart a different path. But it must begin with humility and cross-cultural understanding.

This concern is heightened by structural reforms driven by demographic decline and the growing uncertainly embedded in Korea’s higher education system. As competition for enrolment intensifies, some struggling institutions see IGC’s local recruitment as a threat, even calling it a “brain drain within Korean territory,” since most IGC students are Korean. While IGC claims it draws students who would have studied abroad, offering a net economic benefit, that argument may fall flat for universities fighting to stay afloat.

Conclusion: toward a more grounded globalism

The story of Incheon Global Campus is not one of failure, but rather a valuable case study. It reflects a potential disconnection between institutional ambition and market behaviour; between the idea of internationalisation and its on-the-ground execution. It reminds us that proximity to students is not the same as access, and that transnational education requires more than exporting curricula across borders, it demands building relevance across cultures.

For US universities hoping to extend their reach, the time for romantic notions of global campuses has passed. What is needed now is realism. That means conducting rigorous market analysis. It means understanding the competitive landscape; not just in Seoul or Shanghai, but in second-tier cities where price sensitivity and post-graduation pathways determine enrolment decisions. It means creating flexible programs that can respond to local aspirations and global uncertainties. It means designing campuses that feel anchored, not transplanted.

The myth that a US branch campus in South Korea will become a magnet for students across Asia, particularly from China, has not materialised. With only a handful of Chinese students across IGC’s entire enrolment, it is clear that assumptions must be rethought. Transnational education remains a worthy goal. But if the next generation of branch campuses is to thrive, especially in East Asia, it must be forged not in the image of prestige, but in the crucible of strategy. It must be attentive, adaptive, and above all, aware.

Kyuseok Kim (KS) is the inaugural Center Director of IES Abroad Seoul, where he leads strategic, academic, and operational initiatives while building partnerships with local institutions. He brings extensive experience in student recruitment, international relations, and business development, with prior roles at UWAY, M Square Media, SUNY Korea, and Sungkyunkwan University. KS is a Fulbright Scholar and a doctoral candidate in Educational Administration and Higher Education at Korea University. He holds an MBA from Sungkyunkwan University and a BA in English Language Education from Korea University. As a scholar-practitioner, he contributes regularly to both international and South Korean publications on global education topics. ks.kyuseok.kim@gmail.com  www.linkedin.com/in/ks-kim-intled