By Mitch Leventhal. We need a national export council for higher education—and we need it now. Education is one of few export sectors where the United States remains the undisputed world leader. The United States is the recipient of about 20 percent of international students who cross national boundaries for education.
Global demand for higher education has never been stronger, and it's still growing. The world's middle class has never been so wealthy, and the United States remains the first-choice study destination. Yet we face stiff competition, and our share of the market has been shrinking. Now is the time to leverage our colleges to become engines of export and national growth. In fact, not to do so amounts to squandering a great national treasure.
When most people think of exports, they picture coal shipped from Newcastle. Delivery of instruction overseas is another form of export. When someone travels to the United States to study, an export also takes place because the money flows into the United States in exchange for the educational goods. President Obama's State of the Union statements regarding attracting and retaining global talent demonstrate that educational exports have caught the attention of the administration. Francisco Sánchez, under secretary for international trade at the Commerce Department, said in a recent Chronicle commentary that educational exports are "a part of a long-term strategy to set America on strong footing in emerging global markets."
Yet despite our nation's historic advantage in higher education, we are not doing as well as one might think—in fact, Sánchez noted that over the past decade, America has suffered a nearly 30-percent decline in international-student market share. This sharp erosion in America's position is not the result of a decline in the quality of our educational product; rather, our competitors are far better organized to capitalize on this market opportunity. We are outpaced by Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and China. The spotlight now is on the key issue that is hampering our success: the conspicuous absence of coordination among key U.S. agencies. Starkly put, our failure results from a dearth of coordination and coherence among the agencies, an absence of unified strategic vision regarding educational exports, and a lack of coordinated consultation with key education organizations, institutions, and the private sector.
Some agencies, most notably the Department of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, which promotes American education through EducationUSA advising centers worldwide, have avoided any public discourse regarding our competitive erosion and how to reverse the trend. Through its absence, the bureau that considers itself to be our major exponent for global engagement in higher education—and which historically has done so much good work—has delayed efforts to develop a national higher-education export strategy. No wonder those higher-education leaders charged with internationalizing their institutions, raising tuition revenues, and revitalizing communities are frustrated. But the educational-affairs bureau is only part of the problem. Other government departments have incomplete pictures of the educational-export landscape, constrained as they are by their own particular missions and organizational insulation. For the good of our country, that must change.
Many administrators charged by their institutions to raise exports will agree that the bureau and State Department leaders appear to have chosen not to engage in any multiparty discussions on this matter. Worse, as many people will attest, the bureau's policies discriminate against U.S. institutions that have engaged international-recruitment professionals abroad, as well as legitimate American companies whose business it is to assist in recruiting. In some cases, Education­USA explicitly advises foreign students not to work with officially appointed in-country representatives of American institutions, effectively sabotaging efforts by those institutions. That seems wrong and misguided. Problems also exist at the Commerce Department, which, notably, is aggressively pushing to boost educational exports. For example, it makes no distinction between accredited and nonaccredited institutions—both of which can participate in the department's promotional fairs and events. That creates confusion in the market overseas and discourages many legitimate colleges and universities from participating in events where they might find themselves side by side with disreputable, fly-by-night enterprises.
This past winter, the federal government raided Tri-Valley University, which the government called a "sham" college that admitted and collected tuition from foreign students but did not require them to attend class. Such diploma mills illustrate how unaccredited (or quasi-accredited) institutions can do substantial damage to the reputation of American higher education, harm vulnerable students, and negatively affect future exports. The very existence of Tri-Valley illustrates the Department of Homeland Security's inadequate vetting and monitoring of institutions that claim to be legitimate providers of education to international students. What many people in higher education know is that differentiating legitimate from illegitimate operators is not an onerous task. And what is further frustrating to many of us is that our own recruiting efforts are sometimes blocked at the visa window, while regulatory loopholes allow shady operators to flourish.
But it is not clear whether the administration appreciates how this Balkanization of government is crippling our effort, or has considered a remedy. Since 2008, the American International Recruitment Council, an organization of U.S.-accredited postsecondary institutions and student-advising agencies, of which I am a founder, has established quality standards for international student recruitment. Member institutions believe that a robust global network of certified independent recruitment agencies, working in concert with the State Department's educational-affairs bureau, can extend the efficacy of the Education­USA advising network and benefit both international students and American institutions. But the bureau's apparent lack of interest in and support for the collective effort by U.S. institutions to develop professional standards and ethical practices for the international-student-recruitment industry is both puzzling and frustrating.
Our federal agencies have an important role to play, and they should all participate together. But different government departments have different agendas. Commerce has trade; State has diplomacy and consular affairs; Homeland Security has immigration; and Education has accreditation. Only a federally mandated national export council for higher education can force a discussion that transcends competing agendas, breaks down misconceptions, forges a coherent strategy, and builds the global bridges needed for growth and prosperity. Such a council should also include key higher-education associations and leaders from colleges and the private sector. In short, everyone must be at the table. If America wants to get this right, if America does not want to see its position continue to erode, if America wants to see exports grow with all of the consequent benefits to our economy and our own citizens, then all parties must be engaged in a common mission. Higher education should be the intellectual engine for American growth in the 21st century, and we can make it happen.
If we do not, it is certain that we are doomed to continued competitive erosion and mediocrity. Given that the Obama administration is clearly signaling the need for an aggressive posture, isn't now the time?