Schools vs. Universities

Will international schools displace universities as the powerhouses of global education?

There is a paradox in how we discuss the future of education. While universities seem increasingly threatened by artificial intelligence, student debt and a lack of credible data on graduate outcomes, schools, particularly international schools are thriving. They provide the fundamentals of learning and, crucially, allow parents to be economically productive, making them indispensable to families and policymakers alike. This resilience gives them a natural advantage in the uncertain landscape of the “future of work”.

International schools are not only surviving, they are booming. Groups such as Nord Anglia, ISP, Cognita and GEMS Education — many backed by private equity — are expanding at pace. According to ISC Research, more than six million students are now enrolled worldwide, with 283 new international schools in the global pipeline, 167 of them in Asia and more than 100 due to open by the end of 2025. Between 2020 and 2025, the number of international schools grew by around 8%, and the trend shows no sign of slowing. Demand is fuelled by the rising middle classes of Asia, Africa and the Middle East, who see English-medium schooling not just as a means of learning, but as a passport to global mobility.

This growth creates both an opportunity and a threat for universities. At present, a significant number of international students apply to higher education through agents —75% in Australia and around 65% in the UK, with universities surrendering a growing share of their recruitment budgets in commission. With the scale of today’s school networks, why shouldn’t universities forge direct progression pathways with schools themselves?

The logic is clear. For schools, progression agreements with universities will enhance their value proposition to parents, guaranteeing a smoother transition into higher education. For universities, they reduce reliance on third-party agents, bring down acquisition costs, and create a more predictable recruitment pipeline. For families, they offer confidence that fees invested in international schooling will translate into access to globally recognised higher education. In a sector where governments are tightening visa compliance rules and international enrolments are increasingly volatile, these relationships could be transformative.

Some schools are already formalising such arrangements. GEMS for Life provides sustained university and career support, guiding students through applications, scholarships and progression routes. Kansas State University’s partnership with GEMS Education includes tuition discounts for GEMS graduates — embedding a financial incentive to choose one pathway over another. Meanwhile, GEMS and LRN’s pathway programmes (verified by City & Guilds) link International GCSEs, A-Levels and foundation courses directly to top universities worldwide.

Nord Anglia has developed collaborations with universities, including King’s College London and MIT. These partnerships bring university-level expertise directly into schools, giving students exposure to advanced academic content, research and problem-solving before they graduate.

The parallel with universities’ relationship to employers is striking. As I argued in University World News, universities must evolve into “finishing schools for industry” embedding employability and workplace readiness into every programme. Yet, as I explored in Are universities passing the buck on job readiness? too many institutions outsource job preparation to employers. Apprenticeships and work-integrated learning schemes often leave universities as credentialing bodies while industry delivers the critical skills. This outsourcing may look innovative, but in reality, it sidelines universities from their core mission: preparing graduates for work.

The same risk applies in international recruitment. If universities fail to build direct ties with international schools, they risk becoming passive recipients at the end of a pipeline controlled by others. Already, schools are offering the guidance, preparation and access that agents once monopolised. If that role consolidates, schools may capture even more of the value chain, leaving universities little room to differentiate themselves beyond the degree certificate.

This comes at a time when universities are already under pressure. Across the Anglophone world, student debt is mounting and the so-called graduate premium is increasingly questioned. In the UK, graduates leave with debts exceeding £50,000 while real wages stagnate. As highlighted in University World News, one in five graduates might have been financially better off never attending university. In Wonkhe, we argue that while elite institutions can still demonstrate strong returns, vast swathes of the sector cannot.

Part of the problem is data. The UK’s Longitudinal Education Outcomes dataset is published with years in arrears, limiting its usefulness for students making decisions. For international students, no data exists at all. Through Asia Careers Group, we have tracked over 120,000 graduates returning to China, India and ASEAN and the outcomes are mixed. Many succeed, but others struggle to secure graduate-level employment. This reality is very different from the glossy recruitment brochures that dominate the sector. As I noted in Wonkhe, most universities continue to ignore the fact that the majority of international students return home within two years of graduating. Without data on their employability, institutions cannot credibly defend the value of their degrees, to what is a crucial part of their provision and increasing funding.

Contrast this with schools. Their growth is not only measured but celebrated. Investors have poured capital into international school groups because the fundamentals are sound: demand is strong, outcomes (entry into global universities) are clear, and the market is expanding. Schools can therefore present themselves not only as providers of education but as trusted custodians of progression into higher education. In this sense, they are increasingly occupying the space that universities once assumed was theirs alone.

If universities wish to remain relevant, they must act on two fronts. First, by forging structural alliances with international schools, cutting out costly intermediaries and formalising direct progression pipelines. These partnerships should go beyond recruitment into co-developed programmes, shared facilities, joint summer schools and integrated foundation years. Done properly, they could deliver transparency and stability for families, new revenues for schools, and more secure pipelines for universities. Second, by integrating employability into the core of their curricula, so they are actively cultivating, not just endorsing, the skills students need for the workforce.

The stakes are high. Schools are expanding, diversifying and building trust with globally mobile families. Universities are under growing scrutiny from governments, students and employers alike. Their survival depends not only on proving value for money and graduate outcomes, but on building new alliances with the very schools that are increasingly controlling access to their classrooms. Without reform, universities risk being leapfrogged, first by employers, and now by schools.

The future of schools is secure. The future of universities is anything but.