The ASEAN Issue
In a Race to Diversify, will Australia or the UK be the victor?
It has become apparent that the dependence on both Australian and UK universities on students from China and India has become a significant risk management issue for International education, in their efforts to diversify and mitigate such risks ASEAN presents the most obvious region to focus recruitment efforts, that said many established markets such as Malaysia are actually reducing their outflow of students to the UK and Australia. How should universities address this downward trend and, in a race to diversify, will Australia or the UK win out?
The world of higher education has long been shaped by the flows of international students, with Australia Canada, the United Kingdom (UK) and USA being the most popular destinations for students and now China entering the fray. For decades, outward student mobility from China and India have been the driving forces behind the success of international education, with thousands of students moving to English speaking study destinations each year in search of quality education. However, as the world enters a new era of geopolitical uncertainty, shifting policy landscapes, and changing economic conditions, the over-reliance on China and India presents significant risks.
This article explores the growing economic, geopolitical, and policy risks particularly associated with Australia's and the UK's over-dependence on Chinese and Indian students and explores how a strategic diversification towards ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) market could offer robust and sustainable alternative source markets for international student recruitment.
Economic Risks of Over-Reliance on China and India: A Precarious Foundation
The economic value of international students cannot be overstated. In Australia, international education contributes over AUD 51 billion annually to the national economy. In 2024, Chinese students accounted for 22% of Australia’s international student body, while India, with its rapidly growing middle class, has become the second-largest source of international students, contributing to around 16% of enrolments.
Similarly, UK universities have benefitted financially from the inflow of Chinese and Indian students. According to HESA UK’s 2022/23 data, Chinese students make up about 20% of the total international student population in the UK, while Indian students represent 23%. When focusing specifically on students from Asia, Chinese students represent 33% while Indian students represent 37%, both contributing significantly to tuition fees and auxiliary revenues.
However, this financial stability comes with a significant risk: over-reliance on just two countries for international student numbers. Any changes in the political, economic, or diplomatic landscape—such as a downturn in China's economy or the inability to be accompanied by dependents and/or a reduction in post-study work rights for Indian students —has been shown to drastically reduce student numbers from these regions. This highlights the vulnerability of institutions that depend so heavily on a concentrated source of international students, emphasising the need for diversification to ensure long-term sustainability and revenue from international student recruitment.
Geopolitical and Policy Risks: Navigating a Shifting Global Order
As global geopolitics becomes increasingly fraught, the risks of relying on China and India for international student revenue have become even more pronounced. For Australia, a deterioration in diplomatic relations with China in 2020, led to a decline in Chinese student numbers. Although the numbers have since rebounded, this situation highlighted the vulnerability of Australian universities to shifting international relations. Additionally, stricter student visa rules have created further uncertainty, with rising visa rejection rates and slower arrivals complicating universities’ efforts to maintain financial stability.
Growing calls within the UK government for stricter immigration policies have also placed universities in a precarious position when it comes to the recruitment of Indian students, many of whom wish to stay in the UK, undertake post-study work, and obtain sponsored skilled work visas, thereby contributing to the net-migration numbers. And when it comes to China, with rising nationalistic sentiments and policy uncertainty on the horizon, the future of Chinese student enrolment may face increasing challenges. Even if Chinese students continue to choose the UK, these evolving dynamics could undermine the long-standing stability and predictability that UK universities once relied on.
The Need for Diversification: A Path Forward
So, what does this mean for the future of Australian and UK higher education? The answer lies in diversification. By expanding their focus beyond China and India, universities can hedge against the risks of geopolitical volatility, policy changes, and economic downturns. The ASEAN region, with its rapidly growing middle class, should be the focus for international student recruitment activity now and in the future.
Why ASEAN?
The ASEAN market offers a substantial opportunity for universities looking to reduce their dependence on China and India. With a population of nearly 700 million, the region is experiencing rapid economic development and rising educational aspirations, creating an exciting prospect for universities seeking new markets.
A key driver behind ASEAN’s growing appeal is its young demographic where over 61% of ASEAN’s population is under 35 years old. As access to education increases, so does the demand for higher education. ASEAN countries such as Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Thailand are seeing a rise in outbound student numbers, driven by the desire to access world-class education and broaden career prospects. This demand for quality education creates a growing pool of outbound students from ASEAN countries who are looking for options to study overseas.
To meet this rising demand, students are exploring a broader range of destinations. While the US and the UK remain traditional study-abroad choices, Australia’s proximity offers a unique advantage. With a similar level of educational quality but reduced travel costs and cultural similarities, Australia is becoming an increasingly appealing option.
Moreover, for students looking for options even closer to home, the presence of UK and Australian university campuses in ASEAN countries like Singapore and Malaysia presents a popular alternative. These regional campuses offer students a pathway to a globally recognized education, with a more affordable and accessible option than studying further abroad.
Transnational Education (TNE) and Its Role in Diversification
As universities look to diversify their student bases, Transnational Education (TNE)—where universities offer programs outside their home country, presents a key opportunity. TNE allow institutions to tap into regional demand without the need for large physical campuses abroad. This model is becoming increasingly relevant as universities seek to build sustainable pathways to engage with ASEAN students.
However, while TNE has significant potential, it is not a guaranteed solution to the financial challenges facing higher education institutions. The success of TNE will depend on strategic planning, strong local partnerships, and an adaptability to evolving global educational trends. In this evolving landscape, it’s essential that universities carefully assess the needs and preferences of ASEAN students, primarily focused on post-study employment and align their offerings with local market demands. For those interested in exploring the full potential of TNE as a strategy for diversification, there are key insights available on the broader landscape of Transnational Education.
Australia vs. the UK: Who is Leading in Diversification?
When it comes to diversifying their international student base, Australia has arguably been more proactive than the UK in tapping into the ASEAN market. Australian universities have long recognized the growing demand from ASEAN countries, particularly in Southeast Asia. As a result, Australia has invested heavily in marketing and partnerships in the region, while also fostering stronger ties with ASEAN governments to enhance student mobility. With the added benefit of proximity, Australia has been able to attract ASEAN students, who are drawn to study closer to home for cultural, financial, and logistical reasons. Additionally, Australia has made efforts to integrate ASEAN into its education strategy, with initiatives like the New Colombo Plan supporting student exchanges. Furthermore, universities such as Monash Malaysia and RMIT Vietnam are increasing Australia’s presence in Southeast Asia, fostering long-term educational connections in their own regions.
The UK has traditionally been more reliant on its long-standing appeal to Chinese and Indian students. While there are efforts to engage more ASEAN students, particularly through initiatives like regional recruitment fairs and collaborations with local institutions, the UK faces more challenges. The UK has relied heavily on its historical connections with the Commonwealth, and initiatives such as Chevening Scholarships and British Council partnerships but with applications from Malaysia down over 12.4% in the present applications cycle, this is bearing little fruit. And while the UK is gradually recognising the importance of diversifying its student population and benefits from a strong academic reputation, it still has a long way to go in catching up with Australia in its approach to the ASEAN market.
Conclusion: The Future of Global Higher Education Lies in ASEAN
In conclusion, the future of Australian and UK higher education could depend heavily on their ability to diversify their international student base. Over-reliance on China and India has proven to be a double-edged sword, presenting both enormous benefits and significant risks. To date, Australia has been far more successful than the UK in establishing a brand presence in ASEAN and undertaking significant “bridge building” in the region, particularly with reference to education, industry and political activities.
The ASEAN region offers a vast, untapped reservoir of potential students, and by expanding outreach and collaboration with local institutions, universities can ensure long-term financial stability. Diversification will not only mitigate the risks of geopolitical and economic uncertainty but will also create a more globally connected academic community that enriches the educational experience for all involved.
The time has come for Australian and UK higher education to look beyond the traditional powerhouses of China and India and embrace the dynamic, rapidly growing ASEAN market. This is not just a matter of financial survival; it is a chance to embrace a new era of global higher education.
--
--
ASEAN GRADUATES DATA
In this section, we take a closer look at the journey of ASEAN graduates as they make their way into the workforce, using our ACG international graduate outcomes data. With a wealth of insights at our fingertips, we explore how these graduates are adapting to the ever-changing demands of the job market. We focus on key factors such as the time it takes to secure their first job, average salaries, and the increasing interest in entrepreneurship among these graduates. By examining these important aspects, we offer valuable insights into how ASEAN graduates are navigating the job market and the opportunities available to them as they embark on their professional journeys in today’s competitive landscape.
- GENERAL DATA -
First, overall generic data on ASEAN graduates is presented, providing a broad overview of current trends and outcomes.
Among our ACG data, ASEAN graduates make up approximately 45.97%
1. Geographic Origin
The majority of our ASEAN graduates come from Singapore, accounting for approximately 31.5% of the total ACG_ASEAN data, followed closely by Malaysia at 29.34%. These two countries represent our largest ASEAN international graduate markets. Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand follow with moderate representation, while Myanmar and the Philippines contribute a smaller share of graduates.
2. Distribution of ASEAN Graduates by University
The chart shows the concentration of ASEAN graduates across various universities, with each bar representing a different institution. Australian universities (in green) dominate the higher end of the spectrum, indicating they have the highest proportion of ASEAN graduates. Group of Eight universities (yellow) and UK institutions—both Russell Group (red) and non-Russell Group (blue)—follow with more moderate to lower concentrations.
3. Distribution of ASEAN Graduates by Degree Types
This table shows the degree distribution of ASEAN graduates compared to the overall graduate population. Business remains the most popular field, with 52.10% of ASEAN graduates, slightly lower than the overall 55.38%. Interestingly, a higher proportion of ASEAN graduates pursue STEM degrees (29.54%) compared to the overall cohort (27.15%), while the "Others" category is fairly similar across both groups.
4. Distribution of ASEAN Graduates by Level of Study
This table presents the distribution of graduates by level of study. A higher proportion of ASEAN graduates completed undergraduate (UG) degrees at 59.53%, compared to 50.66% in the overall population. Conversely, a smaller percentage of ASEAN graduates pursued postgraduate (PG) studies—38.66% versus 47.46% overall—while doctoral (DOC) representation remains consistently low across both groups.
- EMPLOYMENT DATA –
This section presents employability data on international ASEAN graduates, covering key aspects such as employability rates, time to secure the first job, salary levels, industry sectors, and trends in entrepreneurship.
1. Average Employability Figures
The employability rate of ASEAN graduates stands at 82.84%, slightly higher than the overall graduate employability rate of 80.43%, which suggests that ASEAN graduates are performing well in the job market, with employability outcomes that exceed the broader graduate population.
2. Average Employability Figures by Country of Study
This table shows employability outcomes by country of study, comparing ASEAN graduates to the overall graduate population. Across all countries, ASEAN graduates have higher employability rates. The US leads for ASEAN graduates at 85.77%, followed by Australia (84.45%), New Zealand (82.29%), and the UK (81.71%), indicating strong post-study employment prospects for ASEAN students across key study destinations.
3. Average Employability Figures by University Group
Building on the previous claim, employability outcomes by university group also show stronger results for ASEAN graduates across the board. Graduates from Australian universities report an employability rate of 84.71%, slightly higher than the overall 83.49%. Likewise, ASEAN graduates from the Group of Eight (83.57%) and the UK’s Russell Group (83.14%) outperform their respective overall averages, reflecting strong career outcomes.
4. Average Employability Figures by Country of Origin
Continuing on the theme of strong employability outcomes, a breakdown by country of origin reveals that ASEAN graduates from Singapore (85.35%) and Indonesia (84.03%) lead in employment rates. Graduates from Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines follow closely with employability rates just above or around 80% while Myanmar has the lowest employability rate at 68.07%
5. Average Employability Figures by University
The graphs shows a wide spread across institutions, with many universities, particularly those in Australia (green) and the Group of Eight (yellow)—clustered toward the higher end of the employability spectrum. UK universities, including Russell Group (red) and non-Russell Group (blue), vary more broadly, with some performing strongly and others falling below the average.
It's important to note that employability outcomes can differ widely by university, even among institutions within the same country or group, which highlights the value of looking beyond broad averages. This calls for more granular analysis when evaluating graduate success. To find out more about your university’s graduate outcomes, click the button below.
6. Average Employability Figures by Year of Graduate
This line chart shows the trend of ASEAN graduate employability by year of graduation, with the orange line representing overall graduates and the blue line representing ASEAN graduates specifically.
From 2014 to 2018, both groups maintained relatively high employability rates, hovering above 80%. However, from 2019 onward, there's a noticeable decline, particularly sharp around 2021–2023, which is likely influenced by broader global events such as the pandemic. In recent years (2024–2025), employability shows a slight recovery, with ASEAN graduates consistently tracking just above the overall average.
7. Average Employability Figures by Year of Graduate, Country of Study
If we look at employability by region, ASEAN graduates from Australian universities (green) have consistently maintained higher employability rates compared to those from the UK (blue). From 2014 to 2020, both regions saw strong outcomes, but a notable decline begins around 2021, particularly for UK graduates, where the drop is more pronounced. Despite the dip, employability for both groups begins to stabilise around 2023, with Australia maintaining a slight edge over the UK throughout the observed years.
8. Average Employability Figures by Degree
When it comes to employability by degree, STEM graduates lead slightly with an employability rate of 83.87%, followed closely by those in the “Others” category at 83.45%. Business graduates also perform well, though marginally lower, at 82.57%. Broadly speaking, employability outcomes are strong across all disciplines, with minimal variation between fields.
9. Average Employability Figures by Level of Study
When we break it down by level of study, outcomes improve steadily with higher qualifications. Doctoral graduates (DOC) lead with an employability rate of 91.37%, followed by postgraduates (PG) at 84.28%, and undergraduates (UG) at 81.67%. This trend suggests that higher levels of study are generally associated with stronger employment prospects.
- MONTHS TO FIRST JOB -
1. Average time taken to first job (in Months)
In terms of time taken to secure the first job, ASEAN graduates take an average of 25.49 months, slightly longer than the overall average of 24.16 months. While the difference is modest, it highlights the importance of ongoing support and targeted career readiness for international cohorts.
2. Average time taken to first job (in Months) by Country of Study
ASEAN graduates take slightly longer to secure employment compared to the overall average in most regions. The biggest gap is seen in the US, where ASEAN graduates take 39.56 months, significantly more than the overall 32.23 months. In Australia and New Zealand, the difference is modest, while in the UK, ASEAN graduates are nearly on par with the overall cohort—23.08 months vs 21.91 months. These suggest that regional factors and support systems can ease or extend the transition into the workforce.
3. Average time taken to first job (in Months) by University Group
Differences in time to first job are also seen across university groups. ASEAN graduates from Australian universities take an average of 29.82 months to find their first job—closely aligned with the overall average of 29.66 months. Graduates from more research-intensive groups like the Group of Eight and the Russell Group see shorter transition times, though ASEAN graduates still take slightly longer than their peers. For example, ASEAN graduates from the Group of Eight take 21.14 months, compared to the overall 19.85 months, and 22.60 months from the Russell Group versus 21.58 months overall. These differences, while relatively small, may reflect variations in career support, visa pathways, or industry engagement.
4. Average time taken to first job (in Months) by Country of Origin
ASEAN graduates’ time to first job also varies by country of origin. Graduates from the Philippines transition the fastest, averaging just 15.11 months, while those from Myanmar take the longest at 31.93 months. Most other countries, including Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, and Indonesia, fall within the 23–25 month range, with Singapore slightly above at 28.16 months.
5. Average time taken to first job (in Months) by University
This graph highlights the variation in time to first job among ASEAN graduates by university. UK universities dominate the lower end of the spectrum, where graduates secure employment more quickly. In contrast, Australian universities tend to fall on the higher end, with longer average transition times—though the Group of Eight generally show quicker employment outcomes compared to other Australian institutions. That said, despite the longer wait, Australian universities overall have slightly higher employability rates than their UK counterparts, suggesting stronger long-term outcomes.
6. Average time taken to first job (in Months) by Year of Graduate
The chart above shows a clear downward trend in the time taken to secure a first job among ASEAN graduates by year of graduation. Graduates from earlier years, such as 2015 and 2016, took significantly longer—over 30 months on average—to find their first job. In contrast, more recent graduates from 2023 and 2024 secured employment much faster, often within just a few months. This sharp decline may reflect improvements in employability support, better job market conditions, or data maturity for more recent cohorts.
7. Average time taken to first job (in Months) by Degree
When comparing time to first job by degree type, STEM graduates secure employment the fastest at 24.32 months, followed by Business at 25.84 months, and Others at 26.45 months.
8. Average time taken to first job (in Months) by Level of Study
By level of study, postgraduate (PG) graduates also tend to transition to employment more quickly at 24.21 months, compared to undergraduates (UG) at 26.37 months. Interestingly, doctoral graduates (DOC) take the longest, averaging 28.10 months, possibly due to the more specialized and competitive nature of research-related roles.
9. Relationship between Average time taken to first job (in Months) and Employability
Sorted by Months to First Job
This graph illustrates the relationship between average time to first job (in months) and employability rate among ASEAN graduates, sorted by time to first job.
While it might seem intuitive that quicker entry into the workforce leads to higher employability, the data doesn’t show a consistently clear relationship. The majority of universities, regardless of how long graduates take to find a job, still report employability rates above 80%. Interestingly, a few universities—often UK-based—appear on the left side with shorter time to first job but employability rates below 80%, suggesting that fast employment doesn’t always reflect long-term outcomes or job quality.
Sorted by Employability
When sorted by employability, the relationship between time to first job and employment outcomes remains mixed. While the universities on the left side (with the highest employability rates) include many with relatively low time to first job, there are also several with moderate to high transition times—particularly among Australian institutions.
Likewise, some universities on the right end of the chart—where employability drops below 80%—still show shorter times to first job, especially among UK and Russell Group universities. This reinforces the earlier point: there's no strong linear correlation between employability rate and how quickly graduates land their first job. Other factors like job quality, career support, and long-term retention may be at play.
Note:
When universities have a low time to first job but a not-so-high employability rate, it often indicates that while many graduates find employment quickly, not all of them secure jobs. One possible reason is that graduates may take on temporary or part-time roles that are not aligned with their qualifications. These positions allow them to enter the workforce quickly but may not be counted towards full-time, long-term employment, which can affect the overall employability rate. Additionally, some graduates may initially accept entry-level or suboptimal positions, which, while offering a starting point in their careers, may not be reflective of the long-term, career-oriented employment that typically defines a high employability rate.
- ANNUAL SALARY -
1. Average Annual Salary
The average annual salary for ASEAN graduates stands at £22,428, slightly higher than the overall’s £22,107.
2. Average Annual Salary by Country of Study
Among study destinations, graduates from the US earn the highest, averaging £31,248, well above those from the UK (£22,373), New Zealand (£21,960), and Australia (£21,640).
3. Average Annual Salary by University Group
By university group, UK institutions, particularly those outside the Russell Group, show slightly stronger salary outcomes. Graduates from the Russell Group earn £21,656, while those from the broader UK group average £22,883. Meanwhile, Group of Eight universities in Australia report £22,336, outperforming the general Australian university average of £21,437. This suggests that while graduating from prestige universities may not always guarantee higher pay, it holds more weight in the Australia than in the UK.
4. Average Annual Salary by Country of Origin
When looking at average salary by country of origin, there's a notable disparity among ASEAN graduates. Singaporean graduates stand out with a significantly higher average salary of £45,971, far ahead of the next highest group, Myanmar, at £25,229. Graduates from Thailand (£12,948) and Malaysia (£11,646) follow, while those from the Philippines, Vietnam, and Indonesia report much lower average earnings—Indonesia being the lowest at £5,279.
These differences may reflect varying home-country job markets, return-to-home rates, or sectors of employment across the region.
5. Average Annual Salary by University
The graph above shows a wide distribution of average annual salaries for ASEAN graduates across universities. While there’s no sharp clustering, it’s clear that some of the highest-earning graduates come from non-prestige universities, particularly outside the traditional Group of Eight (yellow) and Russell Group (red) clusters. This reinforces earlier findings: prestige doesn't always equate to higher salaries for ASEAN graduates. Instead, factors like location, course relevance, and industry alignment may play a larger role in driving salary outcomes.
6. Average Annual Salary by Year of Graduate
This graph shows the average annual salary by year of graduation, comparing ASEAN graduates (blue) to the overall cohort (orange). From 2014 to around 2019, both groups follow a similar declining trend, stabilising near £20,000. However, from 2022 onward, ASEAN graduates begin to pull ahead, with a sharp rise in salaries by 2024 and 2025, peaking close to £30,000—well above the overall average.
This uptick suggests that recent ASEAN graduates are seeing stronger salary outcomes, possibly due to better alignment with industry needs, higher-paying sectors, or selective retention of high earners in newer cohorts.
7. Average Annual Salary by Degree
Among degree types, “Others” (£23,294) and STEM (£22,962) graduates earn slightly more on average than Business graduates (£21,766).
8. Average Annual Salary by Level of Study
Interestingly, at the level of study, undergraduates (UG) report higher average salaries (£23,637) than postgraduates (PG) at £20,142—a reversal of typical expectations. Doctoral graduates (DOC) earn the most, with an average salary of £24,822, which aligns more with traditional assumptions about advanced qualifications leading to higher earnings.
These trends may reflect differences in industries entered, geographic mobility, or even the types of roles taken up immediately after graduation.
9. Average Annual Salary by Industry
This table highlights the average salary of ASEAN graduates across various industries, revealing substantial differences in earning potential. Healthcare/Pharmaceutical leads the pack at £30,459, followed by Sports/Fitness (£29,097) and Finance, Banking, Economics, and Law (£28,189). These fields clearly offer stronger financial returns for graduates.
On the other end of the spectrum, industries such as Telecommunication (£18,764), Design/Fashion/Graphics (£16,873), and Agriculture (£11,540) report the lowest average salaries, indicating less lucrative opportunities despite possibly high demand or creative appeal.
In conclusion, the data paints a compelling picture of ASEAN graduates as adaptable, resilient, and increasingly successful in navigating global job markets. From employability to salary outcomes, the trends underscore the importance of continued support, regional insight, and targeted opportunities to ensure these graduates thrive in the years ahead.
--
--
NEW MODELS FOR TNE
With all the focus on Transnational Education, we are yet to be convinced that TNE is the answer to the university financial crisis. While education experts such as Janet Ilieva, founder of Education Insight, are enthusiastic advocates for TNE, advocating that the UK education and immigration systems should recognise the growing popularity of TNE programmes—which may involve studying both in the UK and a home country, there is little financial data available on how viable the various TNE models are: campus, franchise, joint, online. What is the best approach to take in order to derive significant revenue from TNE whilst upholding standards and protecting the reputation of the founding institutions?
The UK has a long, and in some cases, chequered history when it comes to TNE. Among the top UK universities in TNE enrolments for 2022/23, The Open University led with 48,805 students, followed by the University of London (37,850) and the University of Liverpool (22,645). Other institutions, including Liverpool John Moores University, Coventry University, and Cardiff Metropolitan University, also had significant TNE enrolments, highlighting their strategic focus on international education. We would posit that it is only these universities that derive substantial revenue from their TNE efforts.
At the same time as the hype surrounding TNE, Queen’s University Belfast has been criticised for its decision to open a campus in India after announcing 270 job cuts in Northern Ireland through a voluntary redundancy scheme. The University and College Union, which represents many lecturers and support staff, described the move as “scandalous.” It said Queen’s receives “significant funding” from Stormont and accused the university of using public money to fund redundancies in Belfast while expanding abroad. Queen’s said it was facing a financial deficit amid a “sharp decline” in international students and had to take a number of actions to cut costs. It added that the redundancy scheme was wholly voluntary. At the time, BBC News NI saw documents suggesting Queen’s University Belfast was facing a deficit of more than £11 million (US$13.7 million) for the financial year 2024-25. Then, last week, the university announced plans to open a campus in Gujarat International Finance Tec-City (GIFT City) in India next year.
The same criticism could be levelled at Newcastle University, which is currently trying to plug a £35m shortfall, and staff at a city centre university have begun 14 days of strike action amid job losses. At the same time, Newcastle University said it was in the "very early stages" of creating "education partnerships" in the country, as it looks to open a new campus in India. Considering financial troubles at home, is this in fact the best course of action for universities to be taking?
While the UK has an established “campus” model for TNE, with branch campuses in China, Dubai, Malaysia etc. it is costly to deliver with no guarantees. The experience of the University of Reading Malaysia serves as a cautionary tale. Reading’s 2018 accounts recorded a £27 million bill for setting up and operating the Malaysia campus, stretching back to 2011, which pushed the institution as a whole into the red by £20 million. Had it not been for the global pandemic, the university may no longer have remained a going concern. Vincenzo Raimo, then Pro-Vice-Chancellor of Global Engagement at Reading, noted that there were often assumptions that international branch campuses are “all about making lots of money that is going to be repatriated to the UK campus,” but such notions are “a mistake.”
More recently Australia has emerged as a formidable player in the TNE sector, the University of Wollongong and Deakin University have established campuses in GIFT City, while the University of Melbourne has opened a global centre in Delhi. Meanwhile, in Indonesia, transnational education is gaining popularity, with over 429 TNE courses, including 91 study programs from Australian universities, offered in collaboration with local institutions. Lancaster and Deakin universities have just opened their joint international branch campus in Bandung, Indonesia, with Western Sydney and Central Queensland universities expected to follow. In Vietnam, education cooperation has been growing, with over 20,000 Vietnamese students pursuing Australian qualifications in the country. RMIT Vietnam, established in 2000, has since expanded into a leading regional university with campuses in Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi.
Australia may be able to combine establishing overseas campuses with a different model in order to expand its TNE footprint. At present, it appears that transnational students may be excluded from any future international student cap in Australia, something that looks highly likely if the Coalition wins the next election. TNE could serve as a strategic workaround for Australia to increase student recruitment and revenue, and there is precedent for this being a viable alternative to the branch campus model.
During the pandemic, many Chinese students opted to remain in their home country while still paying premium tuition fees for degrees predominantly from the Group of Eight universities. To support these students, Australia successfully established regional study hubs in China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Latin America, and South Asia, further solidifying its presence in key markets. One Australian TNE model could allow students to complete their first year at an overseas “study hub,” where costs can be shared by multiple institutions, and graduate in their home country while spending two to three years on campus in Australia.
This approach would require investment in physical infrastructure or the expansion of existing study hubs. Graduating in their home country would also enable students to include their extended families in the process while ensuring their return post-study, shifting the model away from reliance on post-study work and towards an "education tourism" model, which is more popular with governments and policymakers looking to reduce net migration.
To remain competitive and derive significant revenue from TNE, universities must innovate and adapt their models. Online and hybrid delivery methods have gained acceptance post-pandemic, offering scalable solutions. Emerging markets in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East present untapped potential, while policy shifts in countries like India indicate increasing openness to foreign education providers despite certain restrictions.
To succeed, institutions should focus on quality assurance by strengthening oversight to maintain academic standards, establish local partnerships to reduce costs and enhance market entry, advocate for data transparency to inform decision-making, develop scalable models that combine online delivery with short-term campus stays, and conduct thorough market analyses to identify high-demand areas.
As universities navigate pressures from anti-immigration policies in major English-speaking study destinations such as Australia, Canada, and the UK—along with potential changes in the USA—the future of TNE remains both promising and uncertain. Financial sustainability and global competition present challenges, while regulatory complexities in regions like India and Vietnam add further obstacles. To ensure success, higher education institutions must prioritise transparency by publishing financial and operational data, innovate delivery models that minimise infrastructure costs while meeting local demands, and mitigate risks through rigorous due diligence. While TNE holds significant potential, it is not a guaranteed solution to the financial challenges facing universities. Success will require strategic planning, robust oversight, and a willingness to adapt to evolving global dynamics.
