Education scholars argue that international education helps in creating awareness of other people’s cultures, world regions, and further makes students familiar with global and international issues. It also helps in fostering the spirit of multiculturalism as a key driver of globalization, enabling students to communicate in foreign languages amongst other benefits. However, the extent of international education to achieve these goals precisely is dependent on the existence of homogeneity of its approaches deployed by global education institutions. To determine whether this homogeneity exists, it is rather pertinent that a comparison methodology exists for all international education institutions to adopt. However, this paper argues that various problems exist in making international comparisons. The first problem in making international comparison stems from the existence of differences in the definition of the term itself. The term international education attracts valid and often highly debated definitions. Some scholars have considered the meaning of the term from two general perspectives, which are dependent on levels of student’s involvement. One perspective lies on the perception that international education prepares students from differing nations to take an active part as participants in social, economic and political matters of an interconnected world (Cambridge & Thompson 2004, p.162). To achieve this, it is necessary that students learn foreign languages. Spellings (2007) supports this argument and further argues that learning foreign languages would enable the U.S people to communicate effectively the American ideas and also values while in return America would come to a better understanding of various global issues (Spellings 2007, p.5). Realization of this dream is apparently impossible due to the existence of varying emphasis on specific areas in international education. Making comparison is then also a problem. As a way of example, Spellings (2007) argues that, in China, Thailand, and the European Union, it is compulsory for the student to study foreign languages. Compared to America, only 44 percent of high school students studied a foreign language in 2002 with less than 1% studying Korean, Urdu, Japanese and Russian combined (Spellings 2007, p.6). The second approach in defining international education is looking at it as an education that helps in transcending various national borders through promotion of exchanges of various people of different nationalities. In this context, international education entails students traveling to do their studies in various higher learning institutions branches established in foreign nations as a part of exchange programs (Cambridge & Thompson 2004, p.167). This is the position also held by Ignacio and Morentin (2003), who argue that international education is education for international understanding and helps in fostering democracy, peace and human rights among the global society (pp.5 -8). However, Cambridge and Thompson (2004) contest this view. They argue that “the majority of international schools operate in a variety of local contexts and usually students do not travel terribly far to attend an international school because they reside with their parents, who are expatriates working in a country that is not their home, and attend an international school in their locality or a nearby city” (p.166). In this context, the decision to attend an international school is not by virtue of the need to foster international understanding but because of circumstance. In making a comparison of international education, data relating to various