Higher Education: Approaches to Attract and Fund International Students in the United States and Abroad
Released: 2009-04-30T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Following the events of September 11, the total number of international students studying in the United States leveled off and even dropped slightly after 2002, though enrollment numbers have recently rebounded. (See fig. 1.) According to the Institute of International Education (IIE), the decline in the number of international students attending U.S. higher education institutions between 2003 and 2006 was the first drop in over 30 years. While the United States continues to be the leading destination for international students, the U.S. share of international students worldwide dropped—from 26 to 20 percent—between 2000 and 2008. (See fig. 2.) According to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, since 2002 the United States’ image has declined in both the Muslim world and among many of America’s oldest allies. In the wake of September 11, the United States also tightened its immigration policy and made it more difficult for foreign nationals, including international students, to apply for a visa. As we previously reported, these changes, made to help protect our nation’s security interests, may have contributed to our declining share of international students and the perception that the United States was an unwelcoming place for international students.

The U.S. government seeks to improve global attitudes toward America through diplomatic and development assistance efforts, which include funding higher education for international students in the United States. Many of the programs that support these efforts are administered through the Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, which funds programs aimed at advancing public diplomacy goals, and the United States Agency for International Development, which is primarily concerned with providing assistance to developing nations. These efforts typically create face-to-face exchange opportunities with foreign students, researchers, professionals, and educators to provide a better understanding of a nation’s views, values, and culture. The United States also funds higher education for international students to help developing nations alleviate poverty and promote peace and security, public health, economic growth, education, and democratization. These programs target the economic, social, or technological needs of developing nations by equipping students and professionals for future leadership roles in their communities, businesses, and governments and to fill critical labor and skill gaps.

While the federal government funds education for international students to achieve public diplomacy and development objectives, the vast majority of students who come to the United States to study do not receive funding from the U.S. government. According to the Institute of International Education’s Open Doors 2008 report, 623,805 students came to the United States to study during the 2007-2008 academic year and nearly 9 out of 10 international students reported their primary source of funding for education as coming from either personal and family sources or from their host college or university in the United States. Although the primary source of funds for the vast majority of students that enter the United States is not provided by the federal government, promoting study in the United States can support a range of U.S. objectives in addition to the public diplomacy and development goals supported by State and USAID efforts. For example, the United States has relied on undergraduate and graduate students from other countries as important sources of innovation and productivity in our increasingly knowledge-based economy. Such students who remain in the country after completing their studies have brought needed research and workforce skills and strengthened our labor force. For example, international students have earned about one-third or more of the degrees at both the master’s and doctoral levels in engineering, math and computer science, and the physical sciences.

Governments We Reviewed Use Higher Education to Advance Diplomatic, Economic, and Other Objectives and Employ Multiple Approaches to Attract International Students

Governments We Reviewed Use International Education to Advance Diplomatic, Economic, and Other Objectives, Often Simultaneously

All of the governments we reviewed fund higher education for international students to advance diplomatic, development, economic, and other objectives, often simultaneously. For example, Australian officials said that international higher education helps Australia achieve economic goals. Education was Australia’s third largest export and contributed $15.5 billion in Australian dollars (about $13 billion in U.S. dollars) to its economy in 2008. According to Australian officials, international students also help Australia meet its foreign relations and diplomatic goals. To illustrate the diplomatic linkages that education can create, Australian officials said that at one time nearly half of the Malaysian cabinet had been educated in Australia. Australian officials reported that student exchange is Australia’s primary way of providing a contemporary understanding of the country, building linkages between Australia and foreign nations, forming the basis of business and cultural relationships, demonstrating the quality of Australia’s educational opportunities, and helping to dispel the myth that Australia is a “far away land.” The Australian government also provides development assistance to Asian countries and Pacific Islands to increase their access to high-quality education and training, which supports growth in the region. These development assistance efforts also build enduring links at the individual, institutional, and country levels, according to Australian officials.

Chinese officials told us that by promoting international student study in China, they are able to advance goals aimed at promoting peaceful and common development of all countries. According to these officials, providing international educational opportunities to foreign students is part of their strategy for promoting cultural, scientific, and technological exchanges between the East and the West. China develops exchanges with other countries in the fields of education, science, and technology to strengthen friendship and understanding between the Chinese people and people around the world and to promote modernization in China. China reported that its collaboration with foreign universities and educational institutions helps to develop an exchange network that allows it to send “the best students to study in the best universities under the supervision of the best advisers,” mutually benefiting institutions and countries.

According to officials from Germany’s national agency that supports international education, international students help Germany advance several goals, including increasing the international appeal of German universities and promoting the academic, economic, and democratic development of developing countries. German officials said that their ability to advance several goals simultaneously is an important strength of international education. For example, international students studying in science and technology help advance German research and innovation goals while also advancing public diplomacy goals by returning to their home countries as unofficial ambassadors for Germany.

Officials in the United Kingdom (UK) reported that international education contributes to building a high-skilled workforce, helps build relationships with people from around the world, enhances understanding about each others’ cultures, and opens doors to trade, investment, and political influence. The European Union (EU) also seeks to advance several international education goals, including promoting intercultural understanding through cooperation with non-European countries as well as ensuring that education and training are accessible to the global community.

In the United States, the federal government similarly seeks to advance multiple goals simultaneously through international higher education. For example, the United States is able to advance both diplomatic and country development goals through higher education by reaching out to students in developing countries and equipping them with the skills and knowledge needed to support efforts in their own countries. In addition, the United States has historically relied on international students to fill critical skill gaps in the economy and, in particular, has relied heavily on international students to fill critical skill gaps in science, math, engineering, and technology fields. Finally, international education also contributed $15.5 billion to U.S. economy in 2007-2008, according to data from the Department of Commerce.

Governments Employ a Number of Approaches to Attract International Students, Such as Marketing Their Higher Education Internationally

To advance public diplomacy, development, and other national goals, the governments we reviewed use a number of approaches to introduce international students to their higher education systems. To promote their higher education systems internationally, countries like the United Kingdom, Germany, and Australia have developed broad marketing strategies with a focus on outreach to international students. These marketing strategies include developing a national brand through the use of logos and slogans to promote higher education systems among international communities, much as a corporation would promote a commercial brand, as shown in figure 3.

For example, many of the higher education institutions in the United Kingdom use the national brand “Education UK–Innovative.Individual. Inspirational.” to distinguish United Kingdom higher educational institutions from others. This United Kingdom national brand and its associated logo are used for products, activities, events, and marketing campaigns aimed at promoting United Kingdom education. Similarly, Germany’s higher education national brand “Study in Germany–Land of Ideas” appears in various promotion efforts, including advertisements, and at educational fairs. Australia promotes its international study opportunities through the “Study in Australia” campaign with the “Live.Learn.Grow.” slogan. According to Australian officials, the “Study in Australia” campaign is used to highlight the quality of Australia’s education system, the country’s unique lifestyle, and the personal growth that comes from an international education experience in Australia. The national brand is used in various promotion channels, including the Study in Australia Web site, education exhibitions, student forums in target markets, and traditional advertising media such as print, radio, and television. See figure 4 for samples of promotion brochures from selected countries.

In addition, all of the governments we reviewed have developed Web sites to inform potential students about their academic options, application procedures, student support services, and lifestyles within that country; and in the case of the European Commission, the Web site provides similar information on 32 European countries. These Web sites are typically provided in several languages and offer a range of information on issues such as academic programs, visa requirements, higher education financing options, and predeparture advice. For example, prospective students accessing Australia’s Study in Australia Web site can find a range of information including language and academic requirements, study costs and available scholarships, and listings of accredited Australian institutions and available courses. The Web site also describes life and culture in Australia as well as the benefits of study in Australia, such as the types of student support services and the cultural diversity of the country. In addition, the Web site provides students points of contact for further inquiry, including country-specific alumni networks and Australian education advisers stationed in-country. Web site information is available in multiple languages, many of which are languages spoken in the region, such as Indonesian, Japanese, Thai, and Vietnamese. See figure 5 for examples of Web sites.

The United States provides an online guide for international students on higher education called EducationUSA. The Web site provides guidance on a number of areas, including how to select a school, find English language training programs, apply for a visa, and obtain financial assistance. It also provides information on the benefits of a U.S. education, such as the accreditation system that helps ensure higher education institutions maintain quality standards for their faculty, curriculum, administration, and student services. Practical information on predeparture preparations, such as travel and housing arrangements, and everyday living in the United States, are also included on the Web site. Potential students are directed to advising centers stationed around the world for additional information and assistance. The Web site provides information and resources to potential students in six languages, including Arabic, Chinese, and French.

Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States also conduct outreach to international students through their overseas information centers. These centers are designed to facilitate in-country outreach and provide information and guidance to prospective international students. They also help to develop strategic partnerships with foreign governments and educational institutions. According to officials, Australia has a network of 25 international offices that are staffed with over 100 individuals, 15 of whom have been accredited by the Australian government to be education advisers, who work with the international education community to promote Australian education worldwide. In addition to conducting outreach activities, the network also collects and provides information on the international education market, including business opportunities in established and emerging markets, to higher education subscribers in Australia. According to United Kingdom officials, the United Kingdom relies on a network of international offices located in over 100 nations around the world to facilitate education and cultural linkages among the United Kingdom and potential students, foreign education institutions, and governments. Similarly, Germany relies on a global network of 48 information centers to promote Germany’s higher education system. The United States has a network of more than 450 advising centers around the world, called EducationUSA Advising Centers. Centers are staffed by professional advisers, many of whom studied in the United States themselves and have received State Department-approved training about U.S. higher education and the advising process. While the reported levels of services and capabilities offered by the overseas information centers vary from country to country, government officials stressed that their network of offices is valuable because its staff possess expertise in international education, understand the education systems of the regions in which they operate, and have essential contacts, including contacts at education ministries and local higher education institutions.

All governments we reviewed reported that ensuring that international students receive a quality education and experience abroad is another key component of their approach to outreach to international students. In the face of growing domestic and international demand for higher education, China has invested significant resources to enhance the institutional and human resource capacities of its higher education institutions in the last 10 years. The steps taken to increase institutional capacity include encouraging private funding for China’s higher education and modernization of schools’ facilities and equipment. In addition, officials said that China has consolidated specialized schools, such as engineering and art schools, and added additional academic programs to create institutions with more of a comprehensive breadth of curricula, making them more adaptable to employment needs and improving the schools’ resources through economies of scale. Further, education officials said that China provides leadership training to its senior management staff through international exchange programs with various Western countries to enhance the human capacity of China’s higher education institutions.

European countries are also taking these steps to help ensure that their higher education and research systems continuously adapt to changing needs, society’s demands, and advances in scientific knowledge, as well as to gain a “worldwide degree of attractiveness.” For example, under the Bologna Declaration of June 1999, European countries established a series of reforms to make European higher education more compatible and comparable across member states, including the adoption of comparable undergraduate and graduate degrees and a system of credits. Currently, 46 European countries participate in the Bologna process. To increase the quality and effectiveness of education and training programs in the European Union, the European Commission has also established working groups in 12 areas, including the education and training of teachers and trainers.

To ensure overseas students have a positive educational experience, the UK Council for International Student Affairs, an education charity, acts as the UK’s national advisory body serving the interests of overseas students and those who work with them, according to officials from the United Kingdom. This advisory body encourages best practices, professional development, and institutional support for international students. For example, the UK Council for International Student Affairs provides guidance to students and higher education partners in a number of areas, such as immigration policies, financial planning, and cross-cultural issues.

Further, the Australian government, through enacted legislation and regulations, provides “consumer protections” of overseas students. These protections include alternative course placement for students whose education provider cannot offer a particular course, and making refunds to students when no such placement is possible. Australia also established an international arm within its government to provide leadership across all levels of government and industry, ensure that overseas students have a quality study abroad experience, and support the country’s international education industry.

Public Diplomacy and Development Assistance Programs We Studied Share Key Characteristics

The Programs We Reviewed Generally Offer Merit-Based Scholarships Targeted to Graduate Students

The major scholarship programs we reviewed that support public diplomacy and development assistance goals typically select recipients using merit-based criteria, offer graduate-level study, and cover the cost of tuition and some other expenses. For example, the Australian Development Scholarships program selects high-achieving students, mostly for graduate-level study, through a competitive selection process that is coordinated between Australian officials and partner governments. Selection criteria are usually established bilaterally between the Australian government and the applicant’s home government, and students who are nominated must also be accepted by the receiving higher education institution in Australia. The program awards 90 percent of its scholarships for graduate-level study, making a small percentage available to those wishing to pursue undergraduate or vocational study. Australian Development Scholarship awards include tuition, travel, health insurance, and allowances to cover study materials, living expenses, and other participation-related costs. In addition, these awards may also cover English-language training, tutorial assistance, and a mandatory 4- to 6- week course designed to prepare students for life and study in Australia. According to program officials, approximately $45,000 in Australian dollars (about $38,000 U.S. in dollars) is awarded to selected students in tuition and other expenses per year.

Although the European Union’s Erasmus Mundus program has differing objectives, it also awards scholarships on the basis of academic merit to graduate students. In the past, the program offered scholarships only for master’s-level study for 1- to 2-year periods, but will also begin offering scholarships for doctoral study for up to 3 years starting in 2010. Under this program, individual courses of study are developed by consortia of universities within the European Union and these consortia are given considerable latitude in selecting applicants. The program’s administering agency recommends that each consortium assess the quality of eligible applicants based on criteria such as academic record, exam results, and letters of recommendation. Unlike other scholarship programs we reviewed, the Erasmus Mundus program awards a fixed amount to recipients annually, which was 21,000 euros in 2008 (about $31,000 in U.S. dollars). While tuition and fees vary widely among European universities, in most instances, the award amount is greater than the cost of attendance, allowing recipients to use the balance of the award t other participation-related expenses, according to program officials.

The U.S. Fulbright Foreign Student Program, which supports public diplomacy goals, follows a similar approach in awarding merit-based scholarships to graduate students. The program selects scholarship recipients through a competitive process that considers input from a scholarship board, U.S. embassies, and other organizations. Applicatio are generally restricted to students who meet certain citizenship requirements and who will have received the equivalent of a bach degree prior to the start of the grant period. In selecting scholarship recipients, the program considers the applicant’s academic record and research project proposal, among other factors. Once award recipients ar selected, the Fulbright Foreign Student Program allows them to h.D. matriculate in either degree-granting or nondegree master’s and P programs, some of which may be renewed for up to 5 years; however, most awards are for 1 or 2 years of study. Similar to other scholarship programs we reviewed, the scholarships awarded by the program cove range of participation-related costs, including tuition, educational st materials, travel, housing, living allowances (which vary by U.S. ho location), orientation, and health coverage. According to program offi these scholarships are awarded in amounts up to $60,000 per recipient annually, but on average total about $32,000 per year.

Similarly, other scholarship programs we reviewed, such as the Chinese Government Scholarships Program, the United Kingdom’s Chevening Programme, the U.S. Edmund S. Muskie Graduate Fellowship Program, and German Study Scholarships and Research Grants all award merit- based scholarships, primarily to graduate students. Though award amounts vary, the scholarships generally cover similar costs related to participation, including tuition, living, and other expenses.

Programs Differ in Some Characteristics, Including Geographic Reach and Funding Levels

Although the programs we studied share key characteristics, they also vary widely in their geographic reach, annual funding levels, and their annual participation levels. Many of the large public diplomacy programs we studied tend to make scholarships available to students from a wide range of countries, typically 40 or more, in order to maximize their diplomatic reach.

For example, the European Union’s Erasmus Mundus program, a public diplomacy program, awarded scholarships to students from 113 countries in 2008, with no single region receiving more than 27 percent of the scholarships awarded. The agency administering the Erasmus Mundus strives to achieve a wide geographic balance, in part by ensuring that no more than a quarter of scholarships awarded by a particular consortium go to students from one country. Scholarships offered by the U.S. Fulbright Foreign Student Program, another public diplomacy program, also have a wide geographic reach, awarding scholarships to recipients from 143 countries in 2008. However, some public diplomacy programs have a more targeted reach. For example, the Australia Endeavour Awards has a regional focus, with over 80 percent of scholarships widely dispersed to students from Asian and Pacific countries. Additionally, the U.S. Edmund S. Muskie Graduate Program targets its scholarships exclusively to applicants from the countries that formerly constituted the Soviet Union.

In contrast, the development assistance programs we studied tend to have a more targeted focus in order to better concentrate resources in particular developing countries. For example, Australia’s two largest development assistance programs—the Australian Development Scholarships and the Australian Leadership Awards—focus primarily on the Asia and Pacific regions, though the Australian Development Scholarships also awards approximately 9 percent of its scholarships to applicants from Africa. Likewise, the U.S. Collaborative Research Support Program also has some regional concentration, awarding nearly two-thirds of its scholarships to students from Africa and Latin America. In 2007, according to data provided by education officials, we estimate that China awarded roughly 20 percent of its scholarships to students from Africa. Some of the other development assistance programs we studied have an even more targeted focus. The U.S. Cooperative Association of States for Scholarships Program and its successor program, for example, have awarded scholarships exclusively to students from seven countries in Central America and the Caribbean during the past 5 years. A component of the European Union’s Erasmus Mundus program also targets its scholarships to particular regions based on the political and development assistance priorities of the European Union and of partner countries. See appendix II for the percentage of scholarship recipients from each region by scholarship program. Figure 6 provides an illustration of the differences in geographic reach typically found between the public diplomacy and development aid scholarship programs we reviewed.

In addition to these differences, annual funding and participation levels vary widely among the programs we studied and change from year to year, though the largest programs we studied tend to have public diplomacy goals, as shown in table 2. For example, the European Union’s Erasmus Mundus program and the U.S. Fulbright Foreign Student Program, both public diplomacy programs, receive over $90 million in funding. One exception was the Australian Development Scholarships Program, the most well-funded development assistance program we reviewed, which received over $101 million in Australian dollars in 2008 ($84 million in U.S. dollars). However, most of the public diplomacy and development assistance programs we reviewed received less than $50 million in U.S. dollars in annual funding last year. Participation levels in 2008 also varied widely among the programs we studied, with programs awarding scholarships to as few as 67 recipients in the case of the U.S. Collaborative Research Support Program to as many as 3,747 recipients in the case of the Chinese Government Scholarships Program.

According to foreign officials, some governments have revised scholarship program funding and participation levels in recent years to reflect changing national objectives, such as placing a greater emphasis on making their higher education systems more visible. For example, over the past 5 years, the European Union has increased funding levels for the Erasmus Mundus program by more than tenfold to 93 million euros ($136 million in U.S. dollars) annually, and plans to spend 950 million euros ($1.39 billion in U.S. dollars) on the program over the next 5 years. Moreover, some program officials from Australia told us that they anticipate funding and participation levels for the Endeavour Awards scholarship programs to continue to increase in the coming years. However, funding and participation for at least one major scholarship program have been reduced in recent years. Specifically, the number of scholarships offered by the United Kingdom’s Chevening Programme core scholarship scheme has declined from over 1,500 in 2004 to around 1,000 in more recent years.

Officials Highlighted Strategies They Say Are Key to the Successful Implementation of Scholarship Programs

Officials that administer both public diplomacy and development assistance programs cite several strategies that they say facilitate program implementation and contribute to successful program outcomes. Some told us that offering preparatory courses or program orientation to all scholarship recipients enhances the students’ chance of success at the host university, and is particularly useful for students who require additional language, cultural, or academic skills. For example, the Australian Development Scholarships and Australian Leaderships Awards, both managed by the Australia’s Agency for International Development, requires scholars to complete a 4- to 6-week introductory academic program that covers information on life and study in Australia prior to the commencement of formal academic studies. In addition to this program, the Australian Development Scholarships also provides precourse English classes. Further, the Chinese Government Scholarships Program requires recipients who do not meet minimum language proficiency standards to take up to a year of intensive Chinese-language training upon arrival in China. Depending on the needs of the student, this language training may continue once their academic program begins. Similarly, to aid students in their transition to the United States, USAID requires all Cooperative Association of States for Scholarships recipients to participate in predeparture orientation training. During this training, participants also receive program-required health exams, and they complete the steps necessary to obtain their student visas.

Some development assistance officials also highlighted the importance of aligning the courses of study offered by their programs with the human resource and capacity building needs of the sending country. For example, USAID officials said that fields of study offered by the U.S. Cooperative Association of States for Scholarships program are determined based on a review of the development needs and employment trends of the country. According to officials, this, along with the support of the sending countries’ governments and private business sectors, helps students to obtain a job once they return to their country. In Australia, officials work with sending governments to identify the most acute development needs and consider these with the applicant’s proposed field of study when awarding scholarships.

In keeping with their goal of advancing human resource capacity in sending countries, development assistance programs typically seek to return participants to their home country upon completing their program of study. For example, recipients of all Australian Agency for International Development scholarships are expected to return to their country of citizenship for at least 2 years after completing their scholarship program. To enforce this obligation, Australia requires development scholarship recipients to sign a contract agreeing to return to their home country for 2 years. If they return to Australia before the 2-year period is up, they incur a debt to the Australian government equal to the full value of the scholarship. This operates as a strong disincentive for students to stay in Australia after completing their study program, and it results in a student return rate of 95 percent or better, according to Australian officials. However, this does not guarantee that students will stay in their home countries for 2 years. One official noted that many alumni choose to move to another country shortly after returning home. All USAID exchange visitors are required to sign a form in which they agree, among other things, to return home immediately upon completion of their program. Recipients of some USAID programs are also required to sign a contract agreeing to return home within 3 days of completing their program. According to USAID officials, this is effective in ensuring students return home and fulfill program objectives. Officials said that 86 percent of participants in its Collaborative Research Support Programs return to a developing country after graduation.

Finally, officials noted the importance of developing active alumni networks. Officials told us that having strong alumni networks better enables them to reach future applicants, track alumni, and assess their careers and accomplishments as well as perceptions of their international study experience. These networks also provide a means through which alumni can receive support from their former host country and help facilitate enduring relationships between students and the host country once their tour of study has ended. For these reasons, State encourages alumni of its exchange programs to connect through a central Web site that allows members to find fellow alumni, search for job opportunities, and participate in online discussion forums, among other activities. Officials at the Australian Agency for International Development stated that they are in the process of developing in-country alumni networks for their programs. Australian officials also noted that maintaining relationships with influential alumni may advance diplomatic and development assistance objectives. Other scholarship programs, such as the Erasmus Mundus program, have also created Web-based networks to facilitate contact with scholarship program alumni.

Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of State and USAID for review and comment. They both provided technical comments that we incorporated into this report where appropriate. In addition, cognizant officials from peer governments we reviewed were also provided sections of our draft report relevant to their programs and provided technical comments that were incorporated where appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of State and USAID, relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be made available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or Scottg@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff that made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Overview

This appendix discusses in more detail our scope and methodology for this study. The goals of this study were to determine (1) the objectives the United States and selected peer governments seek to advance through higher education for international students and the approaches they employ to attract international students, and (2) the characteristics of major United States and peer government programs that fund higher education for international students in support of public diplomacy and development goals.

To carry out these objectives, we interviewed government officials and industry experts in the United States and in selected peer governments, analyzed public diplomacy and development assistance scholarship programs, and reviewed studies and evaluations related to the United States and peer governments’ efforts to support international higher education. In addition, we provided the U.S. agencies and peer governments the opportunity to review and comment on the draft report sections that are applicable to them and incorporated their comments where appropriate.

We conducted our work from March 2008 to April 2009 in accordance with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions.

U.S. Agency and Peer Government Selection

We selected two U.S. agencies and five peer governments for review. Though many U.S. agencies are involved in promoting U.S. higher education to international students, we limited our scope to the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development because they are primarily responsible for funding programs aimed at public diplomacy and development assistance, a principal interest of our congressional requestor. We applied a range of criteria to select a judgmental sample of four countries for review: Australia, China, Germany, and the United Kingdom. First, we identified countries that had the largest global share of international student enrollments using 2008 data from the Institute for International Education. To capture recent trends in student mobility, we also considered each country’s growth in international enrollments, comparing the 2008 data to 2000 base year data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Further, to ensure a more global perspective of the international education landscape, we reviewed a geographically diverse set of governments that, collectively, attract students from a wide range of countries. We also conferred with embassy and government officials as well as industry experts to obtain their recommendations on which countries to visit and review based on their knowledge of international education. We ensured that our selection included both English and non- English-speaking countries. In addition to selecting individual countries, we also reviewed the European Union (EU) based on its international education efforts on behalf of EU member countries, many of which are top destinations for international students. While our selection of countries included some of the nations that are most active in recruiting international students, it is not representative of all nations that have these types of programs.

Program Selection

We selected 13 programs—9 public diplomacy and 4 development programs—for review. Though many of the governments we reviewed may fund a number of smaller scholarship programs, we limited our study to scholarship programs that receive at least $8 million annually, or the equivalent in local currency, and award at least 50 scholarship awards annually based on the information we received. In addition to the funding and participation level consideration, these programs were also identified by officials in the United States and peer governments as being most important to the success of their country’s international education efforts. However, there may be other scholarship programs offered by peer governments that met our established criteria, but were not included in the report due to our inability to acquire sufficient information about these programs.

Finally, it should be noted that in many cases the programs we reviewed address multiple objectives, including public diplomacy and development objectives, and for the purposes of this report, these programs were categorized as either public diplomacy or development assistance programs, depending on their primary focus. We studied programs that offer scholarships to students for vocational, undergraduate, or graduate- level study for any length of time. We did not include scholarships for outbound students funded by sending governments. While our focus is on programs that receive host government funding, some of these programs are funded or administered jointly with other governments or nongovernmental organizations.

Site Visits and Interviews

A major part of our study involved interviewing officials from the United States and selected governments, as shown in table 3. Officials included government executives, program administrators, and industry stakeholders. During these site visits, we also collected relevant documents, including those dealing with funding, scholarship amounts and number of scholarships, program evaluations, and program goals. In some cases, officials were not able to provide us the information in the detail requested, and in these instance, we noted that in the report. Moreover, because of the nature of this study, we were not able to independently verify or assess the reliability of the data provided by the foreign countries we reviewed. We also did not independently verify the foreign laws and declarations discussed, but instead relied on our discussions with foreign officials and the documents we collected.

Literature Review and Program Data

To provide some context for understanding government efforts to support public diplomacy, development assistance, or other objectives through higher education, we also reviewed a number of studies dealing with the global landscape for international higher education. Our review included research from organizations such as the Institute for International Education (IIE), NAFSA: the Association of International Educators, as well as government agencies of the selected peer governments. We also reviewed relevant program documents, including agency strategic plans and evaluations of scholarship programs, when available.

Appendix II: Percentage of Scholarship Recipients from Each Region by Scholarship Program

Characteristics represent the UK Chevening Programme’s core scholarship scheme.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Sherri Doughty, Assistant Director; Tranchau Nguyen, Analyst-in-Charge; Christopher Lyons; Daniel Novillo; Eve Weisburg; Susannah Compton; Alexander Galuten; Martin De Alteriis; Jess Ford; and Helen Hsing made key contributions to this report.