International Student Mobility to 2024

The Future of the World’s Mobile Students to 2024

Important findings from “The future of the world’s mobile students to 2024”

This report from the British Council offers predictions about the next decade of international student mobility based on new data published their report from last year. This report examines data from the 56 countries they deemed most significant for international student mobility, although it is impacted by the lack of OECD data for countries such as China, India, Singapore, etc. These are some of the findings:

 There will be 32 million additional higher education enrolments by 2024, up to 196 million overall.

 3.9 million students will be studying abroad in 2024, up from 3 million in 2011.

 The population of 18-22-year-olds in China will fall from 120 million to 80 million by 2024, the primary contributing factor to an overall global decline in the age group in the same time period.

 The top 10 fastest growing 18-22 populations between 2011 and 2024 in absolute terms will be: Nigeria, India, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Kenya, Philippines, Iraq, Pakistan, Angola, and Nepal.

 The top sending countries for international students in 2024 will be China, India, Germany, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Turkey, Pakistan, France, and Khazakstan, although students from China and India are predicted to make up roughly one-third of the total number.

 The largest increases in countries sending students abroad are likely to take place in India, China, Saudia Arabia, Nigeria, Nepal, Pakistan, Indonesia, Iraq, Brazil, and Turkey.

 The countries that receive the largest number of international students will remain similar to today with the US, UK, Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, and South Korea as the biggest recipients of international students (albeit this is the area most likely to be impacted by missing data from China, India, Singapore, and Malaysia).

The report itself covers the data in more detail, as well as for significant bilateral changes. It also outlines at least one scenario of the impact of a potential slowdown in the BRIC economies that shows how fragile these predictions may be.

The 2012 report mostly underestimated the incredible growth in international mobility that has taken place from 2009 and 2011 in spite of a major economic slowdown impacting much of the globe. The authors have taken the new data into account and their current predictions are more aggressive.

Note: The report reviewed was published by British Council in October 2013.

Here are the highlights:

  • An estimated five million students studied outside of their home countries last year
  • This is more than a tripling of global international student enrolment since 1990
  • Demand from Asia has driven most of this growth
  • The nature of competition is shifting, with enrolment more widely distributed among a larger field of destinations, including a growing number of non-English-speaking countries
  • Market forecasts anticipate greater demand for post-graduate and vocational training programmes going forward

As you read this, five million students are studying outside their home countries, more than double the 2.1 million who did so in 2000 and more than triple the number in 1990. This astounding growth has occurred in the context of an increasingly globalised world in which economies are closely tied to others within their region and beyond. In 2015, money and trade are flowing freely across many borders and from many sources. So, too, are knowledge and skills.

Once accessible only to the world’s elite, higher education is now open to the masses, particularly the burgeoning middle classes now found on every continent. And especially in countries lacking higher education capacity, students are looking for opportunities to study abroad.

There are more than five million students travelling abroad for education when you factor in the huge numbers pursuing language studies: two million students are engaged in language travel today, of whom roughly two-thirds study English.

The governments of the fastest-growing emerging economies are investing heavily in the expansion of their higher education systems; creating scholarships to help their students acquire education abroad – and then bring it back home; and joining in cross-border research partnerships and exchanges that elevate their countries’ status, potential for innovation, and influence in the world.

It is no coincidence that as a result, developing economies are growing in tandem with international student mobility. And as the balance of world economic and political power shifts, so do patterns of mobility.

Asia is the key

Take, for example, the ascendance of China and India into the top ten most powerful economies in the world; South Korea is in the top 15. Now consider their contributions to international student mobility: China, India, and South Korea are the world’s leading sources of international students. One of every six internationally mobile students is now from China, and together China, India, and South Korea account for more than a quarter of all students studying outside their home countries. All told, 53% of all students studying abroad today are from Asia.

Asia is also becoming a compelling destination for international students, particularly those from within the region. China, for one, has drawn increasing numbers of both Indonesian and Korean students in recent years. The number of Indonesian students in China has grown by an average of 10% each year since 2010, and nearly 14,000 Indonesians are currently studying in China. Meanwhile, the number of South Koreans studying in China more than doubled from 2003 to 2012. Overall, China hosted about 330,000 students in 2012 and has a target to reach 500,000 students by 2020.

Japan, pressed to respond to excess capacity in its universities, is also stepping up its recruitment of international students; it has a goal of hosting 300,000 international students by 2020. Japan saw foreign enrolments increase nicely in 2014.

Malaysia is similarly ambitious, with a goal of 250,000 international students and plans to place several more of its universities in world rankings by 2025.

Today, 24 of the world’s top 200 universities in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (2014/15) are Asian – representing almost one-eighth of the total.

The call for diversification

In recent years, a staggering number of international students in the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand have come from China and India, a heavy reliance on these two key markets that has raised alarm bells for some institutions and industry experts.

International educators are thus being encouraged to diversify their international enrolments – and they have a ready supply of other sources to consider. African countries are struggling to meet demand for higher education as their youth populations swell and unemployment abounds. Many are investing heavily in building more capacity and quality into their tertiary systems, but such initiatives do not bear results overnight. In the meantime, study abroad is a tempting option for those students who can afford it.

Particularly in fast-growing African economies like Nigeria, outbound student mobility is on the rise; according to UNESCO, over 52,000 Nigerian students studied abroad in 2013. Nigeria is on pace to be one of the world’s most populous countries and it has a swiftly growing tertiary-age student cohort. The impact of this population surge will be huge: The British Council recently projected that of the 23 source markets it studied, Nigeria will contribute the strongest average annual growth in post-graduate student mobility through 2024 (+8.3%).

International educators are also viewing Latin American markets with great interest, thanks again to rising youth populations, lagging domestic capacity, and scholarship programmes. In 2011, 20% of the total population of Latin America and the Caribbean was between the ages of 15 and 24 – that’s 106 million people, and the UN notes that this is “the largest proportion of young people ever in the region’s history.”

As in so many other countries with swelling youth populations, the challenge is to expand educational access and reduce unemployment, with the ultimate goal of empowering this generation to achieve a better quality of life and to drive the economy forward. Until the region’s higher education institutions become more accessible and of higher quality, students will be especially interested in study abroad.

Growing demand for post-graduate education and VET

The recent “massification” of higher education, in which higher education became accessible to more of the population, is driving a new trend: greater numbers of university graduates are now also able to pursue post-graduate studies.

The British Council expects India and China to contribute the greatest number of globally mobile post-graduate students in 2024, but notes that demographic and economic trends will see Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Indonesia posting “substantive increases in outbound post-graduates.”

Something to watch through 2024 will be the extent to which increased capacity and quality at home, particularly in key sending markets, will affect outbound post-graduate mobility. Case in point: the number of Chinese post-graduate students applying to US universities declined for the third consecutive year in 2015, a fact believed to be partly due to China’s massive investment in its own higher education capacity for both graduate education and research over the past decade and more.

Similarly, the sharp rise in demand for “middle skills” taught by vocational education and training (VET) institutions around the world through certificates, diplomas, and other short-term programmes could also affect demand for post-graduate (and undergraduate) programmes. Nearly two-thirds of overall employment growth in the European Union is forecast to be in the “technicians and associate professionals” category, while in the US, nearly one-third of job vacancies in 2018 are expected to require some post-secondary qualification but less than a four-year degree. China, India, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, and Thailand have all recently increased their budget allocations to vocational training, and demand for VET is also surging in Africa.

Where they will go

Demographic trends, economic growth, government scholarships, and rising incomes are some of the major forces at play in determining where students are coming from when they study abroad. But what about where they are going? The answer to this question involves the interplay of different factors. On the one hand, students’ own circumstances guide their choice of where to study (e.g., their financial means; the level of study they are pursuing; the advice they receive from friends, family, and agents; their perceptions of the image and reputation of an institution or country).

On the other hand, country-level and institutional policies affect the popularity of destinations. Students are often influenced by the relative cost of living and tuition in a country (which may be affected by currency fluctuations) as well as the availability of internships and post-study work and immigration opportunities.

Scholarship programmes play an important part as well. The past decade has seen the development of several massive scholarship and grant programmes, notably Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah Scholarship Programme (KASP), Brazil’s Science Without Borders, and, more recently, Mexico’s Proyecta 100,000. Large-scale regional programmes, of which Europe’s Erasmus+ is the most prominent example, also play a major role in driving mobility.

In 2015, the US is still the world’s leading destination, and it is expected to enrol a record number of students again this year. But America’s market share is falling (from about 23% of all internationally mobile students in 2000 to 17% in 2011). This change is partly due to the increasing share of other English-speaking destinations such as the UK, Australia, and Canada, and partly due to the growing trend toward intra-regional mobility.

Market share aside, the OECD reports that in 2011, “almost half of all foreign students were enrolled in one of the top five destinations for tertiary studies abroad: the US, with 17% of all foreign students worldwide, followed by the United Kingdom (13%), Australia (6%), Germany (6%) and France (6%).”

Those statistics reflect 2011 OECD data, yet so much has happened since then. Australia, for example, experienced double-digit growth in international student enrolments in 2014. Canada’s international student population increased 23% from 2011 to 2013. In contrast, following a tightening of work and immigration rules in the UK, British higher education institutions saw overseas enrolments fall in both 2011/12 and 2012/13.

Looking Ahead

At this writing, most students who choose to study abroad choose OECD countries as their destinations. But as linkages and trade intensify between Western economies and Asian ones, and as Asian countries expand and improve their higher education systems, we will likely see mobility patterns become more diverse over the next decade. Top American and British institutions still attract the majority of the world’s most ambitious and/or wealthy students, but Asian countries are climbing steadily up world university rankings.

As competition increases for students, we can expect to see countries and institutions differentiate themselves using a range of strategies, including destination marketing, branding, tuition and/or financial assistance, and (at the country level) work and immigration policies.

International education is no longer a niche area of the economy or the pursuit of a small segment of lucky students: it is measured in millions of study visits – and billions of dollars. The sector has come a long way in a relatively short time, and if stewarded responsibly by governments, associations, institutions, and agents alike, it will go much further.


Posted in Education, Higher Education Teaching & Learning | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Brexit Blunder: David Cameron’s Prophetic “Future Of Europe” Speech (28% of registered voters did not vote)

The United Kingdom on Thursday (23 June, 2016) chose to leave the European Union.

  • Official referendum results : 51.9% for Brexit‬ – 48.1% for Remain;
  • The voter turnout was 72.16%;
  • David Cameron announced that he will step down as prime minister by October.

FLASHBACK: January 23, 2013:

London, England

David Cameron: This morning I want to talk about the future of Europe.

But first, let us remember the past.

Seventy years ago, Europe was being torn apart by its second catastrophic conflict in a generation. A war which saw the streets of European cities strewn with rubble. The skies of London lit by flames night after night. And millions dead across the world in the battle for peace and liberty.

As we remember their sacrifice, so we should also remember how the shift in Europe from war to sustained peace came about. It did not happen like a change in the weather. It happened because of determined work over generations. A commitment to friendship and a resolve never to revisit that dark past – a commitment epitomised by the Elysee treaty signed 50 years ago this week.

After the Berlin Wall came down I visited that city and I will never forget it.

The abandoned checkpoints. The sense of excitement about the future. The knowledge that a great continent was coming together. Healing those wounds of our history is the central story of the European Union.

What Churchill described as the twin marauders of war and tyranny have been almost entirely banished from our continent. Today, hundreds of millions dwell in freedom, from the Baltic to the Adriatic, from the Western Approaches to the Aegean.

And while we must never take this for granted, the first purpose of the European Union – to secure peace – has been achieved and we should pay tribute to all those in the EU, alongside Nato, who made that happen.

But today the main, overriding purpose of the European Union is different: not to win peace, but to secure prosperity.

The challenges come not from within this continent but outside it. From the surging economies in the east and south. Of course a growing world economy benefits us all, but we should be in no doubt that a new global race of nations is under way today.

A race for the wealth and jobs of the future.

The map of global influence is changing before our eyes. And these changes are already being felt by the entrepreneur in the Netherlands, the worker in Germany, the family in Britain.

So I want to speak to you today with urgency and frankness about the European Union and how it must change – both to deliver prosperity and to retain the support of its peoples.

But first, I want to set out the spirit in which I approach these issues.

I know that the United Kingdom is sometimes seen as an argumentative and rather strong-minded member of the family of European nations.

And it’s true that our geography has shaped our psychology.

We have the character of an island nation: independent, forthright, passionate in defence of our sovereignty.

We can no more change this British sensibility than we can drain the English Channel.

And because of this sensibility, we come to the European Union with a frame of mind that is more practical than emotional.

For us, the European Union is a means to an end – prosperity, stability, the anchor of freedom and democracy both within Europe and beyond her shores – not an end in itself.

We insistently ask: how, why, to what end?

But all this doesn’t make us somehow un-European.

The fact is that ours is not just an island story – it is also a continental story.

For all our connections to the rest of the world – of which we are rightly proud – we have always been a European power, and we always will be.

From Caesar’s legions to the Napoleonic wars. From the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the industrial revolution to the defeat of nazism. We have helped to write European history, and Europe has helped write ours.

Over the years, Britain has made her own, unique contribution to Europe. We have provided a haven to those fleeing tyranny and persecution. And in Europe’s darkest hour, we helped keep the flame of liberty alight. Across the continent, in silent cemeteries, lie the hundreds of thousands of British servicemen who gave their lives for Europe’s freedom.

In more recent decades, we have played our part in tearing down the iron curtain and championing the entry into the EU of those countries that lost so many years to Communism. And contained in this history is the crucial point about Britain, our national character, our attitude to Europe.

Britain is characterised not just by its independence but, above all, by its openness.

We have always been a country that reaches out. That turns its face to the world. That leads the charge in the fight for global trade and against protectionism.

This is Britain today, as it’s always been: independent, yes – but open, too.

I never want us to pull up the drawbridge and retreat from the world.

I am not a British isolationist.

I don’t just want a better deal for Britain. I want a better deal for Europe too.

So I speak as British prime minister with a positive vision for the future of the European Union. A future in which Britain wants, and should want, to play a committed and active part.

Some might then ask: why raise fundamental questions about the future of Europe when Europe is already in the midst of a deep crisis?

Why raise questions about Britain’s role when support in Britain is already so thin.

There are always voices saying: “Don’t ask the difficult questions.”

But it’s essential for Europe – and for Britain – that we do because there are three major challenges confronting us today.

First, the problems in the eurozone are driving fundamental change in Europe.

Second, there is a crisis of European competitiveness, as other nations across the world soar ahead. And third, there is a gap between the EU and its citizens which has grown dramatically in recent years. And which represents a lack of democratic accountability and consent that is – yes – felt particularly acutely in Britain.

If we don’t address these challenges, the danger is that Europe will fail and the British people will drift towards the exit.

I do not want that to happen. I want the European Union to be a success. And I want a relationship between Britain and the EU that keeps us in it.

That is why I am here today: to acknowledge the nature of the challenges we face. To set out how I believe the European Union should respond to them. And to explain what I want to achieve for Britain and its place within the European Union.

Let me start with the nature of the challenges we face.

First, the eurozone.

The future shape of Europe is being forged. There are some serious questions that will define the future of the European Union – and the future of every country within it.

The union is changing to help fix the currency – and that has profound implications for all of us, whether we are in the single currency or not.

Britain is not in the single currency, and we’re not going to be. But we all need the eurozone to have the right governance and structures to secure a successful currency for the long term.

And those of us outside the eurozone also need certain safeguards to ensure, for example, that our access to the single market is not in any way compromised.

And it’s right we begin to address these issues now.

Second, while there are some countries within the EU which are doing pretty well. Taken as a whole, Europe’s share of world output is projected to fall by almost a third in the next two decades. This is the competitiveness challenge – and much of our weakness in meeting it is self-inflicted.

Complex rules restricting our labour markets are not some naturally occurring phenomenon. Just as excessive regulation is not some external plague that’s been visited on our businesses.

These problems have been around too long. And the progress in dealing with them, far too slow.

As Chancellor Merkel has said, if Europe today accounts for just over 7% of the world’s population, produces around 25% of global GDP and has to finance 50% of global social spending, then it’s obvious that it will have to work very hard to maintain its prosperity and way of life.

Third, there is a growing frustration that the EU is seen as something that is done to people rather than acting on their behalf. And this is being intensified by the very solutions required to resolve the economic problems.

People are increasingly frustrated that decisions taken further and further away from them mean their living standards are slashed through enforced austerity or their taxes are used to bail out governments on the other side of the continent.

We are starting to see this in the demonstrations on the streets of Athens, Madrid and Rome. We are seeing it in the parliaments of Berlin, Helsinki and the Hague.

And yes, of course, we are seeing this frustration with the EU very dramatically in Britain.

Europe’s leaders have a duty to hear these concerns. Indeed, we have a duty to act on them. And not just to fix the problems in the eurozone.

For just as in any emergency you should plan for the aftermath as well as dealing with the present crisis, so too in the midst of the present challenges we should plan for the future, and what the world will look like when the difficulties in the eurozone have been overcome.

The biggest danger to the European Union comes not from those who advocate change, but from those who denounce new thinking as heresy. In its long history Europe has experience of heretics who turned out to have a point.

And my point is this. More of the same will not secure a long-term future for the eurozone. More of the same will not see the European Union keeping pace with the new powerhouse economies. More of the same will not bring the European Union any closer to its citizens. More of the same will just produce more of the same: less competitiveness, less growth, fewer jobs.

And that will make our countries weaker not stronger.

That is why we need fundamental, far-reaching change.

So let me set out my vision for a new European Union, fit for the 21st century.

It is built on five principles.

The first: competitiveness. At the core of the European Union must be, as it is now, the single market. Britain is at the heart of that single market, and must remain so.

But when the single market remains incomplete in services, energy and digital – the very sectors that are the engines of a modern economy – it is only half the success it could be.

It is nonsense that people shopping online in some parts of Europe are unable to access the best deals because of where they live. I want completing the single market to be our driving mission.

I want us to be at the forefront of transformative trade deals with the US, Japan and India as part of the drive towards global free trade. And I want us to be pushing to exempt Europe’s smallest entrepreneurial companies from more EU directives.

These should be the tasks that get European officials up in the morning – and keep them working late into the night. And so we urgently need to address the sclerotic, ineffective decision-making that is holding us back.

That means creating a leaner, less bureaucratic union, relentlessly focused on helping its member countries to compete.

In a global race, can we really justify the huge number of expensive peripheral European institutions?

Can we justify a commission that gets ever larger?

Can we carry on with an organisation that has a multibillion pound budget but not enough focus on controlling spending and shutting down programmes that haven’t worked?

And I would ask: when the competitiveness of the single market is so important, why is there an environment council, a transport council, an education council but not a single market council?

The second principle should be flexibility.

We need a structure that can accommodate the diversity of its members – north, south, east, west, large, small, old and new. Some of whom are contemplating much closer economic and political integration. And many others, including Britain, who would never embrace that goal.

I accept, of course, that for the single market to function we need a common set of rules and a way of enforcing them. But we also need to be able to respond quickly to the latest developments and trends.

Competitiveness demands flexibility, choice and openness – or Europe will fetch up in a no-man’s land between the rising economies of Asia and market-driven North America.

The EU must be able to act with the speed and flexibility of a network, not the cumbersome rigidity of a bloc.

We must not be weighed down by an insistence on a one size fits all approach which implies that all countries want the same level of integration. The fact is that they don’t and we shouldn’t assert that they do.

Some will claim that this offends a central tenet of the EU’s founding philosophy. I say it merely reflects the reality of the European Union today. 17 members are part of the eurozone. 10 are not.

26 European countries are members of Schengen – including four outside the European Union – Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. Two EU countries – Britain and Ireland – have retained their border controls.

Some members, like Britain and France, are ready, willing and able to take action in Libya or Mali. Others are uncomfortable with the use of military force.

Let’s welcome that diversity, instead of trying to snuff it out.

Let’s stop all this talk of two-speed Europe, of fast lanes and slow lanes, of countries missing trains and buses, and consign the whole weary caravan of metaphors to a permanent siding.

Instead, let’s start from this proposition: we are a family of democratic nations, all members of one European Union, whose essential foundation is the single market rather than the single currency. Those of us outside the euro recognise that those in it are likely to need to make some big institutional changes.

By the same token, the members of the eurozone should accept that we, and indeed all member states, will have changes that we need to safeguard our interests and strengthen democratic legitimacy. And we should be able to make these changes too.

Some say this will unravel the principle of the EU – and that you can’t pick and choose on the basis of what your nation needs.

But far from unravelling the EU, this will in fact bind its members more closely because such flexible, willing co-operation is a much stronger glue than compulsion from the centre.

Let me make a further heretical proposition.

The European treaty commits the member states to “lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe”.

This has been consistently interpreted as applying not to the peoples but rather to the states and institutions compounded by a European court of justice that has consistently supported greater centralisation.

We understand and respect the right of others to maintain their commitment to this goal. But for Britain – and perhaps for others – it is not the objective.

And we would be much more comfortable if the treaty specifically said so, freeing those who want to go further, faster, to do so, without being held back by the others.

So to those who say we have no vision for Europe, I say we have.

We believe in a flexible union of free member states who share treaties and institutions and pursue together the ideal of co-operation. To represent and promote the values of European civilisation in the world. To advance our shared interests by using our collective power to open markets. And to build a strong economic base across the whole of Europe.

And we believe in our nations working together to protect the security and diversity of our energy supplies. To tackle climate change and global poverty. To work together against terrorism and organised crime. And to continue to welcome new countries into the EU.

This vision of flexibility and co-operation is not the same as those who want to build an ever closer political union – but it is just as valid.

My third principle is that power must be able to flow back to member states, not just away from them. This was promised by European leaders at Laeken a decade ago.

It was put in the treaty. But the promise has never really been fulfilled. We need to implement this principle properly.

So let us use this moment, as the Dutch prime minister has recently suggested, to examine thoroughly what the EU as a whole should do and should stop doing.

In Britain we have already launched our balance of competences review – to give us an informed and objective analysis of where the EU helps and where it hampers.

Let us not be misled by the fallacy that a deep and workable single market requires everything to be harmonised, to hanker after some unattainable and infinitely level playing field.

Countries are different. They make different choices. We cannot harmonise everything. For example, it is neither right nor necessary to claim that the integrity of the single market, or full membership of the European Union requires the working hours of British hospital doctors to be set in Brussels irrespective of the views of British parliamentarians and practitioners.

In the same way we need to examine whether the balance is right in so many areas where the European Union has legislated including on the environment, social affairs and crime.

Nothing should be off the table.

My fourth principle is democratic accountability: we need to have a bigger and more significant role for national parliaments.

There is not, in my view, a single European demos.

It is national parliaments, which are, and will remain, the true source of real democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU.

It is to the Bundestag that Angela Merkel has to answer. It is through the Greek parliament that Antonis Samaras has to pass his government’s austerity measures.

 It is to the British parliament that I must account on the EU budget negotiations, or on the safeguarding of our place in the single market.

Those are the parliaments which instil proper respect – even fear – into national leaders.

We need to recognise that in the way the EU does business.

My fifth principle is fairness: whatever new arrangements are enacted for the eurozone, they must work fairly for those inside it and out.

That will be of particular importance to Britain. As I have said, we will not join the single currency. But there is no overwhelming economic reason why the single currency and the single market should share the same boundary, any more than the single market and Schengen.

Our participation in the single market, and our ability to help set its rules is the principal reason for our membership of the EU.

So it is a vital interest for us to protect the integrity and fairness of the single market for all its members.

And that is why Britain has been so concerned to promote and defend the single market as the eurozone crisis rewrites the rules on fiscal co-ordination and banking union.

These five principles provide what, I believe, is the right approach for the European Union.

So now let me turn to what this means for Britain.

Today, public disillusionment with the EU is at an all-time high. There are several reasons for this.

People feel that the EU is heading in a direction that they never signed up to. They resent the interference in our national life by what they see as unnecessary rules and regulation. And they wonder what the point of it all is.

Put simply, many ask “why can’t we just have what we voted to join – a common market?”

They are angered by some legal judgements made in Europe that impact on life in Britain. Some of this antipathy about Europe in general really relates of course to the European court of human rights, rather than the EU. And Britain is leading European efforts to address this.

There is, indeed, much more that needs to be done on this front. But people also feel that the EU is now heading for a level of political integration that is far outside Britain’s comfort zone.

They see treaty after treaty changing the balance between member states and the EU. And note they were never given a say.

They’ve had referendums promised – but not delivered. They see what has happened to the euro. And they note that many of our political and business leaders urged Britain to join at the time.

And they haven’t noticed many expressions of contrition.

And they look at the steps the eurozone is taking and wonder what deeper integration for the eurozone will mean for a country which is not going to join the euro.

 The result is that democratic consent for the EU in Britain is now wafer-thin.

Some people say that to point this out is irresponsible, creates uncertainty for business and puts a question mark over Britain’s place in the European Union.

But the question mark is already there and ignoring it won’t make it go away.

In fact, quite the reverse. Those who refuse to contemplate consulting the British people, would in my view make more likely our eventual exit.

Simply asking the British people to carry on accepting a European settlement over which they have had little choice is a path to ensuring that when the question is finally put – and at some stage it will have to be – it is much more likely that the British people will reject the EU.

That is why I am in favour of a referendum. I believe in confronting this issue – shaping it, leading the debate. Not simply hoping a difficult situation will go away.

Some argue that the solution is therefore to hold a straight in-out referendum now.

I understand the impatience of wanting to make that choice immediately.

But I don’t believe that to make a decision at this moment is the right way forward, either for Britain or for Europe as a whole.

A vote today between the status quo and leaving would be an entirely false choice.

Now – while the EU is in flux, and when we don’t know what the future holds and what sort of EU will emerge from this crisis – is not the right time to make such a momentous decision about the future of our country.

It is wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right.

How can we sensibly answer the question “in or out” without being able to answer the most basic question: “What is it exactly that we are choosing to be in or out of?”

The European Union that emerges from the eurozone crisis is going to be a very different body. It will be transformed perhaps beyond recognition by the measures needed to save the eurozone.

We need to allow some time for that to happen – and help to shape the future of the European Union, so that when the choice comes it will be a real one.

A real choice between leaving or being part of a new settlement in which Britain shapes and respects the rules of the single market but is protected by fair safeguards, and free of the spurious regulation which damages Europe’s competitiveness.

A choice between leaving or being part of a new settlement in which Britain is at the forefront of collective action on issues like foreign policy and trade and where we leave the door firmly open to new members.

A new settlement subject to the democratic legitimacy and accountability of national parliaments where member states combine in flexible co-operation, respecting national differences not always trying to eliminate them and in which we have proved that some powers can in fact be returned to member states.

 In other words, a settlement which would be entirely in keeping with the mission for an updated European Union I have described today. More flexible, more adaptable, more open – fit for the challenges of the modern age.

And to those who say a new settlement can’t be negotiated, I would say listen to the views of other parties in other European countries arguing for powers to flow back to European states.

And look too at what we have achieved already. Ending Britain’s obligation to bail out eurozone members. Keeping Britain out of the fiscal compact. Launching a process to return some existing justice and home affairs powers. Securing protections on banking union. And reforming fisheries policy.

So we are starting to shape the reforms we need now. Some will not require treaty change.

But I agree too with what President Barroso and others have said. At some stage in the next few years the EU will need to agree on treaty change to make the changes needed for the long-term future of the euro and to entrench the diverse, competitive, democratically accountable Europe that we seek.

I believe the best way to do this will be in a new treaty so I add my voice to those who are already calling for this.

My strong preference is to enact these changes for the entire EU, not just for Britain.

But if there is no appetite for a new treaty for us all then of course Britain should be ready to address the changes we need in a negotiation with our European partners.

The next Conservative manifesto in 2015 will ask for a mandate from the British people for a Conservative government to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners in the next parliament.

It will be a relationship with the single market at its heart.

And when we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice. To stay in the EU on these new terms, or come out altogether.

It will be an in-out referendum.

Legislation will be drafted before the next election. And if a Conservative government is elected we will introduce the enabling legislation immediately and pass it by the end of that year. And we will complete this negotiation and hold this referendum within the first half of the next parliament.

It is time for the British people to have their say. It is time to settle this European question in British politics.

I say to the British people: this will be your decision.

And when that choice comes, you will have an important choice to make about our country’s destiny.

I understand the appeal of going it alone, of charting our own course. But it will be a decision we will have to take with cool heads. Proponents of both sides of the argument will need to avoid exaggerating their claims.

Of course Britain could make her own way in the world, outside the EU, if we chose to do so. So could any other member state.

But the question we will have to ask ourselves is this: is that the very best future for our country?

We will have to weigh carefully where our true national interest lies.

Alone, we would be free to take our own decisions, just as we would be freed of our solemn obligation to defend our allies if we left Nato. But we don’t leave Nato because it is in our national interest to stay and benefit from its collective defence guarantee.

We have more power and influence – whether implementing sanctions against Iran or Syria, or promoting democracy in Burma – if we can act together.

If we leave the EU, we cannot of course leave Europe. It will remain for many years our biggest market, and forever our geographical neighbourhood. We are tied by a complex web of legal commitments.

Hundreds of thousands of British people now take for granted their right to work, live or retire in any other EU country.

Even if we pulled out completely, decisions made in the EU would continue to have a profound effect on our country. But we would have lost all our remaining vetoes and our voice in those decisions.

We would need to weigh up very carefully the consequences of no longer being inside the EU and its single market, as a full member.

Continued access to the single market is vital for British businesses and British jobs.

Since 2004, Britain has been the destination for one in five of all inward investments into Europe.

And being part of the single market has been key to that success.

There will be plenty of time to test all the arguments thoroughly, in favour and against the arrangement we negotiate. But let me just deal with one point we hear a lot about.

There are some who suggest we could turn ourselves into Norway or Switzerland – with access to the single market but outside the EU. But would that really be in our best interests?

I admire those countries and they are friends of ours – but they are very different from us. Norway sits on the biggest energy reserves in Europe, and has a sovereign wealth fund of over €500bn. And while Norway is part of the single market – and pays for the principle – it has no say at all in setting its rules. It just has to implement its directives.

The Swiss have to negotiate access to the single market sector by sector, accepting EU rules – over which they have no say – or else not getting full access to the single market, including in key sectors like financial services.

The fact is that if you join an organisation like the European Union, there are rules.

You will not always get what you want. But that does not mean we should leave – not if the benefits of staying and working together are greater.

We would have to think carefully too about the impact on our influence at the top table of international affairs.

There is no doubt that we are more powerful in Washington, in Beijing, in Delhi because we are a powerful player in the European Union.

That matters for British jobs and British security.

It matters to our ability to get things done in the world. It matters to the United States and other friends around the world, which is why many tell us very clearly that they want Britain to remain in the EU.

We should think very carefully before giving that position up.

If we left the European Union, it would be a one-way ticket, not a return.

So we will have time for a proper, reasoned debate.

At the end of that debate you, the British people, will decide.

And I say to our European partners, frustrated as some of them no doubt are by Britain’s attitude: work with us on this.

Consider the extraordinary steps which the eurozone members are taking to keep the euro together, steps which a year ago would have seemed impossible.

It does not seem to me that the steps which would be needed to make Britain – and others – more comfortable in their relationship in the European Union are inherently so outlandish or unreasonable.

And just as I believe that Britain should want to remain in the EU so the EU should want us to stay.

For an EU without Britain, without one of Europe’s strongest powers, a country which in many ways invented the single market, and which brings real heft to Europe’s influence on the world stage, which plays by the rules and which is a force for liberal economic reform would be a very different kind of European Union.

And it is hard to argue that the EU would not be greatly diminished by Britain’s departure.

Let me finish today by saying this.

I have no illusions about the scale of the task ahead.

I know there will be those who say the vision I have outlined will be impossible to achieve. That there is no way our partners will co-operate. That the British people have set themselves on a path to inevitable exit. And that if we aren’t comfortable being in the EU after 40 years, we never will be.

But I refuse to take such a defeatist attitude – either for Britain or for Europe.

Because with courage and conviction I believe we can deliver a more flexible, adaptable and open European Union in which the interests and ambitions of all its members can be met.

With courage and conviction I believe we can achieve a new settlement in which Britain can be comfortable and all our countries can thrive.

And when the referendum comes let me say now that if we can negotiate such an arrangement, I will campaign for it with all my heart and soul.

Because I believe something very deeply. That Britain’s national interest is best served in a flexible, adaptable and open European Union and that such a European Union is best with Britain in it.

Over the coming weeks, months and years, I will not rest until this debate is won. For the future of my country. For the success of the European Union. And for the prosperity of our peoples for generations to come.

Posted in Debates, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Here’s Why #Chile Is The Most Beautiful Country In The World

Santiago lights at night

When it comes to natural beauty there is a certain cocktail of ingredients that definitely makes a country stand out. The most important ones are a low population density, a high variation in latitude, and varied climatic systems. There are several countries that check off these boxes. Naturally, the larger countries in the world have a distinct advantage. The USA, China, India, Norway, Canada, and many other countries can easily compete for the title of most beautiful country in the world.

For me, however, Chile is the most beautiful country that I’ve ever had the privilege to spend a lot of time exploring. Its terrific length of 4,300 kms takes it from sub-tropical latitudes all the way to the Antarctic. On that note, Norway is a pretty solid contender and geographically looks a lot like the Northern-hemisphere Chile. Of course, Norway goes further North than Chile goes south so you can actually witness the wonderful northern lights from northern parts of Norway. But the similarities end there. Due to Chile being at a triple junction of geologic plates, the country tends to rock with earthquakes more often than almost any other place in the world. This also results in incredible landscapes with volcanoes rising up to touch the skies amongst ancient glacial lakes with ice that is over 20,000 years old!

We have extensively explored this extremely remote southern country over the past four years. What’s astounding is that there is still a lot left to see! Chile is an “Island nation” with natural divides separating it from all its neighbors. To the north of this long country the Atacama desert separates it from its neighbors, to the south and west the Pacific Ocean cradles its delicate and ever changing coastline and to the east you have the mighty Andes mountains running the entire (4000km+) length of the country.

Why Chile is the most beautiful country in the world

Click here to read more about why Chile is the most beautiful country in the world.

I Live in Chile” by Thomas Jerome Baker could be called “I Love Chile”, because that emotion oozes from the first page to the last in this beautiful and engaging book about Chile.”

– Christoph Fischer

“I couldn’t keep from laughing and enjoying Thomas Baker’s account of learning to live in Chile. As much as it is entertaining, it’s educational.” – Dennis Waller (Amazon Top 500 Reviewer)

“What starts off deceptively as a travel book quickly becomes a beguiling, very personal, and highly entertaining look at a unique culture…” – Bob Rector

““I Live In Chile” is another wonderful read by Thomas Jerome Baker. Time and again, I’ve said that I love to learn about different cultures. In the case of Thomas’ newest release, I received all that I crave and then some.” – Janice Ross

“I don’t think anyone can read this book and not want to book a flight there immediately. His effervescence and love of Chile are evident on every page. This is far superior to your normal travel guide.” – Dianne Harmann

“Although he talks about the day-to-day lives of Chileans, the beautiful landscapes, the people, music, food, dance, customs, holidays and traditions, this is no travel guide. Rather, it is an extraordinary and passionate look into the heart of a man who has fallen in love with Chile. This book will provide insights that are not found in regular travel guides about Chile.” – Henry Summon
I Live in Chile. ¡Viva Chile! I am fascinated with, and deeply in love with Chile (encantado & enamorado). That will be the main aim of this book, namely, to share my life in, and my love for, this beautiful country, my beloved Chile. I hope you enjoy the way in which I share the story of what is important for me about my life in Chile. – Author Thomas Jerome Baker


Posted in Authors, Culture, Education, EFL, Reading, Reflections, Research, Writing | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

The disadvantaged need the best teachers

The trouble is, there are no magic wands in education-policy making. But one trick that the Prime Minister should dedicate himself to pulling off is to get more of the best teachers in front of the most disadvantaged students.

High-quality tuition can add up to 18 months of learning to a disadvantaged pupil, compared with six months from an inadequate teacher – it means a good teacher makes a whole year’s difference when it comes to a child learning.

Perversely, at present children from less advantaged backgrounds get less access to good teaching. According to Ofsted, 36 per cent of children in deprived areas are taught in secondary schools that are inadequate or require improvement. Only 13 per cent per cent receive “outstanding” teaching.

Children from disadvantaged backgrounds are simply far less likely to experience an excellent education than their better-off peers.

It’s clear that something must be going wrong when research by the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission (SMCPC) shows that low-ability children from wealthy families overtake high-ability children from poor families during school.

To correct the imbalance, Government should create a fast-stream for teachers, akin to the civil service scheme. The aim would be to place young teachers in senior positions quickly. In return for the promise of a turbo-charged career and rapid promotion, these education fast-streamers would have to spend some years teaching in a disadvantaged school.

From this a new cadre of school leaders would grow, who are also much needed; Sir Michael Wilshaw, the chief inspector of schools, reckons one in four of current secondary school headteachers are not up to the job.

The Government should also make a priority of grasping the nettle of teachers’ pay reform. Last year’s SMCPC survey of 1,000 teachers found that better salaries would be a powerful incentive to get more of them teaching in the most challenging schools.

For decades, national pay systems have rewarded teachers equally, whether they teach in a wealthy leafy suburb or a depressed coastal town.

Academy schools were given the freedom to set their own pay rates, but by 2012 two-thirds of them hadn’t done so. It is time to change tack and the Government should ask the School Teachers Pay Review Body to address this.

One thing is certain: it will be impossible to improve social mobility until the educational attainment gap between less well-off and better-off children is closed.

Study after study has come to the same conclusion.

Time spent in education is the most important determinant of future social status and success in schools is the most important factor determining social mobility.

The UK’s future success in a globally competitive economy relies on using all of our country’s talent not just some of it. Mr Cameron should make that the defining cause of his government.

12 Jul 2015

Alan Milburn is chair of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission

Posted in Culture, Education, Reflections | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Best universities in the United States 2016

Stanford University, Best universities in the United States 2016

Thinking about studying in the USA can be overwhelming, especially since there are so many options of where to study in the United States.

We are currently in the process of launching our own bespoke US college ranking, due for publication in September. Before that goes live, however, we thought you might like to know which are the top universities in America based on the highly respected Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2015-2016.

The best universities and colleges in the USA number almost 150, and wherever you want to study in America, a top university will not be far away. Almost all of the states are represented in the best US universities list. In total, 128 different cities appear in the ranking.

Resources: US university rankings

– Best universities in New York
– US universities with the most international students
– Universities in the United States promoting social mobility

California is by far the most represented state among the best American universities with 14 institutions, followed by New York State with 12, Texas with nine and Massachusetts with eight.

But the city with the most universities is Washington DC, which has four. Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, New York City, Atlanta in Georgia and Chicago in Illinois have three universities each in the ranking.

The universities at the very top are more concentrated in popular destinations well known for their higher education opportunities; the top five are based in California, Massachusetts and New Jersey.

Resources: applying to the United States

– International student application guide
– American universities with late application deadlines
– Benefits of public universities v Ivy Leagues

Top 5 universities in the United States

Scroll down to view the full table of the best American universities

1. California Institute of Technology

Relative to the tiny size of the student population, CalTech has an impressive number of wildly successful graduates and affiliates, including 34 Nobel prizewinners, six Turing Award winners, five Fields Medalists and a number of national awards.

There are only 2,243 students at CalTech, and the primary campus in Pasadena, near Los Angeles, covers 124 acres. Almost all undergraduates live on campus.

Across the six faculties there is a focus on science and engineering; the university appears in the top 5 for engineering and technology (#2), physical sciences (#1), and life sciences (#5) rankings in 2016.

In addition to Nobel laureates and top researchers, the CalTech alumni community also includes a number of politicians and public advisers, particularly in positions that deal with science, technology and energy.

All first-year students belong to one of four houses as part of the university’s alternative model to fraternities. There are a number of house traditions and events associated with each house.

The university has the highest proportion of students who continue on to pursue a PhD, and the trope of the CalTech postgraduate has filtered into popular culture; all the main characters in the TV comedy The Big Bang Theory work or study at CalTech.

2. Stanford University

Based right next to Silicon Valley – or Palo Alto – Stanford has had a prominent role in encouraging the high-tech industry to develop in the area.

Many faculty members, students and alumni have founded successful technology companies and start-ups, including Google, Snapchat and Hewlett-Packard.

In total, companies founded by Stanford alumni make $2.7 trillion each year.

The university is often referred to as “the Farm”, as the campus was built on the site of the Stanford family’s Palo Alto Stock Farm. The campus covers 8,180 acres, but more than half of the land is not yet developed.

With distinctive sand-coloured, red-roofed buildings, Stanford’s campus is thought to be one of the most beautiful in the world. It contains a number of sculpture gardens and art museums in addition to faculty buildings and a public meditation centre.

As might be expected from one of the best universities in the world, Stanford is highly competitive. The admission rate currently stands at just over 5 per cent.

Of the 15,596 students – most of whom live on campus – 22 per cent are international.

3. Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A long-standing rival of CalTech, MIT also cultivates a strong entrepreneurial culture, which has seen many alumni found notable companies such as Intel and Dropbox.

Unusually, the undergraduate and postgraduate programmes at MIT are not wholly separate; many courses can be taken at either level.

The undergraduate programme is one of the country’s most selective, admitting only 8 per cent of applicants. Engineering and computer science programmes are the most popular among undergraduates.

Thirty-three per cent of the 11,000 students are international, hailing from 154 different countries around the world.

Famous alumni include astronaut Buzz Aldrin, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and physicist Richard Feynman. Graduates are prevalent throughout science, politics, economics, business and media.

The university appears in the top 5 list in the Engineering and technology, physical sciences, social sciences and arts and humanities rankings published by Times Higher Education.

4. Harvard University

Harvard University is probably the best-known university in the world, coming top in the reputation rankings most years.

It was founded in 1636, and is the oldest higher education institution in the United States.

There are currently 20,152 students enrolled, a quarter of whom are international. Although the cost of tuition is expensive, Harvard’s financial endowment allows for plenty of financial aid for students.

The Harvard Library system is made up of 79 different libraries and counts as the largest academic library in the world.

Among many famous alumni, Harvard can count eight US presidents, about 150 Nobel laureates, 13 Turing Award winners and 62 living billionaires.

Unlike some other universities at the top of the list, Harvard is at least equally as reputed for arts and humanities as it is for science and technology, if not more so. In the 2016 arts and humanities ranking, Harvard takes the second position, and secures top 10 positions for physical sciences, social sciences and engineering and technology.

5. Princeton University

Like Harvard, Princeton is a prestigious Ivy League university with a history stretching back more than 200 years.

Princeton’s distinctive social environment includes private “eating clubs” – which function as both social houses and dining halls. Many of the clubs are selective and competitive, but others simply require undergraduates to sign up.

There are fewer than 8,000 students enrolled at Princeton, and just over a quarter are international.

Princeton’s campuses, in New Jersey, are located about an hour away from both New York City and Philadelphia.

Degree courses have strictly specified requirements. All students are required to do independent research as part of their degrees, and some must take a foreign language course.

The application process is highly selective. Unlike most US universities, Princeton does not now offer an early decision application route.

Renowned Princeton alumni include US presidents, astronauts, businessmen, Olympians and numerous award-winners. Physicist Richard Feynman attended as a graduate student, as did mathematicians John Nash and Alan Turing.

Compare US universities with other regions:

– Best universities in Europe 2016
– Where do graduates face the most debt?

– Where are international postgraduates most satisfied?
– European universities competing with US in humanities

Top universities in the United States 2016

Click each institution to view its full World University Rankings 2015-2016 results

USA Rank Position in World University Rankings 2016 University State City
1 1 California Institute of Technology California Pasadena
2 3 Stanford University California Stanford
3 5 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Massachusetts Cambridge
4 6 Harvard University Massachusetts Cambridge
5 7 Princeton University New Jersey Princeton
6 10 University of Chicago Illinois Chicago
7 11 Johns Hopkins University Maryland Baltimore
8 12 Yale University Connecticut New Haven
9 13 University of California, Berkeley California Berkeley
10 15 Columbia University New York State New York City
11 16 University of California, Los Angeles California Los Angeles
12 17 University of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Philadelphia
13 18 Cornell University New York State Ithaca
14 20 Duke University North Carolina Durham
15 21 University of Michigan Michigan Ann Arbor
16 22 Carnegie Mellon University Pennsylvania Pittsburgh
17 25 Northwestern University Illinois Evanston
18 30 New York University New York State New York City
19 32 University of Washington Washington Seattle
20 36 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Illinois Champaign
=21 =39 University of California, San Diego California San Diego
=21 =39 University of California, Santa Barbara California Santa Barbara
23 41 Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Atlanta
24 =44 University of California, Davis California Davis
25 46 University of Texas at Austin Texas Austin
26 50 University of Wisconsin-Madison Wisconsin Madison
27 51 Brown University Rhode Island Providence
28 =60 Washington University in St Louis Missouri St. Louis
29 63 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill North Carolina Chapel Hill
30 64 Boston University Massachusetts Boston
31 =65 University of Minnesota Minnesota Minneapolis
32 68 University of Southern California California Los Angeles
33 75 Pennsylvania State University Pennsylvania State College
34 79 University of Pittsburgh Pennsylvania Pittsburgh
35 87 Vanderbilt University Tennessee Nashville
=36 =90 Emory University Georgia Atlanta
=36 =90 Ohio State University Ohio Columbus
38 =94 Georgetown University Washington DC
39 =99 Michigan State University Michigan East Lansing
40 =101 Rice University Texas Houston
41 =104 Dartmouth College New Hampshire Hanover
42 =106 University of California, Irvine California Irvine
43 108 University of Notre Dame Indiana Notre Dame
44 =113 Purdue University Indiana West Lafayette
45 117 University of Maryland, College Park Maryland College Park
46 =120 University of Florida Florida Gainesville
47 =123 Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey New Jersey New Brunswick
=48 =127 University of Colorado Boulder Colorado Boulder
=48 =127 Tufts University Massachusetts Medford
50 =133 Case Western Reserve University Ohio Cleveland
51 141 University of Massachusetts Massachusetts Amherst, Boston, Dartmouth, Lowell, Worcester
52 =144 University of California, Santa Cruz California Santa Cruz
53 147 University of Virginia Virginia Charlottesville
54 =158 University of Rochester New York State Rochester
55 =161 University of Miami Florida Coral Gables
56 163 University of Arizona Arizona Tucson
57 =164 Yeshiva University New York State New York City
58 =167 University of California, Riverside California Riverside
59 =182 University of Utah Utah Salt Lake City
60 =185 Brandeis University Massachusetts Waltham
61 189 Arizona State University Arizona Tempe
62 =190 Boston College Massachusetts Newton
63 =193 Texas A&M University Texas College Station
=64 201–250 Florida State University Florida Tallahassee
=64 201–250 George Washington University Washington DC
=64 201–250 University of Hawai’i at Mānoa Hawaii Honolulu
=64 201–250 University of Illinois at Chicago Illinois Chicago
=64 201–250 Indiana University (Bloomington) Indiana Bloomington
=64 201–250 University of Iowa Iowa Iowa City
=64 201–250 Northeastern University Massachusetts Boston
=64 201–250 Oregon Health and Science University Oregon Portland
=64 201–250 Rush University Illinois Chicago
=64 201–250 University of South Florida Florida Tampa
=64 201–250 Stony Brook University New York State Stony Brook
=64 201–250 University of Texas at Dallas Texas Richardson
=64 201–250 University at Buffalo New York State Buffalo
=64 201–250 Wake Forest University North Carolina Winston-Salem
=64 201–250 William & Mary Virginia Williamsburg
=79 251–300 Colorado School of Mines Colorado Golden
=79 251–300 Colorado State University Colorado Fort Collins
=79 251–300 University of Delaware Delaware Newark
=79 251–300 University of Georgia Georgia Athens
=79 251–300 Iowa State University Iowa Ames
=79 251–300 North Carolina State University North Carolina Raleigh
=79 251–300 Oregon State University Oregon Corvallis
=79 251–300 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute New York State Troy
=79 251–300 Saint Louis University Missouri St. Louis
=79 251–300 Syracuse University New York State Syracuse
=79 251–300 University of Tennessee, Knoxville Tennessee Knoxville
=79 251–300 Tulane University Louisiana New Orleans
=79 251–300 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Virginia Blacksburg
=92 301–350 University of Alaska Fairbanks Alaska Fairbanks
=92 301–350 University of Cincinnati Ohio Cincinnati
=92 301–350 University of Connecticut Connecticut Mansfield
=92 301–350 George Mason University Virginia Fairfax
=92 301–350 Medical College of Wisconsin Wisconsin Milwaukee
=92 301–350 University of Nebraska-Lincoln Nebraska Lincoln
=92 301–350 University of Oregon Oregon Eugene
=99 351–400 Binghamton University, State University of New York New York State Binghamton
=99 351–400 Drexel University Pennsylvania Philadelphia
=99 351–400 University of Houston Texas Houston
=99 351–400 University of Missouri Missouri Columbia
=99 351–400 University of Montana Montana Missoula
=99 351–400 University of Nebraska Medical Center Nebraska Omaha
=99 351–400 University of New Mexico New Mexico Albuquerque
=99 351–400 San Diego State University California San Diego
=99 351–400 University of South Carolina South Carolina Columbia
=99 351–400 University of South Dakota South Dakota Vermillion
=99 351–400 Temple University Pennsylvania Philadelphia
=99 351–400 University of Texas at San Antonio Texas San Antonio
=99 351–400 Washington State University Washington Pullman
=99 351–400 Wayne State University Michigan Detroit
=113 401–500 American University Washington DC
=113 401–500 Florida International University Florida Miami
=113 401–500 Georgia State University Georgia Atlanta
=113 401–500 Howard University Washington DC
=113 401–500 University of Idaho Idaho Moscow
=113 401–500 Lehigh University Pennsylvania Bethlehem
=113 401–500 Louisiana State University Louisiana Baton Rouge
=113 401–500 University of Maryland, Baltimore County Maryland Baltimore
=113 401–500 University of San Francisco California San Francisco
=113 401–500 State University of New York Albany New York State Albany
=123 501–600 University of Arkansas Arkansas Fayetteville
=123 501–600 Auburn University Alabama Auburn
=123 501–600 Kansas State University Kansas Manhattan
=123 501–600 Kent State University Ohio Kent
=123 501–600 Missouri University of Science and Technology Missouri Rolla
=123 501–600 Montana State University Montana Bozeman
=123 501–600 New Jersey Institute of Technology New Jersey Newark
=123 501–600 New Mexico State University New Mexico Las Cruces
=123 501–600 University of North Carolina at Greensboro North Carolina Greensboro
=123 501–600 Oklahoma State University Oklahoma Stillwater
=123 501–600 Portland State University Oregon Portland
=123 501–600 University of Texas at Arlington Texas Arlington
=123 501–600 University of Toledo Ohio Toledo
=123 501–600 University of Tulsa Oklahoma Tulsa
=123 501–600 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Wisconsin Milwaukee
=138 601–800 California State University, Long Beach California Long Beach
=138 601–800 Clemson University South Carolina Clemson
=138 601–800 Florida Institute of Technology Florida Melbourne
=138 601–800 Miami University Ohio Oxford
=138 601–800 Oakland University Michigan Rochester
=138 601–800 Ohio University Ohio Athens
=138 601–800 Rochester Institute of Technology New York State Rochester
=138 601–800 University of Southern Mississippi Mississippi Hattiesburg
=138 601–800 University of Texas at El Paso Texas El Paso
=138 601–800 Texas Tech University Texas Lubbock
Posted in Education, Higher Education Teaching & Learning | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

International students are worth more than their tuition fees

A strong international presence on campus is worth more than money in the bank.  Philip Wainwright Times Higher Education

Interconnected globe (illustration) Just over 10 years ago, the president of Emory University, my Atlanta-based institution, told an international planning group that he wanted to hear many languages during his daily walks across campus.

This vision was based on the idea that international diversity and perspectives enrich the classroom and life on campus, while also helping to prepare students for a rapidly globalising world. In the intervening decade, significant elements of that vision have become a reality – not just at Emory, but at many US institutions.

However, that growth has arguably been shaped as much by evolving financial and demographic pressures as by long-term planning.

Read next: Why are international students so important to our universities?

By more strategically realising the aspirations for global education that predate the 2008 financial crisis, US universities can improve the educational experience of all students and prepare them better for life after university, while also increasing institutional impact and reputation.

From 2005 to 2015, international students enrolled at US institutions increased from just over half a million to just under one million. What shaped the enormity of this shift?

Coping with budgetary shortfalls during the financial crisis, and responding to the impending decline of domestic college-aged populations, many US universities recognised the business necessity of international recruitment. The financial crisis coincided with the peaking of the US college-aged population and the rapid growth of international college-aged populations with the qualifications, desire, and wherewithal to study overseas.

Unfortunately, the business aspects have engendered a sense that US students have been facing tougher competition from international applicants for admission to top universities, exacerbated by the overall sense that opportunities for cash-strapped Americans have become more limited.

What gets lost in this analysis are the educational benefits.

Critics of admitting more international students point to fewer spots for domestic students and attribute purely financial motives to university administrations. However, the tension between the international diversity within the student body, the financial needs of the university, and the university’s core mission to educate its students is not summed up so easily.

The relationships between these priorities are complex and differ depending on a university’s mission. First, it is not clear that there are in fact fewer spots for domestic students. Second, the financial boost that international students bring to universities actually also benefits domestic students, who would otherwise bear a higher financial burden for their education.

As the vision for a campus where many languages can be heard on a casual walk reminds us, internationalisation emerged as an educational priority before it was facilitated by business pressures.

Most ambitious universities see international diversity on campus (along with study abroad) as necessary for preparing their students for life after graduation, as well as for the enhancement of intellectual life on campus. In the case of state-funded institutions in the US, this aspiration is complicated by the obligation to serve the population of the state, as well as the significant decline in state funding support for those institutions following the economic crisis.

But the need to expose all students to international perspectives and to train them to work in new environments and in different cultures is clear. By sitting in class next to students from all around the world, other students will learn about how people from other countries and cultures view the issues they are studying. Similarly, by living in the same residence halls, they will learn about different attitudes and ways of living.

As the financial situation has improved, the new presence of international populations on campus and newly created international networks provide universities with tremendous opportunities to strengthen their educational and research missions. International students bring connections that will shape universities for generations to come.

My own sense is that many US universities have not yet fully understood or embraced the globalisation that has already transformed them.

By shifting away from the view of international students as a solution to budget deficits and by linking international diversity to core institutional missions of education and research, self-conscious and well-thought-out internationalisation can enhance universities’ ability to achieve their goals. The fact that so many students, faculty, and staff from overseas are already on campus will only help.

Philip Wainwright is vice-provost of Emory University


Posted in Education, Higher Education Teaching & Learning | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Study abroad in Edinburgh

Why choose Edinburgh?

Hear what our students like most about studying here in our latest video about Study Abroad in Edinburgh, along with our top ten reasons for choosing Edinburgh.

Studying abroad at the University of Edinburgh from HSS Webteam on Vimeo.

Ten good reasons to choose to study in Edinburgh

1. University rankings

The University of Edinburgh is currently ranked 21st in the world in the QS ranking and our former students have been at the forefront of knowledge since the founding of the university in 1583. We’re ranked fourth in the UK for research power, based on the quality and breadth of our research, Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014.

2. Rich array of courses on offer

We offer a huge variety of subjects and individual courses for visiting students. The university has over 42 different key subject areas and within these there are over 1500 courses.

3. High student satisfaction

We welcome over 2000 visiting students every year. 95% of our students would recommend the University of Edinburgh as a Study Abroad Destination (13/14 results).

We have experience welcoming international students who come from two-thirds of the world’s countries.

The support for exchange students was very good at UoE and they were ever so lovely and helpful. Any questions I had were dealt with in a professional way and were responded to very quickly.”

Erasmus exchange student from the NetherlandsSemester 1 2014

4. Vibrant, historical & cosmopolitan city

Edinburgh has the size of a town but the social and cultural assets of a city, making it one of the UK’s leading tourist destinations.

Edinburgh is a safe student city, with a population of 500,000 we have 4 universities in the city and together students make up one tenth of the population. Edinburgh is ranked the second best student city in the UK, QS Best Student Cities 2015.

5. International Edinburgh

Edinburgh is a great place to study for international students. International students from the 4 universities in the city talk about their positive experiences of living and studying in Edinburgh.

Watch the video on YouTube

The International Student Centre is a student-run arm of the International Office and organises events and trips for international students as well as it being a place to socialise and have a coffee with fellow students:

International Student Support

6. A lively community of students

In Edinburgh you’ll join a lively, close-knit community with hundreds of student clubs and societies on offer

Meeting other students is always important to our visiting students and you will have many options available to you here to help you build up your social network, such as the buddy scheme, +240 student societies and +70 sports societies on offer.

7. Inspiring teaching

We’re committed to high quality, innovative teaching to help you reach your full potential. As a visiting student you’ll be taught alongside fellow Edinburgh students by inspiring professors and learn from world-leading researchers. Our academic staff are leaders in their field and their research directly informs their teaching. All our students benefit from the strong research environment that informs our academic programmes.

Our inspiring teaching is complemented by our investment and development in cutting-edge teaching and research facilities.

The teaching here was eye-opening to me… the teachers here were always well-prepared, engaged, enthusiastic, helpful and shared their knowledge and interested in students thoughts

German Erasmus Exchange studentFull Academic Year 2014/15

8. A supportive environment

There is a wealth of support and help available to visiting students at the University. The International Office and College Visiting Student Offices are here to help you from your initial enquiries, throughout the application process through to your time here in Edinburgh. We have a dedicated team who can help with visa enquiries and once in Edinburgh you will be allocated a personal tutor, a dedicated academic member of staff who will be able to support you throughout your studies

9. Invest in your future

You’ll experience the very best in teaching and research. A study abroad experience at the University of Edinburgh will equip you with the skills, insights and perspectives to enhance your employability and career prospects.

We’re ranked 18th in the world for the employability of our graduates. Latest Emerging Global Employability University Ranking.

10. Accommodation guarantee

All students who are coming from outside of the EU are guaranteed a place in University Accommodation, as well as Erasmus students coming for the full academic year. We have a range of university accommodation available to visiting students from catered university halls to self-catered apartments which the majority are within walking distance of the central university campus:

Posted in Culture, Education, Education Technology, EFL, Higher Education Teaching & Learning, Research | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Deadline June 10: Apply For The Rihanna Global Scholarship Program for residents of Barbados, Brazil, Cuba, Haiti, Guyana, Jamaica, or the USA


Grammy-winning singer and songwriter has announced a global scholarship program through her Clara Lionel Foundation (CLF), which will award scholarships to international and U.S. students going to college in the U.S.

In the video below, Rihanna shares her vision for improving arts, culture, and health in her home of Barbados and globally. Get to know the patients served with our health care initiatives, the students supported with our micro grants, and the scholar that will go on to achieve great things through the CLF Global Scholarship Program.

Next up, we open our scholarship application for more students to reach their dreams.

“To be able to give the gift of an education is actually an honor,” says Rihanna. “Higher education will help provide perspective, opportunities and learning to a group of kids who really deserve it.  I am thrilled to be able to do this.”

In order to be eligible, applicants must be residents of Barbados, Brazil, Cuba, Haiti, Guyana, Jamaica, or the U.S., and have already been accepted into a bachelor’s degree program at an accredited four-year college or university in the United States for the 2016-2017 year.

The scholarship is based on need and the number of students will vary, but the goal is to accept as many students as possible, according to the announcement.

Scholarships granted will range from $5,000 to $50,000 and may be renewed for up to three additional years or until a bachelor’s degree is earned, whichever occurs first.

Apply now here.

Applications for the full-tuition grant are open now through June 10, 2016.

A committee will screen 50 finalists based on academic performance, demonstrated leadership and participation in school and community activities, work experience and a personal essay, and the scholarship winners will be announced by August, 2016.

According to its website, Robyn “Rihanna” Fenty founded the CLF in 2012 to honor her grandparents, Clara and Lionel Braithwaite, and grants from the organization are used to fund international programs with particular focus on health, education, arts and culture.

All details and eligibility criteria can be found at

Posted in Culture, Education, Higher Education Teaching & Learning | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Classroom Strategies for Inquiry-Based Learning

About this course

Inquiry-based learning aims to increase student engagement by helping learners develop hands-on, minds-on skills. This education and teacher training course explores the 5E instructional model and its uses in the classroom. You will have the opportunity to learn from videos of classroom teachers modeling a 5E lesson and access teacher commentary as they use inquiry-based strategies with their students. As a result, you will develop the skills and strategies needed to implement inquiry-based instruction in your own classroom.

An inquiry-based approach honors the complex work of learning. It prioritizes the knowledge and experience that students bring to the classroom and it promotes active problem solving, communication, and the shared construction of new ideas. Inquiry-based instruction is the foundation for the UTeach model. This education course serves as a useful introduction to this approach.

Join Now <== Click to join

June 1, 2016 – August 17, 2016

You will have from June 1 through August 17 to complete the five-week course in a way that fits your schedule. You may also want to consider the self-paced version of Classroom Strategies for Inquiry-Based Learning that launches August 18th and runs through May 31, 2017.

Página de inicio del curso UT.IITL.11.01x - Classroom Strategies for Inquiry-Based LearningWhat you’ll learn

  • Understand the philosophy behind inquiry-based instruction
  • Learn the elements of the 5E instructional model
  • Obtain strategies and tools from master teachers for implementing inquiry-based instruction
  • Discover the benefits of inquiry-based instruction for students
  • Create a learning guide to use when implementing inquiry-based instruction in the classroom

Course Syllabus

In this course, you will explore the 5E instructional model by watching videos of classroom teachers as they use this approach and gathering strategies from master teachers for implementing it.

Participants will also have the chance to discuss their own ideas and consider applications to their own settings.

Week 1: Engagement
How do you engage students in learning? Participants will investigate the first of the 5Es, student Engagement.

Week 2: Exploration
Why is it important for students to explore and test out their ideas? This module will describe the importance of the second of the 5Es, student Exploration.

Week 3: Explanation
How can students explain complex concepts to each other? This module will provide insight into the role of student Explanation, the third E in the 5E instructional model.

Week 4: Elaboration
Why do students need to push their thinking further? The focus of this module is Elaboration, the 4th of the 5Es.

Week 5: Evaluation
How do students show us what they know and are able to do? This module focuses on different forms of Evaluation that can be used to assess student ideas throughout the 5E lesson. Both traditional and non-traditional forms of assessment will be presented.

Meet the instructors

  • bio for Kelli Allen

    Kelli Allen

    Clinical Assistant Professor, UTeach

  • University of Texas at Austin


  • bio for Shelly Rodriguez

    Shelly Rodriguez

    Clinical Associate Professor, UTeach

  • University of Texas at Austin

5E Lesson Cycle
Posted in Education, Education Technology, EFL, Higher Education Teaching & Learning, Teaching Tips | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

América Latina, estancada en innovación #MondayMotivation

Posted in Culture, Education, Education Technology, Higher Education Teaching & Learning, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment