<p>sly:</p>
<p>Rational business strategy would suggest that your “looking ahead” hypothesis has something to do with it. But I think there’s a lot more. Right now, the top U.S. universities are really unique, and key, world resources. The great European universities are much less secure financially. My impression is that, with the possible exception of Oxbridge, they have not maintained their competitive position internationally, and they are all facing declining populations in their home markets. (Although some have surely improved, such as universities in Spain.) Demand for higher education in Asia must be exploding, and severely taxing available resources, everywhere but in Japan. English is the international lingua franca. With all that, I am somewhat surprised that the top American universities are still as “national” as they are.</p>
<p>A few years ago, a new president of Cornell asked in his investiture speech, “Do we want to look more like America, or should we want to look more like the world?” I thought that was a great question. At an absolute level, the question doesn’t have an obvious answer at all. But as a short-term, relative matter, the answer clearly ought to be “both”. </p>
<p>Expanding international enrollment is both a practical, hard-headed, long-term business strategy to maintain their pre-eminence in higher education, and a moral imperative. And by “moral imperative” I mean all of the following: having the best students, creating the most synergies, providing the best opportunities to their students and faculties, and doing the most good in the world.</p>
<p>I think this is going to be an accelerating trend. These institutions are still relatively parochial; they probably ought to be more like trans-national business groups. If I were Drew Gilpin Faust, I would be looking to build a real, full-service university somewhere in China.</p>