Argumenté que estas oportunidades eran mayormente accesibles solo para estudiantes de familias adineradas, quienes a menudo priorizaban el capital financiero sobre el mérito académico. Me basé en la teoría poscolonial para explorar cómo la educación internacional reforzaba los desequilibrios globales a la vez que reproducía la estratificación social dentro de China.

Sin embargo, cuando posteriormente trabajé en las oficinas internacionales de universidades del Reino Unido, impulsando el reclutamiento, el desarrollo de asociaciones y la TNE, mi función fue entregar resultados comerciales precisamente dentro de los sistemas que había criticado.

Actualmente, trabajando en el sector privado y asesorando sobre el mercado educativo internacional de China, me encuentro reflexionando más allá del “qué”, el “cuándo” y el “cómo” del compromiso global y planteo la pregunta más profunda y urgente: ¿por qué internacionalizarse?

Para muchos, la respuesta reside en ideales: promover el entendimiento intercultural, la ciudadanía global y la colaboración académica. Pero la realidad suele ser más compleja. La internacionalización se ve cada vez más condicionada por imperativos económicos, estrategias nacionales y tensiones geopolíticas.

China es un buen ejemplo. El país ha sido durante mucho tiempo una fuente importante de estudiantes internacionales para el Reino Unido, Estados Unidos, Australia y Canadá. Sin embargo, su creciente ambición de convertirse en un destino global por derecho propio es menos reconocida.

A diferencia de muchos países occidentales, donde la educación internacional se rige principalmente por el mercado, el reclutamiento de estudiantes internacionales en China se sustenta en objetivos estratégicos, diplomáticos y de reputación. Considera la educación como una herramienta de poder blando, que fomenta el intercambio interpersonal y fortalece la influencia global, especialmente en los países en desarrollo.

Para 2018, China ya se había convertido en el principal destino de estudios en Asia y ocupaba el tercer lugar a nivel mundial si se incluyen los estudiantes de movilidad de corta duración. Si bien la pandemia interrumpió esta trayectoria, el compromiso a largo plazo de China con la internacionalización sigue siendo evidente.

Una investigación reciente de Wei Liu (2020) ofrece una valiosa perspectiva sobre el futuro de China como país anfitrión. A partir de entrevistas con 30 educadores internacionales en el país, el estudio identifica factores clave de atracción y expulsión que influyen en la toma de decisiones de los estudiantes.

Government support is central. China attracts international students with generous scholarships, relatively low tuition fees and increasing investment in university infrastructure and quality. This creates opportunities for students from less privileged backgrounds who might be priced out of other study destinations.

China’s continued economic development and projects such as the Belt and Road Initiative further strengthen its attractiveness, particularly for students from the Global South seeking better career prospects at home or in China. Chinese universities are becoming more proactive and selective in international collaborations, moving beyond the traditional “big four” (UK, US, Australia and Canada) to forge ties across Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.

In other words, as Wei Liu previously argued, Chinese internationalisation has moved from a phase of “learning from the West” to one of standing on equal footing, both collaborating with and competing against Western institutions.

Yet while China positions itself as an emerging study destination, another important mobility trend is unfolding domestically that reflects the growing diversification of student pathways within China itself.

As Jon Santangelo, an international educator and founder of Chariot Global Education, has pointed out, many Chinese students pursue international education not as a first choice but as a fallback option. After underperforming in the Zhongkao (China’s high school entrance examination) at the end of grade nine and, therefore, failing to win a place in the nation’s top-tier senior secondary schools, a significant number transfer to an international education track, with a view to studying abroad. However, I’ve seen many students receive conditional offers from anglophone universities only to fall short on English-language or end-of-school exam requirements.

As a result, more students are opting for in-country pathways, such as foundation programmes or 2+2 joint degree arrangements between Chinese and Western universities, as more practical and supportive alternatives. In addition, they are increasingly looking beyond traditional overseas study destinations to closer-to-home alternatives, such as Hong Kong, Macao or elsewhere in Asia. Another option is transnational education programmes within mainland China, which replicate aspects of global learning within local contexts.

These trends could ultimately reduce the number of Chinese students who head to the West. However, significant barriers remain to China’s ascent as an academic destination in its own right. Its global image, particularly in Western media, is a key deterrent. Geopolitical tensions and concerns about academic freedom might also discourage students from developed countries.

Language is another barrier. While growing numbers of programmes are offered in English, most university courses in China are still delivered in Mandarin. This raises broader questions: if internationalisation requires English-medium instruction globally, are we simply reinforcing linguistic homogenisation – or, worse, a form of cultural erasure?

There are also concerns among international students about educational quality, international rankings and student support services, especially in comparison with well-established systems in the West. And, domestically, there is increasing scrutiny of government financial support for international students at a time of economic uncertainty for many Chinese families.

Despite these challenges, there is cautious optimism among international educators within China. The country remains committed to investing in domestic research, developing TNE partnerships with a wider range of countries, and improving student support and integration. And while it might struggle to attract students from the West, China’s appeal to those from other BRICS countries and the Global South is likely to grow.

That should challenge universities across the world to rethink their approach to international education. Is it truly inclusive and reciprocal – or are they privileging certain forms of knowledge, language and mobility over others?

Ultimately, the best answer to the “why” of internationalisation remains its most human-centred one. The aim should not simply be to move students across borders in pursuit of economic and reputational advantage. It should be to build understanding across them.

Cheryl Yu is managing director of Connected International Education and vice-president of London Global Education.