What problem are you really trying to solve with TNE? Are you sure?

The recent Universities UK International transnational education (TNE) conference in London marked a significant milestone in the evolution of TNE discussions.

With record attendance and many sessions operating at full capacity, the event was a testament to the growing interest in this area of higher education. Attendees buzzed with enthusiasm during breaks, exchanging insights and strategies on how to leverage TNE to benefit their respective institutions. The diversity of institutions represented was notable, with many new faces eager to learn from seasoned professionals.

Having participated in TNE conferences over many years, I observed a palpable shift in the discourse. Historically, attendees tended to be mostly the same TNE enthusiasts from the same universities, and discussions centred on information-sharing: defining TNE, highlighting its advantages and disadvantages, and showcasing successful case studies. This year felt different. There were a lot of new players, and the tone seemed to have shifted towards a collective acknowledgement that TNE is the future, the future is now, and we all need to be part of it.

This shift is understandable. UK universities have long depended on international students for financial stability but in recent years, the pressures of the freeze in home tuition fees and rising costs have intensified this reliance. The post-Covid era initially saw a surge in direct international student recruitment but this year has brought a worrying decline in numbers. Many universities face growing financial deficits, redundancies and the urgent need to restructure.

Meanwhile, global demand for education continues to rise. Countries around the world are increasingly investing in their own higher education systems, recognising their importance for societal health and economic prosperity. Observing how Chinese higher education has rapidly advanced by embracing international partnerships to enhance quality and capacity, other nations are following suit.

This creates a dual dynamic: significant markets are emerging but UK universities are realising the need to reach out to them. If fewer international students are coming to the UK, we, with strong government support, must go to them. TNE has been around for years, but not like this.

In my experience, the conversation about TNE’s value has often been framed around the excellent notion of education as a universal benefit: an endeavour aimed at fostering global citizenship and enhancing the international reputation of UK institutions, fostering reciprocal relationships.

The conversation has traditionally shied away from the financial motivations, with phrases like “as long as it washes its face” and “you don’t do TNE for the money” often heard. Yet, as I observed at this conference, these phrases are becoming less common. The reality is that financial imperatives are becoming more integral to the discussion, at least in private. It is no coincidence that the TNE zeitgeist has arrived at a time of falling international recruitment and financial peril.

It raises a critical question: how aware are university leaders of the financial implications of TNE? As international higher education specialists, we must ensure that the motivations behind TNE initiatives are transparent and thoroughly understood across an institution, particularly across its management. Is it genuinely committed to enhancing global education, or primarily focused on financial gain – not, or not just, in the hope of making a modest return but as a central component of its financial strategy?

This scrutiny is essential. Institutions must confront the reality of their motivations honestly. While the aspiration to contribute to global education is commendable, it is equally valid to acknowledge the financial imperatives that drive many of these initiatives. There is an understandable reluctance to talk about money – the optics aren’t great in a values-led industry – but to shy away from it leads to muddled strategy.

This is as true at faculty level as it is at executive level; interests are not always aligned, and internal stakeholders within the same institution may be on very different pages.

Embracing the reality that revenue generation is a significant goal (if it is) will drive universities to develop the more sophisticated financial models required to achieve that goal, replacing current models with those that effectively address the complexities of TNE. By understanding the hidden costs, including opportunity costs, real timescales, and calculating the true return on investment, universities can better navigate the challenges ahead. For academic leads, “breaking even” is often not sufficient reward for the considerable effort invested at times of severely limited resource. Losing money after adding the hidden costs is certainly not. And losing money on TNE is very easy to do, especially when pursuing quality. Our colleagues will not thank us, the TNE protagonists, if we set up projects that ultimately cost them their jobs.

By recognising the dual motivations of global presence and income generation that drive their engagement in TNE, institutions can leverage the opportunities ahead. Some will be, and already are, successful at achieving both goals, probably because they’ve learned how to do it the hard way. Others may be at the start of that journey. But it is evidently a journey that more and more UK universities are accepting they have no choice but to undertake.

Stephen Thomas is a higher education consultant and was head of global partnerships at the University of Reading from 2016 to 2024. His first career was in finance.