Tag: Higher education

Posted on

The Soft Power Reckoning

Declining International Enrollments in US Higher Education Are a Global Matter (and Much More Than Simply a Revenue Problem for American Colleges and Universities)

June 9, 2026, by Chet Haskell and Senthil Nathan – The openness of American colleges and universities to students from other nations has long been understood as a strength. These students enhance the quality and diversity of educational programs for all students. They provide perspectives and experiences that broaden the understanding of American students. They represent significant revenue sources for both institutions and the communities in which they are located. And many stay after graduation to live and work as important elements of American society.

 The data show significant declines in international students currently seeking the necessary visas for study in the US. The decline will likely accelerate when combined with large numbers of students currently enrolled and seeking to complete their degrees. According to NAFSA, total Spring 2026 international enrollments in the US are down 20% from the previous year. The more than 1.1 million international students contributed at least $43 billion to the US economy.

At the same time, the policies and rhetoric of the current US Administration are widely seen to have had major negative impacts on American higher education. Visa restrictions, changes in duration of studies regulations and reduced university research funding all act as direct disincentives for foreign students to seek to study in the US. Other broader matters also have impacts as the world watches:  explicit attacks on higher education, shuttering of internationally oriented institution like AID, excessive immigration enforcement and the war in Iran. Finally, American actions seem to devalue the importance of its longtime allies and international cooperation more generally. “America First” is hardly an attractive slogan for attracting international students.

The implications for American colleges and universities are severe. First is the simple impact on institutional budgets as fewer international students means reduced revenues. These enrollment effects add to the revenue pressures already felt by many institutions as domestic enrollments are seen as declining in many areas. These pressures are inordinately felt by some small private institutions that also have to compete with increased efforts of public universities to enroll American students.

At the same time, different institutions are hit in different ways. For example, Moody’s a rating agency, on May 12, 2026, downgraded Columbia University’s outlook to negative citing “uncertainty about international enrollments” as a prime factor for this change. Columbia at 40% has one of the largest international student bodies in the US.

Universities with large research programs have already felt the impacts of significant reductions in government funding through cuts at agencies like the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation. While such cuts affect a university as a whole, they place particular pressures on leading Carnegie R1 institutions that have attracted top foreign students into their PhD programs. One result is that most institutions, even the wealthiest, have been trimming budgets and restricting new enrollments in some graduate programs.

The top US research universities have welcomed foreign graduate students because of their desire to attract the very best talent for both their programs and for the development of future faculty. Nationality is at best a minor consideration if an institution is seeking excellence in a competitive global environment.

The longer-term implications of these actions and trends are considerable. In the first instance, the pipeline for top researchers and professors is being constricted. (Recall that PhD programs are, in effect, a workforce development program for higher education. Demonstrating one’s ability to conduct research that leads to new knowledge is fundamental to a PhD degree.) Another implication is the production of research in general. Fewer researchers with less funding will mean that groundbreaking research will be more limited with broad effects on American and global society.

US higher education was once considered the gold standard for academic excellence. The top US institutions were seen as leading the world in many ways. Their brands were highly visible and extremely attractive to foreign students at all levels. Many institutions outside the US have sought and gained US institutional accreditation as a way to validate their own quality. Many specialized accreditors like ABET were considered the absolute in best practice. Together, these perceptions and the perceived relative weakness of many universities outside the US enabled the US to attract some of the best minds in the world.

Things have changed, even before the more recent US government actions noted above. Universities in many nations have grown in scale and quality. While much of the attention has been focused on the growth of Chinese universities, there are important gains in many countries. One result is that students have options. There are excellent institutions and programs outside the US.

China and India together account for 30% of all internationally mobile students.  South Korea, Vietnam, and Nigeria are also major exporters of college students.  How do the topmost student-sending countries respond to this fast-changing US scenario? 

China, India, and Gulf nations are rapidly expanding local higher education capacity, including welcoming international branch campuses (IBCs).  China has 50 international branch campuses inside China and Hong Kong.  India, which opened the door to IBCs just three years ago, already has 30+ foreign universities (from the UK, Australia, the USA, and the like) in various stages of establishing IBCs. 

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has been particularly active in the IBC space. For example, Abu Dhabi now hosts two internationally significant institutions of this type, New York University Abu Dhabi and Sorbonne University Abu Dhabi.

Dubai has encouraged IBCs and now has 37+ international branch campuses to provide alternatives for outbound students from the Middle East, Africa, South Asia, and Central Asia.  The percentage of student visa rejections in Dubai is much lower than in the US, Canada, and the UK for students from these regions.  For students who are typically keen on completing a good international undergraduate education and aim to pursue an international career, the UAE offers an excellent alternative to North America, Europe, and Australia. 

A significant percentage of outbound graduate students are high-achieving and high-potential and have proven to contribute to the entrepreneurial and innovation cultures of their host countries over the past decades.  However, if such high-potential students face significant barriers unrelated to their research, they tend to find good alternatives in their home countries or elsewhere.  There is no doubt that international students who want to pursue research and related careers in the US will lose somewhat in their individual careers. However, most of these students will find career success elsewhere and the US will be the aggregate loser.

In this context, the significant growth in international students in Germany, particularly in STEM fields, is noteworthy, as Germany offers an excellent alternative to the US for such high-potential students.  International student enrollment in Germany has grown by 43% in the past four years, now comprising about 13% of Germany’s total higher education. 

The increasing availability of world-class online degrees – particularly at the Master’s level – is yet another option for many international students who face visa challenges and constantly changing rules in host countries. 

The evolution of higher education from an exclusive privilege to a mass-access system has redefined universities as market-driven enterprises.  The universities and the national systems that respond well to students as consumers – demanding career ROI, value, flexibility (anytime, anywhere), career-aligned curriculum, and respect as full fee-paying customers – are thriving in the global marketplace.

While democratic countries tend to think in election cycles and impose such restrictions, international students are beginning to vote with their decades-long careers in mind.  The marketplace will adjust to changing realities.  International students, by and large, will pursue their higher education dreams and find alternatives.  At the end, the ultimate winners will be systems and nations that welcome the best and the brightest students to their campuses and the losers will be those who create hurdle after hurdle to such students. 

When we observe the changes in the university hierarchies globally – using well-established metrics such as international accreditation/benchmarking, graduate employment, research publications and patents, ranking, and student demand/acceptance ratios, and the like, it is clear that the great higher education divide between the USA and the rest of the world is narrowing rapidly. 

Of course, global growth in educational levels and opportunities is a good thing for the world as a whole. Additionally, increased competition among institutions – especially the top institutions –should lead to even better teaching and research outcomes. The best American institutions should still prosper in this environment, but the US as a whole may lose its gold standard brand.

There is, however, a larger implication of these changes for the United States. Holding aside consideration of college and university enrollments and finances, having fewer top international students means fewer US students and institutions will benefit from the value of interacting with people from other countries. The importance of peer education has long been understood, but the value of that education is eroded if students are of uniform nationality. American citizens generally have had less exposure to the world than citizens of other, more outward looking nations. Fewer than half of Americans have passports and many have only used them rarely. And while many American colleges and institutions encourage study abroad and related programs, the majority of American students graduate without such experiences. The presence of international students on campuses helps to offset these limitations.

In 1990, the late Harvard political science professor Joseph S. Nye, Jr. coined the term “soft power” to describe a form of national power not based on coercion or payment, but instead on attraction. In simple terms, he contrasted coercive power (sticks) and payment power (carrots) with the power to attract (honey). In Nye’s conception, soft power is the capacity to influence others through culture, values and persuasion. American presidents of both parties as far back as Truman believed in the power of American values, ideals and culture as a “force for good in the world.” These beliefs were part of a shared vision of American leadership and responsibility.

Higher education was always seen as central to the development of soft power. Students came to the US from all over the world to gain their education. While some stayed in the US, most returned to their home nations with a more realistic understanding of American society and values. This was not a starry-eyed perspective of America as “ a City on the Hill,” a beacon to the world. Rather, it was more basic: an understanding and appreciation for the good and the bad of America. These people were part of a much broader awareness of the more intangible sources of power that come from a sense of national cohesion, a culture with universalistic foundations and an appreciation for international institutions. These people were, by and large, America’s friends. And all who studied in this way were able to see and deal with the United States in reasonable and rational ways.

In the words of Timthy Frye, soft power has not been” holstered” by an America First world view, but has been “dismantled.” This crisis for soft power is a broad American crisis. While its immediate effects are felt disproportionately by higher education, the true costs in reduced understanding and fewer partnerships will affect everyone. America is relinquishing a longstanding, vital international role.

Joseph Nye’s seminal work is Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power, New York, Basic Books, 1990. See also: Joseph S. Nye, Jr. The Powers to Lead, New York, Oxford University Press, 2008 and Is the American Century Over? Cambridge (UK) Polity Press, 2015. Professor Nye died in 2025.

Timothy Frye’s quote is taken from his article Reflections on Soft Power, Columbia University,  Harriman Magazine of the Harriman Institute, 2026

Dr. Chet Haskell serves as Co-Head for the College Partnerships and Alliances for the Edu Alliance Group. Chet is a higher education leader with extensive experience in academic administration, institutional strategy, and governance. He recently completed six and a half years as Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and University Provost at Antioch University, where he played a central role in creating the Coalition for the Common Good with Otterbein University. Earlier in his career, he spent 13 years at Harvard University in senior academic positions, including Executive Director of the Center for International Affairs and Associate Dean of the Kennedy School of Government.

He later served as Dean of the College at Simmons College and as President of both the Monterey Institute of International Studies and Cogswell Polytechnical College, successfully guiding both institutions through mergers. An experienced consultant, Dr. Haskell has advised universities and ministries of education in the United States, Latin America, Europe, and the Middle East on issues of finance, strategy, and accreditation. His teaching and research have focused on leadership and nonprofit governance, with a particular emphasis on helping smaller institutions adapt to financial and structural challenges. He earned DPA and MPA degrees from the University of Southern California, an MA from the University of Virginia, and an AB cum laude from Harvard University.

Dr. Senthil Nathan is the Co-Founder of Edu Alliance and a senior higher education leader with over 30 years of experience in the UAE and the broader Middle East. He has successfully directed more than 50 Edu Alliance projects for over 20 universities in the region, including Khalifa University (KU), Zayed University (ZU), United Arab Emirates University (UAEU), Higher Colleges of Technology (HCT), and NYU Abu Dhabi (NYUAD).
‍
Senthil played a pivotal role in the establishment and growth of HCT, the UAE’s second university, where he served for 24 years in academic and leadership roles—faculty, Chair, Dean, and College Director—before becoming Deputy Vice Chancellor of Planning and Administration for 8 years. In this capacity, he led strategic planning, budgeting, operations, HR, and workforce development across 17 campuses. As Dean of Engineering and Health Sciences, he pioneered more than 35 industry-sponsored programs and spearheaded commercial initiatives as Chief Planning Officer for CERT Technology Park.

He earned his Ph.D., Civil Engineering – Rice University, Houston, Texas, USA his M.S., Civil Engineering – Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India and B.E. (Honors), Engineering – National Institute of Technology, Trichy, India.

Posted on

What legal (and other) help do you actually need in Mergers, Acquisitions, and Partnerships?

May 17, 2026, by Dr. Barry Ryan – To accomplish almost anything of importance these days seems to require the engagement of lawyers. This is absolutely true for institutions of higher education in so many aspects of their lives, but never more so than in the matter of potential mergers, acquisitions and partnerships. Full disclosure: my observations herein are a result of my decades as a professor, an administrator (including several presidencies), and as someone actively involved in accreditation from every perspective (including a six-year stint as an accreditation commission member). And for good measure, as an attorney for the last 30 plus years. Tempus fugit.

I often encounter persons who are quick to quote a misunderstood saying about lawyers. The origin is Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Part 2 (Act IV, Scene 2): “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” In context, however, it’s clear that the Bard is not advocating murder. Rather, the words uttered by “Dick the Butcher” are an indication that lawyers and their functions are supposed to stand as a bulwark against tyranny and chaos.

Likewise, the skillful and ethical lawyer can, in the crafting of merger and partnership agreements, help prevent either party from taking advantage over the other (tyranny) and also preclude mutually harmful descent into institutional chaos.

So, on the one hand, as we shall see below, lawyers can play an essential and positive role in such higher education transactions. On the other hand, they should not drive the process or defeat the legitimate purposes of the parties they represent. What’s the balance and how do you find it? And how do you find the help you actually need?

Many institutions considering such transactions turn immediately to their inside counsel or usual external attorney or firm. While it may be prudent to consult a known lawyer to begin the task of finding the specialized legal counsel that is required, it can be a mistake to assume that relying on a current lawyer will be sufficient. Here’s why.

Small to medium-sized colleges may not have the luxury of inside counsel, or even a relationship with a firm that knows well their inner workings. Most such attorneys are retained primarily for employment-related matters: employment agreements, equipment leasing contracts, personnel disputes, terminations, employee manuals and so on. It’s obvious that those types of legal services, while essential for day-to-day operations, have little to do with the considerations of significant partnership or merger transactions. In fact, most attorneys who practice with smaller colleges have no experience at all with higher ed mergers and acquisitions (as is also true of most presidents, provosts, board members, etc.). These are rare events in the life of an institution, thus there are seldom any experts already on board the institution with the requisite real-world knowledge.

So how, and when, should such colleges retain experienced and capable counsel?

Let’s consider the when, first. An institution does need at least some preliminary conversations with and direction from counsel at the outset of any consideration of a partnership or merger. Once it becomes a serious topic of conversation among institutional leadership, checking in with counsel is a good idea. A competent higher ed lawyer can help establish the lay of the land from the outset, saving the college significant time, money and energy pursuing things (rabbit holes) that may not be legally possible or advisable.

These can include implications of the legal structure of the institution (currently and after the proposed transaction), state laws pertaining to non-profit entities (or corporate law if for-profit), laws related to boards and their duties, ownership types, implications for real estate (including zoning and local ordinances) and so on.

All this is in addition to addressing completely the requirements of accreditors (institutional as well as programmatic), state education authorities and the federal Department of Education (which monitors and approves or denies a CIO – Change in Ownership/Control). As you can see, this endeavor is neither for the faint of heart, nor for the amateur!

You will absolutely require highly competent and experienced guides (lawyers and non-lawyers) to make your way through this process. Some you may want to hire from outside and bring on board, others you may want to engage as consultants. Such experienced and talented people are available. Coordinating them and your administrative team for the duration of the undertaking, though, is a job in and of itself.

An internal point person should be designated at your institution, usually as the head of a committee. Critically important is that such a person be impeccably trustworthy. In addition, that point person must be able to relate well and closely with your internal and external teams, most particularly the president, provost, CFO, board chair and a few others on whose expertise and dependability you will come to rely.

As the process moves forward, it will be important to consider adding more internal team members. Faculty leadership, Human Resources, communications, alumni, external relations, student affairs, essentially all areas should ultimately play a part. The timeline needs to be flexible for carefully adding people to the internal committee.

Where to turn for external help, though? Let’s start with the legal area, not forgetting the financial and operational as well. 

There are a number of well-known higher education law firms in the US, mostly concentrated in bigger cities. Because there are many different types of legal implications inherent in such transactions, it is often best to work with an education practice group that is within a larger, more comprehensive law firm. Solo practitioners are harder to find and evaluate, which means that the typically more expensive firms, often including 100 or more attorneys, may be the best option. An adviser (inside counsel or someone similar) who knows your own situation well may be the best way to help you and your senior team sort through this part of the selection process.

Initial meetings with prospective firms can establish the rough outlines of an engagement, including the key question of whether billing should be on an hourly versus a project basis. If hourly, you’ll probably encounter a sliding scale, depending on the level of the attorney being engaged for a particular aspect. So, for example, a very experienced senior partner may bill at $750 an hour or more. Junior partners might be somewhat lower, associates below that, possibly at something in the $200 to $450 range. Remember, these numbers are hypothetical only. Ranges vary greatly, depending in part on your region as well as the experience (and success history) of the firm in such matters. The actual number is dependent on the hours billed, which relates both to the complexity of the matter within the larger proposed transaction, as well as the effectiveness of the attorneys engaged. What’s the total number? It’s almost impossible to hazard a guess, but there are better and worse (i.e. more expensive) ways to manage this part of the process.

There are a number of tools for tracking, projecting and managing legal expenses. But your inside counsel may be your best management tool. There are other options, too, if you don’t have  a current lawyer to whom you can entrust these management and connection point duties.

There are many tips to avoid wastage in this process. If you have good external advisors, they should be able to help you with learning and applying these techniques. These can involve adjusting the number of partners/associates, managing meeting participants and length of those meetings, keeping the points of contact within the institution in check, even just asking for any non-profit discount if applicable, and more.

It is important to remember that most lawyers have little idea about how higher education institutions function. Even fewer know how a merger or similar process works in higher ed. You don’t want to spend massive amounts of money just educating your legal advisors about such things, which is why is it more advisable to hire firms with such experience and expertise right out of the gate. Again, your current counsel and the external advisors you engage should be very helpful in this important aspect.

Know that the pace and scale of legal counsel during a transaction will change as it goes along. The initial discussions, the due diligence phase, the construction of the letter of intent, progress towards a definitive agreement, all mark increasing tempo and complexity. Of course, after an agreement is reached there are still a number of key milestones which will require counsel through the statutory, accreditation and related processes that lead to completion.

How long can this process take, from inception to conclusion? In my experience, Part 1 takes at least nine months to a year if done well. During this period, starting from when an institution makes the decision to move forward on an acquisition or merger, then achieving internal approvals and putting together a team (external and internal), and then organizing for due diligence is a complicated process. Throughout this time frame you’ll be using various approaches to assess potential good matches for the partnership.

The due diligence process is never quick, and shouldn’t be rushed. But the more you know about your own institution (and the prospective partner) makes a huge difference in the length of the due diligence period. It can take anything from a few months to longer than a year. Again, preparation and a sharp team really help.

Critically important in the due diligence portion is the role of your financial advisor. Yes, it’s important to have a very good CFO who really understands your institution. But few higher ed CFOs have been involved in merger and related processes, so even the best will have a steep learning curve.

To augment your internal finance and accounting expertise will most likely involve the addition of one or more external experts. They need to work well and closely with your leadership team, as well as with your legal counsel. The due diligence work that they will need to help manage is vital to the success of the whole transaction. There are two parts to this: first, producing everything necessary for due diligence of your own institution, and, second, helping establish what you need about your institutional partner. Missing anything important in this effort can create difficulties that can linger far into the future.

Let’s say you’ve done the introductory work, found and approached the right partner, completed mutual due diligence, received accreditation and other non-federal approvals and signed a definitive agreement. Are we done yet? Of course not, even though it may start to feel like you’ve already gone through a merger.

Much of what happens next is in the hands of the Department of Education, following “completion” of the merger – the Change in Ownership/Control (Part 1 in the 2 part process). After all those approvals have taken place involving various authorities, the Department can allow progress to Part 2, which essentially is an approval of the structural merger. The timeline is uncertain given the changes in policy, staffing, etc. that have involved the Department in recent years, but what is not uncertain is the continuing need for legal counsel and external advisors.

Doing all of this right takes time, money, dedication, patience and many other virtues as well! Getting it wrong, however, is painful and can be disastrous for all involved – including most importantly the students!

But what if you get it right? You’ll have pulled off something you can be proud of and will be part of a successful legacy of your institution. Students, faculty, staff and their loved ones will, if all goes right, be much better off than they would have been – especially if the only alternative would have been a closure.

Dr. Barry Ryan is a seasoned higher education executive, legal scholar, and former president of Woodbury University. He is the Co-Director, Edu Alliance’s Center for College Partnerships and Alliances, and a legal scholar. With more than 25 years of leadership experience, Dr. Ryan has served in numerous roles, including faculty member, department chair, dean, vice president, provost, and chief of staff at state, non-profit, and for-profit universities and law schools. His extensive accreditation experience includes two terms on the WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC), serving a maximum of six years. He is widely recognized for his expertise in governance, accreditation, crisis management, and institutional renewal.

In addition to his academic career, Dr. Ryan ​ served as the Supreme Court Fellow in the chambers of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and is a​ member of numerous federal and state bars. He has contributed extensively to charitable organizations and is experienced in board leadership and large-scale fundraising. He remains a trusted advisor to universities and boards seeking strategic alignment and transformation.

He earned his Ph.D. from the University of California, Santa Barbara, his J.D. from the University of​ California, Berkeley, and his Dipl. GB in international business from the University of Oxford.