What does “comparable quality” mean when TNE models and student experiences vary by design?

Welcome! It’s difficult to overstate how big of a deal India allowing foreign universities to establish campuses onshore was. For decades, governments had debated, and ultimately decided against, allowing outsiders in for myriad reasons, but one of the more prominent concerns was on regulatory oversight. Specifically, who is responsible for maintaining the standard of provision of education?

India ultimately found satisfactory answers to its concerns, but, if transnational education is the future of international education, we can expect to see similar challenges. This week, we explore this TNE gap to uncover a complex system made up not only of institutions, but national, regional and international agencies.

Stay insightful,
Anton John Crace
Editor in Chief, QS Insights Magazine
QS Quacquarelli Symonds

The TNE oversight gap

By Gauri Kohli

In brief

• As universities expand globally, TNE faces a critical oversight gap as quality assurance frameworks struggle to keep pace with rapid cross-border growth.
• Commercial pressures often compromise academic rigour, while students fall into "grey zones" regarding welfare and support when regulatory responsibilities between home and host countries remain blurred.
• To ensure sustainability, institutions must prioritize cross-border cooperation and treat TNE as a core academic mission rather than an export commodity to protect global trust.

For decades, the promise of a foreign degree earned abroad has powered the rapid rise of transnational education (TNE). British, American, Australian and other universities now deliver programmes across the world, transforming TNE into a multibillion-dollar industry.

But the systems designed to safeguard the quality of these cross-border programmes have struggled to keep pace as universities expand through branch campuses, joint ventures and online provision.

TNE quality assurance experts note that this expansion has certainly challenged the scope of existing frameworks. Shannon Stowers, Director of International Policy and Engagement at the UK’s Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), says the expansion has challenged existing frameworks. This has prompted the QAA to refresh its UK TNE Quality Scheme to safeguard the reputation and sustainability of UK provision overseas.

“In recent years, interest in TNE from local quality agencies, regulators and governments has grown significantly. In response, we have been working with several countries to co-create regulatory frameworks that enable robust local quality assurance of incoming TNE provision to ensure that TNE growth is sustainable and meets local needs,” says Stowers.

TNE growth has created real opportunities, but quality assurance has not kept up. Stig Arne Skjerven, Chair, UNESCO Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications Concerning Higher Education, says many countries lack coherent frameworks for assuring cross-border provision, and what exists was primarily designed for campus-based domestic education.

A UNESCO research paper prepared for the Global Convention’s States Parties last year identifies five major gaps in TNE quality assurance, including no agreed international definition of quality, weak regulatory frameworks, lack of shared standards, technological risks and a transparency deficit.

“Without reliable information about which institutions and programmes meet acceptable standards, learners and governments are left exposed,” Skjerven tells QS Insights.

Jurisdiction and implementation gaps

At the heart of the TNE quality challenge is a simple question: whose rules apply when a student is sitting in a classroom in Southeast Asia, learning from a local tutor, but studying for a European degree? Skjerven argues that this is rarely resolved clearly.

“Curriculum standards diverge between systems that prescribe specific inputs and those that assess outcomes, while some host countries require locally recognised faculty credentials that international partners cannot easily meet,” he says.

Anna Gover is Director of the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), and Elena Cirlan is Senior Policy and Project Coordinator, ENQA. They point out that while the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area apply to all forms of delivery, they are not implemented consistently at national or institutional level for TNE delivered outside Europe by European institutions.

They note that TNE often falls between the gaps when there is no explicit requirement for a national framework to be applied to education delivered outside the sending country.

The risks are greatest at key points in the student journey. Differences in oversight at every stage, from admissions and student support to assessment, can create risks for academic standards. Dr Fabrizio Trifiró, global TNE and quality assurance expert and International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE) Board Member, observes that no TNE sending country currently has a system in place that can demonstrate TNE operations are quality assured in a way that is truly comparable to national provision at home.

Revenue vs rigour

In the competitive world of international higher education, the pressure to generate revenue often clashes with the slow, resource-intensive work of quality assurance.

Many quality failures in TNE are not the result of a single academic defect but a gradual weakening of governance structures, where responsibilities become blurred between awarding institutions and local delivery partners.

Day-to-day decisions on staffing, timetabling and assessment can become compromised by commercial pressures. Skjerven also notes that when TNE expansion is driven primarily by commercial incentives, institutions may struggle to maintain the sustained investment required to tackle lapses.

A recurring risk is an over reliance on domestic quality routines without sufficient localisation: this can create risks when institutions assume domestic processes transfer easily across borders, while host realities and student needs are not fully integrated into quality management.

Stowers emphasises that the “link tutor” is fundamental to the smooth running of these partnerships.

They provide the academic and operational bridge between institutions, helping ensure consistent assessment and supervision. When these links weaken, the credibility of the qualification can quickly erode.

Rethinking equivalence

The golden rule of TNE has long been that the quality of offshore provision must be comparable to that of the home campus. However, as delivery models become more complex, the meaning of “comparability” is now being debated.

Dr Trifiró suggests that while there is unanimous agreement that learning outcomes must be equivalent, views on the comparability of the student experience differ. Those adopting a learning outcomes-based approach argue that as long as students are supported to achieve the expected knowledge and competencies, the specific “inputs” - such as the mode of delivery or campus facilities - can legitimately vary.

Some countries receiving TNE have developed stronger systems to assure the quality of incoming programmes, requiring foreign programmes to meet standards similar to those applied to national institutions. “But this is more the exception than the rule,” Dr Trifiró tells QS Insights.

“It is generally accepted in international policy documents… that the responsibility for the quality assurance of TNE rests with both the quality assurance bodies of the sending and receiving countries.”

Student support is perhaps the most overlooked gap. Students in TNE often fall into a grey zone for welfare, complaints and academic support, belonging fully to neither institution. “For the States Parties to the Global and Regional Conventions, recognition is a right, and how we protect students in TNE, their investment and their efforts, needs to be a central question in any governance framework,” adds Skjerven.

The upcoming global recommendation under the Global Convention, to be adopted in June 2027, is expected to provide concrete guidance on institutional responsibilities toward students in cross-border arrangements.”

This requires a move away from traditional, “input-focused” audits toward more dynamic, risk-based monitoring. Traditional models built for single-country, campus-based provision tend to produce either excessive administrative burdens or insufficient quality assurance when applied to TNE.

Stowers notes that the QAA has refreshed its TNE Quality Scheme to move beyond baseline compliance, focusing instead on a culture of continuous improvement and peer learning. By tracking outcomes like employability and post-study pathways, regulators can find early signals of risk that traditional audits might miss.

The risks are not theoretical. Branch campuses established without adequate sustainability planning have left students stranded when financial models collapsed or geopolitical conditions shifted.

Some examples of TNE models which did not succeed as planned include the University of New South Wales Asia campus in Singapore in 2007; Michigan State University Dubai campus in 2008, and George Mason University’s campus in Ras al Khaimah in 2009.

Research on international branch campuses suggests that the risks in TNE are not purely theoretical. Data from the Cross-Border Education Research Team indicates that roughly one in five international branch campuses tracked globally has opened and later closed, with around 73 closures compared with about 387 currently operating worldwide.

Many closures occurred when ventures failed to meet enrolment expectations or encountered financial, sponsorship or regulatory difficulties.

“Fraud has multiplied alongside TNE growth: when reliable information about legitimate institutions and accreditors is hard to access, the market for fake credentials expands, with real consequences for public safety in professionally regulated fields like medicine,” says Skjerven.

“Online and distance TNE is most exposed, as programmes can operate across many jurisdictions simultaneously without any single authority having a clear oversight mandate.”

Building global trust

The future of TNE quality assurance is increasingly tied to global diplomacy and multilateral agreements. The UNESCO Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications, which entered into force in 2023, is the first and only global UN legal framework in higher education.

Skjerven underlines that the Operational Guidelines of the Convention, adopted in 2025, already gives clear direction that the complete absence of public oversight of a TNE arrangement may be considered a substantial difference justifying non-recognition of the qualification.

As quality assurance serves as the “proxy for trust” in international education, the States Parties to the Convention are expected to negotiate a global recommendation on quality assurance by June 2027 addressing cross-border and transnational delivery.

However, the path to global standards is complicated by a rise in “regulatory nationalism” and shifting geopolitical alliances. Gover and Cirlan observe a tension between the general openness for internationalisation and a political shift toward nationalist tendencies, which risks creating disjointed policies.

Furthermore, tighter immigration and visa policies in major education hubs are pushing more TNE toward fully online models, the very sector that is currently the least well-covered by existing quality frameworks.

To protect the future of the sector, the focus must shift from one-directional regulation to collaborative, cross-border partnerships between quality assurance agencies. Cooperation between the agencies of the sending and receiving countries to conduct joint evaluations is an example of good practice, though it remains resource-intensive.

As Dr Trifiró argues, both quality assurance gaps and overlaps call for increased cross-border cooperation. Without this, the TNE market risks being undermined by “diploma mills” and low-quality providers that flourish in the absence of clear, shared information.

Ultimately, the sustainability of transnational education depends on universities treating TNE not as an export commodity but as a core academic mission subject to the same scrutiny as programmes delivered on the home campus.

As Skjerven notes, internationalisation must be mission-driven: the financial model should serve the academic mission, not the other way around.

Gauri Kohli specialises in writing and reporting on higher education news, including analysis on higher education trends, policies and the edtech sector. Her writing focuses on international education, study abroad, student recruitment trends and policies, with focus on India as a market. She has also covered workplace and hiring trends, corporate practices, work-life features, startup trends and developments, real estate for leading publications and media houses in India and abroad for the last 18 years, including Hindustan Times, a leading national daily newspaper in India.

Changing the operational culture of universities in the UK

By John O’Leary

In brief

• To survive modern financial and political pressures, experts suggest institutions must stop being "self-referential" and start adopting successful management strategies from sectors as varied as Formula One and global streaming services.
• A reliance on academic-only leadership has created a "sink or swim" culture that often lacks professional management rigour.
• The solution lies in professionalising the Vice-Chancellor pipeline and finding a "middle path" between rigorous process and progress-driven outcomes. By investing in leadership training and streamlining executive structures, universities can move beyond traditional "councils".

Universities around the world are often compared unfavourably with business for the speed and efficiency of their decision-making. Their leaders are said to be drawn from too narrow a pool, overpaid but still hamstrung by arcane processes that prevent them from taking the necessary action to keep their institutions out of financial and/or political danger.

But given the differences in character and regulation, are such comparisons fair? The UK’s Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) convened a webinar last month featuring senior figures with experience of leadership in both universities and other sectors to test the thesis.

There was little doubt in the minds of most participants that university leaders could learn lessons from other sectors, but many of the examples cited were from the public sector rather than business. Strictly speaking, universities in the UK are not part of the public sector, but they share many of the same pressures since they draw the majority of their income from government through research grants and loans for student fees.

The discussion was hosted by Advance HE, the development agency for higher education based in the UK, whose Chief Executive, Alistair Jarvis, listed a number sectors – both public and private – facing similar challenges to universities in funding pressures, responses to AI, digital transformation and international uncertainties. “I think it’s important that we do all we can to learn how other sectors are facing these similar challenges, sharing insights, seeking solutions, looking at how others are solving problems and seeking out some good practice,“ he said.

Philippa Hird, chair of the board of Manchester University, who has held senior positions with ICI and Independent Television (ITV) and chairs the National Health Service pay review body, said universities tended to be “self-referential” when presented with unfamiliar challenges, limiting their search for possible responses to other universities facing similar problems. Her instinct was to seek out those who had dealt successfully with them, whatever the setting. Board members at Manchester University were going to discuss agility with representatives of Formula One motor racing, for example.

Other areas of productive advice included streaming companies on the use of data analytics and digital transformation, the financial sector for budget management and scenario planning, and commercial companies for their adaptability and willingness to invest in training for leadership at all levels. In companies such as Unilever, she said, senior managers had experience of all aspects of its work, whereas the “separateness” of academic staff from professional services limited the supply of potential university leaders.

Hird said informal advice from other sectors was widely available at no charge. Delicate areas such as the tension between competition and collaboration, which were often seen as unique to higher education, were actually not unusual in other fields, although they required careful management on where the boundaries lie in such arrangements.

Manchester University has introduced a new executive structure in the last year, combining the responsibilities of the senior leadership team, the planning and resources committee, and the finance and capital planning sub-committee into in a single University Executive meeting more regularly. It already had a board, rather than the traditional university council, which Hird sees as an indicator of modern management.

Nicola de Jongh, Chair of the Committee of University Chairs, said she had been “slightly depressed” to find that a recent session for 10 new vice-chancellors contained eight white male professors and two female. “Individually, you pick the best person for the job but as a sector, where the hell are we getting our learning from? I think we’ve got three or four vice-chancellors who are not academics,” she said. “I think we might have one who came from the professional services route. We’ve got a serious diversity issue at the very top.”

Khadir Meer. Deputy Vice-Chancellor for Finance and Operations at the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies, drew on his experience in the National Health Service, as well as central and local government. He questioned the effectiveness of strategic planning in many universities. “When you hear and see institutions announcing significant financial challenges, deficits or significant staffing reductions, I do wonder about the level of thought that has gone into strategic planning over a three to five-year period.”

At a time of unpredictable student demand and financial circumstances, more agility is required. Instead, optimism bias is evident in many plans, he said. “I think we need to think a bit more carefully about whether we have the right capacity and capabilities, whether we are challenging ourselves sufficiently at executive and board level around financial sustainability and how we plan and respond to what we see in any given year.”

Meer echoed Hird’s call for stronger leadership training in universities. “I have been struck, coming into the sector in the last four or five years by how much rigour goes into academic appointments and I’m not sure we sometimes have the same expectations for academic colleagues in leadership roles,” he said.

“It’s a bit of a sink or swim approach. I think we need to invest in academic leadership within universities so that they have the skills and abilities to be able to take on the huge burden of responsibilities they are expected to carry and the decisions they are expected to take.”

John O’Leary is an education writer, journalist and consultant with over 30 years experience. He has served as Editor of the Times Good University Guide, Editor of the Times Higher Education Supplement from 2002 to 2007 and Education Editor of The Times, having joined the paper as Higher Education Correspondent in 1990.