October 2026

Before the University Commits | 01

International growth: are we funding the capabilities it needs?

Two decisions are being taken in many universities this autumn, often in the same agenda, rarely in the same conversation.

In one, a paper proposes international growth: a new partnership, a new market, an overseas teaching arrangement. In the other, a cost-reduction programme removes posts in compliance, admissions, partnership management and student support.

Each paper can be defended on its own. Together, they may not add up.

Most of the debate about international students treats it as a market problem: which countries, what demand, which visa rules. I think the sector is missing a more basic point. This is a decision problem. Universities are approving international ambitions, and the cuts that undermine them, without testing whether the capability to deliver both will survive both.

Whether a university grows, retreats or moves its teaching overseas, the capability question does not go away. It moves. A decision is only as credible as the capability that is funded and owned to deliver it.

For boards, that raises four practical questions: can our strategic statement actually guide decisions, do they address the real problem, do they make trade-offs explicit, and have they been tested against credible alternatives? 

This is central to my sustainable strategy decision-making thesis. Strategy should connect purpose to consequential choices about value creation, capital allocation, organisational capability and governance. It should explain why one viable course of action deserves commitment over another while recognising the uncertainties that may require adaptation. Strategy should enable choices between viable options, not merely express ambitions whose opposites no serious organisation would choose.

---

I Have Seen This Cycle Before

Between 2011 and 2013, I founded and chaired the International and External Relations Committee of the Association of Business Schools (now the Chartered Association of Business Schools), where we developed strategic approaches to international partnering by region. The sector was then absorbing the closure of the post-study work route and a much tougher compliance regime, while the income from overseas partnerships kept growing.

The markets have changed since then. The governance gap has not.

A detailed plan may become obsolete when technology, demand, or competitors change. A coherent strategic logic should continue to guide decisions during times of environmental flux.

The board must therefore establish whether the strategy addresses the underlying problem, distinguishes between viable alternatives, and provides guidance for commitment and adaptation.

---

The Numbers Behind the Tension

In May, the Office for Students reported that 42.7% of English providers were forecasting a deficit for 2025-26, and warned that recovery depends heavily on recruitment rising. Yet non-UK entrants fell 7.7% in 2024-25, well below forecasts. Public First’s modelling, reported in September, found no clear way for the sector to grow its international intake.

Meanwhile, the visa compliance benchmark is now 95%, and Wonkhe reported this week that some universities are cancelling offers in bulk to stay within it.

International income now depends more, not less, on the capabilities that cost-cutting tends to remove first.

---

About this Series

Before the University Commits looks at one recurring problem: major university commitments reaching approval while their financial value, academic purpose, delivery capability and ownership are discussed separately.

1. International growth: are we funding the capabilities it needs?
2. A cut is not a strategy: which capabilities must survive?
3. University collaboration: who will deliver the synergies?
4. Before approval: what happens if we are wrong?

The series does not argue for or against growth, cuts or collaboration. It asks whether the reasoning behind a commitment can be challenged and understood by affected staff before scarce cash and reputation are spent.

---

A worked example

Illustrative. The university and figures are constructed to show the method.

Midshire University has two papers going to its finance committee in the same month.

Paper A expands an overseas teaching partnership, projecting £3.0m a year in net income by year three. It assumes existing staff will oversee it at no extra cost.

Paper B removes eight professional services posts, saving £0.4m a year. Three sit in the partnership quality team.

Read separately, the papers promise £3.4m a year. Read together, Paper A relies on the team Paper B is cutting.

Both options could improve financial sustainability, but with different consequences for genuinely removable costs, student demand, academic capability, and future institutional value. The board must establish which option addresses the underlying economic problem, not simply which produces the more convincing savings forecast.

Tested together:

• Retaining the three quality posts (£0.15m) reduces Paper B’s saving to £0.25m.
• Proper oversight also needs an academic lead, travel and monitoring systems, which cost £0.2m a year. That reduces Paper A’s income to £2.8m.
• The combined benefit falls from £3.4m to £3.05m a year

The revised case still projects a positive contribution, but approval now depends on explicit oversight funding, named accountability and evidence from the first cohort. The committee’s decision moves from “approve both” to change Paper B to protect the oversight team and stage Paper A, approving the first cohort now and releasing the next stage only when agreed quality and recruitment measures are met.

---

The Strongest Counter-Case

For some institutions, international income may be the only realistic route out of deficit. Markets move fast, and delay can cost a recruitment cycle or a partner. Insisting on every capability first could mean never committing.

That is fair. But the answer is not delay. It is staging: commit to the first stage now, fund what that stage needs, and release further investment as the evidence arrives. Staging can balance the cost of delay against the risk of committing at full scale before delivery dependencies have been tested.

If you think I have underestimated the case for moving fast, I would like to hear why.

---

Retreat, Relocate or Reinvest?

For many institutions, the live question is which international activities still justify investment and what capabilities they must retain to deliver them.

Some are pulling back. Around a third of UK universities have curtailed recruitment in particular markets to reduce compliance risk. Meanwhile, transnational education offers another route to international activity.

But teaching students overseas changes the demands on the institution. Universities must test partner capability, academic oversight, regulatory obligations and cash requirements alongside projected income.

A different delivery model still needs a credible capability plan.

Retreat saves international office costs today, but the networks and compliance expertise it removes are slow and costly to rebuild, and the income gap remains.

TNE and branch campuses reduce visa dependence but shift cost into quality assurance at a distance, partner governance and reputational exposure.

Either way, the question is the same: are the capabilities this decision depends on funded, and is someone accountable for securing and sustaining them?

---

Before You Approve the Next Proposal

Take the next international proposal on your agenda. Can those responsible answer these questions on one page?

• What value is at stake, and what may become awkward to close?
• What is the most uncertain assumption, will demand cover the full cost of delivery?
• What capabilities are required, who is accountable for securing them, and how will they be funded?
• What becomes costly to reverse once the university commits?
• Do other proposals in this year’s plan strengthen or undermine the capabilities this decision depends on

If the answers sit in separate papers, leaders need to test them together before approving either.

---

The Decision Rule

Approve an international commitment, whether to expand, relocate or withdraw, only when the capabilities it depends on are funded, accountable leaders have authority to act, and the evidence that would trigger a pause or reversal is agreed in advance.

In practice, that usually means one of three changes: stage the expenditure, secure the oversight capacity first, or revise the expansion to fit the capability the university can actually fund.

Growth may deserve investment. Cuts may be necessary. Neither should go ahead on aspiration or urgency alone.