Why do our most prestigious and wealthiest Unis accept so many international students ?

The only Chinese students at university in the UK are from incredibly wealthy backgrounds, or moderately wealthy with significant connections. The cost is so high, and so much higher than domestic universities, that only the very richest families can even consider it.

A lot varies depending on the type of course, but in general non EU students doing an undergraduate degree in London are probably spending £100,000 a year, including visas and accommodation. Student accommodation near where I live for international students averages about 500 quid a week, up to 850 or so, including bills but not meals.

My BIL says there are lots of post graduate degrees in Germany taught in English now, for example. It's not difficult to do a degree taught in English in, say, Italy or Holland, either.

Are these courses attended by people from English speaking countries, or also, say in Germany, by Germans or other nationalities who can speak English?

Not necessarily. It's now standard for universities to teach in English in some countries which aren't English-speaking. Some universities do a few courses in English, some all or many. My BIL says there are lots of post graduate degrees in Germany taught in English now, for example. It's not difficult to do a degree taught in English in, say, Italy or Holland, either.

@nameychangey111
We try to balance admissions numbers on background, demographics, and a whole host of other personal factors.

I know there are contextual offers for UK students, but how do you discover the financial background of overseas students? If, say, a Korean or Chinese person applies are you able to check details of their education or wealth?
International fees are much higher - are these paid for by the student’s parents or do overseas governments pay?

@AdaAndCissie thank you for that link - how fascinating that so many universities all over the world offer courses in English, I had no idea that was the case.

Publishing houses are a separate financial unit - nothing to do with the university’s finances.

And yet the chart I posted above comes from Oxford University’s own financial statement for 2023/24.

Why would they do that if it puts them out of business. If the UK government wants universities to prioritise UK students they need to pay for it.

"I just looked up Oxford University income for last year. It seems publishing is one of their biggest sources of income, way above international student fees."

Publishing houses are a separate financial unit - nothing to do with the university’s finances. So much misinformation. No, we are not a profit making entity. Any surplus goes back to subsidising education. Hence back to home students.

As I said before, admissions is a meritocratic process. We want the best of the best. This makes the UK one of the best places for education and science. The philosophy has placed us at the top, and we are able to compete with much larger and richer universities across the world.

There is a lot of competition (3 mil UCAS applications per year. About 30 thousand of these are from China.) In the UK top students who apply are top students from the UK - Chinese applicants are the top from a much much bigger population pool. Regardless of this, our home students do very well.

Students who graduate from our university, regardless of where they came from, if they stay in the UK (and very many do), become wonderful positive contributors to the UK - scientists, business owners, engineers, doctors, artists. We try to balance admissions numbers on background, demographics, and a whole host of other personal factors. Nowhere in this process there is any influence on student acceptance numbers from overseas. I worked in three universities, all were the same. I can imagine scepticism but there really is no-one telling anyone how many students should come from where. I can imagine, on the contrary, if there was a massive, atypical overshoot that could raise questions. I am not saying this is for the whole of the UK university landscape - my sample size is three.

You might think so, but there are universities which teach in English.

Here's a list of some.

So said my son’s dad on learning DS2 failed to be offered a place at Cambridge…
I don’t know enough to confirm whether it’s sour grapes or he actually has a point

Didn’t it occur to him that even Cambridge didn’t have even one international student studying there your son still may not have been bright enough for a place when up against home grown talent?

I never said there was anything wrong with that. I said that if you were to limit the admission of international students to only the very elite, then it wouldn't work. Because there wouldn't be enough income.

Your ethics are your own, they're certainly not mine.

Our brightest young people can also apply to study at universities overseas if they choose to.

Presumably if UK students were applying to university in a non English speaking country, they would have to have fluency in the language?

From an economic standpoint what is wrong with charging overseas students fees that cover the costs of their education plus a healthy margin, if they are prepared to pay? And to use that margin to subsidise the cost of educating home students?

Ethically the right thing to do is to favour your own nationals.

And how better to do that than to train them by and alongside educated people from around the world! Thus rendering them fit to compete at a global level!

Or a university system that prioritises elite training of the UK population so the country can compete on the world stage?

*not remotely economically sensible

It's not remotely ethically sensible - not without a complete overhaul of the national economy.

As for ethical, well that's a matter of politics isn't it. Certainly it is not desirable from an educational standpoint.

I think your third option is perfectly ethical and economically sensible.

I suppose it comes down to whether you want a world class education system that is inevitably going to be competitive and attract students from overseas or you want a mediocre one where it's easy for domestic students to get into their preferred institution and there's little to no international competition. The third option is a world class education system for which UK students are always prioritised and only the wealthiest and most academically elite students from overseas are able to gain entry. This is neither ethical nor economically viable in today's world.

Yes of course it is partly the money. But also..

Academic talent is global - there are many bright potential students beyond the UK. Our brightest young people can also apply to study at universities overseas if they choose to. It works both ways, although Brexit has made studying in Europe vastly less affordable.

It strengthens the UK’s international links and soft power.

I suspect that you're right about training contracts. Somebody planning to work in the legal system in the UK is probably more likely to do this than to get a masters which would probably not give them any benefit if they had to train later.

You just looked at one of the few universities that made profit.Most made a loss last year.

That's an interesting change - I did an LLM at a London Russell Group university, and it was 95% English people (not British, because Scotland's legal system is different) and the rest were Australian / N Zealand / one Pakistani. A while ago now, though; I'm mid 40s and did my LLM in 2001.

@ErrolTheDragon it was law -so I suppose uk students would tend to do training contracts or the qualifications with bpp or university of law -so masters levels but not actual Masters(though some throw a dissertation on the end to see us lift for student loans). The llm is more academic so maybe more valuable on overseas students cvs than British students.

Universities have always been international.