Abstract
Many governments invest significant funds to promote their national higher education systems in the global education market, and Russia is no exception. In 2013, the government launched the Russian academic excellence 5-100 Project “to maximize the competitive position of a group of leading Russian universities in the global research and education market” and to attract international staff and students from all over the world. Although Russia is currently in the seventh place for international students globally, it has one of the fastest growth rates compared with its previous position in the global market. Existing literature on the motivation of international students who choose to study in Russia is minimal. To fill this gap, this study uses the results of interviews with international students to discover what brought them to Russia. The conclusions drawn highlight the need for the Russian government to improve its migration policy for international students as well as to publicize the quality of Russian higher education.
Keywords
Introduction
The increase in the number of students is a key factor in changes to educational systems worldwide (Altbach et al., 2013; Schofer & Meyer, 2005). The number of students studying outside their country of birth has been steadily rising for more than a decade: For the period between 1999 and 2016, that number increased globally from 2 to 5 million people (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2018). This growth is consistent with the overall trend toward internationalization seen in the increasing globalization of education and science, and reflected also in the increasing mobility of academic personnel and the number of joint international research projects (Brown, 1999; Chan, 2012; de Wit, 2002; Egron-Polak & Hudson, 2014; IIE, 2017; Knight, 1994, 2004; Naidoo, 2003, 2008).
Many states currently invest significant funds to promote their national systems of higher education in the global education market, while universities themselves also actively promote their educational programs overseas, and Russia is no exception. In 2013, 21 universities obtained additional governmental subsidies through the 5-100 Project to increase the competitiveness of leading Russian universities in the global education market. These leading universities were selected on a competitive basis and as participants in the Project are obligated to have international students make up 15% of their total enrollment by 2020 (among other goals they are expected to achieve). Moreover, in 2017, the Russian government launched a special project titled “Development of the Export Potential of the Russian Educational System.” The main aim of that project is to increase the revenue of the educational system through fees charged to international students. The official website called “Study in Russia,” which is an integrated information platform that represents more than 500 Russian universities and is addressed to international students, was launched as a part of this program.
Despite the fact that the Russian Federation is one of the leading countries in terms of accepting students from abroad and just under 280,000 international students were studying at Russian institutions of higher education in 2018–2019 (The Ministry of Science and Higher Education, 2018a), research on the motivation of international students who choose to study in Russian universities is minimal. The main question that this article attempts to answer is what motivates international students with different backgrounds to study in Russia (particularly at the country’s leading universities).
The dominant framework for analyzing international student motivation to study abroad is the “push-pull” model, which considers the factors that contribute to a person’s preference to study abroad instead of learning in his or her native country (Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002; McMahon, 1992). According to this model, a student goes through three stages. The first stage is making a decision to study abroad rather than in his or her home country (driven by “push” factors); the second stage is to choose a country (driven by “pull” factors); in the third stage, the student selects the university based on its characteristics (Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002). This model has been tested mostly on mobility from developing to developed English-speaking countries (Abubakar et al., 2010; Chen, 2007; Foster, 2014). The patterns of global student mobility have become increasingly diversified, and there are some cases in which this model has been applied to Eastern (i.e., Asian) societies (see, for example, C. Lee, 2014; F. Lee, 2019; Jiani, 2017); Russia is an interesting country for testing the model.
The Background of the Study: International Students in Russia
There were practically no foreign students at Russian universities until the end of the 19th century. One exception was the invitation of students from Bulgaria and the Balkans to train free of charge in Russian universities by decree of Alexander II in 1865. This was a gesture of political assistance to Russia’s allies in the war against Turkey during this period (Kazakov, 2016).
Internationalization was seen as an important part of Soviet higher education after the establishment of USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), although, it took time for the country to be able to attract international students. After the Revolution of 1917, there was a marked deterioration in the economic situation in the country because of the ongoing civil war, and beginning in the 1930s, the USSR was increasingly isolated from the outside world for political reasons. It was not until the 1960s that the USSR accepted a very limited number of foreign students (Barnett & Wu, 1995).
Nevertheless, the victory in World War II (WWII) reinvigorated the drive to internationalize Soviet higher education, which was regarded as an instrument of “Sovietization.” “Sovetization” led to a major reorganization of systems of higher education in many countries of Eastern Europe and elsewhere in the world (e.g., in China, Mongolia, and Korea). Despite the increase in the number of foreign students, internationalization was apparent at only about 50 universities across the country (Kuraev, 2014, pp. 146–164). On the eve of its collapse, the USSR was the third most popular destination country for international students after the United States and France. After the Soviet Union disintegrated, the situation changed significantly as relations with many states were severed, and the quality of higher education diminished for economic and other reasons. There has also been a steady decline of interest in the Russian language. The number of Russian-speaking people has decreased from 312 million to 260 million people over the last two decades (Arefiev, 2017, p. 119). Despite this negative trend, Russia has had one of the highest rates of growth among the main countries receiving international students for the last 3 years (Institute of International Education, 2018).
As outlined in Figure 1, the main flow of international students to Russian universities (77.4% of the total) comes from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the Baltic States, and Georgia. Most of the non-CIS students in Russia come from China (24.4%), India (12.0%), and Vietnam (5.9%) (Indicators of Education in the Russian Federation, 2018).
Inbound students (2018–2019).
According to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation, Russian universities overall received slightly more than US$394 million in 2016–2017 academic year (The Ministry of Science and Higher Education, 2018b). Enrolling international students who receive Russian government scholarships can bring additional revenue to the universities. In the 2016–2017 academic year, almost 15,000 government scholarships were awarded. In addition, students from Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan as members of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) have been qualified to enroll at Russian universities on an equal footing with Russian students since January 1, 2015. Russian citizens living abroad may also apply for free higher education in accordance with the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of June 22, 2006, No. 637. About one third of international students (32% of students from CIS countries and 28% from non-CIS countries) do not pay for their education.
Method
This study employs a qualitative approach using semi-structured, open-ended interviews with international students in Russia as the method for gathering data. Data were collected from September 2016 to February 2017.
There were three criteria by which the survey participants were chosen. First, they had to be pursuing a full program of higher education ending in a degree, as short-term mobility students might have significantly different motivations. The second criterion was that the participants study at one of the leading Russian universities because these institutions have additional support from the government and in other ways are quite similar to each other in contrast with other Russian universities. Third, they should come from both CIS and non-CIS countries to provide the greatest variety of backgrounds, as well as fields of study. The main goal was to reach theoretical saturation of the sample.
The search for appropriate participants involved certain methodological challenges. Several approaches were employed for this purpose. The author first posted an announcement about the research on social networks. The personal contacts of the researcher and referrals by acquaintances, as well as the snowball method, were also used.
A total of 40 interviews were conducted with 14 women and 26 men, all born between 1984 and 2000. They came from 28 nations with 18 students from CIS countries and 22 from non-CIS countries. Their degree programs ranged from the academic fields of economics, engineering, and the humanities to the natural and social sciences. Of the total, 21 were undergraduate students, 18 were in graduate school, and one was doing postgraduate work. They were studying in 18 leading Russian universities located in 13 different cities, and 23 of them had Russian government scholarships, while the others paid for their education. Participation in the study was voluntary.
The interviews were conducted either as face-to-face interviews or via Skype whenever a face-to-face interview was impractical because of distance (e.g., with students from Vladivostok, Novosibirsk). The participants were given the choice of conducting the interview in either Russian or English. The average length of an interview was 50 min (minimum was 32 min, and the maximum 93). During the interview, the following main topics were discussed: previous learning experience, the process of choosing a country for study, the process of choosing a university, sources of information used, evaluation of the educational experience, plans after graduation from the university, and others.
Analysis of qualitative data employed the logic of the “push-pull” model: The factors derived from it were marked with codes in the interview. There were also open codes that did not relate directly to the theoretical model but were of value to the researcher in understanding the students’ decision-making process. The encoding was compiled in the NVivo program.
Results
This section presents the findings of the student interviews divided into two groups: the international students from CIS and Baltic countries and the students from non-CIS countries. The results for each group are given separately because these two groups were markedly different in terms of the perspectives they provide.
CIS and Baltic Students: Seeking Good Job Prospects
Stage 1: Making the decision to study abroad—“Push” factors
Among CIS and Baltic students, there was little evidence of limited access to higher education within their home country or of lack of the required field of study. On the contrary, there are many universities in CIS nations, including branches of foreign and/or Russian universities, especially in Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan.
In fact, I had a rather broad choice of universities. In the third year at a vocational school, I enrolled in two foreign universities—to be more precise, in their branches in Uzbekistan. It was Singapore Management University and University of Westminster. Besides those, there were six Russian universities. (Undergraduate, Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, from Uzbekistan)
Virtually, all of the CIS nations provide opportunities for higher education (there were just two instances of difficulties with access to higher education in the sample). The participants spoke more about the low quality of education provided in their native country than about limited access to higher education.
Because, despite all my patriotism, I seemed to dislike Tajikistan. Education leaves much to be desired there, and the best way to become a sought-after professional is to study abroad. We have certain educational areas with good quality of education, but in my educational area, it was poor. No matter how bad it may sound, it is better to study these subjects abroad. (Undergraduate, Urals Federal University, from Tajikistan)
Another factor, lack of access to jobs before and after graduation, was mentioned much more frequently in the interviews. There are some examples in which access to jobs was limited because of the linguistic policy of a country: I am going to stay in Russia. It is difficult if not impossible to find a job in Turkmenistan without fluency in the Turkmen language. (Undergraduate, ITMO University, from Russian-speaking family in Turkmenistan)
In discussing the cost of education, as well as access to it, some participants noted that the cost of education in their home country was either comparable with or less than that in Russian universities, although the cost of food and lodging was less in their native country.
Another accompanying factor that contributes to the prospects of CIS students entering Russian universities is fluency in the Russian language.
We have a secular state, and different ethnicities are supported. In principle, we can believe the Russian language makes up an integral part of the entire teaching process. It is taught at schools as a mandatory subject and then in the first academic year in vocational schools and colleges. (Undergraduate, Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, from Uzbekistan)
However, there is some evidence that the Russian language is slowly but surely fading in post-Soviet countries (Arefiev, 2017, p. 119), and this may cause CIS students to have less interest in Russian universities over the long term.
The interview data suggest that the decision to pursue higher education in Russia depends, first and foremost, on the state of the labor market in CIS member states and also on a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the educational level of universities in students’ home countries. In addition, there are individual instances of decreased access to university-level courses in Russian (Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan are examples) and unstable political conditions in the country (Ukraine).
Stage 2: Selection of Russia for higher education—“Pull” factors
The participants mentioned many factors in the interviews for why they chose to study in Russia; however, three factors were confirmed most frequently: the overall awareness of Russia (in particular, recognition of diplomas from Russia and educational quality there), personal recommendations of relatives and acquaintances, and social connections in Russia.
Awareness of Russia and its quality of education is enhanced by Russian language and cultural centers (the names of which vary within each country) that operate under the auspices of the Russian Cooperation Commission, as well as by schoolteachers in the home country liaising with Russian universities and being aware of particular features of enrolling in Russian universities.
Because CIS countries have a Soviet past in common with Russia, prospective students from these countries have access to such resources as personal recommendations from relatives, acquaintances, friends, and other people who influence their decision making. Prospective students from the CIS often regard higher education in Russia as a channel for subsequent migration. However, some instances of obtaining higher education in Russia are preceded by migration of a parent or the entire family. In those cases, choosing the university may be understood in the context of a more comprehensive relocation which involves a whole range of other factors, including geographic ones (such as having comfortable place of residence already in Russia) or the availability of a job for either parent, and so on.
My father lives here. He arrived here three years ago and called me to join him. So I decided to study here. (Undergraduate, Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, from Kazakhstan)
In addition, in certain cases, proximity was important in considering cities: The prospective students in this study seemed inclined to select a city for their education because of its proximity to their home country.
Tomsk is a rather popular city among Kazakhs. You could say it is located relatively close to the Kazakh border. It is regarded as a student town, which makes it rather attractive. We have heard much about it. (Graduate, Tomsk Polytechnic University, from Kazakhstan)
The interviewees indicated that costs of studying in Russia were comparable with or higher than those in the home country, and food and lodging costs were consistently higher in Russia. With a government scholarship, these costs become affordable. When enrolling at a university on the scholarship program for non-Russian citizens, the university is selected by the applicant based on internal procedures of competition that impose a number of limitations. First, a specific number of scholarships within a number of areas of study are allocated to a particular country. Second, the prospective student is able to select from only the six Russian universities connected to the scholarship program, and there may be no choice for some fields where only one university offers the relevant program. Finally, the prospective student cannot select more than two universities located in the same federal district of Russia.
This makes the selection decision very complicated and restricted because several factors must be taken into account simultaneously: availability of vacancies in the selected area of study, the list of universities offering the selected field of study, the geographic location of the university, and the probability of gaining admission to the university.
However, some participants noted that some of the most talented students prefer to enter using the general admission procedures rather than under the scholarship program because they believe the allocation system for scholarships is not transparent. Some participants held the opinion that aptitude plays little part in the selection procedure for scholarship and that the system operates inefficiently because of “shady practices.”
Another factor presupposed in the theoretical “push-pull” model is that of environment, by which is meant not only the physical, natural environment but also the “educational environment,” along with lifestyle. This study’s results suggest that weather and climate did not present any difficulties to students from the CIS. Many participants noted that they did not feel like foreigners in Russia and that they do not differ in lifestyle from other Russian students, and this was especially true for students “who spoke Russian fluently.”
Stage 3: Selection of the university
According to the “push-pull” model, at Stage 3, the student selects a university. Name recognition is a significant factor, and the university’s online presence also becomes important. However, not all Russian universities are presented well online: We can speak about the Higher School of Economics and other universities because initially, I liked HSE’s very well-developed website where you can find any information. Not everybody is preoccupied with this in advance. But I actually reviewed curricula and courses to understand what I want and how I can design my particular studies. I found information on the hostel. You can actually find all the information you need here. (Undergraduate, National Research University Higher School of Economics, from Moldova)
Prospective students from the CIS are guided by rankings of universities, which also indicate how much their graduates are in demand on the labor market. In addition, the study found several other factors that influence the final decision, including impressions from visiting the admissions office, the tuition fees, availability of dual diploma programs, and the university’s learning and physical environments. The quality of education provided by an institution of higher education as well as good job prospects after graduation were mentioned as important factors. Some respondents also indicated that the university’s participation in international networks and training programs abroad was important for them.
International Students From Non-CIS Countries: Russia as a Backup Destination
Results from non-CIS students’ interviews presented quite different information and perspectives. Just as with students from the CIS, this analysis now considers the stages involved in the selection model for choice of a country and university by students from outside the CIS and outlines significant factors for both choices.
Stage 1: Making the decision to study abroad—“Push” factors
In general, there was not much evidence found among the non-CIS student data of choosing Russia because of limited access to higher education or lack of the necessary educational specialization at home. However, one example of this was apparent in the study.
For a master’s degree programme, I looked only in Moscow because I am already a graduate in Russian. There is no option for master’s degree studies in Russian in the USA, so I have just looked at online programmes of international business degrees in Moscow. (Graduate, National Research University Higher School of Economics, from the United States)
There were no direct confirmations in the interviews that lack of access to jobs guided the decision to study abroad, but there were several pieces of evidence that political instability in the home country was a factor, for example, for students from Syria and Pakistan.
Stage 2: Selection of Russia for higher education—“Pull” factors
Unlike students from the CIS, international students from other countries have a poor general awareness of Russia. Students noted it was very difficult for them to find unbiased information on Russia, life in Russia, and the Russian people; many noted the typical negative tone of most news items they came across. The non-CIS interviewees noted that they had to make additional efforts to obtain more information about Russia and that this complicated the process of deciding that Russia was their country of choice for higher education.
When I looked for it—I was looking for information in Spanish or in English—I found some information, but it seemed politically based, you know. You can find information that Russia is a very terrible place to live, or they can say Russia is a very good place to live. However, in my opinion, it is because of some political reasons, based on political aspects. I did not find normal stories about being a foreigner and living in Russia. I understand there are many people who are afraid of coming to Russia especially because they don’t speak the language, they don’t know anybody here, so coming to this country is quite difficult. (Graduate, Novosibirsk State University, from Venezuela)
In general, the non-CIS students’ comments indicate that Russia is perceived rather negatively; it has an image as an unsafe country to live in and as an aggressive country politically. On the contrary, there were some instances in which Russia was perceived as a close, friendly country due either to past links (as in the case of China) or to existing agreements.
Russia and Nigeria are allies, so to say, friends. There is an exchange agreement between both countries. Even more Nigerian students will come to Russia this year. That is to say, it occurs every year. (Undergraduate, Samara University, from Nigeria)
International students regard education in Russia as “broadening their experience and leaving their comfort zone,” even down to the difficulty of coping with winter.
Oh yes, I did my mini-research about how things are and about Russia as a whole, in terms of weather. Because my mom was worried about the weather. (Undergraduate, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, from Jamaica)
This leads to the conclusion that more vigorous dissemination of information is necessary—information not only about education but also about everyday life in Russia—to counteract the generally negative context that undermines the promotion of education in Russia to students from non-CIS countries.
In contrast with students from the CIS, international students from other countries rarely mention any personal recommendations because most of them do not have any acquaintances that have ever been to Russia. However, there are exceptions to this rule: for example, instances in which prospective students received advice from Soviet-era university graduates who praised the very high level of education and then recommended studying in Russia. These positive recommendations can be regarded as a lingering resource from the former USSR.
I got acquainted with a teacher who studied in the Soviet Union. He studied in Kharkov at the Polytechnic University. It was immediately obvious to me the man is adept in philosophy—philosophy of science, history; he was fluent in many languages. And I was so interested in it, I was willing to consider Russia sometime or at least look into it. And he told me he owed everything to Russia. (Postgraduate, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, from Colombia)
The interview analysis suggests that international students consider other countries besides Russia as alternatives for getting an education. The most frequently mentioned are the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany. Russia is considered a backup option rather than a first choice. It is noteworthy that the factor of anticipated costs cuts both ways for Russia. Although the monetary costs are rather low, the social and emotional costs are perceived as rather high. The final choice for Russia is often driven by financial considerations: For those who pay for the education, the tuition fees are much lower than in other countries, the procedure for submitting documents is simpler, and the application fees are lower. For those who receive a scholarship, the choice of Russia is even more attractive.
In assessing social costs, the non-CIS international students interviewed for this study were convinced there is racial animosity in Russia on the basis of nationality or ethnicity. There is also apprehension about the lack of legal protection they could rely on in the event of such conflicts.
And the second [negative] is racism because most Russians do not like black people. What we used to hear then, you come to Russia, when a white man sees a black man he will run away from him. So it was very difficult for me to adjust to it. In countries like the USA, Canada, and the UK there are a lot of blacks, so if I go there it would be easier for me than in Russia. (Graduate, National Research University Higher School of Economics, from Ghana)
Although the interviews did not feature direct questions about this topic, the data revealed numerous indirect indications that it was one of the principal problems perceived by students and a source of anxiety for dark-skinned African students.
No evidence was found that the geographic proximity of Russia to the students’ home country was a factor. However, there were indications that the city where the university is located is sometimes a determinant. This may be due not only to the prospective student’s idea of the city’s infrastructure but also to the presumed level of proficiency in English among the local population. This study indicates that St. Petersburg and Moscow are the cities preferred by international students.
Stage 3: Selection of the university
As noted above, the background information on life in Russia and other factors in the selection of the country, except the cost of education, are negative for Russia, and this means that the features of the university itself become critical for prospective international students from outside the CIS.
This study found that students who pay for their education are more thorough about the university selection process than students with scholarships. The language used for instruction is often the starting point of selection. International students also give consideration to the curricula, the educational timetable, university rankings, and overall reputation.
But actually, I chose Russia because of programme content, the facilities you have, the labs and the whole range of subjects because in this field of cognitive science everything should be cutting-edge. It should not be outdated technologies, outdated subjects. Otherwise, it isn’t science. I have compared programmes in Germany and here. The programme is excellent in Russia. I searched for something in psychology in Germany. So I just compared with that and I liked this programme. (Graduate, National Research University Higher School of Economics, from India)
In contrast to students from the CIS, the non-CIS students in the sample mostly paid for their education themselves. The evidence suggests they selected a university more carefully and that the university’s features—in particular, the academic reputation of the university and/or of the curricula selected—played a greater role in their decision making.
The main problem international students faced was finding a job while studying and after graduation. At present, universities have to operate within the labor law which has a number of bureaucratic obstacles that apply to hiring foreigners. The labor market for a student who is not fluent in Russian is very restricted, and even highly qualified graduates with master’s degrees have difficulty finding jobs. This problem will continue to be a drawback in the current context of exporting Russian educational services because hiring foreign personnel is not a priority of national policy. For their part, Russian universities try to address this problem as they fill internal vacancies. However, a systematic solution should be applied at the national level because demand for jobs by international students far exceeds the vacancies that Russian universities are able to offer.
Discussion
This article outlines some of the reasons why international students from CIS and non-CIS countries choose to study in Russian universities. This study indicates that the two groups of students differ in their motives for selecting both Russian education in general and a particular university; therefore, they require different informational support and promotional tools. Cantwell et al. (2009) found a similar pattern on the example of students coming to Mexico from Europe and Latin America.
Students from CIS countries are positively inclined to study in Russia by their own knowledge of the country and by relatives and friends already living there. However, they are typically not very aware of any particular university. The findings suggest that students from the CIS (mainly those who have a scholarship) have a poor knowledge of the range of universities available and often make a choice by name recognition and driven by the future job prospects in Russia.
Meanwhile, foreign students from outside the CIS select a Russian university despite many negative features of the country’s image. From their perspective, Russia is regarded as a rather unsafe country and is not always at the top of the list of attractive countries for pursuing an education. The academic reputation of a university, its online presence, and affordability are nearly the only factors that persuade a foreign student to study in Russia. These results are close to the findings by Kondakci (2011), who found the phenomenon of “second choice option” in relation to student mobility in Turkey.
The obtained results reveal the lack of theoretical approaches and methodological tools for studying the “second choice phenomenon” in country decision by international students for future education. As a rule, a student who chooses a country according to this principle is significantly distinguished through educational motivation and selection criteria. Some sort of dissatisfaction with the second choice also affects learning outcomes, as well as the level of engagement in the learning process (Kinzie et al., 2006).
The fact mentioned above starts a cyclical process: The lower the level of engagement, the worse the satisfaction with learning. Therefore, the student who chooses the “second choice country” is less satisfied with his or her education; consequently, the probability that he or she would recommend the country to others is relatively small.
Moreover, the infrastructure of the city, which is discussed in other studies (Li, 2020), happens to be a significant factor in choosing a place of study in Russia. Branding and recognition of the city are important aspects of the process of attracting students. Moscow and St. Petersburg are major cities for foreign students and the recognition of other cities in Russia tends to be barely noticeable.
Conclusion
Having taken the analysis of the interviews into consideration, the main external and internal barriers against promotion of Russian higher education abroad were evaluated. The most significant external barriers are unfavorable political background and controversial information about life in Russia; legal restrictions on employment during the learning process; the lack of a unified legal framework regulating the process of attracting foreign students to Russian universities; as well as decline in interest in the Russian language and decrease in the Russian-speaking population.
The internal barriers include poor internationalization of Russian universities, characterized by a small number of educational programs in English and poor presentation of Russian universities on the internet. Moreover, there are wide possibilities of achieving indicators on internationalization in the framework of state programs aimed primarily at the countries of the former Soviet Union, which do not require developing new educational programs in foreign languages. Universities thus tend to constrain their internationalization efforts by largely focusing on programming delivered only in Russian.
There are several possible implications of this study—although it is important to recognize that data from 40 interviews alone cannot provide a fully comprehensive picture of the push and pull factors related to international student mobility into Russia or any other country. From a theoretical perspective, there is a need for framework development for analyzing incoming mobility to non-Anglophone countries, bringing political and social embeddedness perspectives. There is also a need for follow-up studies that could help advance understanding about several of the key findings of this research in a variety of national contexts, including how prior knowledge of a country affects study destination choices, the implications and realities of the “second choice phenomenon” for international study, and the effects of city branding and positioning on international student decision making.
From a practical perspective, attracting foreign students is a process which involves both universities and the government simultaneously. Therefore, our recommendations are provided to both of these counterparts. Indeed, one of the main drawbacks recorded as a result of the study is the lack of synchronization of educational and migration policies, which significantly reduces the effectiveness of the entire process of internationalization and attraction of foreign students.
In terms of national policy, more attention should be paid to the image of the country. Interest in the Russian language rapidly declined after the collapse of the Soviet Union and is unlikely to grow in the near future, which could have a seriously detrimental effect on Russia’s ability to be a significant player in the global educational market in 10 years, if steps are not taken to address this reality. It is, therefore, necessary to develop educational products in the English language, but this is a long-term process.
One way to do this is to increase subsidies to non-profit organizations involved in promoting Russian education abroad (these include Rossotrudnichestvo centers, among others). There is good practice around the world—as seen, for example, in the efforts undertaken by the DAAD in Germany and the British Council in the United Kingdom—which can be taken into account and adapted to increase the popularity of the Russian educational system abroad, as well as to promote the Russian language.
Furthermore, the role of existing migration flows in Russia is not fully studied in the context of educational policy. The availability of network links and support groups becomes an important factor in choosing a place of study, as these factors can reduce the social cost of moving. The contribution of migration flows to student mobility cannot be underestimated, especially in shaping the image of the country and the expectations of applicants. Success of subsequent adaptation by students depends on adequate expectations. In addition, the infrastructure and social life of the university affect the adaptation process, too.
At the institutional level, universities should improve the quality of international student life, gather and use student feedback, and work with alumni. “Word of mouth” advertisement can somehow compensate for the information deficiency about Russian universities abroad, although support clubs for foreign students are not sufficiently developed in Russian universities. In addition, the experiences of graduates are hardly shared; however, these could be presented in the form of instructions and guides, which can be especially helpful for students at the first stage of their Russian university experience.
The key task is to form correct expectations even before admission. One of the findings of this study was that Russian universities do not pay enough attention to the English-language versions of their websites, which makes the admission process even more difficult. More detailed information is especially necessary for students from non-CIS countries, as they lack knowledge of how ordinary life is organized in Russia.
This study is limited because only students and perspectives from leading Russian universities that have state support were included; therefore, a promising direction for further research is to study the contribution of the non-state (private) education sector to this process. Even still, this research points to important and concrete steps that can be taken to increase the competitiveness of Russian higher education in the global market. These measures can be also relevant and effective for other countries perceived as “backup options” for students rather than as first “choice” countries when it comes to attracting international students.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The article is based on the study funded by the Basic Research Program of the National Research University Higher School of Economics.
