The Headlines
English Takes Centre Stage
University campuses in non-Anglophone countries are increasingly viewing English-Medium Instruction (EMI) as their passport to global academic relevance, driven by global competition, improved rankings and a larger share of the international student market.
By Gauri Kohli
“I’ve talked to thousands of student athletes. I don’t think I’ve ever talked to one who wants to be an employee."
In Brief
- English-Medium Instruction (EMI) has become a strategic imperative for non-Anglophone universities globally, serving as a passport to global academic relevance and a magnet for international students.
- Driven by the allure of global prestige and university rankings, EMI aims to boost international profiles. However, its implementation often faces challenges, including inadequate faculty preparation.
- EMI is now an embedded feature, but its future success hinges on a critical shift "from quantity to quality," embracing nuanced, hybrid models like bilingual approaches.
For many universities, English-Medium Instruction (EMI) is not just an option but a strategic imperative. It acts as a powerful magnet for attracting international students who might otherwise be deterred by language barriers, and it serves as a key domestic tool to prepare local graduates for a globalised workforce.
With more than five million students now studying abroad globally, EMI has been widely adopted in many non-Anglophone countries across Asia, Europe, South America and other regions as a strategy to simultaneously enhance students’ English language skills and deepen their subject knowledge.
Even non-English-speaking countries have used EMI in academic programmes at university-level including Ethiopia, Rwanda and Algeria, with the last two switching from French to English in higher education in recent years.
Several nations now host universities and branch campuses where English is the primary language of instruction, including entire graduate programmes. For instance, multiple universities in China offer MBA programmes taught entirely in English. Nations such as Kazakhstan, Russia, Georgia and many others have introduced English-taught programmes for international students in courses such as medicine.
Traditionally known for preserving their linguistic and cultural identity, France and Italy have historically favoured instruction in their own languages in universities over the use of English in higher education. Yet, even these countries have begun to shift, with a growing number of English-medium courses now offered. In recent years, higher education institutions in non-Anglophone Europe have seen a dramatic increase by more than 1,000 percent in English-taught programmes.
The Lure of Global Prestige
At its core, the adoption of EMI is a calculated move to climb the ladder of global higher education. “EMI functions as a key driver of internationalisation by helping institutions align with global academic norms and attract international students,” explains Kyuseok Kim, Seoul Center Director for the Institute for the International Education of Students (IES) Abroad. In countries like South Korea, he notes, the rapid expansion of English-track programmes reflects both national policy ambitions and a fierce institutional desire for a competitive edge.
This ambition is inextricably linked to the influential world of university rankings. “EMI significantly boosts a university’s international profile, as rankings often reward indicators linked to English-taught courses and global engagement,” Kim adds.
Jack Pun, an Associate Professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK), agrees, stating that EMI contributes to rankings by facilitating international student recruitment, boosting English-language publications, and supporting faculty mobility.
However, Professor Anna Kristina Hultgren of The Open University, UK, offers a more critical perspective. She argues that the EMI phenomenon cannot be understood outside the context of decades of governance reforms that have fundamentally altered the mission of universities. These reforms, she suggests, have pushed an agenda of “students as consumers, universities as businesses and higher education systems as competitive markets.” From this viewpoint, EMI is less an organic educational development and more a pragmatic response to a political choice to change the core mission of universities to align with corporations.
Professor Hultgren contends that the narrative of EMI as an “unstoppable train” obscures the agency and decisions driving it. “Far from being inevitable,” she asserts, “the underlying processes that drive it are a political choice.”
This strategic push is visible across the globe. In Europe, Professor Hultgren and her collaborators’ research reveals that English-taught programmes have grown approximately threefold in the last decade, expanding from a Nordic concentration to become a pan-European phenomenon.
Geographically, the high-EMI regions in Europe are the Nordic Countries and Central West Europe, according to Professor Hultgren’s research, lead-authored by Peter Wingrove. “However, while the Nordic countries have maintained their lead, there are indications that EMI growth may have plateaued. Over the last decade, South West Europe and Central East Europe have emerged as high-growth regions, currently approximating the European average. The Baltic countries and South East Europe (with some exceptions) typically have fewer HEIs offering EMI but have still seen growth over the last ten years,” she tells QS Insights Magazine.
Professor Hultgren, who is also the principal investigator of a recent study on English as a Medium of Instruction in European Higher Education for UK Research and Innovation, says it is yet to be seen whether they will eventually catch up with the current European average of approximately half of all HEIs offering EMI.
“EMI is mostly practised at the master’s level. We also discuss the theoretical and methodological implications for future research operationalising and measuring EMI growth,” she notes.
In Asia, Professor Pun points to rapid expansion in Hong Kong, China and Malaysia, often backed by government incentives like China’s “Double First Class” initiative. Whether driven by rankings, market forces, or national policy, English has become the default language of internationalisation.
Ambition and Reality
While the strategic goals are clear, the reality on the ground is often fraught with challenges. The most significant hurdle is whether universities are truly equipped to deliver high-quality education in a second language. Experts agree that institutional readiness varies dramatically, creating a landscape of uneven quality.
“Many universities adopted EMI before ensuring adequate faculty preparation, leading to mixed outcomes in teaching quality,” says Kim. This gap between policy and practice is a recurring theme. Professor Hultgren puts it more bluntly, stating that EMI is often just “dumped on faculty and students” who are ill-prepared for the transition. Lecturers may lack the specific pedagogical skills needed for a multilingual classroom, even if they have functional English proficiency.
The problem of transitioning to a multilingual classroom is systemic. While elite universities may invest in professional development and recruit faculty with international experience, many other institutions rely on existing staff who may not have been trained to teach complex subjects in English. “This gap between policy ambition and teaching reality is particularly evident in contexts where EMI expansion was driven by external rankings or funding incentives,” Kim observes.
Language support systems for both students and faculty, which are crucial for a successful transition, are often “fragmented and underdeveloped,” according to Kim. Professor Pun echoes this, noting that while some institutions offer language centres and workshops, this support is often optional rather than integrated. The result can be a classroom environment where comprehension suffers, participation dwindles and anxiety rises for both local and international students. Without sustained investment in faculty training and robust support structures, Kim warns, EMI risks becoming a “symbolic gesture rather than a meaningful transformation.”
The Student Equation
For students, EMI has its pros and cons. On one hand, it undeniably broadens access. International students can now study in a wider range of countries without the daunting task of mastering the local language. This diversifies campuses and enriches the academic environment for everyone. “EMI enhances access by allowing international students to study in diverse destinations,” says Kim.
However, this access comes with caveats. When instruction quality is poor, students face new academic barriers. “Students often report academic difficulties when EMI is poorly delivered by the local faculty,” Kim notes, particularly when instructors are not fluent or teaching methods fail to accommodate multilingual learners. The promise of an international education can quickly sour if students struggle to grasp core concepts through a fog of linguistic uncertainty.
The impact on local students is equally complex. While EMI can improve their English proficiency and global outlook, it can also prove to be a significant disadvantage. In multilingual classrooms, Kim has observed that local students “may hesitate to ask questions or contribute to discussions, fearing judgement or misunderstanding.” Some Korean students, he says, actively avoid EMI courses if they feel linguistically unprepared, creating a new layer of internal inequality. Professor Pun adds that EMI can “disadvantage students less proficient in English, potentially widening equity gaps.”
Professor Hultgren takes this critique further, arguing that EMI exacerbates global inequalities on a macro scale. She contends that it facilitates a “brain drain from the Global South,” as top students are drawn to EMI programmes in the Global North. To compete, universities in the Global South feel compelled to mimic this system, leading to what she calls “institutional isomorphism” — a homogenisation of curricula that devalues linguistic diversity and local knowledge systems.
Citing a study comparing universities in Sweden and Nepal, she demonstrates how EMI can perpetuate a cycle where well-resourced institutions in the Global North solidify their dominance, while those in the Global South struggle to keep up.
An Evolving Strategy
Despite the significant challenges, experts believe EMI has evolved from a short-term recruitment tactic into an embedded feature of higher education. “EMI is here to stay, but its form will evolve,” says Professor Pun.
Kim agrees, noting that it is increasingly integrated into long-term institutional missions, but its success hinges on a critical shift “from quantity to quality.”
The future of EMI likely lies in more nuanced, hybrid models. Both Professor Pun and Kim point to the rise of bilingual or translingual approaches, where English is used alongside local languages. These models aim to strike a balance, maintaining academic rigour and linguistic equity while still fostering global competence. Other alternatives include offering core courses in the native language with targeted English electives or using Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approaches. Kim even points to the nascent use of AI technology for simultaneous language support in some Korean universities as a potential path forward.
Ultimately, the debate over EMI forces a deeper reflection on the purpose of the modern university. Professor Hultgren argues that the current model, driven by market logic, is unsustainable and calls for “open and honest democratic discussions about how we want our universities to look, who they should serve and what their purpose should be.”