A few years ago, I made a decision that surprised some of my colleagues: I left the familiar orbit of Western higher education and moved to China, to lead an American-style dual degree program in one of Asia’s fastest-growing cities. People asked reasonable questions. What is the infrastructure like? Is it safe? What do you do on weekends?
Almost nobody asked about the cost of living.
That absence of curiosity struck me as revealing. Cost of living is one of the most consequential variables in any decision about where to live and work, yet in international education circles it rarely surfaces in the serious conversations we have about faculty recruitment, institutional competitiveness, or student mobility. I want to make the case that this is a meaningful gap, and that closing it requires us to be more honest about what financial opportunity actually looks like across different global contexts.
The Numbers Are More Dramatic Than Most People Realize
Earlier this year I put together a simple infographic using Numbeo’s 2026 Cost of Living Index, benchmarked to New York City at a score of 100. The results are striking.
London comes in at 88. Dubai at 62. Shanghai and Phnom Penh sit side by side at 39 and 38 respectively. Ho Chi Minh City lands at 28, meaning that in broad terms, a dollar stretches more than three and a half times further there than it does in New York.
These are not marginal differences. They represent fundamentally different financial realities, and yet our sector continues to treat compensation conversations as if geography were a footnote rather than a central variable.
What This Means for Faculty Recruitment
When international universities compete for talented faculty, the conversation almost always centers on salary figures, research funding, and institutional prestige. Cost of living enters the discussion, if at all, as an afterthought.
This is a strategic error.
A faculty member offered a competitive salary at an institution in Phnom Penh or Ho Chi Minh City may enjoy a materially higher standard of living than a peer earning significantly more in London or New York, once rent, transportation, dining, and daily expenses are factored in. In many Southeast Asian cities, that advantage extends further: domestic help is affordable, healthcare costs are manageable, and the quality of life available to a middle-income expat professional is genuinely high.
Institutions that learn to frame this clearly and credibly have a recruitment story that most of their competitors are not telling. Those that continue to compete on raw salary figures alone, without contextualizing purchasing power, are leaving a meaningful advantage on the table.
What This Means for Student Mobility
The calculus for students and families is different but equally important.
International education has long been framed primarily around the prestige of destination. Students aspire to London, New York, Sydney, or Toronto, in part because those cities carry name recognition that translates into credential value. That logic is not wrong, but it is incomplete.
As tuition costs rise globally and families face increasing financial pressure, the total cost of an international education, including cost of living for the duration of study, is becoming a more decisive factor. A rigorous, internationally accredited degree earned in Phnom Penh or Ho Chi Minh City at a fraction of the total cost of a comparable program in a Western city is a proposition worth taking seriously. Some families are beginning to do exactly that.
Institutions in lower-cost markets have a genuine value story to tell. The question is whether they are willing to tell it with the same confidence and clarity they bring to discussions of academic quality and outcomes.
The Perception Gap Is the Real Problem
Perhaps the most significant challenge is not the data itself but the perception that surrounds it. Cities like Phnom Penh and Ho Chi Minh City are still filtered through outdated or superficial narratives in the minds of many Western education professionals. The assumption, rarely stated but often present, is that lower cost signals lower quality.
The reality on the ground is more nuanced. Phnom Penh in 2026 is a rapidly developing capital city with a growing professional class, improving infrastructure, a vibrant expat community, and genuine momentum in its higher education sector. It is not without its challenges, and intellectual honesty requires acknowledging those. But the gap between perception and lived experience is wide, and it is narrowing.
For international education leaders willing to engage seriously with that gap, there is both a professional opportunity and, I would argue, a responsibility. Our sector exists to expand access to quality education across borders. If we are not willing to make the case for the full range of global contexts in which that education can be delivered, we are implicitly reinforcing a hierarchy that serves some students and institutions far better than others.
A Closing Thought
I did not move to Asia because it was inexpensive. I moved because the work here is meaningful, the institution is at an exciting inflection point, and Asia is one of the most dynamic regions in the world for higher education development. The cost of living has been a welcome dimension of the experience, not the reason for it.
But having lived and worked at this end of the index, I am convinced that our sector is underutilizing cost of living as both a recruitment tool and a student access argument. The data is clear. The opportunity is real. The question is whether international education leaders are ready to take it seriously.
Data: Numbeo Cost of Living Index 2026. New York City = 100 baseline.
Leave a Comment