NYU Singapore sued by former students

Whether or not branch university programs are comparable to the home campus is often raised by critics. Students are the greatest stakeholders in this question and, if they are not satisfied, they can discredit the institutions that offer them. Three students who graduated from NYU Singapore's arts master's degree (begun in 2007 and subsequently determined to be closed in 2012) asserted that the "Tisch Asia was a subpar program in practically every aspect, from the quality of faculty, facilities and equipment to exclusion of Tisch Asia students from grants, competitions and networking opportunities available to student at Tisch New York." NYU spokesperson, John Beckman, said that "This suit is wholly without merit, and we expect to prevail in court."

Regardless of the outcome of the suit, the idea of comparability in branch degree programs needs to be carefully dissected. In reality, how could any U.S.A., European, or other university fully replicate the experience of its home campus? Especially when one considers that much of a student's experience occurs outside of class and that peers heavily influence each other's learning, pretending that a program transported from NYC to Singapore would be the same is a stretch. Perhaps institutions would be better off focusing on what can be the same (i.e. curriculum structure) and then what will be different and potentially superior (i.e. fellow students, student to faculty ratio, and opportunities for student engagement) to the home campus.