Siren Song for Captain Keir

It is striking that Keir Starmer should be setting out his stall for ten years at the helm of government to repair the mess he claims the Tories left.  By chance or design the return of Odysseus, the king of Ithaca, from the Trojan wars also took a decade.  The journey was outlined in Homer’s Odyssey and this Greek epic poem offers several pointers for Keir as far as university funding is concerned.

The siren voices of the sector are singing away in an attempt to lure Labour onto the rocks of throwing taxpayer cash at an outdated, inefficent financial and operational model.  Like Odysseus, Captain Keir needs to strap himself to the mast and ensure that his ministers have beeswax in their ears as they row away from danger.  This as an early challenge and the rocks of Scylla (union backed pay restoration) and the whirlpool of Charybdis (the NHS funding challenges) still await if he, like Odysseus, is to complete his journey home.

A Slippery Slope

Roman statesman and philosopher Cicero used the “slippery slope” metaphor and it should be another classics reminder to Labour that affairs can “glide readily down the path of ruin when once they have taken a start.”  iNews has reported that the DfE has already established a special unit for universities in trouble and one has benefited from its support.  But “university sources” whispers to them that there are “a relatively small number – but a number that you would notice if they went over the edge – that are in really significant financial problems.”

It’s a beautifully crafted statement from anonymous sources.  It puts the scare in the story with “a number you would notice”, the urgency with “over the edge”, the scale with “really significant”, but pulls back to say the number is “relatively small” to suggest other institutions are good stewards of their finances.  It could be characterized as seductively threatening. But Labour would be failing in its obligations if it didn’t ask why taxpayer money should be channeled to the whole sector just because a few cannot manage their budgets.

By focusing on the few, Labour could name them so that their leadership, including the university councils involved, could be properly reviewed to see if they have acted responsibly with public money and the future of their students.  A clear out rather than a handout might be the most cost-effective option.  Reorganization rather than more money was a drum Wes Streeting was beating about the NHS but his tune seems to be changing so the resolve of the government is under serious threat.    

Time Flexes…Like Resolve

Aristotle told us that, “Time crumbles things; everything grows old under the power of Time and is forgotten through the lapse of Time.”  In July, Bridget Phillipson told the World at One that “Labour had “no plan” to raise [university tuition] fees.”  By August 16,  iNews was  reporting that “increasing student fees” was on the table, despite Phillipson saying just a week earlier that it would be a “really unpalatable thing to be considering.” 

It is quite extraordinary that the Government is unprepared and appears in chaos over an issue which had been flagged for many months ahead of the General Election.  Having already caved in to several union wage demands they may be willing to throw fuel on the bonfire of handouts by doing the same for universities that are unable to manage their own finances.  But there is little wonder that Captain Keir’s office is said to be nervous – he’s the one that said he was renouncing the total withdrawal of tuition fees because the money was needed for the NHS.

It Will Never Be Enough

Epicurus explained that “nothing is enough for the man to whom enough is too little” and that’s a good mantra if it is true that Labour are considering an increase in fees but keeping it under £10,000 for “presentational reasons”.  They are dealing with a sector that wallowed in the benefits of implementing £9,000 tuition fees when a figure of £6,000 was expected and feasted on the opportunity to recruit international students with little control.  Some would argue that the wasted millions on restructuring costs, unwise investments, bloated bureaucracies and vanity projects indicates that some universities are incapable of making good decisions even when they have guarantees of more money.

Another good lesson comes from Wales where tuition fees have increased from £9,000 to £9,250 in 2024 (although the overall settlement is complex) with none of the universities showing any enthusiasm.  Part of the problem for some of the institutions is that they have been presiding over longer-term declines in domestic students which suggests there are far more serious structural problems at play.  Increasing reliance on international student income has become a feature of some, such as the University of South Wales, but that raises serious questions about the purpose of universities.

In Scotland, tuition is free for Scottish students but it is notable that the amount received per student is, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, only £7,610.  Given the outrage of the English universities at their £9,250 tuition fee one wonders how Scottish universities continue to deliver effectively with little apparent difference in outcomes.  While Scottish institutions get four years of tuition fee for many domestic undergraduate students they still have to spend money teaching and providing services in the extra year.

Tinkering with the tuition fee could infuriate the tax paying voter and may turn a number of students off incurring additional debt.  It seems unlikely to satisfy the universities who continue to claim that the fee has been eroded by inflation to less than £6,000 and that every student they recruit loses them over £3,000.  Leaving aside the dubious maths involved there is clearly a gap between university demands and Labour’s ability to pay, taxpayers’ willingness to fund and students’ appetite for debt.       

The Public Good

Rome has some claims as an early (although far from perfect) example of representative democracy and in De Legibus Cicero tells us that “the welfare of the people is the highest law.”  In that respect Labour needs to think hard about the views of the public when it comes to higher fees and funding for universities.  It also needs to consider whether the sector is showing any signs of responding to current circumstances.

There is little evidence of genuine collaboration or strategic thinking in a sector where stronger institutions are hoovering up students in clearing to the detriment of those that are weaker.  It is much the same in international recruitment where stronger Russell Group universities are able to outmuscle their supposed peers in terms of recruitment.  Labour should not believe for one second that universities will stop acting in their own interests even if it means driving another institution to insolvency.

Labour must also be alert to the propensity of sector spokespeople to obfuscate, fantasize and cherry pick data when making assertions.  There is, for example, no evidence at all to support the UUK Chief Executive’s statement that, ‘Most families will understand the need to increase university fees’.  Public First research shows that this is wishful thinking because, “Across the board, people think fees are too high and that people leave university with excessive debt.”

We know from the same research that “..there is significantly more public support for further education and apprenticeships” than for higher education.  In 2023 the UPP Foundation, working with the Higher Education Policy Institute, published research showing 32% of 18-24 year olds surveyed saying “a university degree is a waste of time”. 57% of the total surveyed were either uninterested, sceptical or negative about universities.

Even if the Chancellor could find ways of freeing up the money for the cost of higher fees in her budget who would thank Labour? Parents would just see higher debt, students would just see higher fees and the bill would have to be paid eventually. When Starmer is talking about a “painful” budget, making “difficult decisions” and “it won’t be business as usual” penalising students, rewarding poorly run institutions and giving the taxpayer a bigger than necessary bill seems a poor choice.

Strategy, Strength and Sucking It Up

None of this underestimates the challenges if a university becomes insolvent or the individual pain facing staff as cutbacks come.  But in some cases university management have been spending money on restructuring for years and that there are clear examples of poor decision making.  Continually propping the system up with generalized handouts of taxpayer money and no fundamental change would not help.

John Raftery makes a number of blunt points based on experience at London Metropolitan University and the University of Wolverhampton. A number of other “trouble shooting” VCs have taken on institutions in trouble and put them on a more solid footing. It is time that the shape, size and purpose of the sector was considered with any earlier financial input being contingent on competent management being installed to manage the situation. There is no one-size fits all answer.

To borrow from one more Greek source, the Labour government has set out on a task akin to the Herculean task of cleaning the Augean stables.  They will certainly not be able to do it in a day but they will have to start by showing they have the nerve, the forethought and the fortitude to resist easy answers.  Realigning the higher education sector to fit the needs of the country is a test of their ability to do so. 

Image by OpenIcons from Pixabay

Black Thursday for UK Higher Education

After the disruption of the pandemic and half a year of growing tensions on international recruitment and university finances we enter the annual UK university trolley dash known as clearing.  It has become as heavily trailed as Black Friday or Cyber Monday and is an equally depressing sales event with overhyped bargains leading to buyer’s carrying both remorse and significant debt.  After a show of unity to preserve the international graduate route, universities will show us that there is no love lost between institutions when it comes to manipulating domestic students into a panic purchase. 

We have already seen the trumpeting of  “Russell Group universities with plenty of clearing places” to remind us of a hierarchy conditioned by meaningless league tables, government policy failures, and media dumbing down.  Meanwhile, institutions outside that charmed circle are putting in place the slick enrolment machine that is willing to take as many marginal calls as necessary to fill the places.  Clearing in 2024 is, more than ever, the sign of a near bankrupt system using tactics that resemble the worst of closing down sales.

Early bird offers, VIP packages, prize draws, personal guidance, priority call-backs are all in the mix as institutions choose the tactics of double-glazing sales rather than focusing on the quality of their academic offer.  The shame is that they are dealing mainly with young people facing a life-changing decision at one of the most vulnerable times of their life to date.  When institutions will go to these lengths it is difficult to see that their advice will be impartial but some of the tactics seem to fly close to the wind in other areas protected by consumer law.            

Pressure to Close

Areas on the radar of the Competition and Markets Authority include false urgency and price reduction claims from online sellers.  Students are undoubtedly told they need to move quickly and that there are grade reductions available to the swift. Last year it was Clare Marchant, Chief Executive of UCAS, advising students to be “pretty quick off the mark” while this year she is the vice-chancellor of the University of Gloucestershire offering a prize draw where one “clearing VIP” will get a year of free accommodation. 

This year we find other industry pundits saying “pupils “who act fast” after getting their results “could find many university courses still open.”  It is poor advice to give someone who is making one of the biggest decisions of their life.  An average undergraduate emerges with around £50,000 of debt, spends three years of time and has no certainty of any payback. 

To put that in context, the maximum jail sentence for possession of a Class C drug is just two years.  Brentford FC striker Ivan Toney got an eight month ban and £50,000 fine for 232 breaches of betting rules last year.  Surely the sector would do better to advise young people taking such major decisions that they must think long and hard about their actions.

When It’s Gone, It’s Gone

Clearing is presented as a massive opportunity for students but is really a game played to rules set by the universities and the odds favour the house.  Reading that “the UK’s leading universities” have nearly 4,000 courses in clearing compared to only 2,000 last year sounds like a good thing for choice.  But nowhere does it say how many places are actually available for each courses.

That’s because each university wants the maximum numbers to choose from and will keep on fishing until it either meets a number it has set for that course or that will balance out to achieve an overall target between courses.  The student making an application has no idea if they are in a competition with 100 others for two places or the sole applicant for a course seeking 100 students.  Knowing if your chances are one in fifty or a near certainty would seem a reasonable and is a requirement of The Gambling Commission for virtual games of chance.

Inflated Anchor Prices

This is the phrase used when a store shows a “regular” or “original” price to demonstrate how much value its sale price offers.  Most countries have legislation in place to prevent stores promoting misleadingly high anchor prices that have only been charged in exceptional, limited circumstances.  The university published tariff is really just the equivalent of an anchor price and its relationship to reality isn’t very transparent.

The UCAS move to have “real grades” shown seems a good idea but using historical data is next to useless and UCAS itself is clear that “as the data is based on previous years it shouldn’t be used as an indication of how likely you are to get a place on a course now.”    UCAS research indicates that 49% of students are accepted on university courses with grades “lower than the entry requirements.”  But this may be made up of a number of factors – students given an offer below the published requirements, students who miss their offered grades but get accepted and then students who are taken at lower grades to fill spaces. 

It would be appropriate, meaningful and possible with technology for universities to provide real time data on entry qualifications that they are accepting.  This would prevent a false market developing as university advertising and promotional material remains a step behind reality.  It would also mean that students get better transparency when making their choices.

Bait And Switch

In England and Wales, bait and switch is banned under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.  The practise involves a retailer luring a consumer into believing they can buy a product at a low price when there is insufficient or no stock available.  Classically, the trader then attempts to ‘up-sell’ to a higher priced product.

For universities in clearing, the lack of transparency on actual grade requirements and numbers of places available means that a headline course needing one or two additional students can draw in significant interest.  Some students calling might be told the course is already full but that there is a very similar course in the same faculty available in clearing.  It’s the sort of thing that can happen at other points of the but under the time pressure of clearing the student may be easier to persuade to switch course.

A Conspiracy of (Near) Silence

For universities the onus is on filling the seats available.  This wholly undermines the much-touted notion that every domestic student recruited comes at a deficit of over £3,000.  The claim is so crass that it is difficult to believe supposedly intelligent people make it so regularly.

But to get an inside voice on the tactics and the motivators one needs the disarming honesty of a director of recruitment who is not too close to the white heat of combat.  Step forward Mike Nicholson, director of recruitment at the University of Cambridge, who says that by choice universities will start by selecting students with a place already offered who “narrowly missed” grades.  Only after that might they go into clearing if absolutely necessary and because they “..have a very clear sense of what their numbers are this year, what they’ve got to achieve to balance the books.”

In a nutshell, universities are in it for the money and it is not in their interests to share information on availability of places or grades required with students.   The pre-qualification offer process that institutions have defended for so long gives them plenty of room for maneuver and the wholly undeserved opportunity to appear generous when they accept applicants with lower grades.  It is another feature that undermines belief in the fairness and transparency of higher education.   

Over and above that we have examples of students who went to university as a result of opportunities in clearing but found the outcome less than optimal. At a point in time when some universities are seeing a growth in the numbers of students dropping out there should be real concern that clearing is creating conditions that attract students who will struggle to complete the course. For some, the consequences can be devastating.  

But the lessons of acting with overdue haste in clearing may be at the heart of a broader problem for the sector. Even those who may not have taken a snap decision at clearing are reconsidering whether a degree was the right choice for them.  When 78% say they have “considered leaving university during their studies” it’s time for everyone to slow down before taking the plunge.

Image by S K from Pixabay

Squaring the Circle

Squaring the circle represents a geometry problem from Greek mathematics with some suggesting that Anaxagoras was the first to work on it around 450 BC.  The problem required the construction of a square with the area of a given circle using only Euclidean construction and a limited number of steps.  It wasn’t until 1882 that the Lindemann-Weierstrass theorem, which proves that pi is a transcendental number, showed that the task was impossible.

The incoming Labour government may find it has a similarly difficult task in trying to balance UK economic strategy, workforce needs and international student recruitment.  When a student visa comes with two years of guaranteed opportunity to find a job and international enrollment growth is dependent on post-study work rights, the linkage between study and work is evident.  For a government that is committed to getting the UK employment rate from 75% to 80% with “2 million more people in work across the UK” it will interesting to see if there is enough economic growth to meet all needs.

It’s also interesting to look at the party’s historic position on the relationship between work and study rights and the thinking of some of its current leading figures on the economic and political priorities.  With plans for primary/secondary years and “training, an apprenticeship, or help to find work for all 18- to 21-year-olds” articulated in its manifesto the current priorities for education also seem clear.  What seems to be lacking is any real focus on higher education.         

The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones1

Labour’s underlying attitude to the balance between jobs and migration may have been articulated in 2007 when Jacqui Smith, now Education Minister, was the Home Secretary introducing the new points-based visa system.  She noted its role in “…ensuring that only those migrants Britain needs can come to work or study in the UK.”  The absolute clarity of “only those migrants Britain needs” suggests a transactional approach to study and work visas founded on the UK’s express requirements rather than open house on post-study work.

It was consistent with the Labour Government’s five year strategy published in February 2005. Then Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, noted, “We will bring all our current work schemes and students into a simple points-based system designed to ensure that we are only taking migrants for jobs that cannot be filled from our own workforce…” (my emphasis).     

By February 2009 Smith was having to tighten up on the points based system for migrant workers and saying, “Just as in a growth period we needed migrants to support growth, it is right in a downturn to be more selective about the skill levels of those migrants, and to do more to put British workers first.”   While it was a Conservative Government that would cut post study work rights in 2011 as unemployment was stuck at c8% it is difficult to think Labour would have done anything else.      

Language is the immediate actuality of thought2

Bridget Phillipson may be on record as saying, “Be in no doubt: international students are welcome in the UK” but amid all the happy talk that has got the sector so excited there must surely be an underlying concern that these are only words.  Back in 2011, David Cameron said, “We’re working with the sector to encourage the brightest and best students from around the world to come and study..”  and in 2012 Theresa May said, “…we want the best and the brightest minds in the world to come to study in Britain, and we want our world-class universities to thrive.”  Everyone knows what happened next.

Jacqui Smith, as Minister of State for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, will certainly  have to reconsider her responses if she is truly to “champion universities”.  The early signs are less than encouraging, as she has already failed to guarantee support for universities under funding pressure and only remarked that universities should be “looking at how they can run efficiently as possible”.  This follows Bridget Phillipson’s suggestion that there are “expectations around how they manage their budgets, and I would expect them to do that without seeking any calls on the taxpayer”

It would be naïve of universities to read much into the government’s more supportive statements other than an attempt to calm the crew (rather than actively steady the ship) while they face much more important issues like a £20bn funding gap, a collapsing NHS and armed forces unable to fight a sustained conflict.  If the sector chooses to pursue significant increases in international student enrollments to fill a funding gap it runs the risk of compromising the Government on a migration issue where much of the voting public remains nervous.  The severity of the Chancellor in the House of Commons yesterday is also not to be underestimated. 

Ruthless criticism of all that exists3

There may also be something about the underlying thinking of key figures in the Labour party that mitigates against allowing significant growth in the number of students working after studying.  Keir Starmer made it clear to the CBI in 2022 that Labour would set about “reducing the UK’s dependency on migrant labour”.  More generally in a policy vacuum related to universities he has ditched a commitment to abolish student tuition fees and has constantly dodged making any aspirational statements on higher education participation.     

In an essay for a Fabian Society publication in 2016 the Chancellor Rachel Reeves noted that, “it is important to acknowledge that being a member of the EU did help keep wages lower for many workers”.  More recently she has said that “..rising population growth from immigration has sometimes exacerbated the slow take-up of technology in the UK economy.” The political element is also clear with Reeve’s noting in 2016 that “Immigration controls and ending free movement has to be a red line post-Brexit – otherwise we will be holding the voters in contempt.”  None of this suggests a free for all on student or graduate visas will be welcome.

A proponent of the strategy to reduce the numbers on long-term sickness benefit is Alan Milburn, an ex-Labour Secretary of State for Health, who also links the practical issue of UK domestic employment with the political realities.  Writing in The Times he says, “This is a wake-up call for the new Labour government to wean themselves off the easy solution of importing more workers from overseas”.  Any increase in the number of international students seeking work after study may be seen as in tension with “getting more out-of-work Brits into work”.

It could be even worse if Labour is looking at commentary from Australia where Leith van Onselen has recently argued that entry level jobs are “swallowed by international students”.  His argument is that this is “posing problems for younger Australians seeking entry into the labour market.”  The last thing the sector, or Labour, needs is a controversy where domestic students are unable to pay back tax-payer funded debt because international students are dominating the jobs market.

From the world of thought to the actual world4

It is reasonable to note that if you change the conditions of the problem, squaring the circle becomes possible and that the Labour Party Manifesto ran for office under the slogan “Our plan to change Britain”.  The pressing question is whether the Labour government is fully committed to seeing universities as a key part of a preferred solution to change Britain and if it does, why is there no sense of direction at the moment?  It has already shown that it is lukewarm on the notion of committing money to help failing universities and where the manifesto commits to 18- to 21-year-olds it is all about training, apprenticeships and finding work.

There is no sweeping commitment to increase the numbers going to university, industrial strategy seems couched in terms of “research institutions”, university spinouts, and using public investment to unlock private sector investment.  There is a commitment to reduce net migration and its sentence on ending the days of “a sector languishing endlessly on immigration shortage lists” might be directed at universities as much as employers.  The “barriers to opportunity” section of the manifesto offers progressive plans for schools, apprenticeships and further education while higher education gets “strengthening regulation”, better integration with FE, improving access and raising teaching standards.

None of this looks like a Labour party that, even if sympathetic to aspiration and more domestic students in higher education, sees the current, disparate and expensive offering of three-year campus based degrees for young people as the optimal way forward. We shall see.

NOTES

All sub-headings are from the writings of Karl Marx.  Congratulations to the Marxist Internet Archive for a very well organized and interesting site.

  1. “The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones” (Marx, German Ideology (1845))
  2. “Language is the immediate actuality of thought” (Marx, German Ideology, Chapter 3 (1846))
  3. “ruthless criticism of all that exists” Marx, Letter from the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher (1843)
  4. “from the world of thought to the actual world”  Marx, German Ideology, Chapter 3 (1846)

Image by PIRO from Pixabay

Dear University…

The change in the UCAS personal statement for September 2026 entry appears to have been welcomed by industry commentators who suggest it will make life “easier” for both author and reader.  The stated ambition “to ensure more people from disadvantaged backgrounds can benefit  from the life-changing opportunity of higher education”  is laudable but one might ask if this approach is best or sustainable.  We could just be opening a new battleground in the struggle for supremacy between AI coders for applicants and those in universities trying to spot the hand of ChatGPT. 

Having read personal statements in the past, I can only begin to imagine the repetition of thought and words across hundreds of applicants as they answer to “why do you want to study this course”.  For applicants the anxiety of how edgy, pushy, obsequious, or data-driven to be in responding to the question remains the same and it will still be considered by a human with their personal interpretation of the best answer.  More efficient but even worse if the response is considered by a bot looking for key words. Perhaps it is time to radically rethink the process. 

Perhaps selecting universities, to put all applicants meeting their requirements (including contextual elements and any other considerations) into a random draw to remove any risk of bias.  For universities struggling to meet enrollment numbers it is difficult to see how bad a personal statement would have to be to get refused if the applicant meets the qualifications criteria for entry.  Either way, the student gets more clarity on what they need to do and an equal chance of success.       

Or maybe universities should be accepting that students are paying for the privilege to study and have a right to apply for whatever course they want if they have the qualifications.  Nobody asks somebody coming in to buy a Range Rover Evoque for £50,000 why they want it, whether they’ve driven one before or what their driving history is.  They might ask to see a driving licence before it’s driven off the lot but that’s about it.

I hear the howls about a degree course being nothing like any other purchase but students seem to be increasingly clear that they are considering degrees as an investment they are making towards a better job, career and life.  UCAS research indicates that “value matters to students” and that “initially, applicants are interested in career prospects after their degree”.  While students still value wellbeing, enjoyment and happiness it would seem there has been a fundamental swing towards outcomes.   

…I Would Like To Apply

With all that in mind there is an opportunity to test drive the new format in the imaginary persona of an applicant who would like to go to university but has been reading very widely about the sector.  They are anxious to explain their interest but also to demonstrate their research, their personality and some of their concerns. There is even an attempt at humour.             

1. Why do you want to study this course or subject?

Because I believe in your publicity that having a degree will get me a good career and well paid job.  That is really what I want. I trust you.  As you will see from my application to your institution I am avoiding the Russell Group and STEM subjects. I realise this means that being from a poorer, socio-economic background and a neglected region I can expect to be part of the statistics showing that “a degree often fails to deliver the promise of increased earnings.” 

Although I’ve chosen to believe that the graduate premium exists, I am a bit worried that there is “a more uncertain future” and ignoring the Government Graduate Labour Market Statistics indicating that over the past 20 years real median graduate salaries have declined faster than those of non-graduates.  I am hoping that reports that it’s even worse outside London1 are all Balls1 and that the indications more and more companies are dropping the requirement for a degree to get a job are overblown. 

I want to come to university to help the sector by improving statistics on one of the groups it struggles to attract and I’ve chosen to study psychology because I am keen to improve gender balance in the class.2 

2. How have your qualifications and studies prepared you for this course or subject?

I am predicted to achieve the grades that you publish and in the right subjects.  My teachers may just be being kind, overworked or avoiding confrontation with my parents but that’s not my fault.  I’m told you’re so desperate I shouldn’t worry about missing by a bit.  Only joking (!) but we have all read the studies that 25% of grades are probably wrong  and that half the students get in with lower grades anyway. 

Post qualification application would solve the uncertainty and anxiety for young people but I appreciate that you have established a system that works for you and will find excuses not to change it.  Maybe it’s just a power thing or you think you’re some sort of magical sorting hat with a campus attached.  If I fail to get the grades I hope I will be given the same opportunity as an international year one student who pays for the privilege to study on campus with direct entrants. 

While on the subject of grades, it would be helpful to know exactly what you are doing about degree grade inflation and why half of first class degrees awarded are unexplained by statistical modelling.  I see you are correcting this but that means I might be penalized by having a lower degree classification than someone who attended in those golden years.

3. What other experiences have prepared you for this course, and why are they relevant?

I complain a lot and so can support that student trend. I can even enhance my global citizenship in line with your strategy by providing support for international students as they are 36% of all complaints to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for HE.  Because I often borrow money from my siblings and never pay it back I’ll cope well with joining the 1.8m graduates with a taxpayer funded debt of over £50,000 and those not earning enough to pay it off.  As I don’t like getting out of bed not attending lectures is OK with me and given the way you’re cutting staff that should help you out. 

I’m quite frugal, so living in borderline poverty shouldn’t be a problem however bad the maintenance loan situation gets.  I am also used to disappointment (having supported Gareth Southgate and England since 2018) which will lessen the pain when I get to the realities of the graduate job hunt.  My empathy is shown by my concern for international students on reading that data collection on graduate outcomes has been cut back which means they have even less insight than I do about job prospects. 

In summary my experience as an intense online gambler, who eats little, never goes out, earns a pittance, borrows heavily, complains a lot, expects to be disappointed and has limited life prospects has prepared me perfectly for life as a student.  Only kidding (again) I really would like the chance to learn.

The Generation Game

For this imaginary student there is a lot to consider in the light of survey research suggesting 30% of people being “broadly uninterested” in universities and a further 27% being “negative” or “sceptical”.  While the culture wars that saw the Conservative Government going head-to-head with the sector in recent years may be over there is little respite in terms of additional funding to reduce the level of fee debt or improve maintenance loans.  As the imaginary statement suggests there seem to be plenty of reasons to worry about whether university is a good investment of time, money and stress.

The weakness in UK undergraduate applications revealed by UCAS this week suggest that this argument might be playing out in the minds not only of 18 year olds but also every group under 25. It’s troubling in the context of a rapidly growing 18 year old cohort that is predicted to expand for the rest of the decade and even more so if surveys suggesting a third of UK students may drop out due to money worries are accurate.

Notes

  1. For those who miss the link the report “Tackling the UK’s regional economic inequality: binding constraints and avenues for policy intervention” is co-authored by Ed Balls whose surname was the punchline to Michael Heseltine’s joke at the Conservative Party Conference in 1995.
  2. It is entirely recognized that the gender imbalance on courses cuts both ways. It is also clear that despite more women than men going to university in the UK there is a huge amount still to be done on gender pay imbalances and equality of opportunity in the workplace. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has explored aspects of the intersection between these factors.

Image by Antonios Ntoumas from Pixabay

Stepping Up or Standing Down

The first thing to say is that I am not Cristiano Ronaldo.  One of us has better cheek bones than Joni Mitchell, appreciates ice baths more than Wim Hof and turned footballing talent into greatness through application and willpower.  The other writes the viewfromabridge.org blog.

As Ronaldo stepped up to take the first penalty in the shoot-out against Slovenia he encapsulated all the best things about leadership, taking responsibility and nerve.  Having had a penalty saved in the course of the game and shed tears just a few minutes before the shoot out, it may have included an element of egotism but it certainly showed self-belief.  It also reminded me of an important professional lessons from my early career.

Three Strikes

I was in month one at ASDA as a Public Relations Officer and finding life hard.  It felt a million miles away from my first job as Press Officer at Tesco where I had established a network and a successful start to my career.  It was my first time living a long way from family or friends and I had no track record of delivery in the new company.

The buyers were a hard-edged, hard-nosed, hard driven group who bargained for every advantage in a company that based its ASDA Price brand on being low-cost.  Both grocery buying and fresh food buying were led by Liverpudlians1 who took no nonsense and no prisoners from either suppliers or new arrivals from the south.  For those familiar with the Liverpool teams over the years it was more Tommy Smith (the “Anfield Iron”) and Ron Yeats (“the Colossus”) than Virgil Van Dijk and Harvey Elliott. 

Being invited to a fresh food buyer meeting to be briefed on an innovation felt like a good moment to assert my skills and dispense my wisdom on all things media related.  The meeting began and was straight down to business with the announcement that ASDA had worked with suppliers and was launching new cheese packaging that was colour-graded and numbered to show strength of flavour from mild to strong.  All eyes turned to me as I was asked about the coverage would be possible when it was launched.

Mistake one was to believe that this was the moment for a treatise on the way the media worked.  Mistake two was to think that cheese grading was not important news and that a competitor might have already beaten us to a similar scheme.  Mistake three was to verbalize those thoughts.  We all know that three strikes and you’re out.

As I finished my lengthy and patronising explanation of why this was not national news all heads pivoted to the Associate Director at the head of the table for the judgement and sentence.  It was brief and dismissive, “I’ll talk to Iain Tweedie in the morning.”  Iain was my boss, who had all the edginess and steel of an ex-Manchester Evening News reporter alongside the smarts to go on to build a global career in a major bank.

My mouth was flapping as I tried to find a way back but I was cut off as the meeting moved on to the next business.  For another hour I was trapped in the room with nobody looking at me let alone commiserating.  As I prepared my resignation letter that night, I was consumed by my failure to perform well, a sense of public humiliation and the belief that there was no hope of redemption.  I may not be Ronaldo but seeing his despair brought it all back.

Stepping Up

Iain Tweedie arrived early but I had been in the office an hour rehearsing my resignation speech and had already handed the letter over and begun explaining when the phone rang.  It was the Associate Director and I hear Iain’s calm tones as he responded, “Well Alan’s here and has been thinking about it overnight.  He’s on his way over with his ideas.” He put the phone down and gave me a one-minute briefing that stayed with me all my life:

  • Explain that you realise you hadn’t taken time to express your recognition of the work people had put into the grading scheme but that you’ve been thinking about ways of getting publicity.
  • Talk about some very big ideas – projecting the ASDA logo on the moon, floating a barge with a huge cheese on it down the Thames past the Houses of Parliament – and say anything is possible if there is sufficient budget and you want to be on the front pages of the national papers.
  • Then shut up, listen to what the Associate Director says and respond with enthusiasm.

The pep talk was a masterclass in accepting responsibility for your actions, showing appreciation for the client and the brief, demonstrating your creativity and ambition while recognizing budgetary constraints, then showing respect for feedback.  He gave me his absolute backing and confidence but left no doubt that it was my personal responsibility to have the conversation. Duly fortified and directed I walked on slightly wobbly legs down the corridor to the Associate Director’s office.

I don’t remember too much of the discussion but I certainly made good on accepting that I hadn’t done very well in the meeting and borrowed the barge idea before closing my mouth and really concentrating.  He said, “All I was really wanting was to get something in the The Grocer for the team and the suppliers”.  For readers unfamiliar with the UK retail scene, The Grocer, is a major trade magazine that would be more than happy to take an ASDA article with quotes from a senior director announcing an innovative cheese grading scheme.

I realised that I had just been given a brief that clarified the audience and the objective. Had I taken the time to ask questions about these vital aspects of communication in the meeting I wouldn’t have had a night of torment. The PR lesson was to start by understanding the job to be done2. Five minutes later I left the office to continue what turned into a successful six years at ASDA and even got invited back a second time as part of the team rebuilding the company after near bankruptcy. 

Looking back, I smile grimly at the overreaction of writing a resignation letter for something so minor but understand the lack of maturity and experience at play.  Nobody held the incident against me and I learnt that from time to time almost everybody has been in a similar situation. Most of all I learnt that even after something feels like a disaster it is rarely game over unless you decide it is. 

All That Matters

So, there you have it.  People talk about getting back on the horse after being thrown or that “it’s not whether you get knocked down, it’s whether you get up”3.  My own favourite aphorism is – all that matters is what you do next – whether it is following success or failure.

Cristiano took a deep breath and placed the ball perfectly into the corner of the net as the first step in Portugal winning the penalty shoot-out.  We will all remember him making a clutch play when he was mentally and physically exhausted. Bom trabalho, Cristiano, but good luck to England in Sunday’s European Championship final.

NOTES

  1. Len McCormick (who went on to become Deputy Chairman at Batley’s cash and carry) led grocery buying, the foundation of ASDA’s price leadership, and David Robinson led fresh food buying at the time.  It’s a long time ago but my best recollection is that they both hailed from Liverpool – if anybody knows better I’m happy to correct the record.
  2. Clayton Christensen’s “theory of jobs to be done” is one of the great, all purpose ideas that every communicator should know. It works as much for internal communications and meetings as for product development and branding. It’s also great for helping put a perspective on personal choices.
  3. There are several versions of this saying but the version quoted here is attributed to Vince Lombardi, head coach & general manager of the Green Bay Packers from 1959-1967.  He is also credited with saying “Fatigue makes cowards of us all” which, in the context of a penalty taken at the end of 120 minutes play, suggests the extent of Ronaldo’s self-discipline and will.

A 71.6 Million Dollar Question and More

US-based film and TV courtroom dramas have been beloved by the British for many decades.  From 12 Angry Men and My Cousin Vinny to The Lincoln Lawyer and Goliath they all seem so much more glamorous and edgy than Kavanagh QC and Rumpole of the Bailey.  But for organizations in the UK higher education sector, closer encounters with US law can be costly in financial or reputational terms, in a land where being separated by the same language may be just one of the problems.

The court case between INTO University Partnerships (INTO) and the University of Florida (USF) began in 2022 and shows no sign of concluding any time soon.  Court filings have now given some insight into the amount of damages that INTO may be seeking.  Set alongside the legal costs, some of which will be considered at a hearing on July 161, there is a lot at stake.

Nearly 30 British universities have been listed as clients in a case bought by the United States of America ex rel HITROST LLC against Study Across the Pond, LLC and John Borhaug last month2.  The allegation is that their arrangements flouted a ban on incentive-based payments and that the defendants “knowingly caused” the universities to make false claims for federal student aid.  While the universities are not listed as defendants there are several issues they might want to consider about contractual arrangements and internal controls, if the Complaint is accurate.

It’s all the more important when the relationship between universities and agents is under closer Government scrutiny. While the sector is trumpeting its Agent Quality Framework (AQF) the concept of self-regulation may not be enough to prevent firmer regulatory oversight. Some issues around the AQF are considered in this blog.

The summaries and comments below should not be taken to imply any views on the merits of the cases or the legal issues involved. These are complex issues so references and links are given for those who wish to delve deeper.  Material is provided in good faith and will be amended if an authoritative source provides more accurate information.          

Runnin’ Down A Dream

The court case between INTO and USF3 has rumbled on since my last update in January 2024 and looks set to run for most of the rest of the year.  The foundations of this dispute were covered in my  first blog on the matter in August 2022. The case is still in the discovery phase and there are regular filings with arguments and counter-arguments from both sides.       

Perhaps the most interesting point is that there is now a dollar amount on the size of damages INTO may be seeking.  A filing by USF on 31 May4 notes “INTO’s damages report, by which it seeks $71.6m in damages…”.  This report is one of two produced by INTO experts, with the other considering the solvency of the joint venture.  USF has served its own expert report “related to damages it has suffered with respect to its counterclaim..”.

One impact of the expert reports is that there has been a request to extend the time for “rebuttal expert reports” from June 17 to July 11 with the 24-day extension then rippling through all other deadlines in the Discovery Schedule.  If agreed, that would lead to a deadline of October 31 for the completion of serving and  rebutting expert reports then filing and hearing dispositive and Daubert motions.  The motion notes that the extended time would also “facilitate the parties’ ability to resolve any open discovery issues..”.

While this continues, INTO is appealing5 against the summary judgement6 of the Court in favour of USF that “the SHA [Stockholder Agreement] terminated once USF sent the letter stating that it terminated the USA [University Services Agreement], a Project Agreement.”  In this judgement the Court made it clear that it was not deciding “..whether USF breached the USA or the duty of good faith and fair dealing when it terminated the USA in April 2022.  Counts II, III, IV, VII, VIII, IX, XII and XIII against USF remain for further disposition.” There seems to be a long way to go.

Do You Want To Know A Secret?

Before getting into some of the lessons and thoughts for universities raised in the Study Across the Pond (SATP) case there are some general and contextual points. The company filed a Certificate of Cancellation with the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in January 2024, citing the termination of business operations as the reason for cancellation. Across the Pond – Study in Britain Limited remains listed at Companies House in the UK with John Borhaug as a director and its website lists 86 UK universities.

The UK listed company is on the British Council Certified Agent database where it is noted “Education providers should seek appropriate legal advice on contracts” which may have some resonance for universities listed in the US proceedings. The database links back to the British Universities International Universities Association (BUILA) who worked with the British Council, Universities UK and UKCISA to establish the UK Agent Quality Framework (AQF). Unofrtunately, but perhaps symbolically, The Good Practice Guide for Providers Using Education Agents, link on the BUILA site leads to a 404 error page.

It is claimed that “Nearly all universities in the UK have now signed up..” for the AQF but as far as I am able to find no list of signatories exists which is hardly an aid to transparency for students. We know from Enroly that their partner Bangor University is one of them (more on that below) but this should be well-signposted information that is freely available. There are the usual signs here of a sector that would like to be left to self-regulate but which is less than well organized or communicative once the initial excitement and headlines caused by the announcement of a new initiative have passed.

Money Changes Everything

The Study Across the Pond (SATP) and John Borhaug case was covered by The PIE in early May and lists UK universities7 who were clients of SATP and “participated in federal student aid programs under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, and presented at least one claim for payment from those programs to the Department of Education between January 1, 2015, and the present.” Essentially, incentive/commission payments to agents are not allowed if a student is receiving federal student aid. While the universities are not defendants the allegations contain several pointers towards potential gaps in university processes, checks and balances.

Any case where there is a suspicion that universities “made false statements” or “withheld information” to independent auditors must be taken seriously.  Assertions that the institutions were submitting “false and fraudulent” claims to the US Department of Education which were “actively violating the Incentive Compensation Ban” should be ringing alarm bells at the most senior levels. Issues around internal financial controls, fake contracts and purchasing disciplines are at stake even before you get to potential reputational damage.

One of the more detailed examples involves Bangor University.  The Complaint suggests that in February 2019 the university agreed to pay commission to SATP for recruiting students, including those from the United States.  It is alleged that in early 2020 the University asked if it could put a ‘Marketing Agreement’ in place for the US “in case of audit by [the Department of Education]” with the agreement presented as being a flat rate while accepting that the amount payed would be “the equivalent of what commission would have been.” 

In March 2022 the university was considering what material to provide the Department of Education as part of its re-certification application.  The Complaint asserts that “Bangor University’s Head of International Recruitment told that employee not to send the Department the original 2019 tuition-sharing contract with defendant Study Across the Pond.”  It is claimed that this document was not sent, “effectively hiding its incentive compensation arrangement with the Defendants from the Department of Education.”

While several universities appear to have queried the legality of commission payments in the context of the Incentive Compensation Ban they seem to have accepted the word of SATP who, “consistently advised foreign schools, including the Defendants’ Clients, that their activities were not subject to the Incentive Compensation Ban.” However, the universities with concerns were invited to enter into “sham contracts” that purported to provide an annual fee for general marketing and promotion with the proviso that “the annual fee happens to be the equivalent of ‘commission’ on any students on the lists who actually enrolled.”  Phrases like “play it safe”, “in case of audit” and “..as long as we (university and [S]ATP) understand how the annual amount is calculated then that’s all that matters, since it won’t be written into a contract of any kind” were allegedly used in communications.  

This type of language should have been troubling for the international office teams and any senior university officials they discussed contracts with. If the universities were acting in good faith in accepting SATP’s advice about their status as not being subject to the Ban there would seem to be no reason for changing the contract. Changing the contract to deliberately obscure the basis of the payments seems a slippery slope which seems difficult to justify.

Finance Directors in the institution may be asking how payment was being signed off and by who when a “fixed fee” contractual sum became a different amount to match the unwritten commission payment.  This seems an inevitable consequence of the arrangements put in place.  It may also be interesting to watch whether the US Department of Education allows universities that, it is alleged, participated in this behaviour to continue to be certified in the context of the Direct Loan Program.

NOTES

All the sub-headings are song titles from songs. Sequentially, the original artists were Tom Petty (as a solo artist), the Beatles (written by Lennon and McCartney but sung by George Harrison), and The Brains (although probably better known for the cover version by Cyndi Lauper).

  1. Filing # 198160868 E-Filed 05/13/2024 12:07:44 PM
  2. Case 1:21-cv-10274-ADB in the United States District Court for the District of Massachussets
  3. The terms INTO and University of South Florida are used as short forms for the range of corporate plaintiffs and defendants. Full details and all public documents reference in this blog can be found through https://hover.hillsclerk.com/html/case/caseSearch.html the Hillsborough County Clerk of Courts search facility. Insert 22 for the year, CA-Circuit Civil for the Court type and 006001 for the case number.
  4. Filing # 199628319 E-Filed 05/31/2024 05:41:44 PM
  5. Filing # 198701412 E-Filed 05/20/2024 02:01:54 PM
  6. Order Granting Summary Judgement. January 31, 2024
  7. The full list is Aberystwyth University, Bangor University, University of Brighton, Cardiff University, University of Chester, University of East Anglia, Edinburgh Napier University, University of Essex, University of Exeter, University of Greenwich, University of Hertfordshire, University of Kent, Kingston University, University of Lancaster, University of Leeds, University of Leicester, University of Lincoln, University of Liverpool, Loughborough University, Oxford Brookes University, University of Reading, University of Sheffield, University of Southampton, University of Stirling, University of Strathclyde, Swansea University, University of Winchester, and University of York.  

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Roll on up for the greatest show in UK higher education

Text first published in University World News (08 June 2024)

The roller coaster ride of political fortune and its impact on international student recruitment continues to create a feeling of instability in higher education sectors across the globe. With talk of banning ‘Mickey Mouse degrees’ a feature of United Kingdom Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s opening week of pre-election policy statements, the amusement park comparisons seem increasingly apt.

Particularly so when universities around the world seem addicted to pursuing gravity-defying, adrenaline-fuelled recruitment targets where the risks may increasingly outweigh the benefits.

More troubling is the possibility that the failure of universities to engage sufficiently to gain widespread public support has left them open to increasing levels of political game-playing and interference.

In several countries the fundamental value of universities and degree-level education is being questioned as never before and the intersection with immigration policy has become a toxic mix.

Where these problems are compounded by economic difficulties and a disinterested or increasingly hostile public, there is a real need for institutions to avoid being seen as theme parks run by the aloof, rich and privileged.

A Very British problem?

Universities around the UK have been finding it difficult to know whether to groan about the ending of dependant visas for postgraduate students or cheer as the Migration Advisory Committee and government confirmed that the Graduate Route to post-study work remained
open.

Politicians are sending conflicting messages, with Lord Cameron, the foreign secretary, saying: “There’s no limit on the number that can come” and aligning with Lord Bilimoria who called for ‘one million [international] students’.

Meanwhile, Lord Jo Johnson, an ex-education secretary and chair of FutureLearn whose seat on the Apply Board advisory board gives him a wider range of perspectives, cautioned: “The economic benefits are not enough to offset wider political concerns.”

In a recent blog, I drew several comparisons between the current dynamics in the UK and the themes of the 1987 British cult classic film Withnail and I. Critically, one character says: “Politics, man. If you’re hanging onto a rising balloon, you’re presented with a difficult decision. Let go before it’s too late or hang on and keep getting higher, posing the question: how long can you keep a grip on the rope?”

Some institutions are a long way from the ground, with the University of Hull, as just one example, registering a year-on-year increase of 1,207% (from 70 to 915) in students from Nigeria in 2021-22.

The folly of relying on continued growth at such pace is clear. Even before the restrictions on dependant visas, it was evident that some Russell Group institutions could not compete for recruitment from key markets with their better-placed peers in the group. They will be forced to hunt further afield for students and their presence will bring harsh competition for universities further down the feeding chain.

This comes at a time when recent agent surveys by INTO have indicated that the UK’s relative attractiveness, compared to the United States and Australia, has declined substantially since 2021.

The 65% year-on-year decline in the Nigerian naira against the UK pound has put a far more serious dent in recruitment than the loss of dependant visas.

A growing propensity for students from China to consider alternative countries and the affordability advantages of nations outside the big four recruiting countries are a growing drain on valuable sources of student interest.

Successive generations of international officers have found that economic swings are par for the course. The decline of the Tiger Economies in the late 1990s was a significant factor and there have always been ebbs and flows in national currencies, government sponsorship and other factors.

It seems possible, however, that we are now seeing more fundamental and long-lasting change and that the era of, what some consider, academic imperialism is in an accelerating doom loop.

Sticking plasters for structural failures

A subplot, as reported in University World News in March, has been the announcement by over 50 British universities of cutbacks and redundancies, which created an unlikely alliance between unions and university bosses seeking additional government funding.

However, the BBC noted this week that “universities in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire have spent over £100 million [US$128 million] making more than 6,000 staff redundant since 2015”. That raises the reasonable question as to whether some institutions with long-term declines in attracting domestic students because of courses, locations and-or poor management, have used international fees as a sticking plaster to cover wounds requiring surgery.

It’s a complex situation where the fundamental structure of UK higher education and its funding are coming under closer scrutiny. With political and public support far from guaranteed, this has led some voices in the sector to suggest that a more constructive approach would be to recognise and respond to broader concerns and constraints.

Professor Wendy Alexander, vice-principal (international) at the University of Dundee, suggested a need to be more “self-reflective”; David Pilsbury of Oxford International Education Group has said that “we still talk to ourselves too much”; and Chris Husbands, former vice-chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University has cautioned that “we can’t expect to be given more simply to carry on doing the things we are doing”.

Before the announcement of an election and the removal of a threat to the Graduate Route, the sector seemed willing to consider these points. Subsequently, it has gone very quiet on issues such as data transparency, grade inflation and preferential treatment for international students with lower A-level grades or equivalents.

This seems a retrograde step at a point when the Conservative Party is campaigning on a platform that could close down one in eight university courses and the Labour leader has clarified a political choice to fund the NHS rather than reduce or eliminate tuition fees.

It Could Be Worse

Despite all of the above, it seems possible that the relief provided by an intact Graduate Route combined with visa issues and poor publicity in Australia and Canada could come to the rescue of the UK.

Research has shown that students are applying to more countries and it is likely that they are willing to hold out on decision-making until the last possible minute.

The US stepping up its game in terms of visa meetings in India may be another fly in the ointment for competitor countries, although there are late-breaking rumours of a deterioration in recruitment from India that will be bad news for everyone.

If the UK sector has been on a roller coaster ride, both Australian and Canadian institutions could probably make a case that they have whiplash from hastily introduced and poorly considered policies. It all seemed so promising for Australia when the Universities Accord report was produced in February 2024 and seemed to produce exactly the sort of long-term framework universities would prefer to guide decision-making.

However, Mark Scott, vice-chancellor of the University of Sydney, immediately noted that, despite underfunding being acknowledged, “it is perplexing that the only revenue-raising measure proposed is a tax on universities themselves”.

Since then, the destabilising Draft International Education and Skills Strategic Framework, with a cap on international enrolments from January 2025, has drawn strong criticism and both major parties have been competing in their anti-immigration rhetoric, with international student recruitment caught in the crossfire.

Actions on “non-genuine students”, spikes in visa rejections, changes to students’ proof of savings, threats of “significant” rises in visa fees and arguments over the impact of international students on housing availability are just some of the issues. It’s a potent cocktail that can be nothing but damaging for recruitment.

In Canada, the January 2024 federal government announcement of a two-year intake cap on international student recruitment was balanced by the exclusion of postgraduate students and the availability of an extended three-year post-graduation work permit.

There seemed little doubt that the changes mitigated against private colleges and the doubling of the cost of living requirement for students was an overdue but unwelcome addition. Had it ended there it seems possible that the storm may have blown over.

But the underlying tensions about routes to permanent residency flared again in May, with Prince Edward Island’s changes to the process leading to protests and even hunger strikes.

As with Australia, there have been, at federal and provincial level, assertions about rapid international student growth bringing “… pressure on housing, health care and other services”.

Little wonder that IDP’s Emerging Futures research from March 2024 suggested that Canada had suffered most in terms of student popularity at that time.

IDP’s research also pointed to the US becoming the top-choice destination for the first time and being the top choice for prospective students considering changing their choice of study destination.

After issuing more student visas in India in 2023 than ever before, the US embassy in India started two weeks earlier this year and increased capacity to meet demand. The US for Success Coalition is mounting a letter writing campaign urging Congress to “improve student visa processing delays and high denial rate in the Global South”.

Castles in the air or feet on the ground?

The three recruiting countries reaching levels of international student intake that are a material percentage of overall recruitment and tuition fee income seem to have reached a tipping point where government attention is increasingly focused on economic, social and political consequences.

Anti-immigration rhetoric, perhaps driven by genuine public concern, is one aspect of this, but there is a broader sense that the role of higher education in a country’s broader economic and workforce planning cannot be left to an untidy aggregation of autonomous, self-governing organisations.

Institutions must take care not to allow themselves to be positioned as educational amusement parks where ivory towers have replaced magic castles and attracting more, higher-paying customers has become more important than their domestic stakeholders.

Alan Preece is an expert in global education, business transformation and operational management and runs the blogging site View from a Bridge.

Image by Pasi Mämmelä from Pixabay

UK Higher Education – A Stopped Clock

One of the most poignant moments in film is when Withnail says goodbye to Marwood1.  In the final scene we have Marwood refusing a drink and Withnail, ever the actor and alcoholic, drinking straight from a wine bottle and delivering a soliloquy to the wolves in Regents Park before walking away in the rain.  The future for both is uncertain. 

I was reminded of this as Rishi Sunak declined to take a last swig of right-wing courage by ending the Graduate Route but decided, even as the heavens opened, that it was time to say goodbye and face an uncertain future.  Meanwhile, the UK university sector has its umbrella, has raged at a largely disinterested public, considers itself “noble in reason” and “infinite in faculties”2, yet remains addicted to international student fee income.  One can imagine vice chancellors and finance directors breathing a collective sight of relief and reiterating the international recruitment version of, “I must have some booze. I demand to have some booze.”3

We want the finest wines available to humanity. And we want them here, and we want them now!

There has been much rejoicing in universities around the UK.  Looking forward it seems that the election will allow sufficient cover for another bumper year of international recruitment as the UK looks to be in slightly better shape for late-breaking students than either Canada or Australia.  Institutions with long-term declines in attractiveness because of courses, location and/or poor management will have the sticking plaster of international fees to cover the bleeding away of domestic students. 

Cover will be extended into the next few years because, on current performance, HESA probably won’t report on 2024/25 enrollments until the recruitment cycle for 2026 is nearly over.  One can also predict that the sector will lose its recent enthusiasm for better, faster data in its headlong rush to smoke the Camberwell Carrot4 of international student fee income.  They might even say the recruitment equivalent of, “All right, this is the plan. We get in there and get wrecked, then we’ll eat a pork pie, then we’ll drop a couple of Surmontil-50’s each. That means we’ll miss out Monday but come up smiling Tuesday morning.”5

There is even encouragement from that scion of poor political and lobbying judgement Lord Cameron whose statement that “there’s no limit on the number that can come” suggest he knows he will never bear Government responsibility again.  This is the David Cameron who, as Prime Minister, led the closure of the post-study work visa in April 2012 and took the calamitous decision to hold a referendum on Brexit.  He and ‘one million students’ Lord Bilimoria can sit harmoniously and enjoy their time together on the benches of the Lords unless Labour gets a second term.      

A pair of quadruple whiskies and another pair of pints, please.

The opportunity to continue recruiting at breakneck speed will be a mighty relief also to some of those universities who have found that their bigger and better placed competitors are continuing to build share.  We are likely to see a widening divide in the Russell Group, where the ability of some to take a greater share of the relatively static market in China will lead others in the Group to look elsewhere for volume.  In turn, this will mean that universities further down the pecking order will have to search wider and deeper in order to achieve the recruitment targets.

Another of the famous lines from Withnail and I is from Danny, who says, “Politics, man. If you’re hanging onto a rising balloon, you’re presented with a difficult decision. Let go before it’s too late or hang on and keep getting higher, posing the question: how long can you keep a grip on the rope?”  We have reached a point where universities have hold of the rising balloon of international student fee income and it will get further and further from the ground.  Without a crisis there is little merit or benefit for a government under economic pressure elsewhere to come to the table and discuss structural issues around funding and fee levels.

But at some point the tether breaks, the grip weakens or the balloon bursts.  It is not uncommon for parties to swing further to political extremes when they have lost an election and most of the signs are of the Conservative’s veering further right and their anti-immigration rhetoric being the basis for the next tilt at power.  Universities might want to consider whether a more measured approach to student recruitment, a better level of engagement in explaining the benefits to the public and a more transparent and timely approach to data as some defence if a more reactionary Government emerges in the future.    

Free to those that can afford it, very expensive to those that can’t

While the continuance of the graduate route has been positioned as good for international students, this is a partial view driven largely by the vested interest universities have in on campus presence.  High physical infrastructure costs and debt servicing have always hampered the willingness to develop of genuinely flexible delivery through transnational education and use of technology.  Several have argued that the higher education system championed by the developed economies is part of academic imperialism rather than a model based on equity, respect or diversity.

Every international office knows that economic swings in most countries where international students are found can have a significant impact on applications, enrollments and debtors.  The decline of the Tiger Economies in the late 1990s was a significant factor and we are seeing the fall in in the Nigerian naira have almost as much impact as the shift in dependent visas policy.  International recruitment is a financial roller coaster designed for those with strong stomachs who are usually looking for those with the biggest wallets.

That’s the real reason that the growth of International Year One has become so important to pathway operators and by dint of second and third year fees to universities.  The growth in international markets where students with inadequate grades for direct entry are willing to pay for a first year on campus is an open goal for institutions and commercial operators.  Access is certainly free for those that can afford it but denied to those domestic students who are barred from similar privilege.

We are indeed, drifting into the arena of the unwell… making an enemy of our own future…

A number of commentators have reflected that the sector has allowed itself to become a convenient political fall-guy and some voices have even called for greater self-reflection, better engagement and more thought on international student outcomes.   Economic factors would suggest there is little prospect of greater direct funding even if a government better disposed to the sector is in power come July.  The answer must surely lie in the sector taking the initiative to engage more effectively in constructive discussions about the shape and size of the sector as well as engaging more effectively with the public.

In Withnail and I, Marwood makes the comment, “What we need is harmony, fresh air, stuff like that.”  It’s good advice for the sector to seek renewed dialogue as well as new ideas that might leave it in a better place for the inevitable moment that the political pendulum swings again.  As we learn from the different endings in the film and the novel it is always possible to change the narrative if you have the will.   

NOTES

The title is from Marwood’s quote in ‘Withnail and I’ where he notes that even a stopped clock, although broken, gives the right time twice a day.  All sub-headings are quotes from the film ‘Withnail and I’1

  1. ‘Withnail and I’ is a 1987 British film focusing on two unemployed actors.   The film is an adaptation of an unpublished novel written by Bruce Robinson who also wrote and directed the film.
  2. The quotes are from Withnail’s soliloquy which is taken from Act 2, Scene 2 of Hamlet.
  3. By Withnail in ‘Withnail and I’
  4. In the film a Camberwell Carrot is explained by Withnail as, “The joint I am about to roll requires a craftsman and can utilize up to twelve spliffs. It is called a Camberwell Carrot…I invented it in Camberwell and it’s shaped like a carrot.”  It has great potency.
  5. By Withnail in ‘Withnail and I’

Image by Łukasz Dyłka from Pixabay

MAC Review with No Chips at Graduate Route

No doubt at all that the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) Rapid Review of the Graduate Route and its recommendation of “retaining the Graduate route in its current form” is good news for the UK higher education sector.  But amid the sound of high-fiving and back slapping from universities and sector bodies a close read of the Review still leaves scope for Government mischief making.  It should also be remembered that MAC’s recommendations of 2018 on a “more restrictive post-study work route” of 6 months for Master’s students was largely ignored. 

Political antennae will be twitching at the sound of Robert Jenrick’s post that “if you order white paint, you get a whitewash” and MAC has left a few open goals if James Cleverly chooses to score with his party’s right wing.  There’s an open invitation to leverage the sector “to support the government’s desired labour market objectives for the route” which could mean manipulation of Student visas as well as Graduate Route visas. He will also have his eyes on the year-on-year visa announcement of Immigration System statistics on 23 May as he considers the next steps.

Sticking to the Exam Question

The Review chose to largely confine itself narrowly to the question about the Graduate Route and declined to take the bait on some associated issues.  In doing so, however, it may have offered a road map for the Home Secretary to thank it for its work, accept the plaudits around the dependent visa reductions and then pursue a new quarry – the student visa.  He can diminish recruitment at source while celebrating that the Government’s introduction of the graduate route was correct.

The quoted objectives of the Graduate Route are so benign and wooly that it is difficult to know what to make of them:

  • “Enhance the offer to international students..ensure the UK remains internationally competitive”
  • “Retention of talent..enabling employers to recruit skilled graduates…contribut to the UK economy”
  • “Increase the number of international students in higher education…increase the value of education exports”

Of course, the Graduate Route achieves those aims because almost any competitive post-study work offering would.  What MAC notes in several passages is that changes to the student visa (such as dependent visas) are where the action is.  Yet on page 32 they are keen specify “we did not examine distinct abuse of the Student route and note that the government did not ask us to do so.” There seems to be a decent signpost for Cleverly if he chooses to follow it.

There May Be Trouble Ahead

If one was looking for trouble and reading between the lines, one can see where the Minister may choose to take guidance from the Report.  Specifically, there may be ways of managing Student route visas to give preference to high-ranking universities (however defined), supporting specific geographical locations, penalising institutions recruiting students who seek asylum and controlling the role of agents.   

  • MAC declined to engage in any assessment of whether the route secured the “brightest and the best” but nodded to the High Potential Individual visa use of league table rankings in its provider groupings while noting that “international postgraduates from lower globally ranked universities are more likely to go on to the Graduate route.”  Explicitly it says, “If the government’s aim is to retain bright international students… and by this they mean those who attend universities ranked the highest globally, then this data suggests that the Graduate route may not be attracting the global talent defined in this way.”

Other areas for caution or limited support in reflecting the value of international students are where MAC:

  • indicated that the data suggests  “students may be moving to London for work after graduating from universities in other parts of the UK”.  In that respect there may be limited evidence for international graduates contributing to any levelling up agendas;
  • reflected the difficulty of determining numbers in employment but showed a 79% match rate for Graduate visa holders and HMRC records and 68% as PAYE employees.  They caution that neither is comparable to a “normal” employment calculation.  Some would argue that this leaves some 20-30% whose employment status is, at best, unknown. It was quickly seized upon by some Conservative party commentators;
  • suggested they are “likely [to] make a small positive net fiscal contribution” which would suggest this is not a key issue for government consideration despite the efforts of the sector to suggest otherwise;
  • noted the “recent reports of an increase in asylum applications” but indicating that is an issue the government should address directly if it is a concern.     

On direct abuse there is some damning with faint praise. Basically the Review notes that there are almost no rules to be abused (which could be seen as a sign of laxness) and limited data to track whether they are overstaying. Comments include:

  • “limited number of criteria a student needs to meet to apply”,  “few restrictions for what those on the route are allowed to do in the UK” and “beyond refusal rates, there are no quantitative data sources”
  • “little evidence available on the numbers who are overstaying their visa length. The Home Office was unable to provide data on the rate of overstaying on the Graduate route.”

The biggest issue related to the potential exploitation of international students by recruitment agents “when applying under the Student route”.  This is a departure from the rest of the Review because MAC decides to very explicitly link the selling of the Graduate Route as a lure for students joining the Student Route.  They claim that HE providers and student representatives at roundtables agreed “regulation would strengthen the ability to eliminate the exploitation of students by bad actors.” 

A more heavy-handed regulation, particularly as MAC included both agents and subagents in the discussion could make for interesting times for commercial operations associated with universities.  While MAC noted that 57% of HE providers (responding to a Home Office survey) used student recruitment agents this would be 100% for aggregators and pathways.  With the growth of direct recruitment relationships with pathways operators the ownership of any quality and oversight obligations is likely to come even more under scrutiny.

Steady As She Goes (For Now)

If the government wanted MAC to provide it with hard evidence to close the Graduate Route down the gambit has failed and the sector can breathe a sigh of relief.  Short of a blatant, politically motivated disregard for the advice given and the evidence base produced the best presentation is to take the applause for introducing the Route and ensuring a globally competitive sector.  The window of opportunity for the current government to act is rapidly closing and without a clear steer from MAC it is difficult to see what the political upside is to radically changing the Graduate Route.

MAC has also provided the government with what it will consider political good news, in saying that the ban on foreign students bringing dependents was having a far bigger impact than expected.  Anything that gives Sunak a “fighting chance” of reducing net migration levels below 2019 levels before the election is likely to be received with open arms.  It’s probably a stronger case than arguing about the growing dependency of universities on foreign students.

After all that it seems appropriate to thank Professor Brian Bell and his colleagues for a decent job done in very short order and apparently without bias towards past observations.  The Review has highlighted some other aspects of student recruitment that are less palatable and it would be good if the sector took that seriously.  Perhaps some universities could also consider this a warning to moderate their approach to enrolment growth.  

Image by Enoch111 from Pixabay

Beware the Ides of MAC

Aficionados of ancient Rome will know that every month had an Ides. For March, May, July and October it fell on the 15th of the month while for the rest of the year it was the 13th. The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) Review of the Graduate Route is due to report on the 14th of May so it seems possible the detail will become clearer the next day.1

Some predict a ritual and metaphorical assassination of the higher education sector to suit the political aims of the Conservative government. It is certainly likely to be a day when, just as in ancient Rome, debts become due. Will MAC deserve the line “Et tu Brutus” from the sector if it echoes, “I come to bury Caesar not to praise him”, in its thinking on the graduate route?

The announcement of the Review led to some frantic rearguard action from the higher education sector which was cut out of the usual, drawn-out Call for Evidence, at a point when the Government needs to reassert its credibility on immigration ahead of an election. There may be some glimmers of hope but the politics seem to be overwhelmingly negative. It comes when the sector is beset by other negative stories and some well-respected voices are suggesting it is time to accept there are problems that need dealing with.

Last Throw of the Dice

It is difficult to know whether the effort from Kaplan, HEPI and the NUS to produce “The Exchequer benefits and costs associated with the Graduate Route visa” in advance of MAC’s publication is going to help. The main argument seems to be that MAC would be remiss in not taking into account the tax return from increasing numbers of international students entering the workforce on the Graduate Route. At a single stroke the students resolve the sector’s funding issues and become a part of the solution to the UK’s debt problems.

We didn’t really need a long and technical paper to tell us that if people go into the workplace they pay tax and contribute to the Exchequer and that if you have more of them they pay more. What the paper doesn’t say is that a logical extension of this self-serving argument would be that if the period of post-study work was extended to five years or even indefinitely, international graduates would pay even more tax. It’s unspoken because, while more years of post study work would probably attract even more international students to UK universities, it would make the student visa look more like a route to residency which most agree is politically unacceptable.

One eye catching and unhelpful point about the report is that it estimates 21% of the Graduate Route visa holders are not in paid employment. That seems a big number and some might suggest that the number is even larger because those not in employment are less likely to respond to being asked their status. It will be interesting to see if MAC has got the linking of HMRC and visa records to give more insight.

A Government, of whatever political persuasion, is more likely to believe that if there are jobs to be filled the better answer is to deal with the UK’s long-term sickness issues.2 At a single stroke you reduce the cost of welfare, get the tax benefit of having more people in work and don’t have to pay the political price of relying on overseas workers. Both main parties know, from the sector’s own research, that the majority of the British public want the same or fewer international students.

Glimmers of Hope

Even if the Report doesn’t go a long way towards changing anybody’s mind there are other straws to cling to. Much has been made of the decline in student visas issued in the first quarter of 2024 being a strong signal for the Government not to “overcorrect” on the issue by taking further action. The Home Office deadpanned by saying that, “the full effect of recent policy changes and any other impacts” would not be known until the peak in applications in August and September.

The decline in dependent visas is a big headline number but commentators including Dave Amor have noted dependent visas are only back to 2021 levels and while main applicants are down “applications without dependents sounds like they are up.” There is also the impact of the decline in Nigeria’s currency driving some of the changes. For a Government under pressure from its own back-benches on immigration it seems unlikely the numbers are down enough.

In that respect, the timing of the MAC review is interesting in that Cleverly demanded a mid-May response without any clear or evident reason. It may be that he plans to take its recommendations and use them, either positively or negatively, for a publicity blitz around the release of the “Immigration system statistics, year ending March 2024” scheduled for 9.30am on 23 May, 2024. The platform provided by the first quarter figures, the MAC review, and then the yearly figures is a decent campaigning rhythm to reinforce his statement that “Over the coming months, we will continue to show the pace of our progress as we deliver the control the public rightly expect.” It may even be the first bit of positioning for a post-election leadership run.

Let’s Get Cynical

The politics of the matter seem simple and the defection of Tory MP Natalie Elphicke to Labour with the accusal, “It’s clear they [the Tory government] have failed to keep our borders secure and cannot be trusted” will only have hardened the lines. The imperative is to retake control of the immigration debate, challenge Labour’s position ahead of the general election and perhaps even reduce their flexibility if they form the next Government. The interests of the higher education sector do not even feature in that calculation.

The last Labour government has long been known for leaving the infamous note for the incoming Chancellor, “I’m afraid there is no money”. It haunted them in future elections and it is doubtful that the Conservatives will make the same mistake. Far better to hand Labour an impoverished sector and draw a distinctive line on post-study work rights that makes it even harder to patch over gaps in funding with international student fee revenue.

So, the Conservative’s would gain twice by limiting post-study work. The immediate gain is the impression of firm government, a populist stance on a divisive issue and a sop to the troublesome right wing of the party. In the longer term, presuming an election loss, it hands the incoming Government a significant and worsening university funding situation with limited room for maneuver without seeming soft on immigration.

Pathway Woes

Almost a sideshow for now are the other reviews set in motion when the Sunday Times set a hare running with its slightly ill-formed attack on international pathways. Universities UK leapt into action with a review by the Quality Assurance Agency that seems likely to report in June 2024 (if the link with the scope is correct). The Department of Education was instructed to “investigate allegations of bad practice by agents” although it’s a little difficult to find when any outcome is expected.

Pathway operators and by default universities could really do with the reviews not hampering the growth of International Year One programmes or requiring significant policing of agent activity. Times are tough enough already. Evidence of that came with the completion of reporting from INTO’s joint venture portfolio showing that INTO enrollments were still 23.6% down on 2018 for continuing joint venture businesses.

In a previous iteration of this graph in another blog and before reporting from INTO University of East Anglia, I had presumed that the joint venture would have made some progress in 2022/23. In reality there was a further collapse from 310 to 241 students year on year which puts it 62.8% down on 2018. The only bright spot was that the wholly owned Manchester operation hit record high numbers in the year.

Source: INTO Joint Venture Annual Reports

The success of INTO Manchester seems ironical given the probability that Navitas was favourite for the £150m Embedded International Study Center contract at Manchester Metropolitan University. Uncertainties around UK international student visas seem likely to have held up further progress at a point when Navitas must already have been smarting at losing the University of Leicester and University of Northampton as partners. Evidence of another pathway operator with some issues to resolve is Kaplan at the University of York.

Just for completeness, on what some consider the ‘big four’, are the problems at Study Group which were exacerbated by the Daily Mail singling them out in a front page splash as sponsoring 804 student who then claimed asylum. The Mail makes much of the “secret Home Office database” as the source of the story but at least as far back as March 2023 the UK Visas and Immigration Study Sector Brief was noting the trend. Any suggestion student visas are being subverted in order to secure a permanent place in the UK will be used as further evidence the sector is out of control.

Voices of (T)reason

In that context there was a small breath of fresh air from Professor Wendy Alexander at the recent International Higher Education Forum conference in May 2024. She is reported as urging the sector, “We really need to be a little more self-reflective about it. The first way to build trust is to concede there was a problem..”. In that respect she echoes a broader point made by ex-Sheffield Hallam vice chancellor, Professor Chris Husbands, who in July 2023 was suggesting the sector was in danger of “tacitly defending a system that it knows is not sustainable.”

Jo Johnson and Vivienne Stern have also been talking the language of avoiding “over-correction” and “serious overcorrection” which seems to be code for accepting that a correction was reasonable and maybe an acceptance that the sector has lost the argument for the status quo. Slightly off-topic but it was amusing to see Johnson suggesting that the Teaching Excellence Framework should be the guiding light for allowing universities to raise domestic fees. Of 228 universities in TEF 2023 only three were ranked as “requires improvement” overall (11 were requiring improvement on student experience and 9 on student outcomes). Basically, he meant all universities.

Tom Petty suggested that “the waiting is the hardest part” but there is good reason to think that the reality might become even tougher after May 14th. Even then, the sector’s problems aren’t all about international tuition fee revenue even though it has offered a sticking plaster for a few years. The old stock market dictum “sell in May then go away, don’t come back until St Leger’s Day” is a good idea for anyone considering UK universities or university pathway operators as a good bet. Come September some of the dust will have cleared and we may even be seeing the election warming up with policy statements on the future shape and size of higher education.

NOTES

  1. It doesn’t really matter if not. The headline just had to be written and justified.
  2. Both parties are focusing on the issue of the growth in long-term sickness and solutions are likely to form part of the election agenda. The Conservatives, not surprisingly, are calling it as ‘sick note culture’ while Labour has accepted that a problem exists and is “..threatening the future of the sustainability of our finances and the future of our public services”

Image by Gino Crescoli from Pixabay