Month: May 2022

Return to normality: Is it crunch time for aggregators?

Co-authored article featured in University World News on 28 May 2022.

If anyone doubts the determination of the international recruitment specialists to get back to business as usual, they are not paying much attention to their LinkedIn feed.

Every day brings a new outpouring of gratitude to be in an airport, in a hotel and in an agent’s office. All the things that had been workaday and vaguely dull are suddenly born anew as if a winter of cold comfort has given way to a recruitment spring of enormous promise.

With the first in-person NAFSA (Association of International Educators) annual conference of the new era starting this week, the international community will be out in force and willing to share stories about the value of personal engagement and the important role it plays in differentiating one institution from another.

They will reflect that a parent about to send a sheltered 18-year-old across oceans, thousands of miles away, is likely to need a little personal reassurance as to their offspring’s well-being. Talk will turn to whether the aggregators are really adding enough value to lead the way in the post-pandemic world.

For the aggregators, the return of in-person activity has been a little like Count Dracula encountering the sunrise. In Bram Stoker’s original novel, the Count was not destroyed by the light but it significantly reduced his powers to shapeshift, to appear to defy gravity and to convert others into his helpless vampire followers with a single bite.

It may be that the sunlight of personal contact, renewed travel and a good working knowledge of the limitations of technology has made the aggregators look less like the best game in town.

Second best?

Aggregators, virtual study portals, algorithms, artificial intelligence, blockchain and machine learning are also suffering the same fate as masks and social distancing: they were essential and sometimes mandated during the early part of the pandemic, but are now in many cases matters of choice and in some countries have become very much second best to personal contact.

The other problem is that some of the promises made about streamlining, reach and volume enrolments are looking increasingly like strategies to lure venture capitalists into investments under the edtech buzzword.

Universities, admissions experts and experienced recruiters are well aware that applications overload has become a significant problem despite aggregator efforts to sift initial interest.

They realise that agents and students are increasingly encouraged to play the field because aggregators make it easy to load multiple applications to dozens of universities. They have even worked out that the search function on the portal is of no use to an institution if they end up on page 15, as one of hundreds of similar options thrown up by broad search terms.

The thing is that technology can always be purchased, improved and-or replicated, and a glance through the aggregator and study portals does little to suggest that any of them have created a product that offers a sustainable differentiation or competitive edge.

On the other hand, personal relationships have been the bedrock of international recruitment for several decades and it is easier to bolt on technology than recreate a road warrior with a well-earned reputation for delivering, for students. Larger agents have also invested for years in building a presence that is physically close to and trusted by generations of entire families.

The competition

The future will necessitate investment in ‘high touch’ as much as ‘high tech’ and we have already seen aggregators trumpeting their moves into new countries with associated offices to try to reinforce their local credibility and accountability.

But infrastructure and good people are expensive, not to mention hard to find and they are coming from behind compared to the many long-term players who have already built their organisations around the globe.

One example is the way INTO launched three University Access Centres before the pandemic and is planning up to 25 by the end of 2023 to supplement its 25 regional offices around the globe.

There is nothing to suggest that INTO and other pathway operators can’t ramp up their ‘common apps’, partner portals and automated admissions processes to a point where they have the technology to complement their long term in-market strength.

The pathways also have the proven ability to engage with universities, negotiate terms and have been through familiarisation visits that give them real credibility when talking to parents, students and agents.

Over the past couple of years there has been a rush to supplement pathway recruitment with direct recruitment and it may be that the post-pandemic era sees this maturing as a full-service offer.

Employability support

A significant differentiator for the aggregators and the wider edtech ecosystem could be international employability.

We have already seen the pathway operators taking the first steps in responding to the demonstrable international student demand with some offering paid for ‘employability support’ in addition to the fees they charge for the pathway programmes. Plus, the big players in commercial education as far back as 2018 were referring to employability as the next frontier.

Andrew Barkla, CEO of international higher education consultants IDP, was interviewed by The PIE and said: “From a counselling and guidance point of view, we are already having career conversations with students at the very beginning of their journey.”

The smartest are already looking at ways of demonstrating the efficacy of their operation and the way their university partners are considering successful graduate outcomes, as much as the initial recruitment of bums on seats.

Where technology can really add value is in collecting international employability data in ways that are vastly superior and more cost-effective than the tired old questionnaire approaches that have fallen into disrepute.

High quality graduate outcomes data will also allow career opportunities to be developed in source countries, help place students with internships and study experiences and ultimately get them connections to pursue a career when they go home.

No-one has yet seized the nettle and invested significantly to deliver the golden triad of a great recruitment experience, a great education and a great job, but there are signs that many of the major players realise that this is the moment to act.

This all takes place against the backdrop of some commentators, including The Sunday Times, recently suggesting that “the great tech revaluation has only just begun”.

It quoted Airbnb chief Brian Chesky tweeting that the moment “feels similar to late 2008”, and Uber boss, Dara Khosrowshahi, saying: “We will absolutely have to do more with less.”

The article concludes that there could be “two years yet to run of falling values, imploding companies and desperation mergers”.

An uncertain future

This comes at a time when the momentum of face-to-face engagement is developing and everyone has had the opportunity to size up whether the excitement around aggregators was a symptom of the pandemic rather than a long-term cure for recruitment.

If the flow of money to continue investing in technology businesses slows and investors find more attractive options elsewhere, some may find themselves near the end of their runway.

There are a lot of questions to consider.

Will the aggregators be able to use their financial muscle and existing platforms as a ticket to more funding that allows them to compete, or will bricks and mortar businesses that have been around for years steal their thunder?

Will the underlying strength of businesses based on personal contact enable them to accelerate their use of technology in a way that takes away the aggregator point of differentiation and advantage? Or will the answer be a flurry of acquisitions and mergers that attempt to deliver real synergy to the advantage of students and universities?

Louise Nicol is founder of Asia Careers Group SDN BHD. Alan Preece is an expert in global education, business transformation and operational management and runs the blogging site View from a Bridge.

Image by Peggy und Marco Lachmann-Anke from Pixabay 

New Directions At INTO University Partnerships?

It’s nearly a year since INTO University Partnerships (INTO) appointed its new chief executive and there’s been an acceleration of senior changes with new heads of recruitment, product/digital and people appointed and the addition of a chief strategy officer post to the Executive Team.  It seems an open secret that another of the Executive Team old guard will leave in June and the leadership in the US looks to have been tweaked with some saying there are more change to come.  That’s five new faces in a year in an Executive Team of ten so thoughts turn to what happens next and what’s the state of the portfolio?

Anyone who has seen change in a corporate environment will know the Machiavelli quote and that “there is nothing more difficult to arrange, more doubtful of success, and more dangerous to carry through.”  They will also know the tendency of the old guard to still get together and slip around the side of the building every morning for the habitual cigarette break where they can gossip, moan and plot about the interlopers.  However, Greg Shea of the Wharton Center for Leadership and Change Management tells us that “change is not about consensus, it is about critical mass”, so 50% may be enough.

Access All Areas?

Rumours are swirling that the company is planning to launch a new go to market strategy in Asia, probably Vietnam, where one of the much-hyped University Access Centers (UACs) already exists in Ho Chi Min City.  According to the website UACs are under development in Bangkok, Bogota, Hanoi, Jakarta and New Delhi for launch by early 2022 and a further 15 planned by 2023.  In one of the big student recruitment debates currently raging, INTO seems to be putting significant investment into “boots on the ground” rather than relying solely on the efficacy of online, aggregators and virtual counselling.       

There is also talk of direct recruitment options maturing and becoming a key part of the sales strategy which seems a no brainer given INTO’s reduced number of pathway partners over the past few years.  Shorelight heard the starting pistol on the direct recruitment race in the US more than six months ago so there is ground to make up.  The UACs may, however, offer differentiation from Shorelight’s increasingly strident pitch as a “technology-enabled” business – when the word “technology” appears seven times in a three paragraph news announcement it must matter to them.

It also seems possible that INTO could be making a play for the ground that “global expansion experts” Sannam S4 Group has filled so well with its approach that makes “personal our number one priority”.  The UACs could make useful physical locations to pitch for market entry and expansion opportunities and the notion of “internationalisation strategies from concept to delivery”.  Having in country presence and a sales team on the ground was always core to the pathway operator model so it’s a logical extension to turn that into a full service pitch based on country expertise, where everything from market launch initiatives, TNE and campus management to returning graduate employability can be up for discussion with resource-constrained universities. 

The Great Divide?     

Time will tell how those possibilities play out but it is intriguing to think that INTO may also be taking a more radical look at how its UK portfolio* is managed to best effect by differentiating Russell Group institutions from the rest.  One potential reason for considering the Russell Group institutions (including the wholly owned Manchester operation which primarily serves the University of Manchester) as a separate entity is that their performance offers the best chance for recruitment growth.  Taking the pre-pandemic period the total enrollment growth of all eight INTO operations from 2016 to 2020 was 547 with the four Russell Group related pathway operations increasing by 672 while four non-Russell Group operations (which include the wholly owned World Education Centre) had an aggregate loss of 125.  

Source: INTO Center Annual Reports

A direct comparison between INTO University of East Anglia and Queen’s University Belfast in the five years pre-COVID emphasises the point.  It is startling to see the decline of INTO’s first ever joint venture and reflect that when 2021 reporting becomes available INTO Queen’s may have overtaken it in enrollments.  Taking the five years from 2016 to 2020 INTO Queen’s increased enrollments over 63% while INTO UEA declined by 25%.  Enrollment at INTO UEA has been declining almost every single year since 2015.

Source: INTO UEA and INTO Queen’s Annual Reports

While the University of East Anglia does not report its own international student enrollments separately, the impact of a declining pathway and no obvious direct enrollment growth to balance it can be seen by the fall of around £3m in international tuition fee revenue from 2018 to 2020.  The joint venture drew down a loan from the UK Governments CLBILS Scheme to mitigate cash shortages during the pandemic and the University’s annual financial statements for 2020/21 tell us each partner guaranteed 50% of the loan up to a maximum of £7m.  More chilling for the future is that the statements indicate that there “will be no distribution in respect of 2020/21 nor for the next three years whilst the joint venture recovers and builds up surpluses for distribution.”

Source: UEA Financial Reports and INTO UEA Annual Reports

End of the long-term Joint Venture?

The big differentiator for INTO in its early days was the notion that it signed long-term (usually thirty year) joint venture partnership deals with equal start-up investment and a 50% share in profits and losses with the university.  The UK portfolio now falls some way short of that vision with INTO Newcastle becoming majority owned (51%) by IUP and INTO City having a distribution that goes 85% to Newincco 921 Ltd (an INTO subsidiary) and 15% to City Foundation Limited.  Closure of INTO St Georges, INTO UEA (London), INTO Gloucestershire, INTO GCU and INTO Newcastle (London) have long rendered the multi-decade, higher education altering principles obsolete.

Even “The INTO Story” element of the company’s corporate web-site has lost the tale of founder Andrew Colin and, then, vice chancellor of the University of East Anglia, Professor David Eastwood, cooking up the joint-venture model as a mould-breaking idea.  Professor Sir David Eastwood (now knighted) has become Chairman of IUP’s Board and sits alongside two representatives from Leeds Equity Partners who described IUP’s “transformational…industry-leading, relationship-driven model” when they invested £66m in 2013 to become 25% equity stake holders.  At the time IUP claimed 16 university partnerships but nearly a decade later it is difficult to see more than 14 which fit with the original concept.   

There has been a similar tale in the US where joint ventures at Colorado State, Washington State and West Virginia have closed in recent years and IUP has become the 100% stakeholder in its venture with St Louis University.  It seems likely that, as the market has matured, the limitations of the model have become increasingly clear with competitors able to offer more agile, flexible or advantageous terms to institutions.  It is also arguable that, for the pathway operator, being tied to less attractive institutions in a fiercely competitive market for international students does not offer the growth prospects that so attracted private equity a decade ago.

For INTO, the pandemic may have provided the moment for a rethink and a pause for breath where the opportunities from a resurgent UK drive for international student enrollment could be assessed.  Fresh thinking on recruitment and delivery as well as a recognition that the portfolio is, if not sheep and goats, more a potpourri than a bunch of roses could bring results in the new environment.  Despite launching into a highly competitive world, it probably can’t be any less productive than the past few years.

Notes

*The US environment was considered in depth in China Crisis for US Pathways and Pathways to the Future for US Big Two

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

University League Table – No Sympathy, No Spite

The cosy conspiracy that has created the current rankings merry go round is built on handing out kudos and credibility while launching new iterations and self-congratulatory events at as many exotic venues as possible.  There’s no reason for anyone to bite the hand that feeds them or jeopardize cooperation on the monetization of student interest.  Many institutions and academics collaborate with the rankers in public while griping privately about the unwelcome outcomes of higher education marketization.   

It leaves a gap in the market for a rankings table that highlights decisions institutions make which seem against the spirit of being focused on academic values, student interest and fairness.  Borrowing from Prof Scott Galloway’s thinking of “No Mercy, No Malice” such a table should not be perverse or spiteful in favouring one institution over another but equally should not shirk or be sympathetic when reflecting facts. It needs to be based on public information that is difficult to manipulate or massage and to highlight decision making in areas where students have every right to think that there might be some consistency. 

Decision Making Made Easy   

It is in this spirit that the first “No Sympathy, No Spite” rankings below focus on English universities to make use of recently and currently available data. The marking criteria allocates a score which penalises universities for not taking action where it would seem to be in the interests of students or where the data provided by an external body suggests it may have questions to answer. Each score reflects the university’s relative position against listed peers but scores are also totalled, with higher scores generally indicating universities that might wish to consider their decision making.

The table highlights which universities have signed or not signed on to the Can’t By My Silence pledge to stop using NDAs to stop students speaking out and also their decisions about involvement with the Universities UK Fair Admissions Code of Practice.  While the sector is fond of praising those who do the right thing it seems shy about naming those that will not agree to basic standards which means students struggle to find out which universities are gaming the system or simply refusing to play at all. This ranking makes it clear who has chosen not to support specified courses of action. 

Readers will determine for themselves if they agree that institutions should be signing up to fair admissions criteria or agreeing to stop using NDAs to gag students who are subject to sexual harassment and worse.  More controversial may be the use of “unexplained” firsts data but the Office for Students is the designated regulating body and their chief executive said, “This spiralling grade inflation risks undermining public confidence in our higher education system.”.  The People and Planets data reflects student activism and the voice of an important constituency on a vital issue.    

The Office for Students data is only applicable to universities in England and  universities that did not have degree awarding powers in 2020/11 have been excluded leaving 107. Further analysis may result in tables for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland where, for example, only Cardiff Metropolitan University has signed onto the Pledge to stop using NDAs for complaints about sexual harassment, bullying and other forms of misconduct.  The information is provided in good faith based on the sources quoted and any authoritative amendments will be considered with amendments being made and flagged.

For the avoidance of doubt, a high score in the NDA Pledge and UUK Fair Admissions Code categories means the university has not signed up to either. A high score in the People and Planet category means the university is ranked poorly for environmental and ethical performance. The score in the Unexplained first-class degree is simply a function of the number of graduates and percentage of unexplained first-class degrees in 2020-21.        

Provider nameUnexplained first-class degrees*NDA Pledge**UUK Fair Admissions Code***People and Planet****Total
Coventry University12.275125.2
University of Birmingham11.27*523.2
Liverpool John Moores Uni8.675222.6
University of Leeds13.27 *222.2
Staffordshire University6.175422.1
Birmingham City University7.475221.4
University of Portsmouth11.37 *321.3
University of East London5.375421.3
Manchester Metropolitan Uni20.1 * *121.1
Kingston University5.775320.7
University of Salford12.37 *120.3
Leeds Beckett University10.27 *320.2
Roehampton University3.075520.0
Queen Mary University of London11.07* 220.0
Goldsmiths’ College3.675419.6
University of Northampton4.075319.0
University of Wolverhampton7.77* 418.7
Anglia Ruskin Uni HE Corp9.77 *218.7
De Montfort University10.77 *118.7
University of St Mark & St John1.275518.2
Norwich University of the Arts1.075518.0
University College Birmingham0.975517.9
Liverpool Hope University1.975417.9
The University of Huddersfield8.17* 217.1
University of Sussex6.17 *417.1
The University of Essex7.07 *317.0
Royal Central School of Speech and Drama0.575416.5
University of Lincoln6.57* 316.5
Sheffield Hallam University14.3 **216.3
University of Brighton7.27 * 216.2
University of Central Lancashire7.27*216.2
University of Chester5.27* 416.2
University of Sunderland4.07 *516.0
University of Derby6.77 *215.7
The University of Buckingham0.675315.6
The University of Bradford6.17* 215.1
University of Hertfordshire11.0 * *415.0
The University of Hull5.97 *214.9
University for the Creative Arts3.97 *414.9
The University of West London5.87 *214.8
University of Oxford1.775114.7
London School of Economics and Political Science1.775114.7
The University of Surrey4.67 *314.6
King’s College London6.47 *114.4
The University of Bolton2.47* 514.4
York St John University3.37 *414.3
Oxford Brookes University4.07 *314.0
Brunel University London3.87 *313.8
St Mary’s University, Twickenham1.87* 513.8
The University of Cumbria2.37 *413.3
St. George’s Hospital Med School1.17 *513.1
The University of Manchester10.0 **313.0
University of the Arts, London5.07* 113.0
University of Gloucestershire2.97*312.9
University of Cambridge2.97* 312.9
Bishop Grosseteste University0.87*512.8
University of Durham5.7* 5212.7
Imperial College2.77* 312.7
Falmouth University1.67* 412.6
Nottingham Trent University4.67* 112.6
City, University of London4.57* 112.5
The University of Bath2.47* 312.4
The Royal Agricultural University0.27* 512.2
The University of Westminster4.1* 5312.1
Bournemouth University4.07* 112.0
Newman University0.57*411.5
Uni of Northumbria at Newcastle10.4 **111.4
University of Nottingham9.4 ** 211.4
Harper Adams University0.27*411.2
The Royal Veterinary College0.17* 411.1
Arts University Bournemouth1.07*311.0
London Metropolitan University3.5* 5210.5
Royal Northern College of Music0.3* 5510.3
London South Bank University5.1* * 510.1
University of Bedfordshire1.97* 19.9
Uni of the West of England, Bristol8.7* * 19.7
University of Southampton5.6* * 49.6
Royal Holloway5.4** 49.4
The University of Kent7.4* * 29.4
The University of Liverpool7.3* * 29.3
The University of East Anglia7.1* * 29.1
Edge Hill University6.1* * 39.1
University College London8.0* * 19.0
Middlesex University7.8* * 18.8
Teesside University5.6* * 38.6
The University of Sheffield5.5* * 38.5
University of Greenwich7.2* * 18.2
University of Exeter7.2* * 18.2
University of Plymouth7.0* * 18.0
The University of Leicester5.9* * 27.9
Canterbury Christ Church Uni4.6* * 37.6
The University of Lancaster4.4* * 37.4
Solent University, Southampton4.4* * 37.4
University of Newcastle upon Tyne6.1** 17.1
The University of Warwick4.3* * 26.3
University of York3.3* * 36.3
University of Bristol5.2* * 16.2
Aston University5.2* * 16.2
Loughborough University2.6* * 35.6
The University of Chichester1.6* * 45.6
The University of Reading4.6* * 15.6
Leeds Trinity University1.4* * 45.4
University of Keele4.2* * 15.2
Buckinghamshire New University1.6* * 34.6
Bath Spa University2.3* * 24.3
University of Worcester2.1* * 13.1
University of Winchester1.0* * 12.0

Scoring Criteria/Method

  1. Unexplained First Class Degrees
    • This issue affects more students in larger universities so the number of graduates in 2020-21 is multiplied by the percentage of “unexplained first class degrees” in that year to show the number potentially affected. That sum is then divided by 100 to ensure the overall score is not wholly distorted by this category. The full analysis by the Office for Students is available.
  2. Not Signed NDA Pledge
    • The list of English university signatories on the Can’t Buy My Silence site was reviewed over the weekend of 14/15 May 2022. Universities that have signed the pledge score 0 (signified by an asterisk) while universities that have not signed receive 7 points.
  3. UUK Fair Admissions Code
    • The list of signatories shown on the Universities UK Fair Admissions Code of Practice site was reviewed over the weekend of 14/15 May 2022. Universities that have signed the pledge score 0 (signified by an asterisk) while universities that have not signed receive 5 points.
  4. People and Planet

Any comments, corrections or thoughts for development are welcome.

Image by Peggy und Marco Lachmann-Anke from Pixabay

The lure of commerce: Do universities face a brain drain?

An article co-authored with Louise Nichol in the 14 May issue of University World News. It follows on from my blog of 8 December 2021 about the increasing propensity for industry commentators with a public platform to join the Advisory Boards of commercial companies.

The commercial education sector has changed beyond recognition in the last 10 years. The explosion of aggregators onto the scene, the emergence of outsourcing of universities’ overseas operations and the proliferation of pathway programmes globally are all manifestations of this change.

This huge expansion in both activity and organisations has culminated in a talent grab, with commercial organisations on the hunt for those within higher education who can facilitate the growth of their businesses globally.

There has been a growth in high-powered advisers and advisory boards with ApplyBoard, Leverage Edu and others tapping higher education think tank leaders, government advisers and education media founders. The terms of the appointments are rarely very clear and they sometimes come with explicit expectations around growing the company’s business.

But more recently there have been several individuals jumping ship from universities to take high-profile positions with commercial organisations which are gaining traction with universities.

Higher education diaspora

Among the higher education diaspora are Rachel MacSween who moved from the University of York, where she was director of international recruitment, partnerships and mobility, to a position as director of client partnerships for UK and Europe at IDP Connect.

Others include Kyle Campbell who went from a position as senior web and digital content manager at Nottingham Trent University to content marketing manager at UniBuddy and is now heading his own education marketing business; and Lydiah Igweh, former enterprise support director for Oxford Brookes University who moved to a post as head of equality, diversity and inclusion at Kaplan.

There are also Rick Canavan who moved from the post of faculty head of international at Manchester Metropolitan to director of UK university partnerships at upGrad; Veronica Omeni, former acting co-director at the Centre for Global Engagement at Coventry University, who is now a principal consultant at QS Quacquarelli Symonds; and Gareth Topp, former head of internationalisation at the University of Brighton who left for the role of director of business development for UK and Europe at EduCo Accelerate.

Defections from the very top level are rarer, but recently retired University of Birmingham vice-chancellor Professor Sir David Eastwood moved promptly into a position as director at INTO University Partnerships, and David Pilsbury became chief development officer at Oxford International Education Group after holding the deputy vice-chancellor international role at Coventry University.

Greener pastures?

Colleagues working for a wide range of higher education service providers will be familiar with the cold breeze of slight disapproval that sometimes comes from those working in universities.

Engaging in the commercial side of education has historically been seen as subordinate to the high ideals of teaching and research, although international engagement with recruitment agents has long been a grey area where necessity triumphed over disdain.

The change in thinking was particularly apparent with the buzz recently at The PIE Live in London at the end of March 2022, when there was a feeling in the air that people were exploring what they perceived as greener grass outside their existing university position.

The reality is that commercial service providers, with the possible exception of technocrats in IT or other professional areas, have struggled to negotiate the labyrinthine structures, committees and power politics that make up university management and the bureaucracy associated with decision-making.

By employing ‘insiders’, commercial education organisations are betting that their existing professional relationships and knowing ‘how to play the game’ internally within universities will give them an added advantage when winning future business.

The logic is sound because those who have worked within the sector for the majority of their careers and built networks will have up-to-date rolodexes and relationships with those at both the institution from which they have moved and peer universities.

What remains to be seen is whether the sector will be more welcoming to these people having ‘jumped ship’, or will those who have crossed over find that they are considered to have turned their back on old friends for ‘greener pastures’?

What also remains to be seen is whether the commercial organisations stripping universities of talent are in fact getting a good deal. Are those who have come from inside higher education institutions in possession of the commercial acumen to get the job done or will they find that they miss the relatively cosy world of higher education?

One thing is for sure: the commercial education sector is much less forgiving when targets are missed and objectives not met.

Talent loss

The other serious concern is where this trend might leave universities over the longer term, particularly if the much prized but troubled Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) conditions continue to deteriorate.

University perks, flexibility and long-term outlooks have always been a significant advantage for attracting and retaining talent while commercial organisations are generally more driven by the bottom line and immediate results.

As commercial providers have held increasing sway over the sector and universities have had to focus on their financial sustainability and external performance measures, the lines have become increasingly blurred.

The question is whether there will be a tipping point leading to a significant exodus of university talent which might leave the sector bereft of innovation, creativity and energy.

Universities will need the brightest and the best more than ever to negotiate the choppy seas ahead and if the flow to commercial businesses becomes a deluge there could be some big gaps in capability.

Risks on the horizon

Some notable risks on the horizon include increasing competition among English-speaking study destinations and emerging study destinations, uncertainty over global geodemographics, politics and student mobility and a growing diversity in higher education delivery through both transnational education and online.

The days when a good graduate might look to a university as a place to build a long-term – potentially whole life – career are probably rapidly diminishing and the growth of commercial alternatives will begin to look increasingly attractive.

With these headwinds in mind, it may be time for university leaders and human resources departments to give some real thought to the ways in which they attract, recruit and retain sharp minds that have a genuine focus on brilliant student experiences, relevant research and the right balance of local and global engagement.

Failure to do so will lead to a brain drain that could result in even greater changes in the way that institutions are able to determine and implement plans that are in their best interests.

Louise Nicol is founder of Asia Careers Group SDN BHD. Alan Preece is an expert in global education, business transformation and operational management and runs the blogging site View from a Bridge.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

(What’s So Funny ‘Bout) Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions?

Readers might need some inspiration for trivia questions about the latest Times Higher Education Impact Rankings so I thought I’d help out.  The Russia Federation had more universities represented than any other country in the 2022 rankings BUT in which SDG category are none of them listed?  It’s a good test of whether anyone can remember all the SDGs but for those that can, the unsurprising answer would be Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions.

This is despite the fact that 49* Russian institutions were listed in that category in the 2021 rankings and it highlights the big problem when you allow universities to self-report and select which categories they enter because they can be really quite good at some things but ignore or even oppose others.  It is difficult to see how a Russian institution could be good at, say, “peace” when there could be 15 years in prison and other serious penalties for mentioning “war” or “invasion”.  Strong institutions also come under serious pressure when Russian Political Rights rank a 5/40 and Civil Liberties rank 14/60 according to Freedom House.

Universities can be enfeebled as institutions by political power and the outcome can be that they even become agents of coercion and repression.  Examples include the Higher School of Economics restricting political activism on campus in 2020 and more recently hundreds of students reported as having been expelled and some students playing an active role in hunting down activist teachers.  The tightening of the Russian Government’s grip on senior administrative appointments and strategic direction is well documented and one author has suggested, “controlling universities via rector appointment may serve as an instrument for controlling young minds.”

THE Fails On Effective Action to Minimise Credibility, Prestige and Marketing

Also, unsurprising is that the universities have continued to use their presence in the Impact Rankings to publicise themselves despite the words of Times Higher Education Chief Executive Paul Howarth on 4 March that “we will be taking steps to ensure that Russian universities are not using branding or other promotional opportunities offered by THE until further notice.”  Here’s a snip from Peter the Great St Petersburg Polytechnic University showing how feeble that statement was and why the THE should ban institutions from the rankings.

It would be good to think that the full weight of the THE’s legal machinery might come crashing down on the Russian universities that are continuing to use the organization’s logo and public properties for their own promotional purposes.  But as we have seen in a previous blog Study Portals, the THE’s partners in monetizing student mobility, also continues to promote the THE ranking of Russian universities.  The statement from THE looks increasingly like a cynical PR ploy to play for time and hope that nobody remembered the promises made.  

Lilliput or Brobdingnag

In Jonathan Swift’s books Gulliver becomes a giant amongst the people of the island country of Lilliput during his first voyage because they are only 6 inches tall.  But the second voyage takes him to a peninsula called Brobdingnag where he lives with a farmer who is about 72 feet tall.  It is a reminder that there is a perspective to most things and the Impact Rankings are worth considering in that respect.

So, another good trivia question might be – universities in which countries seem disinterested in the Impact Rankings?  A good answer might be the USA where only 42 universities are shown but even lower is China where only 13 universities are featured.  The USA number is even down on last year’s 45.

It is difficult to believe that the USA does not have more than that number of institutions with a strong record in sufficient SDG categories to make a bid for the top place.  As it is, only one of the 12 US institutions who rank in the THE’s own world top 20 seems to have taken part.  Neither of the Chinese universities in the world top 20 are mentioned in the Impact Rankings and the three from the UK are also missing.

Professor Barney Glover of the table topping Western Sydney University recognised the problem and commented, “there are too many of the very strong and powerful universities in the world that are not recognised” in the Impact Rankings.”  His university’s website doesn’t go so far as to acknowledge that situation or that less than half the universities in the World Rankings feature in the Impact Rankings.  But I think he may realizes that WSU was visiting Lilliput on this occasion.

Writing in University World News Dr Anand Kulkarni makes the point that while the number of Indian universities participating grew  that “what is also noticeable is that, unlike the World University Rankings, the famed Indian Institutes of Technology are not as prominent.” Rankings expert Ellen Hazelkorn noted that absence of many leading universities “may not be due to their poor(er) performance but rather their choice not to participate” and commented on the THE Impact Rankings reliance on “self-reported and interpreted data”.  If, as claimed by THE chief knowledge officer, Phil Baty the Impact Ranking are “redefining excellence in global higher education” it rather makes one wonder why the THE don’t have the courage of their convictions and drop their other league tables.

There is a tradition in the English Football Association Challenge Cup (the FA Cup) that there are qualifying rounds before the First Round Proper when teams from the bottom two tiers of the professional Leagues join.  The Second Round Proper sees the teams from the second tier join and finally the Premier League teams join for the Third Round Proper.  The Impact Rankings look a little like selecting the winner of the FA Cup long before the Third Round Proper.

Not The Only Game In Town

This is not to argue that many of the institutions who enter aren’t doing magnificent work in some areas related to the SDGs.  But it does suggest that some institutions have recognized that the THE Impact Rankings are just another attempt to build rankings for commercial benefit and private equity gain or are simply unwilling to undertake the extra administration for little gain.  There are also other channels, with Carnegie Mellon, Georgia Tech, Rice, Harvard and Northeastern not featuring in the Impact Rankings but all being mentioned in a recent United Nations Foundation blog highlighting innovative ways progress on the SDGs is being driven by universities in the US.

There is also increasing evidence that students are less interested in rankings and more focused on employability while interest in the SDGs seems less evident.  The THE’s own research suggests that “only 16 per cent said they would choose a university that had a worse reputation for teaching and research if it had a better reputation for sustainability.”  It may be that the refusal of significant numbers of universities to become involved is a sign that the merry go round of league table mania has passed its peak.  

Note:

The title of this blog is a small nod to the classic tune “(What’s So Funny ‘Bout) Peace Love and Understanding” written by Nick Lowe and originally released by his band Brinsley Schwarz in 1974.  It became more famous when recorded by Elvis Costello and the Attractions in 1978 but even then was only a B-side.  It has been played by many artists to reflect hope in troubled times and the message seems very pertinent right now.

 Image by Joan Cabras from Pixabay 

*As a note of clarification. In its Overall Rankings list the THE only shows the top three scores of the institution plus their SDG17 ranking. They list separately, presumably for all institutions registering a score in the specific category, the ranking for each individual SDG. Thus, in 2021, 27 out of 75 Russian institutions had SDG 16 count towards their overall ranking but 49 were listed as having a score in the SDG 16 category.