Month: June 2023

FROM FUTILITY TO UTILITY

Collins Dictionary tells us that, “If you say that something is futile, you mean there is no point in doing it, usually because it has no chance of succeeding.”  It is difficult to think of a better description of a student scanning the Times Higher Education or QS World Rankings or any of the multiplicity of other rankings that have proliferated from those organizations.  They don’t really tell students anything useful about whether the institution is right for them as an individual or whether it will allow them to fulfil their life and career ambitions.

All the evidence suggests that the primary motivator for going to higher education is to enhance job prospects. Chegg’s survey across 21 countries, INTO’s research with agents and Gallup surveys are among indicators that for both home and international students a degree is largely a means to an end. That is not to say that people don’t want to study something they enjoy – just that the degree is the aim.

Most existing rankings are, however, just an attempt to monetize industry data for commercial ends and the sector collaborates, possibly because it’s the way things have always been done.  The rankings, as someone said, “Xerox privilege” by reaffirming existing hierarchies and usually allow institutions to manipulate their data, sometimes beyond the point of criminality.  For the institutions they are vanity projects which lead to dubious internal resource allocation, avoid hard questions about graduate employability and distort the decision making of Governments, funders and students.

Utility, on the other hand, is “the quality or property of being useful” and we may be beginning to see the glimmer of some media developing data to be genuinely useful to students.  It is a timely and smart move because we are nearly at the point where AI will give students the opportunity to have near total, instant and absolutely personalized university search capability at their fingertips.  That should send a shudder through ranking organizations that are wedded to a business model and presentation based on early 2000s thinking.

Money magazine’s Best Colleges 2023 may point the way.  It still has a vapid “star” system to allow colleges to be ranked but the database begins to say some useful, student oriented, things about Acceptance Rate, tuition fee (both headline price but more importantly average actual price) and graduation rate.  Imagine if that database approach married itself, in the US, to the work of a company like College Viability, LLC which gives an insight into reasons which a college “…may not be financially viable for the time required to earn a degree from that college.”  Then, add to the mix comprehensive information on the graduate outcomes and career payback from specific degrees – the Princeton Review Best Value Colleges gives a flavour but still ends up as a ranking with limited coverage.

In the UK, the growth of private universities and the significant difference in tuition fees at graduate level between public universities makes the approach equally appropriate.  Such a database would begin to answer the most pressing of student needs – will I get in and with what grades, am I likely to graduate, and what are my career and earning prospects thereafter?  There could be plenty of further nuance added, including grades required, accommodation, measures of student experience and so on.

All of this could be done without the need for a grading system.  The problem with rankings is that the company doing the ranking sets an arbitrary test which institutions do their best to pass with a high grade.  This entirely excludes the student from having any input into the criteria but the results are then presented as an aspirational or emotional nirvana for them to consider.

A smart organization would be ensuring that their data collection is driven by the real world needs and concerns of students. It’s time to remove the worthies who make up the Advisory Groups and Panels for the major ranking organizations and find ways of engaging directly with potential students. The outcome would be relevant, dynamic and have utility for millions around the globe.

It would also be a driver for universities to engage more effectively with the issue of graduate employment both through on-campus services and establishing strong data on careers and jobs. Colleagues including Louise Nicol of Asia Careers Group and Shane Dillon of CTurtle have been demonstrating for years that smart use of technology even makes it possible to leave antiquated, email driven surveys of graduates behind in collecting the data. The answers might even begin to convince Governments around the world that universities are engaging effectively and adding value to economic growth and sustainability.

McKinsey and many others have written about personalization of the customer experience in retail with much of the impetus being given by technology.  The insurance world has seen the rise and rise of aggregators and there is talk of the “personalized insurance engine” that gives a fully automated customer journey.  Potential students are hungry for better decision making option and education needs to catch up fast with the opportunities that exist.

Image by Steve Buissinne from Pixabay

Election O’Clock Tick, Tock

For visa policy, the year ahead will be shaped by a Tory party that is a bit like end of season Tottenham Hotspur – out of Europe, on their third manager in a year and worried about what life looks like without their star striker.  Sunak could face and lose three by-elections before the party conference so going route one with radical action on visas could become an attractive diversion.  The party may even, just like Spurs, chose to appoint a fourth manager in an attempt to be in contention in 2025.

UK Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, having been thwarted by the Cabinet on more far-reaching student visa reform last time round, could start her speeches with the words, “I shall fight on. I fight to win.”  Conviction politics and evoking the spirit of Margaret Thatcher have always gone down well with most parts of the Conservative party and if she has aspirations for the top job it’s not a bad ploy.  With the clock ticking down to a General Election just 20 months she has every chance of being centre stage.

Some universities have made quite extraordinary increases in international student numbers in recent years and should carefully weigh the consequences of their choices this Autumn.  One plausible scenario is that institutions will be suckered into maximizing recruitment from affected countries in September ahead of the clampdown on dependent visas.  The resulting visa figures would be more than enough for the Home Office and worried Tories to bay about irresponsible recruitment and seek a further round of constraints. 

Pitched against populist right wing politicians fighting for re-election and a public that is largely disengaged from higher education the sector becomes increasingly vulnerable.  However cynical or wrong-headed, an MP can claim the authority of having been publicly elected to represent the views of constituents which is more than any vice-chancellor can say.  They will be listening to people like Eric Kaufmann who spoke at the first National Conservatism conference and likes to remind Tories of the view there is no election victory in increasing immigration.

More Than This or Hold the Line?

Despite all the happy talk and positioning by the higher education sector, MP’s may believe that there is little evidence of public support, let alone a mandate, for significantly more international students. 

Even the sector’s own research commissioned by UniversitiesUK from Public First suggests that the public does not support a rise in international students.  The answer to question 15c, which has been largely misrepresented by the sector as indicating the public favours growth in numbers, shows that 46% would accept the same number and 21% want fewer.  It seems reasonable to argue that this means that 67% of the public do not support a continuation of the rise in international students that we have seen in the past few years.

YouGov tell us that concern over migration has been climbing for a year – from 53% up to 57% say that immigration has been too high for the last ten years and 17% say it’s about right which indicates 74% want immigration the same or lower.  A politician attuned to the data and public opinion will be questioning unfettered growth in international student numbers.  This is particularly so when the surge in growth is driven by countries where the biggest influence on a study abroad decision is “Immigration policies of destination countries” above even job opportunities and quality of higher education.

Money For Nothing

The sector’s fightback is summarized by ApplyBoard UK Advisory Group member (and director of HEPI) Nicholas Hillman who is reported as saying, “If people want to oppose the presence of international students, fine, but they should only do that if they know the benefits they bring and do so with their eyes wide open.”

The glossy launches and expensive research making that economic case are presumably an attempt to open those eyes. But when respondents were told by Public First that the sector contributed nearly £28bn to the UK economy a majority (57%) still said they wanted the same number or fewer international students. One suspects that the obsession with making the economic case, at a point when some headlines reflect how much universities are raking in, is aligned with self-interest and possibly even morally shabby.  

Lord Bilimoria, the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for International Students, suggests there should be an aim of 1 million international students in the UK by 2030. ApplyBoard’s Jo Johnson considered, with unusual circumspection, 900,000 or more as appropriate.   Neither seemed to engage with the polling evidence that the majority of the public do not support such growth.

Where Is The Love?

While the sector’s tendency to pitch a case based on the economic value of universities seems reasonable it doesn’t cut to the heart of people’s suspicions that are partly driven by the drip, drip of years of stories about fat cat vice chancellors, dissatisfied students, Mickey Mouse degrees and grade inflation.  Unfortunately, the sector, when challenged, is Wildean in suggesting it has nothing to declare but its genius when a little more humility might go a long way.  It is difficult for the public to trust a sector that doesn’t accept its fallibility.

There are other deep-seated problems for universities in the recent Public Attitudes to Higher Education 2022 research by UPP Foundation/HEPI. Among the figures, 58% don’t think university prepares people for the real world and 52% think society values a university degree too highly.   27% are sceptical or negative about universities and 30% are broadly uninterested which indicates that more than half those surveyed actively oppose universities or think them irrelevant*.

Another drumbeat is whether universities are turning out students with qualifications that fit them for the workplace let alone justify the level of debt.  The current Prime Minister is on record as saying that he wants to “take a tougher approach to university degrees that saddle students with debt, without improving their earning potential.”  A former Prime Minister’s son says degrees are “irrelevant” and Reed Recruitment says,  “It looks like traditional graduate jobs are going out of fashion.”   

Sha la-la-la-lee

That’s the sound of the higher education sector sticking its fingers in its ears while complaining to an uncaring universe. 

What the public hears from universities is that home students should be charged more, that the loss of EU applicants has been a tragedy and that the sector is a major contributor to Britain’s soft power around the world.  This plays into a population facing the largest hit to living standards since records began in 1956,  taxpayers underwriting student loans to a record tune of £205bn, and no obvious evidence that soft power is helping secure trade deals.  Sceptics might even suggest that if UK higher education is so highly regarded then EU students would, whatever the price, always choose Ipswich over Paris and Canterbury over Rome.

The sector’s efforts to promulgate its message often looks like a self-interest, or perhaps self-help, group.  Chris Skidmore’s, International Higher Education Commission, is the latest example and doesn’t appear to have anybody without a vested and sometimes commercial interest in recruiting more international students.  Among the grandly titled “founding commissioners” the ubiquitous Jo Johnson from ApplyBoard makes an appearance, along with seven VCs and three CEOs of sector pressure groups, with Oxford International Education Group claiming they support the Commission under the banner of corporate social responsibility(!).

This is, of course, the Chris Skidmore who co-wrote a book, with those paragons of political, economic and personal credibility Kwasi Kwarteng, Priti Patel, Dominic Raab and Liz Truss,  which claimed, “”Once they enter the workplace, the British are among the worst idlers in the world.”  He was Minister with responsibility for universities for five months which was, for the record, longer than Jo Johnson who managed six weeks.  Would it be a great surprise that the public took their protestations with a pinch of salt?

Where there may be some hope is Johnson’s recent acceptance that “…there is a weakening consensus in British politics on the benefits of international study in our system…We need to acknowledge that and understand why it’s become weaker and what the sector needs to do to reinforce support for international study and its contribution to the UK.”  It’s unfortunate that he then chose to talk about “false narratives” because although these do exist it would have been more refreshing to see the sector accept that it is not without fault.  Disparaging public opinion as being driven by fake news is a tired and demeaning stance that should be replaced by open engagement and dialogue.

NOTES

  1. The headline is derived from U2’s first single on Island Records “Eleven O’Clock Tick Tock”.  They played it to start and end their gig supporting The Photos at the Marquee in July 1980 which is when I first saw them😊.
  2. “More Than This” is a 1982 song from Roxy Music.  “Hold the Line” is a 1978 tune from American rock behemoths Toto whose name apparently comes from the Latin phrase for “all encompassing” and not the dog in The Wizard of Oz.
  3. “Money for Nothing” is a 1985 song from Dire Straits that is distinguished with a great riff but also Sting singing backing vocal, “I want my MTV” to the same melody as The Police song “Don’t Stand So Close to Me” (which is why Virgin insisted on getting a percentage).
  4. 1972’s “Where is the Love” by Donny Hathaway and Roberta Flack is sublime and not to be confused with the Black Eyed Peas song of the same name which is just quite good.
  5. “Sha La La La La Lee” is a 1966 number from the Small Faces and a great reminder of what a force the late Steve Marriott was.  He recorded the song when he was 19.

* I am conscious that the UPP/HEPI research had some good news such as “77% agree universities are important to research and innovation; and 57% agree they are important to the UK economy as a whole”. However, it was startling that the “Broadly Uninterested” segment was so large that the authors had to acknowledge its presence but “focus the majority of our exploration of the segments on the other groups”.

Image by Davie Bicker from Pixabay

Rankings Have No Deep Impact

It is increasingly difficult to take the Times Higher Education (THE) Impact Rankings seriously but the tone-deafness, doublethink, obfuscation and self-delusion becomes ever more extraordinary.  The only blot on the comedic value of the Rankings is that they continue to highlight Russia and Afghanistan universities – one group in a country in thrall to a leader whose war has killed tens of thousands and the other in a country where women cannot enrol in higher education.  There seems no way in which the SDGs were intended to be used to provide publicity and credibility for countries deliberately applying policies decried by the United Nations. 

Same Old, Same Old

We are told that the “The Impact Rankings are inherently dynamic…we expect and welcome regular change in the ranked order of institutions (and we discourage year-on-year comparisons)…”.  Unfortunately, the THE corporate communications department didn’t read the memo because they announced, “Western Sydney University claims the Impact title for the second year running with a near-perfect score” – which sounds rather like a year on year comparison.  Further diminishing the sense of dynamism is that eight of the top twelve are the same as last year.

Five of the 2023 top twelve have been in the top twelve since 2020.  It would probably be higher but Kings College, University of Leeds and University of Sydney, who were in the top twelve in 2020, have all dropped out of the table completely.  There seems to be the possibility that some of the very best universities with strong SDG credentials are ignoring the Impact Rankings because they recognize the inherent weaknesses. 

It should not be surprising that universities who choose to be part of this manipulable process are able to enhance their performance.  Universities are full of administrators and academics who are good at passing exams so shame on Newcastle University and Hakkaido University for falling from eight and ten last year to 24 and 22 in 2023.  Perhaps a new ranking should be based on calling out institutions that cannot maintain or improve their position on a yearly basis.

It is slightly bemusing that King AbdulAziz University was a non-runner in 2023 after being in fourth place the year before.  Is it possible that they could not find any researchers willing to sign over a sufficient number of citations or maybe the failure to come top was too much to bear?  A related anomaly is that it features rankings from AWRU, QS and US News World Report on its International Rankings page but nothing from THE.

Living In the Past

As previously noted, the data in the rankings is based on 2021, the era before ChatGPT, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the implosion of Boris Johnson’s premiership.  Unfortunately, this means that any student relying on the rankings to make judgements about institutions is going to be sadly misled.  Not that this matters to the way THE and their enablers like Study Portals use rankings to monetize student eyeballs.

The most egregious example of the Impact Rankings failure to keep up to date is the increase in the number of Afghanistan universities in the Impact Rankings.  Going from two to three listed entrants is bad enough after a year in which they have followed their government’s edict to prevent women going to university.  Two of the three have scores under SDG 5, which is specifically about Gender Equality and the aim to “Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls”, while to add insult to grievous injury their score in that category is better than hundreds of other institutions.

It seems extraordinary that nobody at the THE was paying sufficient attention to understand the condemnation of the world at the exclusion of women from education in Afghanistan.  As noted in previous blogs it might be reasonable to think that the lack of women in the board ranks of THE and its owners contributes to this indifference.  It is, however, very difficult to think of a good excuse for the Advisory Board which one might hope has some members with a broader perspective on justice, equity and decency.

From Glasnost to Skrytnost

It was all the rage to celebrate glasnost and perestroika in the 1980s but openness and restructuring in Russia have long given way to autocratic rule and whim.  Maybe that’s why the THE’s treats some Russian university scores in the spirit of what the Washington Post termed “skrytnost: – derived from the Russian verb skryt meaning “to conceal”.   It is unacceptable for a ranking that trumpets its supposed transparency to offer no explanation for blanking Russian university scores for SDG 16, Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions.

It must be bad enough for the compilers that Russian universities continue to be the single largest number of entrants to the Impact Rankings but totally infuriating that many choose to be scored on their support of the very virtues that the country currently seems to lack.  Unfortunately, the THE seem to accept whatever is submitted, adds it to the total, then blanks it out as if it was some secret.  There is no explanation in the methodology which only reminds everyone that the scoring itself is a matter of, um, autocratic rule and whim.

The continued presence of Russian universities in the league tables and the way they are publicized as study destinations by THE Student is another reminder that the entire premise of the tables is to commercialize data and sell consultancy rather than enrich the sector.  While the Ukranians are on a counter-offensive to remove the aggressors from their lands the Impact Rankings celebrate universities whose Rectors publicly endorsed Putin’s war.  If their decision was based on a quick Russian victory it is time to reconsider.

Reputation Bust?

For all the noise from those going up in the Impact Rankings an analysis shows that only three of the top 12 institutions (Manchester, Arizona State and Alberta) feature in the THE’s own World Reputation Rankings.  This might suggest that academics see the Impact Rankings as a refuge for those who feel the need to please their governing bodies but not as a genuine marker of global quality.  It’s a bit like football fans getting excited when their team wins the Europa Conference League while those supporting serial contenders for the Champions League are not so easily impressed1.

Nobody expects the THE to give up on its money-go-round of league tables any time soon but it is remarkable that after five years most universities have declined to spend the time, effort or money to engage in the Impact Rankings.  One might argue this is because they recognize the dangers of being involved in a competition that is easily rigged and where the referees might just be willing to tip the scales a different way to create a headline.  The evidence suggests that absence does not impact the credibility of absentees at all.

Notes

1.            For those who do not follow European football, the Europa Conference League is the third tier of European competition after the Champions League and Europa League.  With apologies to West Ham United fans I would say it has much in common with any other conference – you go not knowing anything about the people you’ll meet, you end up in many dreary rooms discussing irrelevant things and you return to a pile of work.  Football fans will know that in that sentence you can replace “people” with teams, “rooms” with stadiums and “pile of work” with relegation trouble.  If you’re lucky you get a certificate of attendance (known as the Europa Conference League trophy).   

Image by WikiImages from Pixabay