Tag: international students

All For One and Each to Their Own

The notion that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is long established but often misguided and can create a false sense of shared interest, power dynamics and underlying realities.  UK universities appear to be united in defending themselves against perceived threats from Government action, media criticism and public opinion/apathy.  But loose coalitions of convenience and an unspoken agreement not to criticize each other publicly are unlikely to be enough to either win the day or manage the important business of shaping the sector for the future.

It is equally clear that the financial circumstances faced by individual institutions cannot simply be conflated as a problem driven by visa policy, domestic student fees or Government rhetoric.  A first step towards the future is to accept that some institutions face serious problems in even attracting sufficient numbers of students, and may need radical solutions.  Another might be to acknowledge that some university management doesn’t understand forecasting, the markets, competition and/or travelled too hopefully for too long, as the University of East Anglia appears to have done when acknowledging “for the third year running we fell short of our student recruitment targets in the home undergraduate student market”.

It would be sensible to look at what has happened to the money injected because of the benevolent international student environment announced in 2019 and whether the pace of recruitment was appropriate in terms of student experience, local services and public opinion.  Some universities appear to have built a significant cash pile which may help ameliorate any short-term falls in recruitment and others have chosen to invest the bounty in other ways.  Whether those investments were wise, sustainable or designed to maintain/increase domestic student recruitment through, say, a financial subsidy from increased international student recruitment requires a more detailed study.

This blog takes a relatively narrow look at two universities that might appear to have similar opportunities as part of a mission group of “world class research intensive universities”.  Using data that reflect 2022/23 international recruitment and tuition fee data rather than waiting for HESA to catch up, it suggests that one has problems pre-dating recent changes to the visa regime.  The differential performance in international recruitment demonstrates that even when recruitment conditions are benevolent the market makes choices to the benefit of some universities and the detriment of others.       

Hold Your Friends Close..

The current unity of the sector is shallow and self-interested and the UniversitiesUK claim of “142 universities One voice” is wide of the mark.  We have the Russell Group, University Alliance, MillionPlus, GuildHE, and Cathedrals Group, but saw the 1994 Group disband in 2013, shortly after several of its number jumped ship to the Russell Group. Any solutions to the sector’s funding problems needs to be even more granular and consider specific issues.

Even though the Russell Group has become the de facto face of higher education for the media and many politicians it is far from a unified and equal group of partners.  Colleagues are familiar with my description of a meeting of its 24 members as having the sophisticated six acting cool and sipping martinis in the corner while the regional city types lumber around drinking craft beer and showing off.  Members from outside England hang around the fringes trying to attract attention by channeling a moody, Celtic-fringe vibe and the remaining half a dozen wonder why they paid the cab fare to attend when nobody really wants to talk to them.

…And Your Enemies Closer

HESA data delays mean it is difficult to get a full picture of the most recent enrollment success or otherwise of Russell Group universities.  What was clear in the immediate period after changes to post-study work visas and up to 2020/21, was that there was a strong focus on Chinese students but with some notable names failing to keep pace.  At the recent PIE Live Europe event a University of Glasgow spokesperson indicated that the most recent intake (presumably 2023/24) was “last year we had one of our strongest undergraduate performing years” despite it being the first time in a decade the university had not hit or exceeded its targets    

Sympathy should be tempered, for a number of reasons.  Firstly, universities have something of a habit of inflating enrollment targets in the good times so missing them might simply be a result of hubris in setting objectives.  More importantly, the University’s “Overseas Students” income rose by 10 % (£27.6m) to £303.8m from 2021/22 to 2022/23 and is up a whopping £166.5m since 2019.  While conscious that finance can be a tricky business the measures on operating surplus and net cash seem to support the Director of Finance’s view that they can “continue to develop,
invest and deliver on our strategic plans enabled by strong financial results.”

 Source: University of Glasgow Reports and Financial Statement 

But, as a reminder that the Russell Group university experience is very mixed, the University of York, reported in January 2024 a £24m deficit partly because “International student numbers decreased in the year following high recruitment after the Covid pandemic and reflecting changed geopolitical circumstances.”  It might be equally plausible that the moody, Celtic-fringe types from Glasgow, along with other Russell Group members, stole genteel York’s lunch money by competing more effectively for Chinese and other students. 

We will know more when the long-awaited HESA 2022/23 data emerges but the UCAS end of cycle data does give a sector wide insight into what happened at undergraduate intake level in 2022/23 and we can see that the fortunes of the two differed dramatically.  Glasgow has consistently grown non UK/EU applicants since 2018/19 and after a sharp hike in 2019/2020 has maintained the number of applicants accepted.  York saw a small decline in applicants and a much larger decline in applicants accepted from 2021/22 to 2022/23.  It may simply be that faced with Russell Group options international students are choosing the biggest name, best ranked or most competitively marketed.

This hypothesis might be supported by the fact that the University of York appears to have been forced to take more non-mainstream international applicants to even reach a declining total of acceptances.  The University of Glasgow has been able do exactly the opposite and secure increasing numbers of students through the mainstream route. Mainstream applicants apply through UCAS before the main deadline of 30 June and can nominate up to five institutions to consider their application.  

One interesting feature that does combine the two universities is that Kaplan is the operator of the International College for both.  In this respect the University of Glasgow annual report for 2022/23 notes that its “excellent..financial results” were achieved despite “..a decrease of £3.7m in partnership income from Glasgow International College Kaplan” and the annual report of the University of York International Pathway College LLP shows a that Operating Profit declined from £2m to £900k in the year to July 2022/23.  The University of Glasgow Pathway College entity has a different financial year end so it is not possible to provide a direct comparison.

The University of Glasgow appears to be slightly more expensive than the University of York for international students and the entry grades seem reasonably equivalent.  The apparent inability of York to compete effectively for international students despite this may be one reason for the January 2024 report that the University of York was “lowering admission requirements for some international students in light of “financial challenges.”  They may still find that the market votes with its feet.

Winter Is Coming

Sometimes the higher education sector can seem like a retread of Game of Thrones including “..several noble houses..a complicated, multiparty war…shifting conflicts, alliances, and betrayals.”  Driven by expediency many of the protagonists join together in a final battle to defeat the Night King and the White Walkers but in the end the Iron Throne is melted and the system governing Westeros is radically altered.  The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) review may be the sector’s Drogon or simply signal that winter is coming.

What will remain true is that the sector is not a monolithic entity and it is unhelpful to position it as such.  The main beneficiaries of the recent years of the graduate route are characterized by MAC’s Annual Report 2023 as universities “..that charge the lowest fees” and is “..strongest at the less selective universities.”   The report also highlights the University of Hertfordshire and the University of Glasgow as having the largest increase in international student numbers between 2018/19 and 2021/22 but it is clear that their success was for different reasons in different markets.

There is more to be said on the patchwork nature of the university sector as well as on the emerging evidence of slow recovery for commercial pathway operators.  That will be the subject of a follow up blog when time allows. 

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Up To Data

In the blog International Enrolments Unchained from February 2023 the UK universities with the most growth from India, Nigeria and Pakistan between 2020/21 and 2021/22 were shown. In the continuing absence of anything from HESA telling us what happened next and after the rather jaded retreading of old enrollment numbers by IHEC it seemed worth having a look at what happened to one of those players and also taking a look at one of the universities bemoaning its failure to keep up.


It’s good old-fashioned grunt work but lots of the data is there if you are prepared to put in the effort. It’s also revealing about the way some institutions have chosen to stash the cash and shown interesting movements in recruitment of domestic students. The picture is not comprehensive but it’s a sight better and more useful than sitting back and reporting on numbers from the middle of the pandemic.

This blog focuses on two institutions with quite different backgrounds and fortunes. The good news is that they give some real insights into what happened to their international student numbers in 2022/23. As these are formal Annual/Strategic Reports and Financial Statements it is difficult to see why that information cannot be entered into a common database and published within months of the financial year end or, on a preliminary basis, even earlier. Higher education may not like being accused of being outdated but the melting glaciers are beginning to outpace its rate of change – which is sad all round.

University of Hertfordshire

University of Hertfordshire (UoH) international student growth from 2020/21 to 2021/22 was pretty startling and they are not shy about highlighting their continued reaping of the Graduate Visa harvest. Overall, the UoH international community grew to 15,730 (45.4%) of a student body of 34,670. The numbers from India, Nigeria and Pakistan grew by 73.5%, 192.8% and 151.9% respectively although it is interesting to see the tailing off of numbers from Pakistan.

Source: University of Hertfordshire Strategic Reports and Financial Statements

The impact on UoH finances has been startling. Total full-time tuition fees have risen by 55.4% in the four years since 2019/20 with full time international tuition fees rising by 285.9% over the period. Despite the international fee bounty the University appears to have reduced its home student intake in 2021/22 and 2022/23 – this is implied because the domestic fee hasn’t changed but the amount collected is down. If one of the reasons for supporting greater international fee income is that it genuinely protects home student places this is probably worth a more detailed look.

Source: University of Hertfordshire Strategic Reports and Financial Statements

Rather than investing in home student recruitment it appears that UoH has been stashing most of the money away for largely unspecified purposes and spending it on largely unexplained “other operating expenses”. While staff costs rose by £20.5m between 2019/20 and 2022/23 the Other Operating Expenses (which do not have any accompanying note in the financial statement) rose £62.6m. There may be good reasons but it would be a comfort to have them spelt out.


Staff costs and numbers reported suggest investment in Academic and Research staff with their numbers growing over the period by 146 compared to all other staff growing by only 41. This is not always the case when universities find themselves flush with cash and it will be interesting to see how UoH deals with any decline in international student revenue.

Source: University of Hertfordshire Strategic Reports and Financial Statements

The Annual Report shows that the main impact of the financial windfall is that Cash reserves have gone from around £100m in 2019/20 to about £170m in 2022/23. The Operating Surplus has increased from about £2m to £20m and borrowings have declined. It looks as if UoH may have been preparing itself for a less certain future and may be reasonable well set to weather any headwinds.

Source: University of Hertfordshire Strategic Reports and Financial Statements

In that respect and just as a thought experiment it is worth considering that if UoH lost 50% of its international student income gained from 2021/22 to 2022/23 this would amount to around £22m. Even at this level the overall fee income is very considerably higher than 2019/20 and there is a substantial cash buffer to manage changes to a smaller scale operation. One suspects that their approach to management will see trimming of budgets and caution rather than them travelling hopefully on recruitment.


University of York


The University of York (UoY) has had a quite different experience. In January 2024 it was reported as “lowering admission requirements for some international students in light of “financial challenges.”” A reported £24m deficit was, they indicated, partly because, “International student numbers decreased in the year following high recruitment after the Covid pandemic and reflecting changed geopolitical circumstances.” It seems more likely that they had their lunch eaten by Russell Group competitors.


Their summary of student enrollments over the four years from 2019/20 to 2022/23 show a sharp spike with 59% growth in enrollments then a fall of 15.6% in 2022/23. They are not quite as forthcoming on the origin of their international students as UoH so we need to look at HESA’s slightly more dated data to get some insight into what might have happened.

Source: University of York Annual Report and Financial Statements

The HESA data (which gives slightly different numbers to those from the UoY reports but are close enough to be relevant) shows us that the growth from 2019/20 to 2021/22 was driven almost entirely by Chinese PGT students with a healthy boost from Chinese UG between 2019/20 and 2020/21. It is notable that UoY also managed a decent upward bump in students from India in 2021/22 which made up for a small decline in Chinese PGT enrollment that year.


The point is that their growth relied almost entirely on Chinese students. We know from HESA that between 2020/21 and 2021/22 the total number of enrolled FT Chinese students in the UK actually rose – from 140,445 to 148,760 – and that the FT PGT number grew from 72,555 to 77,135. It seems likely that UoY simply couldn’t compete against others in the Russell Group (the International Enrolments Unchained blog also looks at this issue) and it will be interesting to see if the 2022/23 numbers from HESA due to be published in April 2024 support this notion.

Source: HESA

The financial impact of the changes is clear. International FT student fee income rose by 67.5% over two years to 2021/22 (home student FT fees rose 10.6%) and dipped back slightly in 2022/23 (with home FT fees stable). The graphs show a relatively stable picture on staff costs (with USS movements excluded) until a spike in 2022/23.

Source: University of York Annual Report and Financial Statements

The staffing picture is notable for the relative suppression of Support Staff FTE during the pandemic but a significant leap in 2022/23. Over the four years the number of Support Staff has increased by 333 compared to Academic Staff up by 285 over the same period.

Source: University of York Annual Report and Financial Statements

Summary

A number of thoughts come to mind:

  1. While the change in visa regime will have an impact it seems likely that some UK institutions are significantly financially better off because of the extent to which they took advantage of the changes in post-study work. It is plausible that even a 50% reduction on the financial gains from 2021/22 to 2022/23 is far from catastrophic and particularly so if the institution is nimble enough to cut back to reflect changing circumstances.
  2. While universities like UoH who exploited these markets effectively can seem vulnerable to large declines in application volumes it is also likely that their on the ground operations will be more effective in taking larger share of declining markets.
  3. Universities that were unwilling or unable to capitalise on student markets that grew strongly because of changes to post-study work are likely to have been vulnerable to more powerful competition taking greater market share in China. Maybe some of the larger Russell Group universities have a secret persona as playground toughs who rough up less famous peers and take their lunch money.
  4. It will be interesting to see how the pathway operations involved have fared over these years. UoY’s relationship with Kaplan is likely to have supported them in the earlier years reviewed but may not have been able to overcome the lure of the bigger brand names.
  5. It would be sensible for an incoming Government to get more granular with the way different institutions are responding to changing market conditions. There is a certain logic to allowing the most dynamic and strongest to thrive, as long as academic standards and appropriate visa handling is in place, rather than introducing arbitrary caps on numbers.
  6. If international student fee income is, as has been argued, a protection for maintaining or growing domestic student places there needs to be some consideration of how direct the correlation is. From the UoH example above it appears that the university has been effective in securing significant increases in international income but has reduced enrollment of domestic students.

Image by Micha from Pixabay

Northern Star Sheds Light on International Recruitment

Universities and their mouthpieces might be drawing a collective sigh of relief and thinking that some of the heat has gone out of the discussion around the inequity of International Year One (IYO).  We certainly haven’t seen any of the private providers, the main beneficiaries of this route, stepping forward with authoritative data about this route.  But the Northern Consortium1 UK (NCUK) do give us traces of performance over the past decade or so.

Nothing in the NCUK numbers gives any relief to the core point that IYO is a route which, in many cases, allows international students to start the first year of a degree on without the necessary grades for direct entry.  The scale of the NCUK operation is used to demonstrate that IYO is not a niche activity and so deserves full attention from the Quality Assurance Agency and Department of Education reviews.

Of fundamental interest is the suggestion that NCUK has a long-term annual Progression Analysis that “considers the performance of all NCUK students at member universities and associates”.  This could be the gold standard of analysis reflecting everything from enrolment through attrition to degree outcomes.  At a single stroke NCUK might be able to answer many questions about the efficacy of pathway programmes albeit that its courses are not on campus.

In that respect there appears to have been an NCUK Report “Evidencing Success” from May 2018 launched at the NAFSA:Association of International Educators Conference in Philadelphia, which tracked ten years of NCUK student performance.  The snippet from it in the 2017/18 Annual Report indicates that 80% of NCUK students receive a first- or second-class degree but that IYO students “have a higher-than-average pass rate when progressing to the second year of their degree at university”.  It goes on to say that “over 90% of students meeting or getting higher than the required grades go on to pass their first year” and for “students who have been offered places with lower than the advertised entry requirements, the pass rate remains high at 88%.”

It seems reasonable to suggest that domestic students who miss their offer grade by one level and are rejected might do even better if allowed to start a degree, with extra academic support, on campus alongside direct entrants.  They just don’t get the chance.  Even more regrettable is that the Report is no longer available on its website – makes one wonder2.

The Trail Begins

The NCUK annual report and accounts for 2015/16 show that “International Diploma (Int Diploma-equivalent to 1st year degree level)” was offered as an “established pathway” programme.  It was “renamed as the International Year One” that year.  The report noted an upcoming triennial review in 2016/17 which might imply it had been first introduced in 2013/14 after the closure of post-study work options for international students in 2012.

As a small aside and for those that believe in history being cyclical it is worth noting that the Annual Report also notes NCUK had unconditional offers for 1,205 students.  It was an increase from 1,119 the previous year.  There was, however, a note of caution on eventual enrolment because of “…Nigeria where the economic circumstances are posing challenges for students and their families.  

Getting To Scale

The chart below reflects the data made available in NCUK Annual Reports and Reviews from 2016/17.  Not all of the information is provided for each year but we are able to see the following:

  • Students placed at UK university partners (all years)
  • Students “continuing onto the NCUK International Year One or moving to degree completion programmes at The Sino-British College in Shanghai” (2016/17 to 2018/19)
  • Students admitted to non-partner UK universities or to universities outside the UK (2016/17 to 2018/19)
  • The total number of students progressing to university or continuing on an NCUK qualification (all years)
  • The overall number of students on NCUK courses (2020/21 and 2021/22)

The final number is important in considering the IYO volume because NCUK also offer a percentage breakdown of the numbers on each of International Foundation Year, International Year One (IYO) and Masters Preparation.  For 2020/21 and 2021/22, where those overall enrolments are available, the percentage doing IYO was shown as 16% and 12% respectively.  The maths suggests that 507 and 452 were doing IYO courses in those two years.

Source: NCUK Annual Reports and Reviews

How Big Is International Year One for Private Providers?

A glimpse into the scale of IYO also comes from the only NCUK provider delivering it in the UK – INTO Manchester.  We can know for sure from a Quality Assurance Agency report in 2014 that in that year, of the 822 students, there were 99 on the NCUK “International Diploma” (later renamed International Year One) course.  That’s 12% which seems in keeping, if a little low, with the broader percentages shown by NCUK in later years. 

It is reasonable to add that in the May 2019 QAA Report 77% of students (82 out of 106) at INTO Manchester were reported as being “on a Level 4 International Year One (IYO) course” which might suggest a signficant upward movement in the course.  As pathway providers have come under increasing pressure to perform they have accelerated their provision of the most attractive offers to international students.  Universities who are equally keen to increase international numbers have become complicit in allowing those courses and the progression degrees available.

The other point is that INTO Manchester is not on a university campus so it is reasonable to suggest that the IYO here is more akin to the potential for domestic students who fail to get their grade offers to university to go and do an HNC at a local college.  All that really means is that the attraction of a course on a university campus, often sitting with direct entry first year students and taught by the same lecturers is likely to be immensely more attractive.  It seems reasonable to suggest that the likely IYO percentage in on-campus pathways is much higher.

As noted in a previous blog the growth of IYO and the propensity of universities to allow them has grown rapidly over the years.  More than half the partners of the six main pathway operators have IYO options leading to over 1,000 degree options.  Each partner usually has two to five IYO options.

 UK University PartnersUniversities offering IYOIYO linked degrees
Navitas127430
INTO74102
CEG8581
Kaplan157219
Study Group1411219
Oxford International5*451
Total61381,102

*Only partners where an International Foundation or International Year Zero is offered

A 2023 British Council report into “Pathways and recruitment channels to undergraduate study in the UK” reflected the paucity of information on the number of students coming through pathways into universities3.  However, my own research from public sources indicated that there were likely to be at least 20,000 students in pathways in 2018 and there have been additional partnerships announced since then.  Even staying with 20,000, a count of 12% of them being on international year one reaches 2,400 international students on campuses sitting the first year of an undergraduate degree in a way that is not available to domestic students.

As previously established these students have been accepted on significantly lower grades and often at lower language capability than even direct entrants from their own country.  A domestic student who missed a university offer by one grade could be rejected by that institution and IYO is even offered below contextual grades of domestic students from educationally challenged backgrounds.  It is very difficult to see how that is equitable.

How Do International Year One Student Perform?

The NCUK data is interesting but the gaps in it suggest a number of avenues for further consideration.  Of particular interest is the relative performance of IYO students compared to students progressing from Foundation Courses.  In this respect it’s worth noting that most pathway statistics about degree success tend only to reflect those that made it to the exam so dropout rates are hard to come by.    

A blog in The PIE in May 2018, by Georgina Jones, NCUK Market Development Director, indicates that 80% of NCUK students graduated with a first or second class degree but “around 50%” getting a 2:1 or higher.  On lower admissions criteria she notes, “…students who are admitted with below the published admission criteria, 88% go on to pass their first year, compared to 92% and 95% for those who met or exceed the criteria.”

In the 2018/19 Annual Report NCUK state that 59% of International Foundation Year students graduated with a 1st or 2:1 but that International Year One saw 74% of students achieving a 1st or 2:1.  89% of the International Foundation students secured a 2:2 or better compared to 96% of International Year One students.  There is a hiatus, presumably COVID-related before the story picks up again in the 2021/2 Annual Review, which indicates the 2:1 and above success rates were 69% (International Foundation Year) and 91% (International Year One).

It seems to tell a story that International Year One candidates may be more likely to drop out or fail in the first year but then go on to secure better success rates on completing the degree.  The comparative completion rate for domestic students is around 2.7% which might suggest that if those narrowly missing direct entry were allowed to start year one with additional academic support, more  would go on to finish and achieve academically than international students.

Summary

It is regrettable that Universities UK seems to have wilfully chosen not to explicity include International Year One in the review it has requested from the Quality Assurance Agency.  The existence of Foundation Years, which are often available to domestic students on a comparable basis, has not been questioned by most informed observers of the sector.  Notwithstanding that point, the NCUK figures bring into question the quality of study outcomes for international students who complete Foundations. The 59% with a 1st or 2:1 quoted by NCUK for 2018/19 is a very long way behind the aggregated 76.4% with a 2:1 or first shown by HESA for that year.

The fact remains that IYO is likely to be a successful proposition for commercial providers intent on boosting profitability and universities looking to protect falling international applications.  Equally true is that there is no comparable on-campus, year one of an undergraduate degree option for domestic students who miss their grades so the underlying allegation of privilege for international students is difficult to resist.  It seems that the only motivation for universities is likely to be having higher fee paying international students sitting in seats that could be filled by better qualified domestic students.

NOTES

  1. The Northern Consortium was incorporated as a company limited by guarantee (company registration number 02788226) on 9 February 1993. The Company was registered with the Charity Commission (registration number 1018979) on 23 March 1993. It had ten founder universities and describes itself as “a consortium of leading universities dedicated to giving international students guaranteed* entry to universities worldwide” The star alongside the word “guaranteed” is on the website and probably tells us all we need to know about the types of messaging that prevails.
  2. The summary of NCUK data reflects the incomplete picture across several annual reports. The Evidencing Success Report is still flagged on the website but the link leads to a 404 error page. It would be helpful if the data was available and particularly so if a comprehensive successor document could bring the material up to date.
  3. The British Council report is as polite as it can be about the fact that there are thousands of international students joining UK universities without any consistent way of determining their route to enrolment. This has been a feature of the growth of commercial providers in the international recruitment space. It is also another gap in data which makes the sector vulnerable to politically driven focus on student visas.

Image by Mario Aranda from Pixabay

From Clouseau To Cousteau

The Sunday Times articles looking at pathway programmes has been positioned by some as a political hit job on the higher education sector.  If so, it was as inept as the hapless Inspector Clouseau’s efforts to understand and bring to justice criminal elements.  A more Jacques Cousteau type of deep dive is needed to give some data on the relatively uncharted depths of International Year One.

Sector mouthpieces like Universities UK have insisted on talking about Foundation Programmes but this blog will focus on International Year One (IYO) (which is sometimes called First Year or Stage 2 by certain providers).  Most seem to be studied at NQF 4 which OnCampus at Aston University tell us “..is equivalent to the first year of an undergraduate degree in the UK” and on successful completion they give direct entry to year two of an undergraduate degree programme.  As Douglas Adams writes, “If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands.”  

IYO is usually offered by a pathway provider, but gives the opportunity, on completion, to join year two of the student’s chosen degree programme in the university proper.  It is not available to domestic students and is offered exclusively to international students at lower grades than those required for direct entry.  A key question is whether it is an unfair, back door route for low quality international students to enter UK universities.   

This distinguishes it from a Foundation which is a pre-degree, preparatory programme that offers the opportunity on completion of progressing to year one of a degree programme.  Foundation programmes have a long history and most would agree that they serve a useful purpose for international students in developing language capability, culture assimilation and academic preparation before studying in the university.  There are also a number of comparable Foundation programmes providing pre-degree opportunities to domestic students .

Big Business and Growing

One argument that has been put forward is that the IYO element of the market is not big enough to worry about.  That disregards issues of fairness, equality and quality in admissions decisions and is also a dubious claim.  While data is fragmented and actual student number unavailable it is possible to see how IYO has become a big business.

Many consider Australian behemoth Navitas as the instigator of IYO.  Their current degree Study Options page leads to a selector which indicates that all 12 of their university partners offer IYO and that these qualifications link to 430 degree options.  As a comparison the Foundation degrees are available at all 12 partners and link to 799 degrees.

INTO offers IYO at four of its seven UK partners and the number of IYO options at them exceeds Foundation options by 36 to 21.  The wholly owned subsidiary INTO London claims to have progression agreements with 118 universities including specific arrangements relating to IYO with the University of Kent, Exeter University, University of Westminster and Surrey University.  The wholly owned subsidiary INTO Manchester claims that successful completion of IYO gives “a guaranteed offer for one of 14+ NCUK universities” – presumably in Year 2 of the degree.

Cambridge Education Group offers IYO through five of its eight OnCampus operations – those at the universities Aston, Birkbeck, Sunderland, Hull and London Southbank.  

Kaplan’s Degree Finder page indicates it offers progression through International Year One to 219 degrees at seven of its fifteen partner universities – University of Essex, UWE Bristol, Nottingham Trent University, Brighton Univesity, Bournemouth University, University of Birmingham, University of Westminster.  IYO courses are available at the first five locations and also at Kaplan International College, London.

Study Group has fourteen UK partners (not counting Huddersfield London) and offers International Year One at 11 of them.  It is here that it becomes easy to see why the Russell Group of Universities was so irritated at the assertions from the Sunday Times – none of Study Group’s Russell Group partners appear to offer International Year One. 

NCUK has 31 UK partner universities and indicates that its International Year One course is accepted at 16 of them.  Some of their partners, such as Exeter, Queen’s, Brunel and others, have arrangements with their pathway provider but do not accept the NCUK version.  It was not possible to track the number of degrees that could be progressed to from NCUK.

Table 1 – Summary of Main UK Pathway Providers and IYO Linked Degrees

 UK University PartnersUniversities offering IYOIYO linked degrees
Navitas127430
INTO74102
CEG8581
Kaplan157219
Study Group1411219
Total56341,051

Source: Pathway provider and University websites. 

It is unlikely that students progress every year to all the possible linked degrees but the availability of the option is highly desirable as it allows the student choice, life on campus, and often allows them to study alongside direct entry students for all or part of their time. Commentators who have claimed that alternatives to IYO do exist for domestic students in the form, for example, of HNCs are wide of the mark in considering these comparable options.

Silence of the Lambs

The Sunday Times clearly stated that International Year One (IYO) existed, defined the nature of the programme and had a direct quote from an INTO employee noting they were available at lower academic and language grades than direct entry.  Yet, none of the statements from organisations like Universities UK or the Russell Group of Universities  or even thought pieces from the usually impartial WonkHE even mentioned them.  The hurried “review” announced by Universities UK fails to specify that it will be looking at IYO and it seems like a collective vow of omerta has descended upon the sector.

This is despite the fact that IYO has become a significant part of pathway provider recruitment and revenue and offers a growing stream of international student fees to institutions.  The fact that student numbers are not publicly recorded makes it easy to fly under the radar in terms of volume and quality.  Ultimately though, the key claim is that it offers preferential treatment to high-fee paying international students of lower academic and language capability by allowing them a soft point of entry to degree study at a university of their choice.

There is absolutely no doubt that students starting the first year of a degree through an IYO are receiving their place with levels of academic and language achievement significantly below those of either domestic students or other international students who enter direct.  Over and above that they appear to get in with lower academic grades than are quoted as “contextual” offers for students from educationally challenged backgrounds.

Basically, IYO candidates have lower academic grades than their peers and start with lower language capability.  Even if that is not considered unfair the key question is whether an IYO can overcome those hurdles to the point where they can comfortably join and thrive on joining the second year of a degree.  It seems a big step and in the absence of good tracking data being produced by universities there must be some some scepticism.

In that context it is incorrect to believe that IYO courses are uniquely demanding in requiring a “pass” mark before a student can progress on to Year two of the degree.  As stated in this example for direct entrants from the University of York, “You must satisfy the requirements for each stage of your programme before being able to progress to the next stage. For a Bachelor degree, you need to get a credit-weighted average mark of 40 for each stage.”

The reality is that the International Year One options have grown because they are popular with international students whose performance on academic and language measures means they cannot get into their university of choice directly. This is a privilege that is not open to domestic students who might miss their university offer by just one grade.  It is difficult to see an argument that this is fair or appropriate or that the students go on to achieve well academically.

I have argued previously that the UK Higher Education sector is like a lamb lying down in the road and oblivious to the danger of being crushed by an oncoming juggernaut.  Here we have it choosing silence over mounting a data-driven assertion of the merits of International Year One.  That may be because there is no data and no defence.

Notes

Many hours have been spent scouring the web for details on International Year One. The summary here attempts to give some shape to a complex set of information in as straightforward a way as possible. The summary of articulation to degree courses is offered in good faith but any authoritative corrections will be taken seriously and noted. If anyone has data on progression from IYO and eventual degree outcomes compared to direct entry it would be good to see.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Selling England by the Pound

The Sunday Times article about differential entry grades for international students1 to Russell Group university degrees sparked the usual defensive response from the UK higher education sector.  There was plenty of obfuscation and claims that the newspaper was guilty of poor journalism but with little engagement about the core claims.  There does, however, seem to be some substance to the claim that universities are working with commercial partners in ways that are not entirely transparent and do not seem equitable in terms of academic and language standards.

Specifically, International Year One (IYO) offerings (generally through private partnerships with universities, accept international students who fail to get the academic or language requirements for direct entry to a university undergraduate programme. If they pass the IYO course they progress to the second year of the degree programme in the university proper which means the IYO is accepted as the first year of the degree. The IYO courses are not open to UK students so they do not have this opportunity if their grades are below the direct entry requirement and so they are disadvantaged.

A Trick of the Tail

The issue, is not well defined by the newspaper, but it seems clear that international students can buy their way directly onto year one of UK university degree course via an International Year One programme operated by a private partner.  The students can do this when they are not academically qualified to enter that programme directly and this opportunity is denied to UK students.  Finding evidence for this is not easy because many International Year One’s advertised are Delphic, coy or deliberately elusive about stating the requirements.

What is consistent is that pathway operators are clear about the intention of International Year One courses:

Kaplan say:

“If you don’t meet the entry requirements to go to a UK university directly, degree preparation courses like an IYO can help you reach the level needed to start a bachelor’s degree….After successfully completing an IYO, you progress straight to the second year of a bachelor’s degree, so you save time and money.”

Study Group International Study Centre – Cardiff University says:

“The International Year One is an intensive programme that leads to year two of an undergraduate degree at Cardiff University. The programme is tailor-made for international students who are not ready to apply direct to the University, but don’t want to delay their studies.”

INTO University of Exeter

“Specifically designed for international students who show academic promise but who do not meet the University’s academic and/or English language requirements for direct entry to Year 1 of an undergraduate degree.”

There seems no doubt from the pathways providers that IYO is a substitute for year one of a three-year undergraduate degree and that those enrolled do not have to have the qualifications published by the university for direct entry to that degree.  It is also true to say that this privilege is not available to UK students.  Indeed, international students who are academically strong enough and have achieved the English language levels to enter direct need not have bothered because their achievements save them neither time or money.

The Sunday Times has representatives of several pathway operators rather proudly noting that it is a “back door”, that “you don’t have to worry too much about how difficult it is” and “..British students don’t have this kind of privilege.”  One might argue that this is just sales talk but if so, it is a reminder that some commercial operators are not operating to the best standards in preserving the UK sector’s much vaunted reputation for integrity and quality.  The operators’ representatives quoted are effectively trashing the brand of the university in question by indicating that this is a privileged, easy and hidden route to their awards. 

Invisible Touch

Having established that the Sunday Times is correct about the nature of the International Year One it’s worth a look at the extent of the differential.  As noted above the university and pathway websites are less than forthcoming, perhaps because they realise that it doesn’t reflect well on quality standards for admissions.  The Sunday Times quotes its sources for a chart showing various anomalies between direct entry and International Year One requirements but they are not publicly accessible.

The Sunday Times also directly quotes pathway representative sfor INTO Exeter saying, “So your son that’s studying A-levels — to get on to the [International Year One] programme it would be two Cs and a D.” They note, “Applying through the Ucas system, the students would need AAB at A-level, she said.”

One publicly available source confirms a similar differential at another INTO partner, Queen’s University Belfast.  The university website indicates that the BSc Economics degree requires ABB at A-level:

Source: Queen’s University Belfast website (28 January, 2024)

The INTO Student Portal shows the progression possibility to the Business Economics BSc from the International Year One in Management and Finance and that the entry requirement for the International Year One in question is DD at A-level:

Source: INTO Student Portal website (28 January, 2024)

Against this background it seems incomprehensible that the Russell Group of Universities has issued a statement trying to obscure and obfuscate the situation. Queen’s offers, through its private partner INTO, an International Year One that allows “progress to Year 2 of a professionally accredited undergraduate degree at Queen’s University Belfast.” It is not available to UK students.

From Genesis to Revelation

The Sunday Times was unwise to bring the terms Foundation Programme and International Year One to the table in the same article.  It seems perfectly reasonable that there should be Foundation level, pre-degree, preparatory programmes for students who do not have the required language level or academic qualifications for direct entry and/or may not have the 13 years’ schooling expected.  There may be different things to be worried about in terms of Foundation programmes and particularly the covert nature of the agreements between university and private partner on the language and academic grades required to pass before degree entry. 

Pathway operators mentioned in the article, INTO University Partnerships, Kaplan, Study Group and Cambridge Education Group (shown as OnCampus), all cut their teeth on Foundation Programmes.  These have come under increasing pressure over time for competitive reasons and as the Chinese students who underpinned the growth of the early 2000s have declined.  The International Year One response utilizes the gap between 5.5IELTS and 6.0IELTS with the former being the lowest level allowed for a visa to start a degree in the UK and the latter being the lowest most universities will accept for direct entry.

Language testing is complex and the gap between 5.0IELTS and 6.0IELTS is suggested to be that between a “modest user” and a “competent user”.  One suspects that the UK visa regulations relating to degree study were simply chosen to reflect the Common European Framework of Reference of Languages (CEFR) which bands IELTS 5.5 to 6.5 together in the B2 category).  In practical terms, however, most universities settled on 6.0IELTS for entry because it was a level which reflected teaching and learning priorities.

Calling All Stations

It is, of course, not only Russell Group universities that do this with International Year One and given the maelstrom in which INTO, Study Group, Kaplan, and CEG found themselves thrown it seemed only fair to have a quick look at Navitas.  Of the big five the Australian giant does not work with any Russell Group universities but has built a decent UK portfolio since 2000, having been the first movers on pathway courses in Australia in the 1990s.

At Anglia Ruskin University, Navitas offer what they call a First Year Pathway (FYP) and say “Upon completion of the first year…you will seamlessly progress to the second year of your chosen degree with the University”.  The language and description is a little meandering but we can be sure agents know what they mean and what commission comes with it.  They are specific that “First Year with ARU College is only available for EU and International Students” and that it is for those who “don’t meet the entry requirements to enter university level study directly.”

Finding the entry criteria for the First Year Pathway is complex (so I would be happy to hear from ARU if I have this wrong and will correct it) but it looks as if the answer is “(EU & International nationals ONLY): 40. UCAS Tariff points at A/AS level.”  This compares to ARU’s standard entry requirement of “96 UCAS tariff point from a minimum of 2 A levels (or equivalent)”.  Basically this is the difference between AA at A-level and DE at A-level.

The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway

There are times when the UK higher education sector seems as aimless and innocent as a lamb deciding to take a nap on a busy thoroughfare.  There are just too many occasions when it expects to be protected from harm while placing itself in perilous situations where it might be flattened by an oncoming juggernaut.  It has allowed itself to be positioned as venal, arrogant and detached which makes it vulnerable to almost any action the Government of the day wants to take.

The Sunday Times piece comes on top of a number of reports and news items that just suggest universities are not in full control of their brand, their degrees or their finances.  The recent National Audit Office report on private education providers franchised by universities had undertones of fraud and organised crime which were disturbing.  The sense that international recruitment was allowed to spiral out of control with millions being paid to agents and reliance on international students is also strong.

There seems little doubt that all of these factors will play into the Migration Advisory Committee thinking as it reviews the graduate and student visa routes.  Everyone has already seen the commentary from the chair of the Committee concerning low-quality students enrolling more for the option to work post-study than for the education.  One might even think that the timing and placement of the Sunday Times story was intended to ensure that the terms of that Review are as tough and directive as possible.

NOTES

The title of this blog and the sub-headings are all taken from albums by Genesis.  One take on the title “Selling England by the Pound” is that the band did not want to be thought of as “selling out” to America.  But bassist Mike Rutherford has also been reported as saying it “..was partly about increasing commercialization and the sense that something was being lost in England.”  It seems apt given the increasing incursion of private entities into UK higher education.

  1. The Sunday Times appears to have access not only to taped interviews but also to “grade entry requirement documents”.  This blog does not attempt to fully replicate the work or assertions of the newspaper article or to endorse all of its assertions, graphics or quotes. 
  2. I am grateful to Susan Fang for her insight on a specific issue related to this blog. Her insight and prompt response was extremely helpful. Any text or misunderstandings are entirely mine.

Image by Catherine Stockinger from Pixabay

A Look Before You Leap

Recovering from the gluttony of Christmas dinner and resolving to resist the lure of nibbling on leftovers is a little like universities making new year resolutions to be slightly less greedy and indiscriminate about international student recruitment.  We all know that it makes sense to lose the excess pounds, focus on high quality, nourishing food, and cease acting with the incaution of a drunken sailor.  But the temptation of finishing the mince pies, the bottle of egg nog and the turkey sandwiches, while avoiding the gym is sometimes overwhelming.

Maybe that’s why it’s up to Governments to decide who has been naughty or nice and who deserves a visit from the Ghost of Christmas 2024.  The last few months of 2023 saw a lot of political posturing and positioning in the four main recruiting countries and the impact of some changes are already being felt.  A quick look at the implications suggests that for the big four recruiting countries international recruitment at the latter end of 2024 will be a Nightmare Before Christmas for some but a Miracle on 34th Street for others.

The good news for student recruiters is that it’s a leap year so they have a whole extra day to work out their response.1

United Kingdom

The gift of post-study work in September 2019 gave UK universities the keys to the student recruitment larder but they appear to have been caught eating too much low-quality pie.  This has left the sector vulnerable to Government action and it is likely to find the coming recruitment cycle difficult.  Enroly Data Insights in November 2023 indicated “..overall deposit payments are down by 52%, CAS issuance is down by 64% and visa issuance is down by 71% when compared to January 2023.”  While the year-on-year comparison has its limitations there seems little doubt that changes in Government visa policy on dependents is already biting.

News in early December that a review of the Graduate Route to “prevent abuse” and “protect the integrity and quality of the UK’s outstanding higher education sector” may not augur well for the medium term either.  Although the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) is not likely to report on the issue until near the end of 2024, when a general election is either under way or already over, one suspects that any new Government, will accept its recommendations. MAC recommended against the graduate route before it was introduced and there is no reason to believe they won’t do so again.

MAC’s starting point seems clear from the Annual Report 2023 where it notes that there are “..a very different set of students accessing the route than might have been expected based on student patterns in 2019 when the route was announced.”  The largest growth has been “predominantly been in institutions that charge the lowest fees” and “been strongest at the less selective universities”.  Anyone who understands international recruitment would have predicted these outcomes and it is quite extraordinary that Government supporters of the Graduate Route did not understand these as likely outcomes.  

A possible saviour for the current length of post-study work visa might be that the recent restrictions on dependents make a serious enough dent in international student numbers before the main intake in autumn 2024.  Aligned with an unwillingness to invest further in the higher education sector this could find the narrow path that allows the next Government to see how net migration figures play out for at least another year before imposing further constraints.  One suspects, however, that the ideological setting of MAC will demand more in terms of quality recruitment and a requirement to move to a different visa after study.      

Canada

The growth in Canada’s international student recruitment numbers has been remarkable.  According to Erudera, study permit holders nearly doubled from 2016 (410,570) to 2022 (807,750) with international students in tertiary education increasing by around 150,000 from 2015/16 (228,924) to 2020/21 (373,599).  The strength of recruitment from India has been a feature of the market for many years so it was well placed to capitalize on the boom of recent years.

Many observers would reflect that the magnitude of the growth has come at a cost to processes and reputation.  Claims of “bureaucratic mismanagement” were being called out as long ago as 2017 and there have been reports of universities accepting 99% of international students who apply and/or having visa rejection rates around 80%.  Issues around aggregator platforms allowing institutions to absolve their responsibilities for agents and the sheer volume of applications causing delays in visa processing or allowing fraudulent applications through have also been prominent.      

It does look as if the Canadian federal government has responded to the various scandals around students starving, dying and being misled about their study choices but in the wrestling match with powerful provinces it is difficult to see a comprehensive response taking hold. One response to a possible international enrolment cap was from Alexandre Lahaie, a spokesperson for Quebec’s Immigration Ministry saying that “Quebec does not intend to impose a cap on the number of foreign students in its jurisdiction…..Although issuing study permits is the responsibility of the federal government, education is the exclusive power of Quebec,”.  The pace of change can be slow as reflected by the cost-of-living financial requirement for students going up recently for the first time since the early 2000s.

While the IRCC has signalled a new Trusted Institution framework in 2024 and the International Education Strategy is due a refresh in mid-2024 experts reflect that this is a “challenging policy area”.  It is difficult to see that a minority Government facing an election no later than October 2025 is likely to want to upset the apple cart, particularly when some suggest Prime Minister Trudeau’s own role as party leader is under scrutiny.  One suspects that any changes to policy on international student recruitment in 2024 will be about tidying up around the edges and minimizing friction rather than significantly reducing intakes.

Australia

While the Australian government has rattled its sabre over the issues of international student recruitment the smart money seems to be on plenty of light touch regulation and monitoring along with touches on the tiller for employability without significantly damaging intakes.  The Australian Migration Strategy released in December 2023 looked a pretty nuanced document that provides plenty of space to “…lift the standards for international students and education providers while ensuring graduates help meet skills shortages and do not become permanently temporary.”

Study Australia leapt on the Strategy to suggest a join up between clear post study pathways, genuine student requirement, requirements on education providers and high-quality education agents.  By maintaining special initial stay periods for Indian nationals they have kept faith with a key market while setting IELTS at 5.5 for university foundation and pathway programs at the same time as moving levels for Temporary Graduate and Student visas upwards balances access with quality.

In contrast to the UK and Canada there seems to be a coherence in the Migration Strategy which respects the strength of its higher education sector as a critical part of national branding and infrastructure while addressing issues in the private VET sector where some “have systematically exploited Australia’s education system and broken migration law.”  Issues of graduate employability are addressed with the responsibility of institutions being noted and a study commissioned “..to better analyse international student outcomes and pathways into the labour market, with deep tripartite consultation of unions, employers, and training and education providers.”

Some are concerned that the measures put in place to date will have a dampening impact on recruitment but the sense is of a more reassuring picture than that being offered by the UK.  Placed alongside some speculation that the Canadian juggernaut might be losing pace this is likely to make the Australian picture pretty benign for international students.  2024 looks like it should be another good year. 

United States of America

For the growing sending markets the USA is a highly desirable country with a well-regarded higher education sector.  There is also every sign that US universities seeking to increase international recruitment have upped their game in terms of focus, competitive awareness and professionalism.  Even the Government has played its part with exceptional numbers of visas processed in 2023, amendments to H-1B visas and steps towards modernizing the visa process more generally.

The India numbers were material in driving international enrolments in Fall 2023 and the chief executive of the Institute of International Education was positively gleeful in suggesting, “Made in the USA is something that these students and families want on their diplomas.”  It should be very difficult to be negative about the potential for the US to substantially grow international enrolments in 2024.  The real question is what might disturb that and what might happen next.

A presidential election in November 2024 already has some pundits claiming that a re-election for Donald Trump would lead to, “A mass deportation operation. A new Muslim ban. Tariffs on all imported goods and “freedom cities” built on federal land.”  Study Portals data from 2016 suggests that more than 50% of international students were “far less likely” to study in the US than they were before Trump’s election.  It is difficult to see why the outcome would be any different in the coming year.

Trump’s views on higher education institutions suggest there may be even wider implications for the sector.  The noise around the election is bound to rise and the rhetoric is almost certain to ramp up in a way that begins to make alternative countries look a more stable option.  Relationships with India could also become a bit sticky if the threatened “retribution” on reciprocal taxation looks like becoming a reality.

Summary

The world offers many options delivering courses in English and most are finding ways of making post-work study a possibility with some going further in terms of possible routes to citizenship.  In the face of uncertainty many agents and students have a tendency to consider their options and look for the route of least resistance to meet their needs.  The evidence of the past few years is that options are kept open and decisions can be delayed for much longer than ever used to be the case.

We also seem to be seeing Governments viewing higher education and its capacity for international recruitment as a work-force planning component in the face of changing population demographics.  While university leaders are quick to proclaim quality education as the key driver of global interest there is growing evidence that low cost, post graduate employability and routes to citizenship are much more important for the growing markets.  All this at a point when the enthusiasm for university education is under pressure from disenchanted youth, apathetic public and cash-squeezed Governments.

More than ever before there is a need for joining up the dots in the way that the Australian Migration Strategy seems to do (although everyone recognizes that implementation is something different).  The UK seems to lurch from policy to policy without much apparent insight into the consequences and Canada appears to be slow moving and in thrall to competing interests across Federal and Provincial governments.  The US runs the risk of finding its historical attraction and dominant position undermined by more nimble players while internal, political factionalism prevents any realistic hope of long-term, strategic planning for growth.     

Notes

  1.  Royal Museums Greenwich tell us that “the first leap year in the modern sense in Britain was 1752, when 11 days were ‘lost’ from the month September with the adoption of the Gregorian calendar by Britain and her colonies. After 1752 we adopted the system still in use today where an additional day is inserted in February in years wholly divisible by four, other than years ending in 00 with the exception of those divisible by 400 which are still leap years (like 2000).”  

Image by Mohamed Hassan from Pixabay

Study Group Hokey Pokey

In recent months there has been triumphant messaging on LinkedIn from Shorelight’s Tom Dretler claiming that the business “brought more international students to the US” than anybody else in fall 2023.  It was queried by Andrew Colin of INTO University Partnerships with the riposte “Are you sure?” to which Tom posted a thumbs up sign.  Probably better than the middle finger emoji but as neither of them would be able to definitively prove the point we are probably none the wiser.

What is clear is that Shorelight, having overtaken INTO for pathway partnerships within three years of springing into existence, has also significantly outstripped the erstwhile US market leader in terms of direct recruitment options.  But as the US comes back to life after a tough and long pandemic it is interesting to watch the maneuvering of other players.  There is no doubt that there are probably hundreds of US universities who would like to get on the gravy train of southeast Asia enrollment opportunities so we should expect a glut of wannabe global student recruitment options emerging.

Enter Study Group, whose approach to the US has been akin to a slightly the worse for wear dad doing the Hokey Pokey1 on new year’s eve.  The gyrations of the past few years are a painful reminder that a business that could once claim to be among the world leaders as a private provider of recruitment services to universities seems to be struggling for identity, a sense of direction and worst of all hard cash.  Having abdicated to Navitas in Australia by selling all of its holdings and now facing a UK Tory Government lining up post-graduate work as the Christmas sacrifice to right-wing rebellion, it seems to have turned attention across the Atlantic.

The announcement of three new direct recruitment partners may look like a decisive step but you have to wonder whether this represents a strategic drive for market share or a gambler’s final throw.  A quick look at the recent international student enrollment record and a few facts about each university might suggest that we are at the stage of the evening where subdued lighting and sufficient refreshment has brought lonely souls together.  Maybe inspiration on the partnerships has been drawn from the mighty Bruce Springsteen’s suggestion that “Show a little faith, there’s magic in the night, You ain’t a beauty, but hey, you’re alright.”2

Shake It All About

Between 2019 and 2021 Study Group ended relationships with seven US universities and, as recently reported, has seen Baylor University depart the fold in 2023.  Some of the relationships had been in place as long ago as 2008 but there was a burst of activity with new partners in 2013 and 2014 after the purchase of Study Group from Champ Private Equity by Providence Equity Partners for a reported £388.3m in 2010.  Of the four partners added at that point only one remains.

By 2017 Study Group was on the block again.  It seem entirely possible that the addition of seven new partners between 2016 and 2018 was driven as much by the desire to show momentum as long-term strategic planning.  Four of the seven are no longer partners.  Current major backer Ardian bought the business in 2019 without the terms of trade being made public but at a point when the decline in US international pathway businesses was already evident.

Timing is everything and nobody could have predicted the pandemic to come, so Ardian have been obliged to put up with some even more difficult times.  Between February 2021 and March 2023 they tipped a further £77m into the business according to Study Group’s Annual Report and Financial Statements. Despite that in the year ended 2022 Study Group posted a decline in new student enrollments of 22% from 8,050 to 6,244 year on year and lost a top university brand, Lancaster University, to INTO in 2023.

A more detailed review of the underlying issues at long-term partner James Madison University shows the problems that Study Group may still have in holding on to its pathway business.  In that context it seems possible that new partner universities, whatever their merits, will be welcome if Ardian are considering how best to extract themselves from an investment which seems unlikely to have satisfied expectations, in a sector that is in significant turmoil.  Getting out of Australia just as the tide seems to be turning looked a curious decision but the growing risks in the UK must be leaving many senior people with sleepless nights. 

Maybe this is the moment that a major (and often discussed) reunion bringing Andrew Colin’s two creations – Study Group and INTO University Partnerships – together might provide the critical mass and overhead savings to compete effectively while balancing risk around the globe.  The merits of merging two businesses that have struggled to make headway in recent years, and where one is embroiled in legal dispute with a major US university, might be questionable.  Perhaps CEG should be thrown in the mix to complete a trifecta.            

Shake It All About

The three new partners are University of Nebraska – Omaha, CSU San Marcos and Townson University in Maryland.  Study Group is putting its brand in at points north, east and west with a group of institutions that might be described as eclectic.  One thing that connects them looks to be slow progress in recovering international student numbers quickly after the pandemic.

University of Nebraska – Omaha positions itself as “Nebraska’s Metropolitan University”.. “dedicated to the city and state in our name.”   It’s international enrollment since 2019 has followed a broad pattern of decline in undergraduate numbers but an encouraging uptick in graduate students since 2020.  One would guess that the relatively low tuition fee of $22,358 and value for money housing costs could also be an attraction.

On the other hand, Nebraska might be a tough sell as a location and it’s worth noting that the University of Nebraska – Lincoln is the dominant international student recruiter in the state.  It claims the “lowest tuition in the Big Ten” at $28,792 and looks in a good position to dominate competitively.      

Warren Buffett, the “Sage” of Omaha, is among the more famous residents of Nebraska.  With a presidential election in 2024 and possible uncertainties that might bring it is difficult not to think of his dictum, “Only buy something that you’d be perfectly happy to hold if the market shut down for 10 years.”  Given Study Group’s US record that might be worth thinking about.  

Source: University of Nebraska – Omaha Office of Institutional Effectiveness

Those who think of California as an ideal location for international student recruitment need to remember that the performance of the big players is not always replicable.  For every University of Southern California (15,729 international students in 2022 according to Open Doors) there is a, um, CSU San Marcos (CSUSM).  The international new student enrollment at CSUSM was never particularly high and appears to have been in serious decline for four years with little joy even in graduate recruitment.

Tuition and fees at CSUSM look reasonable at $18,160 for UG rising to c$22,000 for most Graduate degress but room and board costs are less so.

Source: CSU San Marcos Office of Institutional Planning and Analysis

One the east coast Towson University has a new President in Mark Ginsberg and was embroiled in a controversy earlier this year for allegedly “creating programs that already exist at historically Black colleges and universities.”  It later withdrew the program.  It bills itself as a “…nationally recognized leader in inclusive excellence.”

With undergraduate fees of around $28,000 a year it is the most expensive of the three but presumably the location offers some relief from the sunshine of southern California and the seasonal extremes of Nebraska.  It’s non-resident student fall enrollment has been lackluster for several years with graduate numbers creeping up only slowly.

Source: Towson University Office of Institutional Research  

You Put Your Whole Self In

Good strategy requires long-term commitment, intense focus and a relentless drive to implement effectively even as circumstances change.  If this is Study Group’s new direction they will need to move very quickly to build their portfolio and execute enrollment against some entrenched opposition.  It may be, however, that the sale of the Australian portfolio and the saturation of the UK market has reduced options to the point where it is the only game left to play.

NOTES

  1. The Hokey Pokey is an Americanization of the Hokey Cokey which reached peak popularity in the UK in the 1940s.  The peak of popularity in the US is claimed to be the 1950s. Perhaps Study Group intend to revitalize it…
  2. The line is from what is, in my view, The Boss’s greatest song “Thunder Road”. Written in 1975 it was the first song on breakthrough album Born to Run. Apparently he played it as first song when he first played in the UK in November 1975.

Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay

Closing Open Doors

This is probably the final blog relating to Open Doors data on 2022 enrollment of international students for US universities and the more recent data published by individual universities for fall 2023. That makes it a bit longer than usual and it includes a small diversion into some recent commentary about online being the new international!

Beavering Away Or Bellying Up?

The yearly posting of detailed information from Oregon State University (OSU) offers timely data, good detail and easy accessibility.  Universities in the UK and around the world would do well to follow the model if they want to engage more effectively with the public.  It is difficult to have a serious discussion about trends or for politicians to make good decisions when information is more than two years out of date.

All that said, this year’s data reflects the continuing struggles of some well-regarded US universities and their pathway partners to recover after the pandemic.  The detailed numbers underline the perils of over-reliance on a single market and the reality that the US bounceback outlined by Open Doors fall 2022 data is patchy.  As noted in a previous blog, the data gives clarity on why pathway partner INTO University Partnerships (INTO) didn’t mention the university in its press release suggesting a “..huge surge in international student enrollment for its US institutional partners..”.

The total of enrolled UG and graduate students shows that OSU is making no progress in recovering the volume of international students lost since the pandemic.  There has been a small uptick in graduate students (+68) but undergraduate numbers continue to plummet with a decline of 16% year on year (-192).  While the year-on-year decline is slowing, OSU does not appear to have benefited in 2022 or from the reported increase in international enrollments indicated by the Open Doors Fall 2023 Snapshot.   

Source: Oregon State University Officer of Institutional Research

NB: INTO OSU students, excluding those on Academic English courses, are included in these totals

The driving factor for the decline is that the university was heavily reliant on Chinese students and has been unable to significantly grow numbers from India or elsewhere.  In its other historically stronger recruitment markets OSU is losing ground with Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Taiwan all in decline over four years.  What seems difficult to explain, given OSU’s quality and the supposed recruiting power of its private partner, is that the Open Doors state by state detail suggests two other Oregon universities – Portland State University and the University of Oregon – seem to have stabilized their overall number of international students in 2023 more effectively than OSU.  

Source: Oregon State University Officer of Institutional Research

It is also clear that the pathway proposition (INTO OSU) offered by INTO is not providing much momentum with a down year in 2022 and a net increase of just seven students in 2023.  Without a substantial shift in recruiting market dynamics it is difficult to see a path or a way (sic) to significant growth in the future.

Source: Oregon State University Officer of Institutional Research

The decline in INTO OSU’s numbers reflects even more clearly the past reliance on China (and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia).  Taiwan now contributes more volume to the pathway than China.  The aphorism “you can’t buck the market” is often attributed to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher but it’s a warning to operators around the world that changing to meet shifting market conditions is critical to long-term success.

Source: Oregon State University Officer of Institutional Research

Is Online The New International?

An interesting rider to all this is the recent blog by Glenda Morgan in Phil Hill’s On EdTech Newsletter.  She asks the question, “Is Online the New International” and noted that “..by 2021 eCampus was the largest source of OSU’s tuition revenue.”  The suggestion in the newsletter is that US university focus on international student recruitment might be drifting, in the context of continuing pressure on budgets at state level, towards online recruitment.

The article contains a quote from Rajika Bhandari summarizing that, “Most students coming from India are at the graduate level. This has always been the case and likely will be for the foreseeable future.  Therefore, just from a recruitment and revenue perspective, they are never going to have the same impact on an institution’s bottom line as the Chinese undergraduate students.”  I first speculated on this in a UK context in January 2020 and have made the point on a number of occasions that the impact on traditional pathways was likely to be even greater.

The article leads to an interesting conclusion about “..the costs involved in physical campuses.” Anyone who has worked at a university sees how the emotional ties to the institution’s location are almost as powerful as the existence of labs, lecture theatres and student housing. One suspects it will take many years (or possibly a few university insolvencies) to change that mindset.

It’s thought-provoking stuff and may mean that some universities are already accepting the constraints on globally mobile international students as a revenue source.  This would leave some of the commercial operators who have no track record in either delivering or recruiting to online courses with a bleak future.  There may be a particular danger where academic English courses are concerned as James Madison University noted in its consideration of failure by Study Group to recruit to an Intensive English Language program.

Do Private Providers Make A Difference?

In October 2020 a Report by NAFSA, APLU and INTO made the claim that “Institutions with third-party pathway partnerships were 1.73x more likely to experience international enrollment growth…”.  The data analysed was across two historical periods – 2007-2015 and 2015-2018 – and there was a lot of weighty statistical explanation.  Against that background it is interesting to apply a simple comparison to see what has happened in recent years.

The graph below takes the Open Doors state by state enrollment numbers for three of INTO’s “present” comprehensive university partners (with pathways) and places them alongside those of three “past” partners who no longer have pathways with INTO.  The time series avoids the peak pandemic affected years of 2021 and 2022 but show prior performance and how the bounceback might be happening.  Washington State University (WSU) and Colorado State University (CSU) ceased being pathway partners in 2021 and 2022 respectively but are direct recruitment partners.  The University of South Florida claims to have terminated the pathway partnership in April 2022 but a legal battle is ongoing and is the subject of several earlier blogs.

This data appears to show that past partners WSU and CSU had declining numbers before the breakup and that being direct recruitment part has shown no benefit in terms of growing numbers post pandemic.  On the other hand, the split and no ongoing direct recruitment relationship does not seem to have stopped USF from driving its international enrollments significantly higher in 2023.

The “present” comprehensive partners shown all have pathways but allow INTO to recruit directly to certain university programs.  There is a satisfying upward curve to the University of Alabama – Birmingham (UAB) curve and George Mason University (GMU) also appears to have bounced back strongly in 2023.  It is all the more perplexing that Oregon State University has been in decline since 2017 and looks to be the worst performer among the six.

It would seem fair to say from this data that a comprehensive partnership with a pathway is no guarantee of growing enrollments, that being a direct recruitment only partner appears to have relatively little impact on performance and that it is entirely possible for a university to drive enrollment outside of any relationship with a pathway/direct recruitment partner. While there was little doubt that INTO helped OSU make rapid progress in international recruitment for several years until about 2016 a lot has happened since then.

None of this is to suggest that the Report by NAFSA, APLU and INTO was incorrect in its analysis.  However, it is reasonable to believe that the changing international student source markets, growth in competition and other factors should make institutions negotiate hard if they are looking at these relationships.  Building a business or a growth strategy on data that is five years old and past glories is probably not a good idea.  

Source: Open Doors State Facts and Figures

It is also increasingly clear that pathways are unlikely to be the answer, with further evidence from UAB showing that the INTO pathway courses have struggled to recover after the pandemic and that Academic English is showing almost no signs of revival at all.  This reflects the situation at GMU reported in a previous blog and the minor increase of seven students for OSU shown in the graphs above.  This pathway picture appears to be repeated across Study Group and Shorelight pathway partners.

 Source: University of Alabama at Birmingham Office of Institutional Effectiveness   

NOTES

As alway, the analysis in this blog reflects a genuine attempt to interpret and consider the implications of data from public sources. It is recognized that there may be minor underlying differences in the way the data is collected. The source of the data is given so that readers may make their own judgements and if an authoritative source makes contact the author will make appropriate amendments.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

A Study Of A Stumble

It is difficult to understand why publications claiming an international audience continue to quote the headline numbers from the annual Open Doors release.  The inclusion of OPT numbers would only be relevant in comparison to, say, the UK if the number of students on post-study work visas was added.  The real headline is that US enrollment of undergraduate and postgraduate students in 2022/23 was up 12.4% year on year but still nearly 33,000 lower than 2017/18.

At a more granular level, the new international undergraduate intake of 95,681 appears to be well below the 2017/18 comparator of 108,539 and so the reduced accumulator factor of undergraduates will slow overall growth in future years.  On the global competitiveness scale it also, for example, looks well below the UK’s 2021/22 international intake of “first year, all undergraduate” recorded by HESA.  While the counting of the numbers is always a fine art and some differences may apply, it seems difficult to agree that the US enrollment of international students is “soaring” against the main competitors but we will have a better direct comparator when the UK’s data for 2022/23 comes out early next year.

The Fall 2023 Snapshot on International Student Enrollment doesn’t seem to give real cause for breaking out the champagne.  The 8% headline figure shown includes both non-degree and OPT students which leaves the undergraduate and graduate groups growing by 3% and 7% respectively.  If those percentages turn out to be accurate we can expect next year’s Open Doors to show an aggregated total growth for UG and Masters of about 5.3% year on year to 2022/23 and still at a total lower than 2018/19.

Study Group Stumble

The Open Doors release comes as we continue to see fallout in the pathway sectors in the US with the recent news that Study Group’s relationship with Baylor University has come to an end.  The winding down of Study Group’s US portfolio over several years with what looks like the haphazard or, more kindly, opportunistic addition of new partners1 may also indicate a strategic vacuum as the organization comes under pressure to perform.  It’s longest-term partner appears to be James Madison University (JMU) which came on board in 2009 but recent signs there are not encouraging.

Notes from the JMU Provost’s Committee on International Student Recruitment suggest that the relationship may not be producing the results required and that Study Group’s recruitment power may be under question.  We learn in the 2022-2023 End-of-Year Report from May 2023 that JMU had sought other support and contracted, in 2021/22 with EduCo to “increase direct admit students”. The Report also noted, ominously, that “we see no productivity from EduCo”.  At the time of writing JMU does not appear on the EduCo list of “highly collaborative working partnerships with universities”.

A procurement process was in place to appoint University Study to support international recruitment.  This would appear to have been successful as JMU does appear, alongside around 200 other US universities and colleges, on the University Study list of study destinations.  It may be a little early for them to have had an impact on the international student enrollment presented below.

Mind Your Language

Another action noted in the JMU Report is the introduction of an Intensive English Program (IEP) through Study Group requiring “…Federal permission in 2021 to modify our I-17..”.2  The resulting online and inperson IEP was offered for the first time in Summer 2022 but the report notes, “No students participated in summer 2022 and it looks like no students will participate in summer 2023.”  Perhaps interestingly the May 2022 Report of the group had indicated “we think because there are lower-cost options, e.g., DuoLingo, for students needing to enhance language proficiency.” 

Discussion to explore international online programs with Study Group had been put on hold. The overall tone looks less than encouraging and the suggestion that students might be finding alternatives to intensive English programs is worth considering as an aside. The Open Doors Report on Intensive English Programs in the US suggests that student weeks rebounded a little in 2022 but that average weeks per student fell to historic lows of 10.4 compared to 13.8 in 2020 and 15 in 2015. There seems limited opportunity in that market.

The Numbers Count But So Does The Mix

Three graphs from JMU capture the shifting winds of international recruitment in the US.  Since 2015 total US non-resident students have fallen by 334 students (56.3%).    

Source: JMU Planning, Analytics & Institutional Research

Graduate student numbers have grown in successive years with a rise of 126.7% on a relatively modest base of 45 to reach 102.

 Source: JMU Planning, Analytics & Institutional Research

More painful is the decline in international undergraduate students by 71.4% to 167 from a high of 548.  The proposed undergraduate tuition, insurance and student services fee for 2024/25 is $35,600 per year which implies a loss of over $13m in yearly revenue compared to 2015 intake volumes.  More troubling is that the recent trend is still downwards despite suggestions of increasing applications in the Committee Reports.

 Source: JMU Planning, Analytics & Institutional Research

Who’s That Knocking At The Door?

It does look as if the recruitment environment for the US has irrevocably changed with the shift in international student recruitment markets. Over and above that the revitalization of Australia, the uncertainty (but continuing lure for now of guaranteed post study work) in the UK and Canada’s bait (however tenuous) of citizenship have made major competitor destinations even more accessible and attractive. Adding into the picture the global desire of countries from Germany and France to South Korea and Japan to increase their recruitment and retention of the international student market and it would take a brave individual to suggest the attraction of the US is wholly secure.

NOTES

  1. Study Group ended relationships with universities/colleges Merrimack, Roosevelt, Widener, Vermont, City College NY, Oglethorpe, Lynne and now Baylor between 2019 and 2023. They gained De Paul and Hartford as CEG closed its US operations in 2019 and added Florida Atlantic University (as a direct recruitment partner) in 2021. At the time of writing they appear to have four direct recruitment partners and three pathway partners in the US.
  2. The I-17 is the petition (an application) filed with the DHS that, when approved, allows the enrollment of non immigrant students (with gratitude to Thomas P. FitzGibbon III for correcting my earlier definition).

Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay

Remember the Name

It’s always a pleasure to have data released contemporaneously so we are grateful to colleagues at INTO University partnerships for sharing enrollment statistics related to their US university partners last week.  We’ll come on to possible reasons why this might have appeared but note that it might help flesh out any data released on Monday, November 13 in the IEE Fall 2023 Snapshot on International Enrollment.  For now, it’s worth digging in and seeing how this detail matches up against earlier application data released by INTO and the emerging partner university data on fall 2023 enrollments.

What a difference six months makes

The enrollment growth and application growth numbers reported by INTO this year are similar only in that the words “huge growth” are used in the graphics.  Back in May 2023 INTO indicated a “136% growth in applications for forthcoming intakes this year”.   The graphic indicated this was from a global average growth in applications of 201% for direct entry and 52% growth for pathways.  The average was driven largely by applications from south Asia and the Americas with China, Hong Kong and Macau lagging some distance behind.

In their recent release on growth in enrollments for US partners the numbers for direct entry and pathways have been aggregated and the contribution of source countries has shifted.   The headline stat is that INTO are claiming an average 34% growth in enrollment for their US partners in the fall 2023 intake with the Americas leading the way as a source market.  Because we are dealing with percentages and they are spread across a range of partners and courses the headcount is not known, the base numbers are a mystery, and the split between pathways and direct is not possible to divine. 

However, the media release indicates this means “more than 2,900 students..have enrolled into a range of undergraduate and graduate programs with INTO’s US partners for the Fall 2023 intake.” This number includes “..students eligible for direct admission as well as those opting for pathway and other programs supported by INTO Centers.”  We might presume, with reasonable certainty, that the claim would have been “nearly” or “approaching” 3,000 if it had been more than 2,950 students.

On this basis the simple maths, using 2,950 enrollments as the fall 2023 number, is that INTO’s entire US intake across 19 listed comprehensive and recruitment partnerships, rose by c750 year-on-year i.e. an additional 34% on 2,200.  That’s an average of, um, 39 per university if each got an even share.  Because INTO does not have responsibility for enrollment across all courses at its partner universities it is not possible to know the extent to which the INTO numbers impact upon the overall university performance.

An analysis of publicly available data from two INTO partners who have published fall 2023 enrollment details sheds some further light on this.

University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB)

The year-on-year change in undergraduate and graduate non-resident aliens enrolled at UAB is +242 (up 17%)1.  As is probably expected with the shift in enrollment markets, the bulk of this is in graduate enrollment with undergraduate numbers falling.  The number of part-time non-resident alien students in the total has grown by 115 out of the 242, which would mean FTE enrollment has not grown by the same amount as the headcount and the income generated is probably lower. One possibility is that these are dependents on F-2 visas.   

        

Source: The Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Analysis, University of Alabama

(Note: Between Fall 2022 and Fall 2023 the description changed from Non-Resident Alien to US Non-Resident but there is no indication that the classification of students included changed.  Personally, I would wholly applaud the removal of the word “alien” from any description of international students.)

A 17% increase in enrollments is some way short of the 34% average increase indicated by INTO and the increase in part-time further reduces the impact of the intake.  It may simply be that INTO does not recruit to most UAB courses so their success is not reflected in the overall numbers.        

George Mason University (GMU)

As discussed in a recent blog the university level growth at GMU in year-on-year fall 2023 enrollment of “non-resident aliens” was 9.9% with an extra 389 students. Again, the driver was master’s level students with UG in continued decline.  The INTO Mason pathway delivered an additional 12 students over its fall 2022 intake which was a growth of 9.2% and left it 100 below the pre-pandemic 2019 intake.

Source: George Mason University Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Planning

The Bigger Picture

INTO’s media release quotes the “prime example” of “the partnerships at The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), Suffolk University, Hofstra University and George Mason University.”  No mention of the long-term poster child at Oregon State University (OSU) where internationals enrollments declined from a peak of 3,556 in fall 2019 to 2,338 in fall 2022.  Underlying this is that the INTO pathway has suffered a significant decline from its peak of 1,496 students enrolled in fall 2014 to just 250 in fall 2022. 

It would be a surprise to many if OSU has not undertaken work to develop their programs to provide support and maximise the success of international students. The omission is a good reason that the 2023 numbers from OSU could make interesting reading when they are released in a few weeks.  They should also give some insights into the way that fluctuations in the source markets have manifested themselves in enrollments for both direct entry and pathways.

Source: Oregon State University, Office for Institutional Research

It seems possible that by choosing to offer separate pathway and direct recruitment applications numbers in May but aggregated enrollment numbers in November, INTO has masked the slow progress of pathway operations in the US in reaching pre-pandemic levels.  It will be particularly interesting to see how the numbers of Chinese students has altered year on year and historically the OSU data has provided that insight at a granular level.        

The limitations on analysis emphasises the frustrations when organizations release percentages rather than headcount numbers and is why the detail offered by some universities is so valuable to gain insights.  It would also be reasonable to say that one of the reasons universities work with private sector partners is to enhance their overall global profile rather than simply recruiting onto specific courses.  In that respect one might argue that UAB and GMU are underperforming in the INTO portfolio so it will be interesting to see how their overall international numbers relate to the Open Doors figures for the sector next week.        

The Even Bigger Picture

There is no doubt that around the world there has been a resurgence in global student mobility.  Recent OECD reports indicate that “international student flows reached a record high in 2022” with just under six million students abroad in higher education. There is growing confidence in the continuation of this trend with Holoniq predicting 8 million students “enrolled with foreign institutions”, possibly even 9 million, by 2030.  Eight million students studying overseas has long been a part of the higher education sector’s holy grail and the origins of this were analysed in a blog as far back as February 2018.

Notwithstanding this, INTO’s increased profile raising and willingness to engage with direct recruitment partners might suggest that we are, again, in a period when there is a search for new investment.  With Navitas active in buying parts of Study Group’s business in May and other signs of merger and acquisition activity picking up this might be a good moment to promote interest in an international recruitment business with momentum.  It might be wishing too much, however, to hope that investors are as swayed by short-term bounces or long-term “predictions” as they were in the early 2010’s. 

Investment Dealers Digest was, apparently, the first non-skiing print publication to use the metaphor of investment bankers who had “been out over their skis a little bit” on a deal.  In this context, interested parties might note that Holoniq’s predictions are tempered with a range from 6 million to 9 million and that we are already seeing the difficulties faced by many countries in managing the scale of the influx of international higher education students.  Also worth considering is the continuing sophistication of technology in delivering education, the spectre of nationalistic governments managing their borders more closely and the propensity of global systems to succumb to climate, pandemic and economic shocks. 

NOTES

As always the analysis is a genuine attempt to reflect publicly available statistics. Authoritative comment or correction of any errors or misunderstandings in the data interpretation are welcome and will be acknowledged.

The blog title reflects the elusiveness of data that is only expressed in percentages. In the song Remember the Name by hip-hop ensemble Fort Minor the lyrics say, “This is ten percent luck, twenty percent skill fifteen percent concentrated power of will. Five percent pleasure, fifty percent pain And a hundred percent reason to remember the name.” It might be a good description of the work of an international recruiter trying to promote their university!

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay