Tag: international students

RANK HYPOCRISY

Shock and horror as the THE World Top Ten Universities 2022 are revealed as….exactly the same ten names as 2021.  A small shuffle of the deck saw Stanford drop from second to fourth but The Stanford Daily seemed more concerned with the question Who Is Elizabeth Holmes, The Stanford Dropout Now on Trial?  As someone probably once said – if you’re truly world class you don’t say it and you certainly don’t need the THE to tell you.

LinkedIn was full of university marketing chiefs and even some academics, who should probably know better, trumpeting their performance.  Newcastle University’s marketers expressed pride that it had moved into the top 150 but it had simply returned to 146th – exactly the position it occupied in the 2011-12 rankings. There were plenty of other institutions with short term memories talking without any regard for whether their ranking meant real, sustainable or even meaningful progress.

It’s a merry go round that was called out recently by Vincenzo Raimo who noted that universities tend to celebrate advances but complain about the distortion and negative impact of the rankings. When leading academics do call into questions the methodology, as David Price, UCL’s Vice Provost of Research did recently, they get snide responses from the promoter in chief.  Perhaps the THE is becoming The Borg and thinks that “resistance is futile”.   

What the THE has certainly seen is that university compliance and hypocrisy has enabled them to exploit the “trusted rankings” as a platform for THE Student.   To the mix they add a spiel about “hand-picked partners” who will help student “make the right choices”.  A cynic might suggest that the many privately financed partners on the list are much more likely to ensure a result which is in their own interests. 

But It May Be Worse Than That

It would seem harmless to simply accept that the World Rankings have become a university version of the Sunday Times Rich List where envious glances are occasionally followed by spectacular falls from grace.  Maybe The Stanford Daily is offering a metaphor by focusing on a cautionary tale of hubris and deceit just as these rankings were published.  But the THE doesn’t appear to be in any doubt about the game it is playing.

They say that “even if you do not meet the inclusion criteria, you will be entitled to a university profile on our website that will increase your visibility to our audience of academics, prospective students and their parents.”  It is a university version from the “Toxic Sludge is Good for You” playbook which Publisher’s Weekly called “a cautionary reminder that much of the consumer and political world is created by for-hire mouthpieces in expensive neckties.”.  Even the most limited institution, regardless of reputation or quality, can benefit from reflected glory as part of this commercial enterprise.

The THE sells the benefits of the rankings very hard and articulates them as global exposure with tens of millions of page views, data trusted by governments and universities, and a vital resource for students when they are making decisions about where to study. The point about ‘trusted by governments’ is a big part of the sales patter including a recent Tweet which highlighted the EU Commission’s, Gerard de Graaf saying,  “We know that rankings do more to direct universities’ attention, policy makers’ attention, students’ attention than any other policy tool… “. 

Surprising then that in 2014, the very same year of de Graaf’s comments, the European Commission gave €2m funding to establish U-Multirank explicitly, “to avoid simplistic league tables which can result in misleading comparisons between institutions of very different types”.  Dr. Simon Marginson, Professor of International Higher Education, UCL Institute of Education, University College, London called U-Multirank, “a vital corrective to the “football” league mentality that has crept into higher education…”.  The point is that the EU did not see ‘rankings’ as the answer to anyone’s problems or need for better quality information.

Gaming The System

The tweet also claims that de Graaf “urged@timeshighered to develop rankings on impact” which they framed around the UN’s SDGs and first published in 2019.  To be included in the overall ranking an institution has to self-select and submit data on SDG 17 and at least three other SDGs of its choice.  It’s difficult to see, however, that an institution can’t selectively manage its performance in three SDGs and SDG 17 while being a mediocre or even poor actor in the other thirteen.

The University of Manchester’s top spot in the 2021 Impact Rankings suggests how partial this process can be and why students looking for insights might do well to look elsewhere.  An alternative might be the  People and Planet UK-based student network that has been running an environmental and ethical performance league tables since 2007.  The organisation also does useful things like training and mentoring young people, campaigning and challenging vested interests locally and internationally.

Its 2019 League Table gave the University of Manchester a low-ranking in the Upper Second-Class Honours bracket and 59th in the UK.  To be totally fair it also notes that the University has fully completed a commitment to divest from all fossil fuels.  It is arguable that the THE rankings give too much opportunity for institutions to game the system and, as a Professor of History in a 5* department once said to me, “we are all here because we are good at passing tests”.          

If the principle is that the THE Impact Rankings are a “vital resource” for students wanting to make a choice they might do well to consider giving a broader context.  Students travel internationally to share in a cultural experience and could easily find that selecting a university based on the Impact rankings leads them to places where the off-campus setting is a little less in tune with their sensibilities.  It’s not necessarily that the universities aren’t trying hard but there are very real limits to their power.

The country with the largest representation in the Impact rankings is Russia with 75 institutions which seems counter-intuitive given that the country is only 46 of 165 in the UN’s own SDG rankings.  In early 2020 Transparency International ranked the country 137th out of 180 in its Corruption Perceptions Index at a point when the Russian Academy of Sciences was reported as finding “widespread plagiarism in Russian academic journals, with more than 850 articles rescinded from 263 journals after an initial review.”  More concerning is the repression, sexual harassment and intimidation of students and faculty outlined by the Russian student magazine DOXA.

At 27 in the Impact rankings is Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University in Saudi Arabia – a country down at 98 in the UN rankings.  The university scores well on SDG 10 for reducing inequalities at a point when the UN does not appear to have information available to give the country a score.  Meanwhile Finland, which is top of the UN league table, doesn’t have a university ranked until the 201-300 bracket by the THE.

When Gaming Becomes Cheating

League table manipulation is a theme that Malcolm Gladwell picked up in his Revisionist History podcast series.  Calling the U.S. News & World Report college rankings an “abomination” might sound harsh but his analysis points to the way the rankings can distort perceptions of higher education.  The edition on Project Dillard focuses on the specifics of how a historically black university in New Orleans is disadvantaged “even though, on a number of very objective measures, it does an outstanding job of educating the students who go there.”

His argument is that, fundamentally, the league table gives no encouragement for small and rich colleges to use their advantaged position to serve larger numbers of students.  The corollary is that Dillard University could leap sixty places up the US News rankings by cutting 75% of its students.  All of this is before the various scandals of colleges manipulating data to improve their place in the US News rankings.

In this vein the THE Impact rankings have a corrections page where any errors in data collection and changes to rank as a result are listed.  The notable thing about this is that every case where incorrect or incomplete data was submitted the university’s ranking has either not changed or they have gone up the table.  It’s a relatively small sample but one might imagine that institutions are keen to, legitimately, correct the data when they feel they have done poorly but less likely to review data when rankings have gone well.    

Earlier this year a report by the Center for Studies in Higher Education produced an analysis suggesting the QS World Rankings had a conflict of interest due to its consulting business.  QS responded that the consulting contract with the university stipulated that there was no link to rankings and that they had policies to ensure staff were “free from personal or commercial bias”. Readers will make up their own minds but as league tables become increasingly commercially exploited the risks becomes greater.

If Resistance Is Futile…Consider Changing the Rules

Nobody should kid themself that league tables have not had a material impact on decision making within universities.  Hours, days and weeks of planning and strategy have been exhausted on understanding the levers that can be pulled to move institutions up various rankings and this effort would not be made unless it fed into actions.  The available tools are relatively blunt but increasing the number of ‘good degrees’ always looked manipulable and it is arguable that the 90% growth in first class degrees awarded in the UK between 2010/11 and 2018/19 is one visible sign of that pressure.

But Forbes tells us some interesting things about “no win scenarios and ethical leadership” and draws on Star Trek’s Kobayashi Maru scenario as its exemplar.  Famously, Captain James T. Kirk overcame the no-win training scenario by reprogramming the simulation and has led a fierce debate over whether he cheated or was simply creative.  Author Janet D. Stemwedel cuts through this by suggesting “it’s important to be able to deal with trying to live up to our ethical obligations while knowing full well that circumstances and our own limitation cannot guarantee we’ll succeed.”

University league tables won’t go away and universities may feel obliged to play the game because of the political, social and recruitment leverage they might offer.  However, academics do not have to join in by offering their opinions about other universities and institutions do not need to manipulate their decision making with one eye on the league table impact.  There could also be more concerted pushback against the dumbing down that emphasizes overall rankings and oases of excellence in a sea of mediocrity or even corruption. If the aim is to help students faced with the biggest decision of their lives it’s worth the effort.

Notes

The complexity of league table methodology is the stuff of legend but it does not really aid understanding. The commentary on the THE approach to the overall SDG table reflects my understanding of the paragraph – A university’s final score in the overall table is calculated by combining its score in SDG 17 with its top three scores out of the remaining 16 SDGs. SDG 17 accounts for 22 per cent of the overall score, while the other SDGs each carry a weight of 26 per cent. This means that different universities are scored based on a different set of SDGs, depending on their focus.

As always I am happy to review authoritative comment which may aid understanding and will reflect this in an update if necessary.

Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay

Do Aggregators Match Up?

There’s significant interest in the higher education community about the rise of websites claiming to match students to degree programmes and what they might mean for student choice.  The websites and public comments of these aggregators are strong on claims about transparency, choice and putting the interests of students first.  This blog gets close and personal with a couple of websites of main players and gets granular enough to suggest that there might be room for improvement.

As a disclaimer I should note that, despite a philosophical preference for all education to be free, I appreciate the value that private investment can bring to expanding choice and opportunity.  If investors can employ people and make a return while offering good value to students, it seems to me to be an acceptable trade off.  I also have no reason to disbelieve the claim of aggregators that they aim to make global student choice easier and more accessible.

To ease the flow of the blog I have put a note of search terms used at the bottom of the text.  As with all research there is an element of subjectivity in my choices but they serve to explore some points about the way the system works. The two operators chosen reflect their scale and profile rather than any value judgement about their quality compared to other operators in this increasingly crowded space.

Before plunging into that detail there are a couple of general points that emerge from looking at several aggregator websites: 

–  The word ‘partner’ occurs often without a full explanation of what the relationship is or what due diligence has been done to ensure quality or appropriateness.  There is usually even less   insight into the nature of the commercial relationship with their partners and the ways that this might skew presentation of information.    

An example of that the Studyportals Bachelorportal top level search* produced 839   courses on the ‘Our Picks’ list.  The first 10 were the University of Lincoln and the first 253 were flagged as ‘Featured’.  The site says, “the university partners with us for this programme to reach students like you”.  Studyportals have confirmed that being featured represents ‘paid exposure services’ for the universities in question.

It is common for internet search engines to tell the user which results are adverts.  But when an aggregator lists ‘Our Picks’ it might be taken to imply that they take some responsibility (other than being paid) for the selection.  While Studyportals gives details about its organizational partners and its student partners it does not do so about university partners.       

–   There are many claims intended to satisfy students about the choice the site offers and the lure of counselling about those options. For example, ApplyBoard claims to have “built partnerships with over 1,500 primary, secondary, and post-secondary educational institutions, and work with 5,000+ recruitment partners”.  It’s difficult to know the breakdown of these and the website gives no indication of how many universities in each of the four countries  – Canada, USA, UK and Australia – can be searched on the site.

Using the ApplyBoard Quick Search and asking a broad query to study Business in the United Kingdom offered 10,000+ programs in 100+ “schools”.  My count was of only 70 institutions named with the 100 being achieved through branch campuses – including the most, eight, from University of Law.  At least 40 of the 100+ links led to pathway operations from Study Group, Kaplan, INTO, Navitas or CEG.

With over 140 degree bearing institutions in the United Kingdom it seems arguable that ApplyBoard is some way short of offering a critical mass of choice for students using the service. One of the arguments levelled against student recruitment agents has been that their choice is restricted to institutions who they have commercial terms with.  The strength of this may be that they usually have the benefit of familiarization trips and visits from university or pathway staff to enhance the advice they give students.  The extent to which an aggregator offers counselling         advice based on direct personal knowledge of an institution may be an area for development.      

To an extent none of that would matter if the much-vaunted machine learning, artificial intelligence and algorithms were providing good matching between the student and the university.  A student would put their information into the system and it would throw out carefully calibrated responses that reflected the student’s personal needs as well as their academic capability.  Testing across the aggregators is complex and cannot be consistent because search terms are rarely the same but a look at Apply Board and Studyportals gives some indication of what the student experience looks like.  The analysis took place between 8 and 11 May.

Apply Board

Even for a native English speaker the process is tough to navigate so I decided to go with being a US citizen who had studied in the UK to A-level.  After my experiment with a top-level query (discussed above) I filled out both the eligibility and school filters on the page to give a more precise search for a UK university**.  It provided 1000+ programs at 45 schools but the results were less than inspiring.

As I wanted to go direct to a university BA degree programme it was unhelpful to find the Relevance list populating only with pathway operations or foundation courses offered by a university through another route. The top option on the list was “2-Semester Pathway – International Year One in Business and Management – Bachelor of Science – Business and Management (Year in Business)” at Royal Holloway’s International Study Centre run by Study Group.  This suggests that the algorithm does its best but may not always reflect what students are searching for.

When I tried to view the list by the “school rank” option I presumed it would be indicative of university rankings although there was no source indicated.  Given this expectation it was surprising to find the universities of Manchester, Durham and Lancaster further down the list than Anglia Ruskin University.  There would be merit in clarifying what the ranking system is and also, what the progression rate to the university is if a pathway option is shown. 

When I entered the same search terms for study in Canada (changing my visa status to Canadian Study Permit or Visitor Visa and the duration to a four-year bachelors) I got 25 schools and 139 programs with direct entry options at universities at the top.  Presumably, this reflects the lower number of pathway operations in Canada or the strength of ApplyBoard connections in the country.  

For the USA (visa status F1 and as a UK national) it was 91 schools and 1000+ programs but with INTO’s Undergraduate Pathway at George Mason University at the top and their two-semester business pathway at Suffolk University third on the list.  Digging further down the list it became clear that the pathway operations were featured relatively heavily rather than the ‘direct admission’ I had searched for.  This, couple with the UK experience, might suggest that pathway operators are early investors in the aggregator model in countries where they have a foothold. 

Studyportals

The recent linking of Studyportals with Times Higher Education Student is one of the most apparent signs of league table compilers looking for ways to exercise their aggregator power over student interest.  Studyportals pages currently appears to favour the QS World University Rankings as a yardstick for university ranking and it will be interesting to see if the allegiance shifts.  It’s the sort of decision that reflects the impetus behind deciding what information to present to students and how transparent an aggregator is about who is paying to be represented. 

A helpful feature is the ability to adjust the information received to reflect a currency of your choice and also the actual rate being charged for your nationality. This is particularly important for EU students who, in 2021, will be charged Home tuition fees by some UK universities rather than international fee rates. This is available on the home page but it might be better if elevated to make this more apparent – I totally missed it in my original analysis.3   

I signed up and completed most of my profile in the Mastersportal*** (there is some personal information I preferred not to share).  When I looked at the ‘Recommended for You’ section of my profile I was offered 18 programmes of which all 10 in the UK were through online delivery.  This seemed to ignore my stated preference for on campus study. 

There was no explanation of how these had been selected or favoured but three were from Nottingham Trent University.  So, I returned to the main Masters portal to search for Business and Management at the top level and found that Nottingham Trent University was a ‘featured’ university.  When I searched at this level with ‘on campus learning’ enabled the online NTU options disappeared.

Some Thoughts

The mystery shopping was not comprehensive or even exhaustive but serves to highlight some of the issues that emerge in a complex and dynamic sector where nuance can mean a lot.  My insights are likely to be better informed than a non-native English-speaking student encountering the systems for the first time and the world of HE as a newcomer.  My contention would be that the limitations of the systems and their biases could be made clearer to users.

On the upside, both sites were relatively easy to use and the links to information about the universities were generally well managed.  I did not research aspects of the service that students pay for and it is possible that these would remedy some of the points I have highlighted.  The volume of information on the sites is overwhelming and there would seem to be scope for agents to offer a service that moderates the information on behalf of students.

The sector is becoming familiar with operators showing quotes and testimonials from students who have done well through using the sites but this is a drop in the bucket compared to the volumes looking at them.  It might be more interesting to know the extent to which they are mystery shopping their own sites (rather than drinking their own bathwater) with non-native English speakers.  Students who have succeeded are a much more forgiving audience than those who did not make it through the system.

The march of the aggregators will not be disrupted and probably does bring benefits in offering greater accessibility to students.  But the potential to overclaim coverage, distort perceptions of quality and act as a limiter of student choice rather than an enabler is obvious.  As this part of the sector matures it is to be hoped that, as with recruitment agents, the best operators prevail and become the choice of most potential students.        

It is also to be hoped that universities recognise that they have responsibilities when lending their brand names to third parties and that their very presence as part of an aggregator portfolio lends credibility to the entire endeavour.  They may prefer the word ‘featured’ to something like ‘promoted’ or ‘advertised’ but they should accept that honesty and integrity in the way they are represented is their decision rather than that of the aggregator.  For universities in the United Kingdom the option of making UCAS a wholly-owned, comprehensive and managed service for students remains an option that could become an exemplar of responsible self-regulation.

NOTES       

1.            As with all my blogs I am happy to have authoritative comment on the outcomes and where these add value or correct a clear error will reflect any resulting changes.  The purpose of doing the work and writing it up is to try and improve things for students while making observations that colleagues in the sector might consider.    

 2.           Search Terms Used

*Business and management in the UK, 3-year, full-time on campus, Bachelor of Arts. 

**US Citizen, educated to high school level in the UK with B/C GCE A-level grades, with a Tier 4 UK student visa and 9 IELTS in all categories.  I confirmed my interest was direct admission to UK universities for a three-year bachelors in business, management or economics starting between August and November 2021.  I placed no constraints on tuition, living costs or admission fee.

***UK citizen resident in the US.  Interested in Masters level study in Business and Management in the UK starting in between 6 months and one year.  Preference for attendance on campus.  Tuition fee and living cost budget set at 150,000 (so not a barrier). Bachelor’s degree in Business and Management securing a 2:1. With 5 years of work experience.  Native speaker English level.

3. In the original of this piece it was indicated that rates on the Portal were quoted in Euros and showed international rates and that this might have particular implications for EU students looking to study in the UK (where some institutions have chosen to offer EU students lower tuition fees than other international students in 2021). This has been removed to recognize that at the base of the home page of the Portal you are able to adjust your results to reflect the actual rate being charged and can do so in a denomination of your choice. If this information is put into your individual account it is also adjusted.

Image by Hier und jetzt endet leider meine Reise auf Pixabay aber from Pixabay

Divergent EU Enrollments Create Opportunity and Risk

My recent blog on the significant underlying shifts in recruitment from China and India provoked some interest in what might be happening in other markets.  Generally speaking, the traditional international student markets are too small to move the needle in quite the same way as the big two.  But the main European Union (EU) markets throw up some interesting trends.

It shows what is at stake for some UK universities, particularly financially, if they begin to lose students from countries where they have made substantial gains in recent years.  This may be, at least in part, an explanation for some of the decisions being taken to discriminate in favour of EU students against other international students by allowing them to continue with home student fees.  It will be interesting to see if there is a legal challenge to this activity or whether such arrangements move from transitional to permanent after 2021.

According to HESA data, Poland, Romania, Portugal and Spain have shown the largest growth in enrollments from EU countries over the past five years.  Numbers from Germany, Ireland and Cyprus have been in decline over that period while Italy and France have seen growing numbers at a lower level.  The January 2021 UCAS data shows a 40% year on year decrease in EU undergraduate applications for entry in Autumn 2021 which is largely driven by the reality of most universities charging them international fees.

TABLE 1: Total Enrollments – Largest Growth Countries    

Source: HESA

But as Table 2 shows the overall numbers do not reflect the pattern of growth from each country with Spain, while remaining the top overall sender of the four, seeing its year-on-year growth rate decline for each of the past four years.  Poland has also seen its growth slowing each year during the same period.  Portugal has grown most strongly for the past three years and Romania has had robust growth for the past two reported cycles.  

TABLE 2: Year on Year Increase in Enrollments – Largest Growth Countries

Source: HESA

The most interesting thing is where the growth has occurred.  Total UK enrollments from Romania grew by 2025 students between 2017/18 and 2019/20 with 76% of the increase going to the universities of Bedfordshire and Suffolk.  It is worth noting that in both universities the overwhelming majority of enrolled Romanian students are full-time, undergraduates which brings significant benefits in terms of stability and income. 

Over the five years Bedfordshire’s enrollment of home students has declined by 600 while EU numbers have increased by 1330.  European enrollments have meant that the university’s tuition fee income from combined home and EU students rose by £20m (27%) between 2018 and 2020.  It is a major achievement for a university ranked 123rd of 130 by the Complete University Guide in 2021.

TABLE 3 – Enrollments from Romania – UK Total and Top Two Universities

Source: HESA

A similar but less extreme situation occurs with enrollments from Portugal where Coventry and Anglia Ruskin have taken 35% of additional enrollments in the past two years.

TABLE 4 – Enrollments from Portugal – UK Total and Top Two Universities

Source: HESA

Enrollments from Poland, where total growth has been declining for each of the past four reported cycles shows a less distinct pattern.  Taken over five years, Coventry and De Montfort have grown their Polish contingent more rapidly than any other universities.  Their combined share of the growth both over the full period and in the last two years is around 23%.

TABLE 5 – Enrollments from Poland – UK Total and Top Two Universities

Source: HESA

Enrollments from Spain appear to be much more evenly distributed with well-ranked universities being to the fore but notable exceptions are Anglia Ruskin and University College Birmingham over the five-year period.  No university in the UK has lost more than 50 students in their enrolled numbers of Spanish students in that time despite the slowing growth.

TABLE 6 – Growth in Enrollments from Spain – Top Ten Universities

 Enrollment 2019/20Increase 2015/16 to 2019/20
Anglia Ruskin240190
Warwick285165
Edinburgh360150
Sussex200130
Manchester325125
University College Birmingham140110
King’s College London340110
UCL375110
Imperial420105
Lancaster225105

Source: HESA

The impact of growth from European Union countries may well be a driver of decisions to continue to offer favourable terms to EU students over other international students in 2021.  However, it seems short-sighted and even counter-productive financially to offer blanket discounts if the main sending markets are limited to one or two countries.  Over the longer term it seems inevitable that less economically advantaged areas of Europe will continue to see advantageous tuition fee discounts if UK universities want to maintain enrollments.

Another factor that may be worthy of consideration is that changes to post-work study visas may  prove attractive to some European Union students even after Brexit.  Portugal and Romania remain below the European average in terms of GDP while Poland and Spain are above it and the opportunity to find work in the UK may continue to support growth.  But we may also have to place that potential against rising unemployment for 16-24 year old’s in the UK (up to 14.3% in February 2021 compared to 11.3% in February 2020) and the economic uncertainties post-Brexit and post-pandemic in summer of 2021.

It seems likely that the story of recruitment from the European Union has several more cycles to play out.  With rising numbers of 18-year-olds in the UK the political nuances of allowing EU students to take places at the same fee as home students while not expanding provision for home students may also bring rising tensions.  There are no easy choices here.

Image by Tumisu from Pixabay

INDIA OVERTAKING CHINA AS KEY STUDENT MARKET MAY BE A GAME CHANGER FOR LOWER RANKED UNIVERSITIES

A year ago seems an age away but in January 2020 I was speculating about how the surge of student mobility from India might change the UK higher education sector in terms of demographics and financial benefit.  At that point I described the HESA data as ‘tantalising’ but with the 2019/20 enrollment data available by country and university it’s clear that things have moved quickly.  And there may also be lessons for US universities to consider as they ponder their post-pandemic international recruitment strategies.

The top line numbers from HESA DATA show that the total number of Indian students enrolled in UK higher education grew by 27960 (101.7%) between 2018/19 and 2019/20 compared to a growth of 20,790 (17.2%) for Chinese students.  For each country the growth in the number of undergraduates year on year was around 8,000 but India had an additional 19,000+ enrolled graduates year on year compared to around 12,000 for China.  It is the first sign of a new order for markets of origin with India sending over 5,000 more first year students than China in 2019.

More importantly, the distribution of Indian students by type of institution has proved to be significantly different to that of Chinese students.  One way to illustrate this is a comparison between the universities that saw the biggest year on year growth in each. It is striking that all of the universities with the greatest increase in the number of Chinese students are in the Russell Group but none of those with the most significant increases in Indian students are in the Group.

TABLE 1: Top Ten overall increases for Chinese and Indian Enrollments between 2018/19 and 2019/20

 Change in total enrolled Chinese student yoy from 2018/19 to 2019/20Change in total enrolled Indian students yoy from 2018/19 to 2019/20
Edinburgh141050
East London-151710
Leeds123545
Bedfordshire301595
Southampton1190-10
Hertfordshire-1351575
Sheffield115015
Northumbria901510
UCL106525
Kingston1601265
Manchester88575
Ulster-151230
Birmingham86010
Central Lancashire-1051180
Newcastle85550
Middlesex-110915
Kings College72550
Greenwich-185840
Nottingham72530
Coventry-85810
Note: To maintain consistency private and specialist universities excluded from table.  Of the private universities BPP registered a year on year growth of 1640 from India but a fall of 95 from China.  The London based University of the Arts showed a year on year growth of 790 from China and an additional 70 from India.

Source: HESA

Digging deeper indicates that location is not the main driver of these vastly differentiated enrollment patterns.  The situation for several cities with two main universities is shown below.  Manchester Metropolitan shows relatively balanced numbers but they are small changes and the differential is swamped by the University of Manchester’s growth in Chinese students.

TABLE 2: Selected cities showing change in university enrollments year on year

 China – student change yoyIndia – student change yoy
Birmingham86075
Birmingham City50800
Nottingham72550
Nottingham Trent-150270
Manchester88525
Manchester Metropolitan5070
Sheffield1150-10
Sheffield Hallam-135185

Source: HESA

What becomes clear is that lower ranked universities are securing a significantly greater proportion of the growth in Indian students.  This supports the notion that the changing importance of the two main source markets could have a major impact on the financial strength in different parts of the sector.  But the underlying drivers of the recruitment patterns are less obvious.      

It is likely that lower ranked universities represent better value for money in terms of fees, accommodation and other costs of study which is likely to be particularly attractive to self-funding students.  There is also a propensity for lower ranked universities to make offers at lower grades which means a less competitive route to selection and enrollment.  Several are located in areas that the UK census has shown have strong communities with contacts in India but that would not explain the differences within cities that have two universities.

The differences in performance are very striking and it raises a number of questions about the longer- term strategy of universities that are not currently recruiting heavily from the Indian market.  It seems possible that as numbers from China stabilise or even go into decline there will be greater competition for the growing numbers from India.  It is probably best for lower-ranked universities to make the most of this moment in the sun but if they have the opportunity to develop a solid local community and optimise their contacts with alumni the impact may be long lasting.

More troubling for some universities might be their failure to recruit strongly from either of these major markets in 2019/20.  There are some well-known names and reasonably ranked institutions that seem to be suffering as the big city Russell Group universities excel in recruiting students from China but who do not appear attractive to students from India.  It is interesting but seems counter intuitive that the two with the greatest loss from China year on year are partnered with pathway operators with traditional strengths in the country.

TABLE 3: Universities with the largest year on year loss of students from China (2018-19 to 2019-20)

UniversityChina – year on year change in total enrollmentsIndia – year on year change in total enrollments
Sussex– 34010
East Anglia– 26040
Hull– 2005
NOTE: I’d like to commend the University of Hull for their experiment in charging postgraduates starting in 2021 the same as Home students. It will be interesting to see how it works out.

 Source: HESA

As noted the University of Hull has embarked on an aggressive marketing ploy to charge postgraduate students the same fee as home students in 2021. As far as I am aware this is unique in the UK higher education system and it will be interesting to see how it works out. It’s certainly better than those universities that will continue to discriminate in favour of all European Union students who are now deemed international but are being allowed home student rates.

For UK universities there is unlikely to be any Government opposition to the growing numbers although experience shows it’s always possible for U-turns in policy.  As recently as 4 March, 2021, Minister for Future Borders and Immigration Kevin Foster said, “As we rebuild from the global pandemic we want the world’s brightest talent, who aspire to a career at the highest levels of business, science, the arts and technology to see our United Kingdom as the natural place to fulfil their aspirations.   The changes announced today will ensure once they have received a gold standard qualification from one of our world leading education institutions they can easily secure the status they need to continue living, working and fulfilling their dreams in the UK.”

It sounds great news for recruitment but I am reminded of a Government statement with the words, “We want high quality international students to come here. We want them to study at genuine institutions, whose primary purpose is providing a first class education. And we want the best of them – and only the best of them – to stay on and work here after their studies are complete.” This statement was made by then Home Secretary, The Rt Hon Theresa May, in 2011, shortly before the UK post-study work visa was removed.  It would probably only take an economic setback and rising numbers of unemployed graduates to see post-study work for international students being viewed less favourably by a Government that is still posturing about border control.

For US universities keen to make the most of revitalized interest from international students it is worth considering how recent research from IDP might dictate their engagement and offer strategy.  A survey of more than 800 prospective international students in more than 40 countries who are interested in studying in the US – with more than half of respondents based in India – found that more than three quarters (76%) have improved perceptions of the US since the 2020 presidential election, with 67% stating they are now more likely to study there.  What is clear from the UK experience is that the opportunity to recruit from India is available to almost all institutions if they can get the fundamentals right.

Critically, the emerging facts from the UK suggest that value in the cost of study is likely to be as significant a driver of interest as rankings.  Post study work is an important outcome but students, particularly those that are self-financing, will be equally interested in being able to minimize their outgoings during the course.  Making appropriate adjustments and moving decisively to work in market with a compelling message will be vital for institutions wanting to maximise international enrollments post-pandemic.

Realities, Rumours and Days of Reckoning

Another week another private equity investment in pathways, but there’s no sign of the consolidation that would seem to make most sense in a sector beset by competitive pressures globally, rising costs of acquisition and restless partners.  Nonetheless, a few months of underlying movement with pathways closing or being won might suggest universities are beginning to look at their options in a more assertive manner.  This blog takes a quick run through the latest news and discuss a couple of emerging rumours*.

This week’s sale of Oxford International Education Group’s (OIEG) sale was a curate’s egg.  On the one hand there was the strategic backdrop of Nord Anglia buying the schools and colleges (via THI’s purchase of OIEG) to get a solid presence in the UK.  But the rump of the business leaves an assortment of English language offerings with a pathway business that has seen relatively slow growth in partnerships.

For many years there was a notion that pathway businesses and English language businesses had some sales, marketing and enrollment synergy but recent developments suggest other thinking.  The sale of Study Group’s Embassy language schools to EC came in November 2018 ahead of Ardian taking its majority stake in Study Group in February 2019.  Then in June 2019 English language provider EC sold its higher education arm to Study Group in a “strategic move” which EC suggested supported its “core strength” of full immersion English language provision.

THI does however make a lot of the synergy between Oxford International’s relatively new OI Digital Institute (OIDI), launched in 2020, as an online learning platform that sits neatly with Corndel and Learnship in their portfolio.  As far as I can see those brands offer diploma and language learning courses and OIDI has a range of English language courses, test preparation and non-credit bearing pre-Masters and PhD offerings.  It will be interesting to see how these line up against the credibility of CEG’s seven online degree partners, Study Group’s developing strategy with Insendi and Kaplan’s success at the universities of Liverpool and Essex.

The founders and management of OIEG have remained invested as part of the deal with THI but move from having a private investor with a minority stake (Bowmark) to one with a ‘controlling interest’ (THI).  A lot will be riding on the digital offering but also the capability of the English language business to recover from the drubbing the sector has received in recent years.  A rising exchange rate against the Euro deterring language students, the loss of European Union students to UK universities and the resurgence of the US as a student destination may give some headwinds.

Rumours

Most well-founded rumour is probably that CEG are teaching out at Coventry University and will be replaced.  There is no announcement but there seems no way of applying for a course at CEG’s OnCampus operation in Coventry starting in Autumn 2021.  The recent addition of Aston University and the University of Southampton to the CEG stable must have been welcome additions but it is difficult to see that they will quickly match the numbers at Coventry which were over 700 in 2018 according to a QAA report.

If one were to speculate there might be reasons to think that Study Group can leverage their relationship from the Coventry London Campus to win the prize of a pathway at the main campus.  But there have also been suggestions that Oxford International have a fighting chance given their CEO’s contacts with the university – including a contract stint working on international development.  There’s also the glowing recommendation from an Assistant Professor John Fowler of the university about the engagement with OIEG on the development of online, pre-university programmes.        

Less well baked but understandable in today’s feverish environment is the suggestion that INTO’s relationship with Oregon State University is under review.  The INTO team at the university seems well regarded and it may just be that a new President is running the rule over everything.  The fact that the President was previously President and Chancellor of Shorelight partner Louisiana State University (LSU) may add some spice but it’s worth remembering the Insider HigherEd piece which noted a target of 850 for the LSU pathway with only 136 enrolled students after three years.

There is no secret that INTO’s pathway joint ventures in the US suffered the loss of Marshall University in 2020 and Washington State University earlier this year, with reports suggesting that Colorado State University will also be closing.  Looking at the numbers for OSU indicates that the pathway center has had a very tough year with Fall 2020 enrollment declining 58.7% year on year from 809 to 334.  It may be tough to judge performance under current conditions but total enrollments at the pathway have been falling since a peak of over 1400 in 2014 so the trend is well established.  

Days of Reckoning

It is easy to forget how quickly the tides of fortune can change in the world of international student mobility.  The Australian charge to double digit enrollment growth appears to have foundered on a clumsy Government response to the pandemic and they may be out of the reckoning until 2023 unless there is a rapid turnaround.  A burst of interest in the UK has been partially challenged by the travel restrictions of the past year but the continuing extension of post-study work options will deliver opportunities and the data from UCAS suggests that Chinese numbers are particularly robust.  The post-Biden bubble in the US has seen rising interest from overseas but there are still problems in the tensions with China and the practical issues of getting visas.  In Canada there seems to be a growing interest in pathway programmes at lower ranked institutions and the threat from a resurgent US is looming.

For pathway providers, as for higher education more generally, the pandemic has thrown the need for high quality digital courses into sharp focus but without any certainty that students will want to engage in that medium when they can travel again.  For most universities the realities of high fixed costs in their geographical location mitigate against a wholesale shift away from trying to recruit students to attend in person.  It is just possible that the global student mobility world will return to something approaching the “old normal” rather than there being a “new normal” but with the added options of models incorporating digital and even, so some would suggest, virtual reality.

*Note

I am happy to accept authoritative responses, comments or corrections to any of the points made and will represent them in amendments to this blog.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

PIGS TO PETTICOATS TO PATHWAY PROBLEMS

INTO’s London-based joint venture with Newcastle University is the second of the pathway provider’s high profile university partnerships to come to grief at the Middlesex Street building near Liverpool Street station.  The location was also the home of INTO’s venture with the ill-fated London Academy of Diplomacy, led by Joseph Mifsud who became infamous for his involvement in Robert Mueller’s enquiry into President Trump.  It’s reasonable to say that the site has seen more than its fair share of false starts, big ambitions and strange bedfellows – there’s even a Princess at one point.

The timeline of occupants, the financial fortunes of the joint ventures and the variety of pre-university, undergraduate and master’s courses offered suggests that making a success of a London venture is tricky.  There are many potential downsides to higher education investment in one of the most expensive cities in the world.  When ambience fall short of a true campus experience, facilities are limited and university faculty are more committed to their home towns it can be particularly hard going.

A run through the various occupants of Middlesex shows that even well ranked partners with global reputations might find it too difficult or too expensive to make things work.  The dates of operation are taken from public documents but may reflect a difference between an entity being incorporated and its first intake. Any authoritative updates are welcome.       

INTO University of East Anglia, London (2009-2014)

INTO UEA (London Campus) LLP was established as a joint venture in 2009 to provide academic and language courses, primarily to international students, at a purpose built study centre in London.  The intention was to offer pre-university courses along with “graduate and post-graduate courses taught by UEA academics”.   But UEA’s 2011/12 Financial Statement suggested that things were not going to plan and noted, “Trading to date is slightly down on the original plan, reflecting a slower build up in student numbers than originally anticipated.”

The University’s 2012/13 Annual Report comments, “In light of the current trading performance of INTO London, and the fact that accumulated losses will not be recouped for some time, the University made a capital investment of £3,000,000 in the joint venture in August 2013.”  An operating loss of £1.2m in 2011/12 had followed one of £2.5m in 2010/11 for the joint venture.   By early 2014 UEA had decided to retire at the end of July 2014 to focus on delivering teaching and research, “at our superb Norwich campus,”.

INTO City, University of London (2010-Current)

INTO City began trading in 2010 and focuses on pre-university courses.  By 2015 the joint venture had net current liabilities of £5.8m and its annual report noted “material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt upon the LLP’s ability to continue as a going concern.” Discussions were ongoing to reduce the charges from each partner, clarify governance and recapitalize the venture.

The outcomes suggest a rebalancing of risk and reward reflected in City’s 2018/19 Financial Statements which note that, “Prior to 1 September 2017, a 50 per cent share of the net assets and liabilities was included in City’s balance sheet and 50 per cent of its net income was reported in the consolidated income and expenditure account. Since 1 September 2017, City’s share of net income has been reduced to 15 percent.”  Always worth remembering that universities are primarily interested in pathway providers because of the income they receive from students who progress to full degree courses.  This may be a reason that City gives equal prominence on its webpages to the pathway arrangement with Kaplan International College 

London Academy of Diplomacy (2010-2016)

In an impassioned blog in 2013, UEA visiting lecturer Barry Tomalin advocated, “Don’t Let Diplomacy Fail”, to students at INTO’s London Academy of Diplomacy (known affectionately as “LAD”).  Under Professor Nabil Ayad, LAD had been with the University of Westminster, but from 2010 its degrees were validated by UEA and it operated out of Middlesex Street.  Another INTO partner, the University of Stirling, took over validating the Academy’s awards in 2014 by which time Professor Joseph Mifsud was Director of LAD. 

Brig Newspaper does a decent job of explaining the story of the “academic who attempted to connect the Trump campaign with Vladimir Putin” and INTO’s role with the Academy.  It highlights that LAD was closed in 2016 “citing financial difficulties” and an article in the Diplomat suggest that the Academy had 150 students in 2014.  Sufficient to say that the University of Stirling’s London-based activities arising from its joint-venture with INTO, whether with LAD or the short-lived Master’s program at a different site in the capital, no longer exist.

INTO Newcastle University London (2015-2021)

The Newcastle University London joint venture had an inaugural intake in 2015 and offered both pathway and degree courses.  Opened by HRH Princess Eugenie, a Newcastle graduate, in October 2015, it held the university’s aspirations that, ”..in collaboration with INTO, our London campus is expected to grow to 1,200 students.”  By 2018/19 the venture had grown to 504 enrollments but its operating losses had reached £2.4m.

Council minutes from the University indicate that discussions and negotiations about the future of the joint venture had been ongoing during most of 2019.  By April 2020 the University’s Council noted “that there was a compelling case to suspend undergraduate recruitment in 2020 on the grounds of insufficient applications, and judged that the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic would make future viability even less likely.”  It seemed a short step from there to the recent announcement that the joint venture would close next year.

INTO London World Education Center (“WEC”) (2017-Current)

WEC is a wholly owned operation of INTO’s which began operations around 2012/13 and offers pre-university courses for international students.  The student outcomes are accepted for consideration for entry by over 100 UK universities.  The accounts for 2015/16 noted an expected move to Middlesex Street which would “represent a more desirable study location” than its previous home on Mile End Road but this appears to have been delayed until 2017/18.

Year one at the new location saw a rise from 123 to 157 students but 2018/19 saw a decline back to 126.  WEC’s operating loss grew from £1.9m to £2.4m year-on-year across the two periods.  WEC’s debt to other INTO group undertakings also appears to have risen to £8.9m in 2019 from £5.6m in 2015.  

London – A Golden Opportunity or a Battle for Survival?

The chequered history of the Middlesex Street pathway operation matches the shifting sands of the location.  The Street was known as Hogge Lane in the Middle Ages  because pigs were fattened up in the surrounding fields to feed Londoners. Ryther’s famous map of 1608 records a name change, with Hogge Lane becoming Peticote Lane (with the spelling later being standardised to ”Petticoat”) as the area had become known for merchants’ selling second-hand clothes.  Petticoat Lane Market became one of the most famous in London, but around 1830 prudish authorities thought it unseemly to have a thoroughfare named after an item of women’s underwear and it was renamed Middlesex Street.

Shakespeare is quoted as saying, “I hope to see London ere I die” and many universities and pathway operators have set their sights on the UK capital in the belief it is an irresistible magnet to international students.    And Benjamin Disraeli, twice British prime minister in the 1800s, said “London is a modern Babylon” which suggests its history as an appropriate location for language-oriented pathways.  It is certainly possible to see pathway successes in London, with an example being the Kaplan International Centre which continues to add to an illustrious list of partner institutions.

But with the fallout from Brexit, the potential resurgence of a more friendly US international student experience, and all the uncertainties of a post-pandemic world the future for London-based education is far from clear.  Expensive buildings and accommodation, limited commitment from faculty to travel to London and low progression rates from a London pathway course to a distant campus are all obstacles to be overcome.  It could be that legendary punk group The Ruts summed up the future for investors best when they sang, “Babylon’s burning with anxiety”. 

NOTES   

1. Information relating to joint venture finances is taken from the filings at Companies House (INTO UEA (London Campus) LLP (now INTO London Mdx Street LLP, INTO City LLP, Newcastle University INTO London LLP, and INTO London World Education Centre Limited.

2. Commentary on the ventures at Middlesex Street has been taken from official records but it is a complex history.  Any corrections, insights or updates from sources that can be validated are welcome. They will be noted and credited on this blog.

Image by TeeFarm from Pixabay

US Pathway and University Enrollments Looking Grim

Early signs are showing the scale of decline in Fall 2020 international enrollments in the US and how pathway enrollments may be even more disappointing. Everyone has been expecting a deterioration in numbers and it comes after several bruising years where many pathway providers have closed operations. INTO University Partnerships and Shorelight are the dominant players in a troubled market and their partners at Colorado State University and Auburn University make it possible to drill down to pathway level.

It’s an early snapshot of what is likely to be happening around the US in Fall 2020 and also an indicator of what the pathway pipeline of international students looks like. It makes for sombre reading if you are a big player in the US pathway business and represents a financial blow on two fronts. Low enrollments make it difficult to run the pathway profitably or get any contribution to overhead. It also means several years of lower income the operator gets from its percentage of tuition fee per student in the university in succeeding years.

INTO CSU and Colorado State University
At Colorado State University (CSU) the overall international numbers have been dropping slowly for a couple of years. But Fall 2020 total enrollments dropped 22% year on year. Longer term pain may be signalled by the declining pipeline from its pathway partner.

Source: Colorado State University Institutional Research Planning and Effectiveness

Since Fall 2017 the number of undergraduate and graduate enrollments in the INTO pathway at CSU has declined by 54%, but in absolute numbers the drop in enrollments of 42 students (35%) from Fall 2019 to Fall 2020 has been the largest ever. Graduate enrollment declines are outpacing those of undergraduate students but both are falling sharply.

Source: Colorado State University Institutional Research Planning and Effectiveness

It’s worth remembering that INTO closed its pathway business with Marshall University earlier this year. This was covered in a blog back in March 2020, with the growing levels of inter-company debt between INTO University Partnerships and several of its US pathways explored in a May 2020 blog. Colorado State University was near the same inter-company debt level as Marshall, and it seems unlikely to get any better after this year.

Shorelight and Auburn University
Auburn had been showing healthy growth and outperforming most US universities for several years. But total 2020 Fall enrollments are down by 18% on 2019. Underpinning this is a 21% drop in Chinese students whose numbers have fallen from 1881 to 1489 year on year.

Auburn University Enrollments by Country – all colleges/schools, departments and primary majors

While an 18% drop in total enrollments might not be too bad a result in the current year it does not look as if Auburn will be able to rely on Auburn Global, the partnership between Auburn and Shorelight, for stability or future growth. There has been a 69% drop year on year (384 to 119) in enrollments on four key Auburn Global programs. Perhaps more troubling is that this number is driven by a 66% decline in the number of Chinese students enrolled in the programs (325 to 109).

Auburn University Enrollments by Country – Auburn Global – Academic, Extended, and Masters Accelerator Programs (First and Second term)

It’s reasonable to add that Auburn and Shorelight are working hard to promote an online option starting in October. This is positioned as offering “the perfect solution for international students who would like to earn academic credits virtually this fall”. Students can earn 9-12 credits on the Academic Accelerator Program and 7-8 credits on the Extended Accelerator Program. They will work through Zoom and pay the same price as on campus students.

Long term observers of the global recruitment business know that there is an ebb and flow to country performance but it cannot be easy for private pathway operators trying to satisfy private equity holders when a market looks to be in free fall. Huron appears to have backed its investment in Shorelight with a further infusion of $13m in the first quarter of 2020 but that was pre-pandemic. There seems to be a lot riding on the possibility of online delivery being attractive to students but that remains an unknown quantity.

By way of a contrast the UCAS data on UK university international undergraduate acceptances suggests students are already voting with their feet. International students placed in September 2020 were up 10% (4030) to 44300 with students from China up 27% to 12980. There’s still plenty of uncertainty around and the growing number of coronavirus cases on university campuses may bring the party to a grinding halt. But, for now, many universities are chartering planes to fly students into the country to bolster their chances of turning enrollments into attendance.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Canadian HE Pathways – An Open then Shut Case?

The recently announced ten-year contract between Ryerson University and Navitas raises questions about the fate of pathway discussions with the University of Western Ontario (commonly known as Western).  The interest of both universities may also be indicative of emerging financial pressures that could make Canada a land of opportunity for pathway operators. But some recent closures suggest it’s not always going to be plain sailing in “the True North strong and free”.

Even before the pandemic, there was increasing pressure on university budgets in Ontario, Alberta and Manitoba.  Alberta plans to reduce post-secondary institution funding by 20 percent over three years and Ontario plans to make up to 60 per cent of funding tied to performance-based metrics over time.  This has echoes of the State budgetary cuts that forced many public US universities to consider, and in some cases work with, commercial pathway operations.

But there is evidence that even in Canada pathways groups will have to pick their partners wisely to achieve sustainability. Study Group’s partnerships with Stenberg College and the Center for Arts and Technology were announced in February 2019 but will not be admitting students after the Fall 2020 intake. They do not seem to have flourished despite Canada’s general popularity with globally mobile students.

Western May Need “Urgent Assistance” To Recruit  

For anyone who thought that life was good for the university sector in Canada the specter of budget cuts and performance-based metrics may come with a touch of schadenfreude. There seems little doubt that Western has had to take the matter seriously and that its achievements in attracting international student interest have been limited. Fortunately for those who are interested the debate in the university is played out largely in public documents.

At Western’s March 2020 Senate meeting the President, when asked when the Navitas proposal might come to Senate, “indicated the timeline had not yet been determined. If the University needs urgent assistance to recruit students that could impact the timing of the proposal.” Western’s international enrollment has been patchy with their 2018-19 their international first year undergraduate intake being 855 compared to 508 in 2015-16 but then dropping back to 639 in 2019-20.  Perhaps more troubling in terms of concentration was that 75% of the 2019-20 intake was from China.

A potential block to any deal was the reminder that, “Senate notes that the potential partnership with Navitas involves the academic work of the University, which explicitly falls under the remit of Senate in the UWO Act; and therefore the articulation agreement/partnership/credit transfer/affiliation agreement/ contract to engage in the academic work of Western must come to Senate for approval.” In the manner of university turf-wars a representative of the Operations/Agenda Committee then noted “that it would support details relating to the academic components progressing to Senate, with the financial arrangements not being within Senate’s remit.” 

For those who enjoy the knockabout nature of university meetings the minutes are well worth a read and particularly so at S.20-59 where Question 2 noted that Navitas had agreements with Simon Fraser University and the University of Manitoba.  The discomfort was evident, “should Western proceed with a partnership with Navitas when two and possibly three other Canadian universities have such partnerships (which will make us one of four Canadian universities for which those vaunted Navitas recruiters are recruiting, so not obviously set apart from the other Canadian universities)”.

Sadly, and perhaps because of the pandemic, no further Senate meetings have been reported this year so it is difficult to say whether discussions went any further.  But Exhibit IV, Appendix 4 of the February Senate Agenda outlines the enrollment background and the shape of the Navitas deal being proposed. It’s also worth noting that Ryerson might have insisted that Navitas do not engage another Ontario partner in the near future so Navitas’s loss could be someone else’s gain.

The Bigger Picture and the Potential Trap

Anyone following developments in Canada will have seen the explosive growth in international student enrollments.  That has been tracked by the desire of pathway operators to find a way into the market, and Navitas appears to have got a small edge.  But the Ryerson deal and Western’s apparent need or willingness to engage may suggest we are seeing the thin end of a wedge that will see more Canadian universities joining with commercial partners to drive their international growth.

Movement in recent years has largely been in what may be considered secondary brands and non-degree bearing institutions. A recent announcement saw GUS expanding its Canadian network with the Trebas Institute but the Study Group experience noted above is a cautionary tale. Perhaps this is a good moment for all investors to pause and consider the history of pathways in North America.

Some believe, along with Marx, that history happens the “first time as tragedy, the second as farce”.  The United States was considered the El Dorado of pathway opportunities for several year with over a $1bn of private money flowing into expansion and start-ups.  The recent, rapid decline of pathway numbers, with more than ten closing in the past year, suggests that there is virtue in considering how to position yourself to be sustainable over the longer-term.

However, a resurgent United States could rapidly reassert its dominant position over Canada in terms of attractiveness to international students.  It would not take much for a loosening of visa constraints, an improvement in post-study work availability and a more welcoming administration to turn things around.   It is a reasonable bet that the change in post-study work opportunities in the UK has already slightly dampened interest in Canada as a destination.

Seasoned observers of international student mobility know that what goes round tends to come round.  Just as the step back taken by Australia and the UK in the early 2010s helped fuel growth in the US it seems reasonable to believe that the current US situation is helping to drive interest in Canada and the UK.  Quality universities will always recruit best under difficult conditions, so the right answer is to build a portfolio of decent brands and acknowledged specialist institutions while having a fall-back position for students who don’t meet those standards.

Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay

Another Canadian University Pathway Coming Soon?

Pathway operators have been focused on getting contracts with universities in Canada for several years but there has been little real momentum.  All the more interesting to catch rumours of Navitas nearing a breakthrough with Ryerson University.  It’s worth having a look at whether there’s any strength to them.

Exhibit one would be the university’s Senate Meeting Agenda of 1 October 2019.  Pages 78 to 83 have a summary of meetings ‘from the President’s Calendar’ and there, hiding in plain sight on page 82, is the entry:

Jul 29, 2019: Over dinner, I met with Rod Jones, group CEO for Navitas worldwide; Scott Jones, nonexecutive chair of the board for Navitas worldwide; and Brian Stevenson, president and CEO, university partnerships, Navitas North America. We discussed the potential for Ryerson to bring in international students through the pathways to university education that Navitas offers.

The information had previously been shared at the Board of Governors meeting on September 20, 2019.  So we know that Ryerson’s President Mohamed Lachemi has been meeting with senior people from Navitas although that might not be considered unusual.  But there’s a little bit more to report.

Recent social media shows President Lachemi escaping the Canadian winter in the past couple of weeks and ‘expanding Ryerson’s relationships with leading universities’ in Australia.  This might be unexceptional but the twittersphere also suggests visits to Griffith College and Deakin College – two Navitas centers – arranged by Navitas.  And it sounds like there have been more meetings with senior Navitas folk.

There’s no way of confirming the market gossip and I am always happy to clarify the situation if an authoritative source gets in touch. Ryerson has certainly been in conversation with at least one external operator in the past but given the rise of Canada as an international student recruitment magnet it’s questionable what benefits such a relationship brings.  Some commentators might argue they could organize themselves to take advantage of the momentum behind enrollments.

Once clue might be that Ryerson looks to have been left lagging despite the surge in interest for the country with the world’s longest bi-national land border.  There are thirty Canadian universities listed in the THE 2020 World Ranking top 1000 and the percentage of international students at Ryerson is the lowest of all.  At 4% it is well behind other, admittedly higher ranked, Toronto institutions like the University of Toronto (21%) and York University (24%).

Ryerson’s global ranking in the THE ranking 601-800 bracket places it behind the other Navitas partners in Canada.  The University of Manitoba is ranked in the 351-400 bracket and has 17% international students and Simon Fraser University is in the 251-300 bracket with 30% international students.  This might suggest that there is plenty of scope for Ryerson to grow with the right sort of support.

It would be the third public research university to partner with Navitas and would give the portfolio added depth.  The only other pathway provider with representation in Canada is Study Group who have one public research university in Royal Roads and two sub-degree colleges in Stenberg and the Center for Arts and Technology. 

With US enrollments still struggling and the maturity of the UK and Australian pathway markets it’s easy to see why there is interest in Canada.  Interest remains strong amongst students and agents with little sign of applications slowing.  But everyone with a history in international recruitment knows that past performance is no guarantee of future success.

The international student boom in Canada has come with some issues that are increasingly grabbing the headlines.  There are allegations of students being ‘duped by unscrupulous agents’, scarcity of part-time work and up to 39% of study visa applications being rejected.  It’s difficult to believe that interest will slump quickly or precipitously but it may be time for wise heads to consider what a sustainable rate of growth might look like.

Image by David Peterson from Pixabay

Changing Fortunes and Futures Across Major Recruiting Countries

Another extraordinary year in higher education around the globe and a good moment to review some of the highlights and possible future directions of the main four recruiting countries.  There’s plenty to consider as the established recruiting heavyweights fight off emerging challenges, the shake-up of pathways continues, and India’s rise as a market becomes an obsession for recruiters.       

USA

A year of reckoning for pathways with four closures each by Study Group and CEG while EC Higher Education exited the market totally.  All of which reminded us of the chill wind blowing through international student enrollments in the US.  It added to the uncertainty around a sector which is seeing changing demographics and growing competition lead to longstanding institutions closing. 

IIE reported overall international student enrollments for 2018/19 down 2.1% on the year before and 3.4% down on the peak of 2016/17, with the number of new undergraduates falling for a third year in a row (down 10.4% over three years).  For the press release to claim,  “we are happy to see the continued growth in the number of international students in the United States”, seems either complacent or misguided.  It’s fair to say that the quote reflects the inclusion of OPT (a form of post-study work) numbers in the overall count but even when they are included growth was a measly 0.05% which hardly seems a basis for contentment. 

A microcosm of the problem and its impact on pathways was highlighted by student newspaper The University Daily Kansan which showed the University of Kansas and Shorelight partnership falling short of expectations.  It indicates that in 2014 Shorelight intended to double the number of international students at the University.  But between 2014 and 2018  the number enrolled fell from 2,283 international students to 2031 – an 11% decrease.  

 Shorelight parted company with their Chief Commercial Officer, Sean Grant, in October after just over a year in post.  At INTO University Partnerships, Cagri Bagcioglu, Senior VP Partners North America, left after 16 months and has turned up at Cintana Education.  Reports of job losses at Navitas were in the news and Study Group have yet to announce the replacement of their North American MD.

Looking forward there seems to be little likelihood of the news improving any time soon.  Changes to post-study work in the UK may further undermine recruitment from India and there is already good evidence that some Chinese students are putting the UK ahead of the US.  It will be worth watching to see whether INTO, buoyed by bumper recruitment in the UK, will invest heavily to make life even tougher for the US-centric Shorelight.

UK

The world of international student recruitment in the UK changed in September 2019 with the announcement that a two-year post-study work visa was being introduced for students from the 2020/21 academic year.  Foundation courses are already doing huge business for January 2020 entrants looking to go on to the full university degree later in the year.  The British Council is predicting growth of ‘just under 20%’ across the sector in the year ahead.

The announcement lifted the gloom that had been felt since post-study work was ended in 2012.  While many big brand names have done well in the intervening years, the new Government policy opens the door for more universities to maximize their intakes.  The news built on statistic showing that the UK had already seen a 63% year on year increase in Tier 4 visas granted for Indian students in the year to September 2019.

It was a good year overall for pathway providers with Study Group picking up Aberdeen and Cardiff while Navitas secured Leicester.  Given the renewed recruitment opportunity, it’s ironic that INTO’s pathway with Gloucestershire was closed during the summer period.  With growth guaranteed for a couple of years the year ahead may be the right moment for some of the smaller players to get a good price for their pathway activity from one of the big players.

The coming year is also likely to see interest focusing back on the implications of Brexit with the probability of the Government inserting a clause to ban any delay beyond December 2020.  Plenty of reason for universities to be nervous about enrollment from Europe if students are obliged to pay international fees when the deal is done.  And there may be a resurgence of interest in new, European based campuses to try to ameliorate the problem.

Australia

The battle for the Ashes has nothing on the intensity of competition for international students, and it took Australia less than a month to respond to the UK’s post-study work change.  They decided that Perth and the Gold Coast would be classified as regional which gives international graduates an  additional year of post-study work rights.  The federal government added that student in regional centres and other areas would have access to up to six years of PSW.

All this on top of an Australian enrollment juggernaut that has seen double-digit growth in international higher education students for each of the past four years.  Enrollments year on year to October 2019 were c45,000 up at 434,756.  Despite arguments about lack of diversity their percentage of Chinese students is 28% compared to the US at 34% (including OPT) and the UK at 33% (of international fee paying).

There could be plenty more gas in the tank which may have been the reason Rod Jones and his colleagues took Navitas into private ownership with BGH.  It would also explain new kids on the block (or old kids who’ve been round the block) Camino Global Education, founded by John Wood, former CEO of university partnerships at Navitas, and Peter Larsen, who co-founded Navitas (then known as IBT) with Rod Jones in 1994.

Australia has led the way in developing transparency on student recruitment agencies, and its Government recognizes the value of the higher education sector to the economy.  One would guess that the potential of trans-national education is well within their sights as they embed their network in the vibrant Asian economies.  For the casual observer they also provide the best, most up-to-date and detailed data on international student enrollment and that’s a model most other could do with replicating.

Canada

‘O Canada…with glowing hearts we see thee rise, the True North strong and free’.  Those words from the national anthem must be how the country’s higher education sector and national Government feel about international student recruitment.  But it’s far from over because the federal government recently pledged nearly $30-million a year over the next five years to diversify global recruiting efforts in the postsecondary sector.

Remarkable to believe that just five years ago a headline of ‘When it comes to foreign students, Canada earns ‘F’ for recruitment’ accompanied the release of a report by the Council of Chief Executives and the Canadian International Council.   It provoked action and the launch of the EduCanada brand in 2016, which drove the number of international students in college or university from about 120,00 to 260,000 from 2015 to 2018.

Canada is also unusual in having more students from India than from China.  In December 2018 India surpassed China as Canada’s top source of foreign students, across all sectors, with more than 172,000 study permit holders. Each country represents slightly more than a quarter of the total of 570,000.

It’s no secret that every pathway operator has been trying to access the Canadian higher education sector for years.  The reality is that the sector had organized itself and was making progress while most of the attention was on the US.  There seems little need for outside help as they launch their  International Education Strategy 2019-2024.

Anyone who has worked in the international recruitment field knows that bets on long-term success are likely to lead to embarrassment. It’s less than a decade since Australia’s years in the doldrums, this article notes Canada’s ‘F for failure’ and just three months ago the UK wasn’t competing on post-study work options. It’s also only ten years ago that the lure of the US market was driving extraordinary valuations of pathway companies.

But it seems pretty reasonable to say that when the enrollment numbers for 2019/20 and 2020/21 are in there will be smiles in Canada, Australia and the UK. For the US the road to growth is unclear and may be several years in the building. And there remains the possibility that higher education in Asia will reach a tipping point to upset the old order even more fundamentally. Happy holidays.

Photo by Element5 Digital from Pexels