Tag: internationalstudentrecruitment

UK International Enrolments Unchained

The latest HESA figures (released 31 January 2023) give a further instalment and insight on the extraordinary recent changes in global student mobility and the impact on UK universities.  As predicted in early 2020 the growth of India as a market, largely encouraged by a more welcoming post-study work situation, has substantially altered the landscape.  This blog takes a look at other significant changes, a snapshot of key countries and who the winners and losers are in the enrollment stakes. The focus is on full-time students1 and there are a few words of caution at the end.

Overview    

After a few relatively flat years the period from 2018/19 to 2021/22 has seen a CAGR of 17.39% in enrolment of full-time, non-EU international students. Part-time, non-EU international students have grown by a CAGR of 10.44% from a much lower base. While part-time changes are interesting the focus here remains on full-time numbers.

The first and most obvious thing about the mix of students is that Postgraduate Taught numbers have accelerated rapidly and particularly so from 2020/21 to 2021/22.  The total number of postgraduates is up 117% over the period with the total number of undergraduates up 26%.  A strong performance but always with the risk that postgraduates usually only come for a single year and as global competition increases may look elsewhere.

It is no surprise to anyone to see that India has been the dominant driver of the change.  But both “Other Asia” and “Nigeria” enrolments have increased by more than China since 2018/19. 

  NB: This chart has not been disaggregated for Full and Part-time.  Increases in part-time students are relatively modest over the period.

“Other Asia” is worth disaggregating and the chart below shows the change in enrolments over the past four years in the countries with the highest number of students in the UK.  Most noticeable in volume terms is the year-on-year growth from Bangladesh and Pakistan.  68% of full-time students from Bangladesh and 67% from Pakistan are postgraduate taught compared to 80% of those from both India and Nigeria. By contrast 52.6% of full-time Chinese students and just 17% of Hong Kong students are postgraduate taught. 

 Country By Country Review

The countries to follow for volume growth are clearly India, Nigeria, Pakistan and Bangladesh and at each individual country level the march of the non-Russell Group universities goes on. This section focuses on the year-on-year growth from selected countries.

India

Coventry added 2,900 full time enrolments from India year-on-year and now stands only behind the University of Hertfordshire in terms of the largest Indian contingent in the UK.   Nearly half the year-on-year total increase from India for the UK came in the ten universities with the most significant change in enrolments.

There are also some interesting shifts within universities in terms of their balance of students.   As shown in the table below, the universities of Leicester and Brunel are in the top ten for increases in students from India (but are among the biggest losers from China).  Roehampton University’s year on year growth of 332.9% is quite startling.   The Russell Group universities have not been totally out of the picture with Glasgow, Manchester and Warwick all managing to add 1,000 or more Indian students year on year.

There may also be a word of warning due for institutions growing their numbers from India and relying on the increased volume being sustainable.  Five universities lost over 20% of their Indian enrolments year-on-year in 2021/22.  The University of Wolverhampton may offer a salutary tale with a rollercoaster ride from 85 in 2018/19 to 1360 in 2020/21 but a decline in 2021/22 to below its level of 840 in 2019/20. Any failure to offset that from other countries could be a serious financial hit.

Nigeria

The table for Nigeria shows the top six gainers to include the University of Hull’s extraordinary increase of 1207%, while of the 915 there are 870 postgraduate taught. The University of Hertfordshire has the largest number of Nigerian student enrolments in the UK and of the total 1,915 (83.8%) are postgraduate taught.  The best Russell Group performance was the University of Glasgow which increased by 60 students to 170.

Pakistan

The growth in enrolments from Pakistan is generally more widely spread, although non-Russell Group universities dominated recruitment from the market.  Queen Mary University of London was the best performing Russell Group university with an increase of 30 year-on-year.  The University of Hertfordshire performance puts it in the top five in terms of volume growth for each of Nigeria, Pakistan and Bangladesh and in the top ten for India.  If there were an overall league table they would probably lead on points.

Bangladesh

The University of Hertfordshire also features strongly in Bangladesh where it’s year on year growth put it in the top five.  Further down the rankings there are some significant percentage increases but from lower bases with De Montfort, for example, increasing from 50 to 390 and Cardiff Metropolitan going from 30 to 325.  Queen Mary University of London is the best placed Russell Group university with, um, 80.

China

The exception to the general rule continues to be China where the two Russell Group universities in Scotland are showing substantial growth.  University of the Arts is possibly the surprise packet in the top five for growth and other notable growth in a field dominated by the Russell Group institutions was shown by Goldsmiths College (470) and Kingston University (515).

As noted in previous blogs, however, the strong recruitment performance in China is not universal for the Russell Group.  The universities with the greatest year on year reduction in Chinese students are Liverpool and Newcastle with Queen’s University Belfast and Cardiff doing well below par for the sector.  In the context of their performance in India (as discussed above) it would be interesting to know if the universities of Leicester and Brunel have changed strategy because of opportunity or an inability to compete with brand sensitive students from China.

Summary and Thoughts

Taken in conjunction with previously reported trends in enrolment from 2018/19 to 2021/22 it is clear that the changes in growth markets have presented significant enrolment and financial opportunities for universities who may have struggled to recruit heavily in China.  There seems little doubt that while there is a benevolent, post-study work visa regime, universities in the UK will be able to continue making progress in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Nigeria.  Whether Russell Group institutions sharpen up their strategies or choose to wait (possibly hope) for a return of Chinese students remains to be seen.

What is also in the mix is whether the enrolment trend is driven solely by successful institutions offering some mix of low cost (both tuition and accommodation), sympathetic local culture, lower entry criteria and dynamic recruitment tactics.  The disparity in volume growth between Russell Group institutions and many well ranked universities such as Surrey, Loughborough, Bath and Lancaster seems extreme.  Perhaps some institutions need to look harder at their international office strategies. 

It is noticeable that of the top 40 universities in the 2023 Complete University Guide only the University of Leicester (29th) makes an impression among the best recruiters from India.  This may be another sign that students are largely ignoring rankings and pursuing a degree in a country where they will have the option to work during and after study.  These are features that are more about Government policy than university excellence.

There are, of course, other implications for the scale of growth being seen.  It is noticeable that the University of Bradford has closed applications to some courses for 2023 and that Oxford Brookes and the University of Salford have also made adjustments to constrain the number of applications being received from certain countries.  It is almost certain that other universities will be doing the same.

Beyond that are the financial implications. The University of Hertfordshire is in the top five gainers for the four biggest growth markets and this is reflected in the percentage of income arising from international tuition fees. From just 11.6% of total income in 2018/19 the fees are now worth 31.9% of total income.

One must also consider how those with sudden increases, like the University of Hull with an increase of 1207% in its students from Nigeria, will manage the student experience.  In 2020/21 Nigerian students made up 3.8% of the university’s full time international population but in 2021/22 they will be 30.2% of the group.  These are substantial shifts that require careful attention to maintain reputation and quality of academic performance.

Finally, there is the likelihood that growth will have continued into 2022 enrolments.  With the majority of students now coming as postgraduates for one year and an increasing propensity to intend to stay after studying, the summer of 2023 is likely to see greater competition for graduate jobs than ever before.  Whether the UK is ready to manage that opportunity successfully in the middle of a recession and with a Conservative Government planning its strategy for an election just 18 months away remains to be seen.

NOTES

  1. The focus is on full-time students to avoid any distortion from individual universities doing significantly better with part-time students.

Image by Jan Alexander from Pixabay 

INTO Court as Joint Venture Sours

There are signs that INTO University Partnerships’ (INTO) relationship with the University of South Florida may be ending after a recent Court Evidentiary Hearing1 on 19 August 2022.  While no public record of a judgement has appeared, rumors suggest there are communications in circulation advising that enrollment to INTO University of South Florida (INTO USF) will cease.  If any authoritative source can provide an alternative explanation or clarification, I will be happy to correct any misunderstandings.

It is appropriate to note that both INTO and the University of South Florida still feature INTO University of South Florida on their websites at the time of writing (27 August). The INTO Study site for students also offers the opportunity to apply for courses at the university. This may be the result of a time lag or the possibility of further discussion and this blog is written in good faith to explore the background to the Court case and the joint venture’s history.

The underlying case for a university going to court to end a joint-venture pathway that was once among the most successful in the world deserves attention.  Publicly available court filings outline the case2 and material on the INTO Corporate and University of South Florida websites is used to summarize the history and other background about the joint venture relationship.  The source of further commentary is referenced through hyperlinks.  

Summary of the Case

A Court filing3 from USF Financing Corporation (USFFC) to the Thirteenth Judicial Court in and for the state of Florida Civil Division dated 15 July 2022 seeks a “declaratory judgment that the 2010 stockholders Agreement between USF FC, the Company4, and the INTO Defendants is terminated as of April 21, 2022.” The grounds are that the joint venture is “insolvent under both a balance sheet basis and inability to pay debts as they become due, and (b) has demonstrated a material adverse financial position where it could not perform all or a substantial part of its obligations..”.  The particular difficulties of pathway programs in the United States have been widely explored and the filing incorporates direct reference to my blog of February 2022 regarding the growing level of indebtedness of INTO’s US ventures.

With an eye on its responsibilities for “stewardship of public resources” the University of South Florida terminated the program in April 2022 and “initiated the process for the teach-out of the programs’ enrolled international students….”  The filing asserts that “The INTO defendants refuse to acknowledge the Stockholders Agreement termination and refuse to participate in the teach-out or develop the Plan to dissolve and wind-up the Company.”  There are a number of points made around the fiduciary duty of the three INTO appointed Directors of INTO USF Inc, to creditors and shareholders “once a company is insolvent” with a memo, the accompanying Exhibit G of the filing, asserting that “the INTO appointed directors have a conflict of interest.”

INTO University of South Florida

INTO partnered with the University of South Florida in 2010 and the case study on the INTO website asserts “extraordinary” enrollment and economic impacts.  The accompanying graph (reproduced below) suggests that even if this was true up until 2016/17 the ensuing years have seen a significant decline in enrollment to the pathway.  Enrollments look to have peaked at around 800 but have subsequently fallen by around 100 a year to stand at c300 (this would be supported by the USF Fact Books showing non-degree seeking international students declining by a similar amount).

Source: INTO Global.com

The Court filing includes INTO USF, Inc’s Financial Statement to June 30, 2021 (Exhibit E) showing a net loss of $3.276m that year and $206,000 the year before.  This is supported by the USFFC’s Financial Statements to 30 June 2021 which comment on “approximately $3.3 million of net loss incurred by INTO USF during the year ended June 30, 2021.”  USFFC’s share of INTO USF’s “net accumulated (deficit)” was shown as $1.794m.

As noted in the February 2022 blog “China Crisis for US Pathways”, since 2018 when INTO Illinois State University opened, “total level of indebtedness across all US operations has nearly doubled from £18m to £35m”.  This figure included the debts at institutions where joint ventures have now closed – Washington State University, Marshall University and Colorado State University.  The blog also reflects that INTO has become the 100% owner of what was previously a joint venture at St Louis University.

One feature of both INTO USF (the second INTO partnership in the US) and INTO Oregon State University (the first) is that they are listed in INTO’s Annual Report as Inc. and are C-corporations.  Informed opinion suggests that closely held corporations (which these appear to be) “have been held to higher fiduciary duty standards” and this may be reflected in the “conflict of interest” comment.  Later US joint ventures are listed as LLC’s where, “By agreement, parties can alter certain duties to expand, restrict, or eliminate fiduciary duties owing to either the LLC or the other members and managers”, which suggests there may have been advice leading INTO to pursue alternative structures.5

Summary

It is worth waiting to see any Court judgement and whether there is an appeal process but the filing and other financial statements seem definitive in outlining the decline of the joint-venture’s financial situation.  If the joint venture is closed it would leave INTO with six joint ventures in the US, as well as the fully owned St Louis University operation and the “comprehensive partnership” with Hofstra (which is not listed in INTO’s annual reports as having joint ownership). 

As well as the closures in the US there have been several INTO joint ventures shut down in the UK in recent years.  In addition, INTO has taken a controlling interest in the joint venture with Newcastle University and the financial arrangements at the joint venture with City University have changed.  As noted in a recent blog the yearly financial reporting for INTO University of East Anglia is shown at Companies House as overdue, for a joint venture under significant financial pressure.

On top of all that there are rumors of imminent changes at the top in the INTO Finance team and the return of a familiar face to the INTO North America team but that is for another day.

Notes

  1. Case number: 22-CA-006726 before Judge D.D. Farfante
  2. I am unaware of any written response by INTO University Partnerships to the case filed
  3. Filing#153460265 Efiled 07/15/2022 07:45:26 PM
  4. “the Company” is defined as INTO USF Inc which is the C-Corporation established in 2010 with stockholders USFFC and INTO USA LLC.  Its board has three nominees from INTO and three from USFFC.
  5. The purpose of this paragraph is to provide further information which may be relevant and the quoted elements comes from the source indicated.  There is no intention to give legal advice or guidance and readers are advised to seek appropriate counsel on company structures.

Image by Venita Oberholster from Pixabay