After looking at the broader picture on winners and losers in HE recruitment I’ve focused on a small number of high profile university partnerships to give some texture about those with pathway providers. Diving into the detail published by universities gives some insight as to whether pathway provision is delivering a stable stream and enhancing direct recruitment through global brand-building. Comparisons against the national picture indicate whether they are doing better than the sector overall.
Detailed breakdown of pathway volumes and progression rates are usually deemed commercially confidential and are rarely matters of public record. As a proxy I have looked at overall international student enrolment for the institutions involved as one would expect a thriving pathway of any size to provide a solid underpinning for broader recruitment efforts. Where possible I have supplemented this with Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) or University Annual Report data (available through the BUFDG site.
The examples I have chosen show sharply different outcomes at the university level. The underlying detail from supplementary sources suggests that the pathway is a contributing factor to those outcomes. In a broader context some institutions have done better than average and some not as well.
While the detail is UK related there is little reason to believe that the same isn’t true of the US and I’m doing some more work on that hypothesis for a later blog.
Three Big Players and Partners
Institutions are never wholly comparable but the universities of Newcastle, Liverpool and Sheffield are all large, metropolitan, Russell Group universities with substantial global ambitions. In the Times League Table 2018 Newcastle is 26th, Liverpool is 42nd and Sheffield is 21st. Newcastle and Liverpool have partnered with INTO and Kaplan respectively since 2007. Liverpool recently extended for another 15 years while Newcastle opened a new London campus with INTO in 2015 and are also in for the long haul. Sheffield was with Kaplan but switched to Study Group from September 2015.
Information published in University Annual Reports on overall international student enrolments in the five years from 2012/13 to 2016/17 suggests that Liverpool have, to date, weathered the headwinds facing the UK better than Sheffield or Newcastle. 
Source: University Annual Reports and Financial Statements 2012/13 to 2016/17
The university financial statements suggests that any changes to fees have not been sufficient to make up enrolment shortfalls. The fee income reflects the down-turn in student numbers for Sheffield and Liverpool in the 2016/17 year but also suggests weakness for Newcastle over the past two years.
Source: University Annual Reports and Financial Statements 2012/13 to 2016/17
To provide a comparative performance for the universities I have used HESA data for all international enrolments (all levels, full-time and part-time) in the 129 universities in the 2018 Times League Table. This is a measure which should include students enrolling across the whole year and should account for pathway progression from all intakes. It usually differs from the University Annual Report enrolment figures which are generally taken from a count in December of the academic year. I review the complexity of the broader HESA data in an earlier blog.
All the universities outperformed the average in the first two years under review. Liverpool and Sheffield achieved this between 2014/15 and 2015/16. Liverpool continued to outperform the sector from 2015/16 to 2016/17.
Source: HESA
Understanding The Pathway Performance
There is some insight into the changes at the pathways for Liverpool and Sheffield through the Quality Assurance Agency reports. For INTO Newcastle there has been no similar educational oversight although my understanding is that the changing visa situation will mean that ISI will provide oversight in the future which may lift the veil. My observations below are drawn from published material including university annual reports.
Newcastle and INTO
The University notes in its 2016/17 Annual Report that the enrolments at INTO Newcastle ‘had a disappointing year with a 7% reduction in student volumes’ which was comparable to the University’s direct recruitment decline. As a 50/50 joint venture partner the University also reports on its share of joint venture income and surplus/deficit. For completeness I have shown both the Newcastle-based and London-based operations but note that the latter has substantial undergraduate and postgraduate intakes in addition to pathways.
Source: University of Newcastle Annual Reports 2012/13 to 2016/17
The London joint venture is still in start up mode and student numbers are reported as having grown from 24 in year one to 184 full time and 20 part-time students in year two. The income and operating surplus/deficit are reported as:
Source: University of Newcastle Annual Reports 2014/15 to 2016/17
Liverpool and Kaplan
What is most striking about reviewing performance through the lens of the University Annual Reports is that it can reflect a level of engagement and shared commitment – or in some cases not. On page three of the 2016/17 Liverpool University report the Vice Chancellor reflects on the long-standing relationship, the renewal agreement for the next 15 years and the investment in new facilities for the pathway. The report notes that the partnerships with both Kaplan and Laureate International ‘are vital to the University’s international outlook and global ambitions.’
The Annual Report notes that Kaplan’s International College opened in 2007 with 146 students and has seen 6,500 students study at the College, with 20% of the institution’s international recruitment achieved via its pathways. Future investment includes construction of a new, 47,000 square foot, 13-storey college building due to open in 2019.
A key determinant of a successful pathway relationship is the extent to which the University partner embraces the strengths of the private provider and clears roadblocks to innovation and recruitment. Both parties are undermined if the University does not engage productively at both a senior and operational level. The 2016 QAA Report for Kaplan International College at Liverpool notes ‘The close working relationship with the partner university, which enables highly effective and regular processes for developing, monitoring and reviewing of programmes’.
Sheffield and Study Group
Sheffield International College was first established by Kaplan with the University in 2006. In 2010/11 it had over 1100 students and this number had ‘grown’ by 2013 despite no new programmes being introduced (QAA Reports 2012 and 2013). Over a period from March 2014 to September 2015 there was a transition to Study Group.
The November 2016 QAA Review indicates that 933 students were in the Centre and the next report in October 2017 says that ‘student numbers fell by around 12 per cent between 2015-16 and 2016-17’. On the upside it was noted that 7 per cent more students entering programmes at USIC being eligible for progression to the University. The timing of the QAA review makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions about full-year recruitment.
It’s still early days in the partnership and the whisper in the sector is that the University protected its commercial interests in the event of any performance issues – perhaps a sign that universities are becoming more commercially minded. The PIE noted in August 2017 that ‘Providence Equity Partners, which owns higher education provider Study Group, is reportedly preparing to sell the company for £700m’ so there is a lot at stake as the company manages the expectations of its large stable of partners. Interesting times as the UK itself comes under relentless market competition from Canada , Europe, Australia and the emerging destinations in Asia.
Closing Thoughts
Nobody who is looking from outside can full understand the dynamics of a relationship between University and pathway provider. Anyone who has been at the sharp end knows that personalities, department politics and academic apathy are all facts of life as is, from time to time, a revolving door of senior decision makers. An initial meeting of minds at the highest level is usually not enough for sustained success so the working relationships need to become rapidly embedded.
What is for sure is that the chances of maximising performance are vastly enhanced by realistic expectations, responsiveness to market and action on shared commitments. Universities need to see the pathway as being fundamental to their success and treat the provider as an equal partner with important skills. Providers need to be honest about what they can deliver and manage how their portfolio is balanced to meet targets and business plans.
And perhaps, given the age of the pathway model and the way the market is changing it is time to consider whether further innovation is needed. Over the years I have heard several major pathway players define their approach as ‘disruptive’ or ‘transformational’ but it is difficult to see how pathways are any different now to when they were introduced.
Notes and Corrections
Comments are always welcome and I think it is a good thing to note any corrections or amendments to the text.
30 April 2018 10.05amPDT – amendment to correct ‘Newcastle and Liverpool have partnered with Kaplan and INTO respectively..’. Correction to clarify that INTO partner with Newcastle and Kaplan partner with Liverpool.