student enrolment – View From A Bridge – management, education and personal thoughts

INTO AT WORK IN A LAND DOWN UNDER*

Rumours of INTO University Partnerships (INTO) striking a deal with the University of Western Australia (UWA) seem to be gathering pace**. It’s certainly clear that Study Group’s operation aligned with UWA, Taylor’s College, is closing in December 2021 and is currently not accepting any more students. Meanwhile UWA has announced the opening of UWA College, a new pathway institution, in February 2022 and it sounds as if this could be where INTO has landed its first ‘partnership’ in Australia.

The loss of UWA takes Study Group down to three university partners in Australia, according to its website, but it continues with its links to the top-ranked Australian National University and University of Sydney. Navitas currently lists 11 Australian partners with only one from the Go8. Just for the record that’s Adelaide which also appears on Kaplan’s list of three partners.

INTO’s entry into the Australian fray makes it the newcomer and comes some years after casting eyes at the opportunities . Discussions with La Trobe (currently a Navitas partner) were fairly advanced in the early 2010’s and there were other flirtations. The questions – why now and why Perth – would lead to an understanding of whether this is opportunism, an emerging strategy for diversification or a desperate throw of the dice.

The company’s problems with losing partners have been well rehearsed in recent months but there seemed some logic to taking joint ventures accruing debts to INTO out of the portfolio. While it is doubtful that all the decisions to close were driven by INTO, the remaining partners include some top names in the UK at a point when international recruitment is bouncing back. Almost every pathway group has had to take some pain with closures in the US so INTO’s troubles there were not uncommon.

It still seems something of a leap to take on a new partner in a country where the company has no infrastructure and limited operational experience. Even more so at a point when that country has a very uncertain path to being able to welcome international students back in the numbers it once enjoyed. It’s also reasonable to say that Perth has not historically been the epicentre for international student growth in Australia and that enrollment has lagged behind the country’s impressive upward curve to 2019.

Sources: UWA Annual Report (showing student load) and Australian Department of Education Skills and Employment

While UWA is one of the Group of 8 of top universities in Australia but is also behind some of the more illustrious names in terms of global ranking and attractiveness to international students. So, even when the borders reopen there is little to suggest that UWA will be at the front of mind for international students looking to find a top ranked university. All the while, there is also the drumbeat of Australian politicians and pundits who are keen to see the 2020 reduction in international student numbers go down even further to reduce university dependence on international fees.

	THE 2021 Global Rank	QS Global Rankings 2022	% of international students (THE measure)
University of Melbourne	31	37	48
University of Sydney	51	38	43
Australian National University	59	27	47
University of Queensland	62	47	38
Monash University	64	58	43
UNSW Sydney	67	43	44
University of Adelaide	118	108	29
University of Western Australia	139	93	29
Uni of Technology Sydney	160	133	36
University of Canberra	184	436	36

Business Insider Australia and other publications have set out the broader risks to Australia’s booming international student market as its Government struggles to find ways to allow inward mobility. UWA has taken the opportunity to roll out $40m in ‘structural cost cuts’, including ‘university-wide redundancies’ while flagging heavy investment in its campus. All of this plays out against the background of continuing tensions between the governments of Australia and China with the latest spat over the Great Barrier Reef and complaints at the World Trade Organisation being just the latest examples.

It is fair to say that the jury is out on how soon and how robustly Australia will return to the international student recruitment party. Those who have travelled the scene for many years know better than to write them off and they have overcome dips in enrollments before. But the resurgence of the UK, the Biden bounce and Canada’s continuing surge means that the competitive market they face will be more challenging than ever before.

All in all the link up, if it is confirmed, seems out of context for a business that has focused so heavily on the US for the past five years. The geopolitics of the enrollment potential are also difficult to divine at this stage and may make the partnership a harder sell. It’s going to be interesting to watch and see if INTO find it the “land of plenty” or whether those making the decision will think they’d “better run…better take cover.”*

NOTES

* It’s sometimes irresistible to allude to the mighty Men At Work and their song Down Under which topped charts around the world between 1981 and 1983. In September 1983 it was adopted as the theme song by the crew of Australia II in their successful challenge for the America’s Cup yacht trophy.

** As always, I would welcome any clarification or correction from an authoritative source at the University of Western Australia or INTO University Partnerships and amend the copy accordingly.

Image by Katrina_S 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

GETTING TO GRIPS WITH PATHWAYS – A THORNY SUBJECT?

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.