Tag: student recruitment

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

Jeopardy for UK Universities Giving EU Students Financial Preference

Anyone who thought that “Brexit means Brexit” or that all UK universities would accept that EU students no longer have special protection on tuition fee levels should think again.  Some institutions are publicizing that EU students starting in Autumn 2021 will pay Home student fees for the duration of their studies.  Some suggest it may be illegal and for international students from other countries it will reinforce a suspicion that Euro or Western-centric policies, pricing and priorities continue to prevail in some English institutions.

The straightforward fact is that if you are a student from China, India, Nigeria, Brazil, Canada or anywhere outside the EU, there are at least six universities in England who have decided to charge you a significantly higher tuition fee to sit alongside an international student from a European Union country in the 2021/22 academic year.  It is a distinction not based on that student’s language capability, their government’s contribution to English higher education, their intelligence, or their capacity to pay.  The privileged treatment applies, without any form of means testing, to students from some of the wealthiest countries in the world.      

A review of the 40 English universities with the most European Union students (HESA, 2018/19) shows that five have either maintained EU rates at the same level as UK students or put in place special ‘scholarships’ that have the same effect. 

UniversityNumber of EU StudentsUniversity Statement
Bedfordshire1,725Approved-schedule-of-mainstream-fees-2021-22-081220.pdf (beds.ac.uk)
Solent1,310Following the UK government’s confirmation that EU students will no longer be eligible for home fee status benefits, we’ve made the decision to keep EU tuition fees the same as UK tuition fees for 2021 entry.
West London1,240No statement – shown on fee schedules
De Montfort1,175DMU recognise the challenges this brings for our prospective EU students, and therefore for undergraduate EU students commencing their course in the academic year 2021/22 an automatic discount will be applied to reduce their undergraduate fees to £9,250 for the duration of their course.
Portsmouth1,120If you’re an EU, EEA or Swiss national or an EU national with settled status in the UK, starting a course in the academic year 2021/22 or later years, you will no longer be eligible for the same fees as UK students. You’ll pay the same fees as an international student. But a Transition Scholarship will be applied to your fees reducing them to the same amount as UK students. 

A sixth, the University of Kent, which dubs itself “The UK’s European University”, has put in place a blanket 25% reduction on the international fee level.  Seven others currently either indicate that they cannot confirm fee liability or do not have any 2021/22 academic year fees shown on their websites.  Among these is Coventry University which, with over 3,600 EU students in 2018/19, has a lot at stake.

Beneath the top 40, Royal Holloway, University of London, was among the first universities to indicate its intention to maintain EU student fee levels in 2021/22.  Their online statement suggests good intent as they note, “At Royal Holloway, we wish to support those students affected by this change in status through this transition. For eligible EU students starting their course with us in September 2021, we will award a fee reduction scholarship which brings your fee into line with the fee paid by UK students.”  The institution is keeping its options open for the 2022 intake and a cynic might suggest it will see how enrollment goes before deciding whether to extend the reduction.

While the argument about support through transition sounds good universities do not, generally, take on wholesale financial risks incurred by students as circumstances change.  Students often find that the currency exchange rate goes against them during the course of undergraduate study, in the case of Indian students by around 18% between September 2017 and July 2020, but universities don’t cover the cost.  Giving a blanket dispensation on fees to favour students from 27 countries is unheard of and a cynic might argue that it is driven by enrollment objectives more than anything else.

It also raises the question about the nature of the cross-subsidy that non-EU international students might be giving to the new class of “EU international” students.   The Migration Advisory Committee report of September 2018 made the point that, “There is no doubt that international students offer positive economic benefit, including cross-subsidising the education of domestic students and research.” This suggests that allowing EU students to continue paying “home” fees will mean that their full-rate international student peers will be subsidizing them.

Relatively little has been written about the legality of this type of favouritism for one group of international students over another.  In July 2016 Elizabeth Jones, a senior associate at Farrer & Co, wrote for Times Higher Education that  “Universities are required by the Equality Act 2010 to treat students in a way that does not discriminate on the grounds of any “protected characteristic” such as race (which includes nationality), age, sex and disability.”   She noted that providing students from the rest of the EU with the same fees as UK “home” student fees was, at the time, an allowable exception because it was mandated by legislation.

A statement by Michelle Donelan, Minister of State for Universities made it clear that this mandate no longer existed. “Following our decision to leave the EU, EU, other EEA and Swiss nationals will no longer be eligible for home fee status…for courses starting in the academic year 2021/22.”  In July 2020, Gerrit Bruno Blöss, CEO of Study.eu, commented on the damaging impact this could have but noted that, “A few institutions are also evaluating potential legal loopholes to charge different fees.”  Perhaps they found them or simply decided that nobody would notice or dispute their decision.

The UK Council for International Student Affairs (UKCISA) is simply publishing Donelan’s statement and reflecting that further guidance on regulations from Government may not come before the Student Loans Company (SLC) system launch in February 2021.  It is surprisingly coy, given its remit as “the UK’s national advisory body supporting international students” about whether maintaining a significant price differential between two groups of international students is fair, decent or appropriate.  It claims every UK university as a member and must know that some institutions are publicising their 2021/22 academic year pricing strategy on that premise.

UKCISA’s 2020 Policy Position Paper notes that a key part of delivering a world class student experience is communicating “a clear message of welcome to all international students in the UK, at every level of study”.  That seems quite difficult if the system becomes underpinned by preferential treatment for students from the EU without real clarity on what makes such exceptions equitable or even reasonable.  This is particularly so when so many other institutions have made it clear that the ‘international’ fee will apply to EU students from the 2021 academic year.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Office for Students (OfS) is silent on the issue.  It has been pointed out elsewhere that the OfS shows a level of disinterest in whether international students get value for money from a UK education.  Perhaps they could provide comparative information to at least fulfil their promise to “ensure that all students are provided with the necessary information, advice and guidance so that they can make informed decisions about where and what to study.” 

It’s also not clear where the National Union of Students stands on this anomaly.  Back in 2013 their position was that, “It is scandalous that non-EU students are charged fees that can be thousands of pounds higher than those for other students.”  One would think that they would at least expect everyone designated an international students to receive equal treatment from universities.

With the pandemic and Brexit diverting attention it may not seem important that a handful of universities have gone out on a limb to preserve a point of privilege for EU students.  But reputation is hard to gain and easy to lose.  It’s time for the UK authorities to clarify the situation and possibly for Messrs Sue, Grabbitt and Runne to become involved. 

NOTE

In principle I am in favour of all education being free and would welcome a situation where universities were able to focus only on teaching, learning and research in the interests of students and broader humanity.  This blog reflects the realities of international student fees and the potential for preferential treatment to emerge when universities make decisions driven by economic factors.   

Image by Thanks for your Like • donations welcome from Pixabay

The Dwindling Party* – More Pathway Closures in the US

Pathways providers are cock-a-hoop about the UK this year but there’s a slightly embarrassed silence about continuing closures in the US.  A quick spin through the websites tells us that INTO looks to be shuttering one of its early partners and Study Group has trimmed another from its stable.  And there are plenty of discussions about where the axe might fall next (with one contender noted below).

INTO’s portal for students claims 13 US partners but according to the corporate website there are “12..in the US”.  It’s not entirely clear which university was intended to be mysterious number 13, but a click on the number leads to just 11 partner logos shown.  The missing partner is Marshall University in Huntington, WV.

The Marshall deal was signed in November 2012 with the first students entering the pathway in August 2013.  It was the heady days of expansion in the US and the opening came the same year that Leeds Equity took a 25% stake in the INTO University Partnerships business for £66m ($105.8m). With Shorelight Education launched shortly afterwards there was a lot of private money betting that US expansion would guarantee international student growth for a long time to come.

But Marshall’s non-resident alien population and the strength of the INTO pathway have declined sharply in recent years.  Institutional data showing early fall statistics shows a fall of 37.6% enrolled at INTO Marshall and 38.7% in the university overall (which implies that direct recruitment was falling faster).    

Table One: Marshall University International Student Enrollments

With respect to Study Group, I reported on closure of three US Centers back in September but since that time yet another has disappeared from the list of logos on the website: Oglethorpe University.  A visit to the University’s website confirms that the last intake was September 2019, and that the International Study Center won’t exist after May 2020.  The partnership was announced in 2017 with President Lawrence Schall, stating, “As part of our globalization strategy, choosing the right pathway partner was important.”

Reasons for the closure are not easy to discern, as the Oglethorpe Fact book suggests significant improvement of international numbers year-on-year for 2019 entry.  The number of countries for represented for first-timers had also increased slightly.  Maybe the future did not look bright enough.     

Table 2: Oglethorpe University International Enrollments

  Fall 2018 Enrollment Fall 2019 Enrollment
First time, full time international 16 41
Full time traditional undergraduate profile 97 122

While walking through the pathway websites I also came across Cambridge Education Group suggesting that a pathway with Illinois Institute of Technology, first announced in early 2018, is still ‘coming soon’.  When I clicked on the link for Illinois Institute of Technology Direct Entry I found an error page.  Careless at best if this is an important relationship but perhaps indicative of more deep-rooted reconsideration.  As always, I am happy to clarify this if I receive an authoritative correction and explanation.

It seems likely that the US will suffer even more retrenchment in international student enrollments over the coming year.  The resurgence of the UK will almost certainly affect the US more than other locations, with the recently reported 93% increase in student visas from India just the early part of the surge to take advantage of enhanced post study work visas.  Of course, the implications of coronavirus have yet to play out fully and that may mean that all bets are off. 

*The Dwindling Party is a book by Edward Gorey where pop-up illustrations and verses divulge how, one by one, six members of the MacFizzet family, disappear during a visit to Hickyacket Hall, leaving behind only young Neville, who expects “it was all for the best.”  It’s an interesting metaphor.

Image by Mediamodifier from Pixabay 

Post Study Work May Change UK University Enrolment Growth Patterns

The BBC’s claim that ‘UK universities see boom in Chinese students’ shows a lack of subtlety in understanding the dynamics of growth at different institutions.  The latest HESA data available at individual university level shows that just seven universities took 51% of the 16,990 student growth in Chinese enrolments between 2014/15 and 2017/18. But there are intriguing signs that the incoming surge of Indian students might bring a new dynamic to the market.

While China still dominates, the latest HESA data (for 2018/19 entrants) shows that Indian ‘first year entrants’ to the UK in 2018/19 grew by 42% (around 5,250) year on year with comparative China numbers up around 13%.   We also know that in the year to September 2019 the UK saw continuing and notable increases in Tier 4 study visas to students from China and India with visas to Chinese nationals up 21% to 119,697 and those to Indian nationals up 63% to 30,550.  Anecdotal evidence suggests that post-study work rights are driving applications from India even harder for 2020/21.

With numbers from India growing so rapidly it’s worth considering whether this might impact the growth opportunities of different institutions. 

Reputation and Rankings Key to Chinese Enrolments

In the last four years, where data is available at institution level, seven universities achieved growth of over 600 Chinese student enrolments and growth of 50% or more in their Chinese enrolments.  Strong brand and rankings focus in the China market mean it’s no surprise that five of the seven are Russell Group universities.  The University of the Arts seems to have been able to develop a niche brand in a growing area of study.     

Table 1: Universities Increasing Enrolment from China by over 600 and 50% from 2014/15 to 2017/18

Source: HESA

The obverse is broadly true as well.  Lower ranking universities have, generally, found it more difficult to recruit students from China with the eight showing the biggest numerical losses being over 4,000 enrolments down over the four years.  None of them are ranked above 40 in the Times University Guide 2020.

Table 2: Universities with the Largest Decline in Chinese Student Enrolments 2014/15 to 2017/18

Source: HESA

As an aside, it is interesting to note that the University of Leicester switched pathway operator from Study Group to Navitas during the course of the year.  No doubt they will be hoping for a reversal of fortunes under their new arrangements.  On the other side of things Cardiff University, one of the most successful in recent years as seen in Table 1, has just appointed Study Group so there would appear to be some pressure to perform.  Sunderland and Hull may be wondering whether their involvement with CEG is delivering as needed.

Growth of Indian Students Less Ranking Dependent

We are awaiting the HESA data at institutional level for 2018/19 to see how the growth in Indian student numbers will affect the dynamics.  If 2014/15 to 2017/18 is any guide it could begin to level the playing field with some lower ranked universities able to make ground.  Between those years total enrolments from India grew by 1425 but the seven universities with over 150 additional enrolments grew their Indian numbers by an aggregate 1870.

Table 3: Universities Increasing Enrolment from India by over 150 and 50% from 2014/15 to 2017/18

Source: HESA

It is reasonable to note that the big losers in terms of enrolments from India were also at the lower end of the reputation and ranking scale.  West London (-380). Staffordshire (-340) and Cardiff Metropolitan (-300) showed the most significant losses.  But equally, there were no significant gains made by most Russell Group universities.

It is difficult to find any obvious cause and correlation in the grouping that has done well.  One factor, for some of the institutions listed in the table, is likely to be the value for money they offer in terms of fees and other expenses.  For students taking out personal finance it seems reasonable to assume that universities with lower fees, even if below the top rankings, may be attractive.    

Another factor which may be worth considering is the relative strength of the Indian community in some locations.  London (Queen Mary) is always a strong draw but the most recent UK Census information indicates that in 2011 there were significant communities in Leicester (De Montfort), Nottingham, Preston (UCLAN), Northampton and Newcastle (Northumbria).  All that being said, it is worth noting that the University of Leicester lost 90 Indian students over the period – it may just be that De Montfort is eating its lunch.

Future Disrupted?

What makes it even more tantalising is the recently released top line HESA data on international enrolments in 2018/19.  As one would expect five of the big Russell Group players have been top performers with Edinburgh, Kings College, Leeds, Sheffield and University College London each adding over 1,000 new international students year on year.  Their gains account for around 25% of the overall 23,280 increase in total international student enrolments.

But the data also shows that East London (505), Greenwich (660), Hertfordshire (475), Nottingham Trent (470) and Teeside (490) all had faster year on year growth in international enrolments than Exeter (345), Warwick (385), Lancaster (60) and Newcastle (40).  It’s a little early to call the outcomes and the figures are not available at institutional level by country of domicile.  But there is just a hint that the return of post-study work visas has disrupted enrolment patterns and some lower-ranked universities may have the most cause to be grateful.

Notes:

  1. The term ‘international’ is used here to described students paying international fees and excludes European-union students who pay the same fee as UK students.
  2. The data in the Future Disrupted? Section is taken from HESA data:
    1. HE student enrolments by HE provider and domicile Academic year 2018/19
    1. HE student enrolments by HE provider and domicile Academic year 2017/18

Image by Gerd Altmann 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

Clear For Clearing

It’s a bit early to predict final international student (excluding European Union) recruitment outcomes from the UK undergraduate Clearing season but the first week often gives some direction.  There’s also some anecdotal feedback on how institutional and student strategies might be shaping up and what it means for the broader sector. There’s a long way to go with the season largely defined by the last date on which international students can get visas to study.  

Looking at international students who have been ‘placed’ there has been a slightly surprising decline in year on year (YOY) growth over the first week.  On A-Level day (Day 0) 6.7% (2,120) more students had been placed than in 2018 and the number holding an offer was up 5.6% at 16,860.  By Day 8 the placed YOY increase was only 5.2% at 1,900 although offer holders were up 9.5% at 12,120.   

  Table 1 – Year on Year Differences In Place Students

Source: UCAS

NB: Each bar reflects the difference on the year before i.e. bars for 2016 reflect the difference compared to the corresponding UCAS reporting days in 2015  

The deeper context is strong growth in international student application growth measured at 8% at the 30 June UCAS deadline with a particular surge in applicants from China.  There are suggestions that the growth in applicants has allowed institutions to be more selective which seems likely at a point where there is more demand than supply.  An alternative, or perhaps complementary, take is that students are also being choosier and taking the opportunity to shop around before accepting an offer.

Plenty Still To Play For

While conversion tends to slow very quickly after the first week of Clearing the pool of 12,120 offer holders suggest that there’s plenty to play for.   Trying to project numbers forward it may be reasonable to take last year’s outcome as a guide.  In 2018 the pool of those holding an offer on Day 8 was 11,070 and by Day 28 of clearing the total number placed had grown by 18.8% of that number. 

A similar result in 2019 would mean that Day 28 in 2019 would see 40,430 placed students which would be a growth of 5.5% YOY.  It’s a rough and ready calculation and at Day 8 there were still a record number of over 30,000 students free to be placed in Clearing.  Whichever way you cut it this looks like a good year for the sector.

Another factor is that the numbers published by UCAS only cover the main scheme applicants and do not reflect those who might have used a Record of Prior Application* (RPA) to bypass the system.  As I noted in a blog in December 2018 this route has been growing quite rapidly, with just over 6% of the total number of students using the RPA route in 2018 compared to 3.9% in 2014 and just 4.8% in 2017.  Further growth would bring even more upside in recruitment for universities.

A Good Year But Beware The Fog

There may be even better news for the sector because there is reasonable feedback from some pathway operators and sixth form colleges suggesting that they are having a bumper year.  One commentary has suggested that students unable to get direct entry into well-ranked universities of choice are choosing to take pathway courses at those universities.  Even more encouragingly the buoyancy seems widespread and there is likely to be welcome relief for some universities that have seen significant declines in international student volume in recent years.

The undergraduate numbers are the smaller part of the international recruitment picture but there is no reason to believe that postgraduate numbers are not doing at least as well and probably better.  All this before the likely reintroduction of a more powerful post-study work option and the removal of international students from immigration statistics.  It bodes well for the near-term future of the UK sector at a point when the US seems to be mired in difficulties that are unlikely to be corrected quickly.   

Against this background experienced international recruiters will remember Clausewitz’s dictum that, ‘the factors on which action..is based are wrapped in a fog of greater or lesser uncertainty’ – it’s the basis for the popular phrase ‘fog of war’.  Brexit continues to loom over the sector with no real clarity over long-term decisions on the fee status of European Union students.  Concerns must also remain over reliance on one dominant source country when the rise in UG applications was substantially driven by students from China.

*Record of Prior Acceptance – where an application is submitted to UCAS by a provider, when an unconditional firm has been offered and accepted by the applicant. These are not recorded in the daily Clearing analysis and will be reported after the cycle has closed.


Image by PublicDomainPictures from Pixabay y

FRESH HOPE OR ZOMBIE DAWN AS CLEARING FOG LIFTS?

Day 28 sounds like a bid for the latest in the zombie movie franchise but its the UCAS yearly data-release marking four weeks from A-level results day. For some UK universities the former might feel appropriate because the clearing season is nearly over and visa deadlines are coming. It’s not long before all that is left is the counting of enrolments.

This year Day 28 was 13 September with the data published a week later. These numbers give the best indication of how far the UK has come in enrolling new undergraduates for the 2018/19 academic year.  It’s a mixed bag.

The good news that the number of ‘placed’ international students (non-EU) is up 4% to 38,330 – that’s 1,500 more than last year. It’s a solid gain although slightly disappointing after double-digit applicant growth in the early part of the cycle. It looks anaemic against the growth in Canada and Australia but is likely to be better than the US.

At a subject level the biggest winners are Business and Administrative Studies (+350), Computer Sciences (+310) and Biological Sciences (+240). However, the number of Engineering students is down by 230 and at its lowest level since 2012. The five-year growth in Technologies has also been reversed with a loss of 130 students taking it to its lowest ever total.

With 6,040 students international students still holding offers the eventual enrolment outcome remains uncertain. In 2015 the number holding offers on Day 28 was 6,380 but in the past two years had fallen to 1,760 (2016) and 1,610 (2017). It is difficult to understand what is driving this fluctuation and there may still be time for a late windfall.  But the majority may just be phantoms preying on the minds of hard-pressed recruitment teams.

More good news is that EU-students ‘placed’ are also up by 2% to 30,350. This is still slightly below the number for 2016 but is some cause for encouragement. A number of universities, including De Montfort who opened an office in Portugal earlier in the year, are enhancing their physical presence in Europe. It will be interesting to see how these developments plays out with Brexit looming.

The bad news is that the total number of placed students after 28 days – counting all domiciles – is down by 10,000. At a standard UK home student fee rate that’s £277m of fee revenue over a three-year degree. Universities know that the home-student demographic dip will continue for a few years, which is one reason those that can have been building their student base. It seems to be one factor behind the growth in unconditional offers from well-ranked universities.

Table 1 – Total of All Placed Undergraduate Students 28 days After A-Level Results
Of course, undergraduate enrolments are not the only source of student income for universities and postgraduates make up the bulk of international enrolments.  But it is also difficult to see why the postgraduate enrolment picture would be much of an improvement on that for undergraduates.  And an enrolled undergraduate gives a near guarantee of three years income compared to the yearly challenge of recruiting more one year taught Masters students.

Against this background it was interesting to read Being set up to fail? The battle to save the UK’s Universities from speculative finance. The article, from May 2018, notes that ‘some £3bn has been borrowed by UK universities since 2016, over half of this in the form of private placements.’ Some of that borrowing may be based on predictions of student enrolments that look increasingly unsustainable.

This echoes WonkHE’s November 2016 report, Getting worse: HEFCE’s bleak prognosis for university finances. One recruitment related line from HEFCE was “Our financial modelling shows that removal of projected growth in overseas fee income over the next three years (2016-17 to 2018-19) would all but wipe out sector surpluses by 2018-19, with projected surpluses falling from £1,081 million (3.4 per cent of total income) to £56 million (just 0.2 per cent of total income).”

It is to be hoped that the early warning signs from HEFCE were heeded and that the long-term financial health of individual universities has been considered more carefully over ensuing years. My blog Getting To Grips With Pathways – A Thorny Subject? showed the decline in some university incomes that has already become evident as international enrolments fall. The UK demographics will not improve for several years and the battle for international students will not get any easier.

Winning And Losing In Global Recruitment

A lot is written about ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ in the race for international students. Putting some edges on that brings some surprises in terms of scale and the institutions in each camp. Between 2012/13 and 2016/17 the biggest eleven gainers in the UK ‘gained’ nearly 20,000 more international students while the eleven largest losers ‘lost’ approaching 19,000 students.

The outcomes show that mid-ranking, non-metropolitan, and less well-known universities can compete at the top table.  It is also clear that being part of an exclusive clique of universities is not, on its own, enough.  Good case studies abound for anyone wanting to grow enrolments in challenging times.

These conclusions are drawn from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) data showing international (non-UK or Other European) students enrolled by institution between 2012/13 and 2016/17. It’s a public record, self-reported by universities, and is widely used so it is one way of keeping score. I reflect on some of the complexities in notes at the end of the blog (and look forward to any corrections or challenges). When I worked for universities the time honoured response from planning offices to questions about student numbers was ‘how many would you like us to have’!

To give context HESA reported non-European enrolments between 2012/13 and 2016/17 growing from 299,490 students to 307,540 with a high point of 312,010 in 2014/15 (https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/sfr247/figure-8).  This is a total for all levels, years and modes of study.

WINNERS ARE NOT ALWAYS AS EXPECTED
Unsurprisingly large, well-established, metropolitan universities with strong rankings are well represented in the top eleven gainers.  I was told that when  one Russell Group university began to consider its brand management its proud response to questions about key selling points was ‘we’re big and we’re old’. For some that may still be enough but they are far from the only winners.

At number eleven, De Montfort University (DMU) has shown that clear strategic direction, strong engagement at senior levels and powerful execution can make a substantial difference. As CEO of their pathway partner, Oxford International Education Group, I saw at close hand the strong commitment to internationalisation and collaborative working. Their overall success reflects the drive of James Gardner, Pro Vice-Chancellor for International and Ben Browne, COO, under the leadership of Vice Chancellor, Prof Dominic Shellard.

Their partnership with Oxford International, established in 2013, has also played a part with integrated degrees and 94% progression rates in 2015-16 (QAA Educational Oversight, March 2017) boosting enrolments. A good lesson for any university with a private provider as partner is to be found in the strength of working relationships between Oxford International’s founder, David Brown, and former-Director of Global Sales, David Anthonisz, and senior university figures, including Gerard Moran, Director of Academic Partnerships.

Table 1 – Top Eleven Changes in International Enrolment by Headcount 2012-13 to 2016-17
Source: HESA tables 2012/13 to 2016/17 (see notes at end of blog)

BUT ABSOLUTE VOLUME IS NOT THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN
One would expect some of the biggest players to rack up the largest volume growth. But significant gains can also be made by universities with more modest starting points. The top five in terms of percentage growth over the period (with at least 2,000 international students in 2016/17) is a different way of considering potential. Table 2 has representation from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and demonstrate that major English cities are not the be all and end all.

Table 2: Top Five By Percentage Growth of International Students – 2012/13 to 2016/17 (with total student volume over 2,000 in 2016/17)

Source: HESA tables 2012/13 to 2016/17 (see notes at end of blog)

The performance of Queen’s under the guidance of James O’Kane, Registrar and COO, and Isabel Jennings, Director of Marketing, Recruitment, Communications and Internationalisation, has been outstanding. I worked alongside them to develop an international enrolment strategy from 2011 to early 2013 and again as COO at pathway partner, INTO, in 2015. There were significant challenges to overcome in terms of location, reputation, data, programs and processes but these results show the potential for a focused, well-executed, long-term strategy to pay dividends.

This chart does not include some smaller institutions with growth stories. Falmouth University grew from 125 to 280 and the University of the West of Scotland by a startling 164.5% (405 to 1055) over the period. Cumbria, Newman, York St John, University of the Arts London, Birmingham City, London South Bank, Westminster, and Brighton – all ranked below 100 in the 2018 Times league table – have also added students over the five years. Each will have a different strategy but under tough competitive conditions every additional student reflects thought, effort and delivery.

FOR EVERY RAY OF SUNSHINE A DROP OF RAIN MUST FALL
The universities that have seen their enrolments decline by the greatest percentage lost 18,875 students. Some have had specific difficulties, such as visa challenges. Most are in the lower half of most league tables.

It is possible that the closing gap between the fee value of an international student and a home/EU student may have encouraged some universities to rebalance their community. But it is difficult to believe that many of these institutions set out to lose international enrolments to this level.

Table 3 – Eleven Largest Negative Changes In International Enrolment by Headcount 2012-13 to 2016-17

Source: HESA tables 2012/13 to 2016/17 (see notes at end of blog)

The most surprising is Nottingham University which has a well-deserved recognition for its international reputation and reach. Its Annual Reports for the period suggest a much smaller decline in international students from 6887 in 2012/13 to 6809 in 2015/16. The purpose of this blog is to reflect the data as reported through HESA but changes in reporting may have contributed to the overall scale of the decline.

Nottingham’s 2017 annual report also notes, ‘The University plans for a significant expansion of international recruitment, underpinned by the international foundation year, have been re-assessed and deliverable yet challenging targets have been agreed.’ Kaplan have been selected to support them.

In percentage terms Chart 4 notes those in the top 30 in the Times League Table 2018 that appear to have gone backwards over the period.

Table 4 – Universities in Times Top 30 Showing Volume Declines from 2012/13 to 2016/17

Source: HESA tables 2012/13 to 2016/17 (see notes at end of blog)

What this can mean for a university is illustrated by Table 5 showing income from international student fees over the period for three of these universities.  While East Anglia’s and Essex’s declining income in 2016/17 is not calamitous it results from a declining student body and stagnation/low growth in fee levels. The University of Dundee has, from a lower base, been able to implement significant tuition fee increases.

Table 5 – International Student Fee Income (£000s) 2012/13 to 2016/17Source: University Financial Statements 2012/13 to 2016/17

THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR ‘THE DISCONTENTED’
Large institutions with strong rankings and good locations undoubtedly have some advantages in attracting international students. But less-well known, geographically challenged universities are achieving significant growth by adopting aggressive, well-planned and brilliantly executed strategies. Equally, it is true that even being well placed in the league tables, a big player with an established reputation, or part of the Russell Group ‘club’ does not guarantee growth.

I have long held the view that, as Oscar Wilde commented, ‘the world belongs to the discontented’. The challenge for ambitious universities is to maintain a sense of productive agitation for improvement in their approach to international recruitment. Constant attention to every facet of the pipeline is critical in a competitive environment as is a data-led approach and careful targeting of potential students with relevant programs of study.

NOTES
1. ‘HESA student figures include anyone enrolled for more than two weeks on a higher education (HE) course that is primarily based in the UK, unless they are an incoming exchange student, on sabbatical, writing-up or dormant.’ More detail at https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/students/whos-in-he
2.Individual HESA tables from 2012/13 to 2016/17 were used to compile data in a time series for all universities in the 2018 Times league table. Totals and percentage gains or losses were calculated from this.
3.HESA tables round data which leads to occasional abnormalities in totals but these are minor in context.
4. The largest institutions in the HESA tables not featuring in the 2018 Times league table are University of Wolverhampton, Cranfield and London Business School – these accounted for 3085 students in 2016/17.
4. This blog reflects the HESA tables as published. It is recognised that reporting errors or changes in reporting conventions may have occurred.
5. The numbers shown in University annual reports usually differ from the HESA data. There are a number of reasons, including timing of any ‘snapshot’ used for University purposes.