Tag: studentrecruitment

Mind the Gap

There is much heat but precious little light around the scale of cutbacks and potential job losses in the UK higher education sector.  UCU has begun its own “live page of all the redundancies, restructures, reorganisations and closures” taking place in the sector.    It’s the source of the media’s drumbeat of 55 universities cutting back and part of the storyline of a gathering apocalypse for the sector.   What is interesting is how slippery and difficult it is to get any real sense of how employment in the sector1 has grown in recent years and the extent that any cutbacks might go deeper than that growth.

It is always wise to start this type of discussion with a recognition that every redundancy is a personal story and the anxiety involved is never to be underestimated.  But it’s equally wise to try and understand the reality of what is going on and why.  There is no doubt that many in the sector have experienced a windfall in international tuition fees since the Graduate Route was introduced and it’s reasonable to try and understand how they have spent the money.

It’s also worth understanding the extent to which the attrition in university finances, due to the declining real value of domestic tuition fees, since 2012 has changed staff numbers.  Previous blogs have considered the sabre rattling around job cuts, the cost of restructuring at some institutions and the reality that some universities (and some courses) might simply be finding it hard to recruit students.  In that respect many problems in the sector are localised and a one-size fits all solution of taxpayer funded handouts is unlikely to solve them. 

Source: Graph published Mark Corver, Founder and MD of DataHe, LinkedIn

Looking Into a Lacuna

The story from HESA (Higher Education Statistics Agency) indicates that Academic Staff numbers (excluding atypical) grew from 198,335 in 2014/15 to 217,065 (+9.4%) in 2018/19 and then to 240,420 in 2022/23 (a further 10.8%).  Non-academic staff grew from 205,500 in 2014/15 to 222,855 in 2018/19 (+8.4%) but then the trail for non-academic goes cold.  That’s because from 2019/20 “it became optional for providers in England and Northern Ireland to report data about staff on non-academic contracts.”

Source: Higher Education Statistics Agency

*Atypical contracts are “generally non-permanent contracts for short, one-off, or as-and-when tasks”  There were 62,690 atypical academic staff in 2022/23 (down from 75,560 in 2014/15)

NB: The number of institutions reporting in any given year may change.

For a sector that wants to proclaim its impact on the economy it seems a little odd to leave a big gap where half those employed are not fully accounted for.  Around a third of institutions declined to report in 2019/20 and the number declining to report had grown to 43%.  HESA suggest “caution” in interpreting the data which is little surprise since it has no insight into getting on for half the employers.

Even more disturbing is that HESA Q&As misleadingly suggest that their numbers include “all staff” when the data they point to is only academic staff.  GOV.UK is in on the act with the Official Statistics page for Higher education staff data UK:2021 to 2022 confidently linked to HESA data that only shows academic staff numbers.  Many have talked about the sector’s approach to transparency and this seems another example of paying lip service to letting its main funders know where there money is going.

You can tell how confused UniversitiesUK are from their Higher Education in numbers release of 15 February 2024, which claims that in 2021-22 “there were 233,930 staff (excluding atypical staff) employed at UK higher education institutions.”  The source they quote is HESA staff record 2020-21 – odd as they are giving numbers for 2021-22 – which only has a complete record for academic staff.  It seems particularly misleading because the last HESA data (in 2018/19) with both academic and non-academic staff showed a total of 439,955 employed.  It’s not like UUK to short-change themselves when making claims about the sector and I suspect it’s just a mistake.

Source: Higher Education Statistics Agency

NB: The snip cannot capture the whole table but all the data is available there.1

A WonkHE blog recently touched on the data gap caused by opting out in the context of technical staff but it seems arguable that the gaping and growing hole in information on non-academic staff borders on the absurd.  As with all these things each university has the data and generally publishes a version of it in their Annual Report so that is where one has to now start looking for the answer to the sector’s employment path in recent years.

Filling in the Dots

The data collected and considered below reflects a selection, hopefully a reasonable cross-section, of universities in the UCU list referred to in the opening paragraph.  It takes the average FTE of all staff as shown in each university’s annual report since 2017/18.  This shows that the number of staff employed rose modestly in the years before the pandemic, stalled during the pandemic years, and then rose more sharply from 2021 to 2023. 

On average across all 15 the growth has been 8.8% since 2021 but this masks three universities where numbers have fallen (with Kingston down 5% the largest fall).  Growth of 17.7%, 13.5% and 9.7% was seen at the universities of Teesside, Exeter and Central Lancashire respectively.

Average growth of the 12 non-Russell Group institutions has been 6.6% since 2021.  Over the longer term since 2018, Lincoln is up 24.1%, Teesside is up 23.6%, and UWE up 19.3%.  This puts into some perspective the UCE summary of the cuts:

  • Lincoln – “looking to make 220 redundancies” has added 403 FTE since 2018
  • Central Lancashire – “looking to cut 165 posts” has added 280 FTE since 2021
  • Teesside – looking to open a Voluntary Severance Scheme ‘to review how we deliver our business’ probably needs to review after adding 322 new roles (up 17.7%) in just two years since 2021.

For the three Russell Group universities in the group the overall outlook is skewed by Exeter which has increased FTE staff numbers every year since 2017/18.  Newcastle’s growth has been below the average of the 15 modelled and Cardiff were slightly above the average.  UCU tell us that Exeter has ‘opened a Voluntary Severance Scheme’ and that Newcastle ‘has a voluntary severance scheme across all faculties without targets or numbers.’  Cardiff is ‘planning to cut Ancient Languages’.

  

The overall employment data has not been disaggregated for Academic v Non-Academic but there is no doubt that in some institutions growth of administrative staff has significantly outpaced that on the academic side.  That is not a judgement on whether administrative jobs are more or less important than academic roles but the lack of insight on what is happening across the sector is one reason that the lack of HESA data is so infuriating.  The sector really lets itself down when it can’t even be bothered to say how it is adding to employment.

Solving the Right Problem

It is unclear whether the highly publicized cutbacks in the sector are doing much more than correcting course after adding staff to meet a short term windfall that is now likely to disappear.  In some cases, the correction appears to be significantly less than the growth in employment evident in recent years.  Again, this is not to minimize how difficult that can be for those concerned but one may have to ask whether senior management really thought the bonanza was sustainable when they started hiring.

As identified in another blog there also seem to be some universities that are in a state of almost perpetual crisis because of an inability to recruit domestic students and the short-term bonus of international students was gratefully grasped.  It also seems likely that some courses have deteriorated in popularity to an extent where the sector, the government or another body may need to determine how to sustain research and learning through combined action.  Fundamental questions around the value of universities to local economies and the preservation of some academic disciplines may be better placed in the context of levelling up and cultural heritage than graduate visas. 

NOTES

  1. Those who would point me to the 385,500 FTE claimed by London Economics in their August 2023 report for Universities UK might care to go and re-read the basis for it. In the methodology section London Economics confirm that only 217 of 303 institutions reported data to HESA in 2021/22. The London Economics estimate is based on the 20`18/19 ratio of academic to non-academic. May or may not be right and it would be better to have certainty and a decent time series.
  2. There is an argument that because the reporting of these numbers changed after 2018/19 the subsequent numbers do not compare like with like. That is true but all that reaffirms is that the record is inadequate. As we see above, London Economics seems content to use 2018/19 as a solid starting point. As more institutions decline to provide details on non-academic staff the gap between reality and return gets wider and even the post 2019/20 record gets sketchier.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Universities Shouldn’t Cry Until They’re Hurt

One of the most notable features of the past week has been the higher education sector’s outrage at the Prime Minister using the phrases “crack down” and “rip-off” to talk about university courses the Government believes do not offer value for money to taxpayers or students.  They should take the advice given by one of my older and wiser relatives who counsels “don’t cry until you’re hurt”, because this announcement looks a classic case of political sloganeering rather than direct action.  

There is plenty more of this to come as election season looms and every piece of self-righteous university outrage will play out against a backdrop where 30% of the public are “broadly uninterested” in universities and 11% do not view them in a “positive light”. Levels of confidence may not have fallen as low as in the US, where Gallup polls suggest they are in near terminal decline, but it is not always easy to find supporters. For those suggesting it’s not fair that higher education is besmirched for political gain it is worth repeating a dictum from a lecturer in negotiation skills – fairness is a concept of and for children.

Just wait for the howls of protest if/when a further surge in dependent relative visas emerges after the Autumn 2023 intake and a Government in full-campaigning mode (or jostling for post-election leadership challenges) responds.  The sector will, again, be easily positioned as self-seeking and irresponsible in the context of election messages about controlling borders and reducing immigration.  There seems little reason to believe that the Labour party will throw itself in the way of such arguments.    

Bleeding hearts1 but…

Vice-Chancellors are not above their own tough talk with, just this week, the incoming UEA Vice-Chancellor David Maguire quoted as talking about “Darwinian dimension” and “survival of the fittest” in the context of cutbacks at the university.  The vice-chancellor of Oxford, Louise Richardson, talked of a “mendacious media” and “tawdry politicians” when salaries of vice-chancellors were challenged.  It is relatively rare to find VC’s using anything but code and anodyne responses when speaking publicly but those who have worked closely with them know that in private many are more than willing to make strident comments about colleagues, academics, and any organization that disagrees with them.

Hypocrisy is rarely a good look so it is probably time for the sector to decide whether it is going to engage assertively and openly in the cut and thrust of public discourse, suffer in silence or actually do something positive.  If it’s the former, there is a need to get their messaging more focused and populist if they are to have any chance of succeeding.  Mendacious and tawdry are probably not quite right for  discussions at the school gate, on the campaign doorstep or down the pub.

Crying Wolf2 but…

The truth is that the Government’s has had limited success in seeing any of its higher education ideas through and the sector has won at least one major victory in the past few years.  In 2017, ApplyBoard’s ubiquitous Jo Johnson, when UK Minister for Universities and Science, gave a speech to UUK focusing on “accountability and value for money”, “grade inflation”, “vice chancellor pay” and “accelerated degrees”.  Perhaps his abiding popularity with the sector is that everyone is still talking about the first three (with at least one measure arguably much worse) and by 2021 the Complete University Guide could only list eleven universities offering the fourth.

Another good example, this time involving the Office for Students who will be charged with the “crack down”, comes from Gavin Williamson’s time as Secretary of State for Education.  In 2019 he wrote to the OfS asking what steps they could take to ensure “..international students receive the employability skills they need and are supported into employment, whether in their home country or the UK.”  The further thread in the letter was that it was “…critical to ensure the OfS makes public transparent data on the outcomes achieved by international students…such as it does for domestic students.”

This was so ineffective that by early 2022 and even in the face of criticism from the sector HESA, who were charged with getting relevant outcomes data, had decided to stop telephoning students outside the EU to discover international student employment or any other status.  The Head of Data, Foresight and Analysis at the OfS indicated that the OfS was content because “the current cost of this is not proportionate to our current uses of the data” and confirmed that the target response rate had been cut to 20%, compared to 25% previously.   The aforementioned Jo Johnson was reported as being “amazed” and quoted as saying  “Vice-chancellors should provide resources, this is an £18 billion [US$24.5 billion] to £20 billion [US$27 billion] annual revenue business we are talking about.”  The VCs did not respond.

As we are reminded by Aesop’s Fables it is just possible that the wolf will eventually eat the sheep but higher education should be careful about becoming a Cassandra that never have its prophecies believed.

The Truth Doesn’t Hurt…

B. C. Forbes is credited with completing the phrase, “…unless it ought to.”  To an extent the higher education sector seems to have got caught in a doom loop where it sees a problem (even if only in public perception), ignores it or tries to talk it down, then gets caught on the back-foot and is pained when savvy politicians raise it in robust terms.  It is worth considering whether public opinion (for which one might read taxpayer) is ever so totally wrong, or elected representatives so dim, that the sector can totally ignore them or claim there is no foundation for concern.

There is some acceptance of poor quality courses by the sector, as in the UUK President’s recent statement that there are a “…very small proportion of instances where quality needs to be improved.”  It is, perhaps, more telling that the UUK Chief Executive’s statement the following day did not even allow that minor acceptance and preferred to shield the sector behind the OfS as its regulator. A different approach might be – what is the sector doing to ensure students are not mislead about potential outcomes, how are they calling out any examples of quality shortfalls, or, just maybe, standing firm and offering evidence that no examples exist?    

If the sector is persuaded that the OfS is the answer to its problems it would do well to listen more closely to what that body has to say.  Just eighteen months ago the OfS published a consultation on minimum acceptable outcomes for students and CEO Nicola Dandridge said, “They are..designed to target those poor quality courses and outcomes which are letting students down and don’t reflect students’ ambition and effort.”

It seems a straightforward expression of the view that such courses exist and so the current Government position should come as no surprise.  Given the Williamson example above, politicians may be equally concerned about the ability of the OfS to affect change and have chosen to ratchet up the pressure on a populist issue.  The sector is responding as if it has just been caught of guard by a surprise uppercut when the blow was telegraphed a long time ago.

NOTES

  1. Anticipating possible outrage at the use of this term I note that I am aware of its history. I use it here as a common turn of phrase and have no political agenda.
  2. In the original Aesop’s fable only the sheep were eaten by the wolf.  It is only in later English-language version that the shepherd boy is also consumed.

Image by Mohamed Hassan from Pixabay

Bread, Circuses and Clearing

Note: A data transposition error meant that a small number of Day 4 details in this blog required amendment. Deleted text is shown with a strikethrough. The changes are marginal and do not change the conclusions drawn. Amendments were made on 23 August.

Education and political commentators in the UK must salivate as they mark the A-level results date in their diary.  It’s the gift that keeps on giving as thrilled and distraught students weep real tears of joy or despair at three grade letters which will determine their immediate future.  The system places all the power in the hands of the universities as they pick and choose who to admit from the 30% or more whose predicted grades were inflated.

With that grumble about a system which is weighted heavily against students out of the way it’s time to get down to making some observations about what clearing has told us so far about international students.  It’s still early in the process and there is time for things to change but the first few days are usually telling.  The figures on day one of clearing (UCAS call it JCQ Results Day) and little change by day 4 give a sense of how the world is turning. 

The focus here is international students and that brings an immediate acknowledgement that undergraduate study is probably not where the real action lies.  However, the yearly grind of replacing PGT students is a remorseless treadmill and every university business manager should be hungry for the stability of a three year fee-paying student.  Pathway operators have also historically built their business around students who want to be undergraduates and need to improve their language skills before entering a full degree.

No Safe European Home

The near catastrophic decline in European undergraduate enrollments continues but it looks worse than the headline numbers.  Since 2019 the number of applications has fallen 54% (27,150) but on day one the number of acceptances was down 67% over the same timescale.  The slow growth in the number of acceptances suggests that there is simply not the quality of student in the pool or that they hoped to be able to slip into a highly ranked university and are not interested in trading down.

Those touting the notion that it was not financially an issue if European numbers fell steeply because they would be paying more in fees should re-evaluate their position.  In 2019 the 26,200 European students accepted on day one were worth £727m over three years at £9,250 a year.  In 2022 the 8,620 accepted on day one are worth £414m over three years at an average of, say, £16,000 a year.

Of course, some higher ranked universities will be able to charge more but it would need an average yearly undergraduate fee of £28,000 to be able to make up the difference.  It is difficult to see that this is realistic, so a net loss seems baked into the situation.  The number of acceptances is also on a downward trend year on year so getting Brexit done probably has long term consequences for higher education enrollments.

The impact on pathway operators may also have been something of a blow because many European students, particularly from less economically strong countries, needed language support.  This may be one factor behind the growing popularity of low-cost countries in attracting international students within Europe.

China In Your Hand

UK university appetite for students from China remains undimmed and it would be reasonable to lay a small bet that the Russell Group is continuing to draw in as many as possible.  What is interesting about this year is the sharp hike in the percentage of Chinese applicants who were accepted as of day one. The 42% accepted was still at that level had risen to 44.6% on day 4 of Clearing and is significantly higher than anything in the past decade (highest previous was 37.9 42.1% acceptances on day 4).

A couple of thoughts on the reasons come to mind.  It is possible that there has been a surge of quality candidates because the number of Chinese students going to the US appears to be continuing to falter.  It is also possible that pathways in the UK with international year one options are growing their degree offerings and able to provide a persuasive option to candidates at 5.5 IELTS. HESA data shows, for example, that Study Group had 1,345 Chinese undergraduate students in 2020/21.  

As of day 4 of clearing there will be some 70.9% (c5,800 5,940) more Chinese undergraduates starting UG courses in the UK in 2022 than in 2019.  

Career Opportunities

Much has been made of the ways the introduction of post-study work visas have changed the fortunes of UK universities enrolling international students.  Two key countries with rapidly growing applications were India and Nigeria.  While the bulk of candidates will have been in PGT applications both countries have seen strong UG application growth since 2019 of 217% and 91% respectively. 

There may have been high hopes pinned on these turning into enrollments but the acceptances picture tells a quite different story.  Nigeria languished at an acceptance rate of 22.7% on day one – an all time low for the past decade.  At an acceptance rate of 34.1% Indian students were marginally better than last year but at a lower level than anything else since 2013.

It would be reasonable to say that the number of accepted Nigerian students on day one has risen 106.9% since 2019.  But an extra 3,620 applicants had only yielded 620 acceptances (17%) at that point and on the same basis an extra 5,670 Indian applications brought 1,620 students (28.6%).  This might suggest why some university admissions colleagues are concerned at the propensity of aggregator platforms to attract sub-optimal candidates when, by contrast, a growth of 11,640 Chinese applicants returned 5,690 students (48.9%).

Another market touted for growth now and in the future is Pakistan, where an additional 370 applicants since 2019 saw a decline of 20 students accepted as of day one.  On a longer time scale, 2017 saw 2000 applicants from Pakistan with a day one acceptance of 540 while 2022 saw 2660 applicants with a day one acceptance of…..540.  The search for new markets and the ease of multiple application through technology may make this a recurring trend and particularly so as agents and applicants look more widely for countries with the most benevolent post-study work options.   

Minding Your P and Us

As noted, the UG trends are only part of the story and most of the excitement and expectation is in the PGT market.  If the growth in applications from India and Nigeria has been as significant as suggested by study visa data there will have been a tremendous burden on university admissions offices.  The UG picture may suggest that the vagaries of multiple applications, quality of candidates and Home Office scrutiny will result in significant inefficiency in the system for the foreseeable future.

Image by Arek Socha from Pixabay     

Making Music or Chasing Placing

When Simon Rattle was interviewed about his move from the Berlin Philharmonic to the London Symphony Orchestra he made the point, “There are a few great orchestras in the world, thank goodness. Although some people do put them in ranking order, it’s not like a snooker match. Each orchestra has different things to offer. In some ways these two orchestras are as different as you can imagine.”  He went on to comment that, “So many of the things I believe deeply in, including this idea of access for everybody, that education and growth should be at the centre of an orchestra, are exactly what the LSO have been doing.”  Universities share some characteristics with orchestras and access, education and growth should always come before rankings.

Regrettably, the University of Southampton’s recently published strategic plan is a reminder that some universities are willing to consider the empty credibility of league tables as equal to the needs of students, communities and society.  However, my review of 50 UK university strategic plans suggests that most are avoiding the temptation of putting rankings as a measure of performance, with the Principal and President of King’s College London even writing in a preamble to their plan, “This is not about league tables but about the real contributions we make to the world around us.”  Some who have built their measurement around league table rankings are finding that their statements are not ageing terribly well.

University of Southampton

The University of Southampton has been good enough to leave the September 2021 Consultation Draft Strategy on its website so it is possible to see how it developed a more bombastic tone that leaned towards rankings as a sign of success.  For example, the draft Purpose and Vision’s rather modest “we aspire to achieve the remarkable” becomes the heroic “we inspire excellence to achieve the remarkable”.  Even this is slightly less overstated than Queen Mary University’s, “the unthinkable, achieved”.

A triple helix of Education, Enterprise, Research becomes more convoluted with the insertion of Knowledge Exchange (KE) in front of Enterprise to make it, more logically, a quadruple helix.  The Research England’s Knowledge Exchange Framework confirms KE as reflecting “..engagement through research, enterprise and public engagement.” so it could stand alone. One suspects that some enterprising (sic) apparatchik suggested that you can’t have a PVC Research and Enterprise without using the word (perhaps PVC Research and Knowledge Exchange would be a better option).   

The draft suggests that the “suite of KPIs, should position us to achieve a stretching ambition of being a top 10 UK and pushing towards a top 50 internationally recognized university..”.   There is much less room for doubt in the final version where “..success will be Southampton positioned as a top 10 UK and towards a top 50 internationally recognised university..”.  One oddity in all this posturing is that the University’s website home page carries a statement about being a Top 15 UK University; Top 100 in the World but takes you to a page of rankings where they are shown as a Top 16 UK University. This is presumably because they think the Sunday Times is more credible than the Complete University Guide (where they are 15th).

Not In a League of their Own

The University of Southampton is not on its own in having league table aspirations and the table below shows others in the sample of 50 who are explicit about ranking being a strategic plan objective.  The point here is that if something is in the strategic plan you would expect a university to devote time, money and effort specifically towards achieving it.  It is quite different to prioritising what is best for the student, the community or the great global challenges.

Many universities focus on self-improvement through enhancing their performance in, for example, the National Student Survey or Research Excellence Framework or through measures such as financial stability, attrition rates and graduate outcomes. This seems more reflective and service oriented than deciding to compete in myriad and meaningless ‘best of’ tables that have little direct relevance to students or staff. It is noticeable that universities in the Russell Group are more likely to cite rankings as a performance criteria which suggests they may be a little insecure about their credentials to be in a Group that claims members as “world-class, research-intensive universities.”

Several of those reviewed have, somewhat sneakily but probably wisely, left the provenance of their measurement to be chosen at the discretion of a future Vice Chancellor. It is also relatively easy to sign off on an heroic objective if you know you will not have accountability for delivering it. Others have nailed their colours firmly to a specific mast and may regret it.  

UniversityStatement in Strategic Plan
Lancaster“We will measure this goal by making further progress towards a top 100 position in key global rankings of universities.“
Manchester“We will be recognised as among the best universities in the world, in the top 25 in leading international rankings“
Birmingham“Our aspiration to establish Birmingham in the top 50 of the world’s leading universities“
Cardiff“We aim to remain in the world top 200 as measured by QS World University Rankings, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings, the Academic Ranking of World Universities and the Best Global Universities Ranking, and in the top 100 of at least one of these.  We aim to enter the UK top 20 in The Times and Sunday Times Good University Guide.“
Durham“The Times/Sunday Times League Tables Top 5“
Bristol“By 2030, we will: be firmly established among the world’s top-50 universities (draft)”
Liverpool“…will be among the top 20 UK universities in the world rankings.“
QUB“Be ranked in the top 175 in global league tables. Be a top 50 university for our global impact.“
Surrey“Reach a top 15 position in appropriate national league tables; be in the top 100 position in global league“
Essex“In 2025 we will be recognised nationally (top 25 Times Good University Guide) and globally (top 200 Times Higher Education World Rankings)“
East Anglia“will focus on consolidating our position as a top 20 university in all of the main UK university league tables“

Cardiff’s approach may have looked reasonable in 2018 when the strategy was launched and they were in the 101-150 grouping for the AWRU (they are now in the 151-200 group).  However, the most recent tables show they have failed to achieve one top 100 international ranking and their current Times/Sunday Times rank is 35.  The strategy runs until 2023 so there may still be time and it’s always possible to blame the pandemic but the next iteration of their strategy may be slightly less prescriptive.

The University of East Anglia says, “We also recognise the importance of league tables and will focus on consolidating our position as a top 20 university in all of the main UK university league tables.”  Regrettably, the most recent round of league tables finds them at 22 in the Complete University Guide, 41 in The Guardian, 26th in the UK in the THE World Rankings and the THE Table of Tables, and, 27 in The Times/Sunday Times.  Not one top 20 place to consolidate as yet but the strategy allows until 2030 to put things right.

One observation is that the University of Warwick, which seems obsessed with league table measurements on the front page of its website, does not explicitly suggest that success will be measured by them – its main claim seem to be that it will be ‘larger than now’.   Another would be that UCL is currently in a consultation about its 2022-2027 strategy as a contribution to “maintain the trajectory established by UCL 2034” and uses league tables to highlight issues as part its discussion papers.  UCL’s approach is rich in content and may be worth a review by anybody looking to write their own strategy or simply to understand this end of the higher education landscape.   

The Things They Say

No review of Strategic Plans would be complete without reflecting briefly on the tendency to reach for the most hyperbolic forms of expression to convey even the simplest of ideas.  It is as if the universities are writing the higher education version of the September Dossier rather than setting out a sober-minded and responsible plan. For some there is a reflex to state the blindingly obvious as if it were the musings of a Zen master:   

University of Exeter – Together we create the possible

University of Warwick – Excellence with purpose

University of Strathclyde – The place of useful learning

While, occasionally, there are some phrases which just feel, um, worth recording:

University of York – collaborating unconventionally

Leicester University – we don’t want to make a negative impact

Summary

There is increasing evidence that students consider other factors more important than league tables, so for universities to place them as a key measure seems more about internal vanity than external need. INTO University Partnerships claimed recently that research shows “Gen Z students have adjusted their focus from rankings to outcomes amid COVID-19” and even Universities UK has got round to suggesting eight “core metrics” which could easily form the basis for both degree and institutional measurement . Regrettably, this has not stopped some relative newcomers to the rankings party presenting machine learning and AI as the answer to achieving transparency, objectivity and non-gameability so the merry go round continues.

Making league table positions a measure of university strategy puts marketing before meaning or Style Over Substance (a new SOS for the sector).  I have discussed views on the most obvious failings in “Keep Your Virtue…Ignore the Reputation Rankings” and “Rank Hypocrisy” and it is good to see that most of those reviewed seem to recognize the vacuousness of this form of measurement.  To place ranking as a strategic ambition diverts time, energy and money away from delivering results for students, partners and the great global challenges.

NOTES

* The review of 50 University strategic plans considered documents publicly available on their websites. A combination of search mechanisms and text review was used to determine if league table rankings were specifically and meaningfully mentioned as an objective of the plan. A number of strategic plans reviewed mention current league tables in their text but do not elevate them as a specific strategic objective. The author is pleased to consider any authoritative challenges to the material identified and will post updates/corrections if they prove to be valid.

**The review was based on the documents identified as the main strategic plan of the university in question. It is recognized that operational plans at theme e.g. research, or school of study e.g. biological sciences, may suggest objectives related to league table rankings.

***The review focused on references to league table rankings identified as THE World University Rankings, AWUR, QS University Rankings, the main UK newspaper rankings e.g. Times/Sunday Times, Guardian etc or more broadly as, for example, “key global rankings”.

SHORELIGHT REPORT AND STUDENT SAFETY – ILLUMINATION OR OBFUSCATION?

We are familiar with the notion that there are “lies, damned lies and statistics” so whenever an organisation throws up figures to paint a scenario that is in their interests it’s always worth taking a second look at the source data.  Students, parents and agents should particularly beware claims made primarily for marketing purposes when safety issues are at stake.  Caution is certainly a good approach to take with the recent collaboration between Shorelight and US News Global Education (USNGE) which includes a, so called, University Safety Index and league table of the safest States for international students.

There is no place in the world that is entirely free of potential trouble, and international students should be alert to both the joys and the potential troubles of studying overseas*.  The widespread rise in hate crimes around the world and specific incidents of racism are as concerning for the UK, Australia and Canada as the USA. Reputable universities work hard to make their campuses as safe as possible but the advice to incoming international students should be pragmatic rather than marketing gloss. 

There is no reason to believe that the numbers used are incorrect but the way the Index is constructed shows Washington D.C., Vermont and Massachusetts as the top three states of “the “extremely safe” category for international students.”  In September 2021 these States were listed as the top three of the list for Hate Crimes per capita in a 24/7 Wall Street report using FBI Uniform Crime Data and the FBI data shows Washington D.C. as having the US’s most violent crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants in 2020.  Further analysis suggests these anomalies reflect a selection and conflation of data that may mislead international students about the relative safety of their study destination.

Table Source: University Safety Index: State Safety by International Student Enrollment Percentage from How Safe Are U.S. Campuses?

Not All Crime on US Campuses is In Decline

While focusing on a comparison to criminal offenses two decades ago the Shorelight/USNGE’s own graph (below) shows that the “criminal offenses on campus” were comparatively higher in 2019 than five years before.   Also, the long term decline is largely due to a fall in motor theft, robbery and burglary which masks other trends on offenses against the person.  The U.S. Department of Education’s Campus Safety and Security Survey (CSS Survey), the source of the Shorelight/USNGE data on criminal offenses, shows that hate crimes, “sex-offences-forcible” and violence against women (VAWA) have increased in recent years.

Source: University Safety Index: State Safety by International Student Enrollment Percentage from How Safe Are U.S. Campuses? By Selene Angier 

Since 2014 the number of cases historically recorded by the CSS Survey as “Sex Offenses – Forcible”, increased 65% from 7,955 to 13,121 by 2019.  Since 2014 these offenses have been reported separately as “rape” or “fondling” with the former growing 33.5% and the latter by 124.2%.  A National Center for Education Statistics summary reflects these figures and notes that “according to reports in a student survey administered at several dozen large universities, officially reported sexual assaults represented only a minority of sexual assaults that occurred.”  

There has been excellent progress in reducing motor theft, burglary and robbery but the situation appears to have worsened in terms of sexually related offenses.  Offenses recorded as “aggravated assault” also remain stubbornly around the 4,000 mark. Mixing and matching the categories of crimes against property and crimes against the person fails to offer clarity that might be helpful in assessing risk.

Source: U.S. Department of Education Campus Safety and Security Trend Data

The CSS Survey also shows, separately, a 47% growth in reported offenses of violence against women, from 12,232 in 2014 to 17,578 in 2018 (the most recent data).  These have been registered since the Violence Against Women ReAuthorization Act 2013 (VAWA) brought changes to Clery Act reporting requirements.  With estimates that over 40% of international students are women it would seem reasonable to reflect this information in an article on campus safety.

Source: U.S. Department of Education Campus Safety and Security Trend Data

International Student Safety Off-Campus Matters

The CSS Survey data only includes cases, “…on campus, on property controlled by the university or a student organization, or on public property immediately adjacent to campus.” By using this measure the Shorelight/USNGE Index removes any information about the towns and cities where international students will hope to be welcomed.  This contributes to the leap of logic that establishes a league table of “the safest states to study in” which doesn’t include any city-wide or state-wide crime data.

The principle of aggregating data across a state is, itself, highly questionable when it comes to giving a student information on selecting a specific destination.  The statistician joke, credited to C. Bruce Grossman, that with your head in the oven and your feet in the freezer you are comfortable on average, comes to mind.  This consequences are evident as soon as you begin to consider more wide-ranging data about the crime rates in different cities.

In 2021 US News and World Report considered Massachusetts the 7th safest state in the US (although only 24th lowest for violent crime) but COVE Home Security in 2017 suggested the chances of being a victim of violent crime in Boston made “the city less safe than 83 percent of US cities”.  Neighbourhod Scout indicates that UMass Amherst is in a town that has a crime rate of 5.99 per 1,000 residents while UMass Boston is in a city with a crime rate of 26.45 per 1,000 residents.  Shorelight/USNGE use their Index to say both universities “…are located in the “extremely safe” category for international students” even though the numbers suggest the locations are quite different in terms of crime.

Washington DC, according to the Index is an ‘Extremely Safe’ State despite a 2019 crime rate which some sources indicate is 1.8 times higher than the US average and higher than in 95.5% of US cities.  American University’s campus may be a haven of civility and courtesy but students would probably be wise to exercise appropriate caution when they move onto the surrounding streets.  The university provides personal safety tips to international students which is both responsible and appropriate.       

Hate Crime is Relevant to International Students

The report is heavy on presenting data to reassure international students, yet surprisingly silent on the incidence of Hate Crimes recorded by the CSS Survey.  It was a 2008 amendment to the Clery Act which required post secondary institutions to report these incidents.  In 2018 the National Center for Education Statistics indicated that 43% of reported Hate Crimes in 2018 were motivated by racial bias.

The data presents a grim picture with a spike over the most recent years which is of relevance to students travelling to the US from abroad.  This may not fit the Shorelight/USNGE narrative but it is an important issue if students are to be given the most complete picture.  The Australian response to international students who are victims of crime might also inspire positive initiatives to engage productively with the issue rather than ignore it.

Source: U.S. Department of Education Campus Safety and Security Trend Data

At a state level Shorelight/USNGE report considers Massachusetts “extremely safe” for international students but the state’s campuses rank behind only New York (250) and California (174) in terms of reported Hate Crimes in the Survey.  The trend has been remorselessly upward for a decade.  In the broader Massachusetts context even the Editorial Board of the Boston Globe has recently argued that the situation in the state is serious enough to warrant its legislature updating hate crime laws.

Source: U.S. Department of Education Campus Safety and Security Trend Data

Whose Facts for What Purpose?

It is not unusual for organizations to give the most positive presentation of their situation and the Index is positioned as a response to a situation where “news headlines and social media shares can unfairly grab attention and raise concerns”.  But it seems specious to suggest that “U.S. News and Global Education (USNGE) and Shorelight — two leaders in U.S. higher education — have partnered to develop the University Safety Index” when one is owned by the other.  It also seems misleading to present the item as news on a website where the branding gives the gloss and reflected credibility of US News and World Report’s league tables.

While the article is designated as “News” the authorship, data and presentation of universities looks like an inside marketing job.  The writer was once on staff for Shorelight, has written regularly for the company’s website and describes herself as a “content manager specializing in e-commerce marketing, UX messaging and lifestyle brands.” The statistics were compiled by Shorelight’s vice president of data science and strategy.

The marketing dimension becomes even more clear when “Notable U.S. News Global Education Universities” are highlighted – they just happen to be Shorelight partners.  There is, however, no mention that the lowest “Somewhat Safe” category of the Index features Florida and Illinois where Shorelight has partnerships with Florida International University, University of Central Florida and University of Illinois at Chicago as well as new partner Eureka College.  The implication of the Index is that international students have more reason to be concerned about safety if they go to those institutions but that seems a less palatable marketing statement.       

Summary

Several countries and many universities are in a headlong dash for more international students and most recently Colleges Ontario commented on the need to recruit them to fill funding gaps. CBC News recently reported on the problems for students from south Asia who had arrived to study in Calgary but couldn’t find jobs and were unprepared for the winter weather. It’s a toxic mix where students are not getting realistic information about the situations they will encounter and there is every chance it will end in tragedy for individuals as well as blemishes on institutional reputations.

Fall intakes have shown that international students are returning to the US in significant numbers after the pandemic but it is entirely possible that some will have lingering doubts about attitudes towards foreign visitors. It is, however, unhelpful to underestimate the importance of ensuring that young people are given balanced information and not lured into a false sense of security.  International students are courageous, committed and deserve more respect than that.       

The US should also be applauded for publishing campus crime data in a consistent manner and might consider positioning this as a competitive advantage over the UK where there is a growing clamour for better data on student-related crime. While the Complete University Guide is to be commended for giving comparative information on an issue where one in five students are likely to be a victim, action from HESA or the Office for Students would be welcome.  For international students, agents and other decision makers the best advice is to demand information directly from your university of choice and avoid sales promotion gimmicks.

NOTES

*  I am not aware of any comprehensive and credible research on which countries are safest for international students. Various guides exist but tend to base their outcomes on overall country statistics. The Founder and CEO of iSchool Connect based a recent table in The Tribune of India on indexes covering factors such as Global Peace, quality of life etc. It includes Singapore at number five – a country where the Prime Minister has recently acknowledged “resentment over foreigners”.

**US News Global Education was formed as a collaboration between US News and World Report (USNWR) and Shorelight but is a subsidiary of Shorelight. The University Safety Index is a reminder of the link to USNWR’s own league tables whose methodology ex-Editor Peter Bernstein, in a classic Freudian slip, called “this mythology.”

***This blog relies, in part, upon my understanding and interpretation of various data sources and media reports. While data is almost always partial in the way it is collected, categorized and presented I have considered a range of sources in an attempt to ensure the points made about specific locations are reasonable. I am happy to correct any material errors brought to my attention by an authoritative source.

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 RankQS Global Rankings 2022% of international students (THE measure)
University of Melbourne313748
University of Sydney513843
Australian National University592747
University of Queensland624738
Monash University645843
UNSW Sydney674344
University of Adelaide11810829
University of Western Australia1399329
Uni of Technology Sydney16013336
University of Canberra18443636

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

Fatal Four Way Match for Universities?

Economist John Maynard is famous for saying, “In the long run we are all dead”, but he also wrote, “there will be no harm in making mild preparations for our destiny”.  Universities might consider this as they struggle to encourage international students to overlook the near-term uncertainties of the pandemic in 2021. The real winners will be those readying for 2022 when all four of the major receiving Western countries are likely to be competing from a position of strength.

There is no point in the last twenty years when the US, UK, Canada and Australia have, at the same time, been growing aggressively or had in-country conditions enabling them to promote themselves effectively.  While globally mobile student numbers have grown there has always been a country operating with at least one hand tied behind its back.  It seems likely that this is about to change, which is going to bring unusual pressures to bear on recruitment efforts.   

If there is significant headway on vaccination rollouts, the pandemic recedes and internal country politics align it will be time for a revitalized UK, a desperate Australia, a confident Canada and a Biden-powered USA to do battle.  Those familiar with World Wrestling Entertainment’s Fatal Four Way match up may think it could be a contest that makes equally interesting viewing.  For international students it will mean a smorgasbord of opportunity, offers and opening doors.        

Overview and Trends

Data from individual countries are not standardized but the graph below focuses only on students identified as bachelors, postgraduate taught and doctoral for each country.  This eliminates the language only, non-degree and/or OPT registered elements that provide wider fluctuation and distortion between countries.  For example, significant elements of the recent Canadian international student growth are concentrated outside degree level programs.

The data indicates that when the US has done well Australia and the UK have been steady or in decline.  It also demonstrates the increasing place of Canada in degree level awards with every likelihood that the explosive growth at lower levels will feed through over time.

A starker way of visualising the pattern is to consider each country’s percentage share of the aggregate enrollements of all four and show how it has risen or declined year on year.  Changes in the US share correlate reasonably well to the shifts in the fortunes of other countries and particularly the UK and Australia.  The Canadian share is relatively stable but is likely to have an increased impact as the volume increases.

From 2002/03 to 2011/12 the US consistently lost market share against the other countries.  The burst of growth, which underpinned the expansion of investment in pathways in the US came from 2011/12 to 2015/16 when its share of the market grew.  The subsequent decline of US enrollments from 2016/17 has correlated with accelerated growth from Canada and Australia and latterly, the UK.  

Country by country factors broadly match the numbers and suggest that it was not competition alone that caused the ebbs and flows.  US growth in the 2000s was sluggish as the country proceeded with caution after the terrorist attacks of 9/11.  The UK stagnated after removal of post-study work visas in 2012.  Australian visa restrictions, from 2009 were followed by significant benevolent changes from 2013 onwards.  And Canada’s focus on growth came with particular emphasis from the 2011 Economic Action Plan and 2014-2019 International Education Strategy although its relative share was undermined by the US growth between 2011/12 and 2015/16.

The Global Picture

At a global level, the OECD measure of globally mobile students pursuing tertiary education gives an indicator of the competitive threats and opportunities that exist.   What seems most clear is that the trend has been for the non-OECD countries to increase their share of the market over time.  In 2018 they had 30% of the market while in 2000 they had only 24%, which suggests power is gradually moving away from the traditional receiving countries.

The big four will also suffer from the success of countries like Germany, the Netherlands and Russia taking an increasing share of OECD country growth.  A by-product of that may be the way that pathways – which have come to be a dominant part of the UK and Australian landscape – have to respond to the new era.  Pathways operations in Europe have become commonplace and Brexit may be another factor that accelerates their growth. 

Number of international or foreign students enrolled in OECD and non-OECD countries

Source: Education at a Glance 2020.  Figure B6.1. 

With growth likely to come from more price sensitive markets it may also be worth universities taking account of the relative changes in costs that may be coming around the corner.  It is interesting to watch foreign exchange predictions and there seems to be a view that the US dollar may weaken over the coming 18 months and increase the competitiveness of its services.  Alongside this there are voices suggesting strengthening of the UK pound, the National Bank of Canada expects the Canadian Dollar to appreciate, and there seems to be plenty of confidence in the future value of the Australian Dollar.

Conclusions

It seems reasonable to conclude that over the past two decades each of the main four recruiting countries has, from time to time, benefited because one of the main competitors has struggled to create the conditions for growth.  But no country with a thriving higher education section is going to willingly shut its doors forever and all the signs are that universities will need growth to offset economic conditions and government cutbacks in their home country or state. While it is easy to feel smart when things are going well; it is wiser to be smart about what is happening to the competitive set and what you can do to prepare for changing conditions. 

2021 remains uncertain but there is every reason to believe that 2022 will see greater competition across the globe.  In a head-to-head match, where the quality of the universities, visa availability and the possibility of post-study work become more equal, it will be interesting to see who wins.  The US has all the tools to win and its fall from being the most favored destination owes as much to its decrease in popularity as the increase in desire to go elsewhere.  

The time to prepare is now, and there is nothing to stop a smart US university giving real consideration to establishing a market-priced offering to students from the most rapidly growing source markets.  Establishing a high-profile recruitment platform in early 2021 would take advantage of the market sentiment towards the Biden administration supported by the gradual re-opening of visa offices.  Carpe diem may summarize 2021 but audentes fortuna iuvat should be on everyone’s lips for 2022.

Footnote

Data on international enrollments are not consistent across the main recruiting countries.  The data used takes sources where it appears to be possible to secure an aggregate number for total enrollments of international students undertaking a bachelors, postgraduate taught or doctoral degree.  The sources for each country are itemised below and any insights or corrections to my assumptions are welcome.  The data are also subject to other anomalies which make comparison a subjective business.  The main points to make in that regard are:

i) Australian data appears on a calendar year.  Placing this against sources reporting academic years requires making a judgement about which year compares to which but is not material in the context of the main line of argument in this blog.

ii) UK data used are from the latest HESA release (27 January 2021) for the most recent five years and use historical data for the years before.  In building the spreadsheets I noticed that the numbers in the most recent release differ slightly from those in prior releases.  These differences are not significant enough to make a difference to the main argument.

iii) EU student data has been omitted from the UK data because the economic incentive to recruit them is not the same as international students who can be charged higher fees than home students.

iv) The timing of data collection is likely to be an increasingly important factor as universities increase their number of entry points in the year.  This is likely to be a contributing factor to the HESA data noted above. 

v) Sources

– US data from IIE Open Doors download of historical data and analysis of Undergraduate (Bachelors and Associate), and Graduate only:

– UK data from Higher Education Statistics Authority.  Latest release for most recent five years but historical data before that time.  Non-European Union, all levels (UG and PG) and all modes of study:

– Australia data from Department of Education, Skills and Employment, Higher Education Statistics, uCUBE, Enrolments Overseas, Sum of Postgraduate and Bachelors, 2001-2019 (removed enabling and non-award):

– Canada data from Statistics Canada, Postsecondary enrolments, by registration status, institution type, status of student in Canada and gender. Selected University,   International Students, all fields of study, 2000/2001 to 2018/19.  Sum of International Standard Classification of Bachelors, Masters and Doctoral (and equivalents) for Canada:

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Jeopardy for UK Universities – Part 2

Responses to an earlier blog showing that, post-Brexit, a number of UK universities would continue to offer all European Union students preferential tuition fee status over international students suggested it was worth digging deeper.  It’s also worth considering what the consequences might be if a group of international students or the National Union of Students decided to test whether a university’s blanket discount for EU students was discriminatory.  The recruitment implications for pathway operations if some university partners provide preferential fees for EU students is another dimension for consideration.

Research on university websites suggests that universities planning to give EU students the same tuition fee as UK students in the 2021 academic year include:

BedfordshireBuckinghamshire
SolentLeicester
West LondonRoyal Holloway
De MontfortPortsmouth
Oxford BrookesNottingham Trent

In most cases the intention is clearly stated but there are more subtle versions of preferential pricing such as the University of Gloucestershire where details are buried in the 2021/22 Fee and Bursary Policy (on page 14 of 19).  It notes that “The International Grant Award is a tuition fee waiver of £3,000 deducted from your first year’s tuition fee” while the “EU Grant Award is a tuition fee waiver of £3,000 deducted from each year”.  So, an EU undergraduate student on a three-year degree course gets the benefit of an additional £6,000 of grant “automatically awarded at the point of offer”.

Some of the university websites are so Delphic or poorly organized that it is difficult to confirm their position one way or another so the list may not be comprehensive.  At least 13 universities reviewed do not seem to be in a position to show fees for 2021/22 or say they are awaiting further information from the Government.  These include some surprisingly big players:

CoventryNorthumbria
CambridgeLiverpool
University of the Arts, LondonBrunel*
Queen MaryLoughborough
GreenwichSOAS
BrightonHertfordshire
London South Bank 

*A source has indicated that Brunel are offering the same rate to EU as Home students in 2021 but I am unable to verify this on the website.

The legal consequences seem ill-defined and it remains possible that last minute Government action might change the situation.  Scotland has already decided that post-Brexit it could not legally continue to offer EU students the same, free tuition as Scottish students.  Edinburgh University is publishing 2021/22 fees that have three rates – those for Scottish students, Home/Rest of UK, and International/EU.  This would suggest that the university sees little room for manoeuvre in maintaining even the Home/Rest of UK for European Union students.

Legal analysis is very thin on the ground with the Time Higher Education article by Elizabeth Jones of Farrer and Co being an exception and the piece does not run to exploring remedies that might arise if the differential fees are illegal. The university would, presumably, be obliged to honour its contract with the EU students to charge them at home rates so could not change that arrangement.  If that is the case then it is possible they might be required to reduce fees for all other international students to the same level.

As an example, the difference for De Montfort would be around £5,000 a year per student.  HESA data for 2018/19 indicates that the University had 1,020 EU and 2,025 other first degree, full time international students so, if one took a third of the latter number that could suggest around 675 first year international undergraduate students and, therefore, a potential cost of £3.375m a year in lost fees if they had to be charged at the lower rate.  There are many ‘ifs’ involved in the calculation and I am happy to make any corrections needed if an authoritative source is able to say how much is at stake.

There’s also the interesting matter of what international students who are attending a course with a commercial pathway provider have been advised about their fees.  Just as an example, De Montfort is aligned with Oxford International Education Group (OIEG) which offers an integrated degree – the student can either study an International Year Zero (IYZ) and then go on to do three years with the university or an International First Year (IFY) and go on to do two years with the university. 

The point is that the OIEG website shows the “International or Tier 4 Visa students” fee for IYZ at £14,995 for 2020/21 and 2021/22 and for the IFY at £14,995 in 2020/21 rising to £15,995 in 2021/22. EU students on the same courses are being charged £9,250 in 2020/21 and the 2021/22 fees are not yet announced. Commercial providers in a similar situation may soon have to choose whether to continue to offer wholescale preferential rates on the basis of nationality.

Some pathway operations have grown large numbers of EU students into their operation with the lure of being charged the same as Home students when they go on to the university to complete their degree an important sales points.  For example, the 2018 QAA Report on the Navitas pathway operation with Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) noted, “The significant growth in student numbers at the Cambridge College, based on recruitment of home and EU students, is a trend that the Provider is looking at in relation to other colleges.”   Individual course pages suggest that ARU is currently planning that in 2021/22 EU students will be considered international but that could be tested if other universities and their partners appear to be successful in their recruitment efforts with preferential fees.

It would be good to see the UK Government confirm its position so that UKCISA and universities have to provide certainty to students about the fees they will pay.  This is also a moment where the NUS could step up to ensure that international students are being treated equitably.  The current situation was wholly foreseeable and organizations that are meant to have student interests at heart are only noticeable by their absence.

If universities offering lower EU fees are successful in their recruitment efforts it does not take a great leap of imagination to see how this could become widespread across the sector. It would mean universities choosing (rather than being obliged by Government) to embed preferential treatment based solely on nationality into their recruitment processes.  That seems an unfortunate consequence which should be challenged at the earliest opportunity.