Tag: ukhighereducation

Doctor, Doctor Give Universities the News

The comments made by Alan Milburn in The Times about the NHS are much more sharply worded than Bridget Philipson’s recent homily about wanting a “sustained efficiency and reform programme” in higher education.  Her comments were accompanied by five loosely worded and poorly defined “priorities” without any sense of urgency or scale.  We have to wait until next summer to understand what she means by higher education reform but hopefully Milburn has already given us the headlines.         

“…weaned off the ‘more, more, more’ culture”

The recent increase in student tuition fees to £9,535 from April 2025 was instantly met with a volley of comments saying it was just a start and wasn’t enough.  The Government probably hoped for some recognition that they had taken a step that the public was unlikely to support.  What they got was a turning up of the volume on comments that suggests universities are still ignoring the priorities of taxpayers and voters.

There seems little merit in supporting the creation of more degree awarding institutions, even through independent provision, when the country seems unable to support the current system and the franchise market is a mess.  If more students did go to university the more popular institutions would simply manipulate their enrollment numbers to the detriment of those that are less well positioned.  Having more graduates may even continue depressing the level of the graduate premium.    

Having fewer institutions might have the benefit of concentrating scarce resources more effectively without compromising student experience and outcomes.  It might be possible to regulate them more closely to ensure that they are delivering outcomes that help drive the Labour Party agenda for economic growth.  A German architect is credited with coining the phrase “less is more” but that might become the guiding aphorism for the higher education sector.        

“..it’s drinking in the last-chance saloon”

Back in 2012 universities were totally unabashed at moving almost in unison to £9,000 a year tuition fees at a point when Government expectation was of an average £7,500. As soon as the Graduate Visa route was introduced there was an uninhibited dash by many institutions to take as many students as possible. There are plenty of signs that on both occasions the cash bounty led to some unwise investments, vanity projects and administrative bloat.  We are still dogged with the never ending saga of increasing salaries for vice-chancellors.

Universities have had lots of chances to invest in ways that do not leave them open to public apathy, claims of dumbing down courses while inflating degree grades, and downgrading  graduate outcome data.  But like inveterate gamblers they have expected windfalls as their birthright and continued to squander the returns on ill-advised bets.  What we can be sure of is that if things go wrong and a university does become insolvent the sector will ignore any evidence of poor forecasting, reckless investment or bad management as the underlying cause.

“If you’ve broadly got less resourcing than then, you’ve got to do more reforming than then”

This reflects something that every organization in the world knows.  The job of leadership is to forecast well and make good decisions that reflect the financial circumstances.  Every business has been through the painful realities of a downturn in revenue and realized that nobody is going to save them.  The answer is usually to find new ways of satisfying users/consumers/students with less money. 

For many organizations the challenge brings creativity, innovation and focus that establishes a more disciplined and leaner approach to delivering effectively.  In the commercial sector those that are unable to do the necessary work of rejuvenation receive little sympathy when they become insolvent and are gobbled up by those that are more able.  There are several institutions that have invested millions in restructuring without real success and continue to bleed domestic students – it may be time they were relieved of their struggles

“We are in a different fiscal climate..”

It’s a simple truth that the UK’s finances are shaky but the reality is that we are also in a different climate as far as public opinion is concerned.  Universities are well down the list of public sympathy for more taxpayer money and students are increasingly balking at the loan burden they are expected to take on when faced with evidence that suggests a graduate premium is not what it was.  The state of the national finances suggest that the cash taps are unlikely to be opened for universities in any foreseeable future and there is little evidence that students are willing to make up the difference.

“People have got to stop thinking that the answer to the…problem is simply more and more money.”

This is where Milburn begins to talk about the need for culture change.  He notes that any increases in funding have to be “..matched by a massive dose of reform” and claims that he is seeing evidence that this is recognized by the sector and that frontline staff are “pushing to do things differently.”  There is every reason to believe that frontline staff in universities would like to see things done in new ways and that some have already borne the brunt of poorly managed and executed restructuring.  But there are many reasons to ask whether senior management or the oversight body of the university are competent in conceiving of or delivering the necessary change.

In the times when inflated tuition fees and record international student numbers created a cash bonanza all of those failings were papered over because there always was “..more and more money.”  It is arguable that some in the sector think that this is still the answer and even the extraordinary Universities UK claim that “most families will understand” having to pay increasing levels of tuition fees.  Such comments suggest that senior spokespeople still have a mindset based on handouts rather than considering ways of building a better future.

Starmer calls for a Government known for “game-changing innovation and reform”

These are brave words and it is difficult to see that the new Government has done much to impress the mantra on anything.  It has bowed down to incremental change in the tuition fee, cozied up to the sector with soothing noises on international students and is yet to be tested on its resolve not to bail out universities that become insolvent.

It is very difficult to see how the university sector can continue in its current size and shape.  Many commentators have noted its penchant for duplicating courses and some institutions seem unable to attract sufficient domestic students to remain viable.  The sector has grown by increment but is largely the same shape and offering the same product as it was fifty years ago.  A one-size fits all, taxpayer underpinned response from Government would be neither innovative or reforming.

Image by Peggy und Marco Lachmann-Anke from Pixabay

Siren Song for Captain Keir

It is striking that Keir Starmer should be setting out his stall for ten years at the helm of government to repair the mess he claims the Tories left.  By chance or design the return of Odysseus, the king of Ithaca, from the Trojan wars also took a decade.  The journey was outlined in Homer’s Odyssey and this Greek epic poem offers several pointers for Keir as far as university funding is concerned.

The siren voices of the sector are singing away in an attempt to lure Labour onto the rocks of throwing taxpayer cash at an outdated, inefficent financial and operational model.  Like Odysseus, Captain Keir needs to strap himself to the mast and ensure that his ministers have beeswax in their ears as they row away from danger.  This as an early challenge and the rocks of Scylla (union backed pay restoration) and the whirlpool of Charybdis (the NHS funding challenges) still await if he, like Odysseus, is to complete his journey home.

A Slippery Slope

Roman statesman and philosopher Cicero used the “slippery slope” metaphor and it should be another classics reminder to Labour that affairs can “glide readily down the path of ruin when once they have taken a start.”  iNews has reported that the DfE has already established a special unit for universities in trouble and one has benefited from its support.  But “university sources” whispers to them that there are “a relatively small number – but a number that you would notice if they went over the edge – that are in really significant financial problems.”

It’s a beautifully crafted statement from anonymous sources.  It puts the scare in the story with “a number you would notice”, the urgency with “over the edge”, the scale with “really significant”, but pulls back to say the number is “relatively small” to suggest other institutions are good stewards of their finances.  It could be characterized as seductively threatening. But Labour would be failing in its obligations if it didn’t ask why taxpayer money should be channeled to the whole sector just because a few cannot manage their budgets.

By focusing on the few, Labour could name them so that their leadership, including the university councils involved, could be properly reviewed to see if they have acted responsibly with public money and the future of their students.  A clear out rather than a handout might be the most cost-effective option.  Reorganization rather than more money was a drum Wes Streeting was beating about the NHS but his tune seems to be changing so the resolve of the government is under serious threat.    

Time Flexes…Like Resolve

Aristotle told us that, “Time crumbles things; everything grows old under the power of Time and is forgotten through the lapse of Time.”  In July, Bridget Phillipson told the World at One that “Labour had “no plan” to raise [university tuition] fees.”  By August 16,  iNews was  reporting that “increasing student fees” was on the table, despite Phillipson saying just a week earlier that it would be a “really unpalatable thing to be considering.” 

It is quite extraordinary that the Government is unprepared and appears in chaos over an issue which had been flagged for many months ahead of the General Election.  Having already caved in to several union wage demands they may be willing to throw fuel on the bonfire of handouts by doing the same for universities that are unable to manage their own finances.  But there is little wonder that Captain Keir’s office is said to be nervous – he’s the one that said he was renouncing the total withdrawal of tuition fees because the money was needed for the NHS.

It Will Never Be Enough

Epicurus explained that “nothing is enough for the man to whom enough is too little” and that’s a good mantra if it is true that Labour are considering an increase in fees but keeping it under £10,000 for “presentational reasons”.  They are dealing with a sector that wallowed in the benefits of implementing £9,000 tuition fees when a figure of £6,000 was expected and feasted on the opportunity to recruit international students with little control.  Some would argue that the wasted millions on restructuring costs, unwise investments, bloated bureaucracies and vanity projects indicates that some universities are incapable of making good decisions even when they have guarantees of more money.

Another good lesson comes from Wales where tuition fees have increased from £9,000 to £9,250 in 2024 (although the overall settlement is complex) with none of the universities showing any enthusiasm.  Part of the problem for some of the institutions is that they have been presiding over longer-term declines in domestic students which suggests there are far more serious structural problems at play.  Increasing reliance on international student income has become a feature of some, such as the University of South Wales, but that raises serious questions about the purpose of universities.

In Scotland, tuition is free for Scottish students but it is notable that the amount received per student is, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, only £7,610.  Given the outrage of the English universities at their £9,250 tuition fee one wonders how Scottish universities continue to deliver effectively with little apparent difference in outcomes.  While Scottish institutions get four years of tuition fee for many domestic undergraduate students they still have to spend money teaching and providing services in the extra year.

Tinkering with the tuition fee could infuriate the tax paying voter and may turn a number of students off incurring additional debt.  It seems unlikely to satisfy the universities who continue to claim that the fee has been eroded by inflation to less than £6,000 and that every student they recruit loses them over £3,000.  Leaving aside the dubious maths involved there is clearly a gap between university demands and Labour’s ability to pay, taxpayers’ willingness to fund and students’ appetite for debt.       

The Public Good

Rome has some claims as an early (although far from perfect) example of representative democracy and in De Legibus Cicero tells us that “the welfare of the people is the highest law.”  In that respect Labour needs to think hard about the views of the public when it comes to higher fees and funding for universities.  It also needs to consider whether the sector is showing any signs of responding to current circumstances.

There is little evidence of genuine collaboration or strategic thinking in a sector where stronger institutions are hoovering up students in clearing to the detriment of those that are weaker.  It is much the same in international recruitment where stronger Russell Group universities are able to outmuscle their supposed peers in terms of recruitment.  Labour should not believe for one second that universities will stop acting in their own interests even if it means driving another institution to insolvency.

Labour must also be alert to the propensity of sector spokespeople to obfuscate, fantasize and cherry pick data when making assertions.  There is, for example, no evidence at all to support the UUK Chief Executive’s statement that, ‘Most families will understand the need to increase university fees’.  Public First research shows that this is wishful thinking because, “Across the board, people think fees are too high and that people leave university with excessive debt.”

We know from the same research that “..there is significantly more public support for further education and apprenticeships” than for higher education.  In 2023 the UPP Foundation, working with the Higher Education Policy Institute, published research showing 32% of 18-24 year olds surveyed saying “a university degree is a waste of time”. 57% of the total surveyed were either uninterested, sceptical or negative about universities.

Even if the Chancellor could find ways of freeing up the money for the cost of higher fees in her budget who would thank Labour? Parents would just see higher debt, students would just see higher fees and the bill would have to be paid eventually. When Starmer is talking about a “painful” budget, making “difficult decisions” and “it won’t be business as usual” penalising students, rewarding poorly run institutions and giving the taxpayer a bigger than necessary bill seems a poor choice.

Strategy, Strength and Sucking It Up

None of this underestimates the challenges if a university becomes insolvent or the individual pain facing staff as cutbacks come.  But in some cases university management have been spending money on restructuring for years and that there are clear examples of poor decision making.  Continually propping the system up with generalized handouts of taxpayer money and no fundamental change would not help.

John Raftery makes a number of blunt points based on experience at London Metropolitan University and the University of Wolverhampton. A number of other “trouble shooting” VCs have taken on institutions in trouble and put them on a more solid footing. It is time that the shape, size and purpose of the sector was considered with any earlier financial input being contingent on competent management being installed to manage the situation. There is no one-size fits all answer.

To borrow from one more Greek source, the Labour government has set out on a task akin to the Herculean task of cleaning the Augean stables.  They will certainly not be able to do it in a day but they will have to start by showing they have the nerve, the forethought and the fortitude to resist easy answers.  Realigning the higher education sector to fit the needs of the country is a test of their ability to do so. 

Image by OpenIcons from Pixabay

Black Thursday for UK Higher Education

After the disruption of the pandemic and half a year of growing tensions on international recruitment and university finances we enter the annual UK university trolley dash known as clearing.  It has become as heavily trailed as Black Friday or Cyber Monday and is an equally depressing sales event with overhyped bargains leading to buyer’s carrying both remorse and significant debt.  After a show of unity to preserve the international graduate route, universities will show us that there is no love lost between institutions when it comes to manipulating domestic students into a panic purchase. 

We have already seen the trumpeting of  “Russell Group universities with plenty of clearing places” to remind us of a hierarchy conditioned by meaningless league tables, government policy failures, and media dumbing down.  Meanwhile, institutions outside that charmed circle are putting in place the slick enrolment machine that is willing to take as many marginal calls as necessary to fill the places.  Clearing in 2024 is, more than ever, the sign of a near bankrupt system using tactics that resemble the worst of closing down sales.

Early bird offers, VIP packages, prize draws, personal guidance, priority call-backs are all in the mix as institutions choose the tactics of double-glazing sales rather than focusing on the quality of their academic offer.  The shame is that they are dealing mainly with young people facing a life-changing decision at one of the most vulnerable times of their life to date.  When institutions will go to these lengths it is difficult to see that their advice will be impartial but some of the tactics seem to fly close to the wind in other areas protected by consumer law.            

Pressure to Close

Areas on the radar of the Competition and Markets Authority include false urgency and price reduction claims from online sellers.  Students are undoubtedly told they need to move quickly and that there are grade reductions available to the swift. Last year it was Clare Marchant, Chief Executive of UCAS, advising students to be “pretty quick off the mark” while this year she is the vice-chancellor of the University of Gloucestershire offering a prize draw where one “clearing VIP” will get a year of free accommodation. 

This year we find other industry pundits saying “pupils “who act fast” after getting their results “could find many university courses still open.”  It is poor advice to give someone who is making one of the biggest decisions of their life.  An average undergraduate emerges with around £50,000 of debt, spends three years of time and has no certainty of any payback. 

To put that in context, the maximum jail sentence for possession of a Class C drug is just two years.  Brentford FC striker Ivan Toney got an eight month ban and £50,000 fine for 232 breaches of betting rules last year.  Surely the sector would do better to advise young people taking such major decisions that they must think long and hard about their actions.

When It’s Gone, It’s Gone

Clearing is presented as a massive opportunity for students but is really a game played to rules set by the universities and the odds favour the house.  Reading that “the UK’s leading universities” have nearly 4,000 courses in clearing compared to only 2,000 last year sounds like a good thing for choice.  But nowhere does it say how many places are actually available for each courses.

That’s because each university wants the maximum numbers to choose from and will keep on fishing until it either meets a number it has set for that course or that will balance out to achieve an overall target between courses.  The student making an application has no idea if they are in a competition with 100 others for two places or the sole applicant for a course seeking 100 students.  Knowing if your chances are one in fifty or a near certainty would seem a reasonable and is a requirement of The Gambling Commission for virtual games of chance.

Inflated Anchor Prices

This is the phrase used when a store shows a “regular” or “original” price to demonstrate how much value its sale price offers.  Most countries have legislation in place to prevent stores promoting misleadingly high anchor prices that have only been charged in exceptional, limited circumstances.  The university published tariff is really just the equivalent of an anchor price and its relationship to reality isn’t very transparent.

The UCAS move to have “real grades” shown seems a good idea but using historical data is next to useless and UCAS itself is clear that “as the data is based on previous years it shouldn’t be used as an indication of how likely you are to get a place on a course now.”    UCAS research indicates that 49% of students are accepted on university courses with grades “lower than the entry requirements.”  But this may be made up of a number of factors – students given an offer below the published requirements, students who miss their offered grades but get accepted and then students who are taken at lower grades to fill spaces. 

It would be appropriate, meaningful and possible with technology for universities to provide real time data on entry qualifications that they are accepting.  This would prevent a false market developing as university advertising and promotional material remains a step behind reality.  It would also mean that students get better transparency when making their choices.

Bait And Switch

In England and Wales, bait and switch is banned under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.  The practise involves a retailer luring a consumer into believing they can buy a product at a low price when there is insufficient or no stock available.  Classically, the trader then attempts to ‘up-sell’ to a higher priced product.

For universities in clearing, the lack of transparency on actual grade requirements and numbers of places available means that a headline course needing one or two additional students can draw in significant interest.  Some students calling might be told the course is already full but that there is a very similar course in the same faculty available in clearing.  It’s the sort of thing that can happen at other points of the but under the time pressure of clearing the student may be easier to persuade to switch course.

A Conspiracy of (Near) Silence

For universities the onus is on filling the seats available.  This wholly undermines the much-touted notion that every domestic student recruited comes at a deficit of over £3,000.  The claim is so crass that it is difficult to believe supposedly intelligent people make it so regularly.

But to get an inside voice on the tactics and the motivators one needs the disarming honesty of a director of recruitment who is not too close to the white heat of combat.  Step forward Mike Nicholson, director of recruitment at the University of Cambridge, who says that by choice universities will start by selecting students with a place already offered who “narrowly missed” grades.  Only after that might they go into clearing if absolutely necessary and because they “..have a very clear sense of what their numbers are this year, what they’ve got to achieve to balance the books.”

In a nutshell, universities are in it for the money and it is not in their interests to share information on availability of places or grades required with students.   The pre-qualification offer process that institutions have defended for so long gives them plenty of room for maneuver and the wholly undeserved opportunity to appear generous when they accept applicants with lower grades.  It is another feature that undermines belief in the fairness and transparency of higher education.   

Over and above that we have examples of students who went to university as a result of opportunities in clearing but found the outcome less than optimal. At a point in time when some universities are seeing a growth in the numbers of students dropping out there should be real concern that clearing is creating conditions that attract students who will struggle to complete the course. For some, the consequences can be devastating.  

But the lessons of acting with overdue haste in clearing may be at the heart of a broader problem for the sector. Even those who may not have taken a snap decision at clearing are reconsidering whether a degree was the right choice for them.  When 78% say they have “considered leaving university during their studies” it’s time for everyone to slow down before taking the plunge.

Image by S K from Pixabay

Squaring the Circle

Squaring the circle represents a geometry problem from Greek mathematics with some suggesting that Anaxagoras was the first to work on it around 450 BC.  The problem required the construction of a square with the area of a given circle using only Euclidean construction and a limited number of steps.  It wasn’t until 1882 that the Lindemann-Weierstrass theorem, which proves that pi is a transcendental number, showed that the task was impossible.

The incoming Labour government may find it has a similarly difficult task in trying to balance UK economic strategy, workforce needs and international student recruitment.  When a student visa comes with two years of guaranteed opportunity to find a job and international enrollment growth is dependent on post-study work rights, the linkage between study and work is evident.  For a government that is committed to getting the UK employment rate from 75% to 80% with “2 million more people in work across the UK” it will interesting to see if there is enough economic growth to meet all needs.

It’s also interesting to look at the party’s historic position on the relationship between work and study rights and the thinking of some of its current leading figures on the economic and political priorities.  With plans for primary/secondary years and “training, an apprenticeship, or help to find work for all 18- to 21-year-olds” articulated in its manifesto the current priorities for education also seem clear.  What seems to be lacking is any real focus on higher education.         

The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones1

Labour’s underlying attitude to the balance between jobs and migration may have been articulated in 2007 when Jacqui Smith, now Education Minister, was the Home Secretary introducing the new points-based visa system.  She noted its role in “…ensuring that only those migrants Britain needs can come to work or study in the UK.”  The absolute clarity of “only those migrants Britain needs” suggests a transactional approach to study and work visas founded on the UK’s express requirements rather than open house on post-study work.

It was consistent with the Labour Government’s five year strategy published in February 2005. Then Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, noted, “We will bring all our current work schemes and students into a simple points-based system designed to ensure that we are only taking migrants for jobs that cannot be filled from our own workforce…” (my emphasis).     

By February 2009 Smith was having to tighten up on the points based system for migrant workers and saying, “Just as in a growth period we needed migrants to support growth, it is right in a downturn to be more selective about the skill levels of those migrants, and to do more to put British workers first.”   While it was a Conservative Government that would cut post study work rights in 2011 as unemployment was stuck at c8% it is difficult to think Labour would have done anything else.      

Language is the immediate actuality of thought2

Bridget Phillipson may be on record as saying, “Be in no doubt: international students are welcome in the UK” but amid all the happy talk that has got the sector so excited there must surely be an underlying concern that these are only words.  Back in 2011, David Cameron said, “We’re working with the sector to encourage the brightest and best students from around the world to come and study..”  and in 2012 Theresa May said, “…we want the best and the brightest minds in the world to come to study in Britain, and we want our world-class universities to thrive.”  Everyone knows what happened next.

Jacqui Smith, as Minister of State for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, will certainly  have to reconsider her responses if she is truly to “champion universities”.  The early signs are less than encouraging, as she has already failed to guarantee support for universities under funding pressure and only remarked that universities should be “looking at how they can run efficiently as possible”.  This follows Bridget Phillipson’s suggestion that there are “expectations around how they manage their budgets, and I would expect them to do that without seeking any calls on the taxpayer”

It would be naïve of universities to read much into the government’s more supportive statements other than an attempt to calm the crew (rather than actively steady the ship) while they face much more important issues like a £20bn funding gap, a collapsing NHS and armed forces unable to fight a sustained conflict.  If the sector chooses to pursue significant increases in international student enrollments to fill a funding gap it runs the risk of compromising the Government on a migration issue where much of the voting public remains nervous.  The severity of the Chancellor in the House of Commons yesterday is also not to be underestimated. 

Ruthless criticism of all that exists3

There may also be something about the underlying thinking of key figures in the Labour party that mitigates against allowing significant growth in the number of students working after studying.  Keir Starmer made it clear to the CBI in 2022 that Labour would set about “reducing the UK’s dependency on migrant labour”.  More generally in a policy vacuum related to universities he has ditched a commitment to abolish student tuition fees and has constantly dodged making any aspirational statements on higher education participation.     

In an essay for a Fabian Society publication in 2016 the Chancellor Rachel Reeves noted that, “it is important to acknowledge that being a member of the EU did help keep wages lower for many workers”.  More recently she has said that “..rising population growth from immigration has sometimes exacerbated the slow take-up of technology in the UK economy.” The political element is also clear with Reeve’s noting in 2016 that “Immigration controls and ending free movement has to be a red line post-Brexit – otherwise we will be holding the voters in contempt.”  None of this suggests a free for all on student or graduate visas will be welcome.

A proponent of the strategy to reduce the numbers on long-term sickness benefit is Alan Milburn, an ex-Labour Secretary of State for Health, who also links the practical issue of UK domestic employment with the political realities.  Writing in The Times he says, “This is a wake-up call for the new Labour government to wean themselves off the easy solution of importing more workers from overseas”.  Any increase in the number of international students seeking work after study may be seen as in tension with “getting more out-of-work Brits into work”.

It could be even worse if Labour is looking at commentary from Australia where Leith van Onselen has recently argued that entry level jobs are “swallowed by international students”.  His argument is that this is “posing problems for younger Australians seeking entry into the labour market.”  The last thing the sector, or Labour, needs is a controversy where domestic students are unable to pay back tax-payer funded debt because international students are dominating the jobs market.

From the world of thought to the actual world4

It is reasonable to note that if you change the conditions of the problem, squaring the circle becomes possible and that the Labour Party Manifesto ran for office under the slogan “Our plan to change Britain”.  The pressing question is whether the Labour government is fully committed to seeing universities as a key part of a preferred solution to change Britain and if it does, why is there no sense of direction at the moment?  It has already shown that it is lukewarm on the notion of committing money to help failing universities and where the manifesto commits to 18- to 21-year-olds it is all about training, apprenticeships and finding work.

There is no sweeping commitment to increase the numbers going to university, industrial strategy seems couched in terms of “research institutions”, university spinouts, and using public investment to unlock private sector investment.  There is a commitment to reduce net migration and its sentence on ending the days of “a sector languishing endlessly on immigration shortage lists” might be directed at universities as much as employers.  The “barriers to opportunity” section of the manifesto offers progressive plans for schools, apprenticeships and further education while higher education gets “strengthening regulation”, better integration with FE, improving access and raising teaching standards.

None of this looks like a Labour party that, even if sympathetic to aspiration and more domestic students in higher education, sees the current, disparate and expensive offering of three-year campus based degrees for young people as the optimal way forward. We shall see.

NOTES

All sub-headings are from the writings of Karl Marx.  Congratulations to the Marxist Internet Archive for a very well organized and interesting site.

  1. “The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones” (Marx, German Ideology (1845))
  2. “Language is the immediate actuality of thought” (Marx, German Ideology, Chapter 3 (1846))
  3. “ruthless criticism of all that exists” Marx, Letter from the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher (1843)
  4. “from the world of thought to the actual world”  Marx, German Ideology, Chapter 3 (1846)

Image by PIRO from Pixabay

Dear University…

The change in the UCAS personal statement for September 2026 entry appears to have been welcomed by industry commentators who suggest it will make life “easier” for both author and reader.  The stated ambition “to ensure more people from disadvantaged backgrounds can benefit  from the life-changing opportunity of higher education”  is laudable but one might ask if this approach is best or sustainable.  We could just be opening a new battleground in the struggle for supremacy between AI coders for applicants and those in universities trying to spot the hand of ChatGPT. 

Having read personal statements in the past, I can only begin to imagine the repetition of thought and words across hundreds of applicants as they answer to “why do you want to study this course”.  For applicants the anxiety of how edgy, pushy, obsequious, or data-driven to be in responding to the question remains the same and it will still be considered by a human with their personal interpretation of the best answer.  More efficient but even worse if the response is considered by a bot looking for key words. Perhaps it is time to radically rethink the process. 

Perhaps selecting universities, to put all applicants meeting their requirements (including contextual elements and any other considerations) into a random draw to remove any risk of bias.  For universities struggling to meet enrollment numbers it is difficult to see how bad a personal statement would have to be to get refused if the applicant meets the qualifications criteria for entry.  Either way, the student gets more clarity on what they need to do and an equal chance of success.       

Or maybe universities should be accepting that students are paying for the privilege to study and have a right to apply for whatever course they want if they have the qualifications.  Nobody asks somebody coming in to buy a Range Rover Evoque for £50,000 why they want it, whether they’ve driven one before or what their driving history is.  They might ask to see a driving licence before it’s driven off the lot but that’s about it.

I hear the howls about a degree course being nothing like any other purchase but students seem to be increasingly clear that they are considering degrees as an investment they are making towards a better job, career and life.  UCAS research indicates that “value matters to students” and that “initially, applicants are interested in career prospects after their degree”.  While students still value wellbeing, enjoyment and happiness it would seem there has been a fundamental swing towards outcomes.   

…I Would Like To Apply

With all that in mind there is an opportunity to test drive the new format in the imaginary persona of an applicant who would like to go to university but has been reading very widely about the sector.  They are anxious to explain their interest but also to demonstrate their research, their personality and some of their concerns. There is even an attempt at humour.             

1. Why do you want to study this course or subject?

Because I believe in your publicity that having a degree will get me a good career and well paid job.  That is really what I want. I trust you.  As you will see from my application to your institution I am avoiding the Russell Group and STEM subjects. I realise this means that being from a poorer, socio-economic background and a neglected region I can expect to be part of the statistics showing that “a degree often fails to deliver the promise of increased earnings.” 

Although I’ve chosen to believe that the graduate premium exists, I am a bit worried that there is “a more uncertain future” and ignoring the Government Graduate Labour Market Statistics indicating that over the past 20 years real median graduate salaries have declined faster than those of non-graduates.  I am hoping that reports that it’s even worse outside London1 are all Balls1 and that the indications more and more companies are dropping the requirement for a degree to get a job are overblown. 

I want to come to university to help the sector by improving statistics on one of the groups it struggles to attract and I’ve chosen to study psychology because I am keen to improve gender balance in the class.2 

2. How have your qualifications and studies prepared you for this course or subject?

I am predicted to achieve the grades that you publish and in the right subjects.  My teachers may just be being kind, overworked or avoiding confrontation with my parents but that’s not my fault.  I’m told you’re so desperate I shouldn’t worry about missing by a bit.  Only joking (!) but we have all read the studies that 25% of grades are probably wrong  and that half the students get in with lower grades anyway. 

Post qualification application would solve the uncertainty and anxiety for young people but I appreciate that you have established a system that works for you and will find excuses not to change it.  Maybe it’s just a power thing or you think you’re some sort of magical sorting hat with a campus attached.  If I fail to get the grades I hope I will be given the same opportunity as an international year one student who pays for the privilege to study on campus with direct entrants. 

While on the subject of grades, it would be helpful to know exactly what you are doing about degree grade inflation and why half of first class degrees awarded are unexplained by statistical modelling.  I see you are correcting this but that means I might be penalized by having a lower degree classification than someone who attended in those golden years.

3. What other experiences have prepared you for this course, and why are they relevant?

I complain a lot and so can support that student trend. I can even enhance my global citizenship in line with your strategy by providing support for international students as they are 36% of all complaints to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for HE.  Because I often borrow money from my siblings and never pay it back I’ll cope well with joining the 1.8m graduates with a taxpayer funded debt of over £50,000 and those not earning enough to pay it off.  As I don’t like getting out of bed not attending lectures is OK with me and given the way you’re cutting staff that should help you out. 

I’m quite frugal, so living in borderline poverty shouldn’t be a problem however bad the maintenance loan situation gets.  I am also used to disappointment (having supported Gareth Southgate and England since 2018) which will lessen the pain when I get to the realities of the graduate job hunt.  My empathy is shown by my concern for international students on reading that data collection on graduate outcomes has been cut back which means they have even less insight than I do about job prospects. 

In summary my experience as an intense online gambler, who eats little, never goes out, earns a pittance, borrows heavily, complains a lot, expects to be disappointed and has limited life prospects has prepared me perfectly for life as a student.  Only kidding (again) I really would like the chance to learn.

The Generation Game

For this imaginary student there is a lot to consider in the light of survey research suggesting 30% of people being “broadly uninterested” in universities and a further 27% being “negative” or “sceptical”.  While the culture wars that saw the Conservative Government going head-to-head with the sector in recent years may be over there is little respite in terms of additional funding to reduce the level of fee debt or improve maintenance loans.  As the imaginary statement suggests there seem to be plenty of reasons to worry about whether university is a good investment of time, money and stress.

The weakness in UK undergraduate applications revealed by UCAS this week suggest that this argument might be playing out in the minds not only of 18 year olds but also every group under 25. It’s troubling in the context of a rapidly growing 18 year old cohort that is predicted to expand for the rest of the decade and even more so if surveys suggesting a third of UK students may drop out due to money worries are accurate.

Notes

  1. For those who miss the link the report “Tackling the UK’s regional economic inequality: binding constraints and avenues for policy intervention” is co-authored by Ed Balls whose surname was the punchline to Michael Heseltine’s joke at the Conservative Party Conference in 1995.
  2. It is entirely recognized that the gender imbalance on courses cuts both ways. It is also clear that despite more women than men going to university in the UK there is a huge amount still to be done on gender pay imbalances and equality of opportunity in the workplace. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has explored aspects of the intersection between these factors.

Image by Antonios Ntoumas from Pixabay

A 71.6 Million Dollar Question and More

US-based film and TV courtroom dramas have been beloved by the British for many decades.  From 12 Angry Men and My Cousin Vinny to The Lincoln Lawyer and Goliath they all seem so much more glamorous and edgy than Kavanagh QC and Rumpole of the Bailey.  But for organizations in the UK higher education sector, closer encounters with US law can be costly in financial or reputational terms, in a land where being separated by the same language may be just one of the problems.

The court case between INTO University Partnerships (INTO) and the University of South Florida (USF) began in 2022 and shows no sign of concluding any time soon.  Court filings have now given some insight into the amount of damages that INTO may be seeking.  Set alongside the legal costs, some of which will be considered at a hearing on July 161, there is a lot at stake.

Nearly 30 British universities have been listed as clients in a case bought by the United States of America ex rel HITROST LLC against Study Across the Pond, LLC and John Borhaug last month2.  The allegation is that their arrangements flouted a ban on incentive-based payments and that the defendants “knowingly caused” the universities to make false claims for federal student aid.  While the universities are not listed as defendants there are several issues they might want to consider about contractual arrangements and internal controls, if the Complaint is accurate.

It’s all the more important when the relationship between universities and agents is under closer Government scrutiny. While the sector is trumpeting its Agent Quality Framework (AQF) the concept of self-regulation may not be enough to prevent firmer regulatory oversight. Some issues around the AQF are considered in this blog.

The summaries and comments below should not be taken to imply any views on the merits of the cases or the legal issues involved. These are complex issues so references and links are given for those who wish to delve deeper.  Material is provided in good faith and will be amended if an authoritative source provides more accurate information.          

Runnin’ Down A Dream

The court case between INTO and USF3 has rumbled on since my last update in January 2024 and looks set to run for most of the rest of the year.  The foundations of this dispute were covered in my  first blog on the matter in August 2022. The case is still in the discovery phase and there are regular filings with arguments and counter-arguments from both sides.       

Perhaps the most interesting point is that there is now a dollar amount on the size of damages INTO may be seeking.  A filing by USF on 31 May4 notes “INTO’s damages report, by which it seeks $71.6m in damages…”.  This report is one of two produced by INTO experts, with the other considering the solvency of the joint venture.  USF has served its own expert report “related to damages it has suffered with respect to its counterclaim..”.

One impact of the expert reports is that there has been a request to extend the time for “rebuttal expert reports” from June 17 to July 11 with the 24-day extension then rippling through all other deadlines in the Discovery Schedule.  If agreed, that would lead to a deadline of October 31 for the completion of serving and  rebutting expert reports then filing and hearing dispositive and Daubert motions.  The motion notes that the extended time would also “facilitate the parties’ ability to resolve any open discovery issues..”.

While this continues, INTO is appealing5 against the summary judgement6 of the Court in favour of USF that “the SHA [Stockholder Agreement] terminated once USF sent the letter stating that it terminated the USA [University Services Agreement], a Project Agreement.”  In this judgement the Court made it clear that it was not deciding “..whether USF breached the USA or the duty of good faith and fair dealing when it terminated the USA in April 2022.  Counts II, III, IV, VII, VIII, IX, XII and XIII against USF remain for further disposition.” There seems to be a long way to go.

Do You Want To Know A Secret?

Before getting into some of the lessons and thoughts for universities raised in the Study Across the Pond (SATP) case there are some general and contextual points. The company filed a Certificate of Cancellation with the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in January 2024, citing the termination of business operations as the reason for cancellation. Across the Pond – Study in Britain Limited remains listed at Companies House in the UK with John Borhaug as a director and its website lists 86 UK universities.

The UK listed company is on the British Council Certified Agent database where it is noted “Education providers should seek appropriate legal advice on contracts” which may have some resonance for universities listed in the US proceedings. The database links back to the British Universities International Universities Association (BUILA) who worked with the British Council, Universities UK and UKCISA to establish the UK Agent Quality Framework (AQF). Unofrtunately, but perhaps symbolically, The Good Practice Guide for Providers Using Education Agents, link on the BUILA site leads to a 404 error page.

It is claimed that “Nearly all universities in the UK have now signed up..” for the AQF but as far as I am able to find no list of signatories exists which is hardly an aid to transparency for students. We know from Enroly that their partner Bangor University is one of them (more on that below) but this should be well-signposted information that is freely available. There are the usual signs here of a sector that would like to be left to self-regulate but which is less than well organized or communicative once the initial excitement and headlines caused by the announcement of a new initiative have passed.

Money Changes Everything

The Study Across the Pond (SATP) and John Borhaug case was covered by The PIE in early May and lists UK universities7 who were clients of SATP and “participated in federal student aid programs under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, and presented at least one claim for payment from those programs to the Department of Education between January 1, 2015, and the present.” Essentially, incentive/commission payments to agents are not allowed if a student is receiving federal student aid. While the universities are not defendants the allegations contain several pointers towards potential gaps in university processes, checks and balances.

Any case where there is a suspicion that universities “made false statements” or “withheld information” to independent auditors must be taken seriously.  Assertions that the institutions were submitting “false and fraudulent” claims to the US Department of Education which were “actively violating the Incentive Compensation Ban” should be ringing alarm bells at the most senior levels. Issues around internal financial controls, fake contracts and purchasing disciplines are at stake even before you get to potential reputational damage.

One of the more detailed examples involves Bangor University.  The Complaint suggests that in February 2019 the university agreed to pay commission to SATP for recruiting students, including those from the United States.  It is alleged that in early 2020 the University asked if it could put a ‘Marketing Agreement’ in place for the US “in case of audit by [the Department of Education]” with the agreement presented as being a flat rate while accepting that the amount payed would be “the equivalent of what commission would have been.” 

In March 2022 the university was considering what material to provide the Department of Education as part of its re-certification application.  The Complaint asserts that “Bangor University’s Head of International Recruitment told that employee not to send the Department the original 2019 tuition-sharing contract with defendant Study Across the Pond.”  It is claimed that this document was not sent, “effectively hiding its incentive compensation arrangement with the Defendants from the Department of Education.”

While several universities appear to have queried the legality of commission payments in the context of the Incentive Compensation Ban they seem to have accepted the word of SATP who, “consistently advised foreign schools, including the Defendants’ Clients, that their activities were not subject to the Incentive Compensation Ban.” However, the universities with concerns were invited to enter into “sham contracts” that purported to provide an annual fee for general marketing and promotion with the proviso that “the annual fee happens to be the equivalent of ‘commission’ on any students on the lists who actually enrolled.”  Phrases like “play it safe”, “in case of audit” and “..as long as we (university and [S]ATP) understand how the annual amount is calculated then that’s all that matters, since it won’t be written into a contract of any kind” were allegedly used in communications.  

This type of language should have been troubling for the international office teams and any senior university officials they discussed contracts with. If the universities were acting in good faith in accepting SATP’s advice about their status as not being subject to the Ban there would seem to be no reason for changing the contract. Changing the contract to deliberately obscure the basis of the payments seems a slippery slope which seems difficult to justify.

Finance Directors in the institution may be asking how payment was being signed off and by who when a “fixed fee” contractual sum became a different amount to match the unwritten commission payment.  This seems an inevitable consequence of the arrangements put in place.  It may also be interesting to watch whether the US Department of Education allows universities that, it is alleged, participated in this behaviour to continue to be certified in the context of the Direct Loan Program.

NOTES

All the sub-headings are song titles from songs. Sequentially, the original artists were Tom Petty (as a solo artist), the Beatles (written by Lennon and McCartney but sung by George Harrison), and The Brains (although probably better known for the cover version by Cyndi Lauper).

  1. Filing # 198160868 E-Filed 05/13/2024 12:07:44 PM
  2. Case 1:21-cv-10274-ADB in the United States District Court for the District of Massachussets
  3. The terms INTO and University of South Florida are used as short forms for the range of corporate plaintiffs and defendants. Full details and all public documents reference in this blog can be found through https://hover.hillsclerk.com/html/case/caseSearch.html the Hillsborough County Clerk of Courts search facility. Insert 22 for the year, CA-Circuit Civil for the Court type and 006001 for the case number.
  4. Filing # 199628319 E-Filed 05/31/2024 05:41:44 PM
  5. Filing # 198701412 E-Filed 05/20/2024 02:01:54 PM
  6. Order Granting Summary Judgement. January 31, 2024
  7. The full list is Aberystwyth University, Bangor University, University of Brighton, Cardiff University, University of Chester, University of East Anglia, Edinburgh Napier University, University of Essex, University of Exeter, University of Greenwich, University of Hertfordshire, University of Kent, Kingston University, University of Lancaster, University of Leeds, University of Leicester, University of Lincoln, University of Liverpool, Loughborough University, Oxford Brookes University, University of Reading, University of Sheffield, University of Southampton, University of Stirling, University of Strathclyde, Swansea University, University of Winchester, and University of York.  

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

UK Higher Education – A Stopped Clock

One of the most poignant moments in film is when Withnail says goodbye to Marwood1.  In the final scene we have Marwood refusing a drink and Withnail, ever the actor and alcoholic, drinking straight from a wine bottle and delivering a soliloquy to the wolves in Regents Park before walking away in the rain.  The future for both is uncertain. 

I was reminded of this as Rishi Sunak declined to take a last swig of right-wing courage by ending the Graduate Route but decided, even as the heavens opened, that it was time to say goodbye and face an uncertain future.  Meanwhile, the UK university sector has its umbrella, has raged at a largely disinterested public, considers itself “noble in reason” and “infinite in faculties”2, yet remains addicted to international student fee income.  One can imagine vice chancellors and finance directors breathing a collective sight of relief and reiterating the international recruitment version of, “I must have some booze. I demand to have some booze.”3

We want the finest wines available to humanity. And we want them here, and we want them now!

There has been much rejoicing in universities around the UK.  Looking forward it seems that the election will allow sufficient cover for another bumper year of international recruitment as the UK looks to be in slightly better shape for late-breaking students than either Canada or Australia.  Institutions with long-term declines in attractiveness because of courses, location and/or poor management will have the sticking plaster of international fees to cover the bleeding away of domestic students. 

Cover will be extended into the next few years because, on current performance, HESA probably won’t report on 2024/25 enrollments until the recruitment cycle for 2026 is nearly over.  One can also predict that the sector will lose its recent enthusiasm for better, faster data in its headlong rush to smoke the Camberwell Carrot4 of international student fee income.  They might even say the recruitment equivalent of, “All right, this is the plan. We get in there and get wrecked, then we’ll eat a pork pie, then we’ll drop a couple of Surmontil-50’s each. That means we’ll miss out Monday but come up smiling Tuesday morning.”5

There is even encouragement from that scion of poor political and lobbying judgement Lord Cameron whose statement that “there’s no limit on the number that can come” suggest he knows he will never bear Government responsibility again.  This is the David Cameron who, as Prime Minister, led the closure of the post-study work visa in April 2012 and took the calamitous decision to hold a referendum on Brexit.  He and ‘one million students’ Lord Bilimoria can sit harmoniously and enjoy their time together on the benches of the Lords unless Labour gets a second term.      

A pair of quadruple whiskies and another pair of pints, please.

The opportunity to continue recruiting at breakneck speed will be a mighty relief also to some of those universities who have found that their bigger and better placed competitors are continuing to build share.  We are likely to see a widening divide in the Russell Group, where the ability of some to take a greater share of the relatively static market in China will lead others in the Group to look elsewhere for volume.  In turn, this will mean that universities further down the pecking order will have to search wider and deeper in order to achieve the recruitment targets.

Another of the famous lines from Withnail and I is from Danny, who says, “Politics, man. If you’re hanging onto a rising balloon, you’re presented with a difficult decision. Let go before it’s too late or hang on and keep getting higher, posing the question: how long can you keep a grip on the rope?”  We have reached a point where universities have hold of the rising balloon of international student fee income and it will get further and further from the ground.  Without a crisis there is little merit or benefit for a government under economic pressure elsewhere to come to the table and discuss structural issues around funding and fee levels.

But at some point the tether breaks, the grip weakens or the balloon bursts.  It is not uncommon for parties to swing further to political extremes when they have lost an election and most of the signs are of the Conservative’s veering further right and their anti-immigration rhetoric being the basis for the next tilt at power.  Universities might want to consider whether a more measured approach to student recruitment, a better level of engagement in explaining the benefits to the public and a more transparent and timely approach to data as some defence if a more reactionary Government emerges in the future.    

Free to those that can afford it, very expensive to those that can’t

While the continuance of the graduate route has been positioned as good for international students, this is a partial view driven largely by the vested interest universities have in on campus presence.  High physical infrastructure costs and debt servicing have always hampered the willingness to develop of genuinely flexible delivery through transnational education and use of technology.  Several have argued that the higher education system championed by the developed economies is part of academic imperialism rather than a model based on equity, respect or diversity.

Every international office knows that economic swings in most countries where international students are found can have a significant impact on applications, enrollments and debtors.  The decline of the Tiger Economies in the late 1990s was a significant factor and we are seeing the fall in in the Nigerian naira have almost as much impact as the shift in dependent visas policy.  International recruitment is a financial roller coaster designed for those with strong stomachs who are usually looking for those with the biggest wallets.

That’s the real reason that the growth of International Year One has become so important to pathway operators and by dint of second and third year fees to universities.  The growth in international markets where students with inadequate grades for direct entry are willing to pay for a first year on campus is an open goal for institutions and commercial operators.  Access is certainly free for those that can afford it but denied to those domestic students who are barred from similar privilege.

We are indeed, drifting into the arena of the unwell… making an enemy of our own future…

A number of commentators have reflected that the sector has allowed itself to become a convenient political fall-guy and some voices have even called for greater self-reflection, better engagement and more thought on international student outcomes.   Economic factors would suggest there is little prospect of greater direct funding even if a government better disposed to the sector is in power come July.  The answer must surely lie in the sector taking the initiative to engage more effectively in constructive discussions about the shape and size of the sector as well as engaging more effectively with the public.

In Withnail and I, Marwood makes the comment, “What we need is harmony, fresh air, stuff like that.”  It’s good advice for the sector to seek renewed dialogue as well as new ideas that might leave it in a better place for the inevitable moment that the political pendulum swings again.  As we learn from the different endings in the film and the novel it is always possible to change the narrative if you have the will.   

NOTES

The title is from Marwood’s quote in ‘Withnail and I’ where he notes that even a stopped clock, although broken, gives the right time twice a day.  All sub-headings are quotes from the film ‘Withnail and I’1

  1. ‘Withnail and I’ is a 1987 British film focusing on two unemployed actors.   The film is an adaptation of an unpublished novel written by Bruce Robinson who also wrote and directed the film.
  2. The quotes are from Withnail’s soliloquy which is taken from Act 2, Scene 2 of Hamlet.
  3. By Withnail in ‘Withnail and I’
  4. In the film a Camberwell Carrot is explained by Withnail as, “The joint I am about to roll requires a craftsman and can utilize up to twelve spliffs. It is called a Camberwell Carrot…I invented it in Camberwell and it’s shaped like a carrot.”  It has great potency.
  5. By Withnail in ‘Withnail and I’

Image by Łukasz Dyłka from Pixabay

Beware the Ides of MAC

Aficionados of ancient Rome will know that every month had an Ides. For March, May, July and October it fell on the 15th of the month while for the rest of the year it was the 13th. The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) Review of the Graduate Route is due to report on the 14th of May so it seems possible the detail will become clearer the next day.1

Some predict a ritual and metaphorical assassination of the higher education sector to suit the political aims of the Conservative government. It is certainly likely to be a day when, just as in ancient Rome, debts become due. Will MAC deserve the line “Et tu Brutus” from the sector if it echoes, “I come to bury Caesar not to praise him”, in its thinking on the graduate route?

The announcement of the Review led to some frantic rearguard action from the higher education sector which was cut out of the usual, drawn-out Call for Evidence, at a point when the Government needs to reassert its credibility on immigration ahead of an election. There may be some glimmers of hope but the politics seem to be overwhelmingly negative. It comes when the sector is beset by other negative stories and some well-respected voices are suggesting it is time to accept there are problems that need dealing with.

Last Throw of the Dice

It is difficult to know whether the effort from Kaplan, HEPI and the NUS to produce “The Exchequer benefits and costs associated with the Graduate Route visa” in advance of MAC’s publication is going to help. The main argument seems to be that MAC would be remiss in not taking into account the tax return from increasing numbers of international students entering the workforce on the Graduate Route. At a single stroke the students resolve the sector’s funding issues and become a part of the solution to the UK’s debt problems.

We didn’t really need a long and technical paper to tell us that if people go into the workplace they pay tax and contribute to the Exchequer and that if you have more of them they pay more. What the paper doesn’t say is that a logical extension of this self-serving argument would be that if the period of post-study work was extended to five years or even indefinitely, international graduates would pay even more tax. It’s unspoken because, while more years of post study work would probably attract even more international students to UK universities, it would make the student visa look more like a route to residency which most agree is politically unacceptable.

One eye catching and unhelpful point about the report is that it estimates 21% of the Graduate Route visa holders are not in paid employment. That seems a big number and some might suggest that the number is even larger because those not in employment are less likely to respond to being asked their status. It will be interesting to see if MAC has got the linking of HMRC and visa records to give more insight.

A Government, of whatever political persuasion, is more likely to believe that if there are jobs to be filled the better answer is to deal with the UK’s long-term sickness issues.2 At a single stroke you reduce the cost of welfare, get the tax benefit of having more people in work and don’t have to pay the political price of relying on overseas workers. Both main parties know, from the sector’s own research, that the majority of the British public want the same or fewer international students.

Glimmers of Hope

Even if the Report doesn’t go a long way towards changing anybody’s mind there are other straws to cling to. Much has been made of the decline in student visas issued in the first quarter of 2024 being a strong signal for the Government not to “overcorrect” on the issue by taking further action. The Home Office deadpanned by saying that, “the full effect of recent policy changes and any other impacts” would not be known until the peak in applications in August and September.

The decline in dependent visas is a big headline number but commentators including Dave Amor have noted dependent visas are only back to 2021 levels and while main applicants are down “applications without dependents sounds like they are up.” There is also the impact of the decline in Nigeria’s currency driving some of the changes. For a Government under pressure from its own back-benches on immigration it seems unlikely the numbers are down enough.

In that respect, the timing of the MAC review is interesting in that Cleverly demanded a mid-May response without any clear or evident reason. It may be that he plans to take its recommendations and use them, either positively or negatively, for a publicity blitz around the release of the “Immigration system statistics, year ending March 2024” scheduled for 9.30am on 23 May, 2024. The platform provided by the first quarter figures, the MAC review, and then the yearly figures is a decent campaigning rhythm to reinforce his statement that “Over the coming months, we will continue to show the pace of our progress as we deliver the control the public rightly expect.” It may even be the first bit of positioning for a post-election leadership run.

Let’s Get Cynical

The politics of the matter seem simple and the defection of Tory MP Natalie Elphicke to Labour with the accusal, “It’s clear they [the Tory government] have failed to keep our borders secure and cannot be trusted” will only have hardened the lines. The imperative is to retake control of the immigration debate, challenge Labour’s position ahead of the general election and perhaps even reduce their flexibility if they form the next Government. The interests of the higher education sector do not even feature in that calculation.

The last Labour government has long been known for leaving the infamous note for the incoming Chancellor, “I’m afraid there is no money”. It haunted them in future elections and it is doubtful that the Conservatives will make the same mistake. Far better to hand Labour an impoverished sector and draw a distinctive line on post-study work rights that makes it even harder to patch over gaps in funding with international student fee revenue.

So, the Conservative’s would gain twice by limiting post-study work. The immediate gain is the impression of firm government, a populist stance on a divisive issue and a sop to the troublesome right wing of the party. In the longer term, presuming an election loss, it hands the incoming Government a significant and worsening university funding situation with limited room for maneuver without seeming soft on immigration.

Pathway Woes

Almost a sideshow for now are the other reviews set in motion when the Sunday Times set a hare running with its slightly ill-formed attack on international pathways. Universities UK leapt into action with a review by the Quality Assurance Agency that seems likely to report in June 2024 (if the link with the scope is correct). The Department of Education was instructed to “investigate allegations of bad practice by agents” although it’s a little difficult to find when any outcome is expected.

Pathway operators and by default universities could really do with the reviews not hampering the growth of International Year One programmes or requiring significant policing of agent activity. Times are tough enough already. Evidence of that came with the completion of reporting from INTO’s joint venture portfolio showing that INTO enrollments were still 23.6% down on 2018 for continuing joint venture businesses.

In a previous iteration of this graph in another blog and before reporting from INTO University of East Anglia, I had presumed that the joint venture would have made some progress in 2022/23. In reality there was a further collapse from 310 to 241 students year on year which puts it 62.8% down on 2018. The only bright spot was that the wholly owned Manchester operation hit record high numbers in the year.

Source: INTO Joint Venture Annual Reports

The success of INTO Manchester seems ironical given the probability that Navitas was favourite for the £150m Embedded International Study Center contract at Manchester Metropolitan University. Uncertainties around UK international student visas seem likely to have held up further progress at a point when Navitas must already have been smarting at losing the University of Leicester and University of Northampton as partners. Evidence of another pathway operator with some issues to resolve is Kaplan at the University of York.

Just for completeness, on what some consider the ‘big four’, are the problems at Study Group which were exacerbated by the Daily Mail singling them out in a front page splash as sponsoring 804 student who then claimed asylum. The Mail makes much of the “secret Home Office database” as the source of the story but at least as far back as March 2023 the UK Visas and Immigration Study Sector Brief was noting the trend. Any suggestion student visas are being subverted in order to secure a permanent place in the UK will be used as further evidence the sector is out of control.

Voices of (T)reason

In that context there was a small breath of fresh air from Professor Wendy Alexander at the recent International Higher Education Forum conference in May 2024. She is reported as urging the sector, “We really need to be a little more self-reflective about it. The first way to build trust is to concede there was a problem..”. In that respect she echoes a broader point made by ex-Sheffield Hallam vice chancellor, Professor Chris Husbands, who in July 2023 was suggesting the sector was in danger of “tacitly defending a system that it knows is not sustainable.”

Jo Johnson and Vivienne Stern have also been talking the language of avoiding “over-correction” and “serious overcorrection” which seems to be code for accepting that a correction was reasonable and maybe an acceptance that the sector has lost the argument for the status quo. Slightly off-topic but it was amusing to see Johnson suggesting that the Teaching Excellence Framework should be the guiding light for allowing universities to raise domestic fees. Of 228 universities in TEF 2023 only three were ranked as “requires improvement” overall (11 were requiring improvement on student experience and 9 on student outcomes). Basically, he meant all universities.

Tom Petty suggested that “the waiting is the hardest part” but there is good reason to think that the reality might become even tougher after May 14th. Even then, the sector’s problems aren’t all about international tuition fee revenue even though it has offered a sticking plaster for a few years. The old stock market dictum “sell in May then go away, don’t come back until St Leger’s Day” is a good idea for anyone considering UK universities or university pathway operators as a good bet. Come September some of the dust will have cleared and we may even be seeing the election warming up with policy statements on the future shape and size of higher education.

NOTES

  1. It doesn’t really matter if not. The headline just had to be written and justified.
  2. Both parties are focusing on the issue of the growth in long-term sickness and solutions are likely to form part of the election agenda. The Conservatives, not surprisingly, are calling it as ‘sick note culture’ while Labour has accepted that a problem exists and is “..threatening the future of the sustainability of our finances and the future of our public services”

Image by Gino Crescoli from Pixabay

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

From A Blip To A Trend

One of the problems with the delay in HESA data is that it is difficult to tell whether blips are becoming trends. Domestic and international recruitment are changing quickly but if information is two years out of date it’s like trying to drive full speed on a motorway while looking in the rear-view mirror. My advice is not to try it.

There are some universities that have driven up international numbers in the short-term while presiding over declining domestic enrolments for several years. If any of the universities have chosen to follow a path of fewer domestic students and more international it would be reasonable for them to be explicit about how far they intended to go if Government policy had not changed. Being opportunistic and following the money to make ends meet is not quite the same as having a strategy.

A closer look at some universities also indicates a pattern of longer term restructuring, redundancies and cutbacks which suggests more fundamental problems. This should be the cause for discussion about the funding issues of individual universities rather than an appeal for a taxpayer underwritten handout to the whole sector. It may be that changes in attitudes to higher education, emerging workforce issues and developing global competition requires widespread restructuring.

In the following analysis the University of Hull’s enrolment figures from its annual report are used for consistency while the University of Kent and University of South Wales enrolment to 2021/22 are taken from HESA data with the fee income figure in the 2022/23 university annual report indicating the 2022/23 enrollment1.

Abundance from (over) the sea2

As noted in previous blogs the University of Hull’s performance in recruitment from Nigeria in 2021/22 delivered an uplift from 70 to 915 students year on year. It would be a surprise if the fall in visa applications for study driven by a decline in the naira and the loss of dependent visas for PGT students isn’t causing some alarm bells to ring. The university’s Annual Report and Statement of Accounts offers an insight suggesting the international enrolment bandwagon rolled on into 2022/23 although whether there was diversification of country of origin is not clear.

Full time International Tuition fee income grew by over £12m from 2020/21 to 2021/22 and then by a further £8m to 2022/23. The University’s figures indicate that it had 4,080 fewer “standard provision” domestic students in 2022/23 than 2017/18 – a fall of 30.8%. Domestic student enrollments appear to have fallen by 1,196 (11.6%) from 2021/22 to 2022/23 alone.

If domestic students are rejecting the University of Hull there seems to be a much more fundamental question to ask about its strategy, focus and future. This question should not be obscured simply because it can remain viable by recruiting international students whose main motivation is to secure post-study work.

Source: University of Hull Annual Report and Statement of Accounts

Since 2018/19 the university has had a “fundamental restructuring staff costs” line itemized in its expenditure and has spent £15.8m on this across the five years. Back in 2019 the university was suggesting that “One of the areas identified where we can be leaner and make efficiency savings, is in our professional services areas (i.e. non-academic areas such as support staff and back office functions).

The Staff by Major Category notes in the annual report show that the restructurings resulted in 239 fewer staff over five years with 132 lost from academic departments and 52 from central student services, while Central Admin has grown by 14. There may be a categorization issue but Academic Departments are down a net 96 on central admin and student services. If the growth in staff numbers in 2022/23 was driven by servicing growing numbers of international students, it is not surprising that there may be redundancies if numbers decline.

Source: University of Hull Annual Report and Statement of Accounts

Unconquered (yet)3

There is a similar but less financially successful story at the University of Kent which has recently joined the long list of institutions announcing redundancies. This is despite a five-year history of restructuring costs costing £25m and ending up, in total, with just seven fewer staff in 2022/23 than in 2018/19. The graph shows the relative movement of Academic, Research and Academic Related staff – down a net 56 when aggregated – while clerical are up 44. Back in July 2020 the University of Kent was reported to be considering cutting “almost 150 full-time jobs” but given its trajectory this seems to have been unsuccessful.

Source: University of Kent Financial Statements

Meanwhile, there has been an ongoing decline in domestic students stretching back over most of the period with a belated and modestly successful bid to increase international student fee income in the past two years. While the University does not give an update on its recruitment in the 2022/23 Annual Report and Financial Statements it does note circumstances “..resulting in an unexpected downturn in the number of students returning to complete their studies after the Summer 2022 break.” The direction of travel on the 2022/23 Full-time home tuition fees would suggest that things have not improved.

Sources: HESA for student numbers and University of Kent Financial Statements for fee income

Almost plaintively the 2022/23 Annual Report notes, “The University acknowledges that it can’t continue operating in a deficit position..” this is after four underlying deficits, of £12m (2022/23), £15.3m (2021/22), £12m (2019/20), and £7.9m (2018/19), in the last five years. The report goes on to say that the forecast for 2023/24 “… is that we will again make a deficit, of approximately £31m..”. There must surely be fundamental questions about the university’s long-term viability or at the very least whether the management team is capable of bringing it back to sustainability.4

Success through endeavour (and international recruitment)5

The University of South Wales was formed in 2013 from the University of Glamorgan and the University of Wales, Newport. Over the past five years the number of full-time UK students has fallen at an accelerating rate from 13,405 to 12,915 according to HESA data. The Home/EU tuition fee income posted for 2022/23 suggests that the story will continue the same trend.

However, since 2019/20 the University has increased its full-time international student population from 1445 to 3625. Again, the income in 2022/23 indicates that the trend will have continued. One of the key questions is whether international student recruitment is simply being used to paper over fundamental issues about the University’s attraction to home students, its purpose and its future.

Sources: HESA for student numbers and University of South Wales Financial Statements for tuition income

When the University of South Wales announced redundancies in 2024 the reasoning suggested by vice-chancellor Dr Ben Calvert was that it’s “…due to a significant rise in non-returning students and running costs.” Digging deeper suggests that the university may have more deep-rooted problems. Back in 2022 the issue was the same, with Dr Calvert saying, “We have seen a 6.1% decrease in our returning students compared to last year.” It is claimed elsewhere that the Newport campus has faced a 75% drop in students since 2010 with suggestions that 10,000 has become 2,500.

Back in 2017 the university announced that 137 redundancies were required “..as it [the university] tried to balance rising costs with an expected drop in students” but the number of redundancies became 57 after negotiation. This came after the opening, in 2014 and then closure in 2015, of a London campus that failed to recruit any students but received investment despite, it is claimed, the Carleon campus in Wales being closed with 145 jobs at risk. This feels like an institution that has long-term, fundamental issues requiring attention.

Finding Ways Forward

There may be good reasons, at each university, for every decision but the histories here reinforce that the UK higher education sector is a patchwork of individual institutions who have specific histories. geographies and problems. There seems enough evidence, in some institutions, of management travelling hopefully or being ill-equipped to be effective and there are questions as to whether the governance role of University councils is adequate. It certainly seems unlikely that there are a sufficient number of high-quality decision makers available to lead more than 150 institutions working in complex and volatile markets.

A blank cheque underwritten by the taxpayer is unlikely to solve some of the structural problems in the sector. It certainly wouldn’t resolve problems caused by poor management decisions, overly optimistic forecasting, or deep-seated domestic student enrolment problems. Neither would it solve any problems caused by declining student demand for higher education or for specific universities and what they offer.

If the answer to the financial issues in the sector is international recruitment then there should probably be a dialogue about the type of recruitment and the work-force implications. Given the national implications this should not be left to the wit or aspirations of individual institutions. There may be a rational decision for Government to make that means international students are explicitly and openly encouraged so that agreed numbers of domestic students can be recruited at an acceptable cost to taxpayers.

Allocating capped international numbers against specific universities should not be too difficult a task and could consider the local economy’s ability to sustain and house them. It is no secret that some parts of the UK job-market would struggle without international graduates taking roles but it seems reasonable that they are not used as a means of depressing wages. There might even be merit in following the Australian example of extended post-study work for international students working in specific localities.

NOTES

  1. The assumption is that as the domestic fee for domestic undergraduates has not changed between years and domestic PG numbers are relatively small, any significant decline in domestic fee income is aligned with a decline in domestic enrollments. It seems to work for years up to 2022/23 and the HESA data, if it ever arrives, will give us a fuller picture.
  2. Hull History Centre tells us that the city of Kingston upon Hull (usually referred to as Hull) does not have a motto. A heraldry enthusiast offered both in 1946 with the Latin, Mare Copia (Abundance from the Sea). A tweak seems appropriate in the context of international student recruitment.
  3. The motto of the county of Kent is the Latin, Invicta (Unconquered). Recent performance – both financial and in recruitment terms – might mean that the university cannot claim the same.
  4. The University of Kent President and vice-chancellor, Professor Karen Cox, resigned this month after being in the role since 2017. Views on her tenure can be read on Kent Online.
  5. Success through Endeavour is the motto of the University of South Wales. It seems appropriate to note that the Welsh translation offered by Googe Translate is Llwyddiant trwy ymdrech.

As always, the blog attempts to understand, interpret and offer an honest opinion on the data available in the context of broader issues in higher education. In the event that there are any errors of fact or interpretation a correction will be made if an authoritative response is provided to the author.

Image by Peggy und Marco Lachmann-Anke from Pixabay