ukhighereducation – Page 5 – View From A Bridge – management, education and personal thoughts

Time To Lead

It’s been a week where the situation in Ukraine has gone from bad, to worse, to terrifying. Written from a distance of several thousand miles that doesn’t even begin to do justice to the lives of the people who are being shelled and bombed on a daily basis. In the face of such naked aggression the UK higher education sector has let itself down by declining to stand together, let along stand with Ukraine, in stopping institutional links with Russian universities.

The final straw may be the publication of a statement by the Russian Union of Rectors who describe the invasion and its consequences as “events that excite every citizen of Russia”. They describe their main duty as being to “to conduct a continuous educational process, to educate patriotism in young people, the desire to help the Motherland” and call on people to “rally around our President”. Regrettably, the statement suggests that Russian universities have, either by choice or coercion, fallen completely under state control.

Before the autonomous, self-governing institutions of the UK begin to admire themselves and their independence it would be good to consider what the two leading umbrella groups have to say about the issue of severing links. Prof Colin Riordan, the vice-chancellor of Cardiff University, a member of the Russell Group, told the Guardian that “if the government were to tell his university to cut ties with Russia, it would do so because of the “bigger things at stake”.” Prof Steve West, the president of the vice-chancellors’ group Universities UK, said, “I think we have to expect science sanctions….what is happening is a challenge on democracy and the safety and stability of the free world.”

Two leading figures recognizing that the future of the “free world” and “bigger things” are at stake but without the moral fibre, good sense or humanity to ensure that their university groups take a stand. They would sooner wait for the Government to tell them what to do than to show leadership or act like the independent institutions they are expected to be. That begins to sound remarkably like the Rectors of the Russian Union waiting for the Government to tell them what statement to make.

The dithering and self-serving went so far that Universities UK had to be prodded to make any sort of statement about the Ukraine crisis and as of Monday 7 March the Russell Group has no statement at all on its website. The Russell Group claims it “represents 24 leading UK universities. We believe people and ideas are the key to meeting global challenges”. It seems to me that on this occasion they and their members have failed to either recognize or meet the most obvious and present global challenge before them.

There is plenty of evidence in front of the Russell Group and UniversitiesUK that it is possible to take decisive action in cutting links without their privileged and cloistered worlds falling in. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Warwick, the European Commission, the universities of Germany, Estonia and Lithuania, Russian scientists and science journalists, and many others have expressed their revulsion. The editor of the Journal of Molecular Structure even very carefully explained how it is possible to sanction institutional links while allowing individual academics to continue participating.

We also know that some institutions are acting with the universities of Aberdeen, St Andrews and Dundee saying they have already cut ties with Russia and Edinburgh is reviewing its investment stake in Sberbank. In England, unfortunately, the supposedly urgent review of science and innovation ties that George Freeman MP announced with a flourish on 27 February has not yet had an outcome. Eight days later there is no outcome.

I’d thank all of those who have taken action and those who continue to press their institutions to do the right thing. Cutting institutional ties is not the same as banning discussions between individual academics or ceasing support for students from Russia both of which should continue with due regard for everyone’s safety. Neither is it to deny the very real demonstrations against Putin’s Government that have been held in Russia where individuals are literally taking their lives in their hands to stand up for what is right.

But to everything there is a season and it is time to take action in suspending university links before they become normalized under the most oppressive of circumstances. There will be a time to review whether these sanctions can be lifted and whether they serve any purpose. We can all hope that is a moment that is not too long in coming.

India Stealing a March on China for UK Universities

Back in March 2021 my blog considered the way that shifts in recruitment volumes between India and China could have a significant impact for higher education institutions. The release of the latest HESA statistics by UK institution have borne out the hypothesis. Building on another theme they also suggest that the value of league tables as a recruitment aid will rapidly diminish as students from strengthening recruitment markets ignore UniVanity rankings to pursue value and employment opportunities.

Between 2019/20 and 2020/21 the total number of students from India recorded by HESA was 84,555, an increase of 29,090 year on year. 54% of the increase (15,616) went to just 13 universities. Those ‘full offering’ universities growing by over 1,000 year on year to 2020/21 were all in the top ten for growth from 2018/19 to 2019/21. BPP University’s growth was noted last year and is included in the table below to emphasise the importance of institutions who position themselves as “building careers through education”.

	Volume growth 2019/20 to 2020/21	Volume growth 2018/19 to 2019/20
University of Hertfordshire	2355	1575
Ulster University	2040	1230
University of East London	1505	1710
BPP University	1485	1640
The University of Central Lancashire	1185	1180
Coventry University	1030	810

A couple of interesting features in the year-on-year comparisons is that the biggest year on year loser of students from India at -455 is De Montfort University (DMU) while Leicester University, in the same city, grew by 780. This could be a policy-led decision by De Montfort under its relatively new leadership or it might be that private recruitment partner Navitas has been able to help Leicester dominate over DMU’s pathway provider Oxford International Education Group. In another snippet of pathway related detail Study Group registered a loss of 595 students year on year from China while growing numbers from India by 230.

As in the previous years Russell Group universities made very little headway in increasing their numbers from India with the University of Glasgow’s +200 looking to be top of the pile. But unlike the previous year numbers from China have fallen away significantly for some. The table below shows the top ten for volume growth in the previous year compared to the latest HESA figures.

	Volume growth 2019/20 to 2020/21	Volume growth 2018/19 to 2019/20
Edinburgh	995	1410
Leeds	-335	1235
Southampton	-445	1190
Sheffield	400	1150
UCL	2975	1065
Manchester	2115	885
Birmingham	-430	860
Newcastle	-385	855
Kings College	1460	725
Nottingham	-750	725

This reinforces the potential for changes in recruitment markets making significant differences to the potential of individual universities to invest for the future. A stark example of this might be Nottingham where the Russell Group University of Nottingham (UN) lost 750 students from China and had 75 fewer from India – a net loss of 825. Nottingham Trent University (NTU) saw numbers from China decline by 95 but those from India up by 140.

At one level this could be an interesting test for private pathway partner Kaplan who service both universities. But more fundamentally level its worth reflecting that NU’s tuition fee for a Management PGT degree is £24,500 compared to NTU’s £18,000. As a value proposition it may be that the extra 36% on the price is simply not justifiable to a student who is self-funding. It is also reasonable to consider that UN’s decline in Chinese enrollments may be a feature of individuals choosing not to transfer from the campus in China during COVID and may right itself in time.

It seems difficult to argue that the driving force of the India market is not going to have a growing impact on the UK higher education scene. Universities that have long relied on their historical status and ranking to persuade wealthy, brand conscious students to enrol may find that self-funded students whose main ambition is to work in the UK after studying are less easy to lure. Price points and graduate outcomes could become far more powerful signals than whether the THE, QS and AWUR algorithms choose to favour the rich, old and elitist.

Making Music or Chasing Placing

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

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

University of Southampton

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

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

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

Not In a League of their Own

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Things They Say

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

University of Exeter – Together we create the possible

University of Warwick – Excellence with purpose

University of Strathclyde – The place of useful learning

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

University of York – collaborating unconventionally

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

Summary

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

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

NOTES

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

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

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

US Rebound, Pathway Woes and A World of Opportunity

Watching the gyrations of international recruitment as the pandemic, global tensions and the rise of online opportunities work their way through the sector is enough to make anyone slightly queasy. There is still plenty to play for and with Australia looking ready to re-enter the fray in 2022 it is going to be a fascinating ride. But for now it’s time to digest the latest Open Doors figures and have a small look under the hood to see what might be happening in the pathway sector.

The Open Doors press release trumpeted 914,095 international students for the 2020/21 academic year which was a 15% decline year on year. But the inclusion of OPT (203,885) and non-degree students (21,151) doesn’t make a reasonable comparison with some other countries and when you strip them out the UG and Graduate student number is 689,069 – a 13% decline on the previous year. The 45.6% year on year decline in new student enrollment becomes a slightly more palatable 39.9% with the removal of non-degree students.

But the real excitement was around the bounceback in the 860 university snapshot survey conducted by the Institute of International Education (IIE). This suggested that new international students enrollments grew by 68% year on year to Fall 2021. The obvious point to make is that if 2020/21 international student enrollment (including non-degree) was 145,528 then a 68% increase would take it to 244,487 which is still a lower new student intake than any year since 2011.

It’s good news that several US universities provide open and near contemporaneous access to detailed levels of information on international student recruitment which allows us to look under the hood and down to the pathway level. It’s a state of affairs that Canada, the UK and Australia (which goes some of the way) should think of emulating. Meanwhile, Fall 2021 updates from INTO University Partnerships (IUP) partners Oregon State University and George Mason University show how tough some are still finding things at direct and pathway levels.

Oregon State University (OSU)

IUP’s corporate website has an encouraging graph which shows the OSU international student growth story all the way up to 2019/20 so a visual moving the picture forward to Fall 2021 seems a helpful contribution. The deterioration in undergraduate numbers is particularly evident as the university’s total enrollment falls to near 2012 levels and 2021 shows a further decline of 10% from 2020. A wider consideration going forward may be that if there is a shift in major source countries the balance of UG to graduate enrollments may change for all universities with significant consequences for year on year stability.

Source: Oregon State University Institutional Research Office

The situation for the INTO pathway operation at OSU is even more stark. From a high point in 2014 the trend has been almost wholly downwards with a 78.7% decline in enrollments to 319 in 2021. While the early stages of decline were in Academic English the most recent shrinkage has been in the core undergraduate and postgraduate intakes.

Source: Oregon State University Institutional Research Office

INTO George Mason University (INTO GMU)

INTO GMU saw reasonable growth in its first two years and peaked at an enrollment of 387 in 2016. Five years of decline has seen the 2021 intake down to 96 – a 75.2% fall from the peak with graduate and undergraduate numbers following similar paths. INTO University Partnerships (IUP) July 2020 accounts show that INTO GMU’s level of debt to IUP had grown from £566k to £1.896m so it will be interesting to see how the 2021 annual report looks.

Source: GMU Office of Institutional Research and Reporting

To be fair and reasonable the announcement of the deal between IUP and GMU anticipated that the venture would add 1,000 international students to the university over five years. In Fall 2014 the university’s census recorded a headcount of 2,136 non-resident aliens on GMU’s US campuses and by Fall 2019 that had risen to 3,247 so the original mission was accomplished. The numbers for the pathway suggest that direct recruitment will have helped that along and tracking what happens next will be fascinating.

It’s difficult not to note that IUP, the pioneer of joint venture pathways, has had a bumpy few years with partnerships in the UK and US falling by the wayside. Executive chairman, John Latham left the business on 31 October after being at IUP since April 2016 and just a few months after new Chief Executive, Olivia Streatfeild, was appointed around June this year. INTO the Great Wide Open suggested some of the strategic issues the business faces with the suggestion that it “needs to establish some renewed momentum if it is to fulfil the promise of its early days of innovation, creativity and energy.”

Outside, the CEO and Chief Recruitment Officer, the IUP leadership team has been in place for five years or longer. It’s a period that has seen six joint ventures close, three in the US and three in the UK, with little to match the growth of Shorelight in the US, no new UK partners and the recent addition of University of Western Australia in beleaguered Australia. There are plenty of adjustments in the financial reporting but one measure of performance might be Total Comprehensive Income at Group level which looks to have moved from £8m to £12m over the period.

With the US and UK governments setting out to support ambitious growth targets and a reawakening of student mobility there should be good opportunities for nimble operations with a good foothold in key markets to move forward. New operators and established companies, particularly in the UK, are showing that universities are still looking for support and Shorelight’s recent announcement of partnership with Austin College suggests there are opportunities in the US. To borrow from Sherlock Holmes “the game’s afoot” but whether the answer is “elementary” remains to be seen.

Note: The data is gathered from public sources and referenced as necessary. In the event that there is a misinterpretation or error I am always happy to make amendments if approached with appropriate, verifiable information from an authoritative source.

It’s Only Just Out of Reach*

It’s always fun to write something that challenges current orthodoxy. It is not about being right all the time but stimulating debate brings the potential for creative solutions and better solutions for students and society. There is also the interesting spectacle of people defending the status quo and thinking nothing can or will ever change.

Recently, Louise Nicol and I co-authored a piece for University World News which exhorted the UK to ‘make hay’ while the sun of a benevolent international student environment shone down. In the face of a beleaguered Australia, an overwhelmed Canada and a United States where every month brings a new twist or turn, it’s time to seize the day. Or, as the UK Prime Minister could possibly say the UK needs to prenez le grip et donne nous the students.

The suggestion in the article was that the UK should not be thinking about being second in the world for international student recruitment but, specifically, “how and where can we be first?”. Illustrating the potential was the Education International Cooperation Education Group survey which found, for the third consecutive year, that the UK achieved favoured status – something previously held by the United States. It also noted that this year UG applications from India were up 30%, with the growth firming up as later data showing placed applicants up by the same percentage.

This led the authors to suggest that the UK Government target of 600,000 international students by 2030 should be revised to 750,000. It’s a big number but UCL added over 7,000 international students in the four years to 2019/20 and there are more than 150 degree awarding institutions in the UK. A further 240 colleges in the UK provide complete courses leading to recognized UK degrees so the additional students could be spread even further.

Around the Corner

Even if it sounds a stretch target there are a range of data points to suggest what might be possible if there was the will. If the proportion of international students studying for degrees in the UK was 33% of the total enrolled (UCL is at 53%) there would have been 844,000 of them in 2019/20. A 44% increase on the 556,625 international students in UK universities in 2019/20 (including EU students), growth which Australia managed between 2016 and 2019, would take the number to 802,540. All of this is without counting the 432,000 students doing UK degrees outside the country which means that nearly 1 million students around the globe are already studying for awards from UK institutions.

It was, however, suggested by one respondent that “…the reality is the UK can never be #1. One of many reasons – institutional capacity”. Fans of Maradona, Berra and Smith might agree more with Yoda’s wisdom that “size matters not” and I wondered what it would really take for the UK to overhaul the US as the leading international student recruiter. There are several ways of measuring it but it’s surprising how close a race it could be.

First thing to say is that the Open Doors press release and headline figures for US international student enrollment embellishes the actuality. You can remove 223,539 Optional Practical Training (OPT) that are included (because study is generally prohibited or incidental) and 58,201 non-degree entries from the 2019/20 total of 1,075,496. That leaves 793,756 UG and Graduate students which is below the numbers noted in the ambitious growth UK scenario noted above.

Next point is that the US has been in a period of decline and Open Doors gives a number of 225,239 new UG and Graduate enrollments in 2019/20. HESA indicates that the UK enrolled 319,825 first year non-UK students that year, with 255,710 being non-EU so it was ahead on new degree entry international students. Continuing to close the gap at the rate of 30,000 a year would see the UK ahead of the US within eight years.

It seems reasonable to suggest that the engine of US growth for the past ten years has been Chinese students but that the coming ten years will bring different motivations and constraints. A four-year undergraduate and two-year postgraduate system may be less attractive for international students who are anxious to get their degree and move on to work in the country of study. In this respect the UK length of degree study has an advantage and its recently activated right to two years post study work is more accessible than the US options.

India is likely to become the most important indicator as China’s demographics and attitudes change. It’s early days but in the year to the end of June 2021 the UK issued 62,500 student visas for India – a rise of around 30 per cent on the previous year while a comparative figure for the US seems to be about 55,000. These numbers suggest that the UK was ahead by 12.8% – a winning margin that would increase the world long jump to over 10 meters from its current standard of under 9 meters.

Maybe Just by Holding Still

It is true that the US has over 4,000 degree granting institutions so its capacity is extensive. But it is more expensive; studying often takes longer; post study work is complex; there is a reputation in recent years for being less than welcoming and the lingering uncertainty of a different political viewpoint dominating in a few years. The recent climate and the prospects were considered so poor that at least 18 US pathway operations closed in the past three years despite being operated by experienced companies that recruit over 15,000 international students a year in the UK.

The scale of the decline in the US pathway operations has been brutal and is no better illustrated than INTO’s troubles at Oregon State University where an enrollment of 1,496 in Fall 2014 fell to 809 in 2019/20. The US universities that have made significant progress in international recruitment and maintained momentum during the difficult recent years have invested over the long term to build infrastructure and expertise. But, there seems no real evidence of a widespread, concerted attempt by the majority of US universities to do what is necessary to materially increase the number of international students they attract.

Meanwhile, the UK is rubbing its hands with glee at the recent news that the THRIVE Act could dissuade colleges from using international agents. The Center for China and Globalization (CCG) has noted worsening China/USA relations impacting student choices and there seems little reason for agents, already under pressure from the rise of aggregators, to give preference to a country that has always been lukewarm to their role in student recruitment. The M Square Media (MSM) agent survey published in early 2021 showed the depth of the problem that has to be overcome.

None of this is to say that the US, with its breadth and depth of quality institutions, cannot find its way back towards a position of substantial growth in the international student arena and remain number one for total volume. But having capacity and wanting the cash from tuition fees is unlikely to be enough to compete effectively against countries that are hungry for success, offer easy routes to post-study work, make citizenship a realistic goal, and which are not likely to fundamentally alter the rules of the game with every change of Government. Neither does it mean that the UK can’t aspire to dominate markets where its quality, variety, value, visa policies and record of engagement with local agents, schools and universities makes it a safer bet.

NOTES

* All headings and sub-headings are derived from the song “Something’s Coming” from the irresistible West Side Story which celebrates the 60th anniversary of its release on film this year. For my money Leonard Bernstein and Stephen Sondheim created the finest musical ever committed to film. (Music by Leonard Bernstein, lyrics by Stephen Sondheim. © 1956, 1957 Amberson Holdings LLC and Stephen Sondheim. Copyright renewed. Leonard Bernstein Music Publishing Company LLC, Publisher.)

Image by Peggy und Marco Lachmann-Anke from Pixabay

Is a new Dark Age beckoning for higher education take up?

Louise Nicol and Alan Preece First published in University World News, 29 September 2021

Many believe that going to university is a rite of passage and that young people and their parents will always make sacrifices for it.

For years the Grand Tour of Europe was similarly considered an educational and social milestone for young, privileged men to complete their education, but its attraction waned.

When technology made rail and sea travel accessible, Thomas Cook aggregated tourists on package holidays and rich young men lost their interest in neo-classical culture: the Grand Tour gave way to the “Cook’s Tour”.

Enabling technology, applicant aggregation and a growing dissatisfaction with educational outcomes are with us today. There is no reason that one generation’s rite of passage won’t become another’s dead-end junction and some warning signs are already showing.

It is possible to speculate on how the educational enlightenment of the past 70 years could mark the beginnings of a new dark age.

It’s just not worth it

A February 2021 House of Commons Briefing in the UK showed part-time entrants to university had collapsed from 470,000 in 2009/10 to 235,000 in 2019/20. The number of “white working-class boys” going to university continued to fall in 2021, with acceptances down 9.9% since 2014.

Across the Atlantic in the United States, higher education enrolment has fallen by an average of 1.67% per year since 2010.

Rumblings of discontent have been tracked in the US, with the Pew Research Center and Gallup finding declining confidence in higher education since 2015.

Some parts of the political spectrum are markedly more sceptical than others, but even where there is support, it has fallen in recent years.

A survey by the Bipartisan Policy Center and Association of American Colleges and Universities found that 29% of US adults did not think a college degree was “worth it”.

A OnePoll survey of UK postgraduates in 2021 found 46% did not think their university education was worth the money and over 30% did not need a degree to do their current job.

The Harris Poll in 2020 found 60% of student loan debtors in the US said their degree was not worth the student loan debt they had taken on. Whether it is the general public or the graduating class – scepticism is evident and increasing.

Government views are also shifting with the UK removing the long term ambition of 50% of young people participating in higher education and calling it an “absurd mantra”.

When an education minister says that university education is not what the individual or country needs, is “low value” and carries an “inbuilt snobbishness” it is difficult to see why the public should keep the faith.

All at a time when young people are graduating into a post-pandemic world which has brought new uncertainty to their first steps on the career ladder.

Zombie Gen Z to the Alpha Dawn

Generational shifts take time and if the average age of a new parent is around 28, we are seeing the last of Generation X’s (1965 to 1980) children going to higher education.

Those parents, along with the media and successive governments, told Gen Z (1997 to 2012) that a degree was the route to a career and a better life. Maybe that is why Gen Z didn’t question the aspirational mindset society encouraged when university was effectively free in the UK and you could even get a grant to cover living costs.

But the last of the Millennials, Gen Y (1981 to 1996), are finding out that traditional graduate industries are embracing the digital revolution and squeezing out many of the first steps on the career ladder. Economic indicators point to young people today being worse off than their parents, unable to get into the housing market and reliant on the bank of mum and dad until well into their twenties. There is no reason to believe that the situation is going to improve any time soon.

Gen A (born from 2012), the children of Millennials, will be at undergraduate entry age around 2030, just as the demographic boom of the 2020s starts to go against UK universities.

A disenchanted Gen Y might be regretting the return on their own education investment and could advise Gen A to consider one of the many different paths available to them.

The bank of grandad and grandma (Gen X) will not stretch far enough to have much influence as health costs rise, life expectancy increases and the Asian century shifts the world’s economic centre of gravity.

Government is unlikely to help, as unpaid student debt in the UK is already £160 billion and forecast to grow to £560bn by 2050.

The Higher Education Policy Institute or HEPI has already suggested that students should start paying back their loans at a lower income threshold, which looks like both a cost saving to Government and an acceptance that graduate earnings are going nowhere fast.

Alternatively, the Augar recommendations could be adopted in full and domestic tuition fees slashed from £9,000 to £7,500, but even if this does come to pass Gen A could face the prospect of graduating with a large amount of student debt, that they start paying off earlier, at interest rates higher than today’s historic lows.

Right now, in the UK you seem to have more chance of driving a lorry than you do of obtaining a place on a graduate training scheme.

Much has been written about the “Future of Work” becoming more skilled by 2030, probably sooner. Whilst there is much evidence pointing towards a demand for graduate skills as a result of the fourth industrial revolution, what’s to say you cannot be trained on the job by your employer whilst earning, as opposed to taking three or four years out of the workforce to go to university?

Logistics companies, for instance, are likely to be willing to train people on the job and do a deal with Coursera or the next generation of online operators to upskill young people.

With the chance of learning a skill, having their education paid for and earning three years’ salary, the attraction of university life may be less evident to Gen A, particularly when they have grown up being told that employers see online degrees as the equal of in-person study.

Perceptions of degrees as the only gateway to a world of opportunity and a comfortable income may also come under increasing pressure. Research by the Higher Education Statistics Agency or HESA and Warwick University has suggested that in the UK, on average, graduates born in 1970 (GenX) earned 19% more than non-graduates by the age of 26, compared to graduates born in 1990 (GenY) who only earned 11% more.

The UK’s Office for National Statistics or ONS says that 36.6% of all graduates but 45.4% of recent graduates (a figure that rises to 59% in Liverpool) are working in non-graduate jobs while, in the US, it is estimated that 33.8% of all graduates are in jobs not requiring a degree.

28 years later

It may seem fanciful to look even further forward, towards what generational changes may have occurred by 2045, but it is already 24 years since Tony Blair’s pledge to make university a reality for 50% of young people in the UK.

Society seemed in favour of the idea at the time, but by 2010 the Association of Graduate Recruiters (AGR), whose 750 employer members recruited 30,000 graduates a year, was already calling for the target to be scrapped because it devalued degrees.

The current Government’s rejection of the target may be a watershed moment that reverses the trend for the coming 25 years.

It all leads to an intriguing and troubling proposition. A major indicator that someone will go to university is that at least one of their parents did, but if parents begin to counsel their children against attending we will be heading into totally new territory and a possible downward spiral.

University-educated parents actively briefing their children against going to university would be a cultural disruptor that makes full-time, in-person university attendance the exception rather than the norm.

Louise Nicol is founder of Asia Careers Group SDN BHD. Alan Preece is an expert in global education, business transformation and operational management and runs the blogging site View from a Bridge.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

International students: UK must make hay while the sun shines

Louise Nicol and Alan Preece First printed in University World News 18 September 2021

Champagne glasses were raised at the PIEoneer Awards in London’s Guildhall on 3 September, a sparkling event where many higher education colleagues were able to mingle face to face in the United Kingdom for the first time in almost two years. The event was directly followed by the release of the Universities UK International (UUKi) and IDP Connect paper, “International Student Recruitment: Why aren’t we second? Part 2”.

This was not meant to throw a damp blanket over the celebrations but was rather a dose of reality as hangovers subsided. In truth, the reality is that the UK is probably already second, given that one of their main competitors, Australia, is on the ropes and the paper does not criticise a lack of ambition in the government’s plan to attract 600,000 international students by 2030. It is time for the sector to be more ambitious and answer the question: How and where can we be first?

Despite the challenges of this year, UK higher education has emerged from the global pandemic largely unscathed in contrast to the competition. International student numbers were challenged in 2020-21, but applications and acceptance data from UCAS is hard proof that the UK in 2021 is an attractive and welcoming destination for international students. Despite political tensions, the UK’s relationship with China seems to have weathered the storm, something which cannot be said for Australia, Canada or the United States.

The UK is the leading destination for Chinese students this year and that is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. An Education International Cooperation Group survey found, for the third consecutive year, that the UK achieved favoured status – something previously held by the United States. Nearly 30% of students preferred Britain, 24.5% favoured the US and 16.5% chose Australia, with Canada 15.8% coming in fourth.

There’s further good news for the UK, with applications from India up 13% and we see a significant jump in applications from emerging markets – for example, Nigeria is up 83% and Pakistan is up 53%. When one considers deferrals from 2020-21 and record UK applications to university for this academic year, all in the garden looks rosy for UK institutions. Furthermore, when one looks at UK population data, the next nine years could see a record number of 18-year-olds looking to enter higher education.

There has, of course, been a dramatic fall of 57% in European Union enrolments in the UK following Brexit, due to the fact that EU students are now subject to international tuition fees. While reduced European numbers have hurt diversity and quality, we tend to concur with Nick Hillman at the Higher Education Policy Institute, who predicted way back in 2017 that Brexit would not be a disaster for UK universities. Hillman suggested that, in the medium to long term, UK universities are likely to benefit from increased revenue from European students paying the same international fees as their non-EU compatriots.

Universities will need as much international fee income as they can get their hands on to smooth any bumps in the road caused by the possible and, in our view likely, implementation of the proposal from the Philip Augar review of tertiary education funding that domestic tuition fees should be reduced to £7,500 (US$10,400). If this is the case, even if EU enrolment is reduced by 50%, EU students will be paying almost double the domestic tuition fees, which will compensate for the loss in numbers, if not diversity, on UK campuses.

Long-term challenges – and solutions

But the higher education sector would do well to heed the advice that first appeared in writing in John Heywood’s 1546 book on English proverbs – “make hay while the sun shines”.

By the time they get to 2030 the number of domestic 18-year-olds will begin to decline and, long before then, the Australians and New Zealanders will have fought back from their self-imposed exile. Anyone who remembers how the Aussies saw a decrease of more than 100,000 international enrolments from 2009 to 2012 won’t forget how they bounced back with an increase of 370,000 in the following seven years.

No doubt America will be back in the international game, having suffered from a declining domestic college-aged population and the hangover of the Donald Trump administration. We already see the beginnings of this. Kamala Harris’s recent trip to Southeast Asia indicates the pivotal role that the US sees ASEAN playing in future economic development and growth. One can also not bet against Canada, whose proactive education policies linked to migration will play a key role in international student mobility for the foreseeable future.

So, with resurgent international student enrolments and a runway of nine years until the boom in 18-year-old home students falls away, what should the UK be doing to establish and maintain a strategic advantage?

First, we need robust, representative, time-series data on international student outcomes. Most students will still return to their home country after study and it is a shocking indictment that the Higher Education Statistics Agency, Jisc and the Office for Students have been unwilling or unable to collect appropriate records.

Most students taking advantage of post-study work opportunities in the UK will also return home and the UUKi and IDP Connect research shows that post-study work can advantage them as they build their careers. Unfortunately, at the present time there is a total lack of insight as to how it advantages them, with no data on career outcomes and progression or the return on investment of a UK degree over an international graduate’s lifetime.

Second, the government needs to encourage and support the sector in building its soft power overseas. Global Britain should not be about a defensive island nation but about a new type of worldwide superpower that is linked with business and politics through smart graduates who recognise the quality of education they received.

Data again is the key. Government and institutions need to fully understand the strength of the UK international alumni network and utilise its links with industry to drive inward investment and international trade. The UK’s head start in transnational education offers a massive advantage if it exploits it effectively.

Thirdly, we need to throw off constraints and minimalist thinking. Make the target 750,000 international students and introduce the sound and sensible measures proposed by UUKi and IDP Connect, but also bring together establishment doyens and a new breed of innovative thinkers and actors – “a brains trust” that understands what it takes to be internationally ambitious.

Brexit was meant to be about taking back control rather than ceding ground and our universities offer the opportunity to launch global activities from a position of authority and excellence.

The late American writer and humourist Lewis Grizzard is credited with popularising the phrase: “Unless you’re the lead dog, the scenery never changes.” What the UK really needs to do is change the scenery through bold strategic action.

We should define metrics – the best graduate outcomes, the strongest transnational education, the fastest growth and others – which allow us to compare and benchmark our relative performance. But we should also strike out to be first in every market possible as well as at the top of comparable measures.

It is the first time in a decade that the UK has had this chance and the hay is there for the making.

Image by pasja1000 from Pixabay

INTO THE GREAT WIDE OPEN*

It’s always difficult to know when news is official and when it’s a false start and a case in point is the appearance then disappearance of a new Chief Executive Officer for INTO University Partnerships (INTO) over the course of a few days last week. It would be invidious to name names publicly at this point but one day the INTO corporate website had a picture and biography then a day later it was gone. It all happened so quickly that I was pleased to have a conversation with a colleague who had seen the website and could also name the individual.

There doesn’t appear to have been a press announcement about the appointment, but on Wednesday 16 June, the site also had INTO’s co-founder John Sykes listed as Deputy Chief Executive and VP of UK Operations so there seemed to be a nascent structure in place. More curious is that all of INTO’s pages related to people – and they were extensive – went missing and remain so on Wednesday 23 June. If you click on the link to Our People it takes you to a bland page about Global Reach – Global Impact, the Leadership Team area on Corporate Information is a desert and the Meet Our North American Development Team section is as blank as untrodden snow.

Any official and authoritative explanation is welcome and I’m happy to provide an update if it is forthcoming. Perhaps the wider site needed a major refreshing but if so it would be reasonable to see the Marshall Student Center and Colorado State University imagery coming down because those joint ventures have closed. Anyone who has had responsibility for keeping websites up to date know that it is not for the faint-hearted and requires constant vigilance. Using collateral from partnerships that have ended feels a little like the corporate equivalent of carrying a torch for a childhood sweetheart.

The claim of 30 university partnerships in the UK and US also does not square with the logos of nine US partners and nine UK partners. The relationship with Chinese universities appears to have disappeared from the corporate site but the INTO student site still has opportunities for study at Nankai University. It’s all pretty confusing.

Only time will tell if the lack of information about leadership reflects a new approach to privacy, a major update or a pending restructure of significant proportions but it’s a good moment to review the task facing a new CEO if or when they are appointed. Partnership growth has stalled, online capability appears to be behind the curve and the main competition has forged ahead in both areas. It seems a long way from the growth proposition that encouraged Leeds Equity Partners to invest £66m ($105.8m) for a 25% stake in the business back in 2013.

Over the past two years INTO has seen the end of joint ventures at the University of Gloucestershire, Newcastle University London and Glasgow Caledonian University in the UK as well as Marshall University, Colorado State University and Washington State University in the USA. The company invested in School Apply in early 2020 and closed it a year or so later.

The INTO Annual Report for the year ended 31 July 2020 was for a year before the full impact of the pandemic was felt on 2020/21 enrolments and suggested little growth. Adjusted turnover (which removes discontinued operations) was up 3% to £202k while adjusted EBITDA fell 9.1% to £26m. Overall, the intercompany debt from joint ventures to INTO had increased by around £8m to £44m with the Centre’s closing listed as debtors to the tune of around £11m.

After entering the pathway market with a ground-breaking joint-venture model at the University of East Anglia in 2006, INTO leveraged its model with great initial success in the US at Oregon State University from 2008. There have been no new partners in the UK since the University of Stirling in 2014 and the most recent pathway additions in the US was Hofstra University announced in January 2019. Shorelight adopted many aspects of the INTO model and has forged ahead to be the dominant partner of American universities since its founding in 2013. Long-term players like Kaplan, CEG, Navitas and Study Group and upstarts like QA Higher Education and Oxford International have scooped up the most recent UK university pathway partnerships.

INTO’s purchase of SchoolApply may have been the start of a foray into the world of online delivery but it is no longer active and there is little evidence of significant advances in this area. This is at a point where Study Group is moving forward with Insendi, Kaplan Open Learning has online partnerships with Essex and Liverpool, CEG Digital has an established stable of partners and even Oxford International has been making waves with its Digital Institute. In the US, Shorelight has made a great deal of its delivery through the Shorelight Live platform and appears to be repositioning as a business delivering technological solutions to student problems.

One way of looking at things might be to suggest that the reduction in partnerships has been a deliberate step by INTO to clean up some joint ventures that had struggled to make headway in a competitive market. The growing level of indebtedness from these joint ventures to INTO might suggest that they were not making adequate progress but it does seem as if several decisions were university driven. The latest closures are part of history that includes the closures of partnerships with St George’s, University of London, and UEA London which undermines the original notion of long-term joint ventures providing greater stability than third-party pathway providers.

It’s something of a strategic head-scratcher and the loss of academic ‘supply’ comes at a tipping point where both the US and UK are demonstrably back in the game as far as international student demand is concerned. The lack of a viable online option seems to put INTO at a disadvantage in delivering to a market where increased flexibility and option has become the norm and is likely to grow in future years.

Perhaps there is a mega-deal on its way and one might guess that Leeds Equity Partner would be pleased to find a way to realise some return after eight years of a holding position. A possible merger with Shorelight to become a demonstrable lead player in the US seems a long shot but the operating models have some similarities and the online expertise may bring energy to INTO’s portfolio. Or maybe this is the moment where a stable group generating solid if unspectacular EBITDA could be taken back into 100% ownership by INTO’s founder, Andrew Colin.

It’s all speculation but for an outside observer INTO needs to establish some renewed momentum if it is to fulfil the promise of its early days of innovation, creativity and energy. There’s been substantial investment in talent at the top level and perhaps a new CEO is the final piece in the jigsaw. Only time will tell.

Image by Anemone123 from Pixabay

* Fans of the mighty Tom Petty will know that Into The Great Wide Open is co-written with Jeff Lynne and charts the progress of Eddie as he “went to Hollywood, got a tattoo”, “made a record and it went in the charts” to the time “their A&R man said, ‘I don’t hear a single”. It’s the old story of “rebel without a clue”, to overnight success, to uncertainty when “the future was wide open”.

Amendment on 1 May 2023: The earlier version of this blog suggested that Andrew Colin, founder of INTO, might take the business “private”. It has been amended to clarify that this was intended to suggest he might choose to take it 100% back into his sole ownership

Do Aggregators Match Up?

There’s significant interest in the higher education community about the rise of websites claiming to match students to degree programmes and what they might mean for student choice. The websites and public comments of these aggregators are strong on claims about transparency, choice and putting the interests of students first. This blog gets close and personal with a couple of websites of main players and gets granular enough to suggest that there might be room for improvement.

As a disclaimer I should note that, despite a philosophical preference for all education to be free, I appreciate the value that private investment can bring to expanding choice and opportunity. If investors can employ people and make a return while offering good value to students, it seems to me to be an acceptable trade off. I also have no reason to disbelieve the claim of aggregators that they aim to make global student choice easier and more accessible.

To ease the flow of the blog I have put a note of search terms used at the bottom of the text. As with all research there is an element of subjectivity in my choices but they serve to explore some points about the way the system works. The two operators chosen reflect their scale and profile rather than any value judgement about their quality compared to other operators in this increasingly crowded space.

Before plunging into that detail there are a couple of general points that emerge from looking at several aggregator websites:

– The word ‘partner’ occurs often without a full explanation of what the relationship is or what due diligence has been done to ensure quality or appropriateness. There is usually even less insight into the nature of the commercial relationship with their partners and the ways that this might skew presentation of information.

An example of that the Studyportals Bachelorportal top level search* produced 839 courses on the ‘Our Picks’ list. The first 10 were the University of Lincoln and the first 253 were flagged as ‘Featured’. The site says, “the university partners with us for this programme to reach students like you”. Studyportals have confirmed that being featured represents ‘paid exposure services’ for the universities in question.

It is common for internet search engines to tell the user which results are adverts. But when an aggregator lists ‘Our Picks’ it might be taken to imply that they take some responsibility (other than being paid) for the selection. While Studyportals gives details about its organizational partners and its student partners it does not do so about university partners.

– There are many claims intended to satisfy students about the choice the site offers and the lure of counselling about those options. For example, ApplyBoard claims to have “built partnerships with over 1,500 primary, secondary, and post-secondary educational institutions, and work with 5,000+ recruitment partners”. It’s difficult to know the breakdown of these and the website gives no indication of how many universities in each of the four countries – Canada, USA, UK and Australia – can be searched on the site.

Using the ApplyBoard Quick Search and asking a broad query to study Business in the United Kingdom offered 10,000+ programs in 100+ “schools”. My count was of only 70 institutions named with the 100 being achieved through branch campuses – including the most, eight, from University of Law. At least 40 of the 100+ links led to pathway operations from Study Group, Kaplan, INTO, Navitas or CEG.

With over 140 degree bearing institutions in the United Kingdom it seems arguable that ApplyBoard is some way short of offering a critical mass of choice for students using the service. One of the arguments levelled against student recruitment agents has been that their choice is restricted to institutions who they have commercial terms with. The strength of this may be that they usually have the benefit of familiarization trips and visits from university or pathway staff to enhance the advice they give students. The extent to which an aggregator offers counselling advice based on direct personal knowledge of an institution may be an area for development.

To an extent none of that would matter if the much-vaunted machine learning, artificial intelligence and algorithms were providing good matching between the student and the university. A student would put their information into the system and it would throw out carefully calibrated responses that reflected the student’s personal needs as well as their academic capability. Testing across the aggregators is complex and cannot be consistent because search terms are rarely the same but a look at Apply Board and Studyportals gives some indication of what the student experience looks like. The analysis took place between 8 and 11 May.

Apply Board

Even for a native English speaker the process is tough to navigate so I decided to go with being a US citizen who had studied in the UK to A-level. After my experiment with a top-level query (discussed above) I filled out both the eligibility and school filters on the page to give a more precise search for a UK university**. It provided 1000+ programs at 45 schools but the results were less than inspiring.

As I wanted to go direct to a university BA degree programme it was unhelpful to find the Relevance list populating only with pathway operations or foundation courses offered by a university through another route. The top option on the list was “2-Semester Pathway – International Year One in Business and Management – Bachelor of Science – Business and Management (Year in Business)” at Royal Holloway’s International Study Centre run by Study Group. This suggests that the algorithm does its best but may not always reflect what students are searching for.

When I tried to view the list by the “school rank” option I presumed it would be indicative of university rankings although there was no source indicated. Given this expectation it was surprising to find the universities of Manchester, Durham and Lancaster further down the list than Anglia Ruskin University. There would be merit in clarifying what the ranking system is and also, what the progression rate to the university is if a pathway option is shown.

When I entered the same search terms for study in Canada (changing my visa status to Canadian Study Permit or Visitor Visa and the duration to a four-year bachelors) I got 25 schools and 139 programs with direct entry options at universities at the top. Presumably, this reflects the lower number of pathway operations in Canada or the strength of ApplyBoard connections in the country.

For the USA (visa status F1 and as a UK national) it was 91 schools and 1000+ programs but with INTO’s Undergraduate Pathway at George Mason University at the top and their two-semester business pathway at Suffolk University third on the list. Digging further down the list it became clear that the pathway operations were featured relatively heavily rather than the ‘direct admission’ I had searched for. This, couple with the UK experience, might suggest that pathway operators are early investors in the aggregator model in countries where they have a foothold.

Studyportals

The recent linking of Studyportals with Times Higher Education Student is one of the most apparent signs of league table compilers looking for ways to exercise their aggregator power over student interest. Studyportals pages currently appears to favour the QS World University Rankings as a yardstick for university ranking and it will be interesting to see if the allegiance shifts. It’s the sort of decision that reflects the impetus behind deciding what information to present to students and how transparent an aggregator is about who is paying to be represented.

A helpful feature is the ability to adjust the information received to reflect a currency of your choice and also the actual rate being charged for your nationality. This is particularly important for EU students who, in 2021, will be charged Home tuition fees by some UK universities rather than international fee rates. This is available on the home page but it might be better if elevated to make this more apparent – I totally missed it in my original analysis.³

I signed up and completed most of my profile in the Mastersportal*** (there is some personal information I preferred not to share). When I looked at the ‘Recommended for You’ section of my profile I was offered 18 programmes of which all 10 in the UK were through online delivery. This seemed to ignore my stated preference for on campus study.

There was no explanation of how these had been selected or favoured but three were from Nottingham Trent University. So, I returned to the main Masters portal to search for Business and Management at the top level and found that Nottingham Trent University was a ‘featured’ university. When I searched at this level with ‘on campus learning’ enabled the online NTU options disappeared.

Some Thoughts

The mystery shopping was not comprehensive or even exhaustive but serves to highlight some of the issues that emerge in a complex and dynamic sector where nuance can mean a lot. My insights are likely to be better informed than a non-native English-speaking student encountering the systems for the first time and the world of HE as a newcomer. My contention would be that the limitations of the systems and their biases could be made clearer to users.

On the upside, both sites were relatively easy to use and the links to information about the universities were generally well managed. I did not research aspects of the service that students pay for and it is possible that these would remedy some of the points I have highlighted. The volume of information on the sites is overwhelming and there would seem to be scope for agents to offer a service that moderates the information on behalf of students.

The sector is becoming familiar with operators showing quotes and testimonials from students who have done well through using the sites but this is a drop in the bucket compared to the volumes looking at them. It might be more interesting to know the extent to which they are mystery shopping their own sites (rather than drinking their own bathwater) with non-native English speakers. Students who have succeeded are a much more forgiving audience than those who did not make it through the system.

The march of the aggregators will not be disrupted and probably does bring benefits in offering greater accessibility to students. But the potential to overclaim coverage, distort perceptions of quality and act as a limiter of student choice rather than an enabler is obvious. As this part of the sector matures it is to be hoped that, as with recruitment agents, the best operators prevail and become the choice of most potential students.

It is also to be hoped that universities recognise that they have responsibilities when lending their brand names to third parties and that their very presence as part of an aggregator portfolio lends credibility to the entire endeavour. They may prefer the word ‘featured’ to something like ‘promoted’ or ‘advertised’ but they should accept that honesty and integrity in the way they are represented is their decision rather than that of the aggregator. For universities in the United Kingdom the option of making UCAS a wholly-owned, comprehensive and managed service for students remains an option that could become an exemplar of responsible self-regulation.

NOTES

1. As with all my blogs I am happy to have authoritative comment on the outcomes and where these add value or correct a clear error will reflect any resulting changes. The purpose of doing the work and writing it up is to try and improve things for students while making observations that colleagues in the sector might consider.

2. Search Terms Used

*Business and management in the UK, 3-year, full-time on campus, Bachelor of Arts.

**US Citizen, educated to high school level in the UK with B/C GCE A-level grades, with a Tier 4 UK student visa and 9 IELTS in all categories. I confirmed my interest was direct admission to UK universities for a three-year bachelors in business, management or economics starting between August and November 2021. I placed no constraints on tuition, living costs or admission fee.

***UK citizen resident in the US. Interested in Masters level study in Business and Management in the UK starting in between 6 months and one year. Preference for attendance on campus. Tuition fee and living cost budget set at 150,000 (so not a barrier). Bachelor’s degree in Business and Management securing a 2:1. With 5 years of work experience. Native speaker English level.

3. In the original of this piece it was indicated that rates on the Portal were quoted in Euros and showed international rates and that this might have particular implications for EU students looking to study in the UK (where some institutions have chosen to offer EU students lower tuition fees than other international students in 2021). This has been removed to recognize that at the base of the home page of the Portal you are able to adjust your results to reflect the actual rate being charged and can do so in a denomination of your choice. If this information is put into your individual account it is also adjusted.

Image by Hier und jetzt endet leider meine Reise auf Pixabay aber from Pixabay

Canadian Pathway Drive – Back to the Future?

Interesting times in Canada as Navitas and others try to muscle in on international student interest in the country’s lure of immigration and citizenship. The latest to cross my desk is in Newfoundland and Labrador where Memorial University of Newfoundland (MUN) looks to be in discussions with Navitas. A response to the proposition from the university’s alumni network is a little like being transported back to the union and faculty resistance to UK pathways in the early 2000s.

It’s also a good moment to look at the prospects for pathway growth in Canada over the coming years. This is about the likelihood of resistance by faculty being successful and the possibility that the private operators may get diverted. History has also shown that, for either side, short term gains and potential may not always convert into long term success.

A Canadian Problem or Opportunity?

The scant MUN’s Minutes of Vice President’s Council from October 2020 confirm that a Pathway Proposal feasibility with Navitas has been ‘endorsed’ by the Council. A response by the MUN Faculty Association Executive (MUNFA) at the end of March 2021 highlights seven ‘concerns’ as a sighting shot. To borrow from a son of Canada one side of the discussion might be “rockin’ in the free world” but the other are suggesting “there’s a warnin’ sign on the road ahead”¹.

Drivers behind MUN’s interest may be varied but the economic case for international recruitment is likely to be high on the list. From 2012/13 to 2019/20 it saw operating budget cuts of $39.5m along with further capital budgets being lost. Since 1999 the provincial government has had a tuition fee freeze for students from the province but out of province and international students can be charged more.

Reports suggest this is a scenario that is also being played out in Ontario, Alberta and Manitoba as provincial government’s reduce funding for higher education. The conditions are ripe for pathway operators to find partnerships from hard-pressed institutions. Magnifying this attraction is the benevolent visa, work rights and immigration policies that has driven international student interest in Canada over recent years.

The Past In A Different Country

The MUNFA arguments are all very familiar to anyone who followed the progress of INTO University Partnerships (IUP) in the UK as it took its new 50/50 partnership model into discussions with potential partners in the early days. Much of the debate is played out in the media but another good source is the website of the University and College Union (UCU). There may be something for all sides to consider in the arguments made and what eventually happened.

The campaign against IUP at the University of Essex is well documented and laid out in a triumphant Fighting Privatisation Toolkit summary. It charts the story (from the UCU point of view) from first skirmishes in December 2007 to a university announcement in October that the teaching would be kept in-house. But as American baseball legend Yogi Berra told us, “It ain’t over till it’s over” and in 2017 the University announced a partnership for a ‘pathway college for international students’ with Kaplan.

Defences were also mounted at other institutions and some university management, for example at De Montfort, even expressed trenchant views about the potential dangers of private providers becoming partners. It was, however, only two years later (in 2013) that De Montfort, under ex-Vice Chancellor Dominic Shellard, teamed up with Oxford International Education Group for an international pathway college on campus.

It may be that INTO’s 50/50 partnership model with its associated terms was the real problem and later deals were modified to make them more acceptable to universities. But it is also true that some institutions in the UK have successfully developed alternative approaches to providing pathways for international students. Institutions that have moved so rapidly to deliver universal online education in the past year might care to consider how they apply that agility to accepting international students who are short of requisite language skills.

Lessons from the US and UK for Canada

UK universities have, to a greater extent, fully embraced the pathway model with long established groups Kaplan, Study Group, Navitas and Cambridge Education Group having around 50 universities in their portfolio. Newer players such as QA Higher Education, GUS and Oxford International are growing and well ranked universities continue to gravitate towards private partners with Aberdeen, Cardiff, Aston, Southampton and Queen Mary all finding pathway partners in the past two years.

In the US, however, the story is quite different with many pathway closures in recent years from Navitas (5), Study Group (6), Cambridge Education Group (4) and INTO (3) more than counter-balancing Shorelight’s slowing growth in new partnerships. It’s always difficult to be certain from the outside what is driving a closure but it’s reasonable to assume that the decline in international students going to the US has made it less viable for the commercial partner to continue. At its worst that exit leaves a university with no infrastructure, no foothold in the market for international students and potentially a poor reputation overseas that will be difficult to overcome.

There are material differences in the number of institutions and the private/public make up of the university sectors in the two countries. It’s arguable that Canada is more like the UK in terms of numbers of institutions, it has a degree system that offers flexibility, and it is relatively inexpensive. But the progress for the pathway providers has been very slow and success may not come quickly enough to ensure rewards.

Riding the Roller Coaster

As the world emerges from the pandemic there is almost certainly going to be a renewed appetite for student mobility but it is a quite different higher education landscape to just two years ago. The US administration has changed, the UK has seen growth from India outpacing that from China, and Australia, while wounded, is looking for ways to recover. Past performance is no guarantee of future results should be a watchword for pathways looking to Canada as much as caveat emptor should be a guide for Canadian universities talking to private providers.

Colleagues have speculated on Canada as being in the ‘squeezed middle’ as the US and UK open their doors more widely to students. It may also be of interest that while the numbers of scholars in the US from China were lower in 2015/16 than 2019/20 the number from India was slightly higher. There is also every reason to believe that the attractiveness of the US has already increased amongst potential students and this could pay big dividends as the country’s vaccination program increases pace.

The historical evidence from the UK, and to a lesser extent from the dash for growth of pathways in the US, is that resistance from faculty and friends of MUN may succeed in the short term but is futile over the longer term. It could, however, be enough for them to delay the seemingly inevitable because the private providers will turn their attention to other opportunities if the attraction of Canada begins to fade. Universities that have already signed on the dotted line may find that, as happened in the US, pathways are as willing to walk away as they were to sign up in the first place.

Notes

2. Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay