Tag: universities

PATHWAY, DEAD END OR TIME FOR A U-TURN?

August 2018 will be the fifth anniversary of Shorelight’s first partner, Bath Spa University in the UK, being announced with suggestions that the university would ‘see its overseas intake swell to around 2,000 students over the next four years.’. The four years would run from 2015/16 to 2018/19.

It seemed a good moment to look at the pathway market and what happens when relationships don’t  work out.  This is partly because we may be entering a period where the pathway sector has matured and circumstances make it ripe for realignment.  The stakes are high on all sides and the factors are particularly relevant to the UK and US where growth in pathways has been rapid and international student recruitment has been under substantial pressure.

As finances tighten university management is under more scrutiny and is likely to demand more in terms of targets and delivery from partners.  The consequences of a failing pathway are becoming increasingly difficult to hide as direct recruitment gets harder.  Providers have their own problems with unprecedented global pressures and ubiquitous competition.  Some may be reaching a point where optimising their portfolio is more important than simply adding or maintaining capacity.

In the UK a number of institutions have been following the University of Sheffield to see how the switch from one major private provider to another might work.  Loyalties are under pressure as university leaders who signed the deal move on and some pathway providers look to change hands after the glut of private equity investment from 2010 to 2014.  Pressure to perform has never been greater.

So, when a pathway becomes a dead-end there is every incentive for one or other party to make a U-turn.  Or, as Warren Buffett is quoted as saying, “Should you find yourself in a chronically leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be a more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks.”  And it doesn’t really matter if it’s a long-term contract (where remedies for under-performance are usually written in) or time for a tender after five years.

IT HASN’T ALWAYS ENDED WELL IN THE PAST
There is, of course, precedent and although closures can be hard to trace I have listed below those that I have uncovered in my research.  New partnerships are usually heralded with a fanfare and people smiling as they shake hands on a deal done. Unsurprisingly, a veil is drawn over partnerships that end and those that are public are usually dressed in anodyne media responses.

For both universities and providers that is unfortunate.  Considering and addressing failure is a good way of learning and often more informative than the bright, shiny case studies which are so popular as sales tools.  In my time with two leading universities with private providers and as COO and CEO with two providers I saw many factors that can make or break a partnership.  These are worth sharing.

I make no comment on the reasons for the ending of the relationships noted (but have referenced reports where available). Neither do I claim that this list is exhaustive and I would be interested in any other examples.  For organisations contemplating partnerships an open and honest discussion with those who have tried and moved on is probably worth as much as hours of expensive contract development.

Study Group
i) Stirling University (Opened 2007- Closed 2013) Source: QAA

INTO
i) University of East Anglia London (2010-2014) Source: THE)                                                                         ii) University of Stirling London (Opened 2014 – Closed 2015?)                                                                                     iii) St George’s University (Opened 2012 – closed 2017 Source: St George’s University Annual Report

Oxford International
i) Canterbury Christchurch (Opened 2015 – closed 2017?)

Kaplan
i) University of Utah (Opened 2010 – Closed?) ii)University of Sheffield (Opened 2006 – Closed 2015)

Navitas
i) Western Kentucky University (Opened 2010 – Closed 2016)
ii) Edinburgh Napier (Opened 2011 – due to close 2018)

PRIVATE PATHWAYS MAY NOT BE ACCESSIBLE OR GUARANTEE SUCCESS
UK universities with the greatest decline in overall international enrolments in the past five years often have no pathway partner or are relatively late to the party. Several of the non-aligned universities here have been actively seeking providers but there is, inevitably, caution from providers about taking on institutions that do not have underlying strength.

It remains to be seen whether some of the new partnerships can materially alter the trajectory of underperforming universities.  Sector sources suggest that Oxford International and the University of Bedfordshire are parting company and the provider is not currently listing this university on its website.

Table 1 – UK Universities With Greatest Decline In International Enrolments 2012/13 to 2016/17

Source: HESA (enrolments), QAA and University/Company websites

And that brings me full circle to Bath Spa and Shorelight. HESA data (supported by the University’s Annual Report narrative) showed strong growth in international recruitment from 2012/13 to 2014/15. In the first full year of the partnership with Shorelight (2015/16) there was a weakening of growth which was followed by declining international enrolments in 2016/17.  There is some way to go for the university to reach the anticipated 2,000 by 2018/19.

Table 2 – Bath Spa University International Enrolments 2012-13 to 2016/17

Source: HESA

Perhaps more troubling is that in December 2017 the THE reported that ‘figures available on (sic) Companies House show that Bath Spa Global – an international pathway college venture set up in 2014 in partnership with US firm Shorelight Education – has lost about £1.4 million in the three years to July 2016, while its parent company Bath Spa U has lost about £736,000 over the same period.’. The 2016/17 Financial Statement from Bath Spa showed international student income and numbers declining year on year and noted that the joint venture partnership, Bath Spa Global, ‘remains fragile’.  At the time of writing I can find no mention of Bath Spa University on Shorelight’s web-site and no current reference to Shorelight on the University’s site.

Winning And Losing In Global Recruitment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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