Tag: universities

US International Enrollments See the Light But Pathway Struggle Continues

It’s always a delight when there is a shaft of light that gives an insight into important issues like international student enrollment.  George Mason University (GMU) has made available a day by day view of preliminary enrollments1 which offers a near real time picture of what is happening at the university and its pathway partnership with INTO University Partnerships (IUP),  INTO Mason.  It probably gives a reasonable indicator of how US institutions and their pathways are faring as the pandemic unwinds and follows data points in the early part of 2022 including:

  • IEE Spring 2022 Snapshot where 65% of 559 institutions responding reported “an increase in their international student applications for the 2022/23 academic year”
  • a Wall Street Journal report showing the number of F-1 visas issued to Chinese students  dropped in the first six months of 2022 to 31,055 compared to 64,261 issued in the first six months of 2019
  • The Siasat Daily and others report that between January and May 2022 US consulates issued nearly 15,000 “F1 or student visas” to students in India – triple the number issued in 2022

Visa delays are still an issue but things are moving.  The question is how much and what are the implications.  GMU’s contemporaneous data gives some directions of travel.  There is still some time to go before official census data and the data does not provide country by country insights but the transparency is welcome.

Source data for the graphs below is on the GMU Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Planning website.  The graphs combines information on preliminary enrollment data for 2022 with year-by-year data from the normal census point in October of previous years.    

INTO Mason Pathway Struggles to Recover

Recruitment to INTO Mason has been struggling for several years and had dropped, before the pandemic, by 35% from 371 in 2017 to 241 in 2019.  Numbers enrolled halved during the two years impacted by the pandemic.  In a year where recovery might be anticipated the enrollments of 117 for Fall 2022 remain below those Fall 2020, less than half of 2019 and even further down on 2018.2

While the GMU data does not allow an analyse of enrollments by country it seems plausible to believe that declines in students from China contributed significantly to performance pre-pandemic and there is little sign of recovery.  It also seems likely that any growth in students coming to the US is largely made up of graduates who do not require pathway courses.  This would be consistent with previous suggestions that the changing market dynamics are likely to undermine the core pathway business model.

Note: Filter used was Fall enrollments, INTO Mason, US campuses, all students (Preliminary data for 2022 taken at 22 August, 2022 – shown as First day of classes)

Accelerated Growth in Direct Graduate Enrollment at GMU

Direct enrollment to GMU has taken a significantly different course.  From 2021 to the preliminary numbers in 2022, graduate enrollment has surged by 46% from 1641 to 2397.  While UG enrollment is still below 2019 the graduate growth has boosted overall enrollment of non-resident aliens to a six-year high of 3844.

This suggests that the opportunity to recruit has come in countries, such as India, where the majority of students are seeking a graduate course.  GMU presents the overall enrollment data in a way which includes INTO Mason numbers but it is clear from the graph above that the pathway cannot be responsible for the growth in recruitment.  There is no indication of the extent, if any, to which IUP’s direct recruitment efforts for GMU have supported this growth.   

Note: Filter used was Fall enrollments, ALL GMU US Campuses, non-resident alien. (Preliminary data for 2022 taken at 22 August, 2022 – shown as First day of classes)

Pandemic Escalates Debt Levels at Joint Venture

Each year, in its published annual report, IUP records the level of debt it is owed by its joint ventures.  In a single year near peak enrollment the INTO Mason joint venture did not owe anything but since then the level of debt has escalated and the first two years of the pandemic saw a significant growth in indebtedness.  A previous blog has shown the growing level of indebtedness of all of IUP’s US joint ventures (including the three that have closed in recent years).

Source: INTO University Partnership Annual Reports

A recent report from an IUP university partner in the UK suggested that the decline in its joint venture with IUP was so significant that there “will be no distribution in respect of 2020/21 nor for the next three years whilst the joint venture recovers”.  At INTO Mason the level of indebtedness appears to have grown by £1.5m a year in each of the pandemic years and there is little to suggest that INTO Mason’s enrollments this year will grow above those in 2020.  IUP has they have the opportunity to offset any problems in pathway performance with direct recruitment revenue streams but the scale of the challenge seems clear.    

No Miraculous Recovery

As noted in a previous blog, the changing international student recruitment picture is likely to fundamentally change the way that pathway operators develop sustainable revenue streams.  In the US, Shorelight has acted quickly to develop a direct recruitment partners and has significantly outstripped IUP in this regard.  With recovery in the traditional core market of Chinese undergraduates looking sluggish and increasingly unlikely to ever reach the heights of the growth years the strategic challenge is very real for all concerned.

There has been a longer-term malaise around IUP with recent changes at Board level and a developing “boots on the ground” strategy suggesting a shake-up is underway.  It comes off the back of a diminishing presence in both the US and UK which may be difficult to recover.  The route forward remains fraught with pitfalls and uncertainty.

The direction of travel at GMU reflects the more general emerging picture for the US. Graduate enrollments look strong but as the recent IDP annual report showed interest from China looks relatively weak. As suggested in my recent blogs, the new enrollment battleground is India and with Australia back in the game and hungry it’s going to be an interesting year.

Notes

  1. The Preliminary Daily Enrollment Reports and Dashboards carry data from 19 April 2022 to 25 August 2022 (as at 25 August).  Other Enrollments Reports carry an historical record taken at a Census date in October each year.
  2. INTO Mason accepts students at a number of intake points in the year but Fall enrollment is generally the largest intake and is the sole point of reference for this blog.

Image by Joe from Pixabay 

Soft Power or Hard Facts?

NOTE: This blog was updated on 24 August to include a table and brief commentary on additional countries, specifically those in the G20, and their Government leaders. The update reinforces the key points that almost none of the leaders of the most economically powerful countries in the world studied in a higher education institution outside their own country.

The recent HEPI blog on soft power reminded me that it is easy to get stuck in a world view and to simply repeat things without questioning their validity.  It’s even worse when this results in a league table and some cheap headlines which people never interrogate for underlying validity or worth.  The HEPI chart also has some oddities, such as listing some monarchs who have extremely limited executive powers and often stand apart from political, economic or social decision making.

While some may be comforted to see the UK coming second on the HEPI measure with 55 “world leaders educated in countries other than their own” there is a need for more rigour at a point when Global Britain is the mantra/lifebelt at a time of economic gloom.  When the UK Prime Minister goes to meetings with, say, the G7 are they really amongst friends with a common and lived sense of the value of a UK higher education?  The facts suggest not.

More troubling might be that of the top 15 countries by GDP in 2022 suggests that only two country leaders have any meaningful experience of higher education outside their own country.  Three appear to have ended their studies at undergraduate/military academy level.  This is a snapshot of the world leadership in August 2022 but I suspect that the notion of a well-travelled, multi-country education is relatively rare amongst the world’s most powerful political leadership.

In a world where nationalist politics appears to have taken an increasing grip this may be a passing phase and it would be reasonable to argue that this is a small section of the global political elite.  However, some would argue that economic realities shape most political decisions and so factors shaping the leadership of the countries with economic power is worth considering.  It is always best to make an effort to understand who you are dealing with.    

Table 1: Education of Political Leaders in Top 15 Countries by GDP  

CountryNameTitleUndergradPostgrad
United StatesJoe BidenPresidentUSUS
ChinaXi JinpingPresidentChinaChina
JapanFumio KishidaPrime MinisterJapanJapan
GermanyOlaf SchulzChancellorGermanyGermany
United KingdomBoris JohnsonPrime MinisterUKUK
IndiaNarendra ModiPrime MinisterIndiaIndia*
FranceEmmanuel MacronPresidentFranceFrance
ItalyMario DraghiPrime MinisterItalyUSA
CanadaJustin TrudeauPrime MinisterCanada 
South KoreaYoon Suk-yeolPresidentS KoreaS Korea
RussiaVladimir PutinPresidentRussiaRussia
BrazilJair BolsonaroPresidentBrazil 
AustraliaAnthony AlabanesePrime MinisterAustralia 
SpainPedro SanchezPrime MinisterSpainBelgium
IndonesiaJoko WidodoPresidentIndonesia 
*contested

Adding the five additional countries that make up the G20 does not make any difference to the overall findings. The meeting in Bali in November 2022 will feature heads of government that have enjoyed almost no cross-cultural influences at higher education level. If one strength of universities is intended to be that they offer a pathway for different cultures and influences to gel and gain understanding it is a route that appears to be firmly closed for those who make it to the top of country politics.

Table 2: Leadership of Additional Countries in the G20

Notes:

  1. Information on the senior figure in the structure of a country’s “executive” leadership is taken from public sources but it is acknowledged that power structures are more complex and authority seldom wholly resides in an individual.
  2. Information on the academic qualifications is taken from public sources and has erred on the side of benevolence.  One qualification is flagged as being publicly disputed.  Where there is no entry for a higher degree level the author has found no evidence of a qualification at that level.  Any amendments are gratefully received and will be corrected.
  3. It is recognized that public profiles are often manipulated so any other authoritative corrections are also welcome.

Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay 

Bread, Circuses and Clearing

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

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

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

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

No Safe European Home

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

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

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

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

China In Your Hand

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

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

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

Career Opportunities

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

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

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

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

Minding Your P and Us

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

Image by Arek Socha from Pixabay     

INTO THE OUT-DOOR?

Like most fledgling businesses, INTO University Partnerships (INTO) had some difficult moments in its early years. In March 2008,  Austin Mitchell MP raised the matter in a Parliamentary question why it had not filed financial records with Companies House and founder Andrew Colin said that the delay in submitting accounts was a “simple mistake.”  It’s not the sort of mistake you expect a £119m revenue company to be making 14 years later, so the apparent failure to file accounts on time for the joint venture with the University of East Anglia (INTO UEA llp) seems a reasonable moment for considering other possible reasons.

Companies House confirmed on 4 August that, “Upon checking the company record I can confirm that the LLP’s accounts for the period ending 31/07/2021 have not yet been received for filing at Companies House.”  This blog speculates without knowing the detail behind the late filing and it may turn out to be simply a matter of administrative failure.  Time will tell and I would be happy to provide an update if anyone with appropriate authority from the company or university contacts me with a plausible explanation.

At one end of the spectrum the failure may simply be down to bad planning and Companies House list fines starting at £150 for being a month late to £1500 for being six months over the filing deadline.  They do go on to say that “Not filing your confirmation statements, annual returns or accounts is a criminal offence – and directors or LLP designated members could be personally fined in the criminal courts.”  One would guess that it’s unlikely to get that far.

The delay does, however, raise the possibility that INTO and the University of East Anglia are in discussions about the future of the joint venture and are delaying the filing until a direction is clear.  It would require someone with appropriate accounting/auditing qualifications (which I don’t have) to fully explain the complexities of what needs to be declared in terms of timing (from balance sheet date to authorization for issue) and whether events are adjusting or non-adjusting.  Change would not, however, be unprecedented because recent history has seen INTO become 51% owners and take “significant control” of INTO Newcastle University LLP and new profit/loss sharing arrangements at INTO City LLP were noted in the 2020 accounts.

Slip Sliding Away

A previous blog noted the trajectory of INTO UEA’s student enrollments and the slide in the university’s international tuition fee revenue.  The parlous state of affairs at the joint venture was confirmed with the statement that there “will be no distribution in respect of 2020/21 nor for the next three years whilst the joint venture recovers and builds up surpluses for distribution.”  All that alongside a £7m loan guaranteed equally by both partners might be drivers of a discussion about the future.

The University’s Council meeting in October 2021 was advised by the Vice Chancellor that at that point it was falling short of recruitment targets by c1,000 students.  This might suggest that international enrollments were also not picking up and the feed through from the joint venture was not as hoped.  It all seems good fodder for the Council member who requested at the Council meeting the following month an executive summary of “what was keeping the VC awake at night.”

One other thing that might be on that list for both the University and the joint venture is that both look to be poorly positioned to seize the opportunities offered by India as the major growth market for the UK.  According to HESA data, UEA’s intake from India rose from 40 to 175 between 2016/17 and 2020/21 in a period when total Indian students in the UK rose from 16,900 to 84,555.  It is a period when UEA’s enrollment of students from China fell from 1,320 to 810.        

Winds of Change

The trail of INTO’s long term, joint venture model has been patchy and it has, arguably, not proved to be as responsive to university needs as the more traditional stand-alone pathway model.  In the UK five operational joint ventures have closed – INTO Glasgow Caledonian University (2020), INTO St Georges University (2017), INTO University of Gloucestershire (2019), INTO UEA London (2014), and INTO Newcastle London (2020).  In the US there have been closures at INTO Marshall (2019), INTO Colorado State University (2021) and INTO Washington State University (2021) as well as INTO St Louis becoming fully owned by INTO in 2021.

A recent blog noted the shift in Shorelight’s range of university relationships from joint-venture pathways oriented to direct recruitment.  INTO has not been as dynamic in making that move but the shifting sands and complexities are captured in the grid below.  This presumes that the University of East Anglia remains a joint venture pathway operation with the university.

 Joint Venture Pathway with UniversityPathways (wholly or majority owned)Direct Recruitment OnlyDirect Admit Affiliates*
US8128
UK5310
Australia1000

*Described as “American universities that offer more choices to international students who seek direct admission.”

The turbulence in international student recruitment is being felt throughout the sector and pathway operations are particularly sensitive to changes impacting the relatively small number of student that require extensive language support alongside academic study skills.  There are many examples of changing course portfolios, including International Year One, which reflect creative responses to new demands and developing visa scenarios to broaden the market for pathways.  It may be that the continuing need for flexibility brings an end to the long-term, deeply embedded, joint-venture vision that was considered by some to be an industry game-changer. 

Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay 

Love Island UK or Total Wipeout for International Students

The chaos around the resignation of the UK Prime Minister saw the country have three Secretary of State for Education in as many days.  While there is something deliciously ironical about someone called Cleverly holding the ball when the music stops (sic) it was less edifying to see the Under-Secretary for Education demoted to Minister of Skills, Further and Higher Education for giving the middle finger to the gathered press pack.  May be the first time that higher actually means lower but as someone recently said, “them’s the breaks.”

It leaves higher education in the hands of James Cleverly who might find himself replaced under a new Prime Minister in September.  He does not appear to have any previous experience of an education portfolio.  He is joined by Andrea Jenkyns, who threw the hand gesture, because “I’m only human” but who also appears to have no links with education administration.

Given their inexperience they may be amenable to suggestion from outside sources and they will certainly face commercial interests who have established an inside track to Government and a powerful lobbying position.  The voices they listen to could determine whether the UK becomes a beacon for international students or a place where hopes are crushed by economic and political considerations.  It’s unclear who will ensure students don’t become filling in a sandwich between reduced public spending and private ambition to monetize global mobility.    

When Love Comes to Town

Past experience would suggest that the voice of Lord Jo Johnson, who is usually heralded as “former universities Minister” or Senior Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School rather than his more commercial position as Chairman of ApplyBoard International, will be among the loudest. If his views carry weight there are several indicators as to the direction of travel for international students coming to the UK. His demands in mid-2020, shortly after taking the ApplyBoard post, were a four-year post-study work visa, “a strategic push to rebalance student flows by doubling those from India”, and “cutting back the time-consuming and offputting red tape affecting overseas students.”

He is joined on ApplyBoard’s UK Advisory Board by the UK’s International Education Champion, Professor Sir Steve Smith, the Director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, Nick Hillman and HEPI Trustee, Mary Curnock-Cook.  With all that industry insight and connection the outcomes could help the Board achieve its stated aim to “guide and support ApplyBoard’s expansion within the United Kingdom.” It certainly begins to feel as if some other stars may be aligning.

UK universities have already been revelling in a benign recruitment environment since the introduction of a more relaxed post-study work regime in 2021.  It helped reach the Government’s ludicrously low target of 600,000 international students a decade early but for some that is not enough.  Vivienne Stern, the current director of Universities UK International and soon to be chief executive of Universities UK, has said universities want a review to ensure the UK had a “competitive post-study work offer” and there are other interesting synergies emerging.

Stern, a colleague of Smith’s on the UK Government’s Education Sector Advisory Group, has also started to bang the drum about the risks for universities of any deterioration of relationships with China.    Added to that is the voice of Nick Hillman who said, of growing Chinese numbers, “…it does put our universities at serious risk of shifting geopolitics.” These assertions broadly mirror Johnson’s March 2021 statements about “poorly understood” risks of increasingly close collaboration between UK universities and China and his November 2021 suggestion that the financial risks were such that the government should consider making English universities over-reliant on Chinese student fees take out insurance policies.

Some might argue that the echo chamber of views warning about potential catastrophe are overstated.  It seems entirely possible recruitment from China will grow post-pandemic because it is driven by strong country-based agents and local connections where the growth of aggregator and remote technology led approaches has been more of a struggle than in markets such as India.  As interesting is whether the UK can go head to head with Canada for the Indian market if it means underpinning its strategy with longer-term post study visas and the Holy Grail of simple routes to citizenship, which some research suggests may be the aim of 75% of Indian students.       

Another thing to watch out for might be the way that the UK International Education Strategy’s aim of, “Enhancing….the student application process for international students”, is met.  In 2021, Johnson was promoting technology to verify incoming students’ documents, check English language skills and review their finances which sounded like a proposal to adopt a UK version of ApplyProof – a “standalone platform powered by ApplyBoard“.2  What might the odds be on a public-private partnership bringing this technology to the UK?

Total Eclipse of the Heart

On the other hand the post-pandemic world looks to be moving increasingly towards a relatively hard economic landing and there are reasons to be wary of the UK’s position.  One symbol is the, perhaps hyperbolic, sentiment that the British pound is taking on the characteristics of an ‘emerging market’ currency.  Already abandoned by European workers there is some evidence that agricultural workers from around the world will be in high demand but if you are a graduate with more interest in picking stocks than strawberries the post-study work environment in the UK could be a concern.

Information on international student post-study outcomes has been notoriously hard to come by and HESA has been roundly criticised for stepping back from Government demands for more and better quality data.  AGCAS has tried to step into the breach and offers the most recent insights which broadly tell us that one in three international students have not found employment of any kind.  The amount of effort needed to find a job is suggested by the finding that 42% of students employed applied for over 50 jobs.

Views on the Graduate Route suggest that graduates feel some employers have “poor knowledge of post-study work visas”, others “openly refused to accept applications from international graduates” and that the cost of the Route was a barrier.  On top of this Office for Students research suggests that “less than half of students at some English universities can expect to find graduate level jobs or further study shortly after graduation.”

Even more troubling are the recent revelations that student visas to UK universities may be providing cover for human trafficking.  If abuses can happen when a university is meant to be aware of the way the student is engaging with their course, this may be the tip of the iceberg of exploitation under post-study work visas.  As the number of students staying in country grows the potential for this to become a big issue seems clear.

While things may turn out right, a great deal will hinge on the economic prosperity of the UK.  As survivors of the global recession of 2007 to 2009 will recall there was significant growth in unemployment among young people.  It was one factor that may have contributed to the decision in 2011 to remove post study work rights for international students.

Announcing the decision in March 2011 then Home Secretary Theresa May said, “We had too many people coming here to work and not to study. We had too many foreign graduates staying on in the UK to work in unskilled jobs. And we had too many institutions selling immigration, not education.”  If the number of students deciding to stay and work goes up at a time when the UK is struggling with recession and unemployment it is difficult to see why a future Government would not make a similar decision.  Total wipeout of post-study work visas is only ever a political step away. 

NOTES

  1. Love Island is a popular but controversial reality TV show in the UK, involving strangers meeting up and being obliged to pair up or be ejected from the competition.  Total Wipeout ran from 2009-12 and involved competitors taking on an obstacle course and other challenges until the one who is fastest around the Wipeout Zone course wins.  Both have similarities with the challenges facing international students.    
  2. It is unclear to me what “standalone” means. ApplyBoard and ApplyProof share the same logo colorways, have headquarters in the same building, and the head of ApplyProof is a standing member of ApplyBoard’s information governance committee.  The Head of ApplyProof’s LinkedIn profile places the ApplyProof role under his ApplyBoard experience and its Director of Engineering’s profile suggests he also works for Apply Board.
  3. Colleagues of a certain age will recognize that the sub-headings are taken directly from 1980s songs by U2 (When Love Comes to Town) and Bonnie Tyler (Total Eclipse of the Heart). Guilty pleasures:)  

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

International Student Heartland or Schitt’s Creek?

Aggregators, pathways, universities and Governments tend to be relentlessly upbeat in their promotional material for international students but its worth considering things from the other end of the telescope. A sceptic might include information suggesting which countries have a record of over-promising, whose ability to assimilate students is coming unravelled or where are the warning signs of exploitation. What you can bet is that this information is not concentrated in an aggregators top five list in their sales pitch or the “Why Choose….” website page of a college that has been investigated for “questionable recruitment practices”.

Canada has had a period of unrivalled growth and has consistently bucked the trend of most traditional international student destinations by having, at the end of 2021, more than twice as many students from India than from China (217k versus 105k).  At the end of 2020 commentators claimed it had become the third largest recruiter of international students in the world after a tripling of international students in a decade.  There were some obvious concentrations – Ontario had nearly 50% of the numbers with British Columbia and Quebec trailing at 23% and 14% respectively.

It’s popularity seems undeniable but there has been a drip feed of less palatable news which seems to be gathering pace.  The confluence of cash-strapped public universities and profit motivated private entities seems to be leading to students being poorly informed and having little recourse when their time, money or health is under threat.  There is no doubt that there are some fine institutions and well meaning authorities in Canada but the collection of news items suggests problems that need urgent attention.    

‘The Just Society’?

John Stuart Mills’ famous question was borrowed in 1968 by new Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau to outline his vision for the country.  But international students may be beginning to wonder ‘just what?’.  Are we just in a place where a route to a permanent visa is promised, just in a place that makes it easy to get work post study or just in a place where private money has taken advantage of a system which can’t cope? (note 2)

Getting a job while studying is not easy and there are suggestions that this is why in Windsor, Ontario 90% of food bank visitors are Indian students.  Getting a visa in the first place may be harder for students from certain countries as a Canadian Parliament Committee found evidence of “racism within the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.”  International student deaths were a cause for concern before the pandemic and more recent reports suggest the situation may have worsened.

Quebec has recently closed the immigration pathway provided by unsubsidized private colleges, New Brunswick has closed its express entry route for new immigrants with some arguing, “the number of applications, is just far more than can possibly be taken in” and a commentator in the Toronto Star accuses Canada of a “decades-old tradition of exploiting Punjab’s working class.”

Quebec’s latest efforts are not the first time they have taken action to restrict the activities of some of the colleges in question because back in 2020 the province suspended the ability of ten designated learning institutions (DLIs) to issue Quebec Acceptance Certificates (CAQ) enabling international students to study in Quebec.  A DLI is an institution approved by the Quebec government to welcome international students and such students are then eligible to obtain post-graduation work permits.  The suspension was for “questionable recruitment practices.”

Canada was also the starting point for one of the stars of the aggregator firmament, ApplyBoard, which became the poster child for private investment with $475mUSD raised and a post-money valuation of $3.2bn in 2021.  Lead investor in the latest round was Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board (Ontario Teachers’), through its Teachers’ Innovation Platform (TIP), who believe that the platform is “…creating greater opportunities for education globally.”  Several of the private colleges featured on ApplyBoard’s site are among those subject to the action in Quebec and it would be interesting to know if the Ontario Teachers’ are in favor of their approach to recruitment.   

This may be important because some commentators have argued that aggregators have reduced the accountability institutions feel they have for fully informing potential students as well as encouraging an unregulated sub-agent culture which is less committed to student service and support than longer standing agencies.  Another reasonable question may be whether coming from a relatively low and possibly inexperienced base has left Canada unprepared for some of the problems that can come with such rapid international student growth.  Overshadowing or perhaps underpinning this is the possibility that “the entire system in Canada is built around the false premise that education, not work and immigration, is the primary aim for most students.”              

Added to all this are the reported backlogs in processing visas with the inevitable stress this places on applicants.  Put together it seems reasonable to conclude that there is a lot of clearing up to do.  It will be interesting to see if more draconian action is required to root out the underlying causes and whether universities and their recruiting partners will take some responsibility for the issues. 

For now, Canada may be the country that should come with the biggest health warning to unwary students.(note 3)

Notes

  1. The title of this piece is a reference to the two Canadian TV series Heartland and Schitt’s Creek which outperformed the global behemoth Squid Game on American TVs in 2021.
  2. For the sharp eyed and politically aware this sentence does have a small pun relating to current Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau who is the eldest son of former prime minister Pierre Trudeau.
  3. It is reasonable to note that other countries have issues which rarely make it into the promotional material. If time permits a future blog will take a look at some of other contenders.
  4. This blog draws on publicly available information and provides links where this has been sourced. The author welcomes authoritative feedback if there are factual inaccuracies and will note these in amendments to this page.  

Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay

Return to normality: Is it crunch time for aggregators?

Co-authored article featured in University World News on 28 May 2022.

If anyone doubts the determination of the international recruitment specialists to get back to business as usual, they are not paying much attention to their LinkedIn feed.

Every day brings a new outpouring of gratitude to be in an airport, in a hotel and in an agent’s office. All the things that had been workaday and vaguely dull are suddenly born anew as if a winter of cold comfort has given way to a recruitment spring of enormous promise.

With the first in-person NAFSA (Association of International Educators) annual conference of the new era starting this week, the international community will be out in force and willing to share stories about the value of personal engagement and the important role it plays in differentiating one institution from another.

They will reflect that a parent about to send a sheltered 18-year-old across oceans, thousands of miles away, is likely to need a little personal reassurance as to their offspring’s well-being. Talk will turn to whether the aggregators are really adding enough value to lead the way in the post-pandemic world.

For the aggregators, the return of in-person activity has been a little like Count Dracula encountering the sunrise. In Bram Stoker’s original novel, the Count was not destroyed by the light but it significantly reduced his powers to shapeshift, to appear to defy gravity and to convert others into his helpless vampire followers with a single bite.

It may be that the sunlight of personal contact, renewed travel and a good working knowledge of the limitations of technology has made the aggregators look less like the best game in town.

Second best?

Aggregators, virtual study portals, algorithms, artificial intelligence, blockchain and machine learning are also suffering the same fate as masks and social distancing: they were essential and sometimes mandated during the early part of the pandemic, but are now in many cases matters of choice and in some countries have become very much second best to personal contact.

The other problem is that some of the promises made about streamlining, reach and volume enrolments are looking increasingly like strategies to lure venture capitalists into investments under the edtech buzzword.

Universities, admissions experts and experienced recruiters are well aware that applications overload has become a significant problem despite aggregator efforts to sift initial interest.

They realise that agents and students are increasingly encouraged to play the field because aggregators make it easy to load multiple applications to dozens of universities. They have even worked out that the search function on the portal is of no use to an institution if they end up on page 15, as one of hundreds of similar options thrown up by broad search terms.

The thing is that technology can always be purchased, improved and-or replicated, and a glance through the aggregator and study portals does little to suggest that any of them have created a product that offers a sustainable differentiation or competitive edge.

On the other hand, personal relationships have been the bedrock of international recruitment for several decades and it is easier to bolt on technology than recreate a road warrior with a well-earned reputation for delivering, for students. Larger agents have also invested for years in building a presence that is physically close to and trusted by generations of entire families.

The competition

The future will necessitate investment in ‘high touch’ as much as ‘high tech’ and we have already seen aggregators trumpeting their moves into new countries with associated offices to try to reinforce their local credibility and accountability.

But infrastructure and good people are expensive, not to mention hard to find and they are coming from behind compared to the many long-term players who have already built their organisations around the globe.

One example is the way INTO launched three University Access Centres before the pandemic and is planning up to 25 by the end of 2023 to supplement its 25 regional offices around the globe.

There is nothing to suggest that INTO and other pathway operators can’t ramp up their ‘common apps’, partner portals and automated admissions processes to a point where they have the technology to complement their long term in-market strength.

The pathways also have the proven ability to engage with universities, negotiate terms and have been through familiarisation visits that give them real credibility when talking to parents, students and agents.

Over the past couple of years there has been a rush to supplement pathway recruitment with direct recruitment and it may be that the post-pandemic era sees this maturing as a full-service offer.

Employability support

A significant differentiator for the aggregators and the wider edtech ecosystem could be international employability.

We have already seen the pathway operators taking the first steps in responding to the demonstrable international student demand with some offering paid for ‘employability support’ in addition to the fees they charge for the pathway programmes. Plus, the big players in commercial education as far back as 2018 were referring to employability as the next frontier.

Andrew Barkla, CEO of international higher education consultants IDP, was interviewed by The PIE and said: “From a counselling and guidance point of view, we are already having career conversations with students at the very beginning of their journey.”

The smartest are already looking at ways of demonstrating the efficacy of their operation and the way their university partners are considering successful graduate outcomes, as much as the initial recruitment of bums on seats.

Where technology can really add value is in collecting international employability data in ways that are vastly superior and more cost-effective than the tired old questionnaire approaches that have fallen into disrepute.

High quality graduate outcomes data will also allow career opportunities to be developed in source countries, help place students with internships and study experiences and ultimately get them connections to pursue a career when they go home.

No-one has yet seized the nettle and invested significantly to deliver the golden triad of a great recruitment experience, a great education and a great job, but there are signs that many of the major players realise that this is the moment to act.

This all takes place against the backdrop of some commentators, including The Sunday Times, recently suggesting that “the great tech revaluation has only just begun”.

It quoted Airbnb chief Brian Chesky tweeting that the moment “feels similar to late 2008”, and Uber boss, Dara Khosrowshahi, saying: “We will absolutely have to do more with less.”

The article concludes that there could be “two years yet to run of falling values, imploding companies and desperation mergers”.

An uncertain future

This comes at a time when the momentum of face-to-face engagement is developing and everyone has had the opportunity to size up whether the excitement around aggregators was a symptom of the pandemic rather than a long-term cure for recruitment.

If the flow of money to continue investing in technology businesses slows and investors find more attractive options elsewhere, some may find themselves near the end of their runway.

There are a lot of questions to consider.

Will the aggregators be able to use their financial muscle and existing platforms as a ticket to more funding that allows them to compete, or will bricks and mortar businesses that have been around for years steal their thunder?

Will the underlying strength of businesses based on personal contact enable them to accelerate their use of technology in a way that takes away the aggregator point of differentiation and advantage? Or will the answer be a flurry of acquisitions and mergers that attempt to deliver real synergy to the advantage of students and universities?

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 Peggy und Marco Lachmann-Anke from Pixabay 

New Directions At INTO University Partnerships?

It’s nearly a year since INTO University Partnerships (INTO) appointed its new chief executive and there’s been an acceleration of senior changes with new heads of recruitment, product/digital and people appointed and the addition of a chief strategy officer post to the Executive Team.  It seems an open secret that another of the Executive Team old guard will leave in June and the leadership in the US looks to have been tweaked with some saying there are more change to come.  That’s five new faces in a year in an Executive Team of ten so thoughts turn to what happens next and what’s the state of the portfolio?

Anyone who has seen change in a corporate environment will know the Machiavelli quote and that “there is nothing more difficult to arrange, more doubtful of success, and more dangerous to carry through.”  They will also know the tendency of the old guard to still get together and slip around the side of the building every morning for the habitual cigarette break where they can gossip, moan and plot about the interlopers.  However, Greg Shea of the Wharton Center for Leadership and Change Management tells us that “change is not about consensus, it is about critical mass”, so 50% may be enough.

Access All Areas?

Rumours are swirling that the company is planning to launch a new go to market strategy in Asia, probably Vietnam, where one of the much-hyped University Access Centers (UACs) already exists in Ho Chi Min City.  According to the website UACs are under development in Bangkok, Bogota, Hanoi, Jakarta and New Delhi for launch by early 2022 and a further 15 planned by 2023.  In one of the big student recruitment debates currently raging, INTO seems to be putting significant investment into “boots on the ground” rather than relying solely on the efficacy of online, aggregators and virtual counselling.       

There is also talk of direct recruitment options maturing and becoming a key part of the sales strategy which seems a no brainer given INTO’s reduced number of pathway partners over the past few years.  Shorelight heard the starting pistol on the direct recruitment race in the US more than six months ago so there is ground to make up.  The UACs may, however, offer differentiation from Shorelight’s increasingly strident pitch as a “technology-enabled” business – when the word “technology” appears seven times in a three paragraph news announcement it must matter to them.

It also seems possible that INTO could be making a play for the ground that “global expansion experts” Sannam S4 Group has filled so well with its approach that makes “personal our number one priority”.  The UACs could make useful physical locations to pitch for market entry and expansion opportunities and the notion of “internationalisation strategies from concept to delivery”.  Having in country presence and a sales team on the ground was always core to the pathway operator model so it’s a logical extension to turn that into a full service pitch based on country expertise, where everything from market launch initiatives, TNE and campus management to returning graduate employability can be up for discussion with resource-constrained universities. 

The Great Divide?     

Time will tell how those possibilities play out but it is intriguing to think that INTO may also be taking a more radical look at how its UK portfolio* is managed to best effect by differentiating Russell Group institutions from the rest.  One potential reason for considering the Russell Group institutions (including the wholly owned Manchester operation which primarily serves the University of Manchester) as a separate entity is that their performance offers the best chance for recruitment growth.  Taking the pre-pandemic period the total enrollment growth of all eight INTO operations from 2016 to 2020 was 547 with the four Russell Group related pathway operations increasing by 672 while four non-Russell Group operations (which include the wholly owned World Education Centre) had an aggregate loss of 125.  

Source: INTO Center Annual Reports

A direct comparison between INTO University of East Anglia and Queen’s University Belfast in the five years pre-COVID emphasises the point.  It is startling to see the decline of INTO’s first ever joint venture and reflect that when 2021 reporting becomes available INTO Queen’s may have overtaken it in enrollments.  Taking the five years from 2016 to 2020 INTO Queen’s increased enrollments over 63% while INTO UEA declined by 25%.  Enrollment at INTO UEA has been declining almost every single year since 2015.

Source: INTO UEA and INTO Queen’s Annual Reports

While the University of East Anglia does not report its own international student enrollments separately, the impact of a declining pathway and no obvious direct enrollment growth to balance it can be seen by the fall of around £3m in international tuition fee revenue from 2018 to 2020.  The joint venture drew down a loan from the UK Governments CLBILS Scheme to mitigate cash shortages during the pandemic and the University’s annual financial statements for 2020/21 tell us each partner guaranteed 50% of the loan up to a maximum of £7m.  More chilling for the future is that the statements indicate that there “will be no distribution in respect of 2020/21 nor for the next three years whilst the joint venture recovers and builds up surpluses for distribution.”

Source: UEA Financial Reports and INTO UEA Annual Reports

End of the long-term Joint Venture?

The big differentiator for INTO in its early days was the notion that it signed long-term (usually thirty year) joint venture partnership deals with equal start-up investment and a 50% share in profits and losses with the university.  The UK portfolio now falls some way short of that vision with INTO Newcastle becoming majority owned (51%) by IUP and INTO City having a distribution that goes 85% to Newincco 921 Ltd (an INTO subsidiary) and 15% to City Foundation Limited.  Closure of INTO St Georges, INTO UEA (London), INTO Gloucestershire, INTO GCU and INTO Newcastle (London) have long rendered the multi-decade, higher education altering principles obsolete.

Even “The INTO Story” element of the company’s corporate web-site has lost the tale of founder Andrew Colin and, then, vice chancellor of the University of East Anglia, Professor David Eastwood, cooking up the joint-venture model as a mould-breaking idea.  Professor Sir David Eastwood (now knighted) has become Chairman of IUP’s Board and sits alongside two representatives from Leeds Equity Partners who described IUP’s “transformational…industry-leading, relationship-driven model” when they invested £66m in 2013 to become 25% equity stake holders.  At the time IUP claimed 16 university partnerships but nearly a decade later it is difficult to see more than 14 which fit with the original concept.   

There has been a similar tale in the US where joint ventures at Colorado State, Washington State and West Virginia have closed in recent years and IUP has become the 100% stakeholder in its venture with St Louis University.  It seems likely that, as the market has matured, the limitations of the model have become increasingly clear with competitors able to offer more agile, flexible or advantageous terms to institutions.  It is also arguable that, for the pathway operator, being tied to less attractive institutions in a fiercely competitive market for international students does not offer the growth prospects that so attracted private equity a decade ago.

For INTO, the pandemic may have provided the moment for a rethink and a pause for breath where the opportunities from a resurgent UK drive for international student enrollment could be assessed.  Fresh thinking on recruitment and delivery as well as a recognition that the portfolio is, if not sheep and goats, more a potpourri than a bunch of roses could bring results in the new environment.  Despite launching into a highly competitive world, it probably can’t be any less productive than the past few years.

Notes

*The US environment was considered in depth in China Crisis for US Pathways and Pathways to the Future for US Big Two

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

University League Table – No Sympathy, No Spite

The cosy conspiracy that has created the current rankings merry go round is built on handing out kudos and credibility while launching new iterations and self-congratulatory events at as many exotic venues as possible.  There’s no reason for anyone to bite the hand that feeds them or jeopardize cooperation on the monetization of student interest.  Many institutions and academics collaborate with the rankers in public while griping privately about the unwelcome outcomes of higher education marketization.   

It leaves a gap in the market for a rankings table that highlights decisions institutions make which seem against the spirit of being focused on academic values, student interest and fairness.  Borrowing from Prof Scott Galloway’s thinking of “No Mercy, No Malice” such a table should not be perverse or spiteful in favouring one institution over another but equally should not shirk or be sympathetic when reflecting facts. It needs to be based on public information that is difficult to manipulate or massage and to highlight decision making in areas where students have every right to think that there might be some consistency. 

Decision Making Made Easy   

It is in this spirit that the first “No Sympathy, No Spite” rankings below focus on English universities to make use of recently and currently available data. The marking criteria allocates a score which penalises universities for not taking action where it would seem to be in the interests of students or where the data provided by an external body suggests it may have questions to answer. Each score reflects the university’s relative position against listed peers but scores are also totalled, with higher scores generally indicating universities that might wish to consider their decision making.

The table highlights which universities have signed or not signed on to the Can’t By My Silence pledge to stop using NDAs to stop students speaking out and also their decisions about involvement with the Universities UK Fair Admissions Code of Practice.  While the sector is fond of praising those who do the right thing it seems shy about naming those that will not agree to basic standards which means students struggle to find out which universities are gaming the system or simply refusing to play at all. This ranking makes it clear who has chosen not to support specified courses of action. 

Readers will determine for themselves if they agree that institutions should be signing up to fair admissions criteria or agreeing to stop using NDAs to gag students who are subject to sexual harassment and worse.  More controversial may be the use of “unexplained” firsts data but the Office for Students is the designated regulating body and their chief executive said, “This spiralling grade inflation risks undermining public confidence in our higher education system.”.  The People and Planets data reflects student activism and the voice of an important constituency on a vital issue.    

The Office for Students data is only applicable to universities in England and  universities that did not have degree awarding powers in 2020/11 have been excluded leaving 107. Further analysis may result in tables for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland where, for example, only Cardiff Metropolitan University has signed onto the Pledge to stop using NDAs for complaints about sexual harassment, bullying and other forms of misconduct.  The information is provided in good faith based on the sources quoted and any authoritative amendments will be considered with amendments being made and flagged.

For the avoidance of doubt, a high score in the NDA Pledge and UUK Fair Admissions Code categories means the university has not signed up to either. A high score in the People and Planet category means the university is ranked poorly for environmental and ethical performance. The score in the Unexplained first-class degree is simply a function of the number of graduates and percentage of unexplained first-class degrees in 2020-21.        

Provider nameUnexplained first-class degrees*NDA Pledge**UUK Fair Admissions Code***People and Planet****Total
Coventry University12.275125.2
University of Birmingham11.27*523.2
Liverpool John Moores Uni8.675222.6
University of Leeds13.27 *222.2
Staffordshire University6.175422.1
Birmingham City University7.475221.4
University of Portsmouth11.37 *321.3
University of East London5.375421.3
Manchester Metropolitan Uni20.1 * *121.1
Kingston University5.775320.7
University of Salford12.37 *120.3
Leeds Beckett University10.27 *320.2
Roehampton University3.075520.0
Queen Mary University of London11.07* 220.0
Goldsmiths’ College3.675419.6
University of Northampton4.075319.0
University of Wolverhampton7.77* 418.7
Anglia Ruskin Uni HE Corp9.77 *218.7
De Montfort University10.77 *118.7
University of St Mark & St John1.275518.2
Norwich University of the Arts1.075518.0
University College Birmingham0.975517.9
Liverpool Hope University1.975417.9
The University of Huddersfield8.17* 217.1
University of Sussex6.17 *417.1
The University of Essex7.07 *317.0
Royal Central School of Speech and Drama0.575416.5
University of Lincoln6.57* 316.5
Sheffield Hallam University14.3 **216.3
University of Brighton7.27 * 216.2
University of Central Lancashire7.27*216.2
University of Chester5.27* 416.2
University of Sunderland4.07 *516.0
University of Derby6.77 *215.7
The University of Buckingham0.675315.6
The University of Bradford6.17* 215.1
University of Hertfordshire11.0 * *415.0
The University of Hull5.97 *214.9
University for the Creative Arts3.97 *414.9
The University of West London5.87 *214.8
University of Oxford1.775114.7
London School of Economics and Political Science1.775114.7
The University of Surrey4.67 *314.6
King’s College London6.47 *114.4
The University of Bolton2.47* 514.4
York St John University3.37 *414.3
Oxford Brookes University4.07 *314.0
Brunel University London3.87 *313.8
St Mary’s University, Twickenham1.87* 513.8
The University of Cumbria2.37 *413.3
St. George’s Hospital Med School1.17 *513.1
The University of Manchester10.0 **313.0
University of the Arts, London5.07* 113.0
University of Gloucestershire2.97*312.9
University of Cambridge2.97* 312.9
Bishop Grosseteste University0.87*512.8
University of Durham5.7* 5212.7
Imperial College2.77* 312.7
Falmouth University1.67* 412.6
Nottingham Trent University4.67* 112.6
City, University of London4.57* 112.5
The University of Bath2.47* 312.4
The Royal Agricultural University0.27* 512.2
The University of Westminster4.1* 5312.1
Bournemouth University4.07* 112.0
Newman University0.57*411.5
Uni of Northumbria at Newcastle10.4 **111.4
University of Nottingham9.4 ** 211.4
Harper Adams University0.27*411.2
The Royal Veterinary College0.17* 411.1
Arts University Bournemouth1.07*311.0
London Metropolitan University3.5* 5210.5
Royal Northern College of Music0.3* 5510.3
London South Bank University5.1* * 510.1
University of Bedfordshire1.97* 19.9
Uni of the West of England, Bristol8.7* * 19.7
University of Southampton5.6* * 49.6
Royal Holloway5.4** 49.4
The University of Kent7.4* * 29.4
The University of Liverpool7.3* * 29.3
The University of East Anglia7.1* * 29.1
Edge Hill University6.1* * 39.1
University College London8.0* * 19.0
Middlesex University7.8* * 18.8
Teesside University5.6* * 38.6
The University of Sheffield5.5* * 38.5
University of Greenwich7.2* * 18.2
University of Exeter7.2* * 18.2
University of Plymouth7.0* * 18.0
The University of Leicester5.9* * 27.9
Canterbury Christ Church Uni4.6* * 37.6
The University of Lancaster4.4* * 37.4
Solent University, Southampton4.4* * 37.4
University of Newcastle upon Tyne6.1** 17.1
The University of Warwick4.3* * 26.3
University of York3.3* * 36.3
University of Bristol5.2* * 16.2
Aston University5.2* * 16.2
Loughborough University2.6* * 35.6
The University of Chichester1.6* * 45.6
The University of Reading4.6* * 15.6
Leeds Trinity University1.4* * 45.4
University of Keele4.2* * 15.2
Buckinghamshire New University1.6* * 34.6
Bath Spa University2.3* * 24.3
University of Worcester2.1* * 13.1
University of Winchester1.0* * 12.0

Scoring Criteria/Method

  1. Unexplained First Class Degrees
    • This issue affects more students in larger universities so the number of graduates in 2020-21 is multiplied by the percentage of “unexplained first class degrees” in that year to show the number potentially affected. That sum is then divided by 100 to ensure the overall score is not wholly distorted by this category. The full analysis by the Office for Students is available.
  2. Not Signed NDA Pledge
    • The list of English university signatories on the Can’t Buy My Silence site was reviewed over the weekend of 14/15 May 2022. Universities that have signed the pledge score 0 (signified by an asterisk) while universities that have not signed receive 7 points.
  3. UUK Fair Admissions Code
    • The list of signatories shown on the Universities UK Fair Admissions Code of Practice site was reviewed over the weekend of 14/15 May 2022. Universities that have signed the pledge score 0 (signified by an asterisk) while universities that have not signed receive 5 points.
  4. People and Planet

Any comments, corrections or thoughts for development are welcome.

Image by Peggy und Marco Lachmann-Anke from Pixabay

The lure of commerce: Do universities face a brain drain?

An article co-authored with Louise Nichol in the 14 May issue of University World News. It follows on from my blog of 8 December 2021 about the increasing propensity for industry commentators with a public platform to join the Advisory Boards of commercial companies.

The commercial education sector has changed beyond recognition in the last 10 years. The explosion of aggregators onto the scene, the emergence of outsourcing of universities’ overseas operations and the proliferation of pathway programmes globally are all manifestations of this change.

This huge expansion in both activity and organisations has culminated in a talent grab, with commercial organisations on the hunt for those within higher education who can facilitate the growth of their businesses globally.

There has been a growth in high-powered advisers and advisory boards with ApplyBoard, Leverage Edu and others tapping higher education think tank leaders, government advisers and education media founders. The terms of the appointments are rarely very clear and they sometimes come with explicit expectations around growing the company’s business.

But more recently there have been several individuals jumping ship from universities to take high-profile positions with commercial organisations which are gaining traction with universities.

Higher education diaspora

Among the higher education diaspora are Rachel MacSween who moved from the University of York, where she was director of international recruitment, partnerships and mobility, to a position as director of client partnerships for UK and Europe at IDP Connect.

Others include Kyle Campbell who went from a position as senior web and digital content manager at Nottingham Trent University to content marketing manager at UniBuddy and is now heading his own education marketing business; and Lydiah Igweh, former enterprise support director for Oxford Brookes University who moved to a post as head of equality, diversity and inclusion at Kaplan.

There are also Rick Canavan who moved from the post of faculty head of international at Manchester Metropolitan to director of UK university partnerships at upGrad; Veronica Omeni, former acting co-director at the Centre for Global Engagement at Coventry University, who is now a principal consultant at QS Quacquarelli Symonds; and Gareth Topp, former head of internationalisation at the University of Brighton who left for the role of director of business development for UK and Europe at EduCo Accelerate.

Defections from the very top level are rarer, but recently retired University of Birmingham vice-chancellor Professor Sir David Eastwood moved promptly into a position as director at INTO University Partnerships, and David Pilsbury became chief development officer at Oxford International Education Group after holding the deputy vice-chancellor international role at Coventry University.

Greener pastures?

Colleagues working for a wide range of higher education service providers will be familiar with the cold breeze of slight disapproval that sometimes comes from those working in universities.

Engaging in the commercial side of education has historically been seen as subordinate to the high ideals of teaching and research, although international engagement with recruitment agents has long been a grey area where necessity triumphed over disdain.

The change in thinking was particularly apparent with the buzz recently at The PIE Live in London at the end of March 2022, when there was a feeling in the air that people were exploring what they perceived as greener grass outside their existing university position.

The reality is that commercial service providers, with the possible exception of technocrats in IT or other professional areas, have struggled to negotiate the labyrinthine structures, committees and power politics that make up university management and the bureaucracy associated with decision-making.

By employing ‘insiders’, commercial education organisations are betting that their existing professional relationships and knowing ‘how to play the game’ internally within universities will give them an added advantage when winning future business.

The logic is sound because those who have worked within the sector for the majority of their careers and built networks will have up-to-date rolodexes and relationships with those at both the institution from which they have moved and peer universities.

What remains to be seen is whether the sector will be more welcoming to these people having ‘jumped ship’, or will those who have crossed over find that they are considered to have turned their back on old friends for ‘greener pastures’?

What also remains to be seen is whether the commercial organisations stripping universities of talent are in fact getting a good deal. Are those who have come from inside higher education institutions in possession of the commercial acumen to get the job done or will they find that they miss the relatively cosy world of higher education?

One thing is for sure: the commercial education sector is much less forgiving when targets are missed and objectives not met.

Talent loss

The other serious concern is where this trend might leave universities over the longer term, particularly if the much prized but troubled Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) conditions continue to deteriorate.

University perks, flexibility and long-term outlooks have always been a significant advantage for attracting and retaining talent while commercial organisations are generally more driven by the bottom line and immediate results.

As commercial providers have held increasing sway over the sector and universities have had to focus on their financial sustainability and external performance measures, the lines have become increasingly blurred.

The question is whether there will be a tipping point leading to a significant exodus of university talent which might leave the sector bereft of innovation, creativity and energy.

Universities will need the brightest and the best more than ever to negotiate the choppy seas ahead and if the flow to commercial businesses becomes a deluge there could be some big gaps in capability.

Risks on the horizon

Some notable risks on the horizon include increasing competition among English-speaking study destinations and emerging study destinations, uncertainty over global geodemographics, politics and student mobility and a growing diversity in higher education delivery through both transnational education and online.

The days when a good graduate might look to a university as a place to build a long-term – potentially whole life – career are probably rapidly diminishing and the growth of commercial alternatives will begin to look increasingly attractive.

With these headwinds in mind, it may be time for university leaders and human resources departments to give some real thought to the ways in which they attract, recruit and retain sharp minds that have a genuine focus on brilliant student experiences, relevant research and the right balance of local and global engagement.

Failure to do so will lead to a brain drain that could result in even greater changes in the way that institutions are able to determine and implement plans that are in their best interests.

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