Tag: universityworldnews

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 

Go compare – the emerging threat to higher education

Louise Nicol and Alan Preece  First published in University World News on 22 May 2021

Commodification is increasingly likely to be a word that universities need to recognise, understand and apply to their business planning as technology levels the playing field for international student recruitment.

Investopedia tells us that it means ‘a basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other goods of the same type’. When you put it alongside Clayton Christensen’s ‘jobs to be done’ and the growing availability of university comparison or application sites, it’s easy to see emerging comparisons with the marketplace for car insurance.

The point about the ‘jobs to be done’ approach is that it highlights that the purpose of buying a particular good or service is to ‘make progress in specific circumstances’. For most international students (and increasingly home students) the purpose of getting a degree is to get a job and to have decent career prospects.

Higher education may want students to study for love of a subject, but the harsh reality for a generation that is poorer than its parents is that this does not seem to be leading to what they need.

A world where outcome is all that counts

A 2013 report by Oliver Wyman shows that, in the United Kingdom, price comparison websites (PCWs) were securing 60% of new motor insurance policies after starting up just a decade before. It suggests that many people were content to make their purchasing decision in this way rather than studiously interrogate the terms and conditions of every company individually.

There is no doubt that the ability to consider price alongside any other factors was vital in the rise of such sites. Moreover, the report found that the reality was that many of the insurance products were virtually indistinguishable.

Choosing a university may not be exactly the same as choosing car insurance, but aggregator sites could present dozens of business and finance courses that all end with a degree from an institution.

In the case of the UK these are accredited by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). The QAA Quality Mark or Review Graphic shows that the provider has “met or exceeded the UK expectations for quality and standards in their QAA review”. In principle, every UK university with this seal of approval has degrees with equal status, but they offer them at significantly different prices.

The great and the good of higher education may be shaking their heads at this and thinking of Lord Darlington’s quote from Oscar Wilde’s Lady Windemere’s Fan about ‘a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing’. But, in a situation where the customer has access to alternatives at the touch of a button, they have the means to determine the price they are willing to pay for the outcome they want.

Lord Darlington’s remark was about the nature of a cynic and it is arguable that young people are increasingly sceptical about the value of higher education.

Price, grades and rankings as differentiators

Institutions will undoubtedly look for ways of distinguishing themselves, but there are very few that have the financial muscle or marketing wit to be able to do so on a global scale.

It was not unknown before the internet for lowly institutions to inflate the tuition fees of their courses to international students on the basis that ‘price is a proxy for quality’. Better accessibility to information and ubiquitous university rankings have put a halt to that ploy so there will be a need for different tactics.

Entry qualifications, which are often seen as a signal of a quality institution, could become a way of communicating quality. But it has become clear that, with the number of universities going SATs free in the United States and the propensity for UK universities to be very flexible with international students, this is shaky ground.

It’s made even more complex by pathway operations that will offer international students a route to entry based on getting the required language level and passing the pathway’s own academic tests.

It would also seem counterproductive for most institutions to try to distinguish themselves by having high tariff entry points on a comparison site. Student matching may be sophisticated, but there is limited scope for nuance about such a defining piece of information and losing volume is not something that most institutions can afford to do.

Trying to impress with output grades is an equally risky business given the potential for grade inflation and the ability of institutions to decide how many of their students get ‘good degrees’.

University ranking may offer a different sort of quality test for students and, whether you love them or hate them, they have become a popular measure of distinction. However, research from the 2020 QS International Student Survey, recently presented at the Universities UK International Higher Education Forum, showed that there is a significant mismatch between the way rankings are compiled and the perceptions of students.

Prospective international students were asked to rank, in order of importance, what they thought a university’s good ranking indicated about the institution.

The top result was that 72% believe graduate employment rate is the most important factor. This was even above the 69% mark for the qualification level of staff members at the institution and 64% for student satisfaction. How a university is perceived by employers was deemed important by 49%, above the 48% for the number of citations in academic journals.

In short, students believed that employment outcomes and employer views were more important than staff quality, student satisfaction and research publications.

Price, ranking and employability

In that context it is disappointing that no current rankings include international student graduate employment as an input.

Within the QS World University Rankings, “employer reputation”, which is not the same as graduate employment rate but could provide some indication, accounts for just 10% of the measure. The Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2021 methodology did not include any element related to international employability or graduate outcomes.

Government-mandated graduate outcomes data collected in the majority of countries are usually only published with responses from domestic students. As the vast majority of international students – in the UK the estimate is 85% or more – still return to their home country, it would be inaccurate and misleading to use them as a guide to international student employability.

With rankings publishers forming partnerships with agents, aggregators and other interested parties to gain international student eyeballs, it is important for them to pay more attention to this important area.

International student graduate outcomes are being collected by private organisations and would bring real added value that is demonstrably aligned with the aspirations of students willing to invest to study abroad.

Without incorporating this key metric, the rankings will remain more of a vanity contest between institutions than a relevant and useful guide to applicants.

Price, ranking and international student employability are likely to become the key measures of a university’s value proposition when degree information is simple to compare and most institutions are obliged to engage with the aggregator sites.

Being a commodity product means a race to the bottom on price if that is where the institution chooses to compete.

Rankings are fickle, difficult to manage and leave the institution’s fate in the hands of publishers looking to satisfy their own ends. This is a good moment to really focus on providing the student customer with what they want and find ways to enhance value by proving that the institution provides a route to employability.

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

Image by Tumisu from Pixabay

All recruitment agent aggregators are not created equal

Alan Preece and Louise Nicol  First printed in University World News, 12 April 2021

A flood of private money into the education sector is not necessarily a bad thing. Providing students with choice and value is positive and doing so with maximum effectiveness and efficiency makes sense. When a single ship in the Suez Canal can disrupt international trade and a pandemic makes global movement risky or near impossible, there is even more reason to use technology to bring people together.

That is the siren call of the ‘aggregators’ in higher education, but there have been recent challenges questioning their transparency, efficacy and level of genuine concern for students.

The possibility of consolidation to create an ‘Amazon of aggregators’ or a ‘Weibo of wannastudy’ leaves the prospect of market manipulation that is far from the interests of applicants. Regulation, compliance, oversight and the personal link between a university and its potential students are all good questions in this brave new world.

A rapidly evolving network

A clarification about different types of aggregator in the context of this article is needed: ‘Agent aggregators’ provide a platform that allows universities and agents to interact while ‘university aggregators’ provide a means for students to search and apply for universities directly.

The two types are a simplification of a complex and rapidly developing network where the lines are already blurring as different models prove more, or less, successful.

It’s partly a recognition that in some markets and at some levels of study, agents are dominant, while in others many students feel comfortable enough to proceed without a friendly hand guiding them through the process.

Agents themselves have also been ‘aggregators’ for many years, with sub-agency networks feeding into the main players or middlemen establishing themselves and coordinating dozens of geographically separated ‘mom and pop shops’. Pathway operators and universities have become particularly familiar with this environment as the only way to extend their reach without the overhead of an army of travelling salespeople.

The need for a quality framework

The reality is that an education institution often has no idea who first advised a student on their application or whether it was done in good faith.

The recently published BUILA (British Universities’ International Liaison Association) and UKCISA (UK Council for International Student Affairs) report, A Partnership for Quality: A route to a UK quality framework with education agents, produced by education consultancy Edified was commissioned prior to the meteoric rise of the aggregators, but provides a strong foundation for thinking about this development in the global higher education landscape.

Given the current pace of change, it’s troubling that a ‘route’ to a quality framework is only emerging when agents have been increasingly influential for three decades.

That is really the point that emerges from consideration of the risks and challenges of a rapidly developing new approach to recruiting students. Universities are ill-prepared to engage effectively to ensure that they are not being misrepresented or that students are not being misled.

The report’s timing is a little like the United Kingdom publishing a treatise on how to do better with horse drawn artillery in the 1914-18 war just as planes are fighting out the Battle of Britain in the skies above London in 1940.

Nothing new

Having established that aggregation is not really new, it’s important to note that neither is the notion of universities allowing commercial third parties to use their brands in the hope and expectation of lucrative recruitment from international markets.

Deals signed directly with agents have been common for decades and commercial pathway operators have made significant gains in the UK, Australia and the United States, while Canada is catching up. An example on the ‘student aggregator’ side is Studyportals which has been running since 2007, has over 3,700 participating universities and has branched out from ‘Mastersportal’ to have eight portal brands.

The real question is how universities should approach the new world of ‘agent aggregators’. It is possible to build upon the framework provided by the BUILA-UKCISA report to provide some direction.

The report identifies ‘Education Giants’ – Kaplan and Navitas – who have an international network of agents as well as other education business interests, ‘Multi-Nationals’ such as UKEAS and IDP which account for 10% of agents, and ‘Market Specialists’ which account for 5% of agents, for example, TC Global, which focuses on India, and Golden Arrow, which focuses on China.

Agent aggregators might be thought of as an ‘Exchange’, a ‘One Stop’ and a ‘Pathway’.

In the Exchange approach, taken by Adventus, the aggregator behaves like the ‘Booking.com’ for international higher education where agents receive 100% commission, students get more choice and institutions more applications.

In the One Stop approach, taken by ApplyBoard, the aggregator brings an agent network together with their university partners to offer students breadth of choice, but also takes a slice of the agency commission. They have additional services like English language testing, visa applications and advice to create a ‘one stop shop’.

In the Pathway approach, aggregators have a network of agents feeding their pathway programmes into universities. This is where the best known and longest standing commercial names sit – Study Group, INTO University Partnerships and Cambridge Education Group as well as parts of the Kaplan and Navitas operations.

The Outsourcers, such as MSM Media and Sannam S4, operate offices overseas for university partners to engage more effectively by using technology and streamlining services and agent engagement.

There is, unfortunately, one more group that could be called the Pretenders, who do not have the global office infrastructure, investment in training, technology platform, network of agents or university partners that they claim. A slick website purporting to have high levels of student traffic, a comprehensive network of agents spanning the globe and a multitude of university partners does not mean this is the reality. Strong marketing ‘does not an agent aggregator make’.

The need for oversight

The next and most urgent steps for the sector are to embrace the new world, but to act cautiously and coherently to ensure that both students and financially challenged institutions are not disadvantaged.

It is self-evident that they should steer clear of organisations copying others’ marketing campaigns and dressing up to look like legitimate outfits. But a degree of oversight by the Office for Students (in the UK) and similar bodies in other countries might be helpful in creating a level, legal and equally lucrative playing field.

It may even be a good step for aggregators to be obliged to capture and publish the views of students who are placed through their services.

Technology has provided a wonderful opportunity for students to have greater transparency, accessibility and support with finding the right university than ever before.

The biggest agents have long argued that they rely on reputation and repeat business to grow their organisation and that they invest heavily in supporting applicants. It is something that aggregators should be obliged to formalise and standardise.

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

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay