Credible and well publicised global comparative university rankings are one factor changing the face of international recruitment. Students and their advisers can compare and contrast between Beijing, Berlin, Boston and Birmingham at the touch of a button. The rapid growth of online courses from universities around the world has also helped to popularise the notion of ‘shopping’ for courses through the internet.
It is clear that league tables matter and that universities see them as an important part of student recruitment. Some less welcome consequences include misleading claims and recent incidents suggest that data submitted is not always accurate. Perhaps these incidents reflect the recognition that league tables can help build reputations that support both country and institutional desirability.
In that respect evidence suggests the US is losing its way as a global rankings leader with strength in depth. For pathway providers it’s a double-whammy when the quality of their US partnerships, as defined by global comparisons, looks to be lagging behind their partners in other parts of the world. At a difficult moment for US recruitment of international students it may be another indicator of harder times ahead.
US DECLINE IN GLOBAL RANKINGS
The US has traditionally been dominant at the top of global rankings and remains powerful. But The Economist (May 19th 2018) highlighted how its broader grip on the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) table has slipped over time. Chinese and Australian universities have seen the most significant growth in the table over that period.
Table 1 - Representation of Countries in ARWU TOP 500 - 2003 to 2017
The Times Higher Education (THE) World Rankings also noted that in 2018 ‘two-fifths of the US institutions in the top 200 (29 out of 62) have dropped places.’ In contrast, two Chinese universities had risen into the top 30 for the first time. This shift in global power reflects the growing power of China as a first choice for international students.
US PATHWAY PARTNERSHIPS BELOW TOP LEVEL
While many US universities are slipping in global rankings, pathway providers also seem to be struggling to secure partnerships with the very best universities in the country. Since April 2016 none of the partnerships announced by Study Group, Navitas, INTO or Shorelight has been in the top 200 in the QS Ranking or THE World rankings. Only two make it into the US News and World Report (USNWR) Global top 200.
Table 2 – Comparative Ranking of New US Pathway Partnerships Announced Since April 2016*National rank unless noted
Looking over the total portfolio of pathway partners of the ‘big 4’ providers in the US shows that more than half are not globally ranked by the QS, THE or, even in the US News and World Report Global Top 1000.
Table 3 – Global League Table Rankings of Pathway Provider Institutions in the US
UK PATHWAY PARTNERSHIPS LOOK STRONGER IN GLOBAL RANKINGS
Three of these providers are active in the UK where their portfolios look significantly stronger in terms of global rankings. With the addition of the fourth big player in the UK – Kaplan – the overall number of partners is similar. At an aggregate level the worst performance is in the USNWR ranking but even by that measure less than a third of partners are unranked.
The UK is a more mature market for pathways but the recent emphasis of the major players seems to be on enhancing quality. Kaplan partnered with the University of Nottingham in July 2016 and Study Group announced a deal with Durham University in February 2017. Kaplan and Navitas have established new-style arrangements, including investment in infrastructure, with long-term partners Liverpool and Swansea respectively. INTO’s last UK deal was with the University of Stirling in April 2014.
Table 4 - Comparative Global League Table Rankings of Pathway Provider Institutions in the UK
A GLOBAL LEAGUE TABLE FOR THE ERA OF THE CLICK
Some pathway groups also have strong representation in Australia (and to a lesser extent in Canada). A composite league tables to reflect this and show the ‘top 11’ pathway partner universities, according to three major global league tables, shows considerable consistency. Six universities (shaded) are in all the tables and five are in two. It is, however, worth noting that all but one have slipped lower in their placing between THE 2018 and THE 2019.
Table 5 - Top Pathway Partner Universities In Selected Global League Tables
NB: The University referred to in the table as Alabama is the University of Alabama – Birmingham.
CONCLUSION
Most people who work in the sector have seen the growth of league tables as an imposition with occasionally perverse consequences for investment and resource allocation in the institution. It is entirely possible to argue that that the rankings are arbitrary and spurious with no particular relevant to student outcomes. But they are increasingly offering new layers of insight to capture attention – the QS Graduate Employability Rankings is an example.
Students, parents, agents and employers look at league tables and most student recruitment marketing focuses on favourable rankings while ignoring less flattering indicators. They are far from the only factor involved in decision making but they set a tone that influences potential students and staff. It is rare to find an institutional leader who is not keenly aware of their relative performance.
In terms of international recruitment league tables are part of an institution’s ‘sales kit’ and the growth of global comparisons exposes their relative strengths and weaknesses. It is noticeable that as international student growth has stalled in the UK over the past five years the bigger and better ranked university ‘brands’ have taken a larger share of those coming to the country. It seems inevitable that this will be the story for the future and that universities without ranking ‘power’ will need to work harder to avoid being marginalised.
NOTE:
The exact nature of pathway provider and university partnerships is not always clear but extensive efforts have been made to focus on pathway partnerships where students are taught on-campus. The author is happy to hear from any authoritative source who has information that might improve the accuracy of the article. Any corrections will be noted below.
Correction and Update – 1 October 2018
The tables and commentary have been updated to reflect the publication of the THE Global Rankings 2019 during week commencing 24 September 2018 (comparative positions for individual universities are shown). Broadly speaking the new table showed declining rankings for both US and UK universities In addition, the tables have been corrected to show the rankings for Shorelight partner the University of Mississippi (Table 2) and INTO partner the University of Exeter (Table 5).
I think we in the sector tend to over emphasise rankings. Yes, they are a factor, but they’re just one piece of the puzzle in a student’s decision making process. And it varies a lot from source country to country.
University selection is a trade-off of several things: rankings, price, employment opportunities, duration of study and ease of study. Then we get to location factors: weather, amenities, friends/family etc.
The challenge for university marketers is to fit their message to the market they’re targeting. But that takes real analysis, so the default response from central marketing is often just variations of “Look at our rankings!”
University marketing in general is overdue major disruption. There must be few sectors where the people selling the products are so out touch from the consumers, whether that is measured by age, linguistic and cultural background, social class etc.
Totally agree that university marketing is due significant disruption but I saw a recent report where a university that had seen a decline of 11% in enrolments was wringing its hands and considering incremental steps to correct the decline. The challenge for marketing is that some university leadership does not realise how serious life is becoming. Also agree that ranking are only one part of the decision making equation but there is reasonable evidence that many universities are now trying to manage their league table position because it has a material impact on reputation and the ability to attract high-quality staff and students. Interesting times. Thanks for commenting.