Month: September 2019

More US Pathway Cutbacks

Keeping pace of the developing pathway scene among the private providers in the US requires constant attention.  Study Group has taken action within its US portfolio and no longer recruits for four brands featured on the company’s website a few months ago.  After this year’s closure of CEG’s US centers and EC Higher Education’s withdrawal from the market it’s further evidence of the pressure on international student recruitment.

The closed Study Group pathways are Roosevelt, Widener and Merrimack while West Virginia was a direct recruitment option.  The Merrimack relationship extended back over a decade, Widener and Roosevelt were opened in 2012/13.  West Virginia came online in January 2018 with recruitment commencing in fall 2018.

These changes leave Study Group with four regionally-ranked and seven nationally-ranked university partners according to USNWR 2020 listings. Among the nationally-ranked, two were taken over from EC while only three sit above 200: Baylor (79), Vermont (121) and DePaul (125).  Three of the four remaining regionally ranked universities, Oglethorpe, Western Washington and Lynn were signed in 2017, so there may be contractual impediments to early action.

US News Ranking 2020 of Study Group US Partnerships (closed institution in red)

The Study Group closures mean that, as far as I can track from public information, the company has launched 14 university partnerships in the US of which five have now been closed in the past two years.  Between CEG and Study Group more than 10% of US private-pathway provider centers have closed in the past two years.  These tended to be smaller operations in terms of student numbers, but it reflects the stress that the sector is under.       

As global competition grows, the potential for private pathway providers to recruit successfully to less prestigious and/or lower ranked institutions seems increasingly questionable and even bigger names have seen enrolments declining.  It is difficult to see that the increasing view of Admissions Directors from Masters/Baccalaureate institutions that pathways ‘will become more important’ is well founded.   Neither is it obvious that the billion dollar private equity fuelled dash to build pathway capacity in the US is going to pay off in the foreseeable future.

With UK international recruitment prospects resurgent under a new Post-Study Work regime, the growing quality of emerging options around the world and the continuing assertiveness of Canada, Australia and Germany, it’s probably time for a rethink.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Changing Perception of US Pathways

It’s been the quietest year for nearly a decade in terms of announcements about new pathway partnerships in the US, and the 2019 Inside Higher Education (IHE) survey of College and University Admissions Officers suggests a shift in perceptions by institutions.  The closure of several centers in the past year and disappointing enrollments at a number of institutions have given plenty of reason to be cautious.  But faith persists in some sectors.

In the Survey only 12% of public doctoral institutions strongly agreed that “Pathway programs will become more important to US higher education in the current environment.” In the 2018 survey that percentage was 22%.  Among Private Non/Profit Doctoral/Masters institutions, the percentage of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing to the statement fell from 60% to 51%.

Table 1 – Pathway Programmes Importance to US Higher Education (IHE, 2018)

Table 2 – Pathway Programmes Importance to US Higher Education (IHE, 2019)

However, there has been an almost Damascene conversion among Public Master’s/Baccalaureate institutions, where 28% now strongly agree in pathways’ growing importance, compared to 15% last year.  This is mirrored in the Private Non-profit Baccalaureate section where 56% agree or strongly agree compared to 33% last year.  While, at an aggregate level the survey shows declining enthusiasm for pathways it is clear that they still hold an allure for some institutions.

The real question for the new enthusiasts will be whether the private pathway providers have much appetite for non-doctoral institutions.  The portfolios of the ‘big two’, Shorelight and INTO, contain universities offering doctorates some have quite limited offerings.  Study Group have a mixed bag of institutions and recently some at non-degree level in Canada, and Navitas has some non-doctoral universities on the roster.

Potential for new, high-profile partners may become even more limited as stronger US institutions become increasingly comfortable with their capacity and capability to manage enrollments without resorting to a third party.  While, to date pathway providers have been the more likely party to terminate partnerships empowered or disappointed universities might begin to question underperforming relationships or decide they can do better alone.  The scene is set for more turbulence as people come to terms with the new global mobility conditions.       

Furthermore, the UK’s move to institute a two-year Post Study Work (PSW) visa for students enrolled from 2020 may bring further pressure and undermine the US’s position as a favored destination for international students.  After a 33% surge in Chinese undergraduate applications to the UK for 2019/20, the UK Home Office reported that the number of Indian students choosing to study in the UK increased 42% from June 2018 to June 2019.  It is likely that following the PSW announcement, India’s numbers will continue to grow rapidly for the 2020 intake.

Alongside that, the US is heading for an election year where the future of global relationships, student visas and existing post-study options could be part of the political debate.  Just as the financial markets dislike turbulence it is difficult to see why a student would choose to invest in an uncertain future.  The relatively safe havens and emerging, quality options around the world could seem increasingly attractive. 

For Study Group and Navitas any difficulties in recruitment to the US will be mitigated by increasing momentum behind their considerable portfolios in other parts of the world.  INTO’s mix is more finely balanced but its recent focus has been on the US and it has just lost the University of Gloucestershire as a UK pathway partner.  Shorelight is wholly US based and will face the full force of global headwinds. 

It certainly seems likely that pressure on sales teams, cost of acquisition and other “promotional” tactics will increase.  Local difficulties, such as those Shorelight are facing in Kuwait, will also impact on the ability to recruit sufficient students for existing partners let alone new ones.  Life is unlikely to get any easier in the short term and may get a lot worse, which might seem to mitigate against continuing expansion, particularly with sub-optimal partners.     

However, ‘doubling down’ is a popular phrase in the US and has come to mean ‘to strengthen one’s commitment to a particular strategy or course of action, typically one that is potentially risky.’  The IHE survey suggests that at least one sector of the market is increasingly interested if pathway operators have the appetite.  But in terms of recruitment it might be worth remembering that, as the UK’s ‘Iron Lady’, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said in 1997, ”you can’t buck the market.”

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

PSW – The Morning After

There’s plenty of jubilation over the re-introduction of two-year Post-Study Work visas and congratulations are due to those who lobbied for it.  But it’s worth remembering that Government’s rarely give something without wanting something in return and that every gift horse should be given careful scrutiny.  In that context there are a few things to look out for over the coming weeks, months and years.

Drift, Detail and Design

A ‘popular’ announcement from a Government under pressure is often rushed out with detail and other policy intent still needing to be tidied up.  The Home Secretary’s announcement that the new Graduate Route ‘will mean talented international students, whether in science and maths or technology and engineering, can study in the UK…’ was curious in the context of a scheme allowing all graduates to stay.  It’s mirrored on the Home Office website and may provide cover for a later tightening of the rules to specific subjects.

A Step Forward But…

Some details of PSW are still to be announced but it seems slightly short of the Australian (two to four years) and Canadian (up to three years) schemes.  It is not yet clear if families can join the PSW graduate as in Australia and it seems doubtful that there will be any room for promoting it as a route to permanent residence as Canadian institutions do.  And there is always the potential for both those countries to step up their offer to become even more competitive.      

Economic Conditions Can Change Policy

PSW was last introduced in the UK in 2002 when unemployment was 5%.  It’s discontinuation in 2012 followed a rapid rise in unemployment to 8% between 2009 and 2011. Prime Minister David Cameron told the House of Commons, ‘Frankly, there are lots of people in our country desperate for jobs. We don’t need the brightest and best of students to come here and then do menial jobs.’

The economic direction of travel for the UK post-Brexit is uncertain but universities have been drawn very directly into discussions about employability and the value of a degree. It’s easy to allow PSW in an era of historically low unemployment, currently around 4%, but if recession hits and unemployment climbs it is equally simple to remove it.  Trends in numbers and careers of home graduates may factor in that equation.

Table 1 – UK Unemployment 2000-2013

Grounds for Home Student Fee Reduction

The HE sector made an enormous song and dance about the contribution of international student fees but may find being granted it has unintended consequences.  With increasing international students providing a major economic stimulus to universities there is fertile ground for populist and electioneering proposals to cut fees for home students and increase investment in school and FE.  It’s probably helpful that international students also prop up the economics of many STEM courses and postgraduate study.

Limiting HE Investment to Support Other Priorities

Universities may hope the Augar Review has been buried but newspaper headlines about ‘low value’ courses, universities manipulating applications, grade inflation and VC pay are unlikely to have been totally forgotten.  More importantly, more money from international students gives grounds to support more popular or political priorities.   It was interesting to see Chancellor Sajid ‘I went to my local FE College’ Javid, Spending Round announcement include an increase for further education funding in the 2019 spending round and increasing ‘school spending by £7.1 billion by 2022-23, compared to this year.’

International Fees For EU Students

One of the arguments against introducing international fees for EU students post-Brexit has been that it will cause a significant decline in their numbers.  A surge in traditional international fee-paying students attracted by PSW makes up those numbers and would allow EU students to work as PSW international students without a more complex arrangement with Europe.  Making EU students ineligible for UK student loans would also eliminate headlines like ‘Thousands of EU students fail to repay loans.’

Never Mind the Quality Feel the Width

It is arguable that strong brands perceived as high quality or with potent strategies for recruitment have not been particularly troubled by the lack of post study work visas.  Eight Russell Group universities each increased their first-year international student intakes by over 27% over the two years from 2015/16 to 2017/18.  Even beyond that Group there are clear winners who achieved significant growth including De Montfort (+78%) and the University of East London (+90.6%). 

For some universities these were grim years with five institutions each seeing their intake decline by over 300 students.   PSW is likely to see such institutions making up for lost time and revenue by driving international numbers up but the quality of the intake may suffer.  PSW as the driver for attracting less able international students to cash-strapped universities is not a particularly lofty ideal.

Competition for Places and Jobs

The potential for significant upturns in volumes of international students comes just as the upswing occurs in home student demographics with HEPI suggesting the need for up to 300,000 additional university places by 2030.  This sets the scene for potential conflict between home students and international students – particularly if home fees go down and institutions are looking towards the economics.  The OECD’s Education at A Glance 2019 noted, ‘there is a risk of squeezing out qualified national students from domestic tertiary educational institutions that differentiate tuition fees by student origin, as they may tend to give preference to international students who generate higher revenues through higher tuition fees”.

It’s suggested that in 2019 around 1,000 places were reserved for international students in Clearing and the economics may push institutions to favouring international students over home students just as home demand steps up.  It is only a short step to stories about debt-laden home graduates being unemployed because universities are enticing increasing amounts of international competition for early career jobs.  At that point the freedom of PSW may find itself subject to increasing scrutiny and Government intervention.

Conclusion

A benevolent PSW policy is to be welcomed where it builds on the reputation of the sector for quality and is part of a strategic approach to supporting higher education’s potential as a major contributor to global influence as well as the UK’s economic and cultural development.  It is also possible that the recent announcement was carefully planned and is the start of a period of unprecedented benevolence towards higher education in the UK.  But history and context suggest that things are rarely so simple.   


Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay   

AN ENGLISHMAN ABROAD FINDS THE BREXIT BONUS

Having completed my own Brexit nearly two years ago I hadn’t expected too much more from my home country.  But the political meanderings over two years since the vote have been the gift that keeps on giving. And over the past two weeks I have been in higher demand than usual by US acquaintances looking for answers.

Being an authoritative source on all matters British and political has its responsibilities.  That hasn’t prevented me claiming that every time anyone in the UK says ‘the Queen’ or ‘Her Majesty’ they have to add ‘God Bless Her’.  But by and large I have been a serious commentator on what are extraordinary times.

It’s very difficult to explain the role of the Queen (God Bless Her) in a Parliamentary democracy.  There is also a touching faith in this ex-colony that she is the smartest person in the country and should just step in to direct MPs on which way is up.  It’s particularly difficult to explain that she has to avoid becoming involved in politics. 

That leads to a whole bunch of unanswerable questions about why she gets to pick the Prime Minister, give Royal Assent to Bills to make them law, and why it’s Her Majesty’s Government.  This gets compounded when I comment that Boris Johnson’s majority would have been lost long ago if the Sinn Fein members chose to sit.  I’d invite everyone to work out why a democratically elected Member of Parliament can’t sit because they won’t swear allegiance to someone who has no direct authority over them.

The House of Lords is another source of mystery and amusement to an incredulous American.  The notion of an unelected group being able to stymie the progress of Bills passed by elected MPs is  as mystifying to me as anyone.  I have taken to calling them the House of Unrepresentatives and relying on interminable, dull, repetitive detail to bore my listeners – a bit like an ordinary day in the House of Lords really.

For the interested (and this is a bit of a pop quiz for readers in the UK) I explain that the full name is the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled.  It meets in a Palace and doesn’t have a fixed size but its make up includes 92 hereditary peers, 26 bishops, and a bunch of people appointed by the Queen (God Bless Her).  At this point I usually have to confirm that Her Majesty remains above politics and only acts on advice.

One contention of the Americans is that this is a separation of powers issue which arises because we don’t have a written Constitution.  My first line of defence is to argue that it is difficult to see how a document written in the 1780s is entirely fit for purpose over 220 years later and they spend a lot of time in court arguing over interpretations.  A little more smugly, I usually go on to point out that the first ten amendments, passed in 1791, are largely based on Magna Carta (1215) and the English Bill of Rights (1689).

Talk then turns to the machinations in Parliament and the role of the Prime Minister.  Here, the difficulty is that there is a tendency to confuse his role and powers with those of the President in the US.  There is some consternation but also some envy when I explain that the Prime Minister is not elected by the populace and that there’s a reasonable tradition of Prime Ministers being ousted by their own party. 

Explaining the powers of the Prime Minister is a bit like trying to explain dark matter.  Aficionados believe it is exists and there is even a reasonable theoretical basis for suggesting it makes a real difference.  But every time push comes to shove the evidence disappears as quickly as a manager of Chelsea football club.

Boris Johnson losing his first three or four votes has made this even more complicated than explaining how Theresa May’s rose to the top political post in the UK after a career with no visible achievements. Equally difficult is explaining why Boris has been able to instantly make the leader of the opposition look like a statesman of gravitas, sense and focus.  And neither is as satisfying as explaining that Jo Johnson’s election and appointment to a Government post was nothing like the rise of Ivanka and Jared to positions of authority in the White House. 

Speaking of Jo Johnson reminds me that Brexit has been a goldmine for memes.  My favourite three currently are:

  • Jo Johnson resigned to spend less time with his family
  • James Bond to the Queen ‘The Members of Parliament, Ma’am?’.  The Queen, ‘Yes, 007, all of them’     
  • The picture of Jacob Rees-Mogg lounging on a bench in the House of Commons being turned into a brilliant visual where he is cuddled by a topless man

Grimmer, but beautifully framed in its righteous scorn, was a comment in the speech by Sir Nicholas Soames after being removed from the Conservative party for voting against the Government.  He commented on the actions of ‘…my right-honourable friend the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House and other members of the Cabinet whose serial disloyalty has been an inspiration for so many of us.’  Truth, humour and sadness captured in a dozen words. 

All this has a serious side and for expats the gloom of the falling pound has only been matched by the sense that the country is being ridiculed for its introspection and in-fighting.  But then, almost miraculously, another day of extraordinary tension showed a silver lining and confirmed something I had been saying for months to my American friends.

I had patiently explained that MPs are representatives and therefore have a duty to do what they think is in the best interests of their constituents even if their constituents didn’t agree.  I also said that MPs could and would vote against their party on issues of conscience.  The voting, changing of party and ousting of members from the conservative party brought this home in spectacular style.

It was a matter of enormous pride to see MPs face down bullying, threats and the prospect of their careers ending in order to vote in the national interest.  For those I know in the US it was great theatre but it has been interesting to see them reflect that partisan politics mean it has become impossible to imagine such a widespread demonstration of individual accountability in their Senate.  At least members of the Mother of Parliaments, for all the chaos, have shown their willingness to take responsibility whatever the personal cost. 


Image by Tumisu from Pixabay