Jeopardy for UK Universities Giving EU Students Financial Preference

Anyone who thought that “Brexit means Brexit” or that all UK universities would accept that EU students no longer have special protection on tuition fee levels should think again.  Some institutions are publicizing that EU students starting in Autumn 2021 will pay Home student fees for the duration of their studies.  Some suggest it may be illegal and for international students from other countries it will reinforce a suspicion that Euro or Western-centric policies, pricing and priorities continue to prevail in some English institutions.

The straightforward fact is that if you are a student from China, India, Nigeria, Brazil, Canada or anywhere outside the EU, there are at least six universities in England who have decided to charge you a significantly higher tuition fee to sit alongside an international student from a European Union country in the 2021/22 academic year.  It is a distinction not based on that student’s language capability, their government’s contribution to English higher education, their intelligence, or their capacity to pay.  The privileged treatment applies, without any form of means testing, to students from some of the wealthiest countries in the world.      

A review of the 40 English universities with the most European Union students (HESA, 2018/19) shows that five have either maintained EU rates at the same level as UK students or put in place special ‘scholarships’ that have the same effect. 

UniversityNumber of EU StudentsUniversity Statement
Bedfordshire1,725Approved-schedule-of-mainstream-fees-2021-22-081220.pdf (beds.ac.uk)
Solent1,310Following the UK government’s confirmation that EU students will no longer be eligible for home fee status benefits, we’ve made the decision to keep EU tuition fees the same as UK tuition fees for 2021 entry.
West London1,240No statement – shown on fee schedules
De Montfort1,175DMU recognise the challenges this brings for our prospective EU students, and therefore for undergraduate EU students commencing their course in the academic year 2021/22 an automatic discount will be applied to reduce their undergraduate fees to £9,250 for the duration of their course.
Portsmouth1,120If you’re an EU, EEA or Swiss national or an EU national with settled status in the UK, starting a course in the academic year 2021/22 or later years, you will no longer be eligible for the same fees as UK students. You’ll pay the same fees as an international student. But a Transition Scholarship will be applied to your fees reducing them to the same amount as UK students. 

A sixth, the University of Kent, which dubs itself “The UK’s European University”, has put in place a blanket 25% reduction on the international fee level.  Seven others currently either indicate that they cannot confirm fee liability or do not have any 2021/22 academic year fees shown on their websites.  Among these is Coventry University which, with over 3,600 EU students in 2018/19, has a lot at stake.

Beneath the top 40, Royal Holloway, University of London, was among the first universities to indicate its intention to maintain EU student fee levels in 2021/22.  Their online statement suggests good intent as they note, “At Royal Holloway, we wish to support those students affected by this change in status through this transition. For eligible EU students starting their course with us in September 2021, we will award a fee reduction scholarship which brings your fee into line with the fee paid by UK students.”  The institution is keeping its options open for the 2022 intake and a cynic might suggest it will see how enrollment goes before deciding whether to extend the reduction.

While the argument about support through transition sounds good universities do not, generally, take on wholesale financial risks incurred by students as circumstances change.  Students often find that the currency exchange rate goes against them during the course of undergraduate study, in the case of Indian students by around 18% between September 2017 and July 2020, but universities don’t cover the cost.  Giving a blanket dispensation on fees to favour students from 27 countries is unheard of and a cynic might argue that it is driven by enrollment objectives more than anything else.

It also raises the question about the nature of the cross-subsidy that non-EU international students might be giving to the new class of “EU international” students.   The Migration Advisory Committee report of September 2018 made the point that, “There is no doubt that international students offer positive economic benefit, including cross-subsidising the education of domestic students and research.” This suggests that allowing EU students to continue paying “home” fees will mean that their full-rate international student peers will be subsidizing them.

Relatively little has been written about the legality of this type of favouritism for one group of international students over another.  In July 2016 Elizabeth Jones, a senior associate at Farrer & Co, wrote for Times Higher Education that  “Universities are required by the Equality Act 2010 to treat students in a way that does not discriminate on the grounds of any “protected characteristic” such as race (which includes nationality), age, sex and disability.”   She noted that providing students from the rest of the EU with the same fees as UK “home” student fees was, at the time, an allowable exception because it was mandated by legislation.

A statement by Michelle Donelan, Minister of State for Universities made it clear that this mandate no longer existed. “Following our decision to leave the EU, EU, other EEA and Swiss nationals will no longer be eligible for home fee status…for courses starting in the academic year 2021/22.”  In July 2020, Gerrit Bruno Blöss, CEO of Study.eu, commented on the damaging impact this could have but noted that, “A few institutions are also evaluating potential legal loopholes to charge different fees.”  Perhaps they found them or simply decided that nobody would notice or dispute their decision.

The UK Council for International Student Affairs (UKCISA) is simply publishing Donelan’s statement and reflecting that further guidance on regulations from Government may not come before the Student Loans Company (SLC) system launch in February 2021.  It is surprisingly coy, given its remit as “the UK’s national advisory body supporting international students” about whether maintaining a significant price differential between two groups of international students is fair, decent or appropriate.  It claims every UK university as a member and must know that some institutions are publicising their 2021/22 academic year pricing strategy on that premise.

UKCISA’s 2020 Policy Position Paper notes that a key part of delivering a world class student experience is communicating “a clear message of welcome to all international students in the UK, at every level of study”.  That seems quite difficult if the system becomes underpinned by preferential treatment for students from the EU without real clarity on what makes such exceptions equitable or even reasonable.  This is particularly so when so many other institutions have made it clear that the ‘international’ fee will apply to EU students from the 2021 academic year.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Office for Students (OfS) is silent on the issue.  It has been pointed out elsewhere that the OfS shows a level of disinterest in whether international students get value for money from a UK education.  Perhaps they could provide comparative information to at least fulfil their promise to “ensure that all students are provided with the necessary information, advice and guidance so that they can make informed decisions about where and what to study.” 

It’s also not clear where the National Union of Students stands on this anomaly.  Back in 2013 their position was that, “It is scandalous that non-EU students are charged fees that can be thousands of pounds higher than those for other students.”  One would think that they would at least expect everyone designated an international students to receive equal treatment from universities.

With the pandemic and Brexit diverting attention it may not seem important that a handful of universities have gone out on a limb to preserve a point of privilege for EU students.  But reputation is hard to gain and easy to lose.  It’s time for the UK authorities to clarify the situation and possibly for Messrs Sue, Grabbitt and Runne to become involved. 

NOTE

In principle I am in favour of all education being free and would welcome a situation where universities were able to focus only on teaching, learning and research in the interests of students and broader humanity.  This blog reflects the realities of international student fees and the potential for preferential treatment to emerge when universities make decisions driven by economic factors.   

Image by Thanks for your Like • donations welcome from Pixabay

An Englishman Abroad Votes for Democracy

Unpicking the result of the past US election and predicting the result of the next has been a favourite pastime even since I have been living here.  That’s three years of unrelenting, partisan turmoil played out very publicly and with increasing levels of vitriol on both sides.  In a strictly non-partisan way, I’ve been trying to work out what advice I’d give to the UK to preserve democracy, common sense and some decorum.  My first would, of course, be not to put any changes to a referendum….

STICK TO ONE MAIN ELECTION FOR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

There is a non-stop merry go round of elections in the US.  While the Presidential election comes round once every four years, a third of the Senate seats and all 435 House of Representative voting seats are up for grabs every two years.  It makes for a pretty bumpy ride where control of the House or the Senate can change and make the President more or less effective. 

Three equal branches of Government may sound like a neat balance but like all balances the system lurches if distribution of ‘weight’ changes by an ounce.  Too many elections leads to too much politics with too much campaigning and too many reasons for people to be negative about each other.  There is little time for holding out a hand of reconciliation because the scars of the last battle aren’t healed before the next one comes along.

MOVING OUT TODAY

Watching the ex-Prime Minister of the UK driving in an official car to Buckingham Palace to resign, then leaving Downing Street in a second-hand Mini Metro the day after the polls close is one of the great levellers in human life.  When the people speak they should be heeded and it does not need Oliver Cromwell pointing at the defeated PM saying, “In the name of God, go” to confirm that time is up.  Once the vote is in the loser departs, and the winner takes up their own temporary occupancy.

It seems risky to have a disgruntled, disillusioned leader with nothing at stake roaming the corridors of power with a nuclear football to hand and a bunch of executive orders looking for scores to settle.  Leaving it like that for two months is like letting a friend of a friend crash on your couch for the night as a favour, only to find them using your toothbrush eight weeks later.  Elections are meant to have consequences and these should include a swift relocation and a period in the wilderness.

KEEP IT TO PARTIES

Having an elected President places sweeping authority in the hands of one individual.  Being the most powerful person in the world sounds like fun but everyone should take a lesson from the film Bruce Almighty.  Even when a relatively benign individual gets almost unlimited power it doesn’t end well and as Lord Acton wrote to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” 

The primus/prima inter pares role of UK Prime Minister has had some pretty despicable people holding the role but they simply don’t have the ability to act without constraint in the way of an elected President.  Of course, the more supine and feckless the rest of the party has been the more amplified the role of the Prime Minister.  But even the autocratic Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, was brought down and forced to resign just three years after a landslide Conservative victory at the polls

MAKE THE MEDIA MEDIATE

The moral for UK should not forsake the BBC or allow any other broadcast channel to become a loud hailer for party politics.  Partisan channels, on either side, become echo chambers that stifle political discourse and open debate about ideas.  The BBC makes mistakes from time to time but in 2019 a new high of 426m people a week tuned into it and in 2017 it was placed as the 20th most reputable CSR brand in the world.

It would also be good if the media could also stop using words and phrases in a way that looks macho while masking reality.  My least liked is “doubling down” – it sounds tough but usually means (and should be replaced by) “reckless gamble”.  Next is “breaking news” which sounds urgent but is often a rolling news misnomer for “old news but new pundits commenting” or “stuff our pundits just said that we can pretend is urgent”. 

Most recently “bully pulpit” has been used to suggest righteous browbeating of the opposition when it really should be replaced with “angry, spiteful, aggression by people who have no respect for their office.”  The phrase was used by President Theodore Roosevelt in the early 1900s but it is suggested the term bully was more commonly used in that era to mean “superb” or “wonderful”.  Being President is a good platform but is probably better suited to Roosevelt’s dictum “speak softly and carry a big stick.”

TURN OFF TWITTER

According to a 2019 analysis by Pew Research Center, 22 percent of adults in the U.S. use Twitter, but just 10 percent of those adults are responsible for 80 percent of tweets.  There is evidence that “..the routinization of Twitter into news production affects news judgment”.  It is not hard to believe that Twitter is a partial, selective and distorting way of the media communicating or getting information.

Anything a political figure tweets or re-tweets should be considered their official position because the public is paying them to do the job.  As it is, we have a totally unfettered, no cost, manipulable channel that has become the driving force for the news agenda.  Even worse is the way that it makes the media act like a hyperactive puppy distracted by the next shiny bauble that appears in front of it.      

DON’T LET MONEY TALK LOUDEST

It’s eye opening to see the amounts that are raised, with the 2020 US campaign estimated to have seen nearly $11bn spent.  By comparison in the UK 2017 general election, 75 parties and 18 campaign groups reported spending about £42m between them.  It’s not a direct comparison but the magnitude suggests that there is a material difference in the way elections are conducted.

There’s some dispute about whether there is a direct cause, rather than correlation, between money spent and successful candidates but it seems a reasonable indicator.  If the money doesn’t help win the election it’s difficult to see why so much is being spent and even US voters would sooner there was more constraint.  It seemed particularly absurd during a pandemic to be pouring money into politics.

DO NOT GET COURTS IN THE ACT UNNECESSARILY

Illegality should, of course, be prosecuted and with significant consequences if democracy is being undermined.  But it is not a good look for an election to be determined by the courts.  Over fifty court cases have been lodged after the 2020 US Presidential election with a significant majority “dismissed or dropped due to lack of evidence”

Since 2000 the UK has had four cases and two petitions withdrawn before trial.  In 2010, one of the four cases resulted in a void election because Phil Woolas breached the Representation of the People Act 1983.  Quite charmingly by today’s standards Woolas was ousted because he made a “false statements of fact” about an opposing candidate – just imagine, a politician losing their seat for lying… 

KEEP POLITICS OUT OF BOUNDARY DECISIONS

I had learnt the word gerrymandering while studying the politics of Northern Ireland but had never got quite so far as to understand that it is an American term first used in Boston, Massachusetts in 1812.  The Gerry in question was Governor Elbridge Gerry who redistricted Massachusetts for the benefit of the Democratic-Republican Party.  One of the contorted districts was said to resemble a mythological salamander and so the portmanteau word was born.

Redistricting of electoral boundaries within states falls to whichever legislature and court happens to be in power at the time.  For anyone used to the non-partisan Boundary Commissions of the UK this seems a bit like giving a dominant football team a home draw for all of its FA Cup matches.  Constituency boundaries are messy and nobody is ever completely happy but this shouldn’t be compounded by overt political distortion.

None of this should suggest that I don’t despair at the handling and outcome of some of the UK elections and I am sure there is no perfect system.  It also seems a long time since I sat screaming at the radio at three am in the morning while sitting on my bedsit floor after voting for the first time.  But at least in a democracy you get to have your say, can be an activist and can blame others for the consequences if you don’t win. 

Churchill was right to quote past wisdom when telling the House of Commons in 1947 that, “democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…”  He was, of course, ousted in the 1945 General Election despite his enormous personal popularity following service as the war-time coalition leader but he continued to respect the process.  His doctor Lord Moran commiserated with him on the “ingratitude” of the British public, but Churchill replied: “I wouldn’t call it that. They have had a very hard time”.      

Image by Tumisu from Pixabay

PIGS TO PETTICOATS TO PATHWAY PROBLEMS

INTO’s London-based joint venture with Newcastle University is the second of the pathway provider’s high profile university partnerships to come to grief at the Middlesex Street building near Liverpool Street station.  The location was also the home of INTO’s venture with the ill-fated London Academy of Diplomacy, led by Joseph Mifsud who became infamous for his involvement in Robert Mueller’s enquiry into President Trump.  It’s reasonable to say that the site has seen more than its fair share of false starts, big ambitions and strange bedfellows – there’s even a Princess at one point.

The timeline of occupants, the financial fortunes of the joint ventures and the variety of pre-university, undergraduate and master’s courses offered suggests that making a success of a London venture is tricky.  There are many potential downsides to higher education investment in one of the most expensive cities in the world.  When ambience fall short of a true campus experience, facilities are limited and university faculty are more committed to their home towns it can be particularly hard going.

A run through the various occupants of Middlesex shows that even well ranked partners with global reputations might find it too difficult or too expensive to make things work.  The dates of operation are taken from public documents but may reflect a difference between an entity being incorporated and its first intake. Any authoritative updates are welcome.       

INTO University of East Anglia, London (2009-2014)

INTO UEA (London Campus) LLP was established as a joint venture in 2009 to provide academic and language courses, primarily to international students, at a purpose built study centre in London.  The intention was to offer pre-university courses along with “graduate and post-graduate courses taught by UEA academics”.   But UEA’s 2011/12 Financial Statement suggested that things were not going to plan and noted, “Trading to date is slightly down on the original plan, reflecting a slower build up in student numbers than originally anticipated.”

The University’s 2012/13 Annual Report comments, “In light of the current trading performance of INTO London, and the fact that accumulated losses will not be recouped for some time, the University made a capital investment of £3,000,000 in the joint venture in August 2013.”  An operating loss of £1.2m in 2011/12 had followed one of £2.5m in 2010/11 for the joint venture.   By early 2014 UEA had decided to retire at the end of July 2014 to focus on delivering teaching and research, “at our superb Norwich campus,”.

INTO City, University of London (2010-Current)

INTO City began trading in 2010 and focuses on pre-university courses.  By 2015 the joint venture had net current liabilities of £5.8m and its annual report noted “material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt upon the LLP’s ability to continue as a going concern.” Discussions were ongoing to reduce the charges from each partner, clarify governance and recapitalize the venture.

The outcomes suggest a rebalancing of risk and reward reflected in City’s 2018/19 Financial Statements which note that, “Prior to 1 September 2017, a 50 per cent share of the net assets and liabilities was included in City’s balance sheet and 50 per cent of its net income was reported in the consolidated income and expenditure account. Since 1 September 2017, City’s share of net income has been reduced to 15 percent.”  Always worth remembering that universities are primarily interested in pathway providers because of the income they receive from students who progress to full degree courses.  This may be a reason that City gives equal prominence on its webpages to the pathway arrangement with Kaplan International College 

London Academy of Diplomacy (2010-2016)

In an impassioned blog in 2013, UEA visiting lecturer Barry Tomalin advocated, “Don’t Let Diplomacy Fail”, to students at INTO’s London Academy of Diplomacy (known affectionately as “LAD”).  Under Professor Nabil Ayad, LAD had been with the University of Westminster, but from 2010 its degrees were validated by UEA and it operated out of Middlesex Street.  Another INTO partner, the University of Stirling, took over validating the Academy’s awards in 2014 by which time Professor Joseph Mifsud was Director of LAD. 

Brig Newspaper does a decent job of explaining the story of the “academic who attempted to connect the Trump campaign with Vladimir Putin” and INTO’s role with the Academy.  It highlights that LAD was closed in 2016 “citing financial difficulties” and an article in the Diplomat suggest that the Academy had 150 students in 2014.  Sufficient to say that the University of Stirling’s London-based activities arising from its joint-venture with INTO, whether with LAD or the short-lived Master’s program at a different site in the capital, no longer exist.

INTO Newcastle University London (2015-2021)

The Newcastle University London joint venture had an inaugural intake in 2015 and offered both pathway and degree courses.  Opened by HRH Princess Eugenie, a Newcastle graduate, in October 2015, it held the university’s aspirations that, ”..in collaboration with INTO, our London campus is expected to grow to 1,200 students.”  By 2018/19 the venture had grown to 504 enrollments but its operating losses had reached £2.4m.

Council minutes from the University indicate that discussions and negotiations about the future of the joint venture had been ongoing during most of 2019.  By April 2020 the University’s Council noted “that there was a compelling case to suspend undergraduate recruitment in 2020 on the grounds of insufficient applications, and judged that the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic would make future viability even less likely.”  It seemed a short step from there to the recent announcement that the joint venture would close next year.

INTO London World Education Center (“WEC”) (2017-Current)

WEC is a wholly owned operation of INTO’s which began operations around 2012/13 and offers pre-university courses for international students.  The student outcomes are accepted for consideration for entry by over 100 UK universities.  The accounts for 2015/16 noted an expected move to Middlesex Street which would “represent a more desirable study location” than its previous home on Mile End Road but this appears to have been delayed until 2017/18.

Year one at the new location saw a rise from 123 to 157 students but 2018/19 saw a decline back to 126.  WEC’s operating loss grew from £1.9m to £2.4m year-on-year across the two periods.  WEC’s debt to other INTO group undertakings also appears to have risen to £8.9m in 2019 from £5.6m in 2015.  

London – A Golden Opportunity or a Battle for Survival?

The chequered history of the Middlesex Street pathway operation matches the shifting sands of the location.  The Street was known as Hogge Lane in the Middle Ages  because pigs were fattened up in the surrounding fields to feed Londoners. Ryther’s famous map of 1608 records a name change, with Hogge Lane becoming Peticote Lane (with the spelling later being standardised to ”Petticoat”) as the area had become known for merchants’ selling second-hand clothes.  Petticoat Lane Market became one of the most famous in London, but around 1830 prudish authorities thought it unseemly to have a thoroughfare named after an item of women’s underwear and it was renamed Middlesex Street.

Shakespeare is quoted as saying, “I hope to see London ere I die” and many universities and pathway operators have set their sights on the UK capital in the belief it is an irresistible magnet to international students.    And Benjamin Disraeli, twice British prime minister in the 1800s, said “London is a modern Babylon” which suggests its history as an appropriate location for language-oriented pathways.  It is certainly possible to see pathway successes in London, with an example being the Kaplan International Centre which continues to add to an illustrious list of partner institutions.

But with the fallout from Brexit, the potential resurgence of a more friendly US international student experience, and all the uncertainties of a post-pandemic world the future for London-based education is far from clear.  Expensive buildings and accommodation, limited commitment from faculty to travel to London and low progression rates from a London pathway course to a distant campus are all obstacles to be overcome.  It could be that legendary punk group The Ruts summed up the future for investors best when they sang, “Babylon’s burning with anxiety”. 

NOTES   

1. Information relating to joint venture finances is taken from the filings at Companies House (INTO UEA (London Campus) LLP (now INTO London Mdx Street LLP, INTO City LLP, Newcastle University INTO London LLP, and INTO London World Education Centre Limited.

2. Commentary on the ventures at Middlesex Street has been taken from official records but it is a complex history.  Any corrections, insights or updates from sources that can be validated are welcome. They will be noted and credited on this blog.

Image by TeeFarm from Pixabay