There’s significant interest in the higher education community about the rise of websites claiming to match students to degree programmes and what they might mean for student choice. The websites and public comments of these aggregators are strong on claims about transparency, choice and putting the interests of students first. This blog gets close and personal with a couple of websites of main players and gets granular enough to suggest that there might be room for improvement.
As a disclaimer I should note that, despite a philosophical preference for all education to be free, I appreciate the value that private investment can bring to expanding choice and opportunity. If investors can employ people and make a return while offering good value to students, it seems to me to be an acceptable trade off. I also have no reason to disbelieve the claim of aggregators that they aim to make global student choice easier and more accessible.
To ease the flow of the blog I have put a note of search terms used at the bottom of the text. As with all research there is an element of subjectivity in my choices but they serve to explore some points about the way the system works. The two operators chosen reflect their scale and profile rather than any value judgement about their quality compared to other operators in this increasingly crowded space.
Before plunging into that detail there are a couple of general points that emerge from looking at several aggregator websites:
– The word ‘partner’ occurs often without a full explanation of what the relationship is or what due diligence has been done to ensure quality or appropriateness. There is usually even less insight into the nature of the commercial relationship with their partners and the ways that this might skew presentation of information.
An example of that the Studyportals Bachelorportal top level search* produced 839 courses on the ‘Our Picks’ list. The first 10 were the University of Lincoln and the first 253 were flagged as ‘Featured’. The site says, “the university partners with us for this programme to reach students like you”. Studyportals have confirmed that being featured represents ‘paid exposure services’ for the universities in question.
It is common for internet search engines to tell the user which results are adverts. But when an aggregator lists ‘Our Picks’ it might be taken to imply that they take some responsibility (other than being paid) for the selection. While Studyportals gives details about its organizational partners and its student partners it does not do so about university partners.
– There are many claims intended to satisfy students about the choice the site offers and the lure of counselling about those options. For example, ApplyBoard claims to have “built partnerships with over 1,500 primary, secondary, and post-secondary educational institutions, and work with 5,000+ recruitment partners”. It’s difficult to know the breakdown of these and the website gives no indication of how many universities in each of the four countries – Canada, USA, UK and Australia – can be searched on the site.
Using the ApplyBoard Quick Search and asking a broad query to study Business in the United Kingdom offered 10,000+ programs in 100+ “schools”. My count was of only 70 institutions named with the 100 being achieved through branch campuses – including the most, eight, from University of Law. At least 40 of the 100+ links led to pathway operations from Study Group, Kaplan, INTO, Navitas or CEG.
With over 140 degree bearing institutions in the United Kingdom it seems arguable that ApplyBoard is some way short of offering a critical mass of choice for students using the service. One of the arguments levelled against student recruitment agents has been that their choice is restricted to institutions who they have commercial terms with. The strength of this may be that they usually have the benefit of familiarization trips and visits from university or pathway staff to enhance the advice they give students. The extent to which an aggregator offers counselling advice based on direct personal knowledge of an institution may be an area for development.
To an extent none of that would matter if the much-vaunted machine learning, artificial intelligence and algorithms were providing good matching between the student and the university. A student would put their information into the system and it would throw out carefully calibrated responses that reflected the student’s personal needs as well as their academic capability. Testing across the aggregators is complex and cannot be consistent because search terms are rarely the same but a look at Apply Board and Studyportals gives some indication of what the student experience looks like. The analysis took place between 8 and 11 May.
Even for a native English speaker the process is tough to navigate so I decided to go with being a US citizen who had studied in the UK to A-level. After my experiment with a top-level query (discussed above) I filled out both the eligibility and school filters on the page to give a more precise search for a UK university**. It provided 1000+ programs at 45 schools but the results were less than inspiring.
As I wanted to go direct to a university BA degree programme it was unhelpful to find the Relevance list populating only with pathway operations or foundation courses offered by a university through another route. The top option on the list was “2-Semester Pathway – International Year One in Business and Management – Bachelor of Science – Business and Management (Year in Business)” at Royal Holloway’s International Study Centre run by Study Group. This suggests that the algorithm does its best but may not always reflect what students are searching for.
When I tried to view the list by the “school rank” option I presumed it would be indicative of university rankings although there was no source indicated. Given this expectation it was surprising to find the universities of Manchester, Durham and Lancaster further down the list than Anglia Ruskin University. There would be merit in clarifying what the ranking system is and also, what the progression rate to the university is if a pathway option is shown.
When I entered the same search terms for study in Canada (changing my visa status to Canadian Study Permit or Visitor Visa and the duration to a four-year bachelors) I got 25 schools and 139 programs with direct entry options at universities at the top. Presumably, this reflects the lower number of pathway operations in Canada or the strength of ApplyBoard connections in the country.
For the USA (visa status F1 and as a UK national) it was 91 schools and 1000+ programs but with INTO’s Undergraduate Pathway at George Mason University at the top and their two-semester business pathway at Suffolk University third on the list. Digging further down the list it became clear that the pathway operations were featured relatively heavily rather than the ‘direct admission’ I had searched for. This, couple with the UK experience, might suggest that pathway operators are early investors in the aggregator model in countries where they have a foothold.
The recent linking of Studyportals with Times Higher Education Student is one of the most apparent signs of league table compilers looking for ways to exercise their aggregator power over student interest. Studyportals pages currently appears to favour the QS World University Rankings as a yardstick for university ranking and it will be interesting to see if the allegiance shifts. It’s the sort of decision that reflects the impetus behind deciding what information to present to students and how transparent an aggregator is about who is paying to be represented.
A helpful feature is the ability to adjust the information received to reflect a currency of your choice and also the actual rate being charged for your nationality. This is particularly important for EU students who, in 2021, will be charged Home tuition fees by some UK universities rather than international fee rates. This is available on the home page but it might be better if elevated to make this more apparent – I totally missed it in my original analysis.3
I signed up and completed most of my profile in the Mastersportal*** (there is some personal information I preferred not to share). When I looked at the ‘Recommended for You’ section of my profile I was offered 18 programmes of which all 10 in the UK were through online delivery. This seemed to ignore my stated preference for on campus study.
There was no explanation of how these had been selected or favoured but three were from Nottingham Trent University. So, I returned to the main Masters portal to search for Business and Management at the top level and found that Nottingham Trent University was a ‘featured’ university. When I searched at this level with ‘on campus learning’ enabled the online NTU options disappeared.
Some Thoughts
The mystery shopping was not comprehensive or even exhaustive but serves to highlight some of the issues that emerge in a complex and dynamic sector where nuance can mean a lot. My insights are likely to be better informed than a non-native English-speaking student encountering the systems for the first time and the world of HE as a newcomer. My contention would be that the limitations of the systems and their biases could be made clearer to users.
On the upside, both sites were relatively easy to use and the links to information about the universities were generally well managed. I did not research aspects of the service that students pay for and it is possible that these would remedy some of the points I have highlighted. The volume of information on the sites is overwhelming and there would seem to be scope for agents to offer a service that moderates the information on behalf of students.
The sector is becoming familiar with operators showing quotes and testimonials from students who have done well through using the sites but this is a drop in the bucket compared to the volumes looking at them. It might be more interesting to know the extent to which they are mystery shopping their own sites (rather than drinking their own bathwater) with non-native English speakers. Students who have succeeded are a much more forgiving audience than those who did not make it through the system.
The march of the aggregators will not be disrupted and probably does bring benefits in offering greater accessibility to students. But the potential to overclaim coverage, distort perceptions of quality and act as a limiter of student choice rather than an enabler is obvious. As this part of the sector matures it is to be hoped that, as with recruitment agents, the best operators prevail and become the choice of most potential students.
It is also to be hoped that universities recognise that they have responsibilities when lending their brand names to third parties and that their very presence as part of an aggregator portfolio lends credibility to the entire endeavour. They may prefer the word ‘featured’ to something like ‘promoted’ or ‘advertised’ but they should accept that honesty and integrity in the way they are represented is their decision rather than that of the aggregator. For universities in the United Kingdom the option of making UCAS a wholly-owned, comprehensive and managed service for students remains an option that could become an exemplar of responsible self-regulation.
NOTES
1. As with all my blogs I am happy to have authoritative comment on the outcomes and where these add value or correct a clear error will reflect any resulting changes. The purpose of doing the work and writing it up is to try and improve things for students while making observations that colleagues in the sector might consider.
2. Search Terms Used
*Business and management in the UK, 3-year, full-time on campus, Bachelor of Arts.
**US Citizen, educated to high school level in the UK with B/C GCE A-level grades, with a Tier 4 UK student visa and 9 IELTS in all categories. I confirmed my interest was direct admission to UK universities for a three-year bachelors in business, management or economics starting between August and November 2021. I placed no constraints on tuition, living costs or admission fee.
***UK citizen resident in the US. Interested in Masters level study in Business and Management in the UK starting in between 6 months and one year. Preference for attendance on campus. Tuition fee and living cost budget set at 150,000 (so not a barrier). Bachelor’s degree in Business and Management securing a 2:1. With 5 years of work experience. Native speaker English level.
3. In the original of this piece it was indicated that rates on the Portal were quoted in Euros and showed international rates and that this might have particular implications for EU students looking to study in the UK (where some institutions have chosen to offer EU students lower tuition fees than other international students in 2021). This has been removed to recognize that at the base of the home page of the Portal you are able to adjust your results to reflect the actual rate being charged and can do so in a denomination of your choice. If this information is put into your individual account it is also adjusted.
Image by Hier und jetzt endet leider meine Reise auf Pixabay aber from Pixabay
I found this blog informative and useful in my own thinking about how Australia might restore its top three place as a study destination in English. The aggregators appear to be a digital version of what we called in the early days the IDP one stop shop for international students. IDP represented all Australian universities. They were financed by enrolment commissions set as a fixed percentage of first year tuition fees, income from IELTS, and some modest revenue from services offered for exhibitions and promotional seminars. StudyLink which is a service to agents is worth a look. I was chair of its Board in 2005/6.
I found this blog informative and useful in my own thinking about how Australia might restore its top three place as a study destination in English. The aggregators appear to be a digital version of what we called in the early days the IDP one stop shop for international students. IDP represented all Australian universities. They were financed by enrolment commissions set as a fixed percentage of first year tuition fees, income from IELTS, and some modest revenue from services offered for exhibitions and promotional seminars. StudyLink which is a service to agents is worth a look. I was chair of its Board in 2005/6.
The notion of a university ‘owned’ central service is similar to the UCAS service in the UK. I think it is one way of ensuring the quality of information and a more level playing field as students sift their initial choices. Outside of that centralized ‘honest broker’ the only real control is the institutions refusing to allow their brands to be used on the site. A few concerted, high profile and painful legal challenges might ensure that students are at least able to rely on what they read.