Month: February 2024

Northern Star Sheds Light on International Recruitment

Universities and their mouthpieces might be drawing a collective sigh of relief and thinking that some of the heat has gone out of the discussion around the inequity of International Year One (IYO).  We certainly haven’t seen any of the private providers, the main beneficiaries of this route, stepping forward with authoritative data about this route.  But the Northern Consortium1 UK (NCUK) do give us traces of performance over the past decade or so.

Nothing in the NCUK numbers gives any relief to the core point that IYO is a route which, in many cases, allows international students to start the first year of a degree on without the necessary grades for direct entry.  The scale of the NCUK operation is used to demonstrate that IYO is not a niche activity and so deserves full attention from the Quality Assurance Agency and Department of Education reviews.

Of fundamental interest is the suggestion that NCUK has a long-term annual Progression Analysis that “considers the performance of all NCUK students at member universities and associates”.  This could be the gold standard of analysis reflecting everything from enrolment through attrition to degree outcomes.  At a single stroke NCUK might be able to answer many questions about the efficacy of pathway programmes albeit that its courses are not on campus.

In that respect there appears to have been an NCUK Report “Evidencing Success” from May 2018 launched at the NAFSA:Association of International Educators Conference in Philadelphia, which tracked ten years of NCUK student performance.  The snippet from it in the 2017/18 Annual Report indicates that 80% of NCUK students receive a first- or second-class degree but that IYO students “have a higher-than-average pass rate when progressing to the second year of their degree at university”.  It goes on to say that “over 90% of students meeting or getting higher than the required grades go on to pass their first year” and for “students who have been offered places with lower than the advertised entry requirements, the pass rate remains high at 88%.”

It seems reasonable to suggest that domestic students who miss their offer grade by one level and are rejected might do even better if allowed to start a degree, with extra academic support, on campus alongside direct entrants.  They just don’t get the chance.  Even more regrettable is that the Report is no longer available on its website – makes one wonder2.

The Trail Begins

The NCUK annual report and accounts for 2015/16 show that “International Diploma (Int Diploma-equivalent to 1st year degree level)” was offered as an “established pathway” programme.  It was “renamed as the International Year One” that year.  The report noted an upcoming triennial review in 2016/17 which might imply it had been first introduced in 2013/14 after the closure of post-study work options for international students in 2012.

As a small aside and for those that believe in history being cyclical it is worth noting that the Annual Report also notes NCUK had unconditional offers for 1,205 students.  It was an increase from 1,119 the previous year.  There was, however, a note of caution on eventual enrolment because of “…Nigeria where the economic circumstances are posing challenges for students and their families.  

Getting To Scale

The chart below reflects the data made available in NCUK Annual Reports and Reviews from 2016/17.  Not all of the information is provided for each year but we are able to see the following:

  • Students placed at UK university partners (all years)
  • Students “continuing onto the NCUK International Year One or moving to degree completion programmes at The Sino-British College in Shanghai” (2016/17 to 2018/19)
  • Students admitted to non-partner UK universities or to universities outside the UK (2016/17 to 2018/19)
  • The total number of students progressing to university or continuing on an NCUK qualification (all years)
  • The overall number of students on NCUK courses (2020/21 and 2021/22)

The final number is important in considering the IYO volume because NCUK also offer a percentage breakdown of the numbers on each of International Foundation Year, International Year One (IYO) and Masters Preparation.  For 2020/21 and 2021/22, where those overall enrolments are available, the percentage doing IYO was shown as 16% and 12% respectively.  The maths suggests that 507 and 452 were doing IYO courses in those two years.

Source: NCUK Annual Reports and Reviews

How Big Is International Year One for Private Providers?

A glimpse into the scale of IYO also comes from the only NCUK provider delivering it in the UK – INTO Manchester.  We can know for sure from a Quality Assurance Agency report in 2014 that in that year, of the 822 students, there were 99 on the NCUK “International Diploma” (later renamed International Year One) course.  That’s 12% which seems in keeping, if a little low, with the broader percentages shown by NCUK in later years. 

It is reasonable to add that in the May 2019 QAA Report 77% of students (82 out of 106) at INTO Manchester were reported as being “on a Level 4 International Year One (IYO) course” which might suggest a signficant upward movement in the course.  As pathway providers have come under increasing pressure to perform they have accelerated their provision of the most attractive offers to international students.  Universities who are equally keen to increase international numbers have become complicit in allowing those courses and the progression degrees available.

The other point is that INTO Manchester is not on a university campus so it is reasonable to suggest that the IYO here is more akin to the potential for domestic students who fail to get their grade offers to university to go and do an HNC at a local college.  All that really means is that the attraction of a course on a university campus, often sitting with direct entry first year students and taught by the same lecturers is likely to be immensely more attractive.  It seems reasonable to suggest that the likely IYO percentage in on-campus pathways is much higher.

As noted in a previous blog the growth of IYO and the propensity of universities to allow them has grown rapidly over the years.  More than half the partners of the six main pathway operators have IYO options leading to over 1,000 degree options.  Each partner usually has two to five IYO options.

 UK University PartnersUniversities offering IYOIYO linked degrees
Navitas127430
INTO74102
CEG8581
Kaplan157219
Study Group1411219
Oxford International5*451
Total61381,102

*Only partners where an International Foundation or International Year Zero is offered

A 2023 British Council report into “Pathways and recruitment channels to undergraduate study in the UK” reflected the paucity of information on the number of students coming through pathways into universities3.  However, my own research from public sources indicated that there were likely to be at least 20,000 students in pathways in 2018 and there have been additional partnerships announced since then.  Even staying with 20,000, a count of 12% of them being on international year one reaches 2,400 international students on campuses sitting the first year of an undergraduate degree in a way that is not available to domestic students.

As previously established these students have been accepted on significantly lower grades and often at lower language capability than even direct entrants from their own country.  A domestic student who missed a university offer by one grade could be rejected by that institution and IYO is even offered below contextual grades of domestic students from educationally challenged backgrounds.  It is very difficult to see how that is equitable.

How Do International Year One Student Perform?

The NCUK data is interesting but the gaps in it suggest a number of avenues for further consideration.  Of particular interest is the relative performance of IYO students compared to students progressing from Foundation Courses.  In this respect it’s worth noting that most pathway statistics about degree success tend only to reflect those that made it to the exam so dropout rates are hard to come by.    

A blog in The PIE in May 2018, by Georgina Jones, NCUK Market Development Director, indicates that 80% of NCUK students graduated with a first or second class degree but “around 50%” getting a 2:1 or higher.  On lower admissions criteria she notes, “…students who are admitted with below the published admission criteria, 88% go on to pass their first year, compared to 92% and 95% for those who met or exceed the criteria.”

In the 2018/19 Annual Report NCUK state that 59% of International Foundation Year students graduated with a 1st or 2:1 but that International Year One saw 74% of students achieving a 1st or 2:1.  89% of the International Foundation students secured a 2:2 or better compared to 96% of International Year One students.  There is a hiatus, presumably COVID-related before the story picks up again in the 2021/2 Annual Review, which indicates the 2:1 and above success rates were 69% (International Foundation Year) and 91% (International Year One).

It seems to tell a story that International Year One candidates may be more likely to drop out or fail in the first year but then go on to secure better success rates on completing the degree.  The comparative completion rate for domestic students is around 2.7% which might suggest that if those narrowly missing direct entry were allowed to start year one with additional academic support, more  would go on to finish and achieve academically than international students.

Summary

It is regrettable that Universities UK seems to have wilfully chosen not to explicity include International Year One in the review it has requested from the Quality Assurance Agency.  The existence of Foundation Years, which are often available to domestic students on a comparable basis, has not been questioned by most informed observers of the sector.  Notwithstanding that point, the NCUK figures bring into question the quality of study outcomes for international students who complete Foundations. The 59% with a 1st or 2:1 quoted by NCUK for 2018/19 is a very long way behind the aggregated 76.4% with a 2:1 or first shown by HESA for that year.

The fact remains that IYO is likely to be a successful proposition for commercial providers intent on boosting profitability and universities looking to protect falling international applications.  Equally true is that there is no comparable on-campus, year one of an undergraduate degree option for domestic students who miss their grades so the underlying allegation of privilege for international students is difficult to resist.  It seems that the only motivation for universities is likely to be having higher fee paying international students sitting in seats that could be filled by better qualified domestic students.

NOTES

  1. The Northern Consortium was incorporated as a company limited by guarantee (company registration number 02788226) on 9 February 1993. The Company was registered with the Charity Commission (registration number 1018979) on 23 March 1993. It had ten founder universities and describes itself as “a consortium of leading universities dedicated to giving international students guaranteed* entry to universities worldwide” The star alongside the word “guaranteed” is on the website and probably tells us all we need to know about the types of messaging that prevails.
  2. The summary of NCUK data reflects the incomplete picture across several annual reports. The Evidencing Success Report is still flagged on the website but the link leads to a 404 error page. It would be helpful if the data was available and particularly so if a comprehensive successor document could bring the material up to date.
  3. The British Council report is as polite as it can be about the fact that there are thousands of international students joining UK universities without any consistent way of determining their route to enrolment. This has been a feature of the growth of commercial providers in the international recruitment space. It is also another gap in data which makes the sector vulnerable to politically driven focus on student visas.

Image by Mario Aranda from Pixabay

From Clouseau To Cousteau

The Sunday Times articles looking at pathway programmes has been positioned by some as a political hit job on the higher education sector.  If so, it was as inept as the hapless Inspector Clouseau’s efforts to understand and bring to justice criminal elements.  A more Jacques Cousteau type of deep dive is needed to give some data on the relatively uncharted depths of International Year One.

Sector mouthpieces like Universities UK have insisted on talking about Foundation Programmes but this blog will focus on International Year One (IYO) (which is sometimes called First Year or Stage 2 by certain providers).  Most seem to be studied at NQF 4 which OnCampus at Aston University tell us “..is equivalent to the first year of an undergraduate degree in the UK” and on successful completion they give direct entry to year two of an undergraduate degree programme.  As Douglas Adams writes, “If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands.”  

IYO is usually offered by a pathway provider, but gives the opportunity, on completion, to join year two of the student’s chosen degree programme in the university proper.  It is not available to domestic students and is offered exclusively to international students at lower grades than those required for direct entry.  A key question is whether it is an unfair, back door route for low quality international students to enter UK universities.   

This distinguishes it from a Foundation which is a pre-degree, preparatory programme that offers the opportunity on completion of progressing to year one of a degree programme.  Foundation programmes have a long history and most would agree that they serve a useful purpose for international students in developing language capability, culture assimilation and academic preparation before studying in the university.  There are also a number of comparable Foundation programmes providing pre-degree opportunities to domestic students .

Big Business and Growing

One argument that has been put forward is that the IYO element of the market is not big enough to worry about.  That disregards issues of fairness, equality and quality in admissions decisions and is also a dubious claim.  While data is fragmented and actual student number unavailable it is possible to see how IYO has become a big business.

Many consider Australian behemoth Navitas as the instigator of IYO.  Their current degree Study Options page leads to a selector which indicates that all 12 of their university partners offer IYO and that these qualifications link to 430 degree options.  As a comparison the Foundation degrees are available at all 12 partners and link to 799 degrees.

INTO offers IYO at four of its seven UK partners and the number of IYO options at them exceeds Foundation options by 36 to 21.  The wholly owned subsidiary INTO London claims to have progression agreements with 118 universities including specific arrangements relating to IYO with the University of Kent, Exeter University, University of Westminster and Surrey University.  The wholly owned subsidiary INTO Manchester claims that successful completion of IYO gives “a guaranteed offer for one of 14+ NCUK universities” – presumably in Year 2 of the degree.

Cambridge Education Group offers IYO through five of its eight OnCampus operations – those at the universities Aston, Birkbeck, Sunderland, Hull and London Southbank.  

Kaplan’s Degree Finder page indicates it offers progression through International Year One to 219 degrees at seven of its fifteen partner universities – University of Essex, UWE Bristol, Nottingham Trent University, Brighton Univesity, Bournemouth University, University of Birmingham, University of Westminster.  IYO courses are available at the first five locations and also at Kaplan International College, London.

Study Group has fourteen UK partners (not counting Huddersfield London) and offers International Year One at 11 of them.  It is here that it becomes easy to see why the Russell Group of Universities was so irritated at the assertions from the Sunday Times – none of Study Group’s Russell Group partners appear to offer International Year One. 

NCUK has 31 UK partner universities and indicates that its International Year One course is accepted at 16 of them.  Some of their partners, such as Exeter, Queen’s, Brunel and others, have arrangements with their pathway provider but do not accept the NCUK version.  It was not possible to track the number of degrees that could be progressed to from NCUK.

Table 1 – Summary of Main UK Pathway Providers and IYO Linked Degrees

 UK University PartnersUniversities offering IYOIYO linked degrees
Navitas127430
INTO74102
CEG8581
Kaplan157219
Study Group1411219
Total56341,051

Source: Pathway provider and University websites. 

It is unlikely that students progress every year to all the possible linked degrees but the availability of the option is highly desirable as it allows the student choice, life on campus, and often allows them to study alongside direct entry students for all or part of their time. Commentators who have claimed that alternatives to IYO do exist for domestic students in the form, for example, of HNCs are wide of the mark in considering these comparable options.

Silence of the Lambs

The Sunday Times clearly stated that International Year One (IYO) existed, defined the nature of the programme and had a direct quote from an INTO employee noting they were available at lower academic and language grades than direct entry.  Yet, none of the statements from organisations like Universities UK or the Russell Group of Universities  or even thought pieces from the usually impartial WonkHE even mentioned them.  The hurried “review” announced by Universities UK fails to specify that it will be looking at IYO and it seems like a collective vow of omerta has descended upon the sector.

This is despite the fact that IYO has become a significant part of pathway provider recruitment and revenue and offers a growing stream of international student fees to institutions.  The fact that student numbers are not publicly recorded makes it easy to fly under the radar in terms of volume and quality.  Ultimately though, the key claim is that it offers preferential treatment to high-fee paying international students of lower academic and language capability by allowing them a soft point of entry to degree study at a university of their choice.

There is absolutely no doubt that students starting the first year of a degree through an IYO are receiving their place with levels of academic and language achievement significantly below those of either domestic students or other international students who enter direct.  Over and above that they appear to get in with lower academic grades than are quoted as “contextual” offers for students from educationally challenged backgrounds.

Basically, IYO candidates have lower academic grades than their peers and start with lower language capability.  Even if that is not considered unfair the key question is whether an IYO can overcome those hurdles to the point where they can comfortably join and thrive on joining the second year of a degree.  It seems a big step and in the absence of good tracking data being produced by universities there must be some some scepticism.

In that context it is incorrect to believe that IYO courses are uniquely demanding in requiring a “pass” mark before a student can progress on to Year two of the degree.  As stated in this example for direct entrants from the University of York, “You must satisfy the requirements for each stage of your programme before being able to progress to the next stage. For a Bachelor degree, you need to get a credit-weighted average mark of 40 for each stage.”

The reality is that the International Year One options have grown because they are popular with international students whose performance on academic and language measures means they cannot get into their university of choice directly. This is a privilege that is not open to domestic students who might miss their university offer by just one grade.  It is difficult to see an argument that this is fair or appropriate or that the students go on to achieve well academically.

I have argued previously that the UK Higher Education sector is like a lamb lying down in the road and oblivious to the danger of being crushed by an oncoming juggernaut.  Here we have it choosing silence over mounting a data-driven assertion of the merits of International Year One.  That may be because there is no data and no defence.

Notes

Many hours have been spent scouring the web for details on International Year One. The summary here attempts to give some shape to a complex set of information in as straightforward a way as possible. The summary of articulation to degree courses is offered in good faith but any authoritative corrections will be taken seriously and noted. If anyone has data on progression from IYO and eventual degree outcomes compared to direct entry it would be good to see.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay