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 Partners	Universities offering IYO	IYO linked degrees
Navitas	12	7	430
INTO	7	4	102
CEG	8	5	81
Kaplan	15	7	219
Study Group	14	11	219
Total	56	34	1,051

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