Tag: international education

LEAGUE TABLE CLICK-BAIT COMPLICATION FOR UNIVERSITIES

It is standard to hear a manager in the English Premier League say “the table doesn’t lie” as they bemoan their lowly position or celebrate their success.  By contrast it has been equally standard to hear university recruiters put the case that various league tables are wanting in terms of nuance, specificity or even veracity.  But it may become even more complicated if university league table compilers have a direct, commercial interest in the outcome of the table and its impact on students.

In a recent article in The PIE, the Chief Development Officer of Times Higher Education (THE) outlined plans for millions of international students who consult its rankings website each year.  He said, “We want to stay top of the funnel and maximise the number of students coming to the site. What we will then do is identify a network of complementary, trusted partners that we will send those students to.”  The potential for universities to find themselves excluded or obliged to pay large sums for access seem obvious.

Regulators, governments and the sector’s networking bodies would do well to consider whether this manipulation of the recruitment process through commercially driven league tables is in the interests of the institutions and the students.  Back in October 2018 the Office for Students Director of External Relations wrote of the “challenge for policymakers….providing information responsibly and well as accessibly” but it is difficult to see any action to head off the private sector. Allowing brands that have been built with substantial public funding to be used as click-bait providing a return to private money certainly does not seem the best way forward.

Selective, Subjective and Subject to Manipulation

It is equally troubling to think that students may find themselves railroaded into choices by an organization that decides how the league table is compiled and has commercial partners who may have more than a passing interest in the result.  Elsevier have quoted Lydia Snover, director of institutional research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as saying, “every ranking is based on the available, comparable data, and is built on the subjective judgement (over indicators and weightings) of its compilers.”.  Even when league tables are independently audited, consulted upon and done with good intentions they are about choices. 

UC Berkeley’s Center for Studies in Higher Education has suggested that “universities with frequent QS-related contracts experienced much greater upward mobility in both overall rankings and in faculty-student ratio scores over five years in the QS World Rankings”. HEPI’s president, Bahram Bekhradnia, did not find this a surprise and noted, “QS is a commercial organisation. They’re there to make money and their rankings are not objective.”  The higher education sector, while complicit in working with rankings media, is aware that this is a double-edged sword, and it may be that commercial imperative is sharpening one side. 

Those factors are made worse by the documented cases of universities deliberately manipulating the data they submit in order to secure a place higher up the ranking.  A University World News article in 2019 highlighted how the University of Oklahoma had been supplying US News and World Report rankings with incorrect information for nearly two decades.  Occasional errors seem forgivable but the more complex and wide ranging the tables the more scope there would seem to be for manipulation.

Legitimization and Lost Perspective

It seems a long time ago that in the late 1990s a few national UK newspapers would produce university league tables once a year as part of their wider agenda of news coverage.  But since the early 2000s league table compilation and publication has become increasingly central to the activity and business model of some HE sector-oriented media organisations.  Universities have played their own part in legitimizing the ranking races that may undermine their reputation and their ability to compete for students.

Many university planning offices have also spent hundreds of hours analysing league table performance and working to advise their senior colleagues on the levers that can elevate the institution’s position.  It would be difficult to believe any Vice Chancellor who says their university’s league table performance is not considered in strategic discussions.  League tables have become silent and increasingly oppressive enforcers influencing decision making, reputations and student experience.

It is certainly plausible that one of the factors influencing grade inflation at UK universities has been the weighting of a ‘good degree’ in the league tables.  When one university sees a perceived competitor getting league table marks for awarding a higher proportion of ‘good degrees’ the argument to amend marking criteria can be positioned as not disadvantaging students.  Almost without realising it institutions and academics may find their autonomy compromised by external factors.

Methodology, Misalignment and Misunderstanding

Over and above that, the dizzying array of league tables has become a way for compilers to open new routes for advertising income and securing influence.  Universities under 50 years old may welcome the chance to trumpet their performance against similar institutions and it allows the sector to applaud its own achievements.  But when high placings are used as advertising and marketing fodder to attract students the institutions are validating a process which is almost entirely out of their control and where interests may not be aligned. 

In 2004 the Times Higher Education (THE) began its University World Rankings but that has now been joined by 18 other main categories including World Reputation Rankings, Young University Rankings, Emerging Economy Rankings, Subject and Teaching Rankings.  The latest addition of Impact Ranking assesses universities against the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).  The accompanying launch events, announcements and conferences drive substantial content, which may be the purpose of media organizations but that is not the same as the purpose of universities.

The QS Rankings also began in 2004 and now covers 11 main categories, with several similar to THE but some noticeable differences such as Employability and System Strength.  They have built a student-facing event series – the QS World Tours – to bring students together with admissions directors at events.  Conferences and consultancy services also build out of the rankings as a source of revenue.

The variability of methodology that universities are trying to deal with shows in the league table results.  The THE and QS most recent “top 10 global universities” and “top 10 under 50 years old” show seven as being the same in each category but three different.  It’s a discrepancy which seems unhelpful if you are a student really wanting to know which were the best of breed in either category.

So, even when compilers are gauging similar categories they are making subjective choices about what to include, how to weight it and whether it will be important to their readers.  But in what is largely a game of statistical musical chairs there is some evidence that there are also fundamental misunderstandings about what is driving the performance of institutions.  Research by QS has suggested, for example, that students believe that a university’s ranking is substantially linked to employability of graduates when this only makes up a small element of the overall score.

It seems indisputable that league tables have become very big business for organizations that compile them and are influential enough to be a source of power over university decision making.  The prospect of them being leveraged to influence student choice and the recruitment potential of institutions has been made clear.  An informed, open discussion leading to collective action by the sector would be a step towards restoring balance. 

Image by Firmbee 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

Changing Fortunes and Futures Across Major Recruiting Countries

Another extraordinary year in higher education around the globe and a good moment to review some of the highlights and possible future directions of the main four recruiting countries.  There’s plenty to consider as the established recruiting heavyweights fight off emerging challenges, the shake-up of pathways continues, and India’s rise as a market becomes an obsession for recruiters.       

USA

A year of reckoning for pathways with four closures each by Study Group and CEG while EC Higher Education exited the market totally.  All of which reminded us of the chill wind blowing through international student enrollments in the US.  It added to the uncertainty around a sector which is seeing changing demographics and growing competition lead to longstanding institutions closing. 

IIE reported overall international student enrollments for 2018/19 down 2.1% on the year before and 3.4% down on the peak of 2016/17, with the number of new undergraduates falling for a third year in a row (down 10.4% over three years).  For the press release to claim,  “we are happy to see the continued growth in the number of international students in the United States”, seems either complacent or misguided.  It’s fair to say that the quote reflects the inclusion of OPT (a form of post-study work) numbers in the overall count but even when they are included growth was a measly 0.05% which hardly seems a basis for contentment. 

A microcosm of the problem and its impact on pathways was highlighted by student newspaper The University Daily Kansan which showed the University of Kansas and Shorelight partnership falling short of expectations.  It indicates that in 2014 Shorelight intended to double the number of international students at the University.  But between 2014 and 2018  the number enrolled fell from 2,283 international students to 2031 – an 11% decrease.  

 Shorelight parted company with their Chief Commercial Officer, Sean Grant, in October after just over a year in post.  At INTO University Partnerships, Cagri Bagcioglu, Senior VP Partners North America, left after 16 months and has turned up at Cintana Education.  Reports of job losses at Navitas were in the news and Study Group have yet to announce the replacement of their North American MD.

Looking forward there seems to be little likelihood of the news improving any time soon.  Changes to post-study work in the UK may further undermine recruitment from India and there is already good evidence that some Chinese students are putting the UK ahead of the US.  It will be worth watching to see whether INTO, buoyed by bumper recruitment in the UK, will invest heavily to make life even tougher for the US-centric Shorelight.

UK

The world of international student recruitment in the UK changed in September 2019 with the announcement that a two-year post-study work visa was being introduced for students from the 2020/21 academic year.  Foundation courses are already doing huge business for January 2020 entrants looking to go on to the full university degree later in the year.  The British Council is predicting growth of ‘just under 20%’ across the sector in the year ahead.

The announcement lifted the gloom that had been felt since post-study work was ended in 2012.  While many big brand names have done well in the intervening years, the new Government policy opens the door for more universities to maximize their intakes.  The news built on statistic showing that the UK had already seen a 63% year on year increase in Tier 4 visas granted for Indian students in the year to September 2019.

It was a good year overall for pathway providers with Study Group picking up Aberdeen and Cardiff while Navitas secured Leicester.  Given the renewed recruitment opportunity, it’s ironic that INTO’s pathway with Gloucestershire was closed during the summer period.  With growth guaranteed for a couple of years the year ahead may be the right moment for some of the smaller players to get a good price for their pathway activity from one of the big players.

The coming year is also likely to see interest focusing back on the implications of Brexit with the probability of the Government inserting a clause to ban any delay beyond December 2020.  Plenty of reason for universities to be nervous about enrollment from Europe if students are obliged to pay international fees when the deal is done.  And there may be a resurgence of interest in new, European based campuses to try to ameliorate the problem.

Australia

The battle for the Ashes has nothing on the intensity of competition for international students, and it took Australia less than a month to respond to the UK’s post-study work change.  They decided that Perth and the Gold Coast would be classified as regional which gives international graduates an  additional year of post-study work rights.  The federal government added that student in regional centres and other areas would have access to up to six years of PSW.

All this on top of an Australian enrollment juggernaut that has seen double-digit growth in international higher education students for each of the past four years.  Enrollments year on year to October 2019 were c45,000 up at 434,756.  Despite arguments about lack of diversity their percentage of Chinese students is 28% compared to the US at 34% (including OPT) and the UK at 33% (of international fee paying).

There could be plenty more gas in the tank which may have been the reason Rod Jones and his colleagues took Navitas into private ownership with BGH.  It would also explain new kids on the block (or old kids who’ve been round the block) Camino Global Education, founded by John Wood, former CEO of university partnerships at Navitas, and Peter Larsen, who co-founded Navitas (then known as IBT) with Rod Jones in 1994.

Australia has led the way in developing transparency on student recruitment agencies, and its Government recognizes the value of the higher education sector to the economy.  One would guess that the potential of trans-national education is well within their sights as they embed their network in the vibrant Asian economies.  For the casual observer they also provide the best, most up-to-date and detailed data on international student enrollment and that’s a model most other could do with replicating.

Canada

‘O Canada…with glowing hearts we see thee rise, the True North strong and free’.  Those words from the national anthem must be how the country’s higher education sector and national Government feel about international student recruitment.  But it’s far from over because the federal government recently pledged nearly $30-million a year over the next five years to diversify global recruiting efforts in the postsecondary sector.

Remarkable to believe that just five years ago a headline of ‘When it comes to foreign students, Canada earns ‘F’ for recruitment’ accompanied the release of a report by the Council of Chief Executives and the Canadian International Council.   It provoked action and the launch of the EduCanada brand in 2016, which drove the number of international students in college or university from about 120,00 to 260,000 from 2015 to 2018.

Canada is also unusual in having more students from India than from China.  In December 2018 India surpassed China as Canada’s top source of foreign students, across all sectors, with more than 172,000 study permit holders. Each country represents slightly more than a quarter of the total of 570,000.

It’s no secret that every pathway operator has been trying to access the Canadian higher education sector for years.  The reality is that the sector had organized itself and was making progress while most of the attention was on the US.  There seems little need for outside help as they launch their  International Education Strategy 2019-2024.

Anyone who has worked in the international recruitment field knows that bets on long-term success are likely to lead to embarrassment. It’s less than a decade since Australia’s years in the doldrums, this article notes Canada’s ‘F for failure’ and just three months ago the UK wasn’t competing on post-study work options. It’s also only ten years ago that the lure of the US market was driving extraordinary valuations of pathway companies.

But it seems pretty reasonable to say that when the enrollment numbers for 2019/20 and 2020/21 are in there will be smiles in Canada, Australia and the UK. For the US the road to growth is unclear and may be several years in the building. And there remains the possibility that higher education in Asia will reach a tipping point to upset the old order even more fundamentally. Happy holidays.

Photo by Element5 Digital from Pexels

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

International Education Strategy – Less Haste, Less Speed

The UK Government’s recently launched ‘International Education Strategy: global potential, global growth‘ has received many plaudits.  But those who believe the floodgates will be opened, with growth similar to recent years in Australia and Canada, should consider the compound annual growth rate implied.  Getting from the 460,000 international students enrolled in 2017 to the 600,000 targeted for 2030 only requires a growth of just over 2% each year.  A bit better than the 1.23% compound growth in enrolments from 2014 to 2017 but it’s hardly tearing up any trees.

A joined-up, Government backed strategy is not in itself a bad idea but this one raises lot of questions and is light on answers in key areas.  The 460,000 number used is the aggregate of international fee-paying students (320,000) and current EU-fee paying students (140,000).  It’s not entirely clear if the plan, and its £35bn target in education exports, includes EU students paying full international fees, staying with UK fees or replacing them with others from round the world.

Staying on the financial side, it was only in June 2015 that Jo Johnson, Minister of State for Universities and Science, said, ‘We are committed to increasing education exports from £18 billion in 2012 to £30 billion by 2020.’  One presumes that the 2020 target will be missed if the plan is really only to add a further £5bn by 2030. These things are easy to say and people lose track of the performance as easily as they lose track of the politicians who made them. 

To add to the potential for confusion, the new Strategy lumps in trans-national education and includes ‘…education providers setting up sites overseas, and education technology solutions being sold worldwide.’  Given global demographics, the rise of English-language degree provision in emerging countries and the spread of technology, it will be interesting to see how effort is coordinated between the paths to revenue.     

When people start talking about long-term growth and big numbers I am reminded of the song, ‘The Impossible Dream’ from Man of La Mancha.  Visions of tilting at windmills, living with ‘unbearable sorrow’ and the inevitability of the Spanish Inquisition come to mind.  It is likely to be tough to sustain international student growth over a decade or more and it seems to me that the real need is for more urgent action and targets.     

It’s not as if we haven’t been here before and history does not offer good omens.  In 2013 the Government published a strategy – International education strategy: global growth and prosperity – where the stated ambition to help the sector secure 3.7% enrolment growth from 2011 to 2020.  On that reckoning the graph shown below suggests international student enrolment in 2017 should already be around 550,000 by now rather than 460,000.

Source:
International education strategy: global growth and prosperity 2013 (p.41)

This reflects another problem with long-term strategies.  Those responsible for blowing the trumpets when they are launched are seldom around to answer for the failures or receive the plaudits.  David Willetts MP (now Baron Willetts) was the Minister for Universities and Science launching the 2013 Strategy, but left the Government by 2014. It is difficult to see The Rt Hon Damian Hinds or Dr Liam Fox being around in 2030.

It is also not entirely heartening to see Action 1 of the strategy being the appoint of an International Education Champion.  Perhaps this newly appointed Degree Czar will be able to develop and implement joined up policy which would be a good thing.  But the 2013 Strategy document was also strong on the need for coordination that never quite happened as the Treasury called for growth and the Home Office battened down the hatches on visas.

It might have been better to see the long-term vision broken down into short-term targets. 5.46% growth per year in international enrolments for the first five years seems a good idea.  It will not surprise the observant and mathematically minded readers that this would take the UK to 600,000 enrolments by 2022.

After that a different set of issues would begin to emerge as the global picture and the UK’s own demographics begin to change.  By 2025, according to the ONS, the number of 18-20 years olds in the UK is likely to be back to 2014 levels and will continue to grow rapidly to 2030 which might bring very different pressures on the sector.

The tension between long and short term is very real and I am reminded that John Maynard Keynes said, ‘The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again.’  Education is a long-term business but the needs of the sector are both urgent and important.  It would be good to see the Government responses couched in equally urgent terms.

GETTING TO GRIPS WITH PATHWAYS – A THORNY SUBJECT?

After looking at the broader picture on winners and losers in HE recruitment I’ve focused on a small number of high profile university partnerships to give some texture about those with pathway providers. Diving into the detail published by universities gives some insight as to whether pathway provision is delivering a stable stream and enhancing direct recruitment through global brand-building. Comparisons against the national picture indicate whether they are doing better than the sector overall.

Detailed breakdown of pathway volumes and progression rates are usually deemed commercially confidential and are rarely matters of public record. As a proxy I have looked at overall international student enrolment for the institutions involved as one would expect a thriving pathway of any size to provide a solid underpinning for broader recruitment efforts. Where possible I have supplemented this with Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) or University Annual Report data (available through the BUFDG site.

The examples I have chosen show sharply different outcomes at the university level.  The underlying detail from supplementary sources suggests that the pathway is a contributing factor to those outcomes.  In a broader context some institutions have done better than average and some not as well.

While the detail is UK related there is little reason to believe that the same isn’t true of the US and I’m doing some more work on that hypothesis for a later blog.

Three Big Players and Partners
Institutions are never wholly comparable but the universities of Newcastle, Liverpool and Sheffield are all large, metropolitan, Russell Group universities with substantial global ambitions. In the Times League Table 2018 Newcastle is 26th, Liverpool is 42nd and Sheffield is 21st. Newcastle and Liverpool have partnered with INTO and Kaplan respectively since 2007. Liverpool recently extended for another 15 years while Newcastle opened a new London campus with INTO in 2015 and are also in for the long haul. Sheffield was with Kaplan but switched to Study Group from September 2015.

Information published in University Annual Reports on overall international student enrolments in the five years from 2012/13 to 2016/17 suggests that Liverpool have, to date, weathered the headwinds facing the UK better than Sheffield or Newcastle.   Source: University Annual Reports and Financial Statements 2012/13 to 2016/17

The university financial statements suggests that any changes to fees have not been sufficient to make up enrolment shortfalls. The fee income reflects the down-turn in student numbers for Sheffield and Liverpool in the 2016/17 year but also suggests weakness for Newcastle over the past two years.
Source: University Annual Reports and Financial Statements 2012/13 to 2016/17

To provide a comparative performance for the universities I have used HESA data for all international enrolments (all levels, full-time and part-time) in the 129 universities in the 2018 Times League Table. This is a measure which should include students enrolling across the whole year and should account for pathway progression from all intakes.  It usually differs from the University Annual Report enrolment figures which are generally taken from a count in December of the academic year.  I review the complexity of the broader HESA data in an earlier blog.

All the universities outperformed the average in the first two years under review. Liverpool and Sheffield achieved this between 2014/15 and 2015/16. Liverpool continued to outperform the sector from 2015/16 to 2016/17.
Source: HESA

Understanding The Pathway Performance
There is some insight into the changes at the pathways for Liverpool and Sheffield through the Quality Assurance Agency reports. For INTO Newcastle there has been no similar educational oversight although my understanding is that the changing visa situation will mean that ISI will provide oversight in the future which may lift the veil. My observations below are drawn from published material including university annual reports.

Newcastle and INTO
The University notes in its 2016/17 Annual Report that the enrolments at INTO Newcastle ‘had a disappointing year with a 7% reduction in student volumes’ which was comparable to the University’s direct recruitment decline. As a 50/50 joint venture partner the University also reports on its share of joint venture income and surplus/deficit. For completeness I have shown both the Newcastle-based and London-based operations but note that the latter has substantial undergraduate and postgraduate intakes in addition to pathways.
Source: University of Newcastle Annual Reports 2012/13 to 2016/17

The London joint venture is still in start up mode and student numbers are reported as having grown from 24 in year one to 184 full time and 20 part-time students in year two. The income and operating surplus/deficit are reported as:
Source: University of Newcastle Annual Reports 2014/15 to 2016/17

Liverpool and Kaplan
What is most striking about reviewing performance through the lens of the University Annual Reports is that it can reflect a level of engagement and shared commitment – or in some cases not. On page three of the 2016/17 Liverpool University report the Vice Chancellor reflects on the long-standing relationship, the renewal agreement for the next 15 years and the investment in new facilities for the pathway. The report notes that the partnerships with both Kaplan and Laureate International ‘are vital to the University’s international outlook and global ambitions.’

The Annual Report notes that Kaplan’s International College opened in 2007 with 146 students and has seen 6,500 students study at the College, with 20% of the institution’s international recruitment achieved via its pathways. Future investment includes construction of a new, 47,000 square foot, 13-storey college building due to open in 2019.

A key determinant of a successful pathway relationship is the extent to which the University partner embraces the strengths of the private provider and clears roadblocks to innovation and recruitment. Both parties are undermined if the University does not engage productively at both a senior and operational level. The 2016 QAA Report for Kaplan International College at Liverpool notes ‘The close working relationship with the partner university, which enables highly effective and regular processes for developing, monitoring and reviewing of programmes’.

Sheffield and Study Group
Sheffield International College was first established by Kaplan with the University in 2006. In 2010/11 it had over 1100 students and this number had ‘grown’ by 2013 despite no new programmes being introduced (QAA Reports 2012 and 2013). Over a period from March 2014 to September 2015 there was a transition to Study Group.

The November 2016 QAA Review indicates that 933 students were in the Centre and the next report in October 2017 says that ‘student numbers fell by around 12 per cent between 2015-16 and 2016-17’. On the upside it was noted that 7 per cent more students entering programmes at USIC being eligible for progression to the University. The timing of the QAA review makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions about full-year recruitment.

It’s still early days in the partnership and the whisper in the sector is that the University protected its commercial interests in the event of any performance issues – perhaps a sign that universities are becoming more commercially minded. The PIE noted in August 2017 that ‘Providence Equity Partners, which owns higher education provider Study Group, is reportedly preparing to sell the company for £700m’  so there is a lot at stake as the company manages the expectations of its large stable of partners. Interesting times as the UK itself comes under relentless market competition from Canada , Europe, Australia and the emerging destinations in Asia.

Closing Thoughts
Nobody who is looking from outside can full understand the dynamics of a relationship between University and pathway provider. Anyone who has been at the sharp end knows that personalities, department politics and academic apathy are all facts of life as is, from time to time, a revolving door of senior decision makers. An initial meeting of minds at the highest level is usually not enough for sustained success so the working relationships need to become rapidly embedded.

What is for sure is that the chances of maximising performance are vastly enhanced by realistic expectations, responsiveness to market and action on shared commitments. Universities need to see the pathway as being fundamental to their success and treat the provider as an equal partner with important skills. Providers need to be honest about what they can deliver and manage how their portfolio is balanced to meet targets and business plans.

And perhaps, given the age of the pathway model and the way the market is changing it is time to consider whether further innovation is needed. Over the years I have heard several major pathway players define their approach as ‘disruptive’ or ‘transformational’ but it is difficult to see how pathways are any different now to when they were introduced.

Notes and Corrections

Comments are always welcome and I think it is a good thing to note any corrections or amendments to the text.

30 April 2018 10.05amPDT – amendment to correct ‘Newcastle and Liverpool have partnered with Kaplan and INTO respectively..’. Correction to clarify that INTO partner with Newcastle and Kaplan partner with Liverpool.