Tag: international enrolment

GLOBAL LEAGUE TABLES OFFER MIXED NEWS FOR THE US AND PATHWAY PROVIDERS

Credible and well publicised global comparative university rankings are one factor changing the face of international recruitment. Students and their advisers can compare and contrast between Beijing, Berlin, Boston and Birmingham at the touch of a button. The rapid growth of online courses from universities around the world has also helped to popularise the notion of ‘shopping’ for courses through the internet.

It is clear that league tables matter and that universities see them as an important part of student recruitment.  Some less welcome consequences include misleading claims and recent incidents suggest that data submitted is not always accurate.  Perhaps these incidents reflect the recognition that league tables can help build reputations that support both country and institutional desirability.

In that respect evidence suggests the US is losing its way as a global rankings leader with strength in depth.  For pathway providers it’s a double-whammy when the quality of their US partnerships, as defined by global comparisons, looks to be lagging behind their partners in other parts of the world.  At a difficult moment for US recruitment of international students it may be another indicator of harder times ahead.

US DECLINE IN GLOBAL RANKINGS
The US has traditionally been dominant at the top of global rankings and remains powerful. But The Economist (May 19th 2018) highlighted how its broader grip on the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) table has slipped over time.  Chinese and Australian universities have seen the most significant growth in the table over that period.

Table 1 - Representation of Countries in ARWU TOP 500 - 2003 to 2017

The Times Higher Education (THE) World Rankings also noted that in 2018 ‘two-fifths of the US institutions in the top 200 (29 out of 62) have dropped places.’ In contrast, two Chinese universities had risen into the top 30 for the first time.  This shift in global power reflects the growing power of China as a first choice for international students.

US PATHWAY PARTNERSHIPS BELOW TOP LEVEL
While many US universities are slipping in global rankings, pathway providers also seem to be struggling to secure partnerships with the very best universities in the country. Since April 2016 none of the partnerships announced by Study Group, Navitas, INTO or Shorelight has been in the top 200 in the QS Ranking or THE World rankings.  Only two make it into the US News and World Report (USNWR) Global top 200.

Table 2 – Comparative Ranking of New US Pathway Partnerships Announced Since April 2016*National rank unless noted

Looking over the total portfolio of pathway partners of the ‘big 4’ providers in the US shows that more than half are not globally ranked by the QS, THE or, even in the US News and World Report Global Top 1000.

Table 3 – Global League Table Rankings of Pathway Provider Institutions in the US

UK PATHWAY PARTNERSHIPS LOOK STRONGER IN GLOBAL RANKINGS
Three of these providers are active in the UK where their portfolios look significantly stronger in terms of global rankings. With the addition of the fourth big player in the UK – Kaplan – the overall number of partners is similar. At an aggregate level the worst performance is in the USNWR ranking but even by that measure less than a third of partners are unranked.

The UK is a more mature market for pathways but the recent emphasis of the major players seems to be on enhancing quality. Kaplan partnered with the University of Nottingham in July 2016 and Study Group announced a deal with Durham University in February 2017. Kaplan and Navitas have established new-style arrangements, including investment in infrastructure, with long-term partners Liverpool and Swansea respectively.  INTO’s last UK deal was with the University of Stirling in April 2014.

Table 4 - Comparative Global League Table Rankings of Pathway Provider Institutions in the UK

A GLOBAL LEAGUE TABLE FOR THE ERA OF THE CLICK
Some pathway groups also have strong representation in Australia (and to a lesser extent in Canada). A composite league tables to reflect this and show the ‘top 11’ pathway partner universities, according to three major global league tables, shows considerable consistency. Six universities (shaded) are in all the tables and five are in two.  It is, however, worth noting that all but one have slipped lower in their placing between THE 2018 and THE 2019.

Table 5 - Top Pathway Partner Universities In Selected Global League Tables

NB: The University referred to in the table as Alabama is the University of Alabama – Birmingham.

CONCLUSION
Most people who work in the sector have seen the growth of league tables as an imposition with occasionally perverse consequences for investment and resource allocation in the institution. It is entirely possible to argue that that the rankings are arbitrary and spurious with no particular relevant to student outcomes.  But they are increasingly offering new layers of insight to capture attention – the QS Graduate Employability Rankings is an example.

Students, parents, agents and employers look at league tables and most student recruitment marketing focuses on favourable rankings while ignoring less flattering indicators. They are far from the only factor involved in decision making but they set a tone that influences potential students and staff. It is rare to find an institutional leader who is not keenly aware of their relative performance.

In terms of international recruitment league tables are part of an institution’s ‘sales kit’ and the growth of global comparisons exposes their relative strengths and weaknesses. It is noticeable that as international student growth has stalled in the UK over the past five years the bigger and better ranked university ‘brands’ have taken a larger share of those coming to the country.  It seems inevitable that this will be the story for the future and that universities without ranking ‘power’ will need to work harder to avoid being marginalised.

NOTE:

The exact nature of pathway provider and university partnerships is not always clear but extensive efforts have been made to focus on pathway partnerships where students are taught on-campus.  The author is happy to hear from any authoritative source who has information that might improve the accuracy of the article.  Any corrections will be noted below. 

Correction and Update – 1 October 2018
The tables and commentary have been updated to reflect the publication of the THE Global Rankings 2019 during week commencing 24 September 2018 (comparative positions for individual universities are shown).  Broadly speaking the new table showed declining rankings for both US and UK universities   In addition, the tables have been corrected to show the rankings for Shorelight partner the University of Mississippi (Table 2) and INTO partner the University of Exeter (Table 5).

Understandable Caution About Students (UCAS) As Deadline Passes

The UCAS release of June deadline undergraduate applications is a snapshot giving insights into potential international (non-European Union) enrolments in the UK for September 2018. The scenario is a bit like England reaching the World Cup semi-final stage – enough to excite and build expectation. But we all know what happened next in that story.

News to cheer is that the number of applicants is up 4,550 from last year’s figure and 75,380 applicants looks like strong growth against last year’s 70,830. But underneath the headlines there are some interesting trends and nuances. It’s also worth bearing in mind that the UK’s compound annual growth rate for applicants is only 2.24% a year over the three years since 2014/15.

The other interesting factor may be the need of UK universities to fill the gap left by declining numbers of home student applicants – over 18,000 down year on year for 2018 entry. This seems certain to drive vigorous competition for existing international applicants. And the race to convert students in the last chance saloon of clearing will equal the stress levels of any penalty shootout.

MOMENTUM HAS SLOWED
A bird in the hand may be worth two in the bush as far as applications are concerned but early momentum in the recruitment cycle has fallen away. Year-on-year percentage growth of applicants has declined with each of the four UCAS deadlines. From a high in October of 11.7% it has fallen to a solid but less exciting 6.4% at the end of June.
Source: UCAS

This follows a broad trend in the growth in volume of international applicants applying between the January deadline and the June deadline slowing. In 2014/15 there were 18,510 additional applicants while in 2017/18 it has been 16,930. That’s growth of 35.6% and 29% respectively on the January total in each year.

It seems likely that students and agents are getting better organised earlier in the year.  That would be a reasonable response to some of the changes in visa requirements and language testing in recent year.  But it places an emphasis on speed of response to applications and the strengthening of conversion campaigns early in the cycle.
Source: UCAS

EARLY APPLICATIONS STRONG BUT MEDICINE LAGGING
Nearly 30% (1,350) of the total growth in international applicants came by the October deadline for students applying for Oxbridge or courses in medicine. However, the number applying for medical courses (3,310) remains below the 2014 figure of 3,490 despite the number of new medical places in recent years. It seems possible that competition is significantly undermining the attraction of UK medical courses and we know, for example, that as long ago as 2015 eighty per cent of Indian students in China were following undergraduate clinical medical courses (Source: The Economic Times, May 25, 2015).

The rise in non-medicine applicants is a strong step forward but the drivers are unclear. HESA figures suggest that between 2013/14 and 2016/17 both Oxford and Cambridge increase their total undergraduate population by 20% or more. It is possible that they are pushing on more aggressively and stimulating interest.

Alongside this is the growing flexibility of Russell Group universities, as evidenced by the number now making unconditional offers, and their hunger for international students. International students and their advisers may believe that their chances of successfully enrolling in a well-known, highly ranked UK university have never been better. At a macro-level the rise in early applications suggests that strong, well-ranked brands will do best out of any increase in applicants this year.

Source: UCAS

RELIANCE ON CHINA CONTINUES
Overall and as expected China and India have posted the largest uplift in terms of students applying – up by 1,850 and 1,100 year on year respectively. It seems possible that the UK is partly a beneficiary of what could become a very difficult enrolment period for universities in the US. In that respect the next biggest growth in international applicants is 300 from the USA.

Despite the good omens experienced international recruitment teams will not be counting their students before they arrive. The UK government’s failure to ease the visa situation for students from India by making the country ‘low risk’ could still play badly. But there must be reasonably strong expectations of a solid year for enrolments at this point.
Source: UCAS

CLEARING LIKELY TO REMAIN IMPORTANT
Another factor is clearing which includes all students applying after the June deadline. Over the past five years the peak number of international students ‘placed’ in universities in the 28 days after A-level day was 7,260 in 2014. This fell year on year before increasing slightly to 6,500 in 2017.

There are a lot of students available and most universities have strengthened their ability to operate efficiently at home and internationally under the pressure of clearing. Making on the spot offers, converting interest and having strong teams in place, including academics, are commonplace. Again, the well-known names would expect to dominate but as they fill there is opportunity for others to compete.

Source: UCAS

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL – BUT REASONS TO BE CAUTIOUS
My previous blog  showed that growth in international enrolments over the past five years has been dominated by metropolitan, Russell Group names. It is reasonable to assume that large, globally-ranked and well-known universities will now dive even more deeply into the pool of international students than ever before.   The economic pressure and the likely shortfall in UK students over coming years will make this a priority.

And the wise will realise that the increase in their own applicant pool may be undermined by multiple applications.  My analysis of the UCAS numbers suggests that while there are 4,550 additional applicants there are an additional 21,010 applications in the system.  Over 3,600 of the additional applicants made the maximum of five applications and the majority of the rest made at least three.
Source: UCAS

US University Pathways – Build It And They Will Come?

In 2014 Karen Khemka, a partner with the Parthenon Group, said “The U.S. third-party/outsourced pathway market is less than half the size of the Australian market despite having a higher education system that is 10 times the size.We anticipate that growth will be constrained only by the pace at which private providers can develop the market.” (Inside Higher Education, Bridge or Back Door? 30 April, 2014).  With reports recently indicating that two leading providers in the US, Study Group and INTO, are for sale it’s a good moment to see what has happened.

Khemka’s statement came towards the tail end of a period when more than a billion dollars was invested in private pathway providers with the potential for pathway development in the US a strong incentive.  But the next billion-dollar question facing potential investors may be whether US pathways were really a field of dreams where you could, to borrow loosely from the film, ‘build it and they will come’.  Or has attention to the supply side of the equation ignored the challenges of changing patterns of demand around the world?

To size the growth in capacity in the US I took the NAFSA publication Landscape of Third-Party Pathway Partnerships in the United States (NAFSA, 2017) as a starting point. The publication identified eight providers who were partnering with 45 institutions on 1 April 2016. The criteria was that these partnerships had to be ‘contractual agreements between universities and third-party entities to provide English language courses along with academic credit.’

I revisited each of the third-party entities listed to determine what relationships they have added. It is reasonable to say that the wording of some media statements and the content of web-sites is, either by accident or design, unclear about the exact nature of the relationship or offering. However, Table 1 summarises my understanding of new partnerships that meet the original criteria and notes the dates they were announced.

Table 1 – New US Pathways of Eight Providers Announced 2016 to 2018

* Source: Landscape of Third-Party Pathway Partnerships in the United States (NAFSA, 2017)
**I can find no public announcement of the Shorelight partnership with Utah but it is reflected on the web-site of each organisation

Table 2 shows arrangements listed on the providers’ websites but which I have omitted. I am happy to accept any authoritative corrections in my understanding of the nature of the partnerships or courses provided and to add any partners I have missed.  I have not gone beyond the original group of providers although a number of additional providers, such as EC Higher Education, have also developed pathway courses in recent years.

Table 2 – Partnerships listed on provider websites but not meeting criteria

The eight providers have added 21 new partnerships to the 45 shown in the original study – a growth of 47%. This suggests that the private providers have set about growing their businesses in the US with a good deal of vigour and some degree of success. At the time of Khemka’s quote in 2014 Shorelight was a new player but they have moved on to secure the most partnerships just four years later.

That growth in pathway capacity comes at a time when the global balance between supply and demand is in a state of flux and the future is somewhat less certain. The expanding availability of degrees taught in English and the ambitious targets of both traditional recruiting countries and emerging destinations has radically changed the competitive environment. While much of the world is adding rocket fuel to its recruiting engines the US looks to have loaded its unleaded petrol engine with diesel.

In the US a decline in non-degree new enrolments in 2015/16 was followed a year later by both graduate and undergraduate new enrolments declining. And non-degree enrolments continued to fall in 2016/17 which may be a leading edge indicator of further decline. The IEE Fall 2017 International Student Enrollment Hot Topics Survey says ‘Responding institutions report a 6.9 percent decline of international students enrolling for the first time at a U.S. institution, continuing the declines first seen in Fall 2016.’ (IEE, November 2017)

Table 3 – US New International Student Enrollment, 2006/07-2016/17
Source: Institute of International Education (2017). Open Doors Report on International Education Exchange. Retrieved from http://www.iee.org/opendoors

Like many sectors higher education is being obliged to rethink the fundamentals of supply and demand as demographics, competition and disruptive technologies undermine the old certainties.  It is a challenging moment to be launching new initiatives and building capacity based on past performance.

NOTES AND CORRECTIONS

This post was updated on 24 September 2017 to include Lynn University as a Study Group partner announced in May 2017.  Other related statistics have been updated.  At the time of announcement it was billed as ‘is set to open in January’ – presumably 2018.  As of the date of this correction the partner is billed on the Study Group site as ‘Launching Soon’.

PATHWAY, DEAD END OR TIME FOR A U-TURN?

August 2018 will be the fifth anniversary of Shorelight’s first partner, Bath Spa University in the UK, being announced with suggestions that the university would ‘see its overseas intake swell to around 2,000 students over the next four years.’. The four years would run from 2015/16 to 2018/19.

It seemed a good moment to look at the pathway market and what happens when relationships don’t  work out.  This is partly because we may be entering a period where the pathway sector has matured and circumstances make it ripe for realignment.  The stakes are high on all sides and the factors are particularly relevant to the UK and US where growth in pathways has been rapid and international student recruitment has been under substantial pressure.

As finances tighten university management is under more scrutiny and is likely to demand more in terms of targets and delivery from partners.  The consequences of a failing pathway are becoming increasingly difficult to hide as direct recruitment gets harder.  Providers have their own problems with unprecedented global pressures and ubiquitous competition.  Some may be reaching a point where optimising their portfolio is more important than simply adding or maintaining capacity.

In the UK a number of institutions have been following the University of Sheffield to see how the switch from one major private provider to another might work.  Loyalties are under pressure as university leaders who signed the deal move on and some pathway providers look to change hands after the glut of private equity investment from 2010 to 2014.  Pressure to perform has never been greater.

So, when a pathway becomes a dead-end there is every incentive for one or other party to make a U-turn.  Or, as Warren Buffett is quoted as saying, “Should you find yourself in a chronically leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be a more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks.”  And it doesn’t really matter if it’s a long-term contract (where remedies for under-performance are usually written in) or time for a tender after five years.

IT HASN’T ALWAYS ENDED WELL IN THE PAST
There is, of course, precedent and although closures can be hard to trace I have listed below those that I have uncovered in my research.  New partnerships are usually heralded with a fanfare and people smiling as they shake hands on a deal done. Unsurprisingly, a veil is drawn over partnerships that end and those that are public are usually dressed in anodyne media responses.

For both universities and providers that is unfortunate.  Considering and addressing failure is a good way of learning and often more informative than the bright, shiny case studies which are so popular as sales tools.  In my time with two leading universities with private providers and as COO and CEO with two providers I saw many factors that can make or break a partnership.  These are worth sharing.

I make no comment on the reasons for the ending of the relationships noted (but have referenced reports where available). Neither do I claim that this list is exhaustive and I would be interested in any other examples.  For organisations contemplating partnerships an open and honest discussion with those who have tried and moved on is probably worth as much as hours of expensive contract development.

Study Group
i) Stirling University (Opened 2007- Closed 2013) Source: QAA

INTO
i) University of East Anglia London (2010-2014) Source: THE)                                                                         ii) University of Stirling London (Opened 2014 – Closed 2015?)                                                                                     iii) St George’s University (Opened 2012 – closed 2017 Source: St George’s University Annual Report

Oxford International
i) Canterbury Christchurch (Opened 2015 – closed 2017?)

Kaplan
i) University of Utah (Opened 2010 – Closed?) ii)University of Sheffield (Opened 2006 – Closed 2015)

Navitas
i) Western Kentucky University (Opened 2010 – Closed 2016)
ii) Edinburgh Napier (Opened 2011 – due to close 2018)

PRIVATE PATHWAYS MAY NOT BE ACCESSIBLE OR GUARANTEE SUCCESS
UK universities with the greatest decline in overall international enrolments in the past five years often have no pathway partner or are relatively late to the party. Several of the non-aligned universities here have been actively seeking providers but there is, inevitably, caution from providers about taking on institutions that do not have underlying strength.

It remains to be seen whether some of the new partnerships can materially alter the trajectory of underperforming universities.  Sector sources suggest that Oxford International and the University of Bedfordshire are parting company and the provider is not currently listing this university on its website.

Table 1 – UK Universities With Greatest Decline In International Enrolments 2012/13 to 2016/17

Source: HESA (enrolments), QAA and University/Company websites

And that brings me full circle to Bath Spa and Shorelight. HESA data (supported by the University’s Annual Report narrative) showed strong growth in international recruitment from 2012/13 to 2014/15. In the first full year of the partnership with Shorelight (2015/16) there was a weakening of growth which was followed by declining international enrolments in 2016/17.  There is some way to go for the university to reach the anticipated 2,000 by 2018/19.

Table 2 – Bath Spa University International Enrolments 2012-13 to 2016/17

Source: HESA

Perhaps more troubling is that in December 2017 the THE reported that ‘figures available on (sic) Companies House show that Bath Spa Global – an international pathway college venture set up in 2014 in partnership with US firm Shorelight Education – has lost about £1.4 million in the three years to July 2016, while its parent company Bath Spa U has lost about £736,000 over the same period.’. The 2016/17 Financial Statement from Bath Spa showed international student income and numbers declining year on year and noted that the joint venture partnership, Bath Spa Global, ‘remains fragile’.  At the time of writing I can find no mention of Bath Spa University on Shorelight’s web-site and no current reference to Shorelight on the University’s site.