Tag: INTO University Partnerships

More Pathway Recruitment Indicators

Detailed, consistent and up to date insights into pathway recruitment performance are often difficult to find.  Some US universities give good data at a granular level and I reported on some of these in a recent blog.  The completion of the reporting cycle for INTO’s Joint Ventures and wholly owned centres in the UK gives a comprehensive picture of their enrolments in the 2017/18 financial year.

For the ten entities – eight joint ventures and two wholly owned centres – that have been trading five years, total enrollments bounced back from the low point in 2016/17 but remain short of 2013/14 levels.  This suggests that it’s probably still pretty tough going for the UK pathway market.

Table 1 – Average Enrolments for INTO Centres 2013/14 to 2017/18

Source: Annual Reports

At a detailed level the drivers of growth were Newcastle and City which bounced back after several years of decline and Queen’s.  Long-term partners East Anglia seem to have bottomed out after three years of decline.  Neither Stirling or Gloucestershire, the most recent partners in this group, have got over the 200 student mark after five years.

Table 2 – INTO UK Centres Average Enrolments 2013/14 to 2017/18

Source: LLP Annual Reports

INTO centres split educational oversight between ISI and the Quality Assurance Agency with the former giving specific details on numbers enrolled and the latter being less prescriptive.  While the annual reports noted above are averages across the financial year (August to July) in question, the ISI education oversight into three centres gives deeper insight into the most recent autumn intakes.

The distinction between EFL and FE used in the ISI reports broadly distinguishes between students on English Language only or Academic courses.  Newcastle appears to have a significant number doing both. 

Table 3 – Student Population of three INTO centres – November 2018

Source: ISI Educational Oversight Reports

The other INTO Joint Venture is Newcastle University London which had an inaugural intake in 2015 and offers both pathway and degree courses.  At the time of launch the university indicated that ‘…..in collaboration with INTO, our London campus is expected to grow to 1,200 students’.  Three years in the average numbers for 2017/18 were 381.

Recent UK pathway activity from established providers has largely centred on adding well ranked partners with Study Group, Navitas and Kaplan gaining Aberdeen, Leicester and Essex respectively.  Newer players have generally picked up less well-known names with Oxford International adding Greenwich and QA HE with Southampton Solent.  With the UK Government launching its new strategy for international student recruitment it remains to be seen if the cake will grow for everyone or if the strong will dominate.

NOTE: Table 2 updated 16 June 2019 to include INTO Glasgow Caledonian University 2017/18 enrolment   

US INTERNATIONAL STUDENT ENROLLMENTS – PEER TO PEER AND PATHWAYS

Making sense of trends in US international enrollments presents real challenges due to the diversity among ~4,000 institutions.  Looking at Oregon State University’s self-identified peer group of four other public universities is an opportunity to get under the surface.  It also provides insights as to how private providers offering pathways and direct recruitment support to universities, are contributing to overall numbers and adjusting their programs in an increasingly crowded market.

It’s a small sample over a limited time but it may offer some pointers for universities considering how best to meet their recruitment needs*.  Over a four-year period to fall 2018, one of the two public universities without private provider support was competitive in terms of overall international student enrollment. Where a new peer institution was added to the provider’s portfolio during the period it did better than longer-term partners.   

Some universities have benefited significantly from partnering with a private provider to bring global recruitment expertise to both pathway and direct enrollment.  But some have been less successful and new dynamics are emerging as the sector matures, competition increases and student numbers fall.  Where a private provider services several universities with similar academic and ranking characteristics the potential for internal competition for students is likely to increase. 

For the university this makes the task of selecting a provider more complex and the consideration of tighter commercial terms on target numbers and non-competing partnerships worth close attention.  The lure of having a partner who offers to take all the up-front costs while returning more international students than the university currently has will always be attractive.  But the prospect of signing a long-term contract to become a commodity product in an undifferentiated portfolio is less so.

A MIXED PICTURE IN TOTAL INTERNATINAL ENROLLMENTS AMONGST THE ‘ORANGE PEERS’

Oregon State University (Oregon State) defined four institutions as “Orange Peers” for the purposes of its Strategic Plan . Two, Colorado State University (Colorado State) and Washington State University (Washington State) are, like Oregon State, partnered with INTO University Partnerships.  The others, University of Nebraska (Nebraska) and Oklahoma State University (Oklahoma State) do not have any private-provider pathway relationship.

A working assumptions of most private pathway provider relationships is that the university will benefit from students progressing from the pathway as well as direct applications as the institutions international profile is raised. Providers have also increasingly focused on recruiting students directly to the university i.e. not just through a pathway, with remuneration often coming as a percentage of tuition fees paid by the student. Looking at an institution’s total international enrollments is one way of considering how the partnership is delivering.

The four-year picture in Table 1 broadly reflects the overall slowing in the US since 2015.  However, Washington State had year-over-year growth of 66 students and 46 in 2017 and 2018 respectively, which may reflect the early growth stage of the partnership with INTO which commenced in 2017.  Both Oregon State and Colorado State, long term INTO partners from 2009 and 2012, respectively, saw overall enrollments decline in 2018. 

Nebraska, which has no private-provider support had the strongest growth over the four years, increasing by 283 students or 11.2%, despite a dip between 2017 and 2018. Oklahoma State fared significantly worst with a fall of 236 students. 

The IIE Open Doors report shows that between 2015 and 2017 (the latest comprehensive reporting available) US total international enrollments fell by 0.56%.  All of the ‘Orange Peers’, except Oklahoma State, out-performed on that timescale. It will be interesting to see how 2017 to 2018 enrollments compare against the national trend.

TABLE 1 – ‘Orange Peers’ – Total International Enrollments Fall 2015 to Fall 2018

Source: Institutional Reporting

PATHWAY PROGRAMS REFLECT CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES

Pathway enrollments help underpin direct recruitment to university programs. As global markets change in terms of major sending countries and the demands of students they need to operate flexibly to maintain relevance. As the number of pathways in the US has grown competition for students has intensified.

In June 2018 Inside Higher Education’s Elizabeth Redden took a deep dive into pathway performance as US international enrollments came under pressure.  She noted, in particular, a steep decline in pathway numbers at Oregon State driven largely by falling numbers of Academic English students.  Fall 2018 data shows that this has continued along with a decline in both Graduate and Undergraduate pathway numbers.

TABLE 2 – INTO Oregon State University Enrollments – Fall 2015 to Fall 2018

Source: Oregon State University Institutional Research

At Colorado State one response to the changing market conditions has been a notable increase in the number of pathway courses and the range of academic disciplines covered.  In fall 2015 six pathway programs secured 152 students, an increase to 14 programs in 2017 drove a short-term increase to 163 enrollments, with numbers falling back to 142 in 2018 despite a further program being added.

Enrollments on the business pathway program have fallen sharply over the period with engineering enrollments also declining in 2018.  New programs in computer information systems, computer science and finance have ameliorated the overall decline.  These shifts demonstrate that traditional recruiting patterns are under considerable pressure and raises some questions over whether emerging courses will reach the same volume of enrollments.     

Table 3 – INTO Colorado State University Enrollments – Fall 2015 to Fall 2018

Source: Institutional Research, Planning and Effectiveness Reporting

At the time of writing it was not possible to find any specific detail about enrollments in the Washington State pathway programmes.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

US pathway growth continued after new international student enrollment growth peaked in 2016, with around 20 further partnerships by 2019.  The ubiquity of pathways has seen an increasing duplication of academic offering and ranking status within each provider’s network. The recent closure of three of CEG’s pathways operations in the US suggests that some partnerships may begin to look sub-optimal over time and that restructuring is likely to happen in the future. 

In this new world, well-placed universities looking for partnerships hold a great deal of power to dictate commercial terms or to choose to invest in alternative recruitment options.  Locking out competitor institutions, contractually-binding performance criteria and understanding how to exit a failing partnership without penalty should all be considered as part of the commercial terms.  There are still many opportunities for the smartest and most creative to do well.         

*Data provided by universities is seldom wholly consistent and some provide greater granularity than others. Every effort has been made to make fair and consistent comparisons but any authoritative corrections or comments are welcome.

UNIVERSITY PATHWAYS – INTO THE VALLEY

The potential sale of INTO University Partnerships has created a lot of interest with a particular focus on the Joint Venture (JV) model it pioneered and how they are performing.    A sharp-eyed and smart ex-colleague pointed me to Companies House, the United Kingdom’s registrar of companies, which offers access to annual reports for every JV as well as the wholly owned entities INTO Manchester and INTO London World Education Centre.  They make for interesting reading.

No doubt the wonks, analysts and number crunchers will comb these reports over the coming months as part of their due diligence and financial interrogation. As The Skids minor-hit of 1979, Into The Valley said – its ‘time for the audit, the gathering trial.’ But for this blog I am going to focus on enrolments because that is the area where most pathway providers claim they bring expertise, investment, global reach and commercial nous which add up to student recruitment that universities cannot match.

The individual filings appear to be consistent in reporting the average number of students in each Centre during the year. Table one shows these for ten entities operating in the 2013/14 Financial Year and still operating in 2016/17. This excludes the now closed St George’s University JV and the INTO Newcastle University London JV established in 2015.

Table 1: Yearly Average Enrolments at INTO Centres

*Manchester and London are not joint ventures.  Their parent company is INTO University Partnerships
Source: Annual Reports 2013/14 to 2016/17

The average enrolments in 2013/14 across all Centres was 4284 while in 2016/17 it was 4016 – a decline of -6.3%. The peak year for enrolment was 2014/15 when an average of 4293 enrolments are shown. As a comparator HESA reports that the UK HE sector’s first year international enrolments declined from 179,250 in 2013/14 to 172,275 in 2016/17 – a fall of 3.9%.

There will be many drivers for enrolment performance and as my previous blogs have indicated there have been winners and losers amongst universities over the past few years. Many in-house international offices have secured outstanding results and some universities have received strong support from the performance of their pathway partners. The picture for INTO looks mixed with only the Queen’s and Stirling JVs showing an increase in average numbers enrolled.

What also interested me was that I once heard a pathway leader explaining to a worried Vice-Chancellor that the period from start up to profitability for a pathway was ‘deepening and widening’. Both Gloucestershire and Stirling JVs were in start-up mode in this period having been incorporated in 2013. But their fortunes seem to have taken different directions with the latter forging ahead as the former has fallen back. It would be no surprise if pathways at more lowly-ranked universities were finding it harder to make progress under increasingly competitive conditions.

We can also see that even some of the pathways at well-known top 30 universities, Newcastle and East Anglia, have had a pretty torrid time in terms of enrolments. Newcastle enrolments fell by 24.3% from their peak in 2014/15 and East Anglia by 17.5% in the same period. City, a relatively well-known university with strong international intakes and a London advantage, saw numbers fall by 25.5%.  This suggests that even well-established partnerships with big name partners are not a guarantee of successful enrolment.

The university partners are, of course, still securing students who progress from these pathways but this scale of decline is unlikely to be made up for by improved progression rates or increased fee levels. My recent blogs have demonstrated that both Newcastle and UEA have seen their overall international student fee income declining over recent years. And while INTO University Partnerships’ share of the JV profits is not the only stream of income to its business it is reasonable to assume that the company would prefer operating profits to losses.

For INTO, and the pathway sector more generally, in both the UK and the US the challenges are not going away any time soon. These include the growth of favoured locations such as Canada, Australia and Europe, the emergence of new destinations and particularly those in Asia, and the ever-present spectre of improving on-line delivery and in-country tuition improving English-language levels.

Tennyson’s poem, The Charge of the Light Brigade, provides an apt metaphor. He wrote that as the cavalry charged ‘into the valley of Death’ there were ‘cannon to right of them, cannon to left of them, cannon in front of them’. There were survivors but of the original 600 Light Dragoons, Lancers and Hussars in the charge fewer than 200 were able to re-assemble with their horses.

Over a billion dollars has been invested in private pathway providers since 2010 as the prospects for growth in the US and UK seemed bright. If there is a next round of deals for those providers – Study Group have also been for sale recently –  it seems likely that the price must reflect the market challenges. If not we may recall that, as French Marshal Pierre Bosquet reportedly said of the Charge, “C’est de la folie” — “It is madness.”

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.