pathways – Page 4 – View From A Bridge – management, education and personal thoughts

Brexit – University Challenge But Pathway Provider Opportunity?

Last Friday saw a pretty eye-catching announcement by the University of Surrey whose problems appear to demand radical cost-cutting action including offering all staff voluntary redundancy. One highlight was Vice-Chancellor Max Lu’s comment that ‘Some of the main financial challenges include reduced income due to Brexit….’. If that’s right a number of universities might be even more troubled.

In 2017/18 the average percentage of EU students (defined as EU domiciled but non-UK) in all degree awarding institutions listed by HESA was 5.94%. With an EU population of 9.9% Surrey was considerably above the norm but far from alone with Lancaster University and City University at 10.1% and 10.5% respectively. This might go some way to explaining Lancaster’s desire to set up a remote campus in Germany.

Leaving aside relatively narrow, specialist degree awarding institutions, Cranfield with 21.2% EU and University Colleges Birmingham with 20.6%, look to have a lot at stake. The broadly-based university with greatest exposure seems to be Aberdeen where 19.9% are EU. If the big brands and specialists are able to overcome any Brexit jitters the next most vulnerable English university looks to be Essex with 12.8% EU.

Table 1: Top 20 Universities for EU Students As A Percentage Of Total Enrollments (excluding specialist institutions) 2017-18

Of course, the spectre of Brexit may just be the University of Surrey’s way of getting impetus for restructuring. To be absolutely fair Lu’s comments continue, “… and an ever more competitive student recruitment environment, significantly increasing pension costs and a national review of tuition fee levels.”. That would be true for every university so it is interesting that he adds, “Our university also faces the not inconsiderable impact of a fall in our national league table positions.”

The potential for league tables to create such havoc with a University’s finances is troubling and needs consideration at another time. But the potential for a sharp fall in European Union recruits is certain to be a concern for those institutions with heavy representation and it would bring even sharper competition to the battle for UK and full-fee paying international students. In that respect the bigger brands have an inbuilt advantage and will be looking to take an even bigger share of the market.

As Brexit plays out it will also be interesting to see if more pathway operators are able to convert university nervousness about recruitment into opportunities for partnership. Navitas seem to have a head start in operating overseas campuses for partners, but QA Higher Education operates UK campuses with full-degree courses for several of its partners, and INTO have been doing the same for Newcastle University in London. It’s an interesting development area for pathway operators attempting to diversify and deepen their services.

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).

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’.

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.

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.