Tag: US higher education

Changing Perception of US Pathways

It’s been the quietest year for nearly a decade in terms of announcements about new pathway partnerships in the US, and the 2019 Inside Higher Education (IHE) survey of College and University Admissions Officers suggests a shift in perceptions by institutions.  The closure of several centers in the past year and disappointing enrollments at a number of institutions have given plenty of reason to be cautious.  But faith persists in some sectors.

In the Survey only 12% of public doctoral institutions strongly agreed that “Pathway programs will become more important to US higher education in the current environment.” In the 2018 survey that percentage was 22%.  Among Private Non/Profit Doctoral/Masters institutions, the percentage of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing to the statement fell from 60% to 51%.

Table 1 – Pathway Programmes Importance to US Higher Education (IHE, 2018)

Table 2 – Pathway Programmes Importance to US Higher Education (IHE, 2019)

However, there has been an almost Damascene conversion among Public Master’s/Baccalaureate institutions, where 28% now strongly agree in pathways’ growing importance, compared to 15% last year.  This is mirrored in the Private Non-profit Baccalaureate section where 56% agree or strongly agree compared to 33% last year.  While, at an aggregate level the survey shows declining enthusiasm for pathways it is clear that they still hold an allure for some institutions.

The real question for the new enthusiasts will be whether the private pathway providers have much appetite for non-doctoral institutions.  The portfolios of the ‘big two’, Shorelight and INTO, contain universities offering doctorates some have quite limited offerings.  Study Group have a mixed bag of institutions and recently some at non-degree level in Canada, and Navitas has some non-doctoral universities on the roster.

Potential for new, high-profile partners may become even more limited as stronger US institutions become increasingly comfortable with their capacity and capability to manage enrollments without resorting to a third party.  While, to date pathway providers have been the more likely party to terminate partnerships empowered or disappointed universities might begin to question underperforming relationships or decide they can do better alone.  The scene is set for more turbulence as people come to terms with the new global mobility conditions.       

Furthermore, the UK’s move to institute a two-year Post Study Work (PSW) visa for students enrolled from 2020 may bring further pressure and undermine the US’s position as a favored destination for international students.  After a 33% surge in Chinese undergraduate applications to the UK for 2019/20, the UK Home Office reported that the number of Indian students choosing to study in the UK increased 42% from June 2018 to June 2019.  It is likely that following the PSW announcement, India’s numbers will continue to grow rapidly for the 2020 intake.

Alongside that, the US is heading for an election year where the future of global relationships, student visas and existing post-study options could be part of the political debate.  Just as the financial markets dislike turbulence it is difficult to see why a student would choose to invest in an uncertain future.  The relatively safe havens and emerging, quality options around the world could seem increasingly attractive. 

For Study Group and Navitas any difficulties in recruitment to the US will be mitigated by increasing momentum behind their considerable portfolios in other parts of the world.  INTO’s mix is more finely balanced but its recent focus has been on the US and it has just lost the University of Gloucestershire as a UK pathway partner.  Shorelight is wholly US based and will face the full force of global headwinds. 

It certainly seems likely that pressure on sales teams, cost of acquisition and other “promotional” tactics will increase.  Local difficulties, such as those Shorelight are facing in Kuwait, will also impact on the ability to recruit sufficient students for existing partners let alone new ones.  Life is unlikely to get any easier in the short term and may get a lot worse, which might seem to mitigate against continuing expansion, particularly with sub-optimal partners.     

However, ‘doubling down’ is a popular phrase in the US and has come to mean ‘to strengthen one’s commitment to a particular strategy or course of action, typically one that is potentially risky.’  The IHE survey suggests that at least one sector of the market is increasingly interested if pathway operators have the appetite.  But in terms of recruitment it might be worth remembering that, as the UK’s ‘Iron Lady’, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said in 1997, ”you can’t buck the market.”

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

SEVIS With A Smile? Or ‘A Delusion, A Mockery And A Snare’?

Data-driven predictions of future international student enrollments can be very useful for international recruiters, university budgeting and potential investors in higher education.  Recent commentary using Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) data shows how visa data can be characterized in a way that suggests the challenges faced by US higher education are overstated.  But clarity around what this data source includes and where it might exaggerate or diminish trends is vital to avoid misdirection and poor decision making.     

The increasingly user-friendly ‘SEVIS By the Numbers’ web-site provides good access to visa data complete with interactive maps and is a popular source.  It claims it ‘illustrates trends and information on international students studying in the United States’ but it does not disaggregate between those enrolled at universities and those on student visas taking the Optional Practical Training (OPT) extension which allows for post-study work.  Confusing or conflating the two is unhelpful in understanding the implications for the state of US higher education.  

Executive action in 2016 increased the maximum length of employment under OPT for foreign students with STEM degrees to 36 months, which, along with a booming US economy, resulted in a material increase in the number of STEM graduates staying on to work in the US.  While these students hold F-1 visas (and are reported in the SEVIS numbers), they are not tuition-paying students enrolled in a US university.    

To give a sense of materiality of the OPT numbers, the Institute of International Education (IIE) Open Doors Report reports shows that the proportion of OPT students rose to 18.6% of ‘total international students’ in 2017/18 from 12.4% in 2014/15.  When the IIE announced that the ‘number of international students’ increased to reach a new high of 1,094,000 in 2017/18, the growth in OPT numbers masked the reality that students enrolled in full-time study in US universities actually declined year-on-year and were lower than 2015/16.

Source: Institute of International Education, 2018, https://www.iie.org/opendoors

A better guide to the health and future of international student recruitment may be provided by IIE’s data which shows that both undergraduate and postgraduate new enrollments have fallen for two years in a row, and non-degree enrollments for three.  Critically, between 2015/16 and 2017/18 the number of undergraduates and graduates enrolled fell by over 17,000 while the number of non-degree students fell by less than 5,000.  While percentage falls in non-degree students can look high, the number of students is relatively low compared to the main body of academic students.        

Master’s Level Enrollments and Students From India

Thinking of SEVIS data as a proxy for enrollments is particularly distorting at Master’s level and for understanding trends for students from India.  SEVIS suggests that the number of Master’s ‘students’ grew by 27.7% between 2014 and 2017 while IIE data indicates that numbers actually enrolled in universities grew by only 8.4%.  The difference is driven by the 69.1% increase in OPT numbers (83,175) shown in IIE data over the four years.    

Source:
Institute of International Education, 2018, https://www.iie.org/opendoors and SEVIS data from INTO Corporate Blog

Note: The SEVIS data and the IIE Enrollment data is not synchronous.

The Pew Research Centre has reported that students from India are significantly more likely to utilise the OPT opportunity than other international students.  IIE’s breakdown indicates that between 2016/17 and 2017/18 the number of students from India enrolled on Graduate programmes declined by nearly 10,000 while the numbers doing OPT increased by over 18,000.  The increase in numbers doing OPT appears to be slowing which is likely to reflect emerging options around the world and the declining competitiveness of the US in retaining international talent. 

At undergraduate level, which is unaffected by OPT,  IIE and SEVIS both show a small growth in students from India year-on-year to 2017/18 but this should be seen in the context of growth in Canada which had 123,000 students from India in 2017 – 63% more than the year before.  This was largely driven by an increase of 67% (86,900) going into colleges, presumably as a result of the opportunities for progression to university, work and citizenship.  It will be interesting to see how far growth in Indian undergraduates in the US goes when these routes seem more straightforward and available in Canada.

Source:
Institute of International Education, 2018, https://www.iie.org/opendoors

The 1st Baron Denman coined the phrase ‘a delusion, a mockery and a snare’ in a legal context in the 1840s, and imprecise use or understanding of data has a similar potential to lure, deceive and trap the unwary.  No source of information is without flaws and weaknesses but it is also foolhardy to take one source, view or instance as giving definitive guidance. In that respect there is plenty of evidence that competitors are challenging the US, that global student mobility is changing, that demographics are shifting and that technology is disrupting the established order.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

BIG QUESTIONS FOR PRIVATE PROVIDERS

The past few months have seen Ardian purchase Study Group, Navitas on course to be taken private and, most recently, news of EC’s North American Higher Education division moving to Study Group.  Between 2010 and 2014 the pathway market was characterized by over a billion dollars of private investment and a dash for growth in university partnerships.  But as global competition, technological disruption and changing demographics bite there are closures, sales and realignment.

As the market becomes more challenging investors have some strategic decisions to make. Recent developments and news coverage gives some grounds for speculation on what that might mean.

Cambridge Education Group/Bridgepoint Capital

In 2013 Bridgepoint Capital paid ‘an enterprise value of UK £185m’ (around $241m) for CEG.  One commentator suggested, “The pathways sector has delivered remarkable growth and profitability over recent years. Strategically the space is exciting..”.  It seems possible that the future will be about excitement in other parts of the portfolio. 

CEG recently confirmed the closure of its ONCampus individual pathway centers at Rochester, Rhode Island, CSU Monterey Bay and the University of North Texas.  The relaunch of ONCampus Boston in fall 2019 and direct recruitment at Illinois Institute of Technology keeps a toehold in US HE.  But with no further ONCampus developments in the UK since 2016 it looks like it has called time on pathways linked to individual universities.    

But the Group has other options and is investing in the CATS College brand (colleges for 14-18 year olds) with the first China centers opening in March 2019.  The two centers are in Shanghai and will provide a path for students to join CATS UK Colleges and other CEG options in the UK.  In the UK the company’s digital delivery arm has also been growing and added Cass Business School and the University of Hull as partners in 2018. 

It seems plausible that CEG is focusing on driving the CATS business and building a growth story around digital while putting pathways into a holding pattern.  

INTO University Partnerships/Leeds Equity Partners

In 2013 Leeds Equity £66m purchase of a 25% stake in INTO valued the business at around £266m.  Six years later the Sunday Times has ‘cautiously, put a £170m price on the operation’ (entry 876, Sunday Times Rich List 2019. Public filings show that in 2018/19 a preference dividend of £15m was paid for the first time, presumably to Leeds. 

INTO added the medium sized, public, Illinois State University and smaller, private institution, Hofstra to its US portfolio in 2018.  But data from Oregon State and Colorado State reflects the tightening of the US market and the possibility that new partnerships may erode the enrollments of existing partners.  INTO hasn’t opened a new UK partner since 2016 and average enrollments at mature partnerships (five years or more) and wholly owned centers shows that overall recruitment in the UK is no greater than 2014/15 levels.      

The company’s joint-venture model was a key differentiators in the early days but has been substantially replicated by a US competitor.  INTO is focused on pathways but has the potential to build business as a recruiter of non-pathway international students for existing or new partners.  If Leeds Equity are looking to move on this could be the moment where the business recapitalizes to buy out their 25% share and perhaps get some headroom to invest in new business opportunities.

Shorelight

Shorelight was six years old in January 2019 and is the only major pathway provider with no interests outside the US.  The portfolio grew in the last twelve months with the additions of  Cleveland State University (March 2019) and Mercer University (October 2018).  Eighteen university partners mean that there are a lot of seats to fill at a tough time for the US market.  

With the squeeze on international enrollment growth in the US, Shorelight probably needs to dominate pathway recruitment to deliver the results expected by partners.  The growth in pathway options and degrees delivered in English around the world has made it a buyers’ market for students and recruitment agents. Any outperformance in recruitment is likely to come at a price and provoke a competitive response. 

Declining markets, increasing costs and over-supply are not easy problems to solve and it may be time to look for new options to spread costs and risks.  Given Shorelight’s recruitment infrastructure and evidence of success with some good universities in the US it could be productive to pitch for a high-quality university in the UK, Europe or Australia.  A big name that doesn’t want to be part of the Kaplan, Study Group, Navitas or INTO portfolio might find a dedicated partner worth a conversation.         

Study Group/Ardian

The purchase of Study Group by Ardian positioned the investor with the ambition to make ‘strategic acquisitions’, and a belief that pathway growth would continue to be ‘double digit’.  It is difficult to see that organic growth in the US will be the main driver of the latter prediction.  But taking on EC’s operations in the US appears to signal an intention to continue to build market share. 

Other recent Study Group signings have been with sub-degree colleges in Canada providing a route to degree level study, post-study work and possibly citizenship.  It may be a smart way of infiltrating a market where universities have seemed relatively resistant to the lure of pathways. In 2017, 41% of international students at post-secondary level, including a 67% increase in those from India, studied in colleges.

Study Group’s business is diversified geographically and has high-school/college options as well as pathways.  The UK/Europe pathway business looks stable and recently announced a new partner in Aberdeen.  In the US the Managing Director has just left and it may be a good moment for strategic review in the context of market conditions. 

Image by Anemone123 from Pixabay

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.

From Deal to Delivery With Pathways

After the champagne has been drunk and lawyers have left the building the respective teams of the pathway provider and the university face ‘operationalising’ the arrangement.  57% of College and University Admissions Directors believe ‘pathways programs will become more important to US higher education in the current environment’ (IHE/Gallup Survey, 2018) so it’s a good moment to consider how that can work.  Here are a few thoughts and things to consider based on experience from both sides of the fence.   

Most deals are driven by senior management who want to meet strategic needs including more students, revenue and diversity.  Work groups, steering boards and workshop sessions are often held in the context of political will from the top down to get a deal done.  But once they believe the international recruitment issue is resolved the top team moves on to other priorities.

The failure of many pathways to deliver the expected results can be traced back to this moment because there is no perfect preparation for the day to day engagement between two culturally different organisations.  Caution, disorientation and lack of empathy quickly become frustration, blame and mistrust.  As Mike Tyson memorably put it, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth”.

Personal relationships between key decisionmakers can help and one example will serve. One pathway provider wanted to take over all communication with agents, a plan that was being resisted wholeheartedly within the university.  It became a symbol of resistance in the international office but a sign of naivety and bloody mindedness by the provider. 

Over a couple of Long Island Iced Teas in a Malaysian bar the universities head of international recruitment explained the insecurities, egos and justifications to the provider’s Global Sales Director.  After a pause he simply said, “OK.  You carry on communicating directly.  As long as you promise that we can review in six months and if it isn’t working we try my way.”

It allowed the head of international a ‘victory’ but also the chance to give a clear warning to the internal team that they had to deliver.  Having conceded without rancour the provider was able to leverage goodwill on other issues. A year or so later both the main protagonists agreed that it was never that important an issue in the first place.

But personal relationships are the result of hard work, respect, regular engagement and transparency.  There will always be decisions to make, changes to consider and strong views to manage. Below are a few things that will almost certainly come up in the first year or so and some possible responses.  

  • Entry requirements will need reconsidering.  Most pathway providers will, at some point, say that recruitment or progression is being hindered by unrealistic academic standards.  Every university with a few years of successful recruitment will want to raise grades and then gets surprised when applications drop off. 

Be realistic and conduct ongoing research into what is happening in the market – not just in your country but around the world. Too many universities fail to fully understand international equivalencies or the difference between school systems in other countries.

  • Cost of acquisition is going up and universities should invest. Competition is tough and commission deals are a complex range of standard, special, emergency and wrapped in deals for marketing, trips and exhibition slots.  The suspicion is always that higher costs are simply an excuse to cover poor recruitment planning.

Understand the providers commercial plan for engaging with agents and why they believe it works for your university.  Then keep asking how it is going and what evidence exists – term sheets are relatively easy to get from friendly agents.  Consider the lifetime value of the student to the university and work with the provider to consider that return holistically. 

  • Academics should travel to support recruitment.  Some academics have been global road warriors with great success and some senior management teams spend weeks on the road at key times.  Some try never to leave the university campus because it interferes with their research or they don’t have budget.    

In the battle for students an academic title can make a real difference and overtime the winners will have academics who travel regularly.  Get used to it and build an internal team that is willing to trot the globe and work hard to recruit. Also, make sure there is a budget to support international travel – time in country is never wasted.

  • Admissions times are rarely fast enough.  This usually become a running sore and it needs to be dealt with quickly. Standards should be agreed before the deal is signed but even then the provider will want to move the goalposts.     

Admissions processes are part of the recruitment arms race and sometimes responses are needed very quickly to optimise enrollments.  Work with the provider to make the internal investment case for improved systems, people and processes.  Start from the point that admissions is a bridge not a gate – the objective should be to secure every student who has a reasonable chance of completing their academic programme. 

  • Targets will be missed.  In the heat of deal making the pressure to close is intense and people, on both sides, sometimes get greedy and fearful in equal degree. Too many partnerships then work under a fog of misunderstanding and misinformation about target, stretch target, baseline, quotas etc.  Even worse can be a lack of realism and prompt feedback about changing market conditions.

Start by presuming that first-year recruitment may be well below target (and that it is not necessarily the providers fault).  Make sure university budgets, assuming progressing students, have a reasonable buffer.  Do the work to review second year and third year targets as early as possible in the light of experience.  Understand what can and will change to make ensuing years better.   

  • Universities expect the provider to do it all.  It can seem reasonable to hand the controls to the ‘experts’ and sit back to watch the students roll in.  And there is always a get-out clause or a contractual stick to beat them with if targets are missed.

That is not partnership and universities should want to be involved in anything that involves their reputation.  It’s not just about money because students and staff have a stake in the outcomes.  University staff know their institution better than any external provider ever will – the more generous and helpful they can be the better for everyone.  And providers need to socialise new thinking carefully rather than launching a new plan that is seen as counter-cultural.

  • Senior people and champions will leave.  A partnership deal is often partly the result of a meeting of minds and ambitions.  But it is rare for the original movers and shakers to be as regularly involved after three years.  Incomers will have different understandings and motivations and the glow of ‘mutual benefit’ can be tarnished by competing interests.

Providers need to be alert to changing University personnel and work hard at relationships– not just at senior level but by embedding themselves at several levels.  Taking time to understand new thinking while establishing a common knowledge of history pays off.  Universities need to make sure they are allowing good access and taking time to keep their internal audiences informed.

This list is not intended to be exhaustive and there is plenty more that could be said about building long-term, productive partnerships in student recruitment.  Neither partner should expect to have it all their own way but the search for optimal outcomes should be ceaseless.  Perhaps the best advice is to have ‘the qualities of an old political fighter’ as Boris Yeltsin once ascribed to a colleague – ”patience and flexibility, always searching for intelligent compromise.  

Open Doors and Outliers – Looking For Rubies in a Mountain of Rocks

Open Doors data, published by the Institute of International Education (IIE) on 13 November, confirms the much-anticipated decline in international student enrollments in the US. But delving into the detail demonstrates that there are also outliers with significant growth in international students year on year. It is always interesting to dig down to see who is bucking the trend – but more importantly how they are doing it.

At the headline level there is unmitigated gloom with the total number of enrolled international students in 2017/18 down by 11,797 (1.3%) on the prior year. There are also signs of a fractured pipeline for Fall 2018 with non-degree student starters down 9.7% year on year (4,868 students) and down 23.8% (14,135 students) from the 2014/15 peak. Since a 2015/16 high-point undergraduate and postgraduate new-enrollments are down by 9% (10,723) and 6.8% (8,556) respectively.

Table 1 – New International Student Enrollment in the US 2007-08 to 2016-17
Source: Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/opendoors

Against that background the state of Kentucky was eye-catching for two reasons. It posted a 26.9% increase in international students – an exceptional performance for a state that was, in 2016/17, 31st in overall popularity in terms of volume of students enrolled. Within the state Campbellsville University was the only one of the top five (by volume enrollments) to grow and became the leading recruiter with a year on year increase of nearly 2800 students.

Table 2 – Year on Year Change in Foreign Students in Kentucky (Source: Open Doors Fact Sheets 2017 and 2018)
IPEDS data shows that across all domestic and international, full and part-time enrollments Campbellsville grew by 96% year on year to Fall 2017. A time series shows that growth at the institution accelerated very significantly in the past year. Graduate part-time has been the primary engine of growth with graduate full-time and undergraduate part-time also contributing.

Table 3 – Campbellsville University Total Graduate and Undergraduate Enrollments 2014-2017
NB: 2017 data is listed as Provisional Release data by IPEDS

International student enrollments (as per non-resident aliens in IPEDS reporting) have been the driving force for the significant growth over the past year. Full-time international graduates grew by more than 600 year on year and part-time international graduates by over 1700.

Table 4 – Campbellsville Full and Part Time Graduate Enrollments
The graduate growth appears to be almost entirely driven by students from India. In 2016 Open Doors reported the proportion of students from China and India in Kentucky as being equal at 18.9% of the total. By 2017 students from India leapt to 43.1% of the total as China fell to 13.1%.

This is supported by the Quartz news website which published, in May 2018, an article reviewing the courses offered by Campbellsville and another Kentucky-based institution, the University of the Cumberlands . The article quotes Shanon Garrison, the vice president for enrollment services at the University of Campbellsville, as saying that “99% of the students in the course are native to India but live in and work for companies based in the US.” Most students are enrolled in the Masters of Science in Information Technology and Management (MSITM).  which, according to Quartz, is ‘designed to allow international students to work full-time jobs while enrolled.’.

The report suggests that students are required to attend the campus for three days of face-to-face classes at the beginning of each term and that the degree costs around $17,000. Flexibility, affordability and the opportunity to work appear to be key factors in the popularity of the course. It is a powerful combination which appears to have turbo-charged growth at Campbellsville.

International recruitment has always been a space where intelligent minds consider ways to develop creative programming that works productively within the legal, visa and competitive environment. Large institutions can often be relatively slow in adapting to new circumstances or may rely on their reputations to see them through the bad times. Innovation and boldness are usually the hallmarks of smaller, more nimble institutions and their successes are often worth considering.

The purpose of looking more closely at the University of Campbellsville is to illustrate possibilities and is not intended to advocate for or against the model. The Quartz article outlines some of the potential challenges and it is not unusual for innovation to appear in specific niches that are inaccessible or out of scope for other institutions. But at a difficult time for US international student recruitment it’s interesting to see opportunities that are still being discovered and exploited.