8 million globally mobile students – a myth, based on a rounding error, sustained by wishful thinking?

When a number becomes repeated often enough as a fact it is often difficult to see past it. If it appears to be backed by credible sources like the OECD any sense of concern about authenticity diminishes. That is probably why the prediction of 8 million students studying outside their home country by 2025 entered the HE sector’s psyche. But the emergence of that number and its credibility as a prediction based on solid data is difficult to trace.

It’s important partly because of the scale of investment in the sector based on its potential for growth. Since 2010, over a billion dollars has been invested in private providers of pathway courses – examples include Providence, Leeds Equity, and Bridgepoint deals involving Study Group, INTO University Partnerships and Cambridge Education Group. Shorelight and Oxford International also become new entrants to the pathway landscape in 2013 and 2014 respectively.  The title image to this blog is a cropped slide from a presentation at a major, publicly-quoted, pathway provider’s April 2017 Investor Strategy Day.

Universities in traditional receiving countries have also built development plans around growing numbers of international students studying on campus. In the UK alone they are looking to increase international student fee income by nearly 30% in the three years to 2018/19 – a figure even HEFCE politely suggested shows ‘over optimism’. And the Daily Telegraph reported £5.3bn being sunk into purpose-built student accommodation in 2017, compared to £4.5bn the year before and a record £6bn in 2015.

The sector and those who write about it have often used the 8 million as a touchstone. In 2015 the University of Oxford’s International Strategy Office stated, ‘The global population of students who move to another country to study continues to rise…is likely to reach 8 million students per year by 2025.’ In May 2017 a NAFSA flier from one private provider stated confidently, ‘8M students to study outside their home countries by 2025’. The ‘2016 Top Markets Report on Education A Market Assessment Tool for U.S. Exporters’ from the U.S. Department of Commerce also stated that by 2025 ‘…eight million students will be globally mobile.’ 

Most authors quote the same source for the forecast – the 2012 OECD publication, AHELO Feasibility Study. But the OECD do not appear to have done their own data-crunching. The Study reads, ‘growth is projected to continue in the future to reach approximately 5.8m around 2020 (Bohm et al, 2004) and 8m by 2025 (Altbach and Bassett).’ (OECD, AHELO Feasibility Study Report Volume 2, p.24, 2012). The 5.8m reference is from the British Council’s 2020 Vision document (2004) which was underpinned by IDP’s Global Forecasting Model. 

The OECD reference to Altbach and Bassett is credited to an article called ‘The Brain Trade’, in a 2004 edition of the publication, Foreign Policy. In this relatively brief article the authors write, ‘a recent Australian study estimates that the total number of international students will increase to 8 million by 2025’. (The Brain Trade, Foreign Policy, Washington DC pp 30-31, Sept-Oct 2004). That would seem to rule out Altbach and Bassett as the original source although the article does not provide a citation to follow.

In Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution (Altbach et al) for the 2009 UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education the claim is of an even greater acceleration in growth. Page 7 of the full document reads, ‘More than 2.5 million students are studying outside of their home countries. Estimates predict 8 million international students by 2020.’  Confusingly, the Executive Summary settles (on page vi) for saying, ‘Estimates predict the rise to 7 million international students by 2020.’

Neither the source of the 8 million or the 7 million are articulated but the source of the ‘Australian study’ seems clear.  Altbach, on page 25 of the main report, says ‘By 2025, research undertaken for IDP Pty Ltd in Australia suggests that roughly 7.2 million students may be pursuing some higher education internationally, an increase of 188 percent over the 2006 UNESCO estimate (Böhm, et al., 2002). The research in question is GLOBAL STUDENT MOBILITY 2025: Forecasts of the Global Demand for International Higher Education (Bohm, Davis, Meares and Pearce, 2002). But the question of how this relates to a prediction of 8 million globally mobile students remains unclear.

The answer may lie in a 2003 update of the IDP research. The executive summary (page 3) says that one key finding is that ‘global demand for international higher education is forecast to increase from over 2 million in 2003 to 7.6 million in 2025’.  It seems possible that the 7.6m was simply rounded up to 8m but the consequences are significant. In terms of financial outcomes 400,000 students equates, at a conservative estimate, to yearly fee income of more than $5bn dollars.

What is also striking is that, as noted in the British Council’s Vison 2020 report (2004) the IDP Global Forecasting Model, underpinning the 2003 research, was based upon the UNESCO 2001 World Education Report which relied largely on figures from 1996. Could it be that statements being made in 2017 about 8 million globally mobile students by 2025 are relying on a rounding error from a report using data that is 20 years old?

Table 1. Summary Graphic – How The 8 Million May Have Evolved

None of this is intended to undermine the work of the researchers involved. Forecasting is fiendishly difficult and those working in HE recognise the time delays and complexities which can make source material difficult to manage and interpret. We also recognise that circumstances can change rapidly and make even the most accomplished market analyst look foolish.

As we see in the most recent OECD graphic (below) the numbers enrolled overseas grew by only 400,000 from 2010 to 2015. This compared to growth of 1.2m additional students from 2005 to 2010. It seems likely that quality in country provision, and additional tuition options in English-language, as well as the growth of on-line delivery, is allowing students to study in ways that meet their career and personal aspirations at lower cost.

Table 2 : Education at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators Figure C4.a. Long-term trends in the global number of students enrolled abroad (foreign students definition)

The extraordinary growth in the first decade of the 21st Century may become seen as the peak moment for increased international mobility. In 2012 the British Council predicted that mobility would plateau by 2020. More recently the British Council has predicted that that the annual growth for global outbound students is projected to average at 1.7 percent to 2027, dropping from 5.7 in the period 2000-2015. It is difficult at this point to see that those presentations which held Emo of Friesland arriving at Oxford in the 12th Century as the first in a wave of international students numbering 8m by 2025 will be correct.

Perhaps all this reflects the danger of International student enrolment being viewed as a cryptocurrency where the uninformed may make investments in the misunderstood for fear of missing a wave of future riches. As Warren Buffet memorably said, ‘when the tide goes out..you discover who’s been swimming naked’.

-Ends-

Rage on the Stage or Pride from the Side

The English Premier League has attracted some of the highest profile football coaches in the world. A combination of money, glamour and opportunity have created the perfect platform for them to work with some of the best players in the world. But these coaches increasingly display even bigger egos than their players and engage in outbursts of anger and unrestrained emotion on the pitch after games have finished. Are there any lessons for management?

It is the tendency to march onto the pitch at the end of the match that has been the most striking development. Maybe they feel they have to express their leadership prowess as a coda to the game and the efforts of their team. Or it could be the ultimate in scent marking, allowing the team to do its best before marching onto the pitch to display their alpha male credentials in front of the world. They know that the cameras are following them and that they will have opportunities in the press room to express their opinions verbally but they cannot resist the opportunity to physically impose themselves on the field.

This weekend we saw Jurgen Klopp of Liverpool being pulled away from abusing the referee after some controversial decisions at the end of the match with Tottenham Hotspur. He had pulled his own players away from the referee so clearly didn’t think they were up to the job. And he suffered the ignomy of being ushered away by a peer (Pochettino, the Spurs manager) who could see how embarrassing Jurgen’s behaviour had become. Jurgen has previous behaviour in using his 6’4” frame to intimidate officials to take into account.
Recently we have also seen the reputedly cerebral Pep Guardiola of Manchester City, a team setting the pace in the Premier League, on the pitch berating and physically manhandling a player of the opposition team. The player, rather than giving Pep the shove he probably deserved, maturely explained that he had been carrying out the plan of his own manager with focus and discipline. It was an admirable demonstration of restraint by the 23 year old Redmond faced with a ranting 47-year old who should know better.

And Antonio Conte of Chelsea has become renowned for cavorting on the pitch after games and celebrating with maniacal energy. Perhaps he is trying to capture some of the glory he misses from his days as a five times championship winning player with Juventus in Italy. Or maybe he is making up for the disappointment of being left out of the Italy team for the 1994 World Cup final.

There is no doubt that these coaches are driven, intense and charismatic characters who are among the best in the world at their trade. I would not argue that they should reduce their passion for the game or their commitment to excellence and winning. But their behaviour after matches tends to make them more of a focus than the teams they coach and does not lead anywhere good by way of example. And that is the antithesis of management.

Perhaps their actions are more a demonstration of their insecurity and need to maintain position. Research has suggested that the motivation to seek or maintain one’s rank promotes aggressive behaviors. Approximately 48% of men and 45% of women identify status/reputation concerns as the primary reason for their last act of aggression, and the experimental induction of status motives increases aggressive tendencies in both men and women (Griskevicius et al., 2009). (quoted in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Two Ways to the Top: Evidence that Dominance and Prestige are Distinct yet Viable Avenues to Social Rank and Influence, Cheng JT.

So, is seems possible that the actions of Guardiola, Klopp, Conte et al are not, as they often claim, about their ‘passion’ for the game but a naked outpouring of anger intended to maintain their position as alpha male leading their troupe. It seems likely that the era of the celebrity head coach, and the increasing fear of loss of status if matches are not won, has created a feedback loop where managers feel the need to beat their breasts and roar at the end of each game. And possibly this is because those with the biggest egos and gift for self-publicity get the biggest jobs where being under the spotlight means purchasing top players and fitting them in rather than building teams, creating value and nurturing talent from the rawest recruits.

Those who have had the honour and pleasure of developing outstanding individuals and merging their talents to create a dynamic, focused and winning group understand that feeling of pride and protectiveness. But the best managers I have known have had the knack of standing back at the moment of victory to allow their team to bask in the glory of success. They have also been adept at taking setbacks, understanding the development needs and rapidly refocusing the team on the next challenge.

In that respect I recall a moment at ASDA in the early 1990s when we had smashed the Xmas trading targets and the head office marketing and trading teams were pretty smug at our own brilliance. The ASDA team of that era was filled over time with CEOs and Chairmen in waiting, Mike Coupe (Sainsbury), Steven Cain (Carlton Communications, Coles, Metcash), Justin King CBE (Sainsbury), Andy Bond (ASDA, Poundland), Andy Hornby (HSBC, Alliance Boots, Coral), Richard Baker (Boots Group, Groupe Aeroplan), Ian McLeod (Celtic FC, Halfords, Coles). The sense of self-satisfaction was ended abruptly when Allan Leighton, at that time the Marketing Director but later serial CEO or Chairman across organisations as diverse as Pandora, Royal Mail and LastMinute.com, walked into a meeting with hand-written, photocopied notes to tell us we were coasting through the new year and needed to regroup and step up our efforts. It was a good lesson.

The best managers I have known have absorbed the pressure when their team is struggling but stepped back at the moment of glory. They may share the celebration and mutual admiration in private but their public position is to hand credit to their ‘players’. Of course, they have been prepared to lead from the front when necessary and have been fiercely protective of their people. But generally speaking their obsession was with selecting and developing good people, ensuring integration, enabling performance, setting standards and consistently looking towards the next challenge.

What they have never done is encourage senseless, unstructured fights with authority (which is different to disagreeing with the status quo and planning how to change things); openly displaying triumphalism and hubris; or, acting with anything less than due regard for the quality of the opposition and the danger they present. Those principles have never prevented them being fiercely determined, robust, resilient and committed to victory.

Why Right Backs Are The Best Football Pundits

TV coverage of football in the UK or US has become a multi-camera, technically efficient business. But it is made significantly more or less pleasurable by the ex-player pundits who give their insights on the game, the players and the managers. I’d suggest that Gary Neville and Lee Dixon – both right backs in their playing days – are the cream of the crop.
So, I began to wonder whether the playing position of a pundit is a guide to their style? Do some positions breed the most interesting analysts? And are there any characteristics inherent in the position that might influence their development as analysts?
In the good old days the BBC’s Match of the Day was dominated by the dour efficiency of Liverpool’s duo of Hansen and Lawrenson. The performance reflected their playing careers and the Liverpool of their era. They were solid, consistent and disliked Manchester United with a passion, but they reflected an era which is long gone and eventually, like Liverpool, were knocked off their perch.
As central defenders they were used to patrolling the width of the penalty box but were likely to get a nose-bleed if they went beyond half-way in open play. Usually negative and seldom complimentary they epitomised a football era of hard men, hooliganism, and horrible hair-cuts. They also scored the occasional, spectacular own goal as Hansen’s early season comment about Manchester United’s youthful 1995/96 Championship winning team – ‘you can’t win anything with kids’ – shows.
The wonderfully opinionated Eamon Dunphy summarised the problem when he said of Match of the Day, “They just talk drivel. Whoever is winning is great, whoever isn’t, isn’t. It’s banal. And also semi-literate at times … they never criticise in an intelligent way. Anything that isn’t banal is said to be an outburst. They’ve created this cartoon world where everyone talks like Lineker and says nothing.”
Which brings me to the contribution of Gary Neville and Lee Dixon. The former with twenty major trophies to his name and ten years as his country’s first choice right back. The latter with four league championships, three FA cups and a UEFA Cup win as well as 22 England appearances. They know what it is like to play for an extended period chasing the biggest prizes at the highest level.
But playing in the right back position gave them more. From their corner of the pitch they had a panoramic view of the entire game. They recognised their obligations to defend diligently but also had to spring forward at pace to make critical decoy runs and give pinpoint crosses. Along with the energy to go from box to box like the best midfielders they were expected to be able to cover laterally behind their, usually more ponderous, central defenders.
Right backs know they are never the ‘best’ player in the team (whatever Roberto Carlos might have thought) but perhaps they become the most complete. They are expected to have a crunching tackle, the energy of a Duracell Bunny (Energizer Bunny to US readers) and the humility to pass the ball quickly to a player considered more creative. They also have to be truly multi-skilled and, at the very least competent, in heading, passing, crossing, intercepting and tracking. Above all they have to be able to think flexibly.
Early in their careers Neville and Dixon would have worked out that the game is full of wingers who were faster and trickier than them. So, they developed judgement on when to engage closely and when to drop off or shepherd the attacker down the line. Their position at the corner of the team formation meant they engaged in individual duals but also had to cajole, organise and communicate with team mates to protect the goal at the moments of greatest threat.
Neville and Dixon have very different styles. The former is more intense and focused while the latter is generally relaxed and conversational. But they recognise individual qualities and weaknesses as well as they understand systems, opportunities and threats.
They are self-effacing but confident; organised but flexible; tough but empathetic; thoughtful but communicative. They have taken the lessons of the game, their personal determination to improve and the unique insights of their playing position to become informed and clear communicators for TV viewers world-wide. They are able to make a caustic comment as readily as they committed a tactical foul but also know how to tread the line between yellow and red card.
Other players seem to carry the limitations or burdens of their position and skill set with them. Strikers like to be the centre of attention, midfielders are either destroyers or too cool for school and even Rio Ferdinand has been unable to shake the view that central defenders should be seen and not heard. Goalkeepers reflect philosopher/keeper Albert Camus’ dictum ‘that a ball never arrives from the direction you expected it’ and treat every opportunity to comment as if it is a trick question.
Some examples from the modern day to flesh out the theory?
Central strikers Alan Shearer and Ian Wright – or ‘chippy’ and ‘chirpy’ as I think of them – encore their playing days on TV. Aggressive, efficient Shearer bulldozes his way past alternative opinions, takes every chance to settle personal scores and does not willingly pass opportunities to colleagues. His most famous quote appears to be “Football’s not just about scoring goals – it’s about winning.” He could do one pretty well but not the other as Gary Lineker once pointed out.
The hyperactive Wright on the other hand seems totally charming. Full of energy, lively runs and little dinks. But as an instinctive goalscorer living on half-chances and hunches there is no sense of strategy and he misses the mark too often at the very top level. Even then he is more interesting than Michael Owen whose analysis is a sad reminder that he lost a vital extra half-yard of pace in his final years.
It is rare to see a world-class midfielder sitting regularly in the pundit’s chair, although some might argue the case for Glenn Hoddle who has become a staple of the England national team’s TV appearances. He brings to the role the same mix of laid-back ineffectiveness, occasional laser-beam accuracy and bizarre fringe beliefs (nobody should forget the faith-healing and karma incidents) that disrupted his career as England player and manager.
Whenever an outstanding midfielder does appear, Steven Gerrard and Paul Scholes are occasional cameo performers, their mastery of the game seems to tell against them. They could ping a ball 40 yards onto a sixpence, hit stunning volleys into the top right-hand corner from outside the box, and control a game . But in the pundit’s seat they look bemused, stilted and unable to articulate why others do not find it so easy.
Roy Keane and Graham Souness, midfield geniuses of a different type, just seem angry at everyone and everything. Perhaps their experiences as modestly successful managers has made them long for the days when they took direct, preferably immediate, personal retribution on the field and scared the living daylights out of opposition and team-mates alike. One imagines their final contribution to punditry might be a disagreement in the studio that ends with a Cantona kung-fu kick , a Zidane head-butt (readers of a nervous disposition may choose not to follow the next two links)… or a Keane or Souness red-card tackle.
NBC in the US has opted for midfield dependability, and people called Robbie, with the duo of Mustoe and Earle offering solid professionalism from careers including long stints at Middlesborough and Wimbledon respectively. Their insights come from many hours on the pitch but it’s difficult to see the pairing offering too much on players’ psychology as they chase Premier League and Champions League silverware. That said they are both thoughtful and considered and a credit to the world of Robbies which is more than can be said of Robbie Savage, whose comments are often as misguided and deserving of a red card as his hairstyle, passing and tackling.
I recognise that this sample is notably short of women football pundits. This is down to the woeful coverage of women’s soccer in the UK up to and including the current day, as well as the relatively limited opportunities contenders have had to settle into the role. Sue Smith was among the first to come to prominence and for the 2017 Women’s European Championship Channel 4 put together a team of Aluko, Smith and O’Reilly with Lucy Ward in commentary. All of them midfielders or forwards!
Given my view about right backs the current England players Lucy Bronze and Rachel Daly may have great futures on TV ahead of them when they retire. Although Steph Houghton could bring a new dimension to my theory from her position at left-back. Her comments after matches and her broader You Tube presence show a keen football brain and strong communication skills.
It is difficult to see beyond Neville and Dixon as the best of the bunch. The former has even forced Jamie Carragher to raise his game when they share the screen at Sky. There may even be new stars emerging from the next World Cup. But for now – right backs rule.

Thanks for visiting

My name is Alan Preece and this is my first blog site. I am still learning the technology but there comes a moment to take the plunge and accept the consequences.

I am currently applying for residency in the US and will be using the site to write about whatever occurs to me as interesting. Some of it will be about being an Englishman of a certain age living abroad for the first time and particularly about life in San Diego. But I will also be thinking aloud about management issues, developments in global education and some slightly off-beat issues that occur to me from time to time. To get started, my first post is about something that has been a bee in my bonnet for months.

For anyone interested in the background – but feel free to stop reading if not – I trained as a journalist before spending my early career working in media, PR and event management with large commercial companies in retailing and the electricity industry. Since the mid-1990s I have worked in higher education – firstly leading student recruitment, admissions and communications for two leading universities, and then in senior management for two private pathway providers. Perhaps unusually for someone who started in PR I became Chief Operating Officer and Chief Executive Officer in the latter organisations.

None of this makes me better qualified to write or more interesting than anyone else. But it has given me many experiences in different circumstances working with different people and that is one way of seeing different perspectives. I hope you enjoy what you read and I’m always interested in what other people have to say so don’t hesitate to comment.