Soft Power Is No Big Stick

The Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) has made its Soft Power Index a regular “silly season” news story that fits into the university admissions period to give some positive news for education correspondents.  It is, however, another example of how the sector’s smugness and tendency to self-congratulation diverts it from serious business such as reputation, student satisfaction, graduate employability and shifting global power.  The Index’s use as an “..influential resource….regularly quoted by Government Ministers and in official documents..” suggests senior political decision makers are equally willing to suspend their critical faculties.  

The claim that educating “world leaders” leads to having soft power is scarcely credible.  It is difficult to believe that a Prime Minister, Finance Minister or central Banker, usually in post at least 20 years or more after graduation, is going to make decisions in favour of the country where they spent a year of their higher education.  The Index does not gauge whether their experience was sub-optimal or might have given first hand insight into the tendency to treat international students like convenient, globally mobile cash machines.

In “Soft Power as a policy rationale for international education in the UK: A critical analysis”, Sylvie Lomer, offers a thoroughgoing critique of the entire concept.  She notes that the linking of a student’s attendance to them being well disposed to the UK is “..next to impossible to empirically prove, and the existing evidence is equivocal at best”.  She argues that “..unsubstantiated assumptions in the soft power rationale reveal that the assumptions of the last century are still in play, representing international higher education and students in an outdated power relation predicated on Cold War politics.”

A summary might be that the notion is out of date, lacks evidence and is based on exploitative power relationships.  Over and above that that the HEPI list itself has some inaccuracies and questionable views about country leadership and executive authority that make it even more unreliable as a measure. Yet all of this makes the front page of UK national newspapers and is seen as a cause for celebration.         

UK May Have Width But Not Weight

Even if it were true that senior decision makers were likely to do favours for the country of their alma mater, Nick Hillman’s claim that, “The number of world leaders educated in other countries…is a good proxy for the amount of soft power held by different countries.” seems wide of the mark.  It is like suggesting that having the leaders of Vannatu, St Vincent and the Grenadines and Dominica1 (combined GDP of $2.3bn) well-disposed to trade deals equates to more soft power than having South Africa2 (GDP $418bn) onside.  The size of the benefit or advantage conferred must surely be one measure of any form of power.3

South Africa is mentioned here because it has the lowest GDP of all the nations in the G20.  This brings us to the second problem with considering the HEPI Soft Power Index as a “proxy for..soft power”, which is that the list of UK educated “leaders” does not include any of the current political leaders in the G20 countries.  Those who would point to Emperor Naruhito of Japan by way of rebuttal should consider that Article 4 of the country’s Constitution defines his role as entirely ceremonial and representative, without even nominal powers related to government.

The G20 is referenced because it is commonly known as “the premier forum for international economic cooperation” and its members represent “around 85% of the global GDP, over 75% of the global trade, and about two-thirds of the world population.”  While some other countries and organizations are invited to G20 events the members lead the substantive work throughout the year.  Any reflection on “soft power” should be weighted to consider where that power brings economic and political clout.

US Is Not Much Better

Before anybody in the US gets too excited about its own array of world leaders, it’s worth noting that the HEPI list contains a glaring inaccuracy in suggesting that the leader of South Korea has any education in the US.  Korea Net, the official voice of the Korean government, carries a biography that has President Yoon Suk-yeol3 firmly in Seoul National University for his BA and MA*.  Unfortunately, the HEPI list (below) suggests that Hassan Sheikh Mohamud leads both Somalia and South Korea which is clearly a typo but adds an erroneous addition to the US numbers.

That leaves the US with Rishi Sunak, Prime Minister of G20 member the UK, an alumnus of Stanford University.   There is no doubt that the UK has been keen to do a trade deal with the US since leaving the European Union but that probably has more to do with the economic benefits than Sunak’s year in the “Golden State”.  Sadly, the feeling was not mutual and the UK Prime Minister has accepted the Atlantic Declaration as the best available solution although short of a fully-fledged trade deal.

Royal Flush

One of the more annoying features of the Index is that it indiscriminately incorporates members of various Royal families around the world as leaders of the country.  A little analysis would show that several cannot be assumed to carry any real authority.  Emperor Naruhito, whose book suggests he thoroughly enjoy his time in the UK, might be a fan of the country but as noted above his potential to influence decisions is seriously circumscribed.

Other UK Royal alumni who might usefully be removed from the list are the King of Lesotho, Letsie III, who is the country’s head of state but serves a “largely ceremonial function”, no longer possesses any executive authority and is prohibited from actively participating in political initiatives.  King Harald V of Norway has executive power but “..is not politically responsible for exercising it.”  After a controversy the Constitution of Luxembourg was amended so that Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg no longer has to “sanction” laws for them to take effect.

The US list has far fewer members of Royalty than the UK.  However, King Felipe VI of Spain may be a useful supporter with most Spaniards apparently wanting him to play a greater role in politics and Albert II, Prince of Monaco, also appears to have genuine executive authority and may be worth his place. .

The list could also do with tidying up so that the disproportionate number of small countries with two leaders listed do not distort the overall measurement.  HEPI have noted that they do not list King Charles III of England as head of state of 14 Commonwealth countries so it’s unclear how some other decisions have been made to list two leaders.  It may be as simple as a way of inflating the UK figures.

Looking At the G Force

Taking Wikipedia’s list of the 61 key representatives at the G20 – country leader, finance minister and central bank “governor” – it appears that 17 of them (28%) have some overseas education at undergraduate or postgraduate level.  Three of the leaders, six of the finance ministers and 8 of the central bankers with US experience leading the UK by 11 to six.  The most international of all seems to be Chrystia Freeland, finance minister of Canada, who has undergraduate experience in the US and postgraduate experience in the UK as well as having been an exchange student at the University of Kyiv , Ukraine.

Another issue to remember here is that the G20 has its own power divisions with the G7 – Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK, US and European Union – meeting separately of BRICS (see below). The D-10 Strategy Forum has all of the G7 plus Australia, India and South Korea and is a further inititiative adding complexity to any suggestion that an individual decision makers personal preferences can make a difference.    

More BRICS In the Wall

The growing strength and membership growth of the BRICS bloc could be further bad news for the notion that the UK and US are able to exercise soft power due to offering a superior schooling and student experience.  In 2001 a Goldman Sachs economist suggested that the original four members of BRICS would dominate the global economy by 2050.  The five current members account for 41.5% of global population and c32% of global GDP (PPP).   

None of the leaders has any higher education outside of their home country and only South Africa has a connection with the UK in these senior posts.  One of these, Lesetja Kganyago noted the limitations of soft power in his 2023 Michel Camdessus Central Banking Lecture to the International Monetary Fund, when saying that post-apartheid, “Foreign investors all loved South Africa, but they would not invest based on warm feelings.”  It summarises the core problem with the “soft power” argument – you can love somewhere but decline to put your money where your heart is.

The addition of Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to the BRICS bloc may bring a few more UK educated faces to the table but also potential problems.  It is argued that “British-Argentine relations will be stifled so long as the UK refuses to engage in discussions about the future sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.”  The UK Home Secretary has recently stated that Iran is the “biggest threat to the UK” which seems unlikely to win friends and influence people.

Summary

It seems entirely possible that high quality higher education can be a powerful force in developing “soft power” through areas including collaborative research, meaningful exchange of good practice and genuine, shared initiatives offering mutual benefit. But time is running out for developed western countries that believe they can exploit countries by simply offering scholarships to smart students.  The BRICS5 initiative is a clear sign that the old world order is being challenged and that countries who have been excluded or manipulated are rethinking their engagement with traditional powers.

NOTES

I undertook an analysis of the HEPI Soft Power Index last year and this blog extends the research and critique to a broader set of country leaders. The research for the current blog was undertaken during week ending 27 August, 2023. Authoritative comments on errors of fact are welcome and will be noted.

The title of this blog reflects US Vice President Theodore Roosevelt’s speech in 1901 where he described the ideal foreign policy as “Speak softly, and carry a big stick”. “Big stick” diplomacy came to reflect backing up discussions with the unspoken threat of military power. It is arguable that in a world where economic links are critical they are usually the dominant “big stick” in negotiations.      

  1. The UK does have “provisional application” trade deals with Dominica and St Vincent and the Grenadines through an overarching deal with the CARIFORUM trade bloc of 14 countries.  Most recent figures show UK trade with St Vincent and the Grenadines was worth £42m and Dominica trade was worth £424m.
  2. UK trade with South Africa is under the SACUM trade bloc of six countries.  Most recent figures show UK trade with South Africa was worth £10.3bn.
  3. I recognize that GDP is only one measure of a country’s relative importance and it is used as an example. In The Power of Nations: Measuring What Matters, Michael Beckley notes “GDP has been described as the leading indicator” and “the Zeus of the statistical pantheon,” because governments, organizations, and scholars around the world use it to gauge states’ raw capabilities.”
  4. Han Duck-soo is the Prime Minister of South Korea and attended Harvard University.  The role of Prime Minister is subordinate to and appointed by the President.
  5. The BRICS membership is not unproblematic and some have suggested it is a “China club”. Nonetheless, there are clear attempts to engage more actively with the Global South in a more inclusive way.

Image by Bieniu94 from Pixabay

Rulings, Filings and Finances

There have probably been better fortnights for INTO University Partnerships (INTO) than the last two of July 2023.  Losing a decision in the court case against the University of South Florida (USF) and missing financial filing deadlines for both INTO University of East Anglia and the parent company are not calculated to bolster confidence or impress existing and potential partners.  Rumours of another round of redundancies and outsourcing also reflect the challenges facing the business.

Truth and Wisdom

Following a hearing on 27 June, Circuit Judge Darren D. Farfante has dismissed Count V of the Second Amended Complaint filed by INTO against Defendants Jennifer Condon, Karen Holbrook, Nic Trivunovich, and Ralph Wilcox.2  In simple terms, the judgement noted that “…sovereign immunity bars Count V of the Second Amended Complaint against the FC Directors as pled.”  The Plaintiffs, INTO USF, Inc., INTO USF LP, and INTO University Partnership Limited, “…subsequently advised the Court that they will not amend and dismissal of Count V of the Second Amended Complaint should be entered for purposes of appeal.”

While the plaintiffs could choose to re-engage on this point if the case ever goes to appeal the position is that after months of assertions that the USF Joint Venture Directors had “breached their fiduciary duties”,3 that particular strand of the matter is closed.  It is difficult to believe that the legal pursuit of individuals hasn’t left some scars on both sides and it may have put the issue of personal liability into the minds of university joint venture board directors elsewhere.  Rulings in one state may not be directly applicable to another but they may offer a sense of how closing a similar joint venture could play out elsewhere. 

Hard on the heels of the judgement USF moved to “..dismiss IUP’s Supplemental Pleading4 with prejudice.”5  This appeared to be substantially on the grounds that Sovereign Immunity also “..Bars Counts X, XI, XII, XIII and XIV”.  The filing also states that that “…opposing counsel (i.e. INTO’s counsel) has not requested that the undersigned stipulate to the filing of a second amended complaint” which seems to suggest the judge will now determine the outcome on these Counts.    

It may be that forthcoming discussions will lead towards a settlement of some sort with notification that a Mediation Conference has been scheduled for 29 September, 20236.  One might think that both organizations would be glad to see an end to such a public dispute.  As always, the author of this blog does not claim any legal expertise and advises readers to seek detailed information to form their own opinions9. 

History Man to Remains of the Day

The decline of INTO’s first joint venture at the University of East Anglia (UEA) is a saddening tale for anybody involved in the successful early days of the initiative.  The rhetoric was largely about the game-changing nature of long-term public-private partnerships but for those involved in the reality of international recruitment the immediate opportunity for increasing enrolments was clear.  INTO has removed the UEA case study from its corporate pages but the early days were genuinely transformational.

While the crisis at the University and the departure of its Vice-Chancellor has broader causes the situation has been exacerbated by a significant decline in the enrolment and financial fortunes of the joint venture.  The late filing, for the second year in a row, of the joint venture’s financial statement due on 31 July, 2023, means it is not possible to know whether enrolments fell even further in 2021/22 but the direction of travel has been downwards since 2015.  It is also likely that this has contributed to UEA’s declining revenue from international students.

It seems reasonable to believe that the late filing may be due to broader discussions about the future of the joint venture relationship.  New vice-chancellor, Prof David Maguire, is on record as saying that the immediate future is about “survival of the fittest” and it is difficult to see a compelling case for preserving the joint venture while cutting back on schools of study that have formed the institution’s history and sense of self.  At a time when reports say 400 positions – equivalent to 10 per cent of the workforce – have already been lost at UEA through redundancies, severance and resignations, the extent to which the university should continue to help prop up a loss-making commercial venture must be in question.

There may be an alternative argument that the joint venture brings opportunities for direct recruitment to help UEA out of its current problems.  Whether to stick or twist and whether it is wiser to be the history man6 or look with confidence towards the remains of the day7 is a very real choice.  Given the length of the joint venture contract originally signed and what appears to be a lack of performance it will be interesting to see if UEA would consider the USF route to resolution.

Patet omnibus veritas8

INTO’s financial accounts to July 2022 noted that its cash position during the year had declined from £20.5m to £9.4m year on year and that it had “revised EBITDA covenants agreed with its bankers to February 2024”.  It’s difficult to know what is going on under the surface but rumours of further cutbacks are circulating and it seems plausible that there is a squeeze to cut costs early in the financial year that began on 1 August 2023.  The urgency may be sharpened by developing views on enrolment numbers because, as with many education businesses, a significant portion of revenue will be baked in quite early in the year.

A previous blog suggested some of the issues that the incoming CEO, in February 2023, might want to consider.  The Executive Team has already been slimmed down a reduction in higher salaries is to be expected when the 2022/23 results are published.  On the other hand, expenditure on opening University Access Centres seems to be continuing, there is a new partnership to launch at Lancaster University, the recovery of pathway operations in the US looks patchy and there is the spectre of more stringent visa controls in the UK ahead of 2024 recruitment.

In the US, the recent addition of a recruitment only deal with Montclair State University makes little headway in the struggle to recover and compete after several years of joint-venture closures and the acceleration of direct recruitment partnerships by main competitor Shorelight.  In the UK, the partnership with Lancaster University brings a high tariff institution to the party but Study Group didn’t seem able to keep Lancaster happy so the pressure to perform is certain to be on. There does not seem to be any news of further progress in Australia. 

INTO must also be waiting with bated breath on the outcome of the Manchester Metropolitan University International Study Centre tender.  There is rarely a dull moment, which may be why they have been a bit too busy to file their Confirmation Statement to Companies House.  Or it could be that there is even bigger news to come.

NOTES

  1. Truth and Wisdom is the motto of the University of South Florida
  2. Final Order: 07/24/2023 02:59:36 PM Electronically Filed
  3. Filing # 167652717 E-Filed 02/27/2023 07:53:06 PM (point 137 and others)
  4. Filing # 175778804 E-Filed 06/21/2023 09:45:06 AM
  5. Filing # 178214351 E-Filed 07/25/2023 05:09:59 PM
  6. Filing # 179194479 E-Filed 08/08/2023 03:23:11 PM
  7. A small homage to Malcolm Bradbury, author of The History Man (1975), one of the most evocative novels about university campus life of the era, who became Professor of American Studies at the University of East Anglia in 1970 and launched the MA in Creative Writing course.  The course has been attended by several eminent authors including Kazuo Ishiguro who won the Booker Prize in 1989 for his book Remains of the Day and went on to be awarded the 2017 Nobel Prize for Literature.  My best wishes to all colleagues and friends still working hard to make UEA a success again.
  8. “Patet omnibus veritas” is the Latin version of Lancaster University’s motto.  It translates to Truth Lies Open to All.
  9. The background to the court case between INTO University Partnerships and the University of South Florida has been outline in several previous blogs. As before the terms INTO and University of South Florida are used as short forms for the range of corporate plaintiffs and defendants. Full details and all public documents reference in this blog can be found through https://hover.hillsclerk.com/html/case/caseSearch.html the Hillsborough County Clerk of Courts search facility. Insert 22 for the year, CA-Circuit Civil for the Court type and 006001 for the case number.

Universities Shouldn’t Cry Until They’re Hurt

One of the most notable features of the past week has been the higher education sector’s outrage at the Prime Minister using the phrases “crack down” and “rip-off” to talk about university courses the Government believes do not offer value for money to taxpayers or students.  They should take the advice given by one of my older and wiser relatives who counsels “don’t cry until you’re hurt”, because this announcement looks a classic case of political sloganeering rather than direct action.  

There is plenty more of this to come as election season looms and every piece of self-righteous university outrage will play out against a backdrop where 30% of the public are “broadly uninterested” in universities and 11% do not view them in a “positive light”. Levels of confidence may not have fallen as low as in the US, where Gallup polls suggest they are in near terminal decline, but it is not always easy to find supporters. For those suggesting it’s not fair that higher education is besmirched for political gain it is worth repeating a dictum from a lecturer in negotiation skills – fairness is a concept of and for children.

Just wait for the howls of protest if/when a further surge in dependent relative visas emerges after the Autumn 2023 intake and a Government in full-campaigning mode (or jostling for post-election leadership challenges) responds.  The sector will, again, be easily positioned as self-seeking and irresponsible in the context of election messages about controlling borders and reducing immigration.  There seems little reason to believe that the Labour party will throw itself in the way of such arguments.    

Bleeding hearts1 but…

Vice-Chancellors are not above their own tough talk with, just this week, the incoming UEA Vice-Chancellor David Maguire quoted as talking about “Darwinian dimension” and “survival of the fittest” in the context of cutbacks at the university.  The vice-chancellor of Oxford, Louise Richardson, talked of a “mendacious media” and “tawdry politicians” when salaries of vice-chancellors were challenged.  It is relatively rare to find VC’s using anything but code and anodyne responses when speaking publicly but those who have worked closely with them know that in private many are more than willing to make strident comments about colleagues, academics, and any organization that disagrees with them.

Hypocrisy is rarely a good look so it is probably time for the sector to decide whether it is going to engage assertively and openly in the cut and thrust of public discourse, suffer in silence or actually do something positive.  If it’s the former, there is a need to get their messaging more focused and populist if they are to have any chance of succeeding.  Mendacious and tawdry are probably not quite right for  discussions at the school gate, on the campaign doorstep or down the pub.

Crying Wolf2 but…

The truth is that the Government’s has had limited success in seeing any of its higher education ideas through and the sector has won at least one major victory in the past few years.  In 2017, ApplyBoard’s ubiquitous Jo Johnson, when UK Minister for Universities and Science, gave a speech to UUK focusing on “accountability and value for money”, “grade inflation”, “vice chancellor pay” and “accelerated degrees”.  Perhaps his abiding popularity with the sector is that everyone is still talking about the first three (with at least one measure arguably much worse) and by 2021 the Complete University Guide could only list eleven universities offering the fourth.

Another good example, this time involving the Office for Students who will be charged with the “crack down”, comes from Gavin Williamson’s time as Secretary of State for Education.  In 2019 he wrote to the OfS asking what steps they could take to ensure “..international students receive the employability skills they need and are supported into employment, whether in their home country or the UK.”  The further thread in the letter was that it was “…critical to ensure the OfS makes public transparent data on the outcomes achieved by international students…such as it does for domestic students.”

This was so ineffective that by early 2022 and even in the face of criticism from the sector HESA, who were charged with getting relevant outcomes data, had decided to stop telephoning students outside the EU to discover international student employment or any other status.  The Head of Data, Foresight and Analysis at the OfS indicated that the OfS was content because “the current cost of this is not proportionate to our current uses of the data” and confirmed that the target response rate had been cut to 20%, compared to 25% previously.   The aforementioned Jo Johnson was reported as being “amazed” and quoted as saying  “Vice-chancellors should provide resources, this is an £18 billion [US$24.5 billion] to £20 billion [US$27 billion] annual revenue business we are talking about.”  The VCs did not respond.

As we are reminded by Aesop’s Fables it is just possible that the wolf will eventually eat the sheep but higher education should be careful about becoming a Cassandra that never have its prophecies believed.

The Truth Doesn’t Hurt…

B. C. Forbes is credited with completing the phrase, “…unless it ought to.”  To an extent the higher education sector seems to have got caught in a doom loop where it sees a problem (even if only in public perception), ignores it or tries to talk it down, then gets caught on the back-foot and is pained when savvy politicians raise it in robust terms.  It is worth considering whether public opinion (for which one might read taxpayer) is ever so totally wrong, or elected representatives so dim, that the sector can totally ignore them or claim there is no foundation for concern.

There is some acceptance of poor quality courses by the sector, as in the UUK President’s recent statement that there are a “…very small proportion of instances where quality needs to be improved.”  It is, perhaps, more telling that the UUK Chief Executive’s statement the following day did not even allow that minor acceptance and preferred to shield the sector behind the OfS as its regulator. A different approach might be – what is the sector doing to ensure students are not mislead about potential outcomes, how are they calling out any examples of quality shortfalls, or, just maybe, standing firm and offering evidence that no examples exist?    

If the sector is persuaded that the OfS is the answer to its problems it would do well to listen more closely to what that body has to say.  Just eighteen months ago the OfS published a consultation on minimum acceptable outcomes for students and CEO Nicola Dandridge said, “They are..designed to target those poor quality courses and outcomes which are letting students down and don’t reflect students’ ambition and effort.”

It seems a straightforward expression of the view that such courses exist and so the current Government position should come as no surprise.  Given the Williamson example above, politicians may be equally concerned about the ability of the OfS to affect change and have chosen to ratchet up the pressure on a populist issue.  The sector is responding as if it has just been caught of guard by a surprise uppercut when the blow was telegraphed a long time ago.

NOTES

  1. Anticipating possible outrage at the use of this term I note that I am aware of its history. I use it here as a common turn of phrase and have no political agenda.
  2. In the original Aesop’s fable only the sheep were eaten by the wolf.  It is only in later English-language version that the shepherd boy is also consumed.

Image by Mohamed Hassan from Pixabay

How could ChatGPT disrupt global student recruitment?

This article was jointly co-authored with Louise Nicol, founder of Asia Careers Group SDN BHD, and first appeared in University World News on 15 July 2023.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is everywhere, but common sense tells you it is going to have a marked and lasting impact on education. Whether universities and schools demand students shun it, embrace it or ignore it, it is playing out in real time. Few seem to be looking at the international recruitment opportunities and who will be winners and losers.

ChatGPT makes the straitjacket of aggregator selection categories look as dated and restrictive as the days before streaming TV, mobile phones and the internet. It will revolutionise student search and selection for university choices because it is lightning quick and can be almost infinitely personalised. Above all, it removes the annoying propensity of current platforms to feature and favour universities that pay for the privilege of being on the top page.

For smart universities, the changes will allow them to focus on their unique selling points with high quality customer information about price, excellence and graduate employability. The onus will be on institutions to genuinely respond to student expectations rather than using rankings as a surrogate for quality. No need to pay middle men in the form of agents and aggregators because the students can do the searching for themselves.

It’s personal

A student sitting anywhere in the world is already able to search globally for courses offering the subjects they want, in cities or on campuses, at the grades they can offer and the price they want.
Forbes and others have already focused on the way that ChatGPT changes ‘the art of personalisation’ and higher education needs to catch up … fast. It’s a step closer to the possibility of consumers having perfect, contemporaneous knowledge about their opportunities.

Just an hour spent researching universities using ChatGPT demonstrates the possibilities and the threat to the established order of generic search. As an experiment the initial setting was as a student from India wanting to study Computer Science, particularly cyber security in London.

Fleshing out the details was an IELTs score of 6, a B grade for undergraduate Computer Science and a tuition budget of £7,000 (US$7,670). For a career, the dream role was working for Amazon Web Services.

At nearly the speed of light

Within seconds ChatGPT churned out its response and it is clear: course search is not a problem. Most universities have learnt the lesson that their website needs to have the most up-to-date course information and AI gobbles this data up. You could choose to refine the parameters further or loosen them, but you are not confined to clunky, broad categories.

The list was personal. It didn’t have at the top 90 or more universities that had paid the aggregator to be ‘featured’ on the website. There were no pathways posing as universities. No counsellor had intervened to highlight and promote an institution which was paying more in commission than the one that met my criteria.

Companies claiming to use AI have often been operating at a much less granular level. Some even have teams of checkers working away to keep data up to date, but they are always going to be behind the curve. ChatGPT delivers genuinely unique results in an instant without having to sign on to a company that is really intent on selling you consultancy, loans or visa advice.

ChatGPT is also good at establishing the levels of English required for various courses. Most universities put their English Language requirements for direct entry prominently on their websites. It’s another tick in the box for ChatGPT and institutions which have put in the effort to build good and searchable pages on course requirements.

On the topic of budget ChatGPT was pretty good and better than most aggregators and course search platforms. All universities recommended were within the budgeted amount. So, a big tick there.

Glitches to fix

There is an identifiable problem for pathway programmes in that they are rarely as integrated with university websites as they need to be. Without a seamless process and shared information they are likely to lose students who search solely for direct entry and, perhaps counter intuitively, the partners of higher ranked institutions who demand higher direct entry levels for English language are most vulnerable. There is the added dimension of the ways in which International Year One courses figure into this environment.

Entry grades were much more problematic, but this is also not that straightforward for aggregators and course-search platforms. They may give an indication of the ease or difficulty of gaining admission to a certain university, but it is far from an exact science, and we know that institutions may flex in any given year, depending on their pipeline of applicants. ChatGPT has a way to go when it comes to finding grade requirements for individual institutions, but it is reasonable to think that nimble universities will see this as an opportunity rather than a barrier.

Career opportunities and employability were, unfortunately, a big fail. It is symptomatic of the general malaise in higher education that institutions are poor at making and highlighting direct links between themselves, their international graduates and employers. The widespread failure of the sector to collect even the most basic employability data is likely to present an open goal for those who take steps to fill the gap.

As prospective students become far more outcomes-focused, universities should measure and evidence the return on investment from their degree programmes and provide accurate data as to where their graduates embark on their early careers. No institution, aggregator, and or platform publishes international graduate outcomes data by country as a tool for students to use when making their university choice. ChatGPT and its successors will expose those who fail to offer information and reward those who invest in collecting the data.

Move fast and fix things

Universities are going to have to get their course recruitment criteria in order to take advantage of AI recruitment, but the outcome will be that sales holy grail – a qualified lead. It’s not just about having the right and most persuasive information on the website, but also a major rethinking of the application process. Universities should streamline the opportunity for direct applications from ChatGPT and work out ways that students can forward their examination transcripts and English test scores directly.

Building a direct connection with the potential student is the dream of every institution and it cuts out private providers who are costing millions in commission payments and sometimes double dipping to take money from the student’s pocket as well. More challenging is that they should decide whether an AI-generated personal statement is part of the zeitgeist or a reason for rejection. Arguably, accepting that students will use the technology and adapting to that reality could mean more time to focus on fraudulent documentation.

International student recruitment should remain a people-focused business and AI offers the opportunity for universities to create links with potential students. The winners will find the right balance between allowing technology to ease the process and being available when the personal touch is needed. It’s a future that offers the best in self-service for potential students while allowing universities to express their personality and benefits.

Travelling halfway around the world for one’s education is a daunting prospect and students, and their families or funders, will always want the reassurance of someone on the ground to guide their child to a university that cares about them as an individual. Building in-country resources, agencies and locations that support the relationship will remain important but supplemented by genuine university participation. It’s a win for the student and the sector.

Louise Nicol is founder of Asia Careers Group SDN BHD. Alan Preece is an expert in global education, business transformation and operational management and runs the blogging site View from a Bridge.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

FROM FUTILITY TO UTILITY

Collins Dictionary tells us that, “If you say that something is futile, you mean there is no point in doing it, usually because it has no chance of succeeding.”  It is difficult to think of a better description of a student scanning the Times Higher Education or QS World Rankings or any of the multiplicity of other rankings that have proliferated from those organizations.  They don’t really tell students anything useful about whether the institution is right for them as an individual or whether it will allow them to fulfil their life and career ambitions.

All the evidence suggests that the primary motivator for going to higher education is to enhance job prospects. Chegg’s survey across 21 countries, INTO’s research with agents and Gallup surveys are among indicators that for both home and international students a degree is largely a means to an end. That is not to say that people don’t want to study something they enjoy – just that the degree is the aim.

Most existing rankings are, however, just an attempt to monetize industry data for commercial ends and the sector collaborates, possibly because it’s the way things have always been done.  The rankings, as someone said, “Xerox privilege” by reaffirming existing hierarchies and usually allow institutions to manipulate their data, sometimes beyond the point of criminality.  For the institutions they are vanity projects which lead to dubious internal resource allocation, avoid hard questions about graduate employability and distort the decision making of Governments, funders and students.

Utility, on the other hand, is “the quality or property of being useful” and we may be beginning to see the glimmer of some media developing data to be genuinely useful to students.  It is a timely and smart move because we are nearly at the point where AI will give students the opportunity to have near total, instant and absolutely personalized university search capability at their fingertips.  That should send a shudder through ranking organizations that are wedded to a business model and presentation based on early 2000s thinking.

Money magazine’s Best Colleges 2023 may point the way.  It still has a vapid “star” system to allow colleges to be ranked but the database begins to say some useful, student oriented, things about Acceptance Rate, tuition fee (both headline price but more importantly average actual price) and graduation rate.  Imagine if that database approach married itself, in the US, to the work of a company like College Viability, LLC which gives an insight into reasons which a college “…may not be financially viable for the time required to earn a degree from that college.”  Then, add to the mix comprehensive information on the graduate outcomes and career payback from specific degrees – the Princeton Review Best Value Colleges gives a flavour but still ends up as a ranking with limited coverage.

In the UK, the growth of private universities and the significant difference in tuition fees at graduate level between public universities makes the approach equally appropriate.  Such a database would begin to answer the most pressing of student needs – will I get in and with what grades, am I likely to graduate, and what are my career and earning prospects thereafter?  There could be plenty of further nuance added, including grades required, accommodation, measures of student experience and so on.

All of this could be done without the need for a grading system.  The problem with rankings is that the company doing the ranking sets an arbitrary test which institutions do their best to pass with a high grade.  This entirely excludes the student from having any input into the criteria but the results are then presented as an aspirational or emotional nirvana for them to consider.

A smart organization would be ensuring that their data collection is driven by the real world needs and concerns of students. It’s time to remove the worthies who make up the Advisory Groups and Panels for the major ranking organizations and find ways of engaging directly with potential students. The outcome would be relevant, dynamic and have utility for millions around the globe.

It would also be a driver for universities to engage more effectively with the issue of graduate employment both through on-campus services and establishing strong data on careers and jobs. Colleagues including Louise Nicol of Asia Careers Group and Shane Dillon of CTurtle have been demonstrating for years that smart use of technology even makes it possible to leave antiquated, email driven surveys of graduates behind in collecting the data. The answers might even begin to convince Governments around the world that universities are engaging effectively and adding value to economic growth and sustainability.

McKinsey and many others have written about personalization of the customer experience in retail with much of the impetus being given by technology.  The insurance world has seen the rise and rise of aggregators and there is talk of the “personalized insurance engine” that gives a fully automated customer journey.  Potential students are hungry for better decision making option and education needs to catch up fast with the opportunities that exist.

Image by Steve Buissinne from Pixabay

Election O’Clock Tick, Tock

For visa policy, the year ahead will be shaped by a Tory party that is a bit like end of season Tottenham Hotspur – out of Europe, on their third manager in a year and worried about what life looks like without their star striker.  Sunak could face and lose three by-elections before the party conference so going route one with radical action on visas could become an attractive diversion.  The party may even, just like Spurs, chose to appoint a fourth manager in an attempt to be in contention in 2025.

UK Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, having been thwarted by the Cabinet on more far-reaching student visa reform last time round, could start her speeches with the words, “I shall fight on. I fight to win.”  Conviction politics and evoking the spirit of Margaret Thatcher have always gone down well with most parts of the Conservative party and if she has aspirations for the top job it’s not a bad ploy.  With the clock ticking down to a General Election just 20 months she has every chance of being centre stage.

Some universities have made quite extraordinary increases in international student numbers in recent years and should carefully weigh the consequences of their choices this Autumn.  One plausible scenario is that institutions will be suckered into maximizing recruitment from affected countries in September ahead of the clampdown on dependent visas.  The resulting visa figures would be more than enough for the Home Office and worried Tories to bay about irresponsible recruitment and seek a further round of constraints. 

Pitched against populist right wing politicians fighting for re-election and a public that is largely disengaged from higher education the sector becomes increasingly vulnerable.  However cynical or wrong-headed, an MP can claim the authority of having been publicly elected to represent the views of constituents which is more than any vice-chancellor can say.  They will be listening to people like Eric Kaufmann who spoke at the first National Conservatism conference and likes to remind Tories of the view there is no election victory in increasing immigration.

More Than This or Hold the Line?

Despite all the happy talk and positioning by the higher education sector, MP’s may believe that there is little evidence of public support, let alone a mandate, for significantly more international students. 

Even the sector’s own research commissioned by UniversitiesUK from Public First suggests that the public does not support a rise in international students.  The answer to question 15c, which has been largely misrepresented by the sector as indicating the public favours growth in numbers, shows that 46% would accept the same number and 21% want fewer.  It seems reasonable to argue that this means that 67% of the public do not support a continuation of the rise in international students that we have seen in the past few years.

YouGov tell us that concern over migration has been climbing for a year – from 53% up to 57% say that immigration has been too high for the last ten years and 17% say it’s about right which indicates 74% want immigration the same or lower.  A politician attuned to the data and public opinion will be questioning unfettered growth in international student numbers.  This is particularly so when the surge in growth is driven by countries where the biggest influence on a study abroad decision is “Immigration policies of destination countries” above even job opportunities and quality of higher education.

Money For Nothing

The sector’s fightback is summarized by ApplyBoard UK Advisory Group member (and director of HEPI) Nicholas Hillman who is reported as saying, “If people want to oppose the presence of international students, fine, but they should only do that if they know the benefits they bring and do so with their eyes wide open.”

The glossy launches and expensive research making that economic case are presumably an attempt to open those eyes. But when respondents were told by Public First that the sector contributed nearly £28bn to the UK economy a majority (57%) still said they wanted the same number or fewer international students. One suspects that the obsession with making the economic case, at a point when some headlines reflect how much universities are raking in, is aligned with self-interest and possibly even morally shabby.  

Lord Bilimoria, the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for International Students, suggests there should be an aim of 1 million international students in the UK by 2030. ApplyBoard’s Jo Johnson considered, with unusual circumspection, 900,000 or more as appropriate.   Neither seemed to engage with the polling evidence that the majority of the public do not support such growth.

Where Is The Love?

While the sector’s tendency to pitch a case based on the economic value of universities seems reasonable it doesn’t cut to the heart of people’s suspicions that are partly driven by the drip, drip of years of stories about fat cat vice chancellors, dissatisfied students, Mickey Mouse degrees and grade inflation.  Unfortunately, the sector, when challenged, is Wildean in suggesting it has nothing to declare but its genius when a little more humility might go a long way.  It is difficult for the public to trust a sector that doesn’t accept its fallibility.

There are other deep-seated problems for universities in the recent Public Attitudes to Higher Education 2022 research by UPP Foundation/HEPI. Among the figures, 58% don’t think university prepares people for the real world and 52% think society values a university degree too highly.   27% are sceptical or negative about universities and 30% are broadly uninterested which indicates that more than half those surveyed actively oppose universities or think them irrelevant*.

Another drumbeat is whether universities are turning out students with qualifications that fit them for the workplace let alone justify the level of debt.  The current Prime Minister is on record as saying that he wants to “take a tougher approach to university degrees that saddle students with debt, without improving their earning potential.”  A former Prime Minister’s son says degrees are “irrelevant” and Reed Recruitment says,  “It looks like traditional graduate jobs are going out of fashion.”   

Sha la-la-la-lee

That’s the sound of the higher education sector sticking its fingers in its ears while complaining to an uncaring universe. 

What the public hears from universities is that home students should be charged more, that the loss of EU applicants has been a tragedy and that the sector is a major contributor to Britain’s soft power around the world.  This plays into a population facing the largest hit to living standards since records began in 1956,  taxpayers underwriting student loans to a record tune of £205bn, and no obvious evidence that soft power is helping secure trade deals.  Sceptics might even suggest that if UK higher education is so highly regarded then EU students would, whatever the price, always choose Ipswich over Paris and Canterbury over Rome.

The sector’s efforts to promulgate its message often looks like a self-interest, or perhaps self-help, group.  Chris Skidmore’s, International Higher Education Commission, is the latest example and doesn’t appear to have anybody without a vested and sometimes commercial interest in recruiting more international students.  Among the grandly titled “founding commissioners” the ubiquitous Jo Johnson from ApplyBoard makes an appearance, along with seven VCs and three CEOs of sector pressure groups, with Oxford International Education Group claiming they support the Commission under the banner of corporate social responsibility(!).

This is, of course, the Chris Skidmore who co-wrote a book, with those paragons of political, economic and personal credibility Kwasi Kwarteng, Priti Patel, Dominic Raab and Liz Truss,  which claimed, “”Once they enter the workplace, the British are among the worst idlers in the world.”  He was Minister with responsibility for universities for five months which was, for the record, longer than Jo Johnson who managed six weeks.  Would it be a great surprise that the public took their protestations with a pinch of salt?

Where there may be some hope is Johnson’s recent acceptance that “…there is a weakening consensus in British politics on the benefits of international study in our system…We need to acknowledge that and understand why it’s become weaker and what the sector needs to do to reinforce support for international study and its contribution to the UK.”  It’s unfortunate that he then chose to talk about “false narratives” because although these do exist it would have been more refreshing to see the sector accept that it is not without fault.  Disparaging public opinion as being driven by fake news is a tired and demeaning stance that should be replaced by open engagement and dialogue.

NOTES

  1. The headline is derived from U2’s first single on Island Records “Eleven O’Clock Tick Tock”.  They played it to start and end their gig supporting The Photos at the Marquee in July 1980 which is when I first saw them😊.
  2. “More Than This” is a 1982 song from Roxy Music.  “Hold the Line” is a 1978 tune from American rock behemoths Toto whose name apparently comes from the Latin phrase for “all encompassing” and not the dog in The Wizard of Oz.
  3. “Money for Nothing” is a 1985 song from Dire Straits that is distinguished with a great riff but also Sting singing backing vocal, “I want my MTV” to the same melody as The Police song “Don’t Stand So Close to Me” (which is why Virgin insisted on getting a percentage).
  4. 1972’s “Where is the Love” by Donny Hathaway and Roberta Flack is sublime and not to be confused with the Black Eyed Peas song of the same name which is just quite good.
  5. “Sha La La La La Lee” is a 1966 number from the Small Faces and a great reminder of what a force the late Steve Marriott was.  He recorded the song when he was 19.

* I am conscious that the UPP/HEPI research had some good news such as “77% agree universities are important to research and innovation; and 57% agree they are important to the UK economy as a whole”. However, it was startling that the “Broadly Uninterested” segment was so large that the authors had to acknowledge its presence but “focus the majority of our exploration of the segments on the other groups”.

Image by Davie Bicker from Pixabay

Rankings Have No Deep Impact

It is increasingly difficult to take the Times Higher Education (THE) Impact Rankings seriously but the tone-deafness, doublethink, obfuscation and self-delusion becomes ever more extraordinary.  The only blot on the comedic value of the Rankings is that they continue to highlight Russia and Afghanistan universities – one group in a country in thrall to a leader whose war has killed tens of thousands and the other in a country where women cannot enrol in higher education.  There seems no way in which the SDGs were intended to be used to provide publicity and credibility for countries deliberately applying policies decried by the United Nations. 

Same Old, Same Old

We are told that the “The Impact Rankings are inherently dynamic…we expect and welcome regular change in the ranked order of institutions (and we discourage year-on-year comparisons)…”.  Unfortunately, the THE corporate communications department didn’t read the memo because they announced, “Western Sydney University claims the Impact title for the second year running with a near-perfect score” – which sounds rather like a year on year comparison.  Further diminishing the sense of dynamism is that eight of the top twelve are the same as last year.

Five of the 2023 top twelve have been in the top twelve since 2020.  It would probably be higher but Kings College, University of Leeds and University of Sydney, who were in the top twelve in 2020, have all dropped out of the table completely.  There seems to be the possibility that some of the very best universities with strong SDG credentials are ignoring the Impact Rankings because they recognize the inherent weaknesses. 

It should not be surprising that universities who choose to be part of this manipulable process are able to enhance their performance.  Universities are full of administrators and academics who are good at passing exams so shame on Newcastle University and Hakkaido University for falling from eight and ten last year to 24 and 22 in 2023.  Perhaps a new ranking should be based on calling out institutions that cannot maintain or improve their position on a yearly basis.

It is slightly bemusing that King AbdulAziz University was a non-runner in 2023 after being in fourth place the year before.  Is it possible that they could not find any researchers willing to sign over a sufficient number of citations or maybe the failure to come top was too much to bear?  A related anomaly is that it features rankings from AWRU, QS and US News World Report on its International Rankings page but nothing from THE.

Living In the Past

As previously noted, the data in the rankings is based on 2021, the era before ChatGPT, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the implosion of Boris Johnson’s premiership.  Unfortunately, this means that any student relying on the rankings to make judgements about institutions is going to be sadly misled.  Not that this matters to the way THE and their enablers like Study Portals use rankings to monetize student eyeballs.

The most egregious example of the Impact Rankings failure to keep up to date is the increase in the number of Afghanistan universities in the Impact Rankings.  Going from two to three listed entrants is bad enough after a year in which they have followed their government’s edict to prevent women going to university.  Two of the three have scores under SDG 5, which is specifically about Gender Equality and the aim to “Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls”, while to add insult to grievous injury their score in that category is better than hundreds of other institutions.

It seems extraordinary that nobody at the THE was paying sufficient attention to understand the condemnation of the world at the exclusion of women from education in Afghanistan.  As noted in previous blogs it might be reasonable to think that the lack of women in the board ranks of THE and its owners contributes to this indifference.  It is, however, very difficult to think of a good excuse for the Advisory Board which one might hope has some members with a broader perspective on justice, equity and decency.

From Glasnost to Skrytnost

It was all the rage to celebrate glasnost and perestroika in the 1980s but openness and restructuring in Russia have long given way to autocratic rule and whim.  Maybe that’s why the THE’s treats some Russian university scores in the spirit of what the Washington Post termed “skrytnost: – derived from the Russian verb skryt meaning “to conceal”.   It is unacceptable for a ranking that trumpets its supposed transparency to offer no explanation for blanking Russian university scores for SDG 16, Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions.

It must be bad enough for the compilers that Russian universities continue to be the single largest number of entrants to the Impact Rankings but totally infuriating that many choose to be scored on their support of the very virtues that the country currently seems to lack.  Unfortunately, the THE seem to accept whatever is submitted, adds it to the total, then blanks it out as if it was some secret.  There is no explanation in the methodology which only reminds everyone that the scoring itself is a matter of, um, autocratic rule and whim.

The continued presence of Russian universities in the league tables and the way they are publicized as study destinations by THE Student is another reminder that the entire premise of the tables is to commercialize data and sell consultancy rather than enrich the sector.  While the Ukranians are on a counter-offensive to remove the aggressors from their lands the Impact Rankings celebrate universities whose Rectors publicly endorsed Putin’s war.  If their decision was based on a quick Russian victory it is time to reconsider.

Reputation Bust?

For all the noise from those going up in the Impact Rankings an analysis shows that only three of the top 12 institutions (Manchester, Arizona State and Alberta) feature in the THE’s own World Reputation Rankings.  This might suggest that academics see the Impact Rankings as a refuge for those who feel the need to please their governing bodies but not as a genuine marker of global quality.  It’s a bit like football fans getting excited when their team wins the Europa Conference League while those supporting serial contenders for the Champions League are not so easily impressed1.

Nobody expects the THE to give up on its money-go-round of league tables any time soon but it is remarkable that after five years most universities have declined to spend the time, effort or money to engage in the Impact Rankings.  One might argue this is because they recognize the dangers of being involved in a competition that is easily rigged and where the referees might just be willing to tip the scales a different way to create a headline.  The evidence suggests that absence does not impact the credibility of absentees at all.

Notes

1.            For those who do not follow European football, the Europa Conference League is the third tier of European competition after the Champions League and Europa League.  With apologies to West Ham United fans I would say it has much in common with any other conference – you go not knowing anything about the people you’ll meet, you end up in many dreary rooms discussing irrelevant things and you return to a pile of work.  Football fans will know that in that sentence you can replace “people” with teams, “rooms” with stadiums and “pile of work” with relegation trouble.  If you’re lucky you get a certificate of attendance (known as the Europa Conference League trophy).   

Image by WikiImages from Pixabay

THE’s Russian Ranking Reprise

Despite a year of slaughter, destruction and probable war crimes in Ukraine the Times Higher Education (THE) continues to turn its eyes away from the obvious step of excluding the names of Russian universities from its rankings.  As the drumbeat starts for the launch of the 2023 Impact Rankings at the end of May 2023, the THE has already announced that Russia will again have the most institutions taking part.  We are also told that they are “expecting data to come from a single academic year: 2021” so there would appear to be no chance of revulsion at an institution’s support for unprovoked war, deaths and a refugee crisis impacting on its ranking.

The Sustainable Development Goals are a decent and positive attempt to build a better world and universities are right to consider how they might play a part in that endeavour.  This makes it particularly unfortunate that the THE Impact Rankings have ignored the underlying principles to give continued encouragement to institutions that have backed Putin’s war.  There is even more to suggest how this distorted world view undermines the credibility of the rankings and the organization.      

Indifference and Inaction

The THE Chief Executive Office expressed “solidarity with Ukranian people” on behalf of the company in March 2022 and claimed “we will allow the rankings to do what they are designed to do, and show the world the impact of those [Russian government] decisions..”.  He conveniently forgot to mention that it would be years before the rankings reflected the impact of the war and may even have hoped, in best WW1 jingoistic fashion, that it would all be over by Christmas.  Imagine if every other business, Government and individual that has supported Ukraine through resources, funding, boycotts or direct action, had decided it would wait more than two years before doing anything.

He went on to say that “..we will of course keep the situation under constant review, and will not hesitate to take further steps if we believe it is necessary to do so.”  As far as one can see there has been no further action, no further statements and no further interest despite more than a year of bloodshed and atrocities.  In that respect, the Impact Rankings have become a monument to the indifference of the THE’s leadership.      

Lack of Transparency

Even the THE doesn’t seem able to stomach the notion of Russian universities parading their credentials on SDG 16 – Peace, Justice and Strong Social Institutions.  It is difficult to see any other reason that they would blank the scores for this SDG in the rankings of Russian institutions.  However, there is no explanation in the methodology as to whether there is still a score counting towards the overall ranking of the institution, whether it is zeroed or if there is some other fix.

When a senior data scientist at the THE was asked to explain the methodology no response was received1.  It’s not a very good look given claims about the openness and integrity of the rankings. But it should be a timely reminder to every participant that the methodology is subject to the whims of the compilers.

Allowing Brand Endorsement

Meanwhile, Russian universities remain entirely content to maximise the publicity they get from featuring in the rankings. For example, Altai State University features their ranking, complete with blanked out boxes on SDG 16, as part of their marketing.  Their corporate statement reflects glowingly on what they position as “the third nomination, in which the university was awarded, was…Goal No. 16.”

It seems beyond belief that the THE cannot see that its logo, rankings and reputation are being used as an endorsement for Russian universities.  Neither do they seem to realize that league table endorsement is exactly what the Russian government requires of the institutions. The minimal efforts made by the THE to reduce these bragging rights have manifestly failed and allows Putin’s regime to claim a semblance of normality and acceptance in the world university community.

Promoting Russia as a Study Destination

The THE continues to actively promote Russian universities, allowing easy and searchable access to university courses to 457 courses in the Russian Federation.  Courses from HSE University (shown here) are also publicized, along with many other Russian universities, by Studyportals who act as a THE partner and facilitator in exploiting student eyes on league tables.  It is difficult to see that this is not contributing to Russia’s continued success in attracting international students. 

Hapless, Hopeless or Worse

It seems reasonable to accept the Ukranian group Progresylni taking any opportunity to understand how they can raise the profile of Ukraine and its fight for academic survival. We should all feel humbled by their willingness to look forward while facing a devastating attack on their country. The uncomfortable truth is that the THE’s unwillingness to act means that the names of Ukranian institutions in the rankings continue to stand next to those from an invading power which continues to build a reputation for crushing academic freedom.

In the Impact Rankings Ukranian institutions are outnumbered by around three Russian universities to one Ukranian which, according to Statista, makes the ratio slightly better than the advantage that Russia has in active soldiers.  With a single decision the THE could allow Ukrainians to enjoy the rankings without the presence of the aggressors. A reformulation of a line from David Sedaris might suggest that these are circumstances where humbled can be found between hapless and hypocrisy in the dictionary. 

Keeping Bad Company

Nobody really expects the THE to give up on the money-go-round that is the university rankings and they may have already anticipated an end game in the war.  It could come down to a calculation of the odds on who prevails or who will have the most university buildings left standing in the long-term.  The needs of private investors and owners, Inflexion, may also make it seem important to keep the doors to revenue open for all possibilities.

What we do know is that the Impact Rankings are manipulable and there is an emerging consistency about those who most want to be involved.  The top three countries involved in 2023 will be Russia (92), Japan (91) and Turkey (84) with two sharing the distinction of having a so called “hard man” at the top and all three being in the bottom 40% of the Academic Freedom Index. In the 2022 Impact Rank the five countries with the most entries – Russia (94), Japan (76), Pakistan (63), India (61) and Turkey (57) – were all in the bottom 40% of the Index.  

In Turkey (which is in the bottom 10% of the Index), President Erdogan signed a decree that allowed him to appoint a president to any university in the country and did so at Bogazici University which he claimed, “failed to understand and incorporate itself to the nation’s values.”   He appointed Melih Bulu as president and while protests erupted and students were arrested “Bulu kept repeating his main promise of improving Bogazici’s international university ranking…”.  While Bulu was eventually removed2 it suggests how pernicious the rankings can be in creating a lever for politicians to ride roughshod over academic freedom.

Even in countries considered to be relatively liberal democracies the rankings have become a dumbed down touchstone for awarding visas in a way that is both vapid and discriminatory.  It is not too far-fetched to believe that rankings are already a vanity project for every wannabe dictator or authoritarian government that wants credibility on the world stage and are becoming a simplistic measure for politicians to judge value in higher education.  It is, after all, much easier to expect universities to manipulate their rankings submission, than to allow academics and students to build a liberal, challenging community where governments are critiqued and challenged. 

NOTES

  1. The individual had been openly looking at my LinkedIn profile. After the message was sent they disappeared from view on my account. Strange behaviour.
  2. Before cheering the demise of Melih Bulu it’s worth noting that Professor Mehmet Naci Inci was appointed (by Erdogan) despite the opposition of 95% of the institution’s academics. In January 2022 he removed three deans of school for their part in protests then in August 2022 he suspended 16 academics who protested “..against presidentially appointed rectors at the school..”. In February 2023 an Istanbul court sentenced 14 Boğaziçi University students each to six months in prison for staging a protest over his appointment.

Image by Andrew Martin from Pixabay 

INTO The Interim

Back in June 2021, INTO University Partnerships (INTO) appointed Olivia Streatfeild as its first woman CEO, and in June 2022 she became the first woman Director.  There were plenty of strategic decisions to make as the world struggled out of a debilitating pandemic and INTO reflected on a five-year period when it had lost six joint ventures and struggled to maintain enrollment volumes.  Just two years later agents have been briefed that long-term Andrew Colin lieutenant, John Sykes, is stepping in as Interim CEO.

As well as being a main board director and a “co-founder”, Sykes has been part of the operational, decision-making Executive Team throughout the last decade.  While the presumption might be that this will mean continuity it will be interesting to see how many of the Streatfield decisions stick.  Here are some other issues that might need attention.     

Beware the Fog On the Tyne

INTO’s engagement with Newcastle University has had its shares of ups and downs.  Since 2016 the average number of students enrolled in the INTO Newcastle center has varied from 1142 in the best year down to 627 in 2021/22.  The fluctuation in Operating Profit reflects the sensitivity to student enrollment.

NB: The Operating Profit excludes significant exceptional items in 2016, 2017 and 2018.  The 2019 and 2021 figures are as adjusted in the INTO Newcastle University LLP Annual Report.

In 2021 the LLP’s Annual Report noted that the joint venture based in Newcastle has moved to majority ownership of 51% by INTO.  The joint venture launched in London in 2015 as INTO Newcastle London and long term readers will know the shifting sands of the INTO operation in Middlesex Street, including the links with Josef Mifsud whose whereabouts remain unknown.  INTO Newcastle London came under the sole control of Newcastle University in late 2020 and while the changes in controlling party mean any intercompany transactions are no longer reported by INTO, we do know that in 2020 the JV was a indebted to INTO to the tune of £5.4m.

A small sideshow is that Newcastle University awarded a year-long contract starting in January 2023 for ‘The Provision of International Market Research and Business Development – USA’ including ‘in-country liaison, advice and marketing activity to support the University’s strategies.’  Perhaps surprisingly this was not entrusted to INTO’s US team but to Foothold America Inc.  To be fair Newcastle had already been awarded two contracts to INTO worth around £1m, starting August 2022 and November 2022, for similar work over three years in South/South-East Asia and China respectively.

Magic Kingdom or Repo Man

The US was once seen as the land of opportunity for pathway operators but it’s become increasingly harder work and INTO’s exposure is second only to Shorelight. The legal battle between INTO and USF is likely to be disruptive, time consuming and expensive and it continues with the next hearing scheduled for 10 May and a new round of discussions with a mediator to come.  All the while, legal arguments are being made about the extent to which the USF Directors may or may not have been in breach of their fiduciary duty to the joint venture.

If that’s not enough of a headache, 2023 has seen the end of the joint venture with Illinois State University added to the closures at Colorado State University (2021), Marshall University (2020) and Washington State University (2022).  The operation at St Louis University became wholly owned by INTO in 2021 and despite added firepower on the business development side in the US there does not appear to have been much progress in adding many new partners – either joint venture or direct recruitment.  Meanwhile, the enrollment decline in continuing operations at flagship joint ventures like Oregon State University are evident.

Source: Oregon State University Office of Institutional Research

The company’s own research suggests that only 34% of China, HK and Macau agents surveyed think they will send more students to the US in the coming year which, by implication, means 66% will send the same or fewer.  The struggles of the last few years have also seen US joint ventures stacking up increasing levels of debt to INTO with every single US joint venture showing higher debt than the year before in the 2022 Annual Report.  It is difficult to see the way forward.             

Happy Mondays or The Fall as Manchester Decides

In July 2019 the University of Manchester awarded a five-year contract to INTO’s wholly owned Manchester operation for “Managed Service Provision of Pre-Degree Programmes for International Students”.  It has probably been a significant driver of the INTO Manchester performance over the years and 2021/22 saw the operation roar back to achieve record recruitment and profit.  The contract was for 300k and the contract period ends in July 2024.

Alongside that is the tender for an embedded study center with recruitment opportunity with Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) which is currently a partner of INTO Manchester.  It’s arguable that over the years MMU has done less well in terms of international enrollment than the popularity of the city suggests it should.  Both Kaplan (at Liverpool) and Navitas (at Swansea) have shown their willingness to become involved in capital projects as joint ventures so competition for the business could be hot.

If another provider wins either the University of Manchester business when it becomes due or the Manchester Metropolitan tender the consequences could be serious.  If it all goes wrong for INTO, the office by the Brighton seaside might echo to Morrissey lyrics like ‘Hide on the promenade, etch a postcard/’How I dearly wish I was not here.’

UK OK OR KO?

It looks like recruitment numbers are perking up in the UK but recovery is patchy with INTO UEA looking to be on life support as the university and the joint venture struggle with competitive realities.  While INTO University of Exeter enrollments withstood the pandemic reasonably well there has been little evidence of recovery in the recently released 2021/22 Annual Reports of joint ventures with Stirling, Queen’s or City .  While the HE sector in the UK has seen record international student recruitment over the past two years it does not seem to be feeding into pathway numbers.

Source: Joint/Venture Wholly Owned Annual Reports and INTO University Partnerships Annual Reports (NB: INTO UEA does not report for 2021/22 until July 2023.  For that reason the 2022 Total enrollment shown excludes the JV and is not wholly comparable with previous years.)

With Australia re-asserting its competitiveness, the US open for recruitment, Canada thriving and some evidence that increasing numbers of Chinese students are looking elsewhere for higher education it’s unlikely to get any easier.  INTO’s recent win at Lancaster University was good news for them but the QAA reports indicate that in 2018 it only had around 280 students and sector feedback is that Study Group found it hard going.  Whatever happens, the UK situation carries plenty of risks.

Sticking to the Knitting and Counting the Beans

The Interim CEO may want to look at some ratios and data from the INTO University Partnerships Limited Annual Reports available at Companies House.  The first confirms that the US contribution to turnover reflects the decline of the business.  Whether it can or will come back is an open question but I doubt it’s something to bet the house on.

A second issue worth thinking about is that data on staff attributed to the Group makes interesting reading.  Group staff costs in 2021/22 were more than 50% of turnover while in 2018/19 they were only around 38%.   It is possible that the categories have some underlying nuances and there have been job cuts in recent months but it seems a good starting point for operational efficiencies. 

Finally, in 2020/21 the number of employees earning over £100k a year was 40 while in 2021/22 it had grown to 48 – that’s 20%.  The number earning over £275k was four compared to one the year before.  For a business with revenue that was lower than 2019/20 that needs some unpacking.

The Big One

Perhaps the biggest strategic question is about the future ownership of the business and how quickly Leeds Equity would welcome some return on the £66m investment they made a decade ago.  The appointment of two relatively high-profile non-executives to the Board might suggest some intention to seek new external investment.  It’s also possible that Andrew Colin could take the business back into 100% sole control.

The final intriguing possibility, given the volatility and possible consolidation in the sector, is that this could be the moment where the business is sold.  Back in 2018 there were widespread reports that the business was up for sale with a price tag of £300m and in a sector full of rumours there have been unconfirmed suggestions that Navitas was showing interest shortly before the pandemic.  Taking on Lancaster, getting Manchester right and sorting out Newcastle would certainly strengthen the hand in any negotiation.

NOTES

Links are provided to publicly available information where possible.  Speculation and rumour are noted as such.  As always, the author would be happy to receive authoritative clarification on any specific points and will note any amendments.

Just some small notes on a few of the sub-headings:

1. Fog on the Tyne is a 1971 album and a single by Lindisfarne.  Footballer Paul Gascoigne provided vocals on a reworked single version that got to number two in the charts in 1990.

2. Magic Kingdom is a theme park at Walt Disney World where “fantasy reigns” while Repo Man is a 1984 film with a strong underlying commentary about the “last defense of capitalism” and “no sense of purpose”

3. The Happy Mondays and The Fall are Manchester bands.  The Happy Mondays were part of the Madchester sound of the 1980s and were named for the day their unemployment benefits arrived – “the day for getting off your face” as bassist Paul Ryder explained.  With 31 studio albums in 40 years (1979 to 2017) The Fall gloried in DJ John Peel’s description “they are always different; they are always the same.”   

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay 

More JAWS for INTO and USF

Sequels are rarely as good as the original but after a new hope with previous reports of dispute resolution between University of South Florida (USF)1 and INTO University Partnerships (INTO)1 we may have reached a point where the empire strikes back.  For new readers, USF gave notice to voluntarily dismiss its case against defendants INTO on 3 January 2023, on the basis that the defendants were “taking the actions that the Financing Corporation’s declaratory judgment lawsuit sought.”2  This followed a hearing on 16 December 2022 where USF’s motion for the appointment of a Receiver for INTO USF, INC had been heard.  Eventually, on 13 February 2023, Circuit Judge Darren D. Farfante declined “USF Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appointment of a Receiver.”3 but the case has been reopened.

The following commentary attempts to outline progress and indicate key issues with reference to the publicly available filings.  These are complex issues and readers looking for a more complete understanding should access the Court records.  I make no attempt to comment on the merits of either case and welcome authoritative comments and amendment.   

Just When You Thought It Was Safe to Go Back in the Water

Even before the motion was declined USF had sought “..an order finding that the Financing Corporation is the prevailing party in its request for declaratory relief…..and is therefore entitled to attorney’s fees and costs, to be paid by Defendants…”4

The same day, INTO USF, Inc. and INTO USF LP filed to “…respectfully request that the Court (i) declare the INTO Parties as the prevailing parties in the declaratory judgment action, and (ii) hold in abeyance determination of the amount of fees and costs owed until the remaining claims between the parties are resolved.”5

There have been further filings on the matter on both the side of USF6,8 and that of the INTO parties7,9.   There is a good amount of legal argument but for the lay person the choice phrases include assertions like, “a pyrrhic victory”6, “completely ignores both Florida case law and the facts of this case”7, “..hoisted by their own petard”8, and “..premised entirely on a sleight-of-hand”9.  It’s all good knockabout stuff but one wonders how much lawyerly time and client money is going into this.  

The case then became an SRS Reopen Event on 16 February 2023.14  It appears that the “prevailing” party “..in the Declaratory Judgment Action (Doc #97) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine Entitlement to Prevailing Party Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Doc #98)” will now be the subject of a Zoom hearing on May 10, 2023 at 2.30pm13

While this has been going on there have been developments in INTO’s claims of breach of fiduciary duty against the Jennifer Condon, Karen Holbrook, Nick Trivunovich, and Ralph Wilcox (collectively known in the case filings as the “FC Directors”).  In summary, INTO argue that they “…served as directors of INTO USF, Inc and owed it fiduciary duties, simultaneously served in positions for USF and prioritized the interests of USF over the interests of the Company in seeking its wind-down and termination.”16

This had originally been included as Count V of INTO’s complaint but had been challenged on several grounds including that the individuals had sovereign immunity by dint of carrying out their duties as a result of being employees of USF.  In a motion to dismiss this aspect of INTO’s case the filing noted “Section 768.28(9) protects state employees for torts committed within the scope of their employment.” and that “All the actions the FC Directors took that allegedly breached their fiduciary duty occurred while USF employed them.”11 The judge found in favor of this argument but while, “As pled, sovereign immunity bars Count V against the FC Directors” the Plaintiffs (INTO) were “..given leave to amend Count V of the Amended Complaint against the FC Directors.9

The opportunity to make such an amendment was taken in the Second Amended Complaint10.  Where Count V alleging “Breach of Fiduciary Duty Against the Former USFFC-Designated Joint Venture Directors” has been re-drafted.  There are several amendments but an example that indicates the tone says, “The Former USFFC-Designated Joint Venture Directors were appointed to the Board, and took on these fiduciary responsibilities to the Joint Venture, independent of the duties and responsibilities they owed to USF by the nature of their employment.”

The deadline for the defendants to respond to the Second Amended Complaint was originally 9 March 2023 but an extension to 20 March 2023 was granted without any opposition.12 There seems little doubt that this falls into thecategory of….to be continued.

Land of Lincoln Loss

All this comes as market reports suggest that the joint venture between INTO and Illinois State University (ISU) has come to an end with a direct recruitment arrangement remaining.17  The joint venture was formed in March 2018 and as of “June 30, 2022 and 2021, the Company had an accumulated deficit of $12,155,144 and $11,806,337, respectively.” according to the financial statements and reports.  It becomes the sixth of INTO’s eleven US joint ventures to close since 2020 (including INTO St Louis which is now 100% owned by INTO).

Perhaps interestingly,  ISU’s international student population (non-US citizen in student enrollment reports) appears to have climbed quickly over the past five years going from 511 to 736 from Fall 2018 to Fall 2022.  However, the significant change is year on year from 2021 (557 enrolled) to 2022 (736 enrolled) with the growth entirely made up of graduate students.  Meanwhile, non-degree seeking international students (the usual location of pathway numbers in US university enrollment data) fell from 44 in Fall 2018 to 14 in Fall 2022.

It seems possible that ISU has been able to benefit from the more widespread growth in graduate students from south-east Asia but that this has not flowed through in any meaningful way to the pathway operation.  That would reflect the situation seen at some other pathway Centers in INTO’s US portfolio.  It remains to be seen how other joint venture partners reflect on the situation as Fall 2023 comes into sharp focus.  

NOTES

  1. The case in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida Circuit Civil Division is formally between USF Financing Corporation (plaintiffs) and INTO USF LP and INTO USF, INC (defendants).  The terms USF and INTO are used in this blog for brevity.  The Consolidated Lead Case is 22-CA-006001, Div. L. and  filings referenced below relate to this case. (Joint Case Management Report – Filing # 162471158 E-Filed 12/06/2022 12:51:36 PM16)
  2. Filing # 163938884 E-Filed 01/03/2023 09:29:50 AM
  3. 02/13/2023 11:22:52 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit.
  4. Filing # 166039948 E-Filed 02/02/2023 05:03:54 PM
  5. Filing # 166035151 E-Filed 02/02/2023 04:30:42 PM
  6. Filing # 166713446 E-Filed 02/13/2023 05:30:56 PM
  7. Filing # 166710887 E-Filed 02/13/2023 05:03:58 PM
  8. Filing # 167161634 E-Filed 02/20/2023 04:55:28 PM
  9. Filing # 167148563 E-Filed 02/20/2023 03:16:05 PM
  10. 02/14/2023 01:11:28 PM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit.
  11. Filing # 167652717 E-Filed 02/27/2023 07:53:06 PM
  12. Filing # 162259450 E-Filed 12/02/2022 11:01:26 AM
  13. 03/08/2023 06:38:01 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit.
  14. Filing # 168483841 E-Filed 03/10/2023 01:09:08 PM
  15. Reopen event: A reopen event occurs when a motion, pleading or other recordable action occurs on a case that requires additional court activity after a disposition event has closed the case for court activity. Note that a reopen event involves at least one action and that additional post-judgment actions may occur before the case is reclosed.
  16. Filing # 162471158 E-Filed 12/06/2022 12:51:36 PM
  17. It is reasonable to note that both INTO and ISU appear to show INTO pathway courses on their websites.  Any update from either party is welcome.

Image by Mote Oo Education from Pixabay