View From A Bridge – management, education and personal thoughts – Page 7 – 'Speak because it's your life, speak because you can,'" Sana A., a Pakistani immigrant and DACA recipient. It's good advice.

New Directions At INTO University Partnerships?

It’s nearly a year since INTO University Partnerships (INTO) appointed its new chief executive and there’s been an acceleration of senior changes with new heads of recruitment, product/digital and people appointed and the addition of a chief strategy officer post to the Executive Team. It seems an open secret that another of the Executive Team old guard will leave in June and the leadership in the US looks to have been tweaked with some saying there are more change to come. That’s five new faces in a year in an Executive Team of ten so thoughts turn to what happens next and what’s the state of the portfolio?

Anyone who has seen change in a corporate environment will know the Machiavelli quote and that “there is nothing more difficult to arrange, more doubtful of success, and more dangerous to carry through.” They will also know the tendency of the old guard to still get together and slip around the side of the building every morning for the habitual cigarette break where they can gossip, moan and plot about the interlopers. However, Greg Shea of the Wharton Center for Leadership and Change Management tells us that “change is not about consensus, it is about critical mass”, so 50% may be enough.

Access All Areas?

Rumours are swirling that the company is planning to launch a new go to market strategy in Asia, probably Vietnam, where one of the much-hyped University Access Centers (UACs) already exists in Ho Chi Min City. According to the website UACs are under development in Bangkok, Bogota, Hanoi, Jakarta and New Delhi for launch by early 2022 and a further 15 planned by 2023. In one of the big student recruitment debates currently raging, INTO seems to be putting significant investment into “boots on the ground” rather than relying solely on the efficacy of online, aggregators and virtual counselling.  

There is also talk of direct recruitment options maturing and becoming a key part of the sales strategy which seems a no brainer given INTO’s reduced number of pathway partners over the past few years. Shorelight heard the starting pistol on the direct recruitment race in the US more than six months ago so there is ground to make up. The UACs may, however, offer differentiation from Shorelight’s increasingly strident pitch as a “technology-enabled” business – when the word “technology” appears seven times in a three paragraph news announcement it must matter to them.

It also seems possible that INTO could be making a play for the ground that “global expansion experts” Sannam S4 Group has filled so well with its approach that makes “personal our number one priority”. The UACs could make useful physical locations to pitch for market entry and expansion opportunities and the notion of “internationalisation strategies from concept to delivery”. Having in country presence and a sales team on the ground was always core to the pathway operator model so it’s a logical extension to turn that into a full service pitch based on country expertise, where everything from market launch initiatives, TNE and campus management to returning graduate employability can be up for discussion with resource-constrained universities.

The Great Divide?

Time will tell how those possibilities play out but it is intriguing to think that INTO may also be taking a more radical look at how its UK portfolio* is managed to best effect by differentiating Russell Group institutions from the rest. One potential reason for considering the Russell Group institutions (including the wholly owned Manchester operation which primarily serves the University of Manchester) as a separate entity is that their performance offers the best chance for recruitment growth. Taking the pre-pandemic period the total enrollment growth of all eight INTO operations from 2016 to 2020 was 547 with the four Russell Group related pathway operations increasing by 672 while four non-Russell Group operations (which include the wholly owned World Education Centre) had an aggregate loss of 125.

Source: INTO Center Annual Reports

A direct comparison between INTO University of East Anglia and Queen’s University Belfast in the five years pre-COVID emphasises the point. It is startling to see the decline of INTO’s first ever joint venture and reflect that when 2021 reporting becomes available INTO Queen’s may have overtaken it in enrollments. Taking the five years from 2016 to 2020 INTO Queen’s increased enrollments over 63% while INTO UEA declined by 25%. Enrollment at INTO UEA has been declining almost every single year since 2015.

Source: INTO UEA and INTO Queen’s Annual Reports

While the University of East Anglia does not report its own international student enrollments separately, the impact of a declining pathway and no obvious direct enrollment growth to balance it can be seen by the fall of around £3m in international tuition fee revenue from 2018 to 2020. The joint venture drew down a loan from the UK Governments CLBILS Scheme to mitigate cash shortages during the pandemic and the University’s annual financial statements for 2020/21 tell us each partner guaranteed 50% of the loan up to a maximum of £7m. More chilling for the future is that the statements indicate that there “will be no distribution in respect of 2020/21 nor for the next three years whilst the joint venture recovers and builds up surpluses for distribution.”

Source: UEA Financial Reports and INTO UEA Annual Reports

End of the long-term Joint Venture?

The big differentiator for INTO in its early days was the notion that it signed long-term (usually thirty year) joint venture partnership deals with equal start-up investment and a 50% share in profits and losses with the university. The UK portfolio now falls some way short of that vision with INTO Newcastle becoming majority owned (51%) by IUP and INTO City having a distribution that goes 85% to Newincco 921 Ltd (an INTO subsidiary) and 15% to City Foundation Limited. Closure of INTO St Georges, INTO UEA (London), INTO Gloucestershire, INTO GCU and INTO Newcastle (London) have long rendered the multi-decade, higher education altering principles obsolete.

Even “The INTO Story” element of the company’s corporate web-site has lost the tale of founder Andrew Colin and, then, vice chancellor of the University of East Anglia, Professor David Eastwood, cooking up the joint-venture model as a mould-breaking idea. Professor Sir David Eastwood (now knighted) has become Chairman of IUP’s Board and sits alongside two representatives from Leeds Equity Partners who described IUP’s “transformational…industry-leading, relationship-driven model” when they invested £66m in 2013 to become 25% equity stake holders. At the time IUP claimed 16 university partnerships but nearly a decade later it is difficult to see more than 14 which fit with the original concept.

There has been a similar tale in the US where joint ventures at Colorado State, Washington State and West Virginia have closed in recent years and IUP has become the 100% stakeholder in its venture with St Louis University. It seems likely that, as the market has matured, the limitations of the model have become increasingly clear with competitors able to offer more agile, flexible or advantageous terms to institutions. It is also arguable that, for the pathway operator, being tied to less attractive institutions in a fiercely competitive market for international students does not offer the growth prospects that so attracted private equity a decade ago.

For INTO, the pandemic may have provided the moment for a rethink and a pause for breath where the opportunities from a resurgent UK drive for international student enrollment could be assessed. Fresh thinking on recruitment and delivery as well as a recognition that the portfolio is, if not sheep and goats, more a potpourri than a bunch of roses could bring results in the new environment. Despite launching into a highly competitive world, it probably can’t be any less productive than the past few years.

Notes

*The US environment was considered in depth in China Crisis for US Pathways and Pathways to the Future for US Big Two

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

University League Table – No Sympathy, No Spite

The cosy conspiracy that has created the current rankings merry go round is built on handing out kudos and credibility while launching new iterations and self-congratulatory events at as many exotic venues as possible. There’s no reason for anyone to bite the hand that feeds them or jeopardize cooperation on the monetization of student interest. Many institutions and academics collaborate with the rankers in public while griping privately about the unwelcome outcomes of higher education marketization.

It leaves a gap in the market for a rankings table that highlights decisions institutions make which seem against the spirit of being focused on academic values, student interest and fairness. Borrowing from Prof Scott Galloway’s thinking of “No Mercy, No Malice” such a table should not be perverse or spiteful in favouring one institution over another but equally should not shirk or be sympathetic when reflecting facts. It needs to be based on public information that is difficult to manipulate or massage and to highlight decision making in areas where students have every right to think that there might be some consistency.

Decision Making Made Easy

It is in this spirit that the first “No Sympathy, No Spite” rankings below focus on English universities to make use of recently and currently available data. The marking criteria allocates a score which penalises universities for not taking action where it would seem to be in the interests of students or where the data provided by an external body suggests it may have questions to answer. Each score reflects the university’s relative position against listed peers but scores are also totalled, with higher scores generally indicating universities that might wish to consider their decision making.

The table highlights which universities have signed or not signed on to the Can’t By My Silence pledge to stop using NDAs to stop students speaking out and also their decisions about involvement with the Universities UK Fair Admissions Code of Practice. While the sector is fond of praising those who do the right thing it seems shy about naming those that will not agree to basic standards which means students struggle to find out which universities are gaming the system or simply refusing to play at all. This ranking makes it clear who has chosen not to support specified courses of action.

Readers will determine for themselves if they agree that institutions should be signing up to fair admissions criteria or agreeing to stop using NDAs to gag students who are subject to sexual harassment and worse. More controversial may be the use of “unexplained” firsts data but the Office for Students is the designated regulating body and their chief executive said, “This spiralling grade inflation risks undermining public confidence in our higher education system.”. The People and Planets data reflects student activism and the voice of an important constituency on a vital issue.

The Office for Students data is only applicable to universities in England and universities that did not have degree awarding powers in 2020/11 have been excluded leaving 107. Further analysis may result in tables for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland where, for example, only Cardiff Metropolitan University has signed onto the Pledge to stop using NDAs for complaints about sexual harassment, bullying and other forms of misconduct. The information is provided in good faith based on the sources quoted and any authoritative amendments will be considered with amendments being made and flagged.

For the avoidance of doubt, a high score in the NDA Pledge and UUK Fair Admissions Code categories means the university has not signed up to either. A high score in the People and Planet category means the university is ranked poorly for environmental and ethical performance. The score in the Unexplained first-class degree is simply a function of the number of graduates and percentage of unexplained first-class degrees in 2020-21.

Provider name	Unexplained first-class degrees*	NDA Pledge**	UUK Fair Admissions Code***	People and Planet****	Total
Coventry University	12.2	7	5	1	25.2
University of Birmingham	11.2	7	*	5	23.2
Liverpool John Moores Uni	8.6	7	5	2	22.6
University of Leeds	13.2	7	*	2	22.2
Staffordshire University	6.1	7	5	4	22.1
Birmingham City University	7.4	7	5	2	21.4
University of Portsmouth	11.3	7	*	3	21.3
University of East London	5.3	7	5	4	21.3
Manchester Metropolitan Uni	20.1	*	*	1	21.1
Kingston University	5.7	7	5	3	20.7
University of Salford	12.3	7	*	1	20.3
Leeds Beckett University	10.2	7	*	3	20.2
Roehampton University	3.0	7	5	5	20.0
Queen Mary University of London	11.0	7	*	2	20.0
Goldsmiths’ College	3.6	7	5	4	19.6
University of Northampton	4.0	7	5	3	19.0
University of Wolverhampton	7.7	7	*	4	18.7
Anglia Ruskin Uni HE Corp	9.7	7	*	2	18.7
De Montfort University	10.7	7	*	1	18.7
University of St Mark & St John	1.2	7	5	5	18.2
Norwich University of the Arts	1.0	7	5	5	18.0
University College Birmingham	0.9	7	5	5	17.9
Liverpool Hope University	1.9	7	5	4	17.9
The University of Huddersfield	8.1	7	*	2	17.1
University of Sussex	6.1	7	*	4	17.1
The University of Essex	7.0	7	*	3	17.0
Royal Central School of Speech and Drama	0.5	7	5	4	16.5
University of Lincoln	6.5	7	*	3	16.5
Sheffield Hallam University	14.3	*	*	2	16.3
University of Brighton	7.2	7	*	2	16.2
University of Central Lancashire	7.2	7	*	2	16.2
University of Chester	5.2	7	*	4	16.2
University of Sunderland	4.0	7	*	5	16.0
University of Derby	6.7	7	*	2	15.7
The University of Buckingham	0.6	7	5	3	15.6
The University of Bradford	6.1	7	*	2	15.1
University of Hertfordshire	11.0	*	*	4	15.0
The University of Hull	5.9	7	*	2	14.9
University for the Creative Arts	3.9	7	*	4	14.9
The University of West London	5.8	7	*	2	14.8
University of Oxford	1.7	7	5	1	14.7
London School of Economics and Political Science	1.7	7	5	1	14.7
The University of Surrey	4.6	7	*	3	14.6
King’s College London	6.4	7	*	1	14.4
The University of Bolton	2.4	7	*	5	14.4
York St John University	3.3	7	*	4	14.3
Oxford Brookes University	4.0	7	*	3	14.0
Brunel University London	3.8	7	*	3	13.8
St Mary’s University, Twickenham	1.8	7	*	5	13.8
The University of Cumbria	2.3	7	*	4	13.3
St. George’s Hospital Med School	1.1	7	*	5	13.1
The University of Manchester	10.0	*	*	3	13.0
University of the Arts, London	5.0	7	*	1	13.0
University of Gloucestershire	2.9	7	*	3	12.9
University of Cambridge	2.9	7	*	3	12.9
Bishop Grosseteste University	0.8	7	*	5	12.8
University of Durham	5.7	*	5	2	12.7
Imperial College	2.7	7	*	3	12.7
Falmouth University	1.6	7	*	4	12.6
Nottingham Trent University	4.6	7	*	1	12.6
City, University of London	4.5	7	*	1	12.5
The University of Bath	2.4	7	*	3	12.4
The Royal Agricultural University	0.2	7	*	5	12.2
The University of Westminster	4.1	*	5	3	12.1
Bournemouth University	4.0	7	*	1	12.0
Newman University	0.5	7	*	4	11.5
Uni of Northumbria at Newcastle	10.4	*	*	1	11.4
University of Nottingham	9.4	*	*	2	11.4
Harper Adams University	0.2	7	*	4	11.2
The Royal Veterinary College	0.1	7	*	4	11.1
Arts University Bournemouth	1.0	7	*	3	11.0
London Metropolitan University	3.5	*	5	2	10.5
Royal Northern College of Music	0.3	*	5	5	10.3
London South Bank University	5.1	*	*	5	10.1
University of Bedfordshire	1.9	7	*	1	9.9
Uni of the West of England, Bristol	8.7	*	*	1	9.7
University of Southampton	5.6	*	*	4	9.6
Royal Holloway	5.4	*	*	4	9.4
The University of Kent	7.4	*	*	2	9.4
The University of Liverpool	7.3	*	*	2	9.3
The University of East Anglia	7.1	*	*	2	9.1
Edge Hill University	6.1	*	*	3	9.1
University College London	8.0	*	*	1	9.0
Middlesex University	7.8	*	*	1	8.8
Teesside University	5.6	*	*	3	8.6
The University of Sheffield	5.5	*	*	3	8.5
University of Greenwich	7.2	*	*	1	8.2
University of Exeter	7.2	*	*	1	8.2
University of Plymouth	7.0	*	*	1	8.0
The University of Leicester	5.9	*	*	2	7.9
Canterbury Christ Church Uni	4.6	*	*	3	7.6
The University of Lancaster	4.4	*	*	3	7.4
Solent University, Southampton	4.4	*	*	3	7.4
University of Newcastle upon Tyne	6.1	*	*	1	7.1
The University of Warwick	4.3	*	*	2	6.3
University of York	3.3	*	*	3	6.3
University of Bristol	5.2	*	*	1	6.2
Aston University	5.2	*	*	1	6.2
Loughborough University	2.6	*	*	3	5.6
The University of Chichester	1.6	*	*	4	5.6
The University of Reading	4.6	*	*	1	5.6
Leeds Trinity University	1.4	*	*	4	5.4
University of Keele	4.2	*	*	1	5.2
Buckinghamshire New University	1.6	*	*	3	4.6
Bath Spa University	2.3	*	*	2	4.3
University of Worcester	2.1	*	*	1	3.1
University of Winchester	1.0	*	*	1	2.0

Scoring Criteria/Method

Unexplained First Class Degrees
- This issue affects more students in larger universities so the number of graduates in 2020-21 is multiplied by the percentage of “unexplained first class degrees” in that year to show the number potentially affected. That sum is then divided by 100 to ensure the overall score is not wholly distorted by this category. The full analysis by the Office for Students is available.
Not Signed NDA Pledge
- The list of English university signatories on the Can’t Buy My Silence site was reviewed over the weekend of 14/15 May 2022. Universities that have signed the pledge score 0 (signified by an asterisk) while universities that have not signed receive 7 points.
UUK Fair Admissions Code
- The list of signatories shown on the Universities UK Fair Admissions Code of Practice site was reviewed over the weekend of 14/15 May 2022. Universities that have signed the pledge score 0 (signified by an asterisk) while universities that have not signed receive 5 points.
People and Planet
- The People and Planet University League ranks institutions in one of five classes – from First Class for the best, via 2:1, 2:2 and 3rd, to Failed. First class universities score one point with each succeeding category scoring one more through to Failed universities scoring 5. The People and Planet website gives extensive information on the methodology used.

Any comments, corrections or thoughts for development are welcome.

Image by Peggy und Marco Lachmann-Anke from Pixabay

The lure of commerce: Do universities face a brain drain?

An article co-authored with Louise Nichol in the 14 May issue of University World News. It follows on from my blog of 8 December 2021 about the increasing propensity for industry commentators with a public platform to join the Advisory Boards of commercial companies.

The commercial education sector has changed beyond recognition in the last 10 years. The explosion of aggregators onto the scene, the emergence of outsourcing of universities’ overseas operations and the proliferation of pathway programmes globally are all manifestations of this change.

This huge expansion in both activity and organisations has culminated in a talent grab, with commercial organisations on the hunt for those within higher education who can facilitate the growth of their businesses globally.

There has been a growth in high-powered advisers and advisory boards with ApplyBoard, Leverage Edu and others tapping higher education think tank leaders, government advisers and education media founders. The terms of the appointments are rarely very clear and they sometimes come with explicit expectations around growing the company’s business.

But more recently there have been several individuals jumping ship from universities to take high-profile positions with commercial organisations which are gaining traction with universities.

Higher education diaspora

Among the higher education diaspora are Rachel MacSween who moved from the University of York, where she was director of international recruitment, partnerships and mobility, to a position as director of client partnerships for UK and Europe at IDP Connect.

Others include Kyle Campbell who went from a position as senior web and digital content manager at Nottingham Trent University to content marketing manager at UniBuddy and is now heading his own education marketing business; and Lydiah Igweh, former enterprise support director for Oxford Brookes University who moved to a post as head of equality, diversity and inclusion at Kaplan.

There are also Rick Canavan who moved from the post of faculty head of international at Manchester Metropolitan to director of UK university partnerships at upGrad; Veronica Omeni, former acting co-director at the Centre for Global Engagement at Coventry University, who is now a principal consultant at QS Quacquarelli Symonds; and Gareth Topp, former head of internationalisation at the University of Brighton who left for the role of director of business development for UK and Europe at EduCo Accelerate.

Defections from the very top level are rarer, but recently retired University of Birmingham vice-chancellor Professor Sir David Eastwood moved promptly into a position as director at INTO University Partnerships, and David Pilsbury became chief development officer at Oxford International Education Group after holding the deputy vice-chancellor international role at Coventry University.

Greener pastures?

Colleagues working for a wide range of higher education service providers will be familiar with the cold breeze of slight disapproval that sometimes comes from those working in universities.

Engaging in the commercial side of education has historically been seen as subordinate to the high ideals of teaching and research, although international engagement with recruitment agents has long been a grey area where necessity triumphed over disdain.

The change in thinking was particularly apparent with the buzz recently at The PIE Live in London at the end of March 2022, when there was a feeling in the air that people were exploring what they perceived as greener grass outside their existing university position.

The reality is that commercial service providers, with the possible exception of technocrats in IT or other professional areas, have struggled to negotiate the labyrinthine structures, committees and power politics that make up university management and the bureaucracy associated with decision-making.

By employing ‘insiders’, commercial education organisations are betting that their existing professional relationships and knowing ‘how to play the game’ internally within universities will give them an added advantage when winning future business.

The logic is sound because those who have worked within the sector for the majority of their careers and built networks will have up-to-date rolodexes and relationships with those at both the institution from which they have moved and peer universities.

What remains to be seen is whether the sector will be more welcoming to these people having ‘jumped ship’, or will those who have crossed over find that they are considered to have turned their back on old friends for ‘greener pastures’?

What also remains to be seen is whether the commercial organisations stripping universities of talent are in fact getting a good deal. Are those who have come from inside higher education institutions in possession of the commercial acumen to get the job done or will they find that they miss the relatively cosy world of higher education?

One thing is for sure: the commercial education sector is much less forgiving when targets are missed and objectives not met.

Talent loss

The other serious concern is where this trend might leave universities over the longer term, particularly if the much prized but troubled Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) conditions continue to deteriorate.

University perks, flexibility and long-term outlooks have always been a significant advantage for attracting and retaining talent while commercial organisations are generally more driven by the bottom line and immediate results.

As commercial providers have held increasing sway over the sector and universities have had to focus on their financial sustainability and external performance measures, the lines have become increasingly blurred.

The question is whether there will be a tipping point leading to a significant exodus of university talent which might leave the sector bereft of innovation, creativity and energy.

Universities will need the brightest and the best more than ever to negotiate the choppy seas ahead and if the flow to commercial businesses becomes a deluge there could be some big gaps in capability.

Risks on the horizon

Some notable risks on the horizon include increasing competition among English-speaking study destinations and emerging study destinations, uncertainty over global geodemographics, politics and student mobility and a growing diversity in higher education delivery through both transnational education and online.

The days when a good graduate might look to a university as a place to build a long-term – potentially whole life – career are probably rapidly diminishing and the growth of commercial alternatives will begin to look increasingly attractive.

With these headwinds in mind, it may be time for university leaders and human resources departments to give some real thought to the ways in which they attract, recruit and retain sharp minds that have a genuine focus on brilliant student experiences, relevant research and the right balance of local and global engagement.

Failure to do so will lead to a brain drain that could result in even greater changes in the way that institutions are able to determine and implement plans that are in their best interests.

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

(What’s So Funny ‘Bout) Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions?

Readers might need some inspiration for trivia questions about the latest Times Higher Education Impact Rankings so I thought I’d help out. The Russia Federation had more universities represented than any other country in the 2022 rankings BUT in which SDG category are none of them listed? It’s a good test of whether anyone can remember all the SDGs but for those that can, the unsurprising answer would be Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions.

This is despite the fact that 49* Russian institutions were listed in that category in the 2021 rankings and it highlights the big problem when you allow universities to self-report and select which categories they enter because they can be really quite good at some things but ignore or even oppose others. It is difficult to see how a Russian institution could be good at, say, “peace” when there could be 15 years in prison and other serious penalties for mentioning “war” or “invasion”. Strong institutions also come under serious pressure when Russian Political Rights rank a 5/40 and Civil Liberties rank 14/60 according to Freedom House.

Universities can be enfeebled as institutions by political power and the outcome can be that they even become agents of coercion and repression. Examples include the Higher School of Economics restricting political activism on campus in 2020 and more recently hundreds of students reported as having been expelled and some students playing an active role in hunting down activist teachers. The tightening of the Russian Government’s grip on senior administrative appointments and strategic direction is well documented and one author has suggested, “controlling universities via rector appointment may serve as an instrument for controlling young minds.”

THE Fails On Effective Action to Minimise Credibility, Prestige and Marketing

Also, unsurprising is that the universities have continued to use their presence in the Impact Rankings to publicise themselves despite the words of Times Higher Education Chief Executive Paul Howarth on 4 March that “we will be taking steps to ensure that Russian universities are not using branding or other promotional opportunities offered by THE until further notice.” Here’s a snip from Peter the Great St Petersburg Polytechnic University showing how feeble that statement was and why the THE should ban institutions from the rankings.

It would be good to think that the full weight of the THE’s legal machinery might come crashing down on the Russian universities that are continuing to use the organization’s logo and public properties for their own promotional purposes. But as we have seen in a previous blog Study Portals, the THE’s partners in monetizing student mobility, also continues to promote the THE ranking of Russian universities. The statement from THE looks increasingly like a cynical PR ploy to play for time and hope that nobody remembered the promises made.

Lilliput or Brobdingnag

In Jonathan Swift’s books Gulliver becomes a giant amongst the people of the island country of Lilliput during his first voyage because they are only 6 inches tall. But the second voyage takes him to a peninsula called Brobdingnag where he lives with a farmer who is about 72 feet tall. It is a reminder that there is a perspective to most things and the Impact Rankings are worth considering in that respect.

So, another good trivia question might be – universities in which countries seem disinterested in the Impact Rankings? A good answer might be the USA where only 42 universities are shown but even lower is China where only 13 universities are featured. The USA number is even down on last year’s 45.

It is difficult to believe that the USA does not have more than that number of institutions with a strong record in sufficient SDG categories to make a bid for the top place. As it is, only one of the 12 US institutions who rank in the THE’s own world top 20 seems to have taken part. Neither of the Chinese universities in the world top 20 are mentioned in the Impact Rankings and the three from the UK are also missing.

Professor Barney Glover of the table topping Western Sydney University recognised the problem and commented, “there are too many of the very strong and powerful universities in the world that are not recognised” in the Impact Rankings.” His university’s website doesn’t go so far as to acknowledge that situation or that less than half the universities in the World Rankings feature in the Impact Rankings. But I think he may realizes that WSU was visiting Lilliput on this occasion.

Writing in University World News Dr Anand Kulkarni makes the point that while the number of Indian universities participating grew that “what is also noticeable is that, unlike the World University Rankings, the famed Indian Institutes of Technology are not as prominent.” Rankings expert Ellen Hazelkorn noted that absence of many leading universities “may not be due to their poor(er) performance but rather their choice not to participate” and commented on the THE Impact Rankings reliance on “self-reported and interpreted data”. If, as claimed by THE chief knowledge officer, Phil Baty the Impact Ranking are “redefining excellence in global higher education” it rather makes one wonder why the THE don’t have the courage of their convictions and drop their other league tables.

There is a tradition in the English Football Association Challenge Cup (the FA Cup) that there are qualifying rounds before the First Round Proper when teams from the bottom two tiers of the professional Leagues join. The Second Round Proper sees the teams from the second tier join and finally the Premier League teams join for the Third Round Proper. The Impact Rankings look a little like selecting the winner of the FA Cup long before the Third Round Proper.

Not The Only Game In Town

This is not to argue that many of the institutions who enter aren’t doing magnificent work in some areas related to the SDGs. But it does suggest that some institutions have recognized that the THE Impact Rankings are just another attempt to build rankings for commercial benefit and private equity gain or are simply unwilling to undertake the extra administration for little gain. There are also other channels, with Carnegie Mellon, Georgia Tech, Rice, Harvard and Northeastern not featuring in the Impact Rankings but all being mentioned in a recent United Nations Foundation blog highlighting innovative ways progress on the SDGs is being driven by universities in the US.

There is also increasing evidence that students are less interested in rankings and more focused on employability while interest in the SDGs seems less evident. The THE’s own research suggests that “only 16 per cent said they would choose a university that had a worse reputation for teaching and research if it had a better reputation for sustainability.” It may be that the refusal of significant numbers of universities to become involved is a sign that the merry go round of league table mania has passed its peak.

Note:

The title of this blog is a small nod to the classic tune “(What’s So Funny ‘Bout) Peace Love and Understanding” written by Nick Lowe and originally released by his band Brinsley Schwarz in 1974. It became more famous when recorded by Elvis Costello and the Attractions in 1978 but even then was only a B-side. It has been played by many artists to reflect hope in troubled times and the message seems very pertinent right now.

Image by Joan Cabras from Pixabay

*As a note of clarification. In its Overall Rankings list the THE only shows the top three scores of the institution plus their SDG17 ranking. They list separately, presumably for all institutions registering a score in the specific category, the ranking for each individual SDG. Thus, in 2021, 27 out of 75 Russian institutions had SDG 16 count towards their overall ranking but 49 were listed as having a score in the SDG 16 category.

AN ENGLISHMAN ABROAD AT LAST

Two and a half years of lockdown later I found myself back on Blighty’s breezy shores. Brighton hasn’t changed much but if anything it has slipped slightly further down the scrungy, bohemian, dissolute tube. I have never seen so many worn puffer jackets and threadbare jeans on hard-faced, hard-swearing individuals and the craziness quotient (measured by people speaking loudly to themselves) was at a record level.

The sartorial picture seems to have forbidden the wearing of socks, even when the trousers are what we knew as “ankle swingers” back in the day. It’s still difficult, however, to know how many inside leg sizes you have to cut back on to achieve trousers which are half-way down your buttocks while still managing to be half-way up the shin. Where socks are worn, white flannel seems to be back in fashion which is so Essex 1970s that I felt transported to a different era.

Where Brighton truly scores is in the number of pubs and it was a delight to spend an evening in the wonderful Mash Tun. Reminded me that one drunken night in the Basketmakers (known colloquially as the Basket Weavers) a group of INTO colleagues agreed we should start an app where we entered scores and a description for every pub in Brighton. Needless to say, the idea petered out when even that battle-hardened crew couldn’t really remember too much about the five they went to on the first night of the project.

It was enjoyable to return to good old-fashioned jay-walking without fear of getting some sort of ticket. It is de rigueur in Brighton not to wait for the green man to flash which is probably because some green painted weirdo is always likely to usurp the electronic one and assault you. My only disadvantage was that I could not remember which way to look first to make sure that I wasn’t under the wheels of the many buses that thunder up and down Western Road.

It all came while I was still a bit jet-lagged from the flight. Being met by English accents from the cabin crew was disorienting and reminded me how used I have become to people not pronouncing their ‘t’s and have a nice day replacing please and thank you. British Airways just doesn’t seem to update itself and there is something very comforting about that.

But what is it with the plastic money? The feel of a polymer bank note is unpleasant and troubling after nearly three years of only dealing with the linen/cotton mix bills in the US. You can’t decently have the conversation about paying your bills in the UK with “fifty folding” anymore and my own wallet can’t really cope with the springy, spongy resilience of the new notes. Don’t get me started on pound and two pound coins – I’ve got totally used to small denomination paper as a means of carrying cash that doesn’t shred every pocket in your trousers.

Restaurant culture is also very different and as I waited for an eternity to order one night I reflected on the determined, upbeat sunniness of California waiters. For the first time I had reason to think that a lower starting wage and the possibility of a bigger tip was something worth considering. When it came to the bill at the end of the evening it was explained to me that the bill contained a 10% gratuity that was “not mandatory”. Coming from a place where 15% is worth spending and 20% not uncommon I was glad to take it as a bargain.

What there is to love, is the pre-prepared egg and cress sandwiches in the M&S/Waitrose/Sainsbury food halls, Walkers Cheese and onion crisps and chocolate covered rice cakes. The US has either passed by or not reached these simple delights and every lunchtime order is beset with questions of white or brown, mayo or ketchup, large or larger. There is a lot to be said for self-selection of a basic set of carbohydrates and some relatively low-calorie sweet stuff to fill the midday gap.

Trains have not got any better and my four hour journey from Norwich to Manchester was spent standing up in close proximity to strangers who thought that mask-wearing was for the Lone Ranger, Zorro and Kendo Nagasaki. While the Famous 41 travelling fans of King’s Lynn FC were amusing and drank enough to sink several battleships (probably more given recent news about the Russia’s flagship Black Sea missile cruiser, the Moskva), it was less than wholesome to have people keeping the toilet open throughout the journey to give themselves some breathing space. I decided discretion was the better part of valour and avoided negotiating railworks and strike action on the route from Manchester to London on Easter Sunday – my tip is to use Blackberry Cars if you need to do the same.

In between there was a wonderful Old Trafford moment where Cristiano Ronaldo rolled back the years to score a hat-trick and secure victory over Norwich which made my visit worthwhile. The fact that Norwich are bottom of the league and my team shuffled, strained and faltered means nothing when the result is a close fought victory. Thanks Cristiano and I share the world’s sympathy for the devastating loss of your son this week.

Despite the lack of mask wearing and acceptance of rampant COVID rates there was a strong reminder that the UK has still not really caught up with being open for business. Along with hordes of tourists I trawled Oxford Street and several other major London shopping haunts on Easter Sunday to find only shoe shops and, bizarrely, American Candy retailers taking money. Most of the visitors were as bemused as me to find that not even MacDonalds had opened its doors to allow people to celebrate the resurrection with Big Mac.

It’s also a reminder that despite my best efforts, along with the Shopping Hours Reform Council, back in 1994 the UK remains unwilling to allow shops to serve customers when they want. Easter Sunday means shops over 3,000sq ft have to be closed and there was further regression in 2004 when legislation meant they had to close on Christmas Day even if it wasn’t a Sunday. All this despite a 2014 poll where 72% of people said they should be able to shop when its convenient for them.

It reminded me of the Thursday night in December 1994 when one of our ASDA PR coups was to open Clapham Junction store for 24-hours immediately before Christmas – the first superstore to take advantage of deregulation. People came from all over London and CEO Archie Norman was spotted packing bags at 2am in the morning as one of the PR team, Julie Eaton, whizzed products over the scanner. As Frankie Valli didn’t sing, “oh what a night, late December back in 94”.

It was a fine moment to rank alongside getting the Lord’s to table an amendment to the Shop Hours Act in 1994 to ensure that Good Friday did not have the same licensing hours in shops as Easter Sunday. The British Retail Consortium wouldn’t engage so I spent a lovely afternoon in the Lord’s tea room briefing a Labour peer who took up the challenge. Without the change people wouldn’t have been able to buy alcohol in stores on Good Friday before 10am and that would be dumb.

I even managed to complete the shopping task of a case load of UK chocolate, Malden Sea Flakes and a sunscreen that is not available in the US then get a COVID free test before I flew back to the sunny climes of California. Having got my second booster the week before going I gave myself the best chance but the trains, planes, pubs and 74,000 at Old Trafford must have tested my good fortune to the limit. A good trip all round and I’ll be back.

Image by Hands off my tags! Michael Gaida from Pixabay

Matryoshka Dolls for THE and Study Portals

The Times Higher Education made a big play about “solidarity with Ukraine, and our rejection of Russia’s aggression” back on 2 March, 2022 and said they will keep the situation under constant review. Despite all that has happened since then nothing seems to have changed in the THE response and they continue to promote Russian universities in their current league tables. They seem to have taken no action at all to reduce the THE Student promotion of Russian universities with detailed information about the institutions being routed through their partner in inaction Study Portals.

It’s a little like a Matryoshka (commonly known as Russian) Doll where the parts are nested inside each other so you can’t see the entire thing at once. The start is when a student searches on the THE Student site and finds that there are 359 courses in the Russian Federation and they are all given equal prominence to any other course.

The curious student clicks a specific course, say on Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, and finds that they can study this in Russia. The neat trick is that they have to go off to the Study Portals site to pursue their enquiries so THE can presumably say it is not having specific publicity about the institution on its site.

A month or so ago Study Portals said it was “terrified and upset at our core seeing the war in Ukraine unfold” but was cautious to not say anything about taking action to even reduce the prominence of Russian universities on its website. So here is the link from THE Student promoting study at Peter the Great St Petersburg Polytechnic University (SPbPU).

It probably goes without saying that Andrey I. Rudskoy, Rector of the University is one of the signatories to the infamous statement from the Russian Union of Rectors saying it is “..very important these days to support our country, our army, which defends our security, to support our President…”

Rector Rudskoy also comments in an interview that league table rankings are “a marketing tool for attracting external audiences and working with academic reputation”. His position echoes that of the Russian government in their desire for credibility and prestige through rankings. So it is no real surprise to see Study Portals focus on its rankings position.

And then the whole circle becomes complete with the list of league table rankings which Study Portals will be able to continue even if the Ukraine war goes on until next year because the THE are doing nothing to suspend Russian universities from their rankings. QS and US News and World Report also continue to promote the institutions.

To compound matters Study Portals has no compunction about promoting Russia as a study destination.

The page goes on to tell us about Russians who have become globally famous. “From athletes like Anna Kournikova and Maria Sharapova, to composers like Rachmaninoff, Tchaikovsky, or Shostakovich, to great authors like Nabokov, and Dostoyevsky (and all other “-evsky”s, and “-ov”s and “-ova”s), Russia gave us of the most influential people in history.”

Sharp eyed observers will note that of the two living people one became a US citizen in 2010 and the other has lived in the US since she was seven. The others are all dead and there is a conspicuous failure to mention the Russian who is the most globally influential and notorious at the current time. The word omission in the sentence probably reflects the care and attention to detail but does nothing to hide the flimsiness of the insight.

That’s it really. There are no notes on any of the pages to suggest that students might be wary of attending a country where they can be carted off to jail for using the world “war”. No reflection of the “assault on academic freedom” in Russia has accelerated in recent years with universities having their licenses suspended, students expelled, Government control of foreign academic collaboration and prevented academics attending international conferences.

Matryoshka dolls are often carved to reflect a theme and embody the concept of an idea within an idea. The idea that THE Student and Study Portals seem to be capturing is that everything is normal and there is no reason to raise realities or suggest that anything is amiss. That seems quite wrong.

More unity, less inaction needed from UK higher education

By Alan Preece published in University World News on 18 March 2022

United Kingdom higher education responses to the Russian invasion of Ukraine reflect the inability of the community to respond collectively, promptly or effectively to issues of importance. Umbrella groups and individual institutions stalled and prevaricated as they lagged behind other countries in responding to demands for concerted action.

It may have been a failure of planning, but other recent sector-wide issues suggest it may be a systemic point of failure in a sector where self-regulation and self-interest encourage inaction and obfuscation.

Fail to plan, plan to fail

The invasion started on 24 February, but the first statement by Universities UK was not until 28 February, which was an age given the potential to plan ahead and consider how to respond.

Even slower was the Russell Group, which did not manage a public response until 7 March, after the media had featured their lack of even the most basic of statements. Two weeks after the invasion there was still no statement on the Russell Group website.

By contrast, on the day after the invasion, the German Ministry of Education and Research said: “All current and planned activities with Russia are being frozen and subjected to critical review. There will be no new activities until further notice.”

By 4 March, the European Union had “decided to halt cooperation with Russian entities in research, science and innovation”, which included halting payments under existing contracts as well as making no new agreements. The Netherlands, Slovenia, Denmark and Lithuania had all reached the same position.

Universities UK was obliged to update its position when the Russian Union of Rectors (RUR) issued a statement on 4 March supporting “the Russian army and President Vladimir Putin’s decision to take military action in Ukraine”.

The response was to suspend a memorandum of understanding between Universities UK and the RUR, which coincided with the decision of the European University Association (of which Universities UK is a member) to suspend membership of 12 Russian university signatories. The sense of being bounced into defensive action rather than anticipating and leading continued to prevail.

Waiting is the hardest part

Perhaps UK higher education took its slow-walk lead from the glacial response of elements of the UK government.

On 27 February George Freeman MP, parliamentary under-secretary of state for science, research and innovation, tweeted that he had instigated a “rapid … review of all Russian beneficiaries (whether academic collaborators, companies or directors) of UK science, research, technology and innovation funding”.

By 7 March UK Research and Innovation was “pausing all payments to grants with potential Russian partners”, but saying, “we await further [British] government advice”.

More than two weeks later neither Freeman, UK Research and Innovation, nor the Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy had deigned to update their websites on the progress of the “rapid” review or its consequences.

Secretary of State for Education Nadhim Zahawi appears to have been sidelined from this issue, but recently promised to “crack down hard” on academics referred to by party colleague Robert Halfon MP as “useful idiots” for Putin. This looks like pandering to media attention rather than taking meaningful decisions about whether UK university links with Russian institutions are appropriate.

This may be another factor behind the delays by some UK universities in taking decisive action. Professor Colin Riordan, vice-chancellor of Cardiff University, a member of the Russell Group, told The Guardian on 4 March that “if the government were to tell his university to cut ties with Russia, it would do so because of the ‘bigger things at stake’.”

Professor Steve West, the president of the vice-chancellors’ group Universities UK, said: “I think we have to expect science sanctions … what is happening is a challenge on democracy and the safety and stability of the free world.”

At face value we appear to have institutions that are proud to promote their status as self-governing and autonomous, delaying taking decisive action until the government tells them what to do. Even when they acknowledge the threat to “the safety and stability of the free world” and the “bigger things at stake”, they seem unable to make a decision.

Governments in other countries may have recognised the capacity of universities to prevaricate and been wise to simply take the decision out of their hands.

At the individual university level, a number of institutions have demonstrated it is entirely possible to act promptly and with vigour. On 28 February the University of Warwick was reviewing all Russian links with a view to “terminating contracts where possible”. As early as 4 March the universities of Aberdeen, St Andrews and Dundee confirmed they had already cut ties with Russia and Edinburgh University was reviewing its investment stake in Sberbank.

By contrast, some universities have made no public statement, even of support for Ukraine, or have relied on the backstop position provided by Universities UK.

Keele University says: “We are working closely with other institutions in the UK higher education sector to coordinate our response.” This implies a joined-up response that is not evident in reality and exposes the tensions inherent in the sector.

A pattern of behaviour

For those who think this failure to unify is only a feature of a crisis, it is worth considering two other recent and important issues.

On 16 January 2022, six universities signed a pledge agreeing that victims of sexual harassment in universities should no longer be silenced by non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). It was wholeheartedly supported by Higher Education Minister Michelle Donelan, the National Union of Students and Universities UK, who claim to be the “collective voice” of 140 universities.

By 16 March, two months later, only 42 universities had signed the pledge which is held on the Can’t Buy My Silence website. It is difficult to think of anything simpler than committing to collective action on an issue of this type. Perhaps the reasons lie in the self-interest of a sector where a BBC News investigation in 2020 found nearly a third of universities had used NDAs for student grievances in a four-year period.

Back in 2020 there was pressure to stop the use of ‘conditional unconditional’ offers, with the higher education minister, the Office for Students and the National Union of Students agreeing they put students under undue pressure.

The practice was banned by the Office for Students from July 2020 to September 2021 and, following a Universities UK review, a new Fair Admissions Code of Practice was launched in March 2022. Despite the fanfare, the code is not compulsory and at the present time there is no indication on the websites of either Universities UK or co-developers GuildHE of who has signed up.

As recently as February 2022, the higher education minister had written to the University of Portsmouth, which continues to defend the use of such offers.

It is difficult to see that a code of conduct demonstrating the “higher education sector’s commitment to fair and transparent admissions practices” should be a matter of debate or contention. However, some in the sector stand by their option to secure competitive or other advantages by resisting uniform regulation or action in the interests of students.

Suspending links with universities significantly controlled by the Russian government, eradicating NDAs that silence victims of sexual harassment, and not agreeing to stop using conditional unconditional offers are obviously quite different examples. However, it is difficult to resist the argument that, even under situations where the free world’s “safety and stability” is at stake, the UK higher education sector needs to be told what to do.

It would seem better if they worked out how to act as a collective before they find patience wearing thin and face a more direct approach to their decision-making.

Alan Preece is an expert in global education, business transformation and operational management and runs the blogging site View from a Bridge.

Time To Lead

It’s been a week where the situation in Ukraine has gone from bad, to worse, to terrifying. Written from a distance of several thousand miles that doesn’t even begin to do justice to the lives of the people who are being shelled and bombed on a daily basis. In the face of such naked aggression the UK higher education sector has let itself down by declining to stand together, let along stand with Ukraine, in stopping institutional links with Russian universities.

The final straw may be the publication of a statement by the Russian Union of Rectors who describe the invasion and its consequences as “events that excite every citizen of Russia”. They describe their main duty as being to “to conduct a continuous educational process, to educate patriotism in young people, the desire to help the Motherland” and call on people to “rally around our President”. Regrettably, the statement suggests that Russian universities have, either by choice or coercion, fallen completely under state control.

Before the autonomous, self-governing institutions of the UK begin to admire themselves and their independence it would be good to consider what the two leading umbrella groups have to say about the issue of severing links. Prof Colin Riordan, the vice-chancellor of Cardiff University, a member of the Russell Group, told the Guardian that “if the government were to tell his university to cut ties with Russia, it would do so because of the “bigger things at stake”.” Prof Steve West, the president of the vice-chancellors’ group Universities UK, said, “I think we have to expect science sanctions….what is happening is a challenge on democracy and the safety and stability of the free world.”

Two leading figures recognizing that the future of the “free world” and “bigger things” are at stake but without the moral fibre, good sense or humanity to ensure that their university groups take a stand. They would sooner wait for the Government to tell them what to do than to show leadership or act like the independent institutions they are expected to be. That begins to sound remarkably like the Rectors of the Russian Union waiting for the Government to tell them what statement to make.

The dithering and self-serving went so far that Universities UK had to be prodded to make any sort of statement about the Ukraine crisis and as of Monday 7 March the Russell Group has no statement at all on its website. The Russell Group claims it “represents 24 leading UK universities. We believe people and ideas are the key to meeting global challenges”. It seems to me that on this occasion they and their members have failed to either recognize or meet the most obvious and present global challenge before them.

There is plenty of evidence in front of the Russell Group and UniversitiesUK that it is possible to take decisive action in cutting links without their privileged and cloistered worlds falling in. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Warwick, the European Commission, the universities of Germany, Estonia and Lithuania, Russian scientists and science journalists, and many others have expressed their revulsion. The editor of the Journal of Molecular Structure even very carefully explained how it is possible to sanction institutional links while allowing individual academics to continue participating.

We also know that some institutions are acting with the universities of Aberdeen, St Andrews and Dundee saying they have already cut ties with Russia and Edinburgh is reviewing its investment stake in Sberbank. In England, unfortunately, the supposedly urgent review of science and innovation ties that George Freeman MP announced with a flourish on 27 February has not yet had an outcome. Eight days later there is no outcome.

I’d thank all of those who have taken action and those who continue to press their institutions to do the right thing. Cutting institutional ties is not the same as banning discussions between individual academics or ceasing support for students from Russia both of which should continue with due regard for everyone’s safety. Neither is it to deny the very real demonstrations against Putin’s Government that have been held in Russia where individuals are literally taking their lives in their hands to stand up for what is right.

But to everything there is a season and it is time to take action in suspending university links before they become normalized under the most oppressive of circumstances. There will be a time to review whether these sanctions can be lifted and whether they serve any purpose. We can all hope that is a moment that is not too long in coming.

CHINA CRISIS FOR US PATHWAYS?

My early January blog on the two big US pathway operators focused on specific examples of INTO University Partnership’s (INTO) pathway problems without similar insights into some of Shorelight’s major partners. There had been some insights into lacklustre performance at Louisiana State University, Auburn University and the University of Kansas back in October 2019 (Shine a Light on Shorelight) but an update is overdue. There is also some news from INTO as it confirms new faces in senior management* and some fundamental changes in its relationship with university partners.

In the US the most significant point is that INTO has become the sole owner of what was established as a joint-venture with St Louis University. This follows the closure of joint venture operations at Marshall, Washington State and Colorado state over the past two years. INTO’s annual report does not list any shareholding in the pathway at Hofstra University so it now has only seven joint-venture partnerships in the US.

The big question, given that all of the most recent US announcement from both INTO and Shorelight have been for direct entry partnerships, is whether the bubble has totally burst on pathways. Without a significant return of students from China it is difficult to see that predominantly graduate growth from India is going to sustain them. Looking at the way enrollments have panned out in Fall 2021 suggests this could be the direction of travel.

Shorelight Stumble at Auburn And American

American University is generally reputed to be one of the star performers in the Shorelight portfolio but the enrollments reflect the harsh realities of the pandemic. The numbers indicate that enrollments in Accelerator/Collegiate/PSE courses were already in decline before Fall 2019. Despite the limited bounceback in overall enrollments to the US reported by Open Doors in Fall 2021 there is no evidence the Shorelight pathways are seeing an upturn.

Source: American University Office of Institutional Research and Assessment

The story continues when American University’s total Fall enrollments are reviewed. Separate axis are used to reflect the significant difference in volume between Chinese an Indian students and the only upturn in Fall 2021 was in Indian graduate students (about 10 students more year on year). The decline in Chinese undergraduates begins the year after the fall in Accelerator/Collegiate decline and suggests the longer term vulnerability that American University has to declining Chinese numbers.

Source: American University Office of Institutional Research and Assessment

The combined enrollments in the first and second term Global Masters Accelerator at Auburn University shows similar characteristics but with even more significant declines in volume. Total enrollment has fallen from a peak of 87 in 2017 to just 11 in Fall 2021 with the decline in Chinese students driving the outcome. Attracting students from India to pathway programs seems unlikely to make up the shortfall.

Source: Auburn University Office of Institutional Research

Less Spirit at INTO Saint Louis University

Saint Louis University has seen a significant shift in direct enrollment graduate numbers in 2021 with Indian students outnumbering those from China. This does not, however, go far enough to counterbalance the decline in Chinese undergraduates over the past five enrollment years. Evidence from other INTO pathway operations has shown that this plays out even more dramatically at pathway level because Indian graduate students generally have less need of the services provided.

Source: Saint Louis University Office of Institutional Research

INTO St Louis (INTO SLU) was first established as a joint venture in September 2017, becoming, at the time, the seventh INTO partner in the US. Between the financial reporting in 2018 and 2020 the debt owed by the joint venture to INTO had grown from £1.8m to £3.5m and the current circumstances suggest there is little likelihood of it being repaid in the near future. If pathways are not enrolling sufficient students they quickly become unviable and need significant financial support from parent organizations.

INTO’s most recent Annual Report is coy on the matter and simply reports that “subsequent to the year end INTO’s shareholding in INTO SLU LLC increased to 100%”. Having lost three pathways in recent years there was probably little appetite for losing another partner. The upswing in interest from Indian students may have tipped the balance to continue a pathway while getting exclusive rights for direct enrollment of international students.

Overall, INTO’s US operations all appear to be increasingly indebted to them with even USF slipping from creditor to debtor in the most recent report and accounts. While it is reasonable to expect new businesses to take a while to get into profit INTO hasn’t opened a joint venture in the US since Illinois State University in 2018 since when the total level of indebtedness across all US operations has nearly doubled from £18m to £35m.

Source: INTO University Partnership Annual Reports***

The most recent accounts for INTO Illinois State University LLC (INTO ISU) make quite interesting reading with the financial deal including a Promissory Note with INTO North America which allows borrowing up to $6m in operating capital with an interest rate of 6%. Another number that catches the eye is that marketing expenses were an eye watering 77% of tuition revenue. The pandemic caused the LLC to cease operations for a period of up to 23 months, effective August 1, 2020 (the “Deferment Term”) and it will be interesting to see what happens next.

China Crisis for Pathways?

It is no secret that the early growth of pathways in the US owed an enormous amount to English Language scholarship students from Saudi Arabia and the acceleration of incoming students from China. As numbers of the former fell away pathways became increasingly reliant on the latter which made the COVID-19 situation particularly difficult. The $64 million dollar (sic) (and maybe more) question is whether the future will see a significant return to those pre-pandemic conditions.

Looking on the bright side might involve pointing to the growth in Chinese undergraduate applicants to the UK (up 12% year on year in January 2022) for entry later this year. A more negative view might be reflected in the range of reasons summed up in “How Washington’s hawkish China policy alienates young Chinese”. Optimists could point to the recent ending of the “crackdown on Chinese research ties” while pessimists would suggest that the countries are “locked in a stalemate”.

Back in 2014, Peggy Blumenthal, a 30-years at IIE and a senior counselor to its then president, Allan Goodman, discussed the underlying issues with Science magazine and its worth a look. China had devoted significant resources to build graduate capacity, more of the professors had been trained in the US and Europe, and even at that time “the added value of a U.S. graduate degree has shrunk in relation to a comparable Chinese degree…for the vast majority of Chinese students.” It’s arguable that the quality of Chinese universities has increased further and that there has been little to significantly increase the lure of a Western degree.

What is also clear is that, as discussed in a recent blog, 2022 is likely to be the first year that all four major recruiting companies are competing effectively at the same time and there have been a number of increasingly powerful entrants to add to the mix. There seems every likelihood of continuing international tensions and the potential for students to be “weaponized” by their home government as a form of economic and cultural sanction.

The most prestigious universities in traditional recruiting countries have little need to worry but the early signs from Fall 2021 are not particularly encouraging for universities or pathway operators that have relied on Chinese students paying high fees. While the growth of graduate students from India might provide some direct recruitment solace for universities this is not going to resolve the issues facing the pathway sector. Shorelight appears to have already set its sights on building a direct recruitment portfolio of institutions over and above any pathway interest but since the University of Arizona announcement in June 2020 INTO appears to have no obvious sense of direction to face the changing market dynamics.

Notes

*Tom Hands has recently joined as Chief Recruitment Officer. He has previously worked in recruitment positions for Study Group, Navitas and Kaplan. Namrata Sarmah joined at the end of 2021 as Chief Product Officer having previously been Senior Director of Product at ViacomCBS

**As ever, research is presented in good faith but with a recognition that classifications of courses can be complex. I am happy to receive any authoritative corrections (with explanations) and would record them as notes on this blog.

***A review on 1 September 2022 showed that the INTO University Partnerships Annual Reports for 2020 and 2021 carry different figures in reporting of debtor information for INTO Washington State University and INTO Illinois State University. In the Report to July 31 2020 the debtor levels are shown as £3.156m and £5.438m respectively while in the Report to July 31 2021 (which shows the prior year as a comparison alongside the current year) the debtor levels are shown as £1.873m and £3.365m respectively. The July 31 2021 Report appears to make this change due to a prior year restatement and the graph has been adjusted to reflect that. This does not alter the explanatory text in the paragraph immediately before the graph.

India Stealing a March on China for UK Universities

Back in March 2021 my blog considered the way that shifts in recruitment volumes between India and China could have a significant impact for higher education institutions. The release of the latest HESA statistics by UK institution have borne out the hypothesis. Building on another theme they also suggest that the value of league tables as a recruitment aid will rapidly diminish as students from strengthening recruitment markets ignore UniVanity rankings to pursue value and employment opportunities.

Between 2019/20 and 2020/21 the total number of students from India recorded by HESA was 84,555, an increase of 29,090 year on year. 54% of the increase (15,616) went to just 13 universities. Those ‘full offering’ universities growing by over 1,000 year on year to 2020/21 were all in the top ten for growth from 2018/19 to 2019/21. BPP University’s growth was noted last year and is included in the table below to emphasise the importance of institutions who position themselves as “building careers through education”.

	Volume growth 2019/20 to 2020/21	Volume growth 2018/19 to 2019/20
University of Hertfordshire	2355	1575
Ulster University	2040	1230
University of East London	1505	1710
BPP University	1485	1640
The University of Central Lancashire	1185	1180
Coventry University	1030	810

A couple of interesting features in the year-on-year comparisons is that the biggest year on year loser of students from India at -455 is De Montfort University (DMU) while Leicester University, in the same city, grew by 780. This could be a policy-led decision by De Montfort under its relatively new leadership or it might be that private recruitment partner Navitas has been able to help Leicester dominate over DMU’s pathway provider Oxford International Education Group. In another snippet of pathway related detail Study Group registered a loss of 595 students year on year from China while growing numbers from India by 230.

As in the previous years Russell Group universities made very little headway in increasing their numbers from India with the University of Glasgow’s +200 looking to be top of the pile. But unlike the previous year numbers from China have fallen away significantly for some. The table below shows the top ten for volume growth in the previous year compared to the latest HESA figures.

	Volume growth 2019/20 to 2020/21	Volume growth 2018/19 to 2019/20
Edinburgh	995	1410
Leeds	-335	1235
Southampton	-445	1190
Sheffield	400	1150
UCL	2975	1065
Manchester	2115	885
Birmingham	-430	860
Newcastle	-385	855
Kings College	1460	725
Nottingham	-750	725

This reinforces the potential for changes in recruitment markets making significant differences to the potential of individual universities to invest for the future. A stark example of this might be Nottingham where the Russell Group University of Nottingham (UN) lost 750 students from China and had 75 fewer from India – a net loss of 825. Nottingham Trent University (NTU) saw numbers from China decline by 95 but those from India up by 140.

At one level this could be an interesting test for private pathway partner Kaplan who service both universities. But more fundamentally level its worth reflecting that NU’s tuition fee for a Management PGT degree is £24,500 compared to NTU’s £18,000. As a value proposition it may be that the extra 36% on the price is simply not justifiable to a student who is self-funding. It is also reasonable to consider that UN’s decline in Chinese enrollments may be a feature of individuals choosing not to transfer from the campus in China during COVID and may right itself in time.

It seems difficult to argue that the driving force of the India market is not going to have a growing impact on the UK higher education scene. Universities that have long relied on their historical status and ranking to persuade wealthy, brand conscious students to enrol may find that self-funded students whose main ambition is to work in the UK after studying are less easy to lure. Price points and graduate outcomes could become far more powerful signals than whether the THE, QS and AWUR algorithms choose to favour the rich, old and elitist.