Category: Recruitment

  • UCAS End of Cycle, 2025: access and participation

    UCAS End of Cycle, 2025: access and participation

    While one end of your university is focused entirely on the number of undergraduate students that get a place (and pay a fee) each year, another equally important driver is who these students are and where they come from.

    A part of the initial quid pro quo offered to the sector when we lost the last vestiges of student number control and managed expansion in 2012 was that some of this new capacity would be made available for students from non-traditional backgrounds – and that this would happen from everywhere: from the poshest ancient university to the most practical and locally-focused further education college.

    Though regulators all over the UK do keep an eye on how providers are doing at making this egalitarian dream a reality, in England at least the focus has been more on what providers are doing to widen access (and how they know it is working) and less on the actual numbers or entry rates.

    Deprivation

    UCAS has always provided data on what proportion of main scheme UK applicants from major demographics end up with an offer. Because of some smart choices by UCAS in its data design, I can also offer you an main scheme acceptance rate: the proportion of applications that end up with an accepted offer.

    (UCAS main scheme? That’s the one where an applicant applies to up to five courses before the 30 June deadline. It doesn’t include stuff like direct entry to clearing, or records of prior acceptance – where someone applies directly to the provider.)

    We don’t get as many metrics as we used to (what’s happened to UCAS’ own Multiple Equality Measure, or MEMs, I wonder) – and I’ve chosen to look at indices of multiple deprivation as a common way of thinking about participation from economically disadvantaged small areas. There are four of them (SIMD, WIMD, NIMD, and IMD – one for each home nation) and it makes no sense to see them all on one graph. By default we are seeing England (more data points!) but you can also choose to see Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland using the “nations/regions” filter.

    You choose your quintile of interest at the top (default is one, the most deprived 20 per cent), a year (default is 2025), chosen measure (offer rate or acceptance rate) and Age (default is “all”). This changes the display at the top: an ordered plot of providers, with the size of the dot showing the number of accepted students. Mouse over a dot to show annual proportions by quintile for main scheme applications, offers, and accepted applicants.

    [Full screen]

    By default you can see the proportion of applications that end with an accepted applicant – but a low score does not mean a provider is terrible at widening access. Recall there are a lot of variables here, with as much to do with student choice (or portfolio) and performance as what the provider does. For this reason the offer rate (how many applications end with an offer being made) is a more popular measure.

    Entry qualifications

    I feel like I keep saying this, but you can’t really talk about access without talking about what qualifications an applicant is likely to be bringing with them. A level performance is a spectacular proxy for how rich your parents are and how nice your house is – even the choice to take A levels is less common among disadvantaged groups.

    On the first issue we still don’t get data on actual (A level or tariff) points at provider level as structured data. The data exists – it’s on course pages at an individual course level, but supposedly it is far too commercially powerful to publish openly in a structured way at provider level. It feels like a policy from another age, and it doesn’t make anyone look good.

    The best we get is a provider-level look at the types of qualification held by accepted applicants (and those that get offers). I’ve not plotted this to enable comparison, but it is fascinating to find individual providers slowly moving away from recruiting A level students only and into the “other” qualification that suggest mature learners, and (less clearly) local rather than national recruitment.

    [Full screen]

    Unconditional

    Back at the end of the 2010s there was a great deal of policy concern around the idea of unconditional offers. This was eventually refined into the “conditional unconditional offer”, a situation where a “firm” commitment from an applicant was rewarded with a lack of insistence on a particular set of grades or tariff points.

    Though there were often valid reasons given for direct unconditional offers (for example, when admission to an arts course was by portfolio, or where – rarely – a provider set its own entrance exams or used a detailed interview process to inform selection) nobody ever really managed to convincingly defend the conditional unconditional offer in a way that stopped being banned (with the briefest of blips when it was accidentally unbanned for a month or so in the 2022 cycle). It was odd as the best available evidence showed that such offers didn’t have an impact on student outcomes.

    I’ve been starting to hear stories about a growth in other forms of unconditional offers in this last cycle – the pressure to lock in applicants may be prompting usual academic requirements to be suspended or lowered. The available data suggest a very slight growth in “other unconditional offers” that regulators may want to keep an eye on, but only back to roughly 2023 levels from a slight dip last year.

    [Full screen]

    In England, at least, we’ve rather taken our eye off the ball when it comes to participation metrics – they exist, but there’s very little (other than the required existence of an access and participation plan for those who want to charge higher fees) to connect them to regulation. There have been some suggestions from ministers that this may change, and if you are in planning or strategy you may wish to get yourself reacquainted with the state of the art in 2025.

    Source link

  • UCAS End of Cycle, 2025: provider recruitment strategies

    UCAS End of Cycle, 2025: provider recruitment strategies

    On the face of it, running a successful recruitment round is fairly straightforward.

    It’s a bit like making a salad. Everything needs to look fresh and appetising, and you don’t want too much of one thing in case people don’t like it.

    I mean, it’s not rocket science.

    The provider level data from UCAS nicely illustrates the other, less straightforward end of the equation. We know surprisingly little about what applicants actually want to do, and where they want to do it.

    Sure, there’s near-certainties – medicine at UCL is unlikely to want for well-qualified applicants any time soon – but some things are rather less expected. Computing and IT focused courses, which have been growing in popularity for years, appear to have hit a wall. Is it the onset of generative AI “vibe coding” hitting employment prospects? Is it a change in the public perception of technology companies?

    We pretty much know it is affordability (and the slow atrophy of the student maintenance system) that prompts applicants from less advantaged socio-economic backgrounds to choose to study locally. But we don’t know why selective providers that have historically recruited nationally have decided en masse to move into this very specialised market, or what changes they have made to their standard teaching (and indeed offer-making) approach to make this work.

    It’s questions like these that make the insights available from this year’s UCAS End of Cycle data so fascinating, and the choice of data that is released so frustrating.

    The Russell Group ate my students!

    There’s been a lot of talk (and a lot of quite informed data driven evidence) to suggest that traditionally selective providers have been accepting students with uncharacteristically low grades in greater numbers than in previous years.

    A couple of unexpected new additional data tables shed a little more light. This last (2025) cycle saw selective (high tariff) providers recruit more students with 15 A level points or below than in any previous year – while medium tariff providers are doing less well in students with between 9 and 11 points than any year outside the pandemic, and low tariff providers had their worst year on record for between 10 and 12 points, and their worst year since the pandemic for between 8 and 6 points.

    [Full screen]

    A level points? Yes, for reasons best known to UCAS this is not the same as tariff points (so only includes A level performance, not vocational qualifications or grade 8 piano). You get 6 points for an A*, down to 1 point for an E – and only your best three A levels count. So 12 points means three Bs or thereabouts.

    The counter story is that this change in behavior hasn’t shifted the overall averages by that much. For high tariff providers the average accepted applicant has 13.9 A level points (down from 14 last year or 14.3 in 2016 – that’s round about AAB. Medium tariff is about BCC (10.4), Lower tariff is near enough CCC (9.4 – up very slightly on the historic average).

    [Full screen]

    Usually I’d suggest that this stasis is down to a regular recalculation of tariff groups – but I know that the last time UCAS allocated providers to groups was back in 2012. We’ve also never been told which providers are in which tariff group – this is a different split to the DfE or OfS variants, unhelpfully. And we don’t get data on A level (or tariff) points by provider, which would offer a much more helpful level of granularity to this point of sector-wide interest.

    A peep at provider strategies

    There’s been a welcome update to the release of the provider level End of Cycle dataset: previously we used to get offermaking only within a rather vestigial dataset known as “equalities” – 2025 adds the offermaking data plus a range of new equalities parameters to the main provider level release.

    For all tariff bands or sector-level data is interesting, the increasing diversity of (and increasing competition within) the sector means that provider-level changes in behavior are by far the most interesting component of this release. The new information means that the chart that you lost your morning to last year is now looking very likely to make you lose your entire day.

    This is a complex but powerful dashboard, which shows the difference between the most recent year (2025) of data and a comparator year you can choose (by default last year but you can choose any year since 2019) across two dimensions (you can choose from applications, offers, and accepted applicants for each). I’ve added filters by domicile (UK, international, or all) and subject group (the familiar top level – CAH1 – list).

    It’s a lot of data on one chart, so I’ve added a group filter, which by default removes some smaller providers from the display – and there’s a highlighter to help you find a provider of interest.

    A dot being further up or further right means that measure has grown between the comparator year and the current year, further down or further left means it has shrunk.

    [Full screen]

    There’s a nearly infinite number of stories to tell from this chart. Here’s some notable ones.

    Firstly Canterbury Christ Church University has accepted substantially fewer applicants in 2025 than in 2024. A dig around in the data suggests that decline is focused on UK domiciled applicants studying business subjects, which suggests to me that this shows the end of one or more franchise or partnership arrangements. I asked Canterbury Christ Church University for a comment – nothing yet but I’ll add it if it comes in – I’d imagine that this is the most visible of a wave of providers calculating that the increasing regulatory risk (with both OfS and DfE taking action) is not worth the hassle of running such provision – I’m tentatively pointing at Buckinghamshire New University and Oxford Brookes University as other similar (but smaller) examples).

    Not all of the Russell Group is following the same recruitment strategy – there are instances (Nottingham, Glasgow, Cardiff) where fewer applicants have been accepted than in 2024. Some Russell Group providers (for example Leeds, York, Southampton, and Cardiff) have seen fewer applications than in previous years – the first three in that list have nevertheless increased acceptances over last year. Because we can now see the number of offers made using the filters at the top, it is apparent that the entire group (excepting Cardiff and Southampton) made more offers than last year.

    League leaders

    If you are playing along with the dashboard you’ll have spotted that University College London accepted nearly 2,500 more applicants than last year (after making a genuinely startling 12,000 more offers) . The majority of this increase (2,290 accepted applicants, 10,650 offers) related to international applicants – with growth in pretty much every subject area contributing to this performance.

    That’s not the largest growth in accepted applicants, however (it’s the second largest). For the league leaders, we look to the University of Wolverhampton – which accepted an impressive 3,625 extra applicants compared to last year. Unlike UCL, these are all UK-domiciled students, and nearly all (2,970) are studying business subjects. To me, this suggests a new partnership – I asked Wolverhampton about this, and am waiting to hear back.

    But who made the most offers in 2025? For international students, it’s UCL and it isn’t even close. But for home students it was the University of Exeter, which made 7,130 more UK domiciled offers this year than last year (a total of 37,515 offers in the 2025 cycle!) across a mix of subject areas. Exeter wasn’t able to get me a comment before publication – I’ll add one if it comes in later.

    And I did promise a look at computing recruitment. It is a decline in both applications and acceptances pretty much across the board – with the exception of an 800 student growth in accepted applicants at Bath Spa University. UCL did recruit 40 more students than last year, but this is against a 1,520 decline in applications. There’s still a bit of growth at the University of Manchester, and the University of York – but note also Escape Studios (a growing independent visual effects specialist that was once known as Pearson College, which delivers degrees validated by the Coventry University).

    School leavers

    I’ve also put together a version of this chart that shows only the recruitment of 18 year olds. The direct path between school or college and university is no longer the dominant one in the UK, and hasn’t been for some time – but in policymaking and political discussions it is still where minds tend to go.

    [Full screen]

    Focusing on UK 18 year olds, we can see that the University of Exeter has grown most spectacularly compared to last year on applications, offers, and acceptances. Large amounts of growth in this part of the market tends to be concentrated in more selective providers, but we can also see credible performances from big civic providers like Nottingham Trent University, Manchester Metropolitan University, and Liverpool John Moores University.

    Conversely we can see smaller but notable declines in applications and acceptances from providers including the University of the West of England, Birmingham City University, and the University of East London. The noticeable pattern is that there is no pattern – recruitment among school leavers can go cold anywhere at any time it would seem. And there are some ways around this – both the University of York (up 1,285) and the University of Leeds (up 3,180) upped school-leaver offer making despite a small decline in applications

    A sense of the sector

    Competition is clearly heating up. For those who have hit on a winning recruitment formula, the challenge becomes a need to ensure that every additional undergraduate gets the high quality experience they have been led to expect. An increase in fee income is almost all going to go to investment in capacity (be that more staff, retaining existing staff, or providing more resources). If your expansion has been into applicant groups you have little experience in teaching, the need to invest rises.

    Conversely, for those who have yet to hit upon the way to attract applications reliably there will already have been internal discussions about what needs to be done or what needs to change. Recruitment can and does figure in portfolio review and course revalidation questions: all of which comes down to whether a provider can afford to do what it would like to continue doing. Losing resources or capacity is a very last resort – once you wave goodbye to a course or department it is very difficult to spin back up.

    There will also be attention paid to sector trends – the kind of stuff I plotted back in December when we got the first phase of the End of Cycle release. Is it something your provider is doing, or a more general societal change, that means recruitment is growing or shrinking on a particular course. These are difficult, painful conversations, and need careful, considered, responses.

    Source link

  • The international recruitment market is changing – and international education strategies will need to change with it

    The international recruitment market is changing – and international education strategies will need to change with it

    If you work anywhere near international student recruitment in the UK right now, chances are you’re feeling it: the tension; the uncertainty; the quiet panic behind friendly webinar smiles and networking events where we gather with peers. Is there some comfort in realising it’s not just you? The recruitment landscape really has shifted – and it’s shifted fast.

    For years, the UK felt like a safe bet. We’ve dined out on a strong reputation, our many world-class universities and our significant English-language advantage, which has given us a steady flow of students from our key markets. Looking back on the year just gone, it’s not hard to see why it feels like we’ve been living through a crisis.

    The international student levy and student demand

    The announcement of the international student levy sent shockwaves through the sector. There has been much focus on the potential material impacts to universities, but there is also a significant symbolic effect among prospective international students.

    At a time when international students are already facing rising tuition fees, higher living costs, currency volatility, and visa expenses, the levy feels like yet another barrier. Even if institutions absorb the levy cost, the levy has already done time in the court of public opinion, and the “international student tax” perception is out there. The most recent iteration of our student perceptions research, Emerging Futures 8, saw that three of the top five reasons international students decline their offer to study internationally are financially linked: the cost of tuition is beyond their financial reach; the cost of living has become too expensive; and the student visa cost has become too high.

    While institutions and the British public are being encouraged to look at it as an investment in other areas of HE, from a student’s perspective, it doesn’t read as investment. It reads as “you’re welcome… but at a price.” We saw a similar proposal come and go in Australia pre-election. The Australian Universities Accord panel considered and ultimately ruled out a levy, on the grounds of both the damage to Australia’s international appeal, and the significant headache in administering it

    If we put ourselves in the shoes of a student weighing up studying in the UK versus studying in Germany, the UK option now comes with higher tuition fees to offset domestic fees, the NHS surcharge, an increase in maintenance amounts, a steep visa fee and now, an additional levy. Meanwhile, Germany is saying low or no tuition, post-study work routes and growing English-taught provision. Even if the UK still offers higher prestige, the financial psychology is changing, and we know that matters.

    The countries that traditionally send students to the UK are facing shrinking job markets. And while students are still interested in international qualifications, the tone has shifted from aspirational to transactional with a strong emphasis on whether UK study is “really worth it.”

    The quiet squeeze of the BCA

    The BCA (Basic Compliance Assessment) framework is another pressure point, and it hits universities unevenly. On paper, it’s about quality and credibility, which no one disputes works to safeguard the reputation of the UK. But operationally, it’s becoming a quiet limiter on recruitment ambition. If an institution’s refusal rate climbs, its recruitment strategy tightens. If dependency on a single market becomes too visible, risk tolerance drops. And suddenly, growth opportunities shrink.

    That’s not because the demand isn’t there, but because the risk feels too high, with real consequences: fewer bold recruitment experiments; less appetite for new or emerging markets; more conservative agent partnerships and reduced flexibility in offer-making. The result? A recruitment environment that’s more cautious than creative.

    Sliding demand for the UK

    For a long time, the UK competed largely on reputation. Now, while the UK is still in the conversation, it no longer owns the room. The UK still has world-class education, but these days, so does everyone else. While UK institutions were navigating Brexit fallout, policy uncertainty, immigration messaging shifts and now compliance tightening, our competitors were building momentum. Students are more informed than ever. They compare graduate salaries, post-study work options, cost of living, the political climate, safety, and mental health support as well as prestige and reputation. But the recruitment decision is no longer just academic – it’s deeply geopolitical and financial, with a focus on ROI.

    The UK is no longer the automatic first choice destination it once was. Emerging Futures 8 puts Australia out front, with the UK second, ahead of the USA. But this doesn’t mean demand has collapsed. It means it has fragmented.

    We’re seeing a softening in traditional high-volume markets, slower conversion from offer to enrollment and more students holding multiple destination options later into the cycle. In fact, the same survey showed that now only 12 per cent of students apply for one destination – meaning 88 per cent of students are considering multiple options and they are holding onto those options much later down the recruitment funnel than in previous years. This also goes some way to explaining why institutional modelling of admissions is not as accurate as it has been in the past.

    At the same time, countries like France and Germany are stepping confidently into the spotlight. France has aggressively expanded English-taught programmes, particularly at Masters level. Business schools, engineering schools and public universities are all in the mix. Add lower tuition and growing post-study work routes, and suddenly France is no longer Plan B but a plausible first-choice option.

    Germany, meanwhile, has quietly built one of the most attractive international education propositions in the world: minimal or zero tuition, strong industry links, STEM leadership and a welcoming post-study work ecosystem. Layer in concerted campaigns from Poland, Spain, Turkey, Korea, China and Hong Kong to attract international students and you’ve got a busier marketplace than UK HE has ever had to contend with.

    What this means in 2026

    Despite all of the rather gloomy realities I’ve outlined, I see no reason why the UK should concede its market advantage without a fight – we are looking forward to working with our partners in 2026 to do just that. But winning back market share will mean recognising that the UK is no longer competing from a position of automatic advantage. We’re competing in a truly global marketplace where value matters as much as prestige, policy signals shape perception, compliance restricts agility, and cost sensitivity is rising everywhere.

    The institutions that will thrive are the ones that diversify markets meaningfully (not just on paper), invest in authentic student support, build real industry and employability pipelines, strengthen agent relationships as partnerships, and tell clearer, more honest value stories to students. As the government puts the final touches to its international education strategy, there is much opportunity to sustain and even extend international education, but any strategy that depends on “recruit as many as we can” without thinking deeply about how the offer lands in the international student market, is not likely to see long term success.

    Because right now, the world isn’t waiting for the UK to catch up. The world has already moved on, and our future students have moved with it.

    This article is published in association with IDP Education.

    Source link

  • UCAS End of Cycle sector level data, 2025

    UCAS End of Cycle sector level data, 2025

    There’s any number of stories that can be told from UCAS’ sector level end of cycle data release.

    UCAS itself, for instance, focuses on the new data on student residence intentions – 31 per cent of 18 year old applicants in 2025 intend to live at home (rising to 46 per cent in Scotland).

    If we add in information on deprivation (IMD) and acceptance route, we learn that 50 per cent of the less advantaged quintile of students aged 18 intend to live at home while studying, compared to just 18 per cent of their peers in quintile 5.

    And there are interesting regional variations – two thirds of the least advantaged 18 year old accepted applicants in Scotland intend to live at home (mouse over the map to see the regional breakdowns – and of course UK wide IMD isn’t a thing so treat that as indicative only).

    Likewise, 75 per cent of the least advantaged group applying via main scheme Clearing will be living at home.

    [Full screen]

    Tariff wars

    But you know and I know there has only been one recruitment story this year, and it is one that is best described via a very familiar chart:

    [Full screen]

    Higher tariff (what we once called “selective”) providers are recruiting more 18 year old students than ever before, a trend that has become more prominent since the end of pandemic restrictions. The chart above shows acceptance rates, demonstrating that – simply put – as an 18 year old you are now substantially more likely to end up at a high tariff provider if you apply there.

    One of the commonly proposed explanations for this phenomenon is the way in which applicants are using the “decline my place” functionality (on the UCAS platform since 2019) to trade up to a more prestigious provider. But the data neatly disproves this – movement tends to be within rather than between tariff bands:

    [Full screen]

    So what else might be going on?

    We also get data by tariff group and acceptance route in this release – and from that we can see some very interesting underlying trends. Here the thick bars are the proportions and the thin ones the raw numbers, with the colours showing acceptance routes.

    [Full screen]

    Gradually higher tariff providers have been taking a lower proportion of their 18 year old students via firm acceptances, and a higher proportion from other main scheme choices (including clearing). But this shift needs to be set against enormous expansion in numbers across the board – high tariff providers took more 18 year olds overall this year than their entire 2019 intake, and more firm or insurance 18 year old applicants this year than their entire 2023 intake.

    In contrast, proportions of 18 year olds by route have stayed broadly similar by proportion in medium and low providers, with medium tariff numbers staying steady and low tariff numbers slowly falling.

    More data please?

    So, even though high tariff providers have been slightly more active in clearing than in recent years (and even then, it is not outside of historic proportions) the growth comes simply from making offers to more applicants who apply to them, and then accepting them.

    What I really wanted to know is on what terms. There’s already a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that high-tariff providers are making low tariff offers – and I was hoping that this release would give us the data we needed to be sure.

    But UCAS has always been very coy about the association between tariff groups and the actual grades they accept. I can kind of understand the commercial in confidence arguments about detailed data at provider level (but the more I think about it the less I do…) – I cannot see any reason why we are not allowed to see grades by tariff group.

    So I am taking a roundabout route using the data we have got, and we start by looking at the relationship between achieved A level points and POLAR4 quintiles. I’ve generally held the opinion that A levels are a fantastic way of telling how middle class an 18 year old applicant is so there are no surprises that people from better off background are more likely to apply, more likely to be accepted if they apply, and more likely to have better grades than their peers when they do – here’s that in graphical form.

    [Full screen]

    Outside of the years of the examnishambles proportions remain pretty stable, even though numbers have increased in all cases. Roughly a third of POLAR quintile 5 (most advantaged) accepted applicants get AAA or above, roughly three in ten of POLAR quintile 1 (least advantaged) accepted applicants get CCC or below.

    We run into another wrinkle in the UCAS data here: we don’t get tariff group acceptances by POLAR, though we do get it by IMD (and we don’t get A level points by IMD, but we do by POLAR). I’m pretty sure UCAS invented the multiple equality measure (MEMS) for precisely that reason, but we don’t appear to get that at all these days.

    So here is a plot of acceptance applicants by IMD quintile (note that you can only really look at one home nation at a time due to differences in methodologies). And what is apparent is the familiar slow steady growth in less advantaged 18 year accepted applicants attributed to widening access initiatives.

    [Full screen]

    Unfortunately this is a case of what we don’t see. There’s a potential happy ending where we learn that high tariff providers are massively expanding their recruitment of applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds, and that this explains both the rise in numbers and any decline in average offermaking. The growth in high tariff recruitment from low advantage quintiles is welcome, but not anything like huge enough to explain the growth in numbers.

    We are left to conclude that the expansion is in all groups equally – and given that most of the best A level scores tend to go to the top of the league tables anyway, it is hard to dismiss the idea that tariffs are falling. Perhaps January’s provider level release will offer us more oblique ways to examine what should be a very straightforward question – and one (that given the influx of less academically experienced students into providers that have not historically supported students like that) may well attract regulatory interest.

    Bonus charts

    We randomly got a really lovely dataset showing entry rates by Westminster constituency – and I could hardly resist plotting it alongside the 2024 election results. There is a mild correspondence between a lower entry rate and a higher Reform UK vote.

    [Full screen]

    Source link

  • We need to talk about high-tariff recruitment behavior

    We need to talk about high-tariff recruitment behavior

    There’s a storm brewing in UK higher education and, if we’re honest, it’s been brewing for a while.

    We all know the pattern. Predicted grades continuing to be, well, predicted. Students stacking their UCAS applications with at least one high-tariff choice. Those same high-tariff universities making more offers, at lower grades, and confirming more students than ever before.

    Confirmation charts that had us saying “wow” in 2024 are jaw-dropping in 2025 and by 2026 we’ll need new numbers on the Y axis just to keep up.

    [Full screen]

    On their own, you could shrug and rationalise these shifts: post-pandemic turbulence, demographic rises and dips depending on where you regionally look, financial pressures. But together? Here’s your perfect storm.

    Grades remain overpredicted because schools and colleges know universities will flex at offer stage and, in all likelihood, at confirmation. Universities flex because grades are overpredicted, and because half-empty halls of residence don’t pay the bills. Students expect both to continue, because so far, they have.

    This is not harmless drift. It’s a cycle. And it’s reshaping the market in ways that don’t serve students, teachers, or institutions well.

    What’s really at stake

    Sure, more students in their first-choice university sounds like a win. But scratch beneath the surface and the consequences are real.

    For students, it’s about mismatched expectations. That ABB prediction might have got you a BCC place confirmed, but the reality of lectures and labs can feel a whole lot tougher. The thrill of “getting in” can be followed quickly by the grind of “catching up” and not everyone has the support infrastructure available to bridge the gap.

    For schools and teachers, it’s a lose–lose. Predict realistically and you risk disadvantaging your pupils against those down the road with a more generous hand. Predict optimistically and you fuel the cycle, while the workload and stress keep piling up.

    For universities, tariffs are being squeezed like never before. If ABB, BBB, and BCC are all getting the same outcome, what does “high-tariff” even mean anymore? And what happens to long-term planning if your recruitment strategy rests on quietly bending standards just a little more each year?

    And for the sector as a whole, there’s the reputational hit. “Falling standards” is a headline waiting to be written, at a time when the very value of HE is under political scrutiny, that’s not the story we want to hand over. It doesn’t matter how nuanced the reality is, because nuance rarely makes the cut

    How long can we keep this up?

    The uncomfortable truth is the longer we let this run, the harder it’ll be to unravel. Predictions that don’t predict. Offers that don’t mean what they say. A confirmation system that looks more like a safety net than a filter. Right now, students get good news, schools celebrate, universities fill places. everyone’s happy…until they’re not.

    We all know the ideas that surface. Post-qualification admissions. Post-qualification offers. The radical stuff. I’m not convinced they’re coming back, that ship feels well and truly sailed after multiple crossings.

    Sector-wide restraint sounds great in theory. But let’s be real, who’s going to blink first at a time when most of the sector is unlikely to welcome a restraint on numbers of entrants.

    And then there’s regulation. Hard rules on entry standards, offers, or tariffs. Politically tempting, practically messy, and likely to create more problems than it solves. Do we really want government second-guessing how universities admit students? I’m not sure we do.

    None of this is easy. But pretending nothing’s wrong is also a choice and, in both the short and long-term, not a very good one.

    Time for a proper conversation

    Please don’t take this as a “booo, high-tariff unis” article. These are some of the best institutions in the world, staffed by incredible people doing incredible work. But we can’t ignore the loop we’re stuck in.

    Universities want stability. Teachers want credibility. Students want fairness. Right now, we’re not giving any of them what they need. Because if offers don’t mean what they say, and predictions don’t accurately predict, what exactly are we asking applicants to believe in?

    Unless we start having the grown-up conversation about how predictions, offers, student decision making and confirmation intertwine and interact, the storm will keep building.

    We often see and hear about specific mission groups having their own conversations about admissions, recruitment-type topics but, very rarely, do you see or hear anything cross-cutting in the sector which I think is a missed opportunity. Anyone want to make an offer?

    Source link

  • High quality recruitment practices is everyone’s responsibility

    High quality recruitment practices is everyone’s responsibility

    The UK’s international higher education sector is at yet another crossroads.

    The positioning of international students as not only economic contributors to universities, but also cultural and intellectual assets to our campuses and communities is a well-told tale. But with ever-increasing government scrutiny of international recruitment practice, it is essential that the sector can unequivocally demonstrate that it operates with integrity and transparency.

    It is not just the government institutions must convince of the UK’s commitment to high quality opportunities, but students themselves to ensure the UK remains a destination of choice.

    Last month, IDP published its global commitment to quality and, as part of this, announced we are fully compliant with the British Council’s Agent Quality Framework (AQF). I imagine some might read that and ask “so what? Were you not already working in a compliant way already?”

    To be clear, we were (and always have been) committed to being ethical and responsible in our approach to recruitment, and it is what our partners know and trust us for. But our public commitment to the AQF in January 2024 and more latterly basic compliance assessment (BCA) requirements changes inspired us to have a wholesale review of our processes to ensure all our processes and practices drive quality. Transparency matters more now than ever – the more reassurance we can give our partners that we take our role in their student recruitment seriously sends the right signal to the government that we are committed to sustainable growth focused on right metrics.

    We are in this for the right reasons, that is, the right students, with the right standards and intentions, going to the right universities to complete their studies while living and thriving in our towns and cities. But it’s our hope that by being public about our official compliance, we can encourage others to do the same.

    The fact it has taken us, a well-established world-leading recruitment partner, months to feel confident the checks and balances are in place and that we have full adherence to the framework, demonstrates the complexity behind compliance. As we go along, we’ll no doubt learn more about how we can improve and strengthen those assurances to our partners (and therefore to the government) that international education is not full of ‘bad actors’.

    This is about more than compliance with external standards. It is a need for the international education community to be loud and proud about our work at a time when quality assurance in recruitment is under a brighter spotlight than ever.

    Regulation, regulation, regulation

    The UK government has made clear that international student recruitment cannot be divorced from broader debates around immigration, compliance and the sustainability of the sector. Parliamentary inquiries. Home Office interventions. The MAC review. The Immigration White Paper. The Home Office English Language Test. Freedom of Information requests. Intensified media focus. All this has raised questions about whether recruitment practice is always consistent with the standards expected of a world-leading education system. And this isn’t just about immigration rhetoric – this is about how those practices impact students and the enormous financial and emotional investment they make in choosing the UK for higher education, and make them feel their investment is worth it.

    In this environment, questions may be asked as to whether self-regulation is sufficient. The AQF, developed by the British Council in partnership with BUILA, UKCISA and Universities UK International, provides the only recognised, sector-wide framework for professionalism, ethical practice, and student-centred advice. To ignore or sidestep it is to invite greater external regulation and risk undermining already-precarious confidence in the sector.

    International students deserve more than transactional recruitment processes; they deserve ethical, transparent, and student-first guidance that empowers them to make the right choices for their future. Likewise, the UK needs to demonstrate to policymakers that the sector is capable of regulating itself to the highest standard.

    Quality is a shared responsibility

    The AQF sets out clear principles in five areas; organisational behaviour, ethical business practice, objective advice and guidance, student-centred practice and organisational competence

    Compliance across all these standards is not the endpoint. Instead, it is a baseline for our work. Compliance establishes credibility, but the leadership requires continuous improvement and a proactive commitment to go beyond minimum requirements.

    The onus is now on all organisations involved in international student recruitment – universities, agents, sub-agents, aggregators and service providers – to align with the AQF and evidence their compliance. AQF compliance is a collective responsibility. The question is no longer whether institutions and agents should adopt the AQF, but instead how quickly they can demonstrate alignment and ensure that these standards are consistently embedded in practice. Anything less risks weakening trust in the UK’s international education offer.

    The message to the sector is clear – quality must take precedence over volume until we are confident we’re in a position to grow sustainably and deliver on student expectations. Only by embedding AQF standards across all recruitment channels can the UK demonstrate to government, students and the wider international community that it is serious about maintaining excellence.

    The UK has an opportunity to lead globally on quality standards. Let’s do it together.

    Source link

  • Emerging leader of the year 2025 – Bimpe Femi-Oyewo

    Emerging leader of the year 2025 – Bimpe Femi-Oyewo

    The post Emerging leader of the year 2025 – Bimpe Femi-Oyewo appeared first on The PIE News.

    Source link

  • UCAS applications and offer making by June deadline, 2025

    UCAS applications and offer making by June deadline, 2025

    The UCAS 30 June application deadline is the last point an applicant can apply outside of clearing.

    Though most applications (particularly from UK 18 year olds) happen by the January deadline, the June figures allow for a complete analysis of application behaviour in the UCAS main scheme.

    The number of 18 year old UK applicants has reached a record high of 328,390 (up 2.2 per cent on last year) – with the total number of applicants at 665,070 (up 1.3 per cent on last year).

    Application rates

    As always it is salutary to compare the often-pushed narrative that young people are being tempted away from expensive/poor-value/woke (delete as per your personal preference) higher education with the actuality that numbers are rising. You could even be tempted to imagine what the application rates might be like in a sector with a realistic student maintenance offer.

    I mention application rates because this is what declinist commentators will seize on. For UK domiciled 18 year old applicants, the application rate is 41.20 – down from 41.80 per cent last year. This fall is visible across most measures of deprivation: in England, for example, every IMD quintile but quintile 5 (the least disadvantaged) sees a falling application rate.

    [Full screen]

    In part, this could be a function of another year where the dominance of higher tariff providers in driving applications has increased: higher tariff providers disproportionately inspire applications from (and recruit) better off young people.

    This chart shows the number of applications to each of three tariff groups. For UK 18 year olds the default is fast becoming an application to a high tariff provider. We don’t (unfortunately) get application numbers by deprivation and tariff group.

    [Full screen]

    These number of placed students is likely to rise too: UCAS and Ofqual have suggested that there are 28,000 places available in Clearing this year.

    Offer rates

    One innovation in this year’s release is information on offer rates – the proportion of applications that result in an offer being made. We get three years of data, which demonstrate that offer rates are rising across the sector – and that (as you may expect) high tariff providers are less likely to make offers than lower tariff providers. The growth among high tariff providers is driven both by rising application numbers and a rising offer rate.

    [Full screen]

    For believers of the other recruitment myth (that universities load up on international students and are less keen to take even very able home students) we get a timely corrective. It turns out that 98.5 per cent of UK 18 year old applicants have an offer, compared with 89.7 per cent of international students.

    [Full screen]

    Subjects

    Finally, it’s always fascinating to look at applications by subject area – a plot by CAH1 groups shows a sharp rise in the popularity of business, subjects allied to medicine, engineering, and law: with an intriguing drop in applications to computing subjects. There may be a generative AI effect on computing applications – the rise of “vibe coding” and other uses of agents in software development may mean that the attraction of learning to programme computers properly may be waning.

    That’s the best explanation I have – and it is curious that law (a domain where predictions of AI tools eating entry level roles are ten a penny) doesn’t appear to be experiencing a similar phenomenon.

    [Full screen]

    Source link

  • How can open days help applicants?

    How can open days help applicants?

    Like many Wonkhe readers, I’ve been lucky enough this year to support a young person weighing up their post-18 options.

    If you are the person in someone’s life that “really understands universities” it does often fall to you to sift through the vagaries of our recruitment and application process. Just what are “predicted grades” and why are they different from what someone got in their mocks? Why can you only apply to five courses on UCAS? Why, for that matter, does it cost money to apply via UCAS? Why are league tables so silly? Is there really a “Discover Uni”?

    The new aspect for me this year has been the world of the open day. On a succession of unseasonably rainy weekends I’ve been finding my way around campuses, under strict instructions not to mention who I work for or wear any Wonkhe merch (“so embarrassing!”) and speaking to academics and support staff about undergraduate entry in 2026.

    Performativity

    I’d love to say it has all brought back memories of my own open day adventures many years ago – in all honesty it has not. I never visited the university I ended up studying at prior to securing a place, my memory of the others is more of the cities and towns than the campuses and corridors.

    And that’s kind of the thing. If you are visiting an open day you are asking about third year options and work placements, but the decision that is being made is more along the lines of what it would be like to live and study in a place. The most successful open days I have seen this year have leaned into this – what would a lecture be like? How would you get from where you live to where you study? What else would I be doing outside of my studies? Where might I get a job?

    Academic staff – be they course leaders making a presentation or just generally making themselves available to chat, have often seemed terrified to speak to young applicants and their escorts. I’ve heard an awful lot about course revalidations and QAA Subject Benchmark Statements (yes really!), and while this is clearly great for me I can’t really see anyone else getting much out of it. When you sign up to “the talk” on your subject of choice what I would expect to get is a sense of enthusiasm about the subject and an openness to engage with others who have an interest: we can perhaps assume that anyone who wants to will have read about the course structure on the internet (or even, at one university, in an actual honest-to-god paper prospectus).

    My go-to approach for speaking to shy academics is to ask about their personal research interests – all the best conversations we’ve had have been around the particular interests of my prospective student and those of the academics. I feel like it would be good to work some of this into the more formal aspects of the day.

    The feel

    Applicants and their adults have often asked about practical “feel” based stuff – there’s been a lot of questions raised about assessment strategies and exams versus essays and presentations. The interest in post-degree employment is very real – and there is a trend towards listing industry partners (when done best it has offered tangible examples of how students would experience these partnerships).

    There’s also the inevitable question of entry requirements. Just about everywhere I’ve been has taken pains to reassure that there may be a place even if the grades aren’t quite there next summer – staff at all kinds of providers are actively promoting clearing entry.

    If you are not involving current students in open days you should be (and if you are, be sure to pay them – as you should everyone involved – for what is a very hard day’s work). Speaking to somebody only a few years older than you, who is living the life you are trying on for size, is what really seems to light applicants up. And the more informal the conversation the better it seems – interpolations in course presentations are good, a student-led tour is better, seeing students demonstrate the skills they have learned was excellent, and a sly joke shared in the student accommodation viewing is pretty much the best of all.

    Vibes

    Applicants are very good at picking up the overall mood of the day. If people act like the event has arrived suddenly on campus, and nobody is really clear what is going on, you can pick it up a mile off. And this year keeping the positive mood is not easy if you know the scale and direction of staff and funding cuts coming your way: it is very hard to “sell” an applicant on a course if you know it will have less options and less resources than it did this year.

    Likewise, basic hygiene factors stand out a mile (and I don’t just mean the halls of residence bathrooms…). If we’re sat having a coffee in the SU – something we always tried to do as a way of getting a sense of what campus life is like – it does rather stand out when there was supposed to be food available but it has all gone, or if all the posters seem to be for events that happened in 2023. I mean, posters are infinitely preferable (if the LGBT+Soc ran Chappell Roan bingo for pride day I am one hundred per cent there for it!) to glossy pictures and sidewinders wheeled out for the day, but maybe check if they are recent?

    Likewise, if visitors will be parking on campus some kind of an advanced plan would help – and if you have student services folks sitting at tables make sure there are actual people at the tables to talk to throughout the day.

    It’s the little moments. We were surprised to meet a vice chancellor that was clearly and obviously proud of their university, and who had signed up to do a series of rolling introductory talks. The question I got from next to me (“how often would I meet the vice chancellor as a regular student?”) was interesting – all though frankly I was more exercised about the fact that I’d seen the vice chancellor present a golden slide promoting a “TEF Gold in student experience” with the overall silver noted in tiny writing at the bottom.

    The awards and the league table placings really come across as noise – I didn’t see any applicant looking remotely impressed, although some were interested in graduate destinations and links to employers.

    An open day is an audition. An applicant is trying on the idea of being a student at your university – the best way to respond (and I’ve seen this done really well) is to set out just how great the student experience actually is: the TEF components are perhaps less impressive than what actual students say and the intangible “feel” of the campus. Students spend a lot of time asking “where do I go now?” – applicants have pretty much the same question.

    Source link

  • Private international foundation courses, and what they say about university leadership

    Private international foundation courses, and what they say about university leadership

    by Morten Hansen

    My research on the history of private international pathway providers and their public alternatives shows how some universities have stopped believing in themselves. Reversing this trend requires investment in their capabilities and leadership.

    The idea that universities have stopped believing in themselves as institutions that can take on the challenges of the day and find solutions that are better than those developed by private rivals echoes a point recently revived by Mariana Mazzucato. Mazzucato explains how private firms often are portrayed like lions. Bold animals that make things happen. The public sector and third-sector organisations, on the contrary, are too often seen as gerbils. Timid animals that are no good at developing new and innovative solutions.

    Skilled salesmen convinced some universities that private companies are better than universities at teaching and recruiting for university preparatory programmes. The inbuilt premise of this pitch is that universities are gerbils and private providers are lions. One university staff member explained what it felt like meeting such salesmen:

    “The thing that sticks most in my mind is the dress. And how these people sat differently, looked differently, spoke differently, and we felt parochial. We felt like a bunch of country bumpkins against some big suits.” (University staff)

    The lion-gerbil pitch worked in institutions across England because universities were stifled by three interlocking practices of inaction: outsourcing capability development; taking ambiguous stands on international tuition fees; and refusing to cooperate with other universities.

    Outsourcing capability

    Universities are increasingly outsourcing core aspects of their operations, such as recruiting international students. While university leadership is often characterised as conservative, my research suggest that this trope misses something critical about contemporary university leadership in English higher education. The problem with the term ‘conservative’ is that it implies that leadership is risk-averse, and comfortable projecting past power structures, practices and norms into the future. This does not correspond to historical developments and practices in the sector for international pathways.

    The University of Exeter, for example, submitted incorporation documents for their limited liability partnership with INTO University Partnerships only six years after the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 was passed, which marked the first time in England’s history that this legal setup was possible. They took a big leap of faith in the private sector’s ability to recruit students for them, and after doing so invested time and resources helping INTO to further develop its capability. They even invited them onto their campuses. It is hard to overstate how much these actions diverged from historical practice and thus ‘conservative’ leadership.

    What was once a highly unusual thing to do, has over the last two decades thoroughly normalised—to the extent that partnering with pathways now seems unavoidable. One respondent from the private sector explained this change in the following way:

    “In 2006, ‘07, ‘08, ‘09, ‘10, the pathway providers were, if you like, the unwelcome tenants in the stately home of the university. We had to be suffered because we did something for them. Now, the relationship has totally moved. It’s almost as if they roll out the red carpet for the pathway providers” (C-suite)

    The far more conservative strategy would have been to lean into the university’s core capabilities – teaching and admissions – and scale this up over time. Yet that is precisely what my respondents said ‘conservative’ university leaders were unwilling to do: they did not believe the university could manage overseas recruitment by themselves. As argued by former Warwick VC Nigel Thrift, this timidity is not unique to the recruitment of international students, but also extends to their engagement with government agencies. University management by and large “has done as it has been told. It hasn’t exactly rolled over and played dead, but sometimes it can feel as though it is dangerously close to Stockholm Syndrome” (Thrift, 2025, p3).

    Ambiguous stands on international fees have deepened the current crises

    There is no law in England that compels universities to charge high international students fees. By setting them as high as possible and rapidly increasing the intake of international students, universities de facto offset and thus obfuscated the havoc that changing funding regimes wreaked on university finances. This has contributed to what Kings’ Vice Chancellor Shitij Kapur calls the ‘triangle of sadness’ between domestic students, universities, and the government.

    Had universities chosen to stand in solidarity with their international students by aligning their fees more closely to the fees of home students, then the subsequent crises in funding would have forced universities to either spend less money, or make it clearer to the wider public that more funding was needed, before building up the dependencies and subsequent vulnerabilities to intake fluctuations that are currently on full display. These vulnerabilities were exacerbated by overoptimistic growth plans, and university leadership not always fully understanding the added costs that came with such growth. In an example of this delayed realisation, one Pro-Vice-Chancellor explained to me what it felt like to partner with a private foundation pathway:

    “At the time you are signing up for these things, there is euphoria around because they are going to deliver against this business plan, which is showing hundreds of students coming in. International student is very buoyant, you sign up for a 35-year deal. So, everything is rosy. If you then just take a step back and think ‘so what am I exposing the university to?’  …  because in year seven, eight, ten, fifteen whatever, it can all go pear-shaped, and you are left then with the legacy building.” (Pro-Vice-Chancellor)

    By seeing fee setting as a practice, that is, something universities do to their own students rather than something that is inflicted by external (market or government) powers, we make visible its ideological nature and implications. The longer history of international fees in Brittan was thus an important site of ideological co-option; it was a critical juncture at which universities could have related in a more solidaric manner towards their students.

    Unwillingness to cooperate on increased student acquisition costs

    You might, at this stage, be wondering: what was the alternative? The answer is in recognising the structure of the market for what it is: efficiently recruiting and training a large number of international students requires some degree of cooperation between universities. My research, however, suggests that universities have often been unwilling to cooperate because they see each other chiefly as competitors. This competition is highly unequal given the advantage conferred to prestigious universities located in internationally well-known cities.

    The irony is that many universities nevertheless end up – perhaps unwittingly – cooperating by partnering with one of the few private companies that offer international foundation programmes. These private providers can only reach economies of scale because they partner with multiple universities at the same time. One executive explains how carrying a portfolio of universities for agents to offer their clients is precisely what gives them a competitive advantage:

    “The importance of the pathways to the agents is that they carry a portfolio of universities, and the ambition is that you have some which are very well-ranked and academically quite difficult to get into. And, you try and have a bottom-feeder or two, which is relatively easy to get into academically. The agent is then able to talk to its clients and say, look, I can get offers into these universities. Some of them are at the very top. If you are not good enough there, then you might get one in the middle and I’ve always got my insurance offer for you. […] what the pathways do is that they provide a portfolio that makes that easier.” (Private Executive)

    A public consortium with pooled resources and that isn’t shy about strategically coordinating student flows would have functioned just as well, and the Northern Consortium is living proof of this. The consortium in fact inspired Study Group to get into the pathway business themselves. The limited growth of the Consortium, relative to its private rivals, is equally proof of missed chances and wasted opportunities.

    Could the gerbil eat the lion?

    Private providers can use and have used these practices of inaction to pit universities against each other, over time resulting in lower entry requirements and higher recruitment costs. In this climate, public alternatives such as in-house programmes struggle to survive. Once invited in, pathway companies are also well positioned to expand their business with their partner universities in other ways, deepening their dependence. As one senior executive told me:

    “Our aspiration is to say that the heart of what we are is a good partner to universities. They trust us. […] for some of our core partners, we bring in a lot of revenue. And, that then puts us in a really good position to think about the other services that we can add of value.” (Private Executive)

    The economic downside of relying on these ‘good’ partners is the expensive and volatile market dynamics that follow. As long as universities are trapped by the notion that they are chiefly competitors best served by outsourcing capabilities to sales-oriented firms and leaving international students to pick up the bill, there is limited hope for any genuine inter-university collaboration and innovation. This limits the public potential for scaling an economically viable and resilient market in the long-run.  As a sector, HE has the know-how, experience, capital, and repute to do this. It’s just about getting on with it!

    Morten Hansen is a Lecturer in Digital Economy and Innovation Education at the Department of Digital Humanities, King’s College London.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link