Tag: International

  • Strategies for Supporting International Scholars (opinion)

    Strategies for Supporting International Scholars (opinion)

    International scholars represent a vital economic force in the United States, contributing an estimated $42.9 billion to the economy and supporting more than 355,000 jobs during the 2024–25 academic year. But navigating the U.S. immigration system as an international student or postdoctoral researcher can be a long and complex journey.

    While everyone is subject to their individual situations, for many, the process begins with an F-1 student visa, which they hold as they complete a Ph.D. over five to six years. After graduation, they may choose to transition to Optional Practical Training (OPT), which provides a year of work authorization, with a two-year extension for STEM graduates. Some may then transition to a H-1B temporary work visa, which provides for three years of work authorization and is renewable for another three years.

    Depending on their visa journey, after this period of potentially 10 to 15 years on a temporary visa, a scholar who decides they would like to seek permanent residency would have several pathways available to them. The EB-1A (extraordinary ability) category allows for self-petitioning without an employer. It’s often the fastest route if one meets the strict qualifications.

    EB-1B is for outstanding professors or researchers and requires employer sponsorship. EB-2, another common path, is for individuals with advanced degrees such as Ph.D. holders; it often requires employment sponsorship and a labor certification (a process that certifies that the job offer will not adversely impact U.S. workers), unless one qualifies for a National Interest Waiver, which waives the job offer and labor certification requirement and allows for self-petitioning. Unfortunately, the green card timeline is also heavily influenced by one’s country of birth due to annual per-country limits.

    As universities recognize the critical importance of international students and scholars to their academic communities and the broader economy, innovative programs have emerged to address the unique challenges faced by this population. Below, we highlight some commendable strategies implemented by leading universities to support international students beyond traditional academic services.

    Career Development and Professional Preparedness

    Universities can collaborate with private organizations like Beyond the Professoriate, which offers a PhD Career Conference addressing critical career-related topics. These career-focused initiatives are particularly valuable because they address the reality that many international students and scholars will pursue careers outside academia, yet traditional graduate programs often provide limited exposure to industry pathways.

    Complementing these efforts, universities can implement career-readiness workshops tailored specifically for international scholars to address their unique professional development needs. The effectiveness of such programs lies in their practical approach to addressing real-world concerns such as navigating visa restrictions or OPT applications and securing employment that supports immigration status.

    We recommend that institutions thoughtfully include entities that hire international students in their programming and create events that specifically connect employers and international scholars. Institutions should also help scholars explore job opportunities beyond the United States.

    Mentorship Networks and Alumni Connections

    Mentorship programs represent another cornerstone of effective international student support. Programs like the Graduate Alum Mentoring Program, Terrapins Connect, Alumni Mentoring Program and Conference Mentor Program serve as exemplary models. Successful programs take a systematic approach to matching mentors and mentees based on shared interests, career goals and often similar international backgrounds, creating authentic relationships that provide comprehensive support for scholars’ academic journeys and beyond. For international students and scholars unfamiliar with cultural norms around American professional networking, having a guide with a shared background transforms potentially overwhelming experiences into valuable opportunities for professional development.

    Community Building and Recognition

    Universities that successfully support international populations prioritize creating multiple touch points for community engagement and mutual support, from informal networking events to structured support groups that address specific challenges. Community engagement is critical to minimizing isolation and allows scholars to draw on support from a variety of sources. These touch points can include accessible initiatives such as Friendship Fridays, International Coffee Hour, the Global Peer-to-Peer Mentoring Program, International Student Support Circle, VISAS Cafe and International Friends Club.

    Another strategy is systematically highlighting the accomplishments of international students, scholars and faculty, and staff members at the university level. Recognition programs can include features in university publications, special awards ceremonies, spotlight presentations, fellowships and social media campaigns showcasing international student achievements. These initiatives celebrate contributions, demonstrate the value of international diversity and provide positive role models while combating negative stereotypes.

    Peer Support

    Since they first emerged in the early 1900s, international student associations have been central to their members’ identity formation and have long enriched U.S. campuses and social life. In these challenging times, such organizations can help their members find the support they need. National organizations such the Graduate Students Association of Ghanaian Students in the USA (GRASAG-USA) or the North American Association of Indian Students (NAAIS), as well as local chapters of groups like the Indian Students Association, continue to be effective social and emotional support resources for international students.

    Providing Support in Navigating Immigration Policy Changes

    Given the lengthy and often uncertain nature of immigration processes, U.S. institutions play a vital role in offering both practical support and emotional reassurance to their international members. Some institutions offer free legal consultations with external immigration attorneys. Institutions may choose to provide internal immigration advice in addition to external consultations.

    Institutions may also support foreign nationals by providing information through a weekly newsletter as well as offering up-to-date guidance on policies and policy changes in an easily understandable format. Institutions without these forms of support may choose to refer scholars to national organizations that collate policy analysis and resources.

    Furthermore, universities can offer programs spotlighting lesser-known immigration options, such as the O-1 visa for individuals with extraordinary ability.

    By providing clear information, legal support and proactive communication, institutions and organizations can alleviate much of the stress international scholars face.

    The most effective approaches involve integrated systems that combine multiple strategies rather than relying on single interventions. Successful universities create comprehensive ecosystems addressing career development, mentorship, community building and recognition as interconnected elements of student success. When institutions act not just as employers or educators, but as advocates, they empower the international talent they have invested in and ensure that global knowledge continues to thrive.

    The authors acknowledge Sonali Majumdar and Bénédicte Gnangnon for their valuable contributions toward this article.

    Zarna Pala serves as assistant director of the Biological Sciences Graduate Program at the University of Maryland, College Park. She earned her Ph.D. in molecular parasitology from BITS Pilani, India, and brings multifaceted experience spanning infectious diseases research, academic administration and innovative program design; her work encompasses strategic admissions planning, cross-institutional partnerships, developing professional development resources and advocacy for early-career researchers.

    Rashmi Raj is the assistant dean for student and postdoctoral affairs at the Stowers Institute for Medical Research. She completed her doctorate in biochemistry at the National University of Singapore prior to completing a postdoc in metabolic engineering at Northwestern University; in her current role, Rashmi oversees postdoctoral program development, faculty development and career development programming and alumni engagement for both predoctoral and postdoctoral researchers.

    Henry Boachi is a program manager at University of Virginia’s Environmental Institute. He leads the institute’s recruitment, professional development and community engagement work with postdoctoral scholars through the Climate Fellows Program. He also supports practitioner fellows who are recruited to enrich UVA’s climate research efforts with their professional field (nonfaculty) experiences.

    Source link

  • The new international education strategy settles the policy direction – now we need to make it work

    The new international education strategy settles the policy direction – now we need to make it work

    It’s easy to think of international student recruitment as a numbers game.

    Inside institutions and within partners like IDP, we sit and analyse data to work out how many students will come to the UK, what institutions they will go to, into what disciplines, from what markets.

    As we pore over Tableau dashboards or – often – spreadsheets, it would be easy to forget that behind every number is not only a student, but an entire support system allowing, enabling and encouraging them on their international student journey.

    Last week’s International Education Strategy (IES), in a departure from its 2019 predecessor, didn’t get into international student number targets but instead plumped for an overall export goal of £40bn by 2030, spanning the whole gamut of internationalisation activity across the education sector.

    The rumbling (and often toxic) debate around net migration statistics continues to cast a gloomy shadow, so, understandably, it’s difficult for the government to gun for a numbers-based international student recruitment strategy when international students are such a large part of the overall migration number – around 36 per cent at last count. This is also, perhaps, the reason that endorsement of the strategy sees the FCDO teaming up with DfE and DBT, and no public backing from No. 10 or the Home Office. The wider focus of the strategy offers the opportunity though, to make the most of the government’s international education champion Sir Steve Smith, a role that is both the envy of other countries and a critical conduit between government and universities.

    Let’s not kid ourselves though: it’s clear that sustainable international recruitment in higher education will play a big role in reaching that goal. And the strategy is clear about where government expects higher education institutions should focus: on responsible recruitment, high-quality student experience, and “world class outcomes for graduates.”

    The discourse on outcomes is positive because it appears to go beyond the course completion rates that the BCA metrics capture, and degree classifications, to speak to the benefits students gain from their education, including graduate-level employment. Following many rounds of student sentiment research, as part of our Emerging Futures surveys, we know graduate employment outcomes remain the most important factor influencing student choice.

    A story of “us”

    The difference between the immigration white paper and the IES is the scope for immediate action. The BCA changes were clear, and institutions sprang into action to get their house in order. In the absence of a universal evidence-based for outcomes, we need to think about how universities prove they are doing the “right thing” here and how to get that message not only back to the government departments involved but also out to future students as a reason to come and study in the UK in the first place.

    The IES offers a settled view of government policy on international education that, all being well, should extend for the rest of this parliament. There is an opportunity, now, to respond positively and develop thinking further about how we can enable international graduates to have the best opportunity to develop skills to work and contribute professionally to our national workforce.

    International graduates can not only help fill local and national skills gaps but will also send that clear message to future students that support is available – support as an investment in them and their futures, just as they have invested in us. Simply put, this is the outcome that students are most interested in and the one most likely to reattract students to our institutions, in the face of stiff global competition.

    To keep ahead of the argument, we need to bring these outcome stories to life. It’s reassuring that there was commitment in the refreshed IES to continued promotion through the British Council’s Study UK campaign.

    Let’s tell the story about the student who came here and moved to the Innovation Founder route to start their own business. Let’s tell the story about the students who discovered new things about themselves during their studies; those who were able to explore politics and talk about their views safely; those who found new passions, new hobbies, new language skills. The ones who now say “aye” instead of “yes” or who call you “mate” or “pal” or “mucker” having made lifelong friends in their classrooms, student flats and in part-time jobs – the very places that support our university towns and cities and bring rich culture and diversity.

    We need to find new ways to bring these tales of the friendships forged, loves found and adventures taken – all while studying for a world-class degree in a safe, inclusive, welcoming environment – to the students of the future and those who have influence over them. Already, Brand Scotland are doing some stellar work in this space like this story of entrepreneurship.

    Pragmatism aligns with purpose

    Some early commentary suggests not much has changed between the 2019 IES and the 2026 version. For those of us who have been in the sector long enough, there are throwbacks to Tony Blair’s Prime Minister’s Initiative (PMI) in 1999. Both focus on strengthening the UK’s global education presence with an emphasis on partnerships and collaboration. This time around the focus leans more to taking the UK to the world, but for institutions to remain financially viable, we still need to bring the world to the UK. TNE and inbound student recruitment must be co-joined strategies, and one does not replace the other.

    Sustainable growth and a focus on quality is a sensible approach, one we all need to commit to and one we welcome. That focus is the right thing for the international students and in turn the right thing for domestic students, teaching staff and potential employers. At IDP, we remain concerned over English language testing. Appropriate preparation/testing is one clear way to ensure students arrive ready to succeed and to make the most of their time in our classrooms and in our communities.

    Linked to the focus on quality, we’ll also hold ourselves to account with compliance and we expect others in our space to do the same. We hope everyone shares that view. Our ambition is to be the most compliant recruitment partner to our UK partners – and our global partners, for that matter. To do this, we will work closely with all universities to analyse trends that point towards risk and we’ll act on that to maintain sustainable growth from key markets. We’ll continue to change our ways of working to fit with the Agent Quality Framework and we’ll continue to put students at the centre of what we do.

    For this to work, we’ll all have to adjust our lenses on what we want to achieve. Our commitment is simple: let’s re-forecast the numbers in the Tableau dashboards (and spreadsheets) to ensure the students behind the data points are given the best opportunity to thrive and to become successful graduates and positive ambassadors of our world-class education system.

    ***

    In the current academic year Wonkhe and IDP plan to convene a community of institutions keen to share ideas on further building the evidence base for quality, student experience and student outcomes as part of their sustainable international recruitment strategies. If you would like to be involved, please get in touch.

    This article is published as part of Wonkhe’s partnership with IDP.

    Source link

  • What’s missing from the UK’s international student offer?

    What’s missing from the UK’s international student offer?

    It’s been over six years since the last International Education Strategy.

    We now have a new one – with three core ambitions, including to “sustainably recruit high-quality international students.”

    But this isn’t really the higher education international education strategy. That’s to come.

    The government’s approach to international student recruitment in HE is parked almost entirely to the Education Sector Action Group (ESAG) – a sector-led body tasked with producing an action plan for higher education.

    If nothing else, that should be a good opportunity to get some actual international student voices into the mix – they’ve been notably absent from previous iterations and are hard to find in this high level document too.

    The published strategy commits to “work with the sector” through ESAG on student experience, quality outcomes, housing, infrastructure, support systems, and responsible recruitment. The details will follow.

    Since I last looked at a bunch of strategies from “competitor” countries, I’ve continued to keep an eye on what other countries commit to – and so the question remains – what should be in the higher education action plan when it arrives?

    Graduate outcomes

    The published strategy promises “world-class outcomes for graduates” through ESAG working with institutions, though it doesn’t specify what targets or baseline measurements ESAG should develop – so what have other countries committed to?

    The UK collects some international graduate outcomes data through the Graduate Outcomes survey, but coverage is poor and deteriorating – response rates for non-UK students stood at just 11 per cent in 2021/22 compared to 51 per cent for UK students, and in 2021, HESA stopped telephoning international graduates to follow up non-responses, a cost-saving measure that further reduced data quality.

    Back in 2019, the then education secretary wrote that:

    …it will be critical to ensure the OfS makes public transparent data on the outcomes achieved by international students.

    But five years later, the UK still lacks robust, representative data on where international graduates end up or whether they’re employed.

    Recent Graduate Outcomes data shows rising dissatisfaction among international students, particularly at postgraduate level, with nearly 30 per cent of non-EU postgraduates reporting they’re not using what they learned. But with response rates so low, it’s unclear whether this represents the full picture or just a particularly dissatisfied minority who chose to respond.

    Finland sets explicit retention targets and tracks employment rates post-graduation, with ministry data showing improvement over time and explicitly linking recruitment to national R&D targets and skilled worker shortages through the internationalisation programme and global networks and accompanying strategy document.

    Ireland’s Global Citizens 2030 lists specific indicators – retention, graduation and first employment of international learners, employer satisfaction, and mobility rates – all monitored and reported, as detailed in the IUA publication. Germany’s strategy on the internationalisation of higher education institutions references federal skilled worker shortages and notes international graduates are “particularly attractive for the German labour market”, with DAAD data showing retention rates among the highest in the OECD alongside Canada.

    The Netherlands publishes detailed stay rates through Nuffic research, tracking both immediate post-graduation employment and five-year retention, with the government explicitly noting housing as a major barrier to retention. France’s Cour des comptes found in March 2025 that tracking was inadequate, recommending systematic cohort studies in its evaluation of attractiveness and accompanying synthesis report.

    Perhaps ESAG’s action plan should commit to systematic, robust tracking of international graduate outcomes with adequate response rates.

    Student wellbeing

    The strategy says government will “work closely with the sector” through ESAG on student experience and quality outcomes, but doesn’t specify what this means in practice – so what binding or voluntary frameworks have other countries established?

    Ireland’s International Education Mark creates statutory requirements through its QQI Code of Practice – providers must designate appropriate personnel for learner support, establish mechanisms for emergency financial support, foster a supportive wellbeing environment, create feedback mechanisms, provide intercultural competence training for staff, and maintain written agent agreements, while QQI assesses compliance through panels, and authorisation can be refused, conditioned, or revoked.

    Australia’s National Code under the ESOS framework requires registered providers to give students information about support services and offer reasonable support at no additional cost – providers must have documented critical incident policies, provide information on employment rights, give pre-enrolment information on living costs and accommodation, and ensure appropriate arrangements for under-18s, while breaches can suspend or cancel registration, and the Tuition Protection Service provides refunds if providers fail, as set out in the legislation.

    Finland’s SIMHE network provides integrated support including Finnish language training, career guidance, and recognition of prior learning, though participation is voluntary for institutions. Germany’s Campus Initiative funds projects supporting the full student lifecycle from recruitment through to labour market transition. Latvia conducts annual international student satisfaction surveys. Ireland explicitly lists student satisfaction as a performance indicator alongside retention and employment outcomes.

    France’s Bienvenue en France Label certifies institutions demonstrating quality welcome services, assessing institutions across six areas – information quality and accessibility, reception facilities, teaching accessibility and support, housing and campus life, post-graduate follow-up, and environmental sustainability – where institutions receive ratings from one to three stars based on performance against 28 indicators, and as of October 2025, 180 institutions hold the label, enrolling 65 per cent of international degree-seeking students. France also operates a €10 million fund supporting institutions to meet label standards.

    Ireland’s International Education Mark operates differently – providers recruiting non-EU/EEA learners requiring study visas must obtain the mark, making it a regulatory requirement rather than voluntary certification, branded as “TrustEd Ireland” and backed by statutory quality standards.

    Maybe ESAG should recommend binding student experience requirements with compliance monitoring, or at least quality standards or voluntary certification recognising institutions demonstrating excellence in international student experience.

    Before arrival

    The strategy says government will “encourage” the Agent Quality Framework to “help tackle the risk of poor practices”. Beyond that, the strategy doesn’t specify pre-arrival or onboarding requirements, leaving these to institutional practice – but what have other countries mandated or encouraged?

    Finland’s Agent Code of Conduct was jointly developed by sector bodies, including ethics requirements, through non-binding voluntary adoption. However, following a December 2024 investigation by national broadcaster Yle which uncovered evidence that third-party agents were spreading false and misleading information to prospective students about work opportunities and living costs, the Finnish government has announced further work.

    Under the proposals, students would only be permitted to use agents that have formal agreements with Finnish universities, and those will be more closely monitored. Ireland’s IEM Code requires written agent agreements incorporating ethics with termination clauses, enforced by QQI. Australia’s ESOS framework creates legally binding agent conduct requirements with sanctions, and Germany’s National Code includes a complaints mechanism where institutions designate a complaints body with unresolved disputes going to mediation, while agents must comply and can be dismissed for violations.

    Australia’s National Code requires providers to give pre-enrolment information on living costs and accommodation options before students arrive. Ireland’s IEM Code requires providers to give clear information on fees, accommodation costs, insurance requirements, and subsistence costs prior to enrolment, alongside tailored inductions meeting international learner needs.

    Germany’s National Code establishes minimum standards for pre-arrival information, though compliance is voluntary with a complaints mechanism for disputes. France’s Bienvenue en France Label assesses quality of pre-arrival information and reception facilities as part of institutional certification.

    Finland provides preparation through the SIMHE network, though not all institutions participate. The Netherlands acknowledges international students face immediate housing needs creating vulnerability to discrimination, but has no binding pre-arrival housing guarantee requirement.

    Standards for pre-arrival information and onboarding support would be very much appreciated by the international students I’ve talked to.

    Costs are a big concern. France operates VISALE – a free government-backed rental guarantee for students covering rent up to €1,500 monthly in Paris and €1,300 elsewhere, universally available to international students with residence permits who are also eligible for CAF housing benefits.

    Australia requires providers to give pre-enrolment information on living costs, and Ireland requires providers to inform students about average costs including accommodation, food, transport, and medical care.

    Even if cost of living support mechanisms can’t be mandated, minimum transparency requirements about true costs would be very welcome.

    Working while studying

    The strategy doesn’t address during-study work rights or employer connections, though these differ from post-graduation pathways – what approaches have other countries taken?

    Finland permits students to work 30 hours weekly as a yearly average. Germany allows 140 full days or 280 half-days yearly, increased from 120 and 240 in March 2024, or 20 hours weekly. France permits 964 hours yearly, approximately 60 per cent of full-time work.

    Sweden permits work during studies with recent changes to work permit portability. Germany’s Campus Initiative explicitly funds projects covering recruitment through labour market transition, integrating employer connections throughout study. Finland’s Talent Boost programme integrates career services and employer connections with language training.

    France’s “Invest Your Talent in Italy” programme includes mandatory internship components. Ireland includes employer satisfaction with international graduate competencies as an explicit performance indicator. Australia’s National Code requires providers to inform students about employment rights and Fair Work Ombudsman access.

    International students would commitments in this space to be very welcome indeed.

    Institutional commitments

    Ireland’s International Education Mark creates statutory requirements through its QQI Code, which mandates designated personnel for learner support, mechanisms for emergency financial support, supportive wellbeing environment, feedback mechanisms, intercultural competence training, and written agent agreements incorporating ethics with termination clauses, alongside a Learner Protection Fund for provider failures, while QQI assesses compliance through panels, and authorisation can be refused, conditioned, or revoked.

    Australia’s National Code under the ESOS framework requires information on support services, reasonable support at no additional cost, documented critical incident policy, information on employment rights, pre-enrolment information on living costs and accommodation, and appropriate arrangements for under-18s, while breaches can suspend or cancel registration, and the Tuition Protection Service provides refunds if providers fail.

    Canada’s federal strategy expired unreplaced, but British Columbia implemented provincial standards requiring minimum in-person delivery, institution-controlled locations, and information about academic and housing support. Germany’s National Code establishes minimum standards for information, marketing, admissions, supervision, and follow-up – it’s voluntary but includes a complaints mechanism where institutions designate a body and unresolved disputes go to HRK mediation, while agents must comply and can be dismissed for violations.

    The strategy doesn’t explicitly address consumer protection for international students beyond encouraging the Agent Quality Framework, but the Office for Students has recognised international students face heightened risks of unfair treatment.

    OfS’ proposed initial condition C5 on fair treatment explicitly includes international students, reflecting that they’re exposed to the same risks as domestic students and in some cases greater ones – higher fees, greater reliance on pre-arrival information, visa dependencies, and higher switching costs if things go wrong all amplify the potential for consumer detriment.

    Recent OfS research shows international students aren’t fundamentally different from domestic students in how they understand promises and rights, but they experience some issues more acutely – when disruptions occur, international students were more likely to report that limited support from academic staff had significant impact on their academic experience, and while both international and domestic students show weak awareness of rights and redress mechanisms, this is particularly consequential for international students who are more dependent on institutional processes because informal escalation, legal challenge, or withdrawal are often less viable options.

    The combined evidence implies that international recruitment carries heightened regulatory risk – many international students struggle to identify what was promised versus what was merely expected, increasing the likelihood of disputes and perceived unfairness after enrolment, and while international students aren’t uniquely dissatisfied, they are structurally more exposed when fairness breaks down, justifying closer regulatory scrutiny of provider behaviour at the point of entry and during delivery.

    Were ESAG’s action plan to recommend strengthened consumer protection measures specifically recognising international students’ structural vulnerabilities, students would be pleased.

    Housing

    The strategy mentions housing once – government will work with the sector through ESAG on “adequate infrastructure and access to local housing”.

    While housing coordination mechanisms aren’t detailed in the strategy, what approaches have other countries taken to student housing challenges?

    The Netherlands launched its National Action Plan for Student Housing with government investment, targeting new affordable homes through multi-stakeholder coordination including government, municipalities, housing providers, universities, and SUs, while the plan explicitly acknowledges international students face discrimination and current shortages are substantial.

    Italy allocated significant PNRR funding to increase student beds, France operates a free government-backed rental guarantee for students, Germany identifies housing as a top barrier with government funding promised for student housing, and Hungary’s dormitory programme provides guaranteed places with government funding.

    Ireland acknowledges “tangible constraints can’t be ignored, such as availability of accommodation”, with research finding scams and exploitation widespread while planned on-campus beds remain unbuilt. It now has a national student housing plan, as do several other countries.

    Ideally, ESAG’s action plan would include housing targets, investment proposals, or at least coordination mechanisms with local authorities.

    Coordination

    The strategy is “co-owned by the Department for Education, the Department for Business and Trade, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office” with leadership “sitting firmly across the government”.

    Immigration policy remains under Home Office responsibility – but maybe that’s part of the problem.

    Finland’s Talent Boost is cross-ministerial with Education and Economic Affairs jointly leading, explicitly integrating immigration, education, employment, business, and R&D policy.

    Germany’s strategy is implemented by federal and state governments, explicitly linking to skilled immigration legislation, with agencies working across employment and business while referencing federal skilled worker strategies. Ireland involves multiple departments as lead alongside Justice for immigration and Enterprise for employment, linking to national skills, access, and languages strategies.

    France’s Cour des comptes criticised the absence of Economy and Labour ministries, recommending comprehensive strategy “under Prime Minister’s authority with full involvement of Economy and Labour ministries” after concluding France “failed to define clear strategic priorities.” Sweden’s coordination programme brings together eleven government agencies.

    What next?

    The strategy confirms £925 per international student per year from 2028–29, stating:

    the levy will be fully reinvested into higher education and skills, including the reintroduction of targeted maintenance grant for disadvantaged domestic students.

    This is the strategy’s binding financial commitment regarding international students – extracting funds to redistribute to domestic students.

    Yet many of the mechanisms other countries use to support international students – multi-stakeholder housing coordination, dedicated integration funding, careers support programmes, language provision, pre-arrival services, quality assurance frameworks – require investment.

    International students might reasonably argue that a levy explicitly charged on them should fund improvements to their experience rather than subsidising domestic students’ maintenance.

    If the state can’t afford that kind of investment from general taxation, the case for redirecting levy income toward international student support becomes stronger – especially when rising graduate dissatisfaction suggests current provision is inadequate.

    The published strategy delegates the substance of higher education international student policy to ESAG, and the action plan could include measurable graduate employment targets, published retention tracking data, binding institutional requirements with enforcement, dedicated integration funding, housing targets and investment proposals, cross-departmental coordination mechanisms, language integration programmes, agent regulation with enforcement, quality certification standards, performance-based institutional funding, student experience and wellbeing frameworks, pre-arrival support requirements, cost of living transparency or support, during-study work provisions, consumer protection measures recognising structural vulnerabilities, and risk management frameworks.

    Other countries – including those ramping up their recruitment to English language programmes – have developed accountability frameworks, binding requirements, and funded infrastructure that ESAG could consider for the UK’s higher education action plan.

    The evidence from fifteen other countries provides options to consider.

    Source link

  • A renewed commitment to welcoming international students is the story to tell

    A renewed commitment to welcoming international students is the story to tell

    The long wait for a new International Education Strategy is over.

    Widely scrutinised since its publication, there has been a mixed reception for the Strategy in the national and sector press, notably and unsurprisingly covering the ambition to grow the UK sector’s TNE coverage and provide more UK education overseas, in contrast to a numerical target for international student recruitment.

    A lot of the reaction has tended towards the disappointed and the underwhelmed, which might be more to do with the length of time we have waited for it to be launched. Personally, the Strategy has brought out my inner Pollyanna.

    In these times, it’s become common practice to explore where the deficits or the challenges lie – and there are some definite gaps, but it is important that we do not overlook the positives in this strategy.

    A welcome commitment

    I note that hardly any media coverage has led with the Strategy’s continued commitment to welcome international students to the UK. While it doesn’t set a numerical target, it does restate a commitment to international student experience, and even cites key elements such as infrastructure and housing.

    Considering that the previous strategy contained zero reference to the international student experience when first launched in 2019, this welcome retention should be what the sector and the press are widely communicating to current and prospective international students.

    We should also be celebrating the multiple references to the work of the British Council and Study UK – albeit with no mention of funding. The Council’s international network and the Study UK campaign are unique promoters of the UK sector around the world, and it’s significant that this Strategy takes several opportunities to reinforce this.

    Let’s hope that this Strategy leads to increased investment in Study UK as a result, if government is serious about ramping up its global impact and supporting the UK’s ambitions for recruitment in the UK and overseas.

    The IES reiterates a commitment to women and girls’ education, which has been a long-standing objective of successive governments. Of course, if government wants to ensure this objective is met, it’s essential that an impact assessment is carried out on recent changes to immigration policy – something we have called for consistently at UKCISA – to identify where it discriminates against women students who would benefit from studying in the UK.

    Let’s hope that the new Education Sector Action Group (ESAG) will advocate strongly for this and other missing impact assessments required for the last few years of policy changes.

    Mobility matters

    As a long-standing advocate for student mobility – and former first-in-family, full-grant-recipient Erasmus beneficiary – I was delighted to see mobility get a profile in the Strategy, albeit focused on outward mobility and less on the importance of reciprocal mobility for the UK’s ambitions in international partnerships.

    Conversely, I was disappointed that there was not a single reference to the success of the Taith programme in Wales. This seemed a wasted opportunity to profile a significant – and Labour-funded – success story.

    Sector collaboration

    UKCISA has had many opportunities to feed into the development of the Strategy, and advise government on the importance of the international student experience, so the second objective to sustainably recruit international students from a diverse range of countries is welcome, not least because it’s what our members are already working hard to do.

    Our recent #WeAreInternational Awards showcased the depth and breadth of work across the sector to provide the best possible student experience and the work already under way to ensure that this objective is being met, and we are discussing with DfE and DBT how the award-winners can help exemplify the strategy’s commitments to the international student experience.

    Our members include staff working in admissions, advice, and sponsor compliance in over 180 universities, including an active immigration compliance expert practitioner network. Staff engagement with our essential training in immigration and our invaluable information, advice, and guidance on immigration rules, guidance, and how these translate to practice demonstrates their commitment to the provision of a high-quality student experience across all aspects of student engagement.

    Student voice

    Significantly, the spirit of our #WeAreInternational Student Charter and its principles strongly feature in this part of the Strategy – a testament to the importance of the student voice in influencing policy that has an impact on them, and the influential role that UKCISA will play in the delivery of the Strategy in the long-term.

    I was delighted to see one of our first #WeAreInternational Student Ambassadors, Nebu George, share his story of being a student in the UK. Nebu’s contribution matters not because it is a feel-good case study, but because it reflects how student insight can and should shape policy.

    Through our work with students, we do not simply support them – we help ensure their lived experience is heard in the rooms where decisions are made, and reflected in the strategies that follow.

    What’s missing

    While there is much to celebrate in this Strategy, as an overall document, it is arguably too heavy on background, context, and the UK’s achievements to date and far too light on measurable objectives and a plan for supporting the sector to achieve them.

    Delegating the action plan to the Education Sector Action Group (ESAG) means that the sector is waiting a while longer to find out how this will be achieved and how success will be evaluated.

    Then there is the bizarre positioning of the international student tuition fee levy as part of a competitive offer. No student choosing the UK is going to be drawn in by a technical consultation on the levy, or the promise that their fee is going to be reinvested into grants for domestic students.

    Mentioning the levy in the strategy at all feels at best like an editing oversight, and at worst, like an ill-thought-out marketing campaign. This needs to be a priority issue for ESAG to look at, mitigating the risk of this in communications to students considering a UK education.

    Perhaps the most important gap is information on how ESAG – the group that holds so much responsibility for the delivery of the Strategy’s objectives – will be formed.

    I trust that government will recognise that UKCISA representation on the ESAG is critical to any action plan to deliver a high-quality student experience and build an engaged alumni community, and we look forward to working with them and colleagues across the sector to help deliver on these ambitions.

    Source link

  • Responding to the International Education Strategy requires an appreciation of how fast the world is changing

    Responding to the International Education Strategy requires an appreciation of how fast the world is changing

    The long-awaited new UK international education strategy looks and feels very different from the last one.

    Gone is the target for international recruitment from the previous strategy, which had, in any case, been exceeded substantially. It has been replaced by a “bold ambition” to grow overall education exports to £40bn per year by 2030 (the figure for 2022 was calculated at £32.3bn).

    The emphasis is on growing transnational education (TNE) and partnerships in education and research, as well as outward student mobility, and the UK’s global reputation in education. There is much to welcome in this strategy. Not least the cross-government (FCDO, DfE and DBT) ownership of the agenda, and the recognition that the rapidly changing geopolitical landscape requires support from the UK government and its institutions to support the sector.

    But let’s turn to what isn’t in the strategy. Great strategies are adaptable to a changing landscape, and the external environment in international education is shifting very rapidly.

    Times change

    Two major issues are worth highlighting. First, there is no such thing as a single TNE model, and the financial margins differ markedly depending on the host country and the teaching model. The margins depend on the nature of the regulatory regime and the nature of the host country partnership(s). International campuses which involve an element of research activity are also more expensive to run.

    It’s fair to say that many UK universities operating overseas have tended to engage in TNE not solely because of financial margin, but often to raise their international profile in order to attract more direct recruitment to their UK campuses. Others make a larger margin by adopting a very streamlined and low-cost teaching model.

    Second, the financial sustainability of UK universities has been greatly impaired by the instability of direct international recruitment. The international education strategy uses the cautious language of “sustainably recruiting high-quality students” to the UK, not least because of the difficult immigration debates student flows have caused.

    Canada, Australia and the USA – the other three of the “Big Four” international student destinations – have had similar debates on student visas. But the shift from the Big Four dominating international direct recruitment to a situation where a “Big Fourteen” have come to compete more aggressively for this market has been very sudden, and has left the UK and other anglophone countries having to compete much more aggressively.

    The countries experiencing growth range from Europe (for example France, Germany and the Netherlands) to Asian destinations (such as China, Korea and Malaysia). There are many reasons why these new destinations have become more competitive beyond the student visa regime: student safety, work experience opportunities, pricing/affordability, cultural and language factors, and the geopolitical environment have all played a part.

    Universities in the Big Four are responding by competing on some of these fronts. Many of the new countries and jurisdictions in the Big Fourteen have explicit targets to grow international numbers, unlike the new UK strategy (e.g. Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and France). Many non-Anglophone countries have embraced English language teaching, especially at master’s level.

    We need new models

    But is this a definitive trend we are observing away from the Big Four – or is the market just becoming more contestable and the landscape will evolve even further?

    I would argue the latter: I believe that the international recruitment market could continue to evolve rapidly. Under the circumstances, universities in the more established markets will want to forecast the potential short-term trends and cycles in student demand, but more importantly the underlying factors: to what extent are some factors like studying closer to home important for students in large sender markets like China and India? To what extent are there trade-offs between different factors such as the cultural affinity of the host nation and affordability/pricing? Economic theory, and indeed the instability of flows since the pandemic, suggests that these factors do interact and there are trade-offs.

    University leaders will want to gain a much more sophisticated market understanding in the next five years than relying on the simple linear market trends which we adopted in our recruitment forecasts 10-15 years ago. That will require much more refined economic analysis of what students (and their families) think about international study.

    Similarly, UK and other universities jumping on the accelerating TNE bandwagon will want to understand how this interfaces with direct recruitment in the Big Fourteen. We know that an in-country TNE presence in a large sender market can have an impact on direct recruitment.

    Watch this landscape carefully over the next five years – it will rapidly evolve.

    Source link

  • Export success is not international education success

    Export success is not international education success

    The UK government’s newly published International education strategy opens with a statement few in our sector would dispute – in an “uncertain world, education matters more than ever.”

    That is true. But a closer reading of the document suggests a more specific and narrower interpretation of why education matters.

    This is not, in any meaningful sense, a national international education strategy. It is, instead, an international education export strategy.

    There is nothing inherently wrong with that. Education is one of the UK’s most successful export sectors, supporting jobs, research, soft power, and local economies across the country. At a time of financial constraint, it is understandable that government thinking frames education primarily through the lenses of growth, trade, and global influence.

    But if this is the government’s intent, it should be honest about it. Words matter, because they shape priorities, expectations, and trade-offs.

    Calling this an “international education strategy” implies something broader – a vision for how education helps the nation understand the world, engage with it intelligently, and equip its people to thrive within it. That wider vision is largely absent in this strategy.

    The dominant logic of the strategy is export-led. Success is defined through metrics such as global market share, education exports reaching £40 billion per year by 2030, transnational education expansion, and the recruitment of international students as contributors to economic growth and soft power. Students, staff, and institutions appear primarily as instruments in a national growth and influence agenda.

    What’s missing

    What is missing in this strategy is just as telling.

    First, there is no serious engagement with languages and area studies. At precisely the moment when the UK’s universities are retrenching from modern languages and regional expertise, the strategy is silent on linguistic capability and cultural literacy.

    This is not a marginal issue. If international education is about preparing a country to collaborate, compete, and coexist in a complex world, then understanding other languages, cultures, and political contexts is a basic requirement.

    Second, the strategy underplays the role of internationally mobile academic and professional staff. International researchers and educators are acknowledged, but largely as contributors to research outputs, innovation, and competitiveness.

    There is little sense of them as part of a long-term national knowledge ecosystem, or of the conditions required to attract and retain global talent in an increasingly competitive environment. Trust and partnership are repeatedly mentioned, but these depend on openness, stability, and welcome – not just on visa routes that happen to suit current labour market needs.

    Third, outward mobility for UK students and staff remains peripheral. The return to Erasmus+ and the continuation of the Turing Scheme are positive steps, but they are framed as supporting soft power and employability rather than as core components of a genuinely international education system.

    More than a decade ago, I argued that if we truly value international experience, we should allow UK students make use of UK student loans to travel and study beyond our borders. That argument still has traction and still goes unanswered.

    Nothing new

    None of this is new. When previous international education strategies were published, I raised similar concerns – that international education was being conflated with international student recruitment and export earnings, and that the deeper purposes of education in a global society were being squeezed out.

    More than a decade on from BIS’s International education strategy: global growth and prosperity, the language is more polished and the ambition more coordinated across government, but the underlying philosophy has changed remarkably little.

    The risk is not that the UK pursues education exports. The real risk is that we mistake export success for international education success. A country can generate billions in education revenue while simultaneously hollowing out its own international capabilities – languages, cultural understanding, outward mobility, and academic openness.

    A true international education strategy would start with different questions. What capabilities does the UK need to thrive in a multipolar, unstable world? How does international education contribute to social cohesion at home as well as engagement abroad? How do we ensure that internationalisation benefits domestic students and staff, not just balance sheets and trade statistics?

    The current strategy contains elements that could support such a vision. It talks about partnerships, mobility, values-based education, but they are subordinate to the export narrative rather than driving it.

    If government wants an international education export strategy, it should say so clearly. And if it wants a genuinely international education strategy, then this document is only half the story.

    Source link

  • Why UK international student recruitment needs a British standard

    Why UK international student recruitment needs a British standard

    The time has come for there to be a formal auditing of the processes universities use to recruit international students. The pressure must come from the university sector, otherwise it is likely very little will change.

    Working with the BSI to implement the  BS EN ISO 9001 (Quality Management Systems) feels like the right place to focus efforts. BSI is the UK’s national standards body while also being one of the world’s largest certification bodies. BS EN ISO 9001 is a widely recognised management standard that has the heft and necessary independence to carry real credibility, across the globe.

    Why is this approach needed? In Vincenzo Raimo’s excellent article for The PIE News recently, he highlighted the results of a SAMS Global conference survey: More than seven in 10 institutions (72%) reported working with over 100 agents, while 16% said their university had relationships with more than 300.

    And that’s before we add aggregators to the mix, where a single partnership can potentially mean exposure to thousands of sub-agents, most of whom the university may never know or directly interact with and therefore not know what is being said about their institution to prospective students.

    As someone who has dealt first hand with a larger agency that wanted to buy leads from my small consultancy, I can provide the following qualitative perspective. We had very specific notes about all our prospective students; their interests, level of English competency etc, but there seemed no interest from the large agency in these notes, or indeed discussing individual needs, and this did not seem to come from any GDPR squeamishness…

    It may be that the agency would have carried out their own ‘deep dive’ research into these students but I was certainly not given this impression. I was also told I would not be allowed to follow up with any of these students at any point in the future, even though their initial relationship was with our company. On the basis of these interactions, no lead was ever handed on to a larger agent.

    However, why did I need to consider passing on these leads in the first place? The reality is that no university I approached wanted to provide an agent contract to a small organisation like mine, so there was no way of monetising the many hours of work spent advising these families without charging them to cover some costs.

    Under the heading ‘Increasing transparency and accountability’, the Agent Quality Framework (AQF) states: “Request transparency around the use of sub-agents. Be clear that an agent’s endorsement of the National Code of Ethical Practice and engagement with an appropriate UK Credited training programme also applies to any sub-agent partners working with the contracted agent.”

    The AQF guidelines are laudable – but from first-hand experience, and backed up by the SAMS survey, it appears that they are a long way from being implemented.

    Large agents do grow organically but most appear to grow substantively via ‘aggregating’ the leads from smaller agents. These smaller agents might be highly ethical but unless processes are in place to formally audit their actions there can be little transparency and accountability in the system. Basically, there is not a clear process that can be evaluated.

    BSI’s certification is process based. While this won’t necessarily weed out all bad practice on the ground, it would make both agents and universities responsible for having robust systems and processes that could be reasonably assessed by trained BSI auditors.

    Universities would implement BS EN ISO 9001 with regards to their international student recruitment management process. The quality management standard guides organisations as they review their principles and practices to ensure there is consistency and quality throughout the organisation and crucially within any third parties involved in the process. This is done via independent audits prior to achieving certification.

    Clearly a management standard related to international student recruitment can only be implemented if the practices of both the institution and the agents it contracts are working in harmony, following a clear and accountable process.

    Certification lasts for three years before formal recertification is required and typically there is a maintenance audit annually within this period.

    Why does this certification matter?

    At a micro level, everyone engaged in student recruitment should care about student wellbeing and students being matched with the institution that suits them best, not perhaps the one providing the highest level of commission.

    However, it also really matters at a macro level; even in an AI world, word of mouth marketing still really matters. Every international student that isn’t well cared for and whose agent does not offer transparency is a ‘black mark’ for the UK higher education sector.

    This is no longer a cozy world of the big four international recruiters; Australia, Canada, US and the UK. This is now a big 14 market

    This is no longer a cozy world of the big four international recruiters; Australia, Canada, US and the UK. This is now a big 14 market: South Korea already has 300,000 international students, France aims to enrol 500,000 international students by 2027 as part of its Bienvenue en France strategy. India reportedly has a goal of enrolling 500,000 foreign students by 2047, while Japan wants to host 400,000 by 2033.

    One significant way UK higher education can rise to the top of the international pile is by showing it is serious about international student wellbeing and support. Having a BSI certification would also be a competitive advantage for each individual institution and a strong marketing message to present to prospective international students.

    This may well mean fewer, bigger agents who employ more, better trained staff rather than relying on ‘buying’ leads from smaller sub-agents. However, would this be such a bad thing? At least it would mean that big agents directly employ larger teams who should all be trained to understand their responsibilities to gain and then retain a British Standard.

    Many working in international recruitment currently argue that the Agent market they work with is too fragmented for them to properly manage; fewer, larger Agents should mean less bureaucracy and more importantly greater accountability.

    Source link

  • The international student levy risks undermining exchange, languages, and outward mobility unless universities speak up now

    The international student levy risks undermining exchange, languages, and outward mobility unless universities speak up now

    The UK government’s proposed international student levy is intended to be a simple mechanism: a flat £925 charge per international student per year, paid by English higher education providers and reinvested into the higher education and skills system. In principle, the policy objective is clear and defensible.

    However, as the technical consultation currently stands, there is a significant unintended consequence that risks undermining international student exchange, outward mobility for UK students, and already fragile subjects such as modern languages. Unless this is addressed now, the levy could inadvertently make reciprocal exchange financially unsustainable for many universities.

    Why exchange students matter and why they are different

    Incoming exchange and study-abroad students are not the same as full-degree international students:

    • they are typically fee-neutral, with tuition waived under reciprocal agreements
    • they are credit-bearing but not registered for a UK award
    • they are essential to maintaining balanced two-way mobility, which in turn enables UK students to study abroad
    • they underpin disciplines such as languages and area studies, where a year or semester abroad is integral to the curriculum

    In many cases, hosting an incoming exchange student already represents a net cost to the institution, absorbed in recognition of the wider academic and strategic benefits.

    Where the levy design creates a problem

    The technical consultation defines international students broadly and excludes only those on a short-term study visa, a route that is used almost exclusively for non-credit English language courses, whereas exchange and study-abroad students enter the UK on either a student visa (for full-year exchange), or a standard visitor visa or ETA (for one-semester study that is still credit-bearing).

    The result is stark: a university could be required to pay £925 to host an incoming exchange student who pays no tuition fees

    As drafted, this means that most incoming exchange students are likely to be counted for levy purposes, despite generating no additional tuition fee income. The result is stark: a university could be required to pay £925 to host an incoming exchange student who pays no tuition fees.

    The knock-on effect on outward mobility and languages

    Exchange is a two-way system. If hosting incoming students becomes a cash cost, universities will face difficult choices:

    • capping or reducing inbound exchange numbers
    • rebalancing or withdrawing from reciprocal partnerships
    • limiting outward mobility opportunities for their own students

    These pressures will be felt first, and hardest, in languages, where outward mobility is central to academic integrity and already under strain across the UK.

    The risk is that a levy designed to support opportunity and access ends up shrinking access to study abroad, particularly for students in less well-resourced disciplines or from less advantaged backgrounds, which would run counter to wider government ambitions around global engagement, skills, and social mobility.

    Almost certainly unintended and eminently fixable

    There is no indication in the consultation documents or impact analysis that these consequences have been explicitly considered. The levy has been modelled as a headcount-based charge, optimised for fee-paying diploma mobility, not for fee-neutral credit mobility.

    The good news is that this is eminently fixable without undermining the core policy objective. Options could include:

    • excluding students registered for credit only and not a UK award
    • excluding reciprocal exchange students where no additional UK tuition fee is charged
    • excluding students studying less than a full academic year, unless enrolled on a full degree

    Any of these would protect exchange and outward mobility while preserving the integrity of the levy.

    A call to action for universities

    The consultation on the international student levy is open until February 18 2026. This is the moment for universities to respond.

    Institutions with: language provision, exchange-reliant programmes, and or strong commitments to outward mobility, should make their voices heard, clearly and constructively, highlighting this risk as an unintended consequence, not an argument against the levy itself.

    If the sector does not raise this now, the danger is that a technically simple policy quietly erodes one of the most valuable, and vulnerable, parts of the UK’s international education ecosystem.

    Respond to the UK government’s proposed international student levy here.

    Vincenzo Raimo will be speaking about the potential impact of the international student levy at The PIE Live Europe in London on March 25. Book your ticket here.

    Source link

  • how fear reshaped America’s appeal to international students

    how fear reshaped America’s appeal to international students

    One year into Donald Trump’s second presidency, the most consequential outcome for international students has not been a single policy, executive order or visa restriction. It’s been the creation of a pervasive climate of fear and the lasting reputational damage that fear inflicted on the United States as a destination for global talent.

    American universities are accustomed to planning around policy change. They model visa delays, compliance shifts and regulatory risk. What they are far less equipped to manage is a climate where uncertainty itself shapes decision-making. Over the past year, that uncertainty has influenced how the US is perceived long before any student applies for a visa or boards a plane.

    And that uncertainty has carried more weight than legislation. 

    Fear without formal policy

    While many expected sweeping changes to student visas or post-graduate work pathways, the administration’s strongest signals emerged elsewhere – in its posture toward universities and the way campuses were publicly framed.

    As universities became targets of ideological suspicion, perceptions shifted well beyond US borders. For international students and their families, studying in America increasingly feels exposed to political risk, even in the absence of formal restrictions.

    That perception has produced tangible effects. Advisors report students asking whether participating in protests could jeopardise their immigration status. Parents seek reassurance that academic disagreement will not trigger scrutiny. Even when the legal answer remains unchanged, the persistence of these questions points to a deeper erosion of trust.

    When campuses are portrayed as adversaries rather than civic institutions, international audiences take note

    Universities as America’s ambassadors

    For decades, America’s universities were among the country’s most effective ambassadors. Long before students arrived in Washington, they arrived in Berkeley, Boston, Chicago and Austin.

    They experienced open debate, academic freedom, pluralism, and the idea that disagreement was not just tolerated but valued. Higher education was one of the few arenas where America’s democratic ideals were not merely stated but lived.

    That role mattered. International alumni carried those experiences home with them, shaping how the United States was understood long after graduation. Universities helped project stability, openness and institutional strength in ways few government programs ever could.

    During Trump’s presidency, that ambassadorial function has weakened. Education begins to look like a liability – and when campuses are portrayed as adversaries rather than civic institutions, international audiences take note. 

    Reputational damage travels faster than reform

    The challenge for the US now is that reputational damage moves faster than policy repair. Even if no new restrictions are introduced, trust doesn’t automatically return. Students make decisions years in advance, guided by word of mouth, social media, and the experiences of peers.

    The UK’s experience after the Brexit referendum offers a cautionary parallel. Applications plateaued well before any formal change to student mobility rules took effect. The perception of hostility alone was enough to shift behavior. The US risks repeating that pattern, particularly as competitor countries work actively to position themselves as stable and welcoming alternatives.

    This matters not only for enrolment numbers, but for the long-term talent pipeline. We know that international students contribute to research, innovation and local economies. Many stay, building companies, staffing laboratories and strengthening entire sectors. When they choose other destinations, the loss compounds over time.

    Less visible, but no less consequential, is the effect this environment has on universities themselves. Many institutions have become more cautious in how they communicate and more guarded in how they engage publicly. Time and attention that once supported international partnerships or student-facing programs are being pulled toward risk management and internal review. These changes rarely register in enrolment data at first, yet they alter how campuses feel to prospective students. For those arriving from abroad, a campus that appears hesitant or constrained is harder to trust.

    What rebuilding trust requires

    The United States remains home to many of the world’s strongest universities. That foundation still exists, but prestige alone cannot offset fear. One year into this presidency, American universities are discovering that reputation alone is no longer enough to secure global confidence.

    Looking ahead to a potential second Trump term, the lesson is not merely about revisiting old policies but about confronting accumulated damage. Even without new restrictions, trust once broken is slow to rebuild. 

    Universities and policymakers must recognise that restoring America’s standing will require more than reversing executive orders. It will require clear commitments to due process, institutional autonomy and the principle that education is not a security threat.

    Source link

  • International education sector reacts to new UK strategy

    International education sector reacts to new UK strategy

    Earlier this week, the UK government released its refreshed international education strategy (IES). While some stakeholders have welcomed its ambitions to grow education exports to £40 billion per year by 2030, others have dubbed it an export strategy rather than a roadmap for international education and raised important questions about the plan’s purpose and long-term direction.

    “The strategy puts sustainable international student recruitment at its heart, and we look forward to continuing to take a lead on working with the government to deliver this,” said Andrew Bird, chair of the British Universities International Association (BUILA).

    Unlike the 2019 international education strategy, the UK government’s latest iteration removes explicit targets for international student numbers. This marks a notable shift from the earlier strategy, which aimed for a 30% increase in international student enrolments by 2030.

    Bird said the strategy recognises the power of international education to “enhance the UK’s global standing and drive growth” and was pleased to see the government’s recognition of the Agent Quality Framework to drive improved standards in international student recruitment.

    Rob Grimshaw, CEO at StudyIn also welcomed the government’s strong support for the AQF noting that “high standards in student recruitment are vital to the long-term success of the UK’s higher education sector.”

    “For the UK to remain globally competitive, we must continue to make a compelling case for studying here – not just in terms of quality, but also trust, outcomes and student experience,” said Grimshaw.

    Mark Bennett, VP of research and insight at Keystone Education Group lauded the government’s strategy in its ability to articulate “an evolving vision for UK international education that, if successful, genuinely could see more people around the world benefit from the courses and resources offered by UK universities”.

    The strategy states the £40bn aim will be achieved across the “full breadth of the sector”, including TNE, English language training (ELT), and edtech, while broadly referencing existing trade missions, soft power networks and boosting financial support mechanisms.  

    The IES sets out an intention to grow the government’s leadership in TNE, as well as using the joint government-sector forum, the Education Sector Action Group (ESAG), to champion partnership opportunities and educating providers on the technical risks of operating overseas.

    The government’s new international education strategy sets out that each ESAG representative will lead on an action plan, published within the first 100 days of appointment to ESAG, outlining how their members will support delivery.

    Bennett highlighted the ways in which TNE expands access to international education, particularly for students unable to afford travel and study abroad. He also noted its appeal to countries seeking to retain more of their students – and graduates – at home.

    “And, of course, it appeals to anyone who would like international students to show up in figures for enrolments, but not immigration,” he added.

    However, Bennett raised that for some universities not already operating in the TNE space, what does it mean to have a strategy that refuses to give a target for traditional onshore enrolment?

    “if you ask me, it means the strategy can be called a success whether those enrolments rise by one or fall by 100,000 – and that’s important. Not everyone does TNE and TNE is not so easy to start doing,” he said.

    The new international education strategy is, in reality, an education export strategy
    Vincenzo Raimo, international higher education consultant

    Meanwhile, Vincenzo Raimo, international higher education consultant, puts it bluntly: “The new international education strategy is, in reality, an education export strategy.

    “There’s nothing wrong with that, but calling it an international education strategy risks obscuring what’s missing: a serious commitment to languages, outward mobility and the development of the UK’s own international capabilities in a way that equips people to understand the world, work across cultures, and thrive within it.”

    The PIE News’s own Nicholas Cuthbert notes in his analysis that the Home Office features only minimally in the strategy. He argues that excluding the Home Office from the ESAG risks repeating a familiar mistake: a disconnect between immigration policy and the UK’s education export ambitions.

    Elsewhere, Universites UK International director Jamie Arrowsmith described the strategy as an “important moment” for the sector and welcomed the “renewed commitment to fostering the global reach, reputation and impact of UK universities”.

    “The strategy reflects many of the priorities we set out in our Blueprint for Change, and represents a positive and holistic vision of the role universities play in the UK’s global success,” he said.

    Source link