Tag: International

  • How to design an international student tuition fee levy

    How to design an international student tuition fee levy

    “The Government will explore introducing a levy on higher education provider income from international students, to be reinvested into the higher education and skills system. Further details will be set out in the Autumn Budget.”

    35 words that have put the sector into a spin, spun out tens of thousands of words of analysis and rebuttal, and set into motion a shared panic that the government is not only going to reduce the number of international students but tax the students that universities manage to recruit.

    Design

    The only things that we know about the levy is that the government has used a six per cent tax on international fees as an “illustrative example” in its technical annex, the government assumes this cost would be passed on to international students, and that passing on these costs will depress international student numbers by around 7,000. In terms of the levy design there is the promise that the money will be ringfenced for higher education and skills but which parts and how is not defined. It is of course also not guaranteed.

    The sector’s response has been to point out that reducing the number of international students and devaluing the unit of resource they bring with them will put additional financial pressure on universities. The impact will also be uneven with the largest recruiters of international students paying the highest levy.

    The government has made a hugely consequential policy signal with no details, scant impact assessment, and no analysis of the consequences. However, if a levy of some form is going to happen the sector should think carefully about which kinds of levy they believe would be preferable. Not all levies are built equally.

    Australia

    The idea for a levy seems to have come from the Australian Universities Accord. The UK government does not seem to have noticed that the idea was heavily edited and caveated in the final report but in the interim report it was noted that:

    The Review notes various submissions support establishing a specific fund that could be used for future infrastructure needs, as well other national priorities. This could include consideration of a levy on international student fee income. The use of this revenue for sectoral-wide priorities could reflect the collaborative nature of the sector in building a strong and enduring system. The Review notes further examination is required, including consideration of some level of co-investment from governments.

    There is a little bit more detail here but not much. Like the UK version the fund would be hypothecated toward higher education and used to fund things on a system wide basis. The politics on the face of it appear progressive that the institutions that benefit most from private capital, the flow of international students, pay a proportion of it back to fund public goods in the wider higher education system. The less progressive element is that international students pay once to their institution, they would then pay a levy which their provider would pass on to them in increased fees, and they then prop up an education system of a nation in which they are not permanently resident.

    The University of Melbourne did some follow up work looking at the implications of such a levy. Some of the issues they picked up are whether this would be a levy on all international students in all kinds of education, whether it is reasonable to distribute funding from high income to low income institutions, whether the idea of a levy in and of itself would dampen demand, and whether the impact of taxing income from individual providers is more harmful than the collective benefits they may receive from a shared fund.

    Depending how the government chooses to apply its levy we would expect to see very different results. An Australian model which redistributes funding from the wealthiest institution to the least wealthy would have a very different set of consequences to a levy which took a six per cent flat tax and put it into a general fund for infrastructure. It feels odd within a market based higher education system to make one provider dependent on the success of another. It also feels odd to make international students who are studying at a specific institution responsible for the health of the wider sector.

    Some would see an intra-university levy as a recognition that the success of the system is the success of each provider. Some would see it as an unjustifiable tax on the most financially successful institutions.

    New Zealand

    Australia’s Antipodean partner already has a form of student levy.

    New Zealand’s Export Education Levy is charged as a proportion of the fee international fee-paying students pay to their providers. Depending on the kind of institution this is charged at between .5 per cent and .89 per cent of tuition fees.

    The levy has a direct relationship between funders and beneficiaries. Although it is a tax on learners, and by extension a tax on providers, the funding is used for the development of the export education sector, a recovery scheme should a provider be unable to continue teaching, the administration of the international element of The Education (Pastoral Care of Tertiary and InternationalLearners) Code of Practice 2021 (this includes a range of safety, wellbeing and advice support), and the funding of the International Student Contract Dispute Resolution Scheme (a scheme for students to resolve disputes with their providers on contracts and financial issues.)

    This system has been in place with some variations and the occasional suspension since 2002. The international education system is much smaller in New Zealand than the UK and the amount of funding the levy raises is modest at close to three million dollars in 2022/23. The model in operation here is a relatively small tax to fund things which providers have a shared interest in. It’s not a direct cash transfer between providers but a collective pot to reinvest into the economic commodity of international education. The scheme was suspended during COVID-19 as a measure to support the sector, so its financial impacts are clearly not negligible, but post COVID-19 international enrolments are recovering strongly. Whether they would have recovered even more strongly without a levy is impossible to know.

    This is a light-touch, shared endeavour, we all should have some investment in international education, kind of a levy and it is not the only levy New Zealand has.

    The Student Service Levy is a fee applied to all student fees to fund non-academic services. The University of Auckland surveys students every year on what they would like their fees to be spent on and in 2024, in descending order by amount, funding was spent on sports, recreation and cultural activities, counselling services and pastoral care, health services, child care services, clubs and societies, careers advice, legal advice, financial advice, and media.

    This is a general levy but the principle has broader applications. It would be entirely possible to levy international student fees to pay for non-academic services. For example, university access budgets are effectively paid for by a levy on fees. This system seems fairer in some ways than a general levy. The place where a student studies is the primary beneficiary of their fees. From a policy perspective it would allow the government to move institutional behaviour toward things they care about by stipulating what the fee could be spent on. However, given that international student fees subsidy much of university work already it would again feel like they are paying twice. Additionally, if providers didn’t have to redistribute their funding on a national basis the providers with the most international students would be able to spend the most on non-academic elements.

    Where else

    It is also worth stating the government’s proposed levy would not function like the Apprenticeship Levy. The Apprenticeship Levy is a tax on employer’s payroll but employers are able to access the funds they contribute to spend on apprenticeships with any underspend clawed back by the government. Plainly, if government allowed providers to access the fees they contribute to the levy for the education of their own students there would be no point in having a levy in the first place beyond giving universities the political coverage to raise fees. Presumably, not an outcome the government is intending.

    The argument against a levy of international student fees will dominate the sector for months to come. Should a levy come to pass universities would be well disposed to think of which kinds of levy they might prefer. A model which redistributes funding across providers and if so which providers and for what projects. A model which internally redistributes funding toward student support. Or, likely the least popular, a model which allows the government to reinvest the funding broadly and perhaps outside of higher education.

    In making the case of the harm a levy could cause the sector may also win over more sympathy if it can explain which kinds of levies in which places have what kinds of effects depending on how they are applied. A levy may generally be a bad idea but some versions are much more harmful than others.

    Source link

  • Plotting the impact of an international fee levy

    Plotting the impact of an international fee levy

    There’s not many in the higher education sector that would have welcomed any part of the recent immigration white paper.

    The reduction in the graduate route time limit would have been difficult enough. The BCA changes to duties on providers in order to sponsor international students will cause many problems. The possibility of financial penalties linked to asylum claims for those on student visas was as unexpected as it is problematic.

    But it is the levy that has really attracted the ire of UK higher education.

    The best form of defence

    On one level it is simply a tax – on the income from international student fees, which is one of a vanishingly few places from which universities can cross-subsidise loss-making activity like research and teaching UK-domiciled students.

    Yes, the funds raised are promised variously to “skills and higher education” or just “skills”, and the suggestion seems to be that the costs will be passed on entirely to international students via rises in tuition fees. There’s not any real information on the assumptions underpinning this position, or credible calculations by which the proportion of students that may be deterred by these rises and other measures has been estimated.

    But details are still scant – the government has, after all, only promised to “explore” the introduction of a levy – and used the idea of a six per cent levy on international tuition fees as an “illustrative example”. We have to look forward to the Autumn statement (not even the skills white paper – remember joined-up, mission-led, government?) for more – and do recall that the white paper is a consultation and responses need to be made in order to finesse the policy.

    Thinking about impact

    There’s no reliable way to assess the impact of this policy with so little information, but we do know a lot about the exposure of each university to the international market.

    For starters here’s a summary of provider income from overseas fees since 2016–17 – both for individual providers and (via the filters) for the sector as a whole.

    [Full screen]

    The story has been one of growth pretty much anywhere you care to look – with only limited evidence of a cooling off in the most recent year of data. Some institutions have trebled their income from this source over the eight years of available data, with particular growth in postgraduate taught provision.

    In considering the financial impact of a potential levy I have used the most recent (2023–24) year of financial data – showing the total non-UK fee income on the vertical axis and the proportion of total income represented by the value of the levy on the horizontal. By default I have modelled a levy of six per cent (you can use the filter to consider other levels).

    [Full screen]

    Who’s up, who’s down?

    In the majority of large universities the cost of levy is equivalent to around two per cent of total income. In the main it is the Russell Group that sees substantial income from international fees – the small number of exceptions (most notably the University of Hertfordshire and the University of the Arts London) would see a levy impact of closer to three per cent of total income.

    What we can’t realistically model is university pricing behavior and the impact on recruitment. Universities generally charge what the market will stand for international courses – and this value is generally higher for providers that are better known from popular league tables.

    Subject areas and qualifications also have an impact (the cost of an MBA, for example, may be higher than a taught creative arts masters – a year of postgraduate study may cost more than a year of an undergraduate course), as does the country from which students are arriving (China may be charged more than India, for example).

    Some better off universities in the middle of the market may choose to swallow more of the cost of the levy in order to increase their competitiveness for applicants making decisions on price – this would put pressure on the currently cheaper end of the market to follow suit as well as direct competitors, and may lower the overall floor price for particular providers (though, to be fair, private providers are still better positioned to undercut should they have access to funds from investment or other parts of the business).

    There is an obvious impact on the quality of the provision if providers do cut the amount of fee income – and this as well could have an impact on the attractiveness of the whole sector. For more hands-on courses in technical or creative subjects, provision may become unviable overall – surrendering the soft power of influence in these fields.

    A starting point

    It’s not often that we see a policy proposal on university funding launched with so little information. Generations of politicians have learned that university funding policy changes are the equivalent of poking a wasps nest with a sharp stick – it may be something that needs doing but the short term pain and noise is massive.

    It could be that it is a deliberate policy to let the sector (and associated commentariat) go crazy for a month or so while a plan is developed to avoid the less desirable (for ministers) consequences. But the idea that international students will gladly pay more to support an underfunded sector is one that has been at the heart of university activity for decades – the only real change here is that the government feels it can put some of the profits to better use than some of our larger and better-known providers.

    In all of this there appears to have been little consideration of the fairness of putting extra costs onto the fees of international students – particularly where they personally don’t see any value from their additional spend. But this has been an issue for a good few years, and it seems to have taken the possibility of a tariff (which could be considered unfair to cash-strapped universities too) to drive this problem further up the sector’s agenda.

    Source link

  • ICE Warns International Students of More SEVIS Terminations

    ICE Warns International Students of More SEVIS Terminations

    Immigration officials sent letters to international students on short-term work visas Thursday night, threatening to terminate their legal status in the Student Exchange and Visitor Information System and remove them from the country. The number of affected students is still unknown, but Inside Higher Ed can confirm at least 35.

    It’s the first sign that the Trump administration is resuming its campaign to deport student visa holders, weeks after restoring the statuses of thousands of students. ICE recently released an updated policy that significantly expands the agency’s authority to terminate students’ SEVIS status and pave the way for deportation proceedings. 

    This time, they’re targeting students on Optional Practical Training visas, or OPTs, which allow international postgraduates the opportunity to work in a field relevant to their study on a short-term extension. Students on OPT are allowed a total of 90 days of unemployment every 12 months before falling out of compliance. It’s still not known whether any of the affected students were on a special visa extension known as OPT for STEM, awarded to graduates in high-demand technology, science and engineering fields. 

    One international student adviser, who spoke with Inside Higher Ed on the condition of anonymity, said 28 of his institution’s students on OPT received the letter in the past day, and he expects that number will grow. 

    In a copy of one letter received by an international student and obtained by Inside Higher Ed, Immigration and Customs Enforcement warned those who have not reported employment status within 90 days of starting their OPT visa that they must do so in 15 days. If they don’t, the Student Exchange and Visitor Program “will set your SEVIS record to ‘terminated,’” the letter reads, which “may result in the initiation of immigration proceedings to remove you from the United States.”

    The letter is nearly identical to those sent by officials during the first Trump administration in 2020. The only difference: Back then, the Student Exchange and Visitor Program was the letter’s sole signatory. This time, ICE and the Department of Homeland Security are also named. 

    The 2020 letters were sent two years after officials issued an update to designated school officials informing them that the administration had begun a review of OPT students’ employment status to find noncompliant visa holders. But that notice also said SEVP would not automatically terminate students’ SEVIS status for going over the 90-day unemployment limit before notifying students. 

    It’s not clear whether immigration officials engaged in a review process before beginning to notify students of potential SEVIS terminations this week. Spokespeople for ICE and DHS did not respond to questions in time for publication. 

    It was also not immediately clear if OPT students’ SEVIS terminations would result in subsequent visa revocations, which are the purview of the State Department. A spokesperson for the State Department wrote in an email that they “cannot preview future visa-related decisions, which are made on a case-by-case basis, based on the individual facts relevant to the case,” and deferred other questions sent by Inside Higher Ed to DHS.

    In an internal communication sent to international student advisers and support specialists, NAFSA, an organization of international educators, urged college officials to regularly check the SEVIS database for notices of OPT students’ compliance with “accrued unemployment days” and to reach out to any students who are over the 90-day limit as soon as possible. 

    Immigration officials began systematically terminating thousands of students’ SEVIS statuses along with their visas in late March, an unprecedented move that threw international student support offices into chaos and left students scrambling to avoid deportation. 

    Last month, immigration officials restored the SEVIS statuses of more than 5,000 international students after losing dozens of court cases challenging the legality of efforts to revoke foreign students’ legal residency at a breakneck pace.

    The anonymous international student adviser said students on OPT often forget to report their employment details before the 90-day deadline. Many are distracted by graduations and finals well after they receive approval for the visa and forget, he said; in other cases, the lapse can be due to technical issues within SEVIS.

    Because of that, they’re often given some leeway, and he said he’s never seen or heard of a student having their SEVIS status terminated for not reporting employment details on time, including the last time these letters were sent in 2020. Then again, much of the Trump administration’s treatment of student visa holders is unprecedented, and he’s worried this could be a real danger for them.

    “There’s a lot of panic and uncertainty as our students are waiting to see what will happen, and we’re waiting to see if they’ll really go through with it,” he said. “I think this is the real deal.”

    Source link

  • Belfast hip-hop group Kneecap at the center of international firestorm

    Belfast hip-hop group Kneecap at the center of international firestorm

    Last year, FIRE launched the Free Speech Dispatch, a regular series covering new and continuing censorship trends and challenges around the world. Our goal is to help readers better understand the global context of free expression. Want to make sure you don’t miss an update? Sign up for our newsletter. 

    Kneecap spurs controversy in the U.S. and investigation in the UK as narcocorridos controversy roils Mexico

    Belfast trio Kneecap’s public statements at Coachella and earlier concerts have caused an international stir, and now even the UK’s counter-terrorism police are involved. 

    The band, already no stranger to controversy, provoked it once again during its Coachella performances by displaying the message, “Israel is committing genocide … enabled by the US,” adding, “Fuck Israel. Free Palestine.”

    In the following days, they were uninvited from music festivals in Germany as well as split with their booking agency in the U.S., meaning that the band is likely to face work-visa issues in its upcoming American tour. (And, given the Trump administration’s current track record on the subject, it would not be surprising to see them face visa challenges on the basis of their expression.) 

    In addition to the Coachella dustup, the group’s past comments have stirred new threats of legal action in the UK, specifically an “Up Hamas, up Hezbollah” chant at a 2024 gig and a band member’s comment at a show the year prior: “The only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP.”

    Metropolitan police said videos of both comments “were referred to the Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit for assessment by specialist officers, who have determined there are grounds for further investigation into potential offences linked to both videos.” A UK government spokesperson also said that authorities will “work with the police and parliament to do everything in our power to crack down on threats to elected officials.” (In the U.S., these comments would not meet either the incitement standard or qualify as material support for terrorism, and would be protected by the First Amendment.) And British politicians have made calls including for their disinvitation from Glastonbury as well as prosecution for the “Kill your local MP” remark. 

    A group of artists including Massive Attack and Pulp issued a statement against what they called a “clear, concerted attempt to censor and ultimately deplatform the band Kneecap.” The band also objected to what it calls a “smear campaign” to “manufacture moral hysteria” but asserted they “do not, and have never, supported Hamas or Hezbollah” and would not “seek to incite violence against any MP or individual. Ever.”

    Some similar questions are at play in Mexico over narcocorridos, ballads about drug trafficking. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum says her “position is that it should not be banned, but that other music should be promoted.” In recent weeks, though, some Mexican states have taken action against the genre.

    And last month, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau announced on X that the State Department revoked the visas of a band who “portrayed images glorifying drug kingpin ‘El Mencho’” at a concert in Mexico. “I’m a firm believer in freedom of expression,” Landau wrote, “but that doesn’t mean that expression should be free of consequences.”

    The band, Los Alegres del Barranco, may also be facing criminal charges in Mexico “for allegedly promoting criminal activity.”

    The UK’s blasphemy debate is still going 

    Kneecap’s political commentary isn’t the only free expression controversy in the UK. As I’ve discussed in previous dispatches, UK-based activists have set off global controversies in recent months with public Quran burnings resulting in criminal charges. 

    The Crown Prosecution Service received well-deserved criticism over its decision to charge a man who burned a Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London with intent to cause “harassment, alarm or distress” against “the religious institution of Islam.” There is no other way to put it: protecting a religious institution from “distress” is a blatant blasphemy law.

    In response to critics, the CPS admitted the charge was “incorrectly applied” and has substituted a different charge, a public order offense “on the basis that his actions caused harassment, alarm or distress — which is a criminal offence — and that this was motivated by hostility towards a religious or racial group.” 

    This prosecution, however, remains a serious threat to free expression and the public debate around it suggests this matter is far from settled. In an exchange on X, one member of parliament chastised another for “invest[ing] so much energy into advocating for the right to offend a minority community” and warned that free expression “comes with limitations and protections.”

    From Xi’s critics to Israeli protests, political speech is under attack

    • In a recent episode of his HBO show “The Rehearsal,” Nathan Fielder reveals Paramount+ removed an older “Nathan for You” episode from streaming everywhere after Paramount+ Germany became “uncomfortable with what they called anything that touches on antisemitism in the aftermath of the Israel/Hamas attacks.” That episode focused on Fielder’s satirical pitch for a winter coat company to compete with a real life brand affiliated with a Holocaust denier. (From the stunt, Fielder “likely raised millions of dollars toward Holocaust awareness.”)
    • Israeli police temporarily warned organizers of a Tel Aviv protest that demonstrators could not use images of Palestinian children and terms like “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” in protest signs.
    • A new Human Rights Watch report finds that Vietnam is ramping up enforcement of its law targeting expression “infringing of state interests.” Now “authorities have enlarged the scope and application of article 331 so that it reaches much further into society, beyond human rights and democracy dissidents — most of whom are now in prison — to all those publicly voicing grievances.”
    • A Thai appeals court sentenced a democracy activist to two years in prison for violating the country’s harsh lese-majeste law. In 2022, she posted on Facebook, “The government is shit, the institution is shit.”
    • Paul Chambers, the American academic charged with lese-majeste in Thailand, received good news but he’s not out of the woods yet. Prosecutors announced they declined to pursue the charges against him but that decision will face further review.
    • At April’s Semafor World Economy Summit, Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos shared that the company previously attempted to build a presence in China but “in three years, not a single episode of a single Netflix show cleared the censorship board.”

    • China has disappeared another “Bridge Man.” In an incident similar to one that set off a global protest movement in 2022, an activist hung banners calling for political reform over a bridge outside Chengdu last month and was quickly detained — and his whereabouts are now unknown.


    • An investigation of China’s transnational repression methods from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists found that during “at least seven of Xi’s 31 international trips between 2019 and 2024, local law enforcement infringed on dozens of protesters’ rights in order to shield the Chinese president from dissent, detaining or arresting activists, often for spurious reasons.”
    • Last month, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that, at the DOJ’s request, Serbian law enforcement arrested two men alleged to have “coordinated and directed a conspiracy to harass, intimidate, and threaten” a Los Angeles-based critic of Xi Jinping.
    • Hong Kong’s national security police arrested family members of the U.S.-based activist Anna Kwok, who is wanted under the city’s national security law, for handling her “funds or other financial assets.”

    Conflict with Pakistan brings spike in India’s censorship 

    India’s censorship, especially on the internet, is a persistent threat to free expression, and the country’s recent flare-up with Pakistan has worsened the situation. Dozens have been arrested for “anti-India comments” on social media and “content supporting Pakistan.”

    In a May 8 notice, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting advised all social media sites and streaming services to “discontinue” content “having its origins in Pakistan with immediate effect.”

    At the government’s request, Meta blocked the 6.7 million follower Instagram account @Muslim, one of “the most followed Muslim news sources on Instagram.” X, too, announced it received orders to block over 8,000 users in the country, including “accounts belonging to international news organizations and prominent X users.” X complied and said “due to legal restrictions, we are unable to publish the executive orders at this time” but is exploring avenues to respond. 

    YouTube, too, is a target. Officials blocked over a dozen Pakistani YoutTube channels for “disseminating provocative and communally sensitive content, false and misleading narratives and misinformation against India.” India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology also restricted access to The Wire, an independent news site, throughout the country.

    The latest wins, losses, and challenges for free speech in tech

    • It’s not all bad news for free expression in India. This month, India’s Supreme Court reversed a ruling from the Delhi High Court ordering Wikipedia to take down a Wiki page amidst Asian News International’s lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation.
    • The Wikimedia Foundation is also taking on the UK’s Online Safety Act. The foundation is specifically challenging the act’s Categorisation Regulations, which “are written broadly enough that they could place Wikipedia as a ‘Category 1 service’ — a platform posing the highest possible level of risk to the public.” Among Wikimedia’s objections are the risks this classification poses to its users’ privacy and anonymity.
    • Meta secured a significant victory against Israeli spyware company NSO Group, with a jury awarding $168 million in damages. The NSO Group was accused of exploiting Meta’s WhatsApp to install its Pegasus spyware program, which has been used in high profile hacks of lawyers, journalists, and activists, into over a thousand phones.
    • X, a regular target of Turkish censorship orders, complied with an order to block the account of imprisoned Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, a rival of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. X says it is challenging the order.
    • Bluesky has complied with Turkish orders, too. The platform restricted access to dozens of accounts in the country on “national security and public order” grounds.
    • Russia restricted internet access in regions of the country ahead of its “Victory Day” celebrations on May 9. “We want the glorious Victory Day to be celebrated at the appropriate level,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said of the shutdowns.

    U.S. embassy warns Stockholm against ‘promoting DEI’

    Stockholm announced this month that it was surprised to receive a “bizarre” letter from the U.S. embassy in the city. The letter, copies of which went to contractors abroad who work with the federal government, told Stockholm’s planning office to “certify that they do not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable anti-discrimination laws.” Companies in Europe have reported receiving these letters, but Stockholm’s planning office is the first government agency known to have received one. Officials conveyed that they would not be complying.

    Embassies’ efforts to interfere with expression abroad are an issue I discuss at length in my forthcoming book, Authoritarians in the Academy. In 2021, for example, the Chinese embassy unsuccessfully pressured the Italian city of Brescia to cancel an art exhibition it claimed would “endanger the friendly relations between Italy and China” because it was “full of anti-Chinese lies.”

    How press freedom is faring today

    • Argentine President Javier Milei is suing three journalists for defamation for their criticism of him, including a column comparing current events with the rise of Nazism and comments calling him an “authoritarian” and a “despot.”
    • Swedish journalist Joakim Medin was hit with an 11-month suspended sentence for insulting the Turkish president and is awaiting a trial on terrorism charges. Medin says he was not even in the country when the alleged conduct took place.
    • Israel’s Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara warned government agencies that their boycott of the media outlet Hareetz over its coverage of the Israel-Hamas war “was conducted through an improper process that cannot be upheld legally.”
    • Former Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams’ libel suit against the BBC over reporting that he sanctioned a killing in 2006 is underway. BBC says the reporting followed its editorial standards.
    • Two reporters were detained in Macau, a special administrative region of China, for allegedly “disrupting the operations” of authorities after trying to report on a legislative debate.
    • Four Russian journalists accused of having ties to Alexey Navalny were sentenced to over five years in a prison colony last month.
    • Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas reversed the ban on Al Jazeera, permitting it to resume reporting, after it banned the outlet in January on incitement allegations.

    Finally, some good news for a victim of blasphemy laws

    Mubarak Bala, a Nigerian humanist initially sentenced to 24 years in prison, is finally tasting freedom upon being released after spending over four years in prison. Mubarak still feared mob violence after his release, and was forced to live in a safe house due to threats. 

    Protesters holds up a piece of paper with Mubarak Bala's name

    But Bala has now arrived in Germany, where he is set to begin a residency at Humanistische Vereinigung. “No longer do I dread the routine sounds of the locks, nor the dark, certainly not the extreme weather, too hot or too cold, no longer ill, no longer hungry, no longer lonely, and no longer dreading that the marauders are coming across the fence, to drag me out and behead me,” Bala said in a statement.

    The Community Court of the Economic Community of West African States, a high court governing 12 African nations including Nigeria, found last month that a blasphemy statute used to prosecute Bala must be struck down. The Kano State government, however, defended its blasphemy laws and said it “will not allow religious liberty to be weaponized as a cover for sacrilege, insult, and provocation.”

    Source link

  • New international education focus in Albanese ministry – Campus Review

    New international education focus in Albanese ministry – Campus Review

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced a new role overseeing international education with the appointment of Julian Hill as International Education Assistant Minister. Mr Hill will retain his previous Customs and Multicultural Affairs Assistant Minister role.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • ‘What the hell just happened?’ Australia’s flirtation with a levy on international students – By Professor Andrew Norton

    ‘What the hell just happened?’ Australia’s flirtation with a levy on international students – By Professor Andrew Norton

    • This blog has been kindly written for HEPI by Andrew Norton, Professor of Higher Education Policy at Monash Business School, Monash University.
    • The thoughts of Nick Hillman, HEPI’s Director, on the levy can be read on the Research Professional News website here.

    For an Australian reader the UK immigration white paper’s proposal for a levy on international student fee revenue sounds familiar. In mid-2023 just such a levy was suggested for Australia by the interim report of a major higher education policy review. Like its UK version, the idea was to reinvest levy revenue in education. While the interim report lacked white paper status, education minister Jason Clare liked the idea enough to mention it in his report launch speech. 

    But now the levy has vanished from the Australian policy agenda. When the Universities Accord final report was released in February 2024 the levy idea was there but postponed, shunted off until after other major funding reforms that will start in 2027 at the earliest. So far as I can find, the Minister – newly reappointed this week after Labor’s election victory on 3 May – has not mentioned the idea in public for 18 months.

    So what happened? Predictably, the universities that stood to lose the most from the levy opposed it. But the bigger reason was that between mid-2023 and late 2023 the politics of international education in Australia were turned upside down. In a few months international education went from a valuable export industry to a cause of Australia’s housing shortages. International student numbers had to be cut. 

    As originally proposed in Australia the international student levy was not linked to migration policy. Some reduction in student demand was predicted, as levy costs were passed on through higher fees. But this was a policy side-effect, not its goal. If too many international students were deterred the levy would not raise enough money to achieve its domestic objectives. The Government needed more effective ways of bringing international student numbers back down. 

    Between October 2023 and July 2024 the Australian Government introduced, on my count, nine measures to block or discourage would-be international students. 

    Among the Government’s nine measures was one that delivered it international student revenue much more quickly than the proposed levy. The Government more than doubled student visa application fees from A$710 (~£330) to A$1,600 (~£745), claiming that the money would be spent on policies benefiting domestic students. During the 2025 election campaign Labor said it would increase visa fees again, to A$2,000 (~£930). The UK’s £524 fee looks cheap by comparison. 

    Higher visa fees and other migration measures had two big advantages over the once-proposed levy from the perspective of the Australian Government – legal ease and speed in delivering on migration goals. In Australia, many migration changes can be made by ministerial determination without parliamentary review. The levy required legislation. Australia’s system of sending controversial legislation to often-bruising Senate inquiries increases political costs, even when the bill ultimately passes.

    What visa fees lack is the Robin Hood element of the Australian levy as proposed. In 2023 the University of Sydney alone earned 14% of all university international student fee revenue. The top six universities received more than half of the total. Levy advocates argue that these gains are built on past taxpayer subsidies and prime real estate. Profits built on these foundations can legitimately be taxed for the wider benefit of Australian higher education. 

    In Australia generally, and under Labor governments especially, an egalitarian political culture gives these levy arguments some resonance. But for the foreseeable future migration is a bigger issue than university funding, and visa policies a more straightforward way of bringing down international student numbers than levies. Perhaps the levy idea will return, but the government’s long silence on the subject suggests that this will not happen anytime soon.

    Source link

  • Is data infrastructure the missing backbone of UK international HE?

    Is data infrastructure the missing backbone of UK international HE?

    IHEC‘s report,Towards a Future UK International Higher Education Strategy: Resilience, Purpose and Precision, released in April 2025, describes accurate data and timely insights as “the lifeblood” of an effective international education strategy.

    The Commission is calling on the government develop a digital data portal for international student information, accessible to universities and relevant public bodies.

    Its vision is a significant leap from the fragmented systems the sector currently relies on – where data is outdated and siloed across agencies.

    Stakeholders frequently point out that UK policy often trails real-world data by nearly two years.

    The Commission envisions a secure portal compiling data from various sources – Home Office visa issuance, HESA enrolments, accommodation, and health service usage – tracking, almost in real time, where international students are coming from and enrolling.

    Imagine a world where universities can instantly access up-to-date visa grant statistics by country, and local councils can anticipate the number of international students arriving in their area.

    With real-time insights at their fingertips, IHEC suggests that institutions, policymakers, and stakeholders could plan proactively – enhancing housing, support services, and infrastructure.

    “A system like this is entirely within our competence to establish,” according to IHEC.

    This isn’t the only tool the Commission has in its sights. As part of its ambitions, it also advocates for a market intelligence platform that would equip the UK with the insights needed to stay ahead of global competitors.

    “Via a public-private partnership (perhaps a tender to specialist data firms), we could build a system that aggregates data on international education demand worldwide – including demographics, economic indicators, competitor country trends, search engine, and agent application data – to predict future demand patterns,” outlined the report.

    Via a public-private partnership (perhaps a tender to specialist data firms), we could build a system that aggregates data on international education demand worldwide
    IHEC

    The platform would answer key questions like: “Which emerging markets are gaining interest?” or “What’s the projected demand for STEM Masters over the next five years?”

    “The sector must have access to better and more timely data about what is happening in international recruitment markets, as well as how this is playing out
    at institutional and sector levels, to more effectively address challenges and opportunities,” asserted Chris Skidmore, IHEC chair and former UK universities minister.

    With this intelligence, the Commission hopes the UK can spot opportunities early and respond to risks before they grow. It should also include an open-source competitor tracker – comparing performance across countries on things like visa wait times, tuition fees, and scholarship availability – so the UK can see how it stacks up and stay competitive.

    To steer these efforts, the Commission recommends establishing a public-private sector International Education Data and Insight Taskforce, made up of statisticians and analysts from various government departments, as well as industry experts and leaders from the growing number of private sector companies that provide sophisticated data about current and potential future trends.

    The Commission names Enroly, Studyportals, IDP and QS as key players doing valuable work in this area.

    IHEC’s full report ‘Towards a Future UK International Higher Education Strategy: Resilience, Purpose and Precision’ is available here.

    Source link

  • FAUBAI 2025 charts new course for international cooperation

    FAUBAI 2025 charts new course for international cooperation

    The Brazilian association for international education, FAUBAI, in its 37th year, welcomed around 650 participants from 28 countries for its 2025 conference, bringing together global stakeholders to shape a more inclusive and sustainable future.

    Centred on the theme ‘Towards Equitable and Sustainable Partnerships,’ the conference highlighted Brazil’s growing commitment to inclusive, sustainable, and multilateral academic collaboration.

    A major announcement came from CAPES, Brazil’s federal agency for support and evaluation of graduate education, with the launch of CAPES Global – an ambitious new program designed to build institutional cooperation networks across regions and stages of internationalisation.

    It looks to strengthen Brazil’s international prominence, consolidating its position as a strategic partner in global initiatives, as well as promoting mutual cooperation, intercultural dialogue, and sustainable development.

    The programs total budget sits at R$1.4 billion (approximately US$270 million) over four years and Brazilian higher education institutions are encouraged to seek international partners whose expertise aligns with the selected strategic themes that align with the SDGs or with Brazil’s national priorities.

    The challenges facing Brazil reflect global concerns, Rui Oppermann, director of international relations at CAPES, explained.

    “Climate change is not a Brazilian problem, it is not the problem of the Amazon – it’s a problem of everyone living in our world,” he said.

    The program succeeds the CAPES PrInt program, which funded 36 universities in Brazil but left several regions like the North and parts of the Northeast underrepresented, explained Oppermann.

    CAPES Global also seeks to promote opportunities for international experience, both in Brazil and abroad, for postgraduate students, researchers, faculty, and staff.

    Climate change is not a Brazilian problem, it is not the problem of the Amazon, it’s a problem of everyone living in our world
    Rui Oppermann, CAPES

    Speaking to The PIE News, José Celso Freire Junior – FAUBAI president and associate provost for international affairs at São Paulo State University (UNESP) – emphasised the importance of showcasing the strength of Brazil’s higher education system. He said FAUBAI works to highlight the country’s research excellence, world-class laboratories, and institutional capacity in order to position Brazil as a valuable international partner.

    “We are looking for cooperation, we are not looking for places to send our students,” said Freire.

    “Cooperation means sustainable and equitable horizontal partnership,” he asserted.

    Elsewhere during the conference, Hilligje van’t Land, secretary-general of the International Association of Universities (IAU), delivered a powerful address on building equitable and sustainable partnerships, exploring how universities can form inclusive, impactful alliances that address global challenges and secure the future of higher education.

    The address from van’t Land focused on the sector’s potentially transformative role in advancing the UN 2030 Agenda and the SDGs. Her speech highlighted the need for systemic change in curriculum, research culture, governance, and partnerships – with a strong call for interdisciplinary education and inclusive internationalisation strategies.

    She argued that higher education institutions must embed SDG principles across operations, teaching, partnerships, and funding models, and be radical in integrating equity, diversity, and interdisciplinarity.

    Elsewhere, she noted that Latin America is leading globally in how it integrates the SDGs into internationalisation strategies but warned that inclusion gaps remain and that funding structures could hinder transformative cooperation.

     

     

    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

  • After a Dip in 2024, are UK International Student Visas Poised to Return to their Previous Peak?

    After a Dip in 2024, are UK International Student Visas Poised to Return to their Previous Peak?

    Policy changes in 2024 reshaped the UK’s international education landscape, leading to significant shifts in student mobility. The Sunak government’s restrictions on student dependents immediately impacted applicants from key source markets where family migration is a priority. At the same time, rising fees and uncertainty around the Graduate Route (now resolved) added further pressure that dampened demand.

    Main Applicant Demand Declined by 12% in 2024

    The UK has long been a leading destination for international students, with visa applications peaking in 2022 at nearly half a million main applicant submissions. This high point was partly driven by post-pandemic disruptions to global student mobility. Applications dipped slightly in 2023 as demand stabilised and the Sunak administration’s rhetoric signalled a less welcoming environment for non-EU students. By 2024, application volumes saw a sharp decline:

    More than 423,000 sponsored study visas for main applicant international students were processed in 2024. This represents a 12% decline from the previous year and a 15% drop from the 2022 high-point. While this drop was more mild than student visa decreases seen in other destinations in 2024, it still accounts for nearly 60,000 fewer processed applications in a single year.

    Withdrawn applications further reflect softened student demand, likely influenced by policy changes. Nearly 6,600 prospective students withdrew their application in 2024, a 127% increase from the previous year. This followed a sharp rise in Q4 2023, when withdrawals spiked to 2,000—366% higher than Q4 2022. In short, after a wave of unwelcoming messaging from the Sunak administration in mid-to-late 2023, fewer international students applied, and withdrawals hit record highs.

    However, there are signs of possibly renewed student confidence. Nearly 63,000 UK study visa main applications were processed in Q4 2024. This represents a growth of 9% over Q4 2023.

    Demand Fell Most Sharply in Markets Where Students Commonly Travel With Family

    The most significant drops in UK study visa demand in 2024 came from countries where international students often apply with dependants:

    table visualization

    Main applicant numbers fell in 2024 across seven of the ten countries with the highest ratios of dependants to main students, underscoring the impact of the new restrictions. Yet not all high-dependant markets followed this trend. Applications from Nepal rose sharply, increasing by 61%, while volumes from Pakistan and Bangladesh held steady.

    Does this mean concerns about the new policy were overstated since not all high-ratio student populations saw declines? Not quite. The seven countries that experienced declining interest—Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Ghana, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and India—accounted for seven of the eight largest main applicant declines last year, with Russia (-21%) slightly surpassing Saudi Arabia.

    Where Did Student Demand for a UK Study Visa Remain Resilient in 2024?

    Beyond these declines, which student populations showed increased demand in 2024? The table below highlights the top 10 student populations that saw growth in 2024:

    table visualization

    Nepal and Pakistan emerged as notable exceptions to the broader decline among countries with high dependant-to-student ratios—not just for bucking the trend, but for the scale of their growth. Nepal saw the sharpest year-over-year increase of any market in 2024, with main applicant volumes surging by 61%. Pakistan followed closely behind, ranking fourth overall with an 11% rise. Their resilience suggests that factors beyond dependant policies—such as economic conditions, domestic education capacity, and long-term aspirations for post-study work—continue to shape student decision-making.

    Beyond Nepal and Pakistan, growth was more geographically dispersed in 2024. Kenya and Myanmar (Burma) recorded some of the largest increases, signaling rising demand from parts of both Africa and Southeast Asia. Several European countries, including Germany, Switzerland, and Italy, also posted moderate gains. Meanwhile, the presence of Mexico and Kazakhstan among the top 10 growth markets highlights the increasingly global nature of student mobility to the UK.

    Just beyond the top 10, Kuwait and Turkey also recorded notable increases in main applicant volumes. As institutions navigate a shifting recruitment landscape, both countries may present important opportunities for future engagement and growth.

    Looking Ahead

    The UK’s international education sector faced considerable challenges in 2024, with policy changes reshaping student mobility patterns. At this stage—and despite calls from some in the sector—we don’t anticipate imminent steps to reverse the dependent policy, nor do we think it’s likely that the Government will opt to take international students out of the net migration figures. That said, we’ve already seen a much more positive message coming from the Government towards international students and we expect this to be sustained and reflected in the launch of the new International Education Strategy.

    It’s also important to note that the UK was not the only destination to experience softened student interest in 2024, as international education sectors in Canada, the US, and Australia all faced declines. Encouragingly for the UK, many institutions reported higher enrolments in this year’s January intake than in the same time last year, indicating positive momentum. Now is the time to build on that progress.

    To sustain this momentum, UK institutions will need to actively re-engage prospective students and rebuild confidence in key markets. Clear communication around post-study work opportunities, financial aid, and student support will be essential to reassuring applicants. At the same time, growing interest from countries such as Kenya, Myanmar, Kuwait, and Mexico presents an opportunity to strengthen recruitment efforts and establish a more diverse student base.

    Source link